Cost of moving DB pension fund

AnotherJoe

kwame41 wrote: »

I get the point youve made.
However, that amount of money to cover the possibility of a future claim for bad advice seems barmy to me.
It seems the industry is loading all the risk involved in advice / transfer onto the individual and that doesnt seem fair or reasonable.

The latest barmy pension ruling, someone instructed their SIPP provider (remember, SIPP stands for Self Invested...) to buy "rubbish investment", "rubbish investment" went horribly wrong, now SIPP provider has been told to compensate the client for letting them make that awful decision.

kwame41 wrote: »

It seems the industry is loading all the risk involved in advice / transfer onto the individual and that doesn't seem fair or reasonable.

Who should pay then if not them?? You dont think it should be the individual taking the risk, which seems strange to me, because if not them, who? You? Thats fine by me. Me? No thanks.

MEM62

kwame41 wrote: »

It seems the industry is loading all the risk involved in advice / transfer onto the individual and that doesnt seem fair or reasonable.

Then who should take the risk?

These are amongst the highest risk transactions and the cost of the IFA's indemnity reflects that.

Alibert

number9 wrote: »

Wow. There's a lot of presumptions here! 1) I want proper, diligent, educated financial advice on this matter. This is a significant sum of money to me and it is important on how this is handled. 2) The IFA could and should do his own research and decision making on the advice which is relevant. 3) The IFA has looked at the pre-interview notes/projections based on my preliminary advice from the family member and basically agreed it looked sound. 4) Insistent client? If you mean I'm insisting on reviewing my transfer out of the DB scheme the, yes. If you mean that I am insistent on a particular course of advice or investment then, absolutely no. Not a shrewd guess really.

it just seems to me you are asking for advice from an IFA with whom you have a complex relationship, who is not wholly independent from your family, and whom you don't entirely trust.

From his perspectve despite knowing you very well, and having effectively much of the research already done, he is still quoting quite a high price.... so why?

You suspect he is trying to overcharge you. You don't trust him

I just think this is not a solid foundation and you should look for a different advisor

idigress

Aegis wrote: »

If it's done right, a lot of work. Typically two meetings of 90 minutes each, followed by between 10 and 20 hours of research, forecasting scenarios, report writing, case checking, plus a whole host of ancillary activities, and that's before the transfer even takes place. Add the amount of work required to the cost of being allowed to do this kind of work (additional regulatory requirements, training, etc) and a surcharge because of the risk involved and you can quickly see how costs rack up.


If it were as simple as just checking a couple of numbers and saying "yep, seems legit" then this fee would be far too high, but it's far more complex than that.


I've seen much lower fees mentioned on here, but when I see this type of work done for, say, £1,500 I cannot believe that the right level of due diligence is being carried out because the charge simply cannot sustain the level of professionalism needed when looking at cases like this.

Fair enough, but you've just described 3 days of indemnified, professional work and I've just been quoted £9k from a local IFA.

dunstonh

idigress wrote: »

Fair enough, but you've just described 3 days of indemnified, professional work and I've just been quoted £9k from a local IFA.

At that cost, it sounds like one that doesn't really want to do it and is pricing themselves as such.

atush

DeletedUser wrote: »

£7500 to 'advise' somone what to do with their money?



LOL what a joke! :rotfl:

The joke is on you. It isnt 'their' money. It is a promise to pay an income for life.

kidmugsy

The IFAs should use the sort of tape recorders used in police interviews in telly 'tec shows. Then when some lying weasel complains they can play the tape and sue the !!!!!! for costs.