Don't use Hargreaves Lansdown

Malthusian

ZingPowZing wrote: »

Nobody is compelled to buy advice. You can just stay in the DB scheme.

That is disingenuous

Not only am I not lying but it is the objective truth. Everyone has the option of staying in the DB scheme.

everyone should explore the option of transferring imo.

You now seem to be saying that everyone should be compelled to seek advice over whether to transfer, which I thought was the opposite of your outlook.

The FCA's view is that exploring the option of transferring is a waste of time for 9 out of 10 people. Unless they value the reassurance that they are right to continue doing nothing highly enough that it doesn't feel like a waste.

ZingPowZing wrote: »

To be fair to Hargreaves Lansdown, their adviser did say at the beginning that HL persevere with a conservative approach to investment.

:rotfl:This would be the same HL that recommended Woodford Equity Income and its bag of high-risk unlisted spanners right up until the death. Apologies for the off-topic barb at HL's expense.

[Deleted User]

£60billion and rising has been transferred from DB schemes

https://www.royallondon.com/media/press-releases/2019/july/pension-transfers-pass-60-billion-mark-as-third-of-a-

The common denominator is that a Financial Adviser was paid as a necessary step to facilitate each transfer, so it is disingenuous to claim that "nobody" is compelled to buy their advice.

Having paid for two opposing recommendations, I am happy to be raising the percentage of correct advice in Mathusian's profession, according to the FCA.

ffacoffipawb

ZingPowZing wrote: »

£60billion and rising has been transferred from DB schemes

https://www.royallondon.com/media/press-releases/2019/july/pension-transfers-pass-60-billion-mark-as-third-of-a-

The common denominator is that a Financial Adviser was paid as a necessary step to facilitate each transfer, so it is disingenuous to claim that "nobody" is compelled to buy their advice.

Having paid for two opposing recommendations, I am happy to be raising the percentage of correct advice in Mathusian's profession, according to the FCA.

Link doesn't work, corrected here ...

https://www.royallondon.com/media/press-releases/2019/july/pension-transfers-pass-60-billion-mark-as-third-of-a-million-use-pension-freedoms-to-move-db-pots/

[Deleted User]

Thank you ffacoffipawb

[Deleted User]

"This would be the same HL that recommended Woodford Equity Income and its bag of high-risk unlisted spanners right up until the death. Apologies for the off-topic barb at HL's expense."

Malthusian's comment reminds me of a stage in the Hargreaves Lansdown progression towards a negative recommendation.

Since choosing my own portfolio was a pre-requisite for me, I was asked to build an example portfolio and - since my Financial Adviser had already expressed enthusiasm for his fund - I proposed to allocate 20% to Neil Woodford's fund. Which goes to show two things:

1) You shouldn't fudge your bets - that's the whole point of wresting control of your pension.

2) Once a client is liable for their fee, HL are bound to choose the safer option of a negative recommendation. It doesn't matter what an individual says.

JoeCrystal

ZingPowZing wrote: »

Oh right. I did not know that. What HL were keen to stress at the outset was that their adviser was FCA registered, and that he could potentially arrange a transfer along the lines that I envisaged; that is with full control over all investment decisions. I assume others have that arrangement with HL..

We did mention that HL is not IFAs earlier on in this thread and their terms and conditions are pretty clear on that. So you should have known.

ZingPowZing wrote: »

Since choosing my own portfolio was a pre-requisite for me, I was asked to build an example portfolio and - since my Financial Adviser had already expressed enthusiasm for his fund - I proposed to allocate 20% to Neil Woodford's fund. Which goes to show two things:

Yikes! I wouldn't even know where to start with choosing my portfolio. That is why I would be paying for financial advice in the first place. I know you talk about wrestling the control of your pension, but in truth, most people would love to have a DB pension scheme as a foundation to the retirement (but then I am more cautious). I would be personally interested to see the various consequences of transferring out of the DB pension schemes down a few years or decades down the line, especially once we go through a proper financial crash.

taurustime

I can't fault HL. Have only been with them for 5 years managing my own ISA, SIPP and DD investments but returns have been incredible. I only wish I'd moved everything to them sooner! Every communication from them reinforces that 'this should not be considered as financial advice'. Surely staying with DB, unless a terminal condition was involved, would have been best road - and advice! - for you to take. So many people will run into future problems by reckless spending or poor financial decisions only to find that government benefits are not available to them.

taurustime

I've followed the 'if you can read, you can invest' procedure around making my own investments. So far, so good! I use internet to choose funds - NEVER SHARES! Too volatile! - with long term growth over 1 year, 3 years and 5 years - also plenty of online research sites, including HL, where 'Best Performing Funds of the Month' are listed. I create spreadsheet with all 'contenders' then look for common names in each column - 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, etc. Chances are that if they've made consistently positive gains over a 5-year period, they'll continue to do so in the future. I only started in 2013 but gains have been tremendous. North America, in particular, has been hugely rewarding. Investing in funds where perhaps Microsoft is only 2% of your portfolio means that if their share price drops, the impact on your fund is minuscule. I only wish I'd started sooner!

DairyQueen

JoeCrystal wrote: »

I would be personally interested to see the various consequences of transferring out of the DB pension schemes down a few years or decades down the line, especially once we go through a proper financial crash.

The next crash will be the real test for those who have transferred. Especially the newly retired who may be on the sharp end of sequence of returns. I am likely to be in both categories.

Without the protection provided by our (other) guaranteed income I would not have considered transferring my DB, regardless of the other factors that weighed in favour of so doing. I do not consider myself sufficiently equipped (knowledge, discipline, emotional detachment) to manage a portfolio on which our entire lifestyle depends. Nor am I sufficiently disinterested to stand back and rely on an IFA to take the entire responsibility.

I hope that we have chosen a reasonably robust middle way. We have sufficient guaranteed income to cover all non-discretionary expenses once both SPs are in payment. We have sufficient cash to bridge until then. We have additional cash for emergencies and to fund discretionary expenses for the next few years. The remainder of our portfolio i(including the transferred DB) will fund discretionary expenses and late life care - including domestic support.

It will be drawn down at a sustainable rate (I hope) but that depends on how well it is managed by me. If I screw-up then we will still be able to sustain our basic lifestyle. That is the very valuable guarantee provided by OH's DB.

[Deleted User]

If you take control of your pension, it seems logical to decide both how to grow it and when to spend it. I have no idea what percentage of the 60b transferred out of DB schemes has simply ended up in the hands of other fund managers - that course makes no sense to me. But it is a matter of temperament and circumstance.

If you do take it upon yourself to choose your own investments, don't expect to get everything right! You won't. And don't let your choices manage you - the performance of your investments will not depend on your hourly check.

To address Joe Crystal's reminder, I did read his post stating that that the HL advice was not IFA. What I did not know was the qualitative difference between their advice and that of an IFA. That difference alone should be sufficient to deter any potential DB transfer clients from using Hargreaves Lansdown,
neatly returning the thread to the subject of its title.