Advice please. Firms for Final Salary Transfer £330k

dunstonh

They dont want to help us do what we want to do, because they are set up to help people who dont know what to do. Execution only requests are not what they are expecting. Worse, they feel that by having to give advice that isnt wanted, they are going to be on the hook for something should it all go badly wrong.

Its worth noting that is exactly what happened in the last period when it was a "no-brainer" to transfer out of these schemes. People that wanted to transfer out did so and then the minute they heard they could get compensation as it wasn't the no brainer they thought it was, they turned on the adviser firms that did it.

This is why many of the experienced and established firms don't want that type with the view that they are transferring regardless of what the IFA says is and the IFA is an inconvenience they dont want.

A new adviser may not have that luxury and a pop up firm looking to exploit this short term window before dumping its liabilities on the FSCS wont care. The experienced and established advisers care more about longevity and quality of the relationship.

Let us sign something, let the FCA keep a copy forever. Then let us take that and allow us to execute our own transactions, safe in the knowledge that the losses that follow are all ours to bear.

However, the FOS does not consider such disclaimers when dealing with complaints. It considers that someone that doesn't know about the subject is not in a position to sign a disclaimer.

Some will cry nanny state. Other will cry that it stops them doing what they want. The current system favours nanny state as that covers the majority.

leicestersq

dunstonh wrote: »

Its worth noting that is exactly what happened in the last period when it was a "no-brainer" to transfer out of these schemes. People that wanted to transfer out did so and then the minute they heard they could get compensation as it wasn't the no brainer they thought it was, they turned on the adviser firms that did it.

This is why many of the experienced and established firms don't want that type with the view that they are transferring regardless of what the IFA says is and the IFA is an inconvenience they dont want.

A new adviser may not have that luxury and a pop up firm looking to exploit this short term window before dumping its liabilities on the FSCS wont care. The experienced and established advisers care more about longevity and quality of the relationship.



However, the FOS does not consider such disclaimers when dealing with complaints. It considers that someone that doesn't know about the subject is not in a position to sign a disclaimer.

Some will cry nanny state. Other will cry that it stops them doing what they want. The current system favours nanny state as that covers the majority.

It is not beyond the wit of Parliament to create an opt out of this sort. It is morally indefensible that you cannot manage your own financial asset should you wish to do so.

As for the nanny state and its schemes, sooner or later they always go wrong. If everyone is herded into a pension scheme say, that invests in Government bonds, what happens? The price of bonds goes up, the cost of Government borrowing goes down, and at the very best returns for those investors falls from what it would otherwise have been. Forced government direction of your resources will cause prices to become different from the market valuation and anyone in such a scheme will lose out according to that difference from the market price.

Worse, if you get a government in power that gets used to cheap borrowing, what is it likely to do? It will borrow more and more as that is now a cheap option, subsidised by those herded into the great scheme. And who will back stop those herded investors when the government borrows too much and cant repay? There will be no one, and you as a member of such a scheme will see your investment either inflated away or simply not repaid in full.

HappyHarry

iro wrote: »

Yes totally agree treat us like adults, instead we have death by a thousand cuts with IFA fees and the rest of the Financial sector 'blob' extracting fees.

The condescending atiitutude of some on here ranckles as if we are all incapable of making decisions about our own financial futures!

But many are incapable. Please don't assume that because your knowledge and skills are good, that everyone's are.

On these forums, there are likely to be more of those capable than you will find in a random selection of the general population.

In a post above, you mention things such as gilt yields and changes to inflation linking in the DB world. Though not proof that you know what you are doing, it does imply that your knowledge and understanding is far above those of the general population. You may well be one of those caught in that catch-22 situation mentioned earlier on in this thread.

However, the person who approached me after opting out of his DB scheme, wanting to transfer it to a personal pension so he could fully surrender it and use the post-tax proceeds to buy a BTL property because that's what his mates said was best, needs saving from themselves.

Should we, as a society, allow people to make poor financial decisions and ruin their lives? There are plenty of opportunities for people to do so, so why should the area of DB transfers be one of the few places that people are not allowed to screw things up?

If I was heartless, I would fully support the ability for anyone to surrender a DB pension and invest it however they want. After all, it wouldn't affect the business I do, and would stop me having to deal with insistent clients calling and asking if I do pension transfers, despite this often being against their best interests.

