Transfer part of a SIPP

pshepherd

Recent news about Beaufort Securities have made me think about 'eggs in baskets'.

I am planning to move a chunk of money from a DC scheme with OMW into one of my two SIPPS (AJ Bell and H-L) as they have better drawdown and investment options than OMW. OMW require me to move the full amount (part xfers are not possible so this closes the scheme), this means I would then like to move say half the money from one SIPP to the other. This appears to be possible with AJ Bell, not sure yet about H-L.

Has anyone done something similar? does it work ok? am I worrying needlessly?

paul

dunstonh

I am planning to move a chunk of money from a DC scheme with OMW into one of my two SIPPS (AJ Bell and H-L) as they have better drawdown and investment options than OMW.

OMW has all the drawdown options available and at no cost. It is currently limited to fund supermarket levels but is moving to full wrap around Q1 2019.

Has anyone done something similar?

No. Complete waste of time in my view.

Beaufort Securities is not comparable to a mainstream investment platform investing in mainstream investments. Beaufort Securities was all about the weird and unusual. They did a bit of mainstream stuff but that side of things is ok.

Saying that, if you feel OMW don't have the investments (when they have most of the UT/OEIC range available) then perhaps you are investing away from the mainstream. It is also remembering that OMW is a personal pension. Not a SIPP. It is an insured contract and gets FSCS protection at 100% with no upper limit. So, in effect, you would be moving away from the safer contract into a less safe one.

kidmugsy

dunstonh wrote: »

It is an insured contract and gets FSCS protection at 100% with no upper limit. So, in effect, you would be moving away from the safer contract into a less safe one.

You've taken my eye again with this point, dunstonh. Is there anywhere on the internet a list of the providers of insured contract personal pensions? (I'm asking for a friend. )

dunstonh

kidmugsy wrote: »

You've taken my eye again with this point, dunstonh. Is there anywhere on the internet a list of the providers of insured contract personal pensions? (I'm asking for a friend. )

All stakeholder pensions and all personal pensions. By their very nature, they are insured contracts. SIPPs are not. However, there are some SIPP providers that will give 100% FSCS protection where you use their insured funds (Aegon and Aviva for example).

Where the personal pension uses an investment that is not an insured internal fund but is a regulated investment fund, then the FSCS protection is only upto £50k on that fund if the fund house fails and has fraudulently accessed the funds. 100% FSCS protection will still apply if the failure as it provider/platform level (and they have fraudulently accessed the funds).

If the assets you use are unregulated (ITs, ETFs, shares etc) then there is no FSCS protection at investment level.

coyrls

dunstonh wrote: »

Beaufort Securities is not comparable to a mainstream investment platform investing in mainstream investments. Beaufort Securities was all about the weird and unusual. They did a bit of mainstream stuff but that side of things is ok.

I've been taking a bit of an interest in the Beaufort Securities situation because of the administrators' decision to deduct expenses from client accounts. My understanding is that even if you were invested in only mainstream investments, the administrators would still deduct their expenses from your account and that if this deduction exceeded the FSCS £50,000 compensation limit, you would lose money. KPMG say:

we do, however, estimate around 700 clients with client money and client assets together valued in excess of approximately £150,000 may experience a loss on their entitlements in excess of the FSCS’s £50,000 compensation limit.

There is no indication that clients holding only mainstream investments will be excluded from this loss.

dunstonh

I've been taking a bit of an interest in the Beaufort Securities situation because of the administrators' decision to deduct expenses from client accounts. My understanding is that even if you were invested in only mainstream investments, the administrators would still deduct their expenses from your account and that if this deduction exceeded the FSCS £50,000 compensation limit, you would lose money.

They wont be touching any mainstream options. They have no right of access to that money. Mainstream as in what 99% of what people use. i.e. product/platform provider (Standard Life, Aviva etc) using regulated investment funds (pension funds, UTs/OEICs).

Where KPMG have right to deduct against is client held money/investments with in-house administration.

Beaufort was majority non-mainstream with just minority mainstream from what I understand.

coyrls

dunstonh wrote: »

They wont be touching any mainstream options. They have no right of access to that money. Mainstream as in what 99% of what people use. i.e. product/platform provider (Standard Life, Aviva etc) using regulated investment funds (pension funds, UTs/OEICs).

Where KPMG have right to deduct against is client held money/investments with in-house administration.

Beaufort was majority non-mainstream with just minority mainstream from what I understand.

I hope you're right about them not having any right to access that money but that's not my understanding of what is happening, KPMG say:

in the absence of a surplus of funds within the Firms’ segregated resources and in accordance with governing legislation, relevant costs will need to be deducted from clients’ entitlements to client money and client assets.

They make no distinction between mainstream (pension funds, UTs/OEICs) and other assets.

dunstonh

Client money and client assets are not your pension funds/UT/OEICs. They are assets/money held on client accounts under the control of Beaufort. They held the shares and investments Beaufort specialised in the real edges of the market and a lot of it is illiquid and unpopular.

There is a reason why 99% of the population doesnt touch that rubbish.

coyrls

So Beaufort wasn't a consumer facing platform? If all client accounts were under the control of Beaufort and it wasn't possible to hold assets other than those chosen by Beaufort, I've misunderstood the situation.

pshepherd

@dunstonh

It was the 'fund supermarket' which I found a bit restrictive. When I first invested it was Skandia and I was attracted by the number of passive index funds they offered, this seems to have thinned recently. My SIPP/iSA investments are in what I would call mainstream ETFs.

Good point about FSCS protection, does that continue through the drawdown phase?

paul

_pete_

I transferred one of my SIPP funds from A J Bell to IWeb. In theory, it should have been a smooth transfer but at various times staff at both platforms assumed I wanted to transfer the whole SIPP (despite me stating very clearly on the forms that I just wanted the one fund transferred). There were a few other glitches in the transfer that weren't related to it being just the one fund I was moving.

So, in short, yes it is possible to transfer one SIPP fund from one platform to another.