Who will accept a DB to SIPP transfer from "insistent client"

Marcon

dunstonh said:

Marcon said:

Fluffybunny747 said:

So as of this week AJ Bell are no longer accepting transfers from insistent clients.  They will only accept where the advice is positive.

So an insistent client can go the route of transferring to a stakeholder pension, which must accept all transfers from any UK registered pension scheme (if the transfer value is £30K+ advice will still be needed before the DB scheme can proceed with the transfer); and then into a SIPP of their choice, because it will by then be a simple DC to DC transfer.

Whilst a stakeholder pension does have that requirement, a number of the few remaining stakeholder pensions that still exist only retail their product via an intermediary.   So, you can eliminate those providers.
It would have to be a direct-to-consumer stakeholder pension that is done without any involvement from an intermediary (including the insurer's own salesforce).    You could probably count that on one hand.   Indeed, i just checked Defaqto and they list four stakeholder pensions as still being open for new business.  Aviva, Standard Life, Royal London and Forester Life.   Of those 4, only forester life is classed as a non-intermediary product.
It is possible there are other open stakeholder pensions available that do not provide data to defaqto.

You only need one - and I'm sure people will be quick to highlight which one they use!

Albermarle

I do not think the SL one is via an intermediary ?
https://www.standardlife.co.uk/pensions/personal-pension/stakeholder

dunstonh

Albermarle said:

I do not think the SL one is via an intermediary ?
https://www.standardlife.co.uk/pensions/personal-pension/stakeholder

Difficult to say. It cannot be opened directly but requires a phone call.  It could be that they just form fill at the other end or it could be an in-house salesforce. (former is D2C, latter is intermediary)
It may also be a short-lived version as Aberdeen Standard Life have recently sold their legacy book (including stakeholder pensions) to Phoenix.  Phoenix has just bought the Standard Life brand from ASI (who will use Abrdn as the replacement brand on modern Standard Life contracts).   Phoenix are not known for keeping legacy brand products open.  Although the purchase of the Standard Life brand could suggest a change of direction 

Malthusian

Fluffybunny747 said:

So as of this week AJ Bell are no longer accepting transfers from insistent clients.  They will only accept where the advice is positive.

Interesting that after years of insisting to its shareholders (i.e. the public) that everyone else was wrong and there was nothing to worry about in accepting DB transfers for people who'd been told it was a bad idea, AJ Bell has suddenly reverse ferreted and decided that it wasn't such a great idea after all.

Maitre d': "Just one more insistent client, monsieur? It's waffer-thin..."

AJ Bell shareholders: "No... more... business risk..."

Malthusian

It's amusing that the DB transfer rules have finally provided Stakeholder Pensions with a reason to exist. Other than showing why politicians shouldn't attempt to design financial products. (Because when politicians try to design a "low cost" pension plan they end up with one that ends up rapidly being more expensive than superior plans on the market, thanks to the political and legislative process being much slower than market forces.)

The requirement that they must accept transfers from any pension scheme effectively removes any responsibility the pension provider has for facilitating an insistent client DB transfer. I doubt that was what the Government had in mind when they inserted that rule.

The original vision for the Stakeholder Pension was that it would be a simple, low cost pension plan, and what they have ended up as is a vehicle to facilitate the most risky, expensive and complex pension transaction that ordinary people can undertake in the UK pension system.

For all other purposes they are redundant.

This is a necessary purpose because it means Stakeholder Pensions form a "safety valve" - the "must accept any transfer" rule means anyone can transfer out of a DB scheme if they are determined enough, willing to do their research, and willing to pay the going rate. (For as long as there is a provider somewhere still offering Stakeholder Pensions direct-to-consumer.) It is unlikely that the body politic would tolerate a system where they can be prevented from accessing "their money" if they can't find a regulated adviser willing to recommend it.

*edit* There is a slight hole in that theory as there are already a few things that you can't do even if you want to if you can't find an adviser willing to recommend it. Namely buy an Immediate Needs Annuity and take out equity release (not 100% sure on the latter).

I still think that the body politic wouldn't tolerate people complaining that they can't "get their money" without an adviser saying they can, while it tolerates people not being able to give most of their house to a lender or buy a product where the most likely outcome is to forfeit a large lump sum to an insurer.

Albermarle

Marcon said:

Fluffybunny747 said:

So as of this week AJ Bell are no longer accepting transfers from insistent clients.  They will only accept where the advice is positive.

So an insistent client can go the route of transferring to a stakeholder pension, which must accept all transfers from any UK registered pension scheme (if the transfer value is £30K+ advice will still be needed before the DB scheme can proceed with the transfer); and then into a SIPP of their choice, because it will by then be a simple DC to DC transfer.

Are  there maybe some smaller /bespoke SIPP providers who will take an insistent client DB transfer still ?

Thrugelmir

Malthusian said:

Fluffybunny747 said:

So as of this week AJ Bell are no longer accepting transfers from insistent clients.  They will only accept where the advice is positive.

Interesting that after years of insisting to its shareholders (i.e. the public) that everyone else was wrong and there was nothing to worry about in accepting DB transfers for people who'd been told it was a bad idea, 

Did the AJ Bell publicly say this? Suspect it's supposition rather than fact.

xylophone

It would have to be a direct-to-consumer stakeholder pension that is done without any involvement from an intermediary (including the insurer's own salesforce).  

Wouldn't a person just open a stakeholder via the intermediary,  make a couple of contributions to make sure it was up and running and then go on line to apply to transfer in the DB after  he had received the requisite advice from the PTS?

dunstonh

xylophone said:

It would have to be a direct-to-consumer stakeholder pension that is done without any involvement from an intermediary (including the insurer's own salesforce).  

Wouldn't a person just open a stakeholder via the intermediary,  make a couple of contributions to make sure it was up and running and then go on line to apply to transfer in the DB after  he had received the requisite advice from the PTS?

The majority of providers that only accept business via an intermediary will only accept top-ups and transfers the same way.  Some allow amendments of an existing regular premium without an intermediary.  Never tested it for DB transfers for obvious reasons.

Malthusian

Thrugelmir said:

Malthusian said:

Fluffybunny747 said:

So as of this week AJ Bell are no longer accepting transfers from insistent clients.  They will only accept where the advice is positive.

Interesting that after years of insisting to its shareholders (i.e. the public) that everyone else was wrong and there was nothing to worry about in accepting DB transfers for people who'd been told it was a bad idea, 

Did the AJ Bell publicly say this? Suspect it's supposition rather than fact.

Depends on your definition of public. You can't exactly hide the fact that you are the only non-stakeholder provider that will accept insistent clients.

I've been following these threads for a while and I am pretty sure it's a fact that up until recently, AJ Bell was the only provider that would voluntarily accept insistent DB transfer clients (i.e. not as a condition of offering stakeholder plans). Certainly they were the only one mentioned here. The last time I saw an alternative mentioned, it turned out the poster was behind the times and that alternative had withdrawn from the market.

If everyone else says that A is a bad idea and they won't do it, and I say I'll do A, that is an implicit declaration that everyone else is wrong.