We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
IFA Pension advice
Comments
-
bostonerimus wrote: »If the advice is mandated then it should be reasonably priced and paid for by the Government. The thread started with an estimate of between 3% and 13% for the IFA required advice to access an pot just over 30k....that's outrageous IMHO.
Are you proposing socialism from the us of a?0 -
Why paid for by the Government? As Linton commented on previously the OP (and a large number of the UK population) have previously signed up to a product with certain rules, regulations, and restrictions. Subsequently, you are now able, should you wish, to transfer the promised income for life, usually with benefits for your spouse, (and or dependants) as a cash value in to another pension vehicle. We now have this choice. Should you chose to undertake it then you need to fulfil your side of the process.bostonerimus wrote: »If the advice is mandated then it should be reasonably priced and paid for by the Government.
Why outrageous? That indicates some sort of shenanigans within the process. You may consider it expensive, I haven't a clue as to whether the expense is justified or not. You have predicated your stance on the justifiability of the cost on your premise, which is that a person has the right to choose what they wish to do with their own assets.bostonerimus wrote: »The thread started with an estimate of between 3% and 13% for the IFA required advice to access an pot just over 30k....that's outrageous IMHO.
I don't want this to become a UK / USA thing. We have a free market and the OP can shop around for the cheapest review costs should they wish. The fact that it may cost £1k, just means that it may cost £1k. Whether the cost is worth it, only the OP can decide.Personal Responsibility - Sad but True
Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone0 -
Why paid for by the Government? As Linton commented on previously the OP (and a large number of the UK population) have previously signed up to a product with certain rules, regulations, and restrictions. Subsequently, you are now able, should you wish, to transfer the promised income for life, usually with benefits for your spouse, (and or dependants) as a cash value in to another pension vehicle. We now have this choice. Should you chose to undertake it then you need to fulfil your side of the process.
Paid for by the Government as it is their mandate that you get advice.
I have serious doubts about allowing people to cash out DB plans as they rely on pooled risk and a contract was signed. But the Government now allows this and if they are frightened of people making mistakes they should provide advice free of charge it they are going to make it a condition of cash out.“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”0 -
You'd be surprised how left wing parts of the US are......I live in a city that is often prefaced by "The People's Republic of ..........." It voted 93% for Clinton and just 7% for Trump in the last election.Are you proposing socialism from the us of a?“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”0 -
And to most of the rest of the world Clinton et al are considered by no measure "left wing" or "socialist".You'd be surprised how left wing parts of the US are.
There is a huge difference between USA and UK politics even in these days.0 -
Agreed. Bernie Sanders was the choice of many DEM voters which might have been a reason for the lack of enthusiasm for Clinton in my area. I didn't vote for either of them.greenglide wrote: »And to most of the rest of the world Clinton et al are considered by no measure "left wing" or "socialist".
There is a huge difference between USA and UK politics even in these days.“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”0 -
Paid for by the Government as it is their mandate that you get advice.
Its not the Govt. it is the regulator.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
-
And if the Government wanted people to be able to transfer DB schemes without advice then they could. The regulator would have no say in the matter, just as the regulator had no power to stop George Osborne introducing pension freedoms in the first place (it certainly wouldn't have allowed it had it had the power). As bostonerimus says it may politically be a useful distinction but from the perspective of the individual investor the regulator is the Government and the Government is the regulator.
The regulator is no more independent than the guy who stands in front of posh hotels in a silly uniform. He may pretend to himself that he decides who to let in or out but he doesn't, the hotel management does. And if anyone pushes past him he is unarmed and overweight, so he has to ring security.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards