PensionBee Q&A

bigadaj

PensionBee wrote: »

Here is my LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaspermartens/
And no, I haven't found the recipe yet.

Thanks for being so open but I think you've rather reinforced the point I made rather than addressing it.

bigadaj

PensionBee wrote: »

I just thought not everybody was interested in the detail, that's why. It's not a trade secret, a loophole or anything sinister at all!

The PensionBee plans are long-term insurance policies written by the insurance companies of the money managers, BlackRock Life Limited, Managed Pension Fund and Legal and General Assurance (Pensions Management) Limited.

Therefore they are 100% covered and you can also see this on the blog of the FSCS and on our website (https://www.pensionbee.com/is-pensionbee-safe)

The insurance policies are mentioned in our T&C's.

Jasper
On behalf of PensionBee

Fair enough so they aren't trackers in any conventional sense?

They are multi asset life styling actively managed products. It's not obvious from the data sheets what they are invested in, though there is a high level approximation if a breakdown by asset class and geography.

My main concern would be that there are complicated products included that aren't obvious with the associated counter party risk.

Alexland

Ok now we understand the funds are insured. What about the risk of employee fraud within PensionBee - such that the money was never invested in the funds. Surely then the FSCS limit would be £50k?

datlex

Couple of things that concerned me. The CEO saying "I'm pretty familiar", gave me a sense of inexperience. And the CTO needs a shave, sorry I know it is fashion but the unshaven look is untidy, makes the company look poorly managed. Also there is nothing front and centre to show how funds are performing on the website.

BobQ

I was thinking the same.

Is MSE somehow supporting one pension provider in using this forum to promote its wares but banning other providers from being allowed to do the same thing?

The rules state that

"Verified users may reply to forum users' posts without advertising. If they promote their products (or it looks as though they've had questions from others drafted to elicit such a response, which is illegal) please report them using the report button. An exception to this is the small number of consumer and debt help groups who help answer questions"

Pension Bee seems to be using this status to discuss their business strategy.

Maybe Andrea could explain.....?

Former_MSE_Andrea

Hi!

If any other companies would like to join the Forum to help answer their customers' questions we're happy to consider their verification requests.

As quoted, no companies should be advertising, just answering questions about their business. If you think they are advertising please click the report button on the post in question so we can investigate speedily.

Thank you!

Andrea

dunstonh

Oh I have been itching on this one.....

Following the credit crunch, a very high number of providers found out that they were quoting the wrong FSCS protection. Even now, if you read the key features documents of various insured personal pensions or stakeholder pensions, you get differences. I have spoken to the FSCS about this previously and they themselves are not sure until it gets tested.

There seems to be differences in opinions with various companies as to what level of FSCS protection does apply.

Some insurers believe that it is at contract level that matters, not necessarily the investment funds held on the contract. Indeed, one i just read a couple of days ago that uses UT/OEICs says in its key features document that there is 100% FSCS protection if it goes under. However, in its more detailed document about consumer protection, it then goes on to say that there is no FSCS protection on the underlying fund groups if they were to go under. It says there shouldn't be a loss provided the accounts are in good order. it doesnt actually state the position if they are not in good order (i.e. an Arch Cru style event).

Another provider says all its funds are covered under the FSCS as they use insured pension funds. This includes external funds.

However, an increasing trend with stakeholders and personal pensions is for them to say that you are fully covered on the internal funds but are not covered on the external funds. i.e. where the fund house is not part of the insurance company group.

So, it is important to note that a company that says you are covered for 100% with no upper limit may only be referring to themselves failing. Not the fund groups that provide the funds within the pension scheme. With those, you may find there is no FSCS protection applicable. Although in reality, if it is a mainstream unit linked UT/OEIC, then its not really a problem. And if its an IT or ETF, then you dont get FSCS protection with those anyway.

observations_from_a_hill

dunstanh, its great to hear from you again; particularly because of the invitation from Andrea earlier in this thread.

Lummoxley

dunstonh wrote: »

Oh I have been itching

There are treatments for that you know.

Your renewed presence is most welcome, your above contribution is very informative.

Malchester

Interesting reading this thread. Nothing in it makes me want to touch PensionBee at all. In fact all I have read makes me want to stay clear of it. Too vague, too new, too little detail