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

Dale72

HappyHarry said:

The advice should only be negative if it is determined that it is not in your best interest to transfer.

There is a repeated implication on these boards that an adviser will almost always give advice to retain a DB pension as it is safer for the adviser.

This is not my experience, nor of other advisers in this area that I have spoken to. You should expect a good adviser working for a fee to give you advice suited to your circumstances, not theirs.

Nonsense, and I think most on here know it.

HappyHarry

Dale72 said:

HappyHarry said:

The advice should only be negative if it is determined that it is not in your best interest to transfer.

There is a repeated implication on these boards that an adviser will almost always give advice to retain a DB pension as it is safer for the adviser.

This is not my experience, nor of other advisers in this area that I have spoken to. You should expect a good adviser working for a fee to give you advice suited to your circumstances, not theirs.

Nonsense, and I think most on here know it.

No, not nonsense at all. What I have posted is accurate.

I appreciate that you do not agree, but please do not call it nonsense.

dunstonh

Dale72 said:

HappyHarry said:

The advice should only be negative if it is determined that it is not in your best interest to transfer.

There is a repeated implication on these boards that an adviser will almost always give advice to retain a DB pension as it is safer for the adviser.

This is not my experience, nor of other advisers in this area that I have spoken to. You should expect a good adviser working for a fee to give you advice suited to your circumstances, not theirs.

Nonsense, and I think most on here know it.

What bit do you consider nonsense?   I cannot see anything in what HappyHarry wrote that could be considered nonsense.

BPL

What multiple of annual DB benefits CETV are advisors recommending to transfer?

LHW99

BPL said:

What multiple of annual DB benefits CETV are advisors recommending to transfer?

Surely that would depend on a lot of things, life expectancy, dependents, other pensions / savings ........

HappyHarry

BPL said:

What multiple of annual DB benefits CETV are advisors recommending to transfer?

Advisers don't look at the multiples.

They look at the client's situation now and expected in the future. They consider heath of the client, the client's partner, and the the funding position of the DB pension scheme. They analyse whether the client could confidently have enough income in retirement to meet their needs from all sources including state pensions, rental income, other asset income and drawdown. They look at a clients' liabilities, both current and expected future ones. If the client intends to invest the transfer value then they consider the risk level appropriate for the client, and they take into account a client's experience of investing They look at at annuity purchase rates now and what they might be if the client were at retirement age. They look at the reason why the client wants to take a transfer and not a guaranteed income for life from the DB scheme. They consider the future impact of the Lifetime Allowance and possibly the Money Purchase Annual Allowance. They consider the impact of income tax on the client' plans. They consider the client's family situation and dependency on a continuing income. They look at the DB growth rates prior to and after retirement. They take into account the death benefits and the clients' desires for protection of their family.

The multiples are really neither here nor there.

Edit: The above list is not exhaustive - every case is different.

NotaBene12

HappyHarry said:

BPL said:

What multiple of annual DB benefits CETV are advisors recommending to transfer?

Advisers don't look at the multiples.

They look at the client's situation now and expected in the future. They consider heath of the client, the client's partner, and the the funding position of the DB pension scheme. They analyse whether the client could confidently have enough income in retirement to meet their needs from all sources including state pensions, rental income, other asset income and drawdown. They look at a clients' liabilities, both current and expected future ones. If the client intends to invest the transfer value then they consider the risk level appropriate for the client, and they take into account a client's experience of investing They look at at annuity purchase rates now and what they might be if the client were at retirement age. They look at the reason why the client wants to take a transfer and not a guaranteed income for life from the DB scheme. They consider the future impact of the Lifetime Allowance and possibly the Money Purchase Annual Allowance. They consider the impact of income tax on the client' plans. They consider the client's family situation and dependency on a continuing income. They look at the DB growth rates prior to and after retirement. They take into account the death benefits and the clients' desires for protection of their family.

The multiples are really neither here nor there.

Edit: The above list is not exhaustive - every case is different.

Thanks a lot for your post.

What you are saying makes sense.

However, you make it sound as if it is a "magic" - the IFA is presented as some sort of higher being, a priest, who can divine what is best for me.

This is what has for me a a bit of a suspicious smell (I hope you don't find it insulting - I'm not accusing you personally. What you are saying seems to be the standard defense of the whole IFA industry).

I'm a data scientist myself educated to a phd level and work with statistical models for living.

What I know for sure is that in reality such a decision ("yes" or "no") should be based on hard science or, at least, on a formula that is open for everyone to see. Everyone should be able to enter the parameters (e.g. life expectancy, annuity purchase rates, etc.) and you get the result himself/herself. Thus everyone should know WHY it was a "no" or a "yes". And everyone should be able to see it for himself/herself what values of the parameters (if any) would have brought a "yes". There are various websites that offer calculators for taxes, etc - the decision to transfer or not should be done in such a transparent way.

What happens in the moment is, essentially, obscuring the process by placing some magic cover on top of it - and asking the client to pay a hefty sum for it.

dunstonh

However, you make it sound as if it is a "magic" - the IFA is presented as some sort of higher being, a priest, who can divine what is best for me.

The IFAs job is to decide what is best for you and tell you as much.

I'm a data scientist myself educated to a phd level and work with statistical models for living.

And do you pre-judge those outcomes before the facts and data is known as do you go with the data and analysis?

What I know for sure is that in reality such a decision ("yes" or "no") should be based on hard science or, at least, on a formula that is open for everyone to see.

Science often gets it wrong.    Sometimes you have to work on assumptions.  Some people will have different opinions and views of different things.

 Everyone should be able to enter the parameters (e.g. life expectancy, annuity purchase rates, etc.) and you get the result himself/herself. Thus everyone should know WHY it was a "no" or a "yes". And everyone should be able to see it for himself/herself what values of the parameters (if any) would have brought a "yes". There are various websites that offer calculators for taxes, etc - the decision to transfer or not should be done in such a transparent way.

Most people don't have a clue what to consider and don't know what they have or what the alternatives are.

Albermarle

I'm a data scientist myself educated to a phd level and work with statistical models for living.

Then I think it is fair to say you are not a typical IFA client or DB transfer candidate .

The large majority of the public is effectively clueless about such matters, and if asked what an annuity purchase rate was they would just look at you blank.

NotaBene12

dunstonh said:

Science often gets it wrong.    Sometimes you have to work on assumptions.  Some people will have different opinions and views of different things.

And the alternative to science is what?

Magic? Tea leaves reading? Gut feeling?

This is precisely what I meant - the process is made deliberately obscure.

It is not transparent how the IFA reaches the conclusion. It may as well happen that one IFA says "yes", another says "no".

This is really the definition of not-science.