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

Dale72

dunstonh said:

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.

All of it. Best interest of the client? If you can find someone that can be bothered to advise you when they know there will be no ongoing business for them, then you'll be lucky, or their fee from your pot size doesn't make it worth their while because of potential liabilities. Not saying these are not valid points or that an IFA isn't within their right to use them. Just saying none of it points to clients best interests.

Marcon

Dale72 said:

dunstonh said:

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.

All of it. Best interest of the client? If you can find someone that can be bothered to advise you when they know there will be no ongoing business for them, then you'll be lucky, or their fee from your pot size doesn't make it worth their while because of potential liabilities. Not saying these are not valid points or that an IFA isn't within their right to use them. Just saying none of it points to clients best interests.

Funny how the people posting here all do so from one perspective. There don't seem to be too many posts from those who received the advice that transferring was in their interests; or who agreed, once they grasped the relevant facts, that transferring didn't look to be in their interests.

Dale72

Marcon said:

Funny how the people posting here all do so from one perspective. There don't seem to be too many posts from those who received the advice that transferring was in their interests; or who agreed, once they grasped the relevant facts, that transferring didn't look to be in their interests.

Not likely to be many of the former here, and also not many of the latter who are willing to pay a large fee for someone else to tell them what they think is in their best interests. I appreciate that from some of your professional backgrounds, that genuinely feel yourself qualified to tell someone whats best for them, your not.

dunstonh

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 made deliberately obscure.   It has a range of unknown variables that require some assumptions and variances on tolerances.
Tell me how science can tell us what risk profile the person has?  Or what their investment behaviour is going to be like? Can science tell us the date of death before it happens?   It's not all hard data that can fit into a calculation.

It is not transparent how the IFA reaches the conclusion. It may as well happen that one IFA says "yes", another says "no".That is entirely possible.   Risks and perceptions of risk and making judgement calls on borderline cases can lead to different outcomes.  

This is really the definition of not-science.<br>Good.  Science would make a complete pig's ear of it as you are measuring things that are not scientific.  Plus, for every scientist that says one thing based on their scientific research, another says something different on their scientific research.  You are not in some magical industry where everything is black and white.

Prism

Dale72 said:

Marcon said:

Funny how the people posting here all do so from one perspective. There don't seem to be too many posts from those who received the advice that transferring was in their interests; or who agreed, once they grasped the relevant facts, that transferring didn't look to be in their interests.

Not likely to be many of the former here, and also not many of the latter who are willing to pay a large fee for someone else to tell them what they think is in their best interests. I appreciate that from some of your professional backgrounds, that genuinely feel yourself qualified to tell someone whats best for them, your not.

Well anyone not willing to pay the fee isn't going to do a transfer so no problem for them - they can live with the pension they signed up for in the first place. For those willing to pay a fee maybe an abridged service is best to at least let them know if it is worth pursuing further.  

candie01

RoadToRiches said:

Silvertabby said:

As for the flood of transfers out after the 'freedoms', many of these were by lower paid manual workers to whom a pot of money of, say, £50K, was the equivalent of a lottery win and a sum of money beyond their wildest dreams.  I know from several conversations that 'their' money wasn't going to be invested - it was destined to pay for a new car, kitchen, wedding, holiday etc.

Not everyone sees it that way. I am going through process with £500k CETV pot.  Then it becomes a viable alternative to drawdown as you need 3-4% per year to get returns greater than the DB pension payout, if it’s still around.  Being single with no dependents and taking into account inflation and average returns on stock market investments, including crashes, I believe it to be the best option and it makes sense to me.

Gilt rates are low, that won’t always be the case, the transfer values won’t be so attractive then that’s why sooner rather than later is best for me.

Have you managed to get a positive recommendation? If not can you tell me how you are doing but please?

candie01

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.

Definitely nonsense. I've spoken to 25 advisers. All have said I'd get Ando no transfer purely based on my age if 47. Some said come back to me when you're 50. 

