Pension company not telling me what my pots worth

singhini

bigadaj wrote: »

I don't think it's the cost actually, it's just a set view that complains it's all too complicated and the world is against him.

You got it :kisses:


The original question was about the pension company not writing to me on an annual basis (and the answer simply is they don't have to, I have to contact them to find out). Which people on hear have kindly pointed out.


And your spot on, this pension stuff is all too complicated (the law and legislation constantly changes over the years and I'm not well versed on those points).




I would like to take this opportunity to wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy new year and I look forward to 2018 where I hope Santa brings me an extra bank holiday to celebrate the long reign of her majesty Queen Elizabeth II


:santa2: :xmastree: :beer:

GunJack

If it's any consolation to you, many people would agree that the rules on pensions & tax are way too complicated.... unfortunately, though, them's the rules and we're all stuck with working within them...

Malthusian

Actually this pension is not complicated, it is extremely simple. The OP has a pension which will pay him £4,500 gross inflation-linked for life from 65. He is going to swap it for a lump sum of £105,000. Of which he will actually get about £60,000. Which he will then spend over eight years from 55. This will mean he spends most of his remaining life poorer by £4,500 a year, for a very short-lived benefit.

This is all very, very simple. When he says it's complicated what he means is that he doesn't want to think about it.

The complicated aspects of pensions are no more relevant to the OP's decision than Newtonian physics are to a dog catching a frisbee.

Bank accounts are just as complicated as pensions. And far more opaque. Have you read up on your bank's solvency requirements under Basel II and Basel III? Do you know how the bank has arrived at the interest rate it pays you based on the interest it charges on mortgages etc, its capital reserves and its overheads? No, because it's irrelevant. So is most of the complicated stuff that sits under the pension. The relevant question here is - take some money as a lump sum now (much of which will be lost in tax) or get more money later as a guaranteed inflation-linked income. Very simple.

xylophone

I worked at this place for about 7 years and even though its a final salary pension the £3,500 is rubbish (I would rather leave it with them until I'm 54 and transfer it into a cash SIPP and when I turn 55 and retire start to take the money as cash withdrawals: taking £11,500 each year out thus avoiding income tax

The OP is currently aged 51. It appears that he has pension provision over and above this deferred pension, presumably of a DC type although this is not clarified.

He will have a state pension entitlement - he has not said whether or not he has obtained a state pension statement.

It seems that he does appreciate that he will be required to take advice if he wishes to transfer the pension - it has been explained to him that this advice will be neither free nor cheap.

He will also need to check on which provider would accept the transfer if the Pension Transfer Specialist did not give a positive recommendation.

If he did succeed in a transfer out at the earliest age he could access the pension (55 currently but set to rise), he could indeed draw it down on a tax efficient basis until SPA,, when he might also choose to draw on his other pension provision/defer state pension etc.

The question is really whether or not he wishes to keep the index linked DB pension and index linked state pension as the "backbone" of his retirement provision, calling on his other (DC?) pensions as required.

xylophone

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-4970458/Why-pay-financial-adviser-transfer-pension.html

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-4625038/Advice-ditching-final-salary-pensions-overhauled.html

May be of interest - I do notice that neither article mentions the magic words "Pension Transfer Specialist" or the difficulty (judging from many other posts) of finding one.....

Malthusian

I strongly suspect that few advisers will touch the OP with a bargepole. Only if they are really desperate for business, or dodgy, and running a DB transfer factory which they plan to liquidate as soon as the complaints come in.

The OP is a guaranteed complaint waiting to happen. It's all "I don't understand" "I don't care" "pensions are too complicated". Currently he doesn't understand but he has money. Less than a decade after cashing it in he still won't understand and he will have no money. No money + used to have money + doesn't understand = complaint.

Thrugelmir

mickw488 wrote: »

To buy a £3500 annuity at age 65, index linked, would I think cost at least £100,000 today, so maybe the £80000 offer is a little low but not crazy.

The offer reflects the fact that the scheme is currently underfunded. Those remaining in the scheme will jump with joy every time another member transfers out. As reduces the schemes long term liabilities and therefore shortfall. Progressively improving their personal position.

C_Mababejive

Are DB transfer outs really a great way for DB pension schemes to offload liabilities rather than a "strain" on the scheme?

sandsy

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Are DB transfer outs really a great way for DB pension schemes to offload liabilities rather than a "strain" on the scheme?

Yes. The amount they hold as an accounting liability exceeds the CETVs normally paid so offloading the liability results in a positive transfer to the scheme.

Thrugelmir

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Are DB transfer outs really a great way for DB pension schemes to offload liabilities rather than a "strain" on the scheme?

Government gilts yield a negative return taking inflation into account. Equities have been at a high rating for some time allied to declining levels of dividend cover. Offering a scheme member their share of the pot to transfer out is most certainly beneficial.