DB to DC help please!

MarkCarnage

FatherAbraham wrote: »

Warren Buffett would advise the average person to keep the defined-benefit income stream.

That's because there will be few opportunities to acquire such stable income payers in the future. It's a fabulous diversifier, and allows you to take a little more risk with the rest of your portfolio.

I doubt that you yourself have the investment skills of Warren Buffett.

Well put. It's the index linked annuity foundations round which everything else can be built. However only caveat would be if the foundations already exist somewhere else and this is too small to make a material difference.

elbows123

sandsy wrote: »

Because they need to demonstrate where this DB scheme fits into your retirement income plans. And that's harder to do the further someone is from retirement as most people in their 40s have no idea what they'll have or need in 20 years time.

You'd get a better reception from advisers by leaving it as is for a few years until you're over 50. If they haven't got professional indemnity insurance for advising anyone under 50, then their hands are tied. They're be committing commercial suicide by advising you.


And as an aside, just because you're an experienced investor doesn't mean you know everything there is to know about DB schemes. DB scheme benefit tranches are complex.

Hi,

I will be "retiring" in 5 years time and know how much I will need to do so, I will already have the funds outside my pension to support this and a comfortable buffer, so I do not need these monies.

They explained the same, I understand the rationale and can sympathise.

When I'm 50 they may have manipulated the rate of inflation enough to make it worth much less, this one of the reasons I want to transfer.

I hold a level 7 qualification and although I don't hold the pension transfer qualification, with all due respect, it is not rocket science to work out the various hurdle rates.

AnotherJoe

elbows123, the problem you are up against is the way the regulator currently interprets the rules, making these deals very close to a one way bet for the customer. pension works out OK, nothing happens, screw up and regulator says it was IFAs fault.


Hence high costs due to the insurance the IFAs and pension cos have to take on board for when a "sophisticated" investors choices come off the rails and he or she claims retrospectively that they didnt understand what they were doing and it was unfair to even tell them no since that still enabled a transfer.


So, the £3k you've been quoted seems cheap to me in the context of other quotes Ive seen here.

If I was you and I wanted to do this, I would take it now before that IFA stops providing the service and the next one wants double. Or in 5 years time, the abilty to do this has gone away.


The regulators dont do nuanced views, if there are say 5% of people like all of us here ( ) who would be quite capable of managing a pension and not screaming "unfair I should not have been allowed to do this" when our investment in Khazakstan oil futures went to zero after Trump nuked it, they will regulate "no" to protect the 95% who would not have the sophistication to manage their own pensions and for us sophisticated 5% its tough luck. Thats the way they seem to be heading.