NotaBene12

dunstonh said:

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 made deliberately obscure.   It has a range of unknown variables that require some assumptions and variances on tolerances.
Tell me how science can tell us what risk profile the person has?  Or what their investment behaviour is going to be like? Can science tell us the date of death before it happens?   It's not all hard data that can fit into a calculation.

Please, don't take this as an accusation against yourself - judging from your posts you seem like a decent person who genuinely tries to assist. You deserve only kudos for your pro bono work here.

My post is not about you (or any other person posting here).

Back to your questions:

No, science cannot predict the exact date of death. Nobody can. But science (more precisely actuarial science, demographics and public health research) can provide us with probabilities.

The risk profile is also not a magic - it can be entered as "low", "medium", "high" on some sort of online calculator to find out the answer.

This should be a classical probabilistic model - and as such can should be open to scrutiny. The model used to predict Covid fatalities which was widely derided last year (but turned out to be roughly accurate) was available on the web for everyone to check and scrutinize. And many did so.

Nothing of this sort happens here. We are, instead, offered some sort of voodoo magic that in the hands of IFA1 can say "yes" in the hands of IFA2 can say "no". They might as well use some sort of oija board to come up with the answer.

Prism

NotaBene12 said:

dunstonh said:

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 made deliberately obscure.   It has a range of unknown variables that require some assumptions and variances on tolerances.
Tell me how science can tell us what risk profile the person has?  Or what their investment behaviour is going to be like? Can science tell us the date of death before it happens?   It's not all hard data that can fit into a calculation.

Please, don't take this as an accusation against yourself - judging from your posts you seem like a decent person who genuinely tries to assist. You deserve only kudos for your pro bono work here.

My post is not about you (or any other person posting here).

Back to your questions:

No, science cannot predict the exact date of death. Nobody can. But science (more precisely actuarial science, demographics and public health research) can provide us with probabilities.

The risk profile is also not a magic - it can be entered as "low", "medium", "high" on some sort of online calculator to find out the answer.

This should be a classical probabilistic model - and as such can should be open to scrutiny. The model used to predict Covid fatalities which was widely derided last year (but turned out to be roughly accurate) was available on the web for everyone to check and scrutinize. And many did so.

Nothing of this sort happens here. We are, instead, offered some sort of voodoo magic that in the hands of IFA1 can say "yes" in the hands of IFA2 can say "no". They might as well use some sort of oija board to come up with the answer.

Reading the FCA handbooks and guidance would enabled someone to at least follow the process surely. I doubt many who are looking to transfer have actually done that though.

NotaBene12

Prism said:

NotaBene12 said:

dunstonh said:

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 made deliberately obscure.   It has a range of unknown variables that require some assumptions and variances on tolerances.
Tell me how science can tell us what risk profile the person has?  Or what their investment behaviour is going to be like? Can science tell us the date of death before it happens?   It's not all hard data that can fit into a calculation.

Please, don't take this as an accusation against yourself - judging from your posts you seem like a decent person who genuinely tries to assist. You deserve only kudos for your pro bono work here.

My post is not about you (or any other person posting here).

Back to your questions:

No, science cannot predict the exact date of death. Nobody can. But science (more precisely actuarial science, demographics and public health research) can provide us with probabilities.

The risk profile is also not a magic - it can be entered as "low", "medium", "high" on some sort of online calculator to find out the answer.

This should be a classical probabilistic model - and as such can should be open to scrutiny. The model used to predict Covid fatalities which was widely derided last year (but turned out to be roughly accurate) was available on the web for everyone to check and scrutinize. And many did so.

Nothing of this sort happens here. We are, instead, offered some sort of voodoo magic that in the hands of IFA1 can say "yes" in the hands of IFA2 can say "no". They might as well use some sort of oija board to come up with the answer.

Reading the FCA handbooks and guidance would enabled someone to at least follow the process surely. I doubt many who are looking to transfer have actually done that though.

FCA does not set the formula to be used - otherwise it would have been available as an online calculator (just as the tax calculator available on the HRMC site).