UFPLS vs flexi access

MK62

fred246 wrote: »

So a yearly UFPLS sounds good to me. However a lot of websites say flexi access is almost always superior. Why would you UFPLS? etc. How much would you pay in charges for a yearly UFPLS? Is flexi access cheaper?

Which websites are saying flexi-access is almost always superior?

fred246

I think a lot of websites were talking along similar lines but the one that stood out was:

https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/ufpls-vs-drawdown/

Thanks for all the replies. I was starting to think that maybe nobody really used UFPLS but it seemed the best for me.

pafpcg

fred246 wrote: »

I think a lot of websites were talking along similar lines but the one that stood out was: https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/ufpls-vs-drawdown/

I took a look at the article in Money Marketing - it certainly raised my eyebrows!

First, look at the source; this is a financial adviser talking to other financial advisers.

It's littered with hyperbole: look what he says in his first paragraph "If there is a straight choice between flexi-access pension drawdown and uncrystallised funds pension lump sum, flexi-access wins by a country mile in virtually every situation" and the third ".... it is hard to see why one would choice [sic] UFPLS in any situation", then contrast those statements with what he says later: "To be fair to UFPLS, there is one situation in which it is as good as flexi-access and might even be superior in some circumstances", "In such a situation, the UFPLS solution might sometimes be cheaper than the flexi-access solution, especially if it does not involve the expense of making a transfer to another scheme" and "AJ Bell has identified another (fairly rare) position where UFPLS might be slightly advantageous". My conclusion is that he's an advocate for one approach and concedes the advantages of a different approach only grudgingly.

Read the comments, several of which point out errors in the article or just plain disagree.

Now look at the supposed date of the article on the web-site: June 2017, but most of the comments date from 2015 - it's really a three year old article from June 2015, so I'll quote the whole of one of the later comments from November 2017:
"Worth revisiting this article 2 years on to see what has happened in practice.
UFPLS was derided at first as a way of accessing "zombie" pension funds and FAD was seen as the knight in shinging armour.
We’ve only recommended FAD where there has been a need to raise capital (not all instances have we recommended taking the full 25% PCLS) and UFPLS where there is a need for income.
In summary if FAD was the hare then UFPLS is definitely the tortoise."