IFA Rubber Stamp

phykell

HappyHarry wrote: »

If the member was due to retire with £10,000 pa next year, all of which had been accumulated post-1997, then the risk to the member of the pension falling into the PPF would be small, as the member would have good protection if it did.

If the member was due £100,000 pa, mostly accumulated prior to 1997, then a scheme funding shortfall would be a significant risk to the member's future.

The latter example is certainly one consideration - I don’t want to go into detail on a public forum with regards to a specific amount or company name but I do believe that there’s a potential risk; and the way that the fund is being administered, worries me still further. Do you think I can assume that this would be some justification for the case of transferring out as far as an IFA is concerned?

phykell

Tealblue wrote: »

It's a final salary scheme. Fund performance and customer service are the concern of the trustees. The former isn't an issue for you; it's the employer who has to make good any shortfall in the fund.

You are moaning about the service you have received, but frankly given your level of profound ignorance, it is possible the administrators have simply abandoned any hope of helping you to understand the type of scheme you are in, particularly if you are asking questions about fund value.

As for voting with your feet...cutting off your nose to spite your face sounds more like it.

As I clearly stated, the financial performance of my final salary scheme wasn’t in question although there’s actually something to be said about the terms on retirement such as how much I’ll get per annum relative to the transfer value, together with the value of the death before retirement benefits; this is why I asked them for a transfer value in the first place, so that I could make an informed decision either way.

phykell

greatkingrat wrote: »

If it is a final salary pension, then the daily performance of the underlying investments is irrelevant, you will receive the same pension whether the stock market goes up 10% or down 10%.

Sorry, I meant to reply to this earlier. Yes, I hopefully cleared up any confusion later on. I do know that my final salary scheme means that “performance” isn’t a factor; I was speaking about pensions generally and, for context, I have a number of other pensions (definitely not final salary schemes!) that I’m transferring - their performance has been shocking

Brynsam

phykell wrote: »

As I clearly stated, the financial performance of my final salary scheme wasn’t in question although there’s actually something to be said about the terms on retirement such as how much I’ll get per annum relative to the transfer value, together with the value of the death before retirement benefits; this is why I asked them for a transfer value in the first place, so that I could make an informed decision either way.

You do know schemes have 3 months to provide a 'cash equivalent transfer value' - unlike defined contribution schemes, it isn't a 'press a button' exercise. Is that what is making you believe they are being 'slow' ?

dunstonh

phykell wrote: »

Sorry, I meant to reply to this earlier. Yes, I hopefully cleared up any confusion later on. I do know that my final salary scheme means that “performance” isn’t a factor; I was speaking about pensions generally and, for context, I have a number of other pensions (definitely not final salary schemes!) that I’m transferring - their performance has been shocking

Pensions do not have performance. The investments within the pension perform. Modern pensions have access to 30,000 investment options. The pension itself is just a tax wrapper.

Was the performance shocking relative to the assets it was invested in or are you looking at two different volatility levels/risk profiles?

phykell

Brynsam wrote: »

You do know schemes have 3 months to provide a 'cash equivalent transfer value' - unlike defined contribution schemes, it isn't a 'press a button' exercise. Is that what is making you believe they are being 'slow' ?

Thanks, I didn’t know that. I’m surprised that there is a difference though - surely the calculation isn’t that difficult? Referencing another poster, on that issue, I must be profoundly ignorant

Please keep in mind that their speed of response is just one factor.

phykell

dunstonh wrote: »

Pensions do not have performance. The investments within the pension perform. Modern pensions have access to 30,000 investment options. The pension itself is just a tax wrapper.

Was the performance shocking relative to the assets it was invested in or are you looking at two different volatility levels/risk profiles?

Agreed - it’s the performance of the investments which is in question. I just see it as four of my other pensions have together, lost hundreds of pounds in just the last three months. Conversely, one of my other pensions has made 10%; and that’s with a balanced risk of investments rather than a more “aggressive” profile.

As you can see, I have a lot of pensions despite being so cynical

dunstonh

I just see it as four of my other pensions have together, lost hundreds of pounds in just the last three months.

They would do as markets are down in virtually all areas.

Conversely, one of my other pensions has made 10%; and that’s with a balanced risk of investments rather than a more “aggressive” profile.

Nothing conventional has gone up 10% in the last 3 months. Are your dates consistent across all of them? (just wondering if the negative period on the others was from the 10% fall earlier in the year and the one with the 10% gain is showing the 10% bounce we had after that

Brynsam

phykell wrote: »

Thanks, I didn’t know that. I’m surprised that there is a difference though - surely the calculation isn’t that difficult? Referencing another poster, on that issue, I must be profoundly ignorant

Please keep in mind that their speed of response is just one factor.

Defined contribution schemes have transfer values which are often simply fund values at any given point. There may be adjustments (e.g. market value) but they aren't particularly sophisticated and generally relate to the fund(s) in which you are invested, rather than a particular pension scheme.

The calculation is wholly different for a defined benefit scheme. A DB scheme transfer value often requires specialist manual input. It isn't cost effective to code the computation unless you have a very large scheme with loads of requests for transfer values.

You say 'speed of response is just one factor' - but possibly there are other areas where you are feeling aggrieved when perhaps you shouldn't be...?

HappyHarry

phykell wrote: »

The latter example is certainly one consideration - I don’t want to go into detail on a public forum with regards to a specific amount or company name but I do believe that there’s a potential risk; and the way that the fund is being administered, worries me still further. Do you think I can assume that this would be some justification for the case of transferring out as far as an IFA is concerned?

It should be a consideration, but only one of many.