However, such loosening of regulation would open the doors to crooks, and acts against the best interests of many vulnerable people. There are those that think that would be fine, and everyone should be treated as responsible adults, and those that don't and think that people need protecting, sometimes from themselves

That is probably a debate for elsewhere, and not these boards.

redux

leicestersq wrote: »

It looks to me like the only way out is for us individuals to have a financial advice opt out if we choose. Let us sign something, let the FCA keep a copy forever. Then let us take that and allow us to execute our own transactions, safe in the knowledge that the losses that follow are all ours to bear.

Like many indemnity waivers, it may ultimately be found to be unsupportable or unenforceable, as you can't force someone into an unfair contract term.

Did you volunteer this as your own idea, and insist on it, or was it put under your nose and you had to sign it as you had no choice?

When things have gone wrong in 20 or 30 years time, it might be convenient to be unable to remember.

What insurance company wants to underwrite professional liability insurance for people with shaky things like this floating around in their filing cabinet?

iro

Thankfully I was able to use that knowledge and find someone to help me out of my defined benefit scheme, I was obliged to pay a 'fine' for advice I did not require, which has diminshed my funds but allows me now to protect fully against inflation (not just the 5%), diversify my risk and crucially divorce my fortunes from a company I last worked for 30 years ago.

This company and the trustees will no doubt be looking at every subtle nuance of Government policy on pensions. If possible they will no doubt try to switch from RPI to CPI, and whatever else they can do to diminsh their liabilities.

Thank god I am out at 50x!

leicestersq

redux wrote: »

Like many indemnity waivers, it may ultimately be found to be unsupportable or unenforceable, as you can't force someone into an unfair contract term.

Did you volunteer this as your own idea, and insist on it, or was it put under your nose and you had to sign it as you had no choice?

When things have gone wrong in 20 or 30 years time, of might be convenient to be unable to remember.

What insurance company wants to underwrite professional liability insurance for people with shaky things like this floating around in their filing cabinet?

You would go to the FCA and sign it, they wouldnt be offering you any product.

What else do you suggest? I would have thought that something like this to buy an execution only SIPP would be enforceable. By definition you are accepting that you are making the decisions, no one is forcing you into it, no way that could end up as problematic.

Those of us who want to find some way out of this need a route by which we can achieve our goal. What should that route be? At the moment we need to find a sympathetic financial advisor and thousands of pounds of our hard earned money to get out of the cabin below the waterline on the Titanic. Is that right?

HappyHarry

leicestersq wrote: »

At the moment we need to find a sympathetic financial advisor and thousands of pounds of our hard earned money to get out of the cabin below the waterline on the Titanic. Is that right?

If you have a DB pension, you are far from "below the waterline on the Titanic".

A closer analogy would be that you are in a finely decorated starboard side first class cabin on the Crystal Serenity cruise ship, with a guaranteed lifeboat position in case of disaster, and you are wondering if a first class cabin on the port side, which you could decorate yourself, would be better.

pip895

leicestersq wrote: »

So what to do depends on what you think is likely to happen to inflation over the next 40 years or so. Are you confident that inflation will remain benign over that time? I look at the state's off balance sheet liabilities and I can think of only one way to deal with them.

I have similar concerns - My deferred pension increase is also caped at 5%. I decided to look into a transfer when I got a transfer value around the x40 mark.

I found an advisor and started the process - unfortunately its all been quite complex. My advisors asked for loads of info from the providers including information on the benefits I would get if I went for early retirement and or took a tax free lump sum. To cut a long story short the numbers sent didn't add up and didn't tie in with information I got when I left the scheme. At some point when the pension was transferred between providers (the company I worked for was sold a couple of times) an error was introduced - not large but the effect was to knock a few hundred a year off if I took early retirement. The providers couldn't confirm if the error would have reduced the transfer value or not so they have gone away to recalculate it - this apparently takes weeks as does getting it checked once the calculation has been done.

The guarantee period passed last week and have no idea if the new figure will be higher or lower - but I have another 3months to make up my mind.
If the value goes up my advisors will have earned their fees if it has gone down I will be a bit miffed but not at them. I am unlikely to know this side of the new year either way. My IFA has had to work for his money - its all much more complex than I imagined.

iro

You have my sympathy, the 3 month period seems designed to create 'cognitive load' for everyone, should be extended to 6 months.

Looks like gilt yeilds are still low and inflationary expecations up so you might be ok.

Good luck!

iro

Sadly 'HMS Jobs have a higher priority than pensioners' is straight ahead with a couple of torpedoes ready to fire!