Defined Benefit Transfer Costs

Aegis

Any IFA charging under "thousands" for this type of work probably doesn't understand the complexity and risk of the work, so you're unlikely to find what you need.

JoeCrystal

@Oldskool90 If it cost me few hundred pounds to get an one off private pension review with an IFA, you are certainly not going to find an IFA willing to do one of the most riskiest transactions in the industry for less than a thousand pounds!

freddymoney

The reason I want to move my DB fund is based on the only piece of good advice I have been given so far by an IFA and that was to take your money now and enjoy lif while you can, 9K a year in today's money will be surplus to my requirements when I am 81.

Just to add more weight to my argument, there are about 30 or 40 of us who worked for the same company with the DB scheme is with. We all live within a 20-mile radius of each other and we are all of a similar age. There are about three IFA's who have so far managed the transfer of about 80% of all those with the DB scheme. But none are offering a discount for doing the same work.

Oldskool90

Aegis wrote: »

Any IFA charging under "thousands" for this type of work probably doesn't understand the complexity and risk of the work, so you're unlikely to find what you need.

If an IFA advises that I leave my money in a DB scheme and I choose to ignore that, the risk is mine. The FCA provides guidance on how to deal with insistent clients. An IFA can provide a report confirming his advice, he can ask that it is signed in blood to indemnify him, etc, etc. There are countless ways for the IFA to protect himself and ensure the client carries the risk.
As far as I am concerned, the decision is made and I don't actually need advice. I'm being forced to take it at considerable cost to me, which essentially lines the pockets of those the FCA are supposed to protect us against.
You can claim it's a complex process as much as you like, but we both know that once this process was nailed in the past it's all pretty standard stuff from one client to another.
IFA's quite rightly have a bad reputation as they make careers from preying on people's vulnerabilities by making things appear more complex than they are and lining their pockets in the process.

xylophone

Just to add more weight to my argument, there are about 30 or 40 of us who worked for the same company with the DB scheme is with. We all live within a 20-mile radius of each other and we are all of a similar age.

But your personal situations are not necessarily the same - the advice is supposed to be specific to the individual.

An IFA can provide a report confirming his advice, he can ask that it is signed in blood to indemnify him, etc, etc. There are countless ways for the IFA to protect himself and ensure the client carries the risk.

I wonder.......

https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2017/03/03/fos-dismisses-openwork-s-insistent-client-argument/

freddymoney

I agree it is a cash cow for IFA's at the moment, they are hiding behind flakey FCA advice. I can see this being another PPI scandal in years to come.

This is just opportunistic greed, I have not yet seen a convincing argument for the inflated prices that are being quoted. High risk and complexities are being quoted as justification, does mean that all the work they did before DB schemes existed wasn't complex and high risk? I doubt it.

LHW99

I don't care if it makes nothing while i make my mind up.

Then you could allow the IFA to do the advice plus the transfer into what funds they feel are most appropriate - and transfer elsewhere after a year or two.

Aegis

Oldskool90 wrote: »

If an IFA advises that I leave my money in a DB scheme and I choose to ignore that, the risk is mine. The FCA provides guidance on how to deal with insistent clients. An IFA can provide a report confirming his advice, he can ask that it is signed in blood to indemnify him, etc, etc. There are countless ways for the IFA to protect himself and ensure the client carries the risk.

There aren't. The Financial Ombudsman Service is not required to honour non-indemnity clauses signed by clients, as they operate on principles of fairness rather than law. Transacting business that you believe to be against the client's best interest is just foolishness, as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions with insistent clients who later complain. The advice I've had from compliance departments about any pension work on an insistent client basis is "don't", let alone final salary work.

As far as I am concerned, the decision is made and I don't actually need advice. I'm being forced to take it at considerable cost to me, which essentially lines the pockets of those the FCA are supposed to protect us against.

Not our fault, you can blame government for that. I for one was quite happy to deal with the clients who wanted advice and to leave those that didn't alone.

You can claim it's a complex process as much as you like, but we both know that once this process was nailed in the past it's all pretty standard stuff from one client to another.

No, "we" know no such thing. You believe that, wrongly. I know that it's incorrect.

IFA's quite rightly have a bad reputation as they make careers from preying on people's vulnerabilities by making things appear more complex than they are and lining their pockets in the process.

Well, with an attitude like that, no wonder IFAs don't want to help you.

freddymoney

I don't mind getting the advice and paying for the time to do the paperwork, all I am asking is a fair price.

Aegis

freddymoney wrote: »

I don't mind getting the advice and paying for the time to do the paperwork, all I am asking is a fair price.

Which is...?