Pension Bee: A good move?

dunstonh

The process from some providers was a bit of a nightmare due to my name change, having to send round my marriage certificate to each and every place in order for them to then change my name, waiting for that to update their records (one place took 5 weeks to give me back my original marriage cert), before I could begin to transfer over. I cannot stand this legacy thing that banks and financial institutions do.

it is worth noting that every single provider out there would have required the marriage certificate.

I have been able to scan my marriage certificate as proof of name change to one bank, and everyone else (incumbents) have forced me to send the certificate via registered post.

This is a risk decision. Fraud risk increases where you provide a copy. A provider deciding they want an original or a certified copy are reducing the risk of fraud. Those that accept a non-certified copy are accepting a higher risk of fraud.

I've been with PB since Feb this year and my small pot has gone up several hundred quid.

To be fair, so would the rest. Its been a mini boost period.

My OH had Aviva, and while the platform/interface looked quite modern, they couldn't even set up a direct debit.

Aviva retail their product via intermediaries. It isnt a diy provider. So, the process reflect the expectation that an intermediary would key the direct debit. if you stop using that intermediary (and dont use another) then the provider is often not geared to run with DIY investors.

They asked for a certified bank statement which was sent to them (WHY DID THEY NEED THIS?) and when they received it, still didn't set it up properly and just asked him to send another certified bank statement. Hence why he's in the process of moving over to PB too.

Bank statements are often used as evidence of bank details. If you get the validation at the start, you dont need it later on. Aviva refer to it as a "known bank account" and allows them to do transactions without signatures.

but I do have to laugh when I see people say 'well the more established places are catching up, so these new places won't last', as though they know it all.

I havent seen comments like that. However, most of these robo-advice services are not expected to survive. Most are losing money hand over fist and no sign of becoming profitable and are either expected to go under or look to be bought up.

Equally, you cant compare legacy contracts built in the 80s and 90s on hardcoded systems with modern software. If you look at the modern contracts from the likes of Aviva, they give far more choice and flexibility compared to robo-advisers as well as being cheaper. But it is a different type of offering.

Not every person values the old school established places, and not everyone wants the cheapest deal. Waitrose isn't the cheapest supermarket but people love their customer service; Airbnb and hotels still co-exist, they just suit different customers.

Exactly. Different markets. Robo-advice is for people that put the quality of the app ahead of quality of investment and are not concerned about value for money. (although some can be good value for very small amounts)

DaveW65

First post, so go easy.


Regarding so called Robo Advisors going bust, what happens to the underlying customer funds? I assume these are clearly separate and therefore not lost.


I've been out of the UK (in Australia) for the last 16 years and am now faced with doing something with my Personal Pension currently invested with Virgin. Turns out they are extremely inflexible in the drawdown phase so I have to find another provider. Not easy unless you have a UK address.


I was thinking of contacting Pension Bee.

dunstonh

Regarding so called Robo Advisors going bust, what happens to the underlying customer funds? I assume these are clearly separate and therefore not lost.

As robo-advice firms are not using insured funds/contracts (like stakeholder pensions or personal pensions) where the FSCS protection is 100% of the value with no upper limit) they are using investments that have no FSCS. However, the provider itself will have FSCS protection at £50k total.

That said, the FSCS protection on unit linked investments is not that important with mainstream investments. If the provider goes under, then the funds will still exist. The only real issue is that accessibility will cease for a period that could be months or a few years.

I've been out of the UK (in Australia) for the last 16 years and am now faced with doing something with my Personal Pension currently invested with Virgin. Turns out they are extremely inflexible in the drawdown phase so I have to find another provider. Not easy unless you have a UK address.

Drawdown has been around over 20 years. The basic contracts have never supported drawdown. Virgin is expensive and low quality.

diazwatson

Are those the only options available?
Brown Cardigans or Robo-Advice Solutions
Does anyone know if somebody offer the best of both worlds?