DB Pension transfer - IFA costs

AnotherJoe

ZingPowZing wrote: »

And this is a good representation of the broken market of DB transfers.
Even reps from the financial services industry propose a "work around.".

What else can people advise other than stuff that works?

Unfortunately the regulator seems to side with insistent clients to an extreme effect and that has scared away many IFAs from this area and the ones that are left are reluctant to take on cases without high payments.

(for avoidance of doubt I am NOT an IFA nor have ever been one)

bowlhead99

AnotherJoe wrote: »

ZingPowZing wrote: »

Even reps from the financial services industry propose a "work around.".

(for avoidance of doubt I am NOT an IFA nor have ever been one)

No doubt at some point over the last six months you have posted something that disagreed with something said by ZPZ, and been mentally written off by him as a 'rep from the financial services industry'.

If you display some comprehension of financial matters it must be because you work for [lowers voice] them...

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Don't get over excited when somebody holds a differing opinion. Nor is there just black and white.

That's just what someone trained by the financial services industry would say...

fred246

I understand that someone who used to post on here as an IFA now posts as though he isn't so you can never tell who is or has been an IFA. For the avoidance of doubt I have never been an IFA.

bowlhead99

fred246 wrote: »

I understand that someone who used to post on here as an IFA now posts as though he isn't so you can never tell who is or has been an IFA. For the avoidance of doubt I have never been an IFA.

If we take the cynical/sceptical approach that discussion comment posted by anonymous strangers on the internet is worth as much as we paid for it, we are unlikely to come to much harm - because we won't be making any critical decisions based on what we read unless it makes a lot of common sense and chimes with our own research elsewhere. What's written by individuals online can be taken with a pinch of salt as it may represent all manner of convoluted vested interests, no matter whether they say they hold or have held a job in a particular field, or not.

If you take that viewpoint to protect yourself from unwanted nefariousness online you are unlikely to accidentally fall victim to a campaign of deceit. So, it doesn't really matter what someone puts in their signature. With practice one can discern what comments are generally useful or not, without a CV needing to be attached.

Thrugelmir

bowlhead99 wrote: »

That's just what someone trained by the financial services industry would say...

Alternative backgrounds are available......

AnotherJoe

Suemac2a wrote: »

@ eskbanker LOL, my bad. Clearly I have been influenced by the 'drop in the ocean' minimisation of fees equivalent to a year's wages for many people. I am sure someone will be along shortly to say my obvious failure to grasp basic maths proves my financial incompetence. ��

Not financial, situational.

According to what you've posted, you believe that its a few hours work with no real downside, no high costs for the IFA, and because of that you think the costs are unfair and the IFA gets far too much, Is that a fair summary?

So why is it do you think that more than 90% of IFAs dont even get as far as charging a high fee for this, they dont even wish to do it ?


Surely if it was such a boondoggle, they'd be all over it?

[Deleted User]

AnotherJoe wrote: »

What else can people advise other than stuff that works?

Unfortunately the regulator seems to side with insistent clients to an extreme effect and that has scared away many IFAs from this area and the ones that are left are reluctant to take on cases without high payments.

(for avoidance of doubt I am NOT an IFA nor have ever been one)

I think the post goes to the heart of the problem.

Transferring a pension is a right

You may not like it, or the right to buy a council house, or the right of people affected by mental health problems to live in your community but the Pension Freedoms Act, the Mental Health Act 1987 and right to buy are three consequences of Conservative Party ideology; the clue is in the name of the Act. But it is a concept with which the financial services industry - and Another Joe, on the evidence of that post - are having terrible difficulty.

bowlhead99

ZingPowZing wrote: »

AnotherJoe wrote:

What else can people advise other than stuff that works?

Unfortunately the regulator seems to side with insistent clients to an extreme effect and that has scared away many IFAs from this area and the ones that are left are reluctant to take on cases without high payments

Transferring a pension is a right

You may not like it, or the right to buy a council house, or the right of people affected by mental health problems to live in your community but the Pension Freedoms Act, the Mental Health Act 1987 and right to buy are three consequences of Conservative Party ideology; the clue is in the name of the Act. But it is a concept with which the financial services industry - and Another Joe, on the evidence of that post - are having terrible difficulty.

You certainly do have a right to:
- obtain a transfer value for your safeguarded benefits,
- purchase independent financial advice about the suitability of a transfer; and
- seek out a transferee scheme whose trustees or administrators will accept the transfer of benefits in cash to implement the proposed transfer once they have received such evidence of the receipt of advice as they think is warranted in line with the Pension Act 2015 and associated regulation.

I don't think Joe's observation that IFAs are reluctant to take on the liability of providing advice to assist clients with their 'safeguarded benefits' transfer transactions - as a consequence of their experience of the regulator's historic attitudes and actions - is something that means he has 'terrible difficulty' understanding that those rights I summarised, exist. Whether he has read the Pensions Act 2015, explanatory notes for the passing of the associated Bill, and the ensuing related Regulations, is a bit of an unknown.

Still, members here generally understand the concepts - even those that refer to it colloquially as the 'Pension Freedoms Act', without necessarily reading every word of it.

[Deleted User]

But it is not a question of the regulator "unfortunately" siding with insistent clients - theirs is an unquestionable entitlement.

AnotherJoe

ZingPowZing wrote: »

But it is a concept with which the financial services industry - and Another Joe, on the evidence of that post - are having terrible difficulty.

No, I was just stating teh situation as it is with no bias meant.
I'm conflicted though because either extreme causes issues. Complete freedom leads to British Steel style ripoffs of the financially naive / ignorant whilst the current opposite situation is far too Nanny State.

Perhaps the situation needs resolving such that, maybe an independent third party could accept disclaimers from people like you and the OP who make an irrevocable pledge that not only do they realise the risk they are running but they accept there is no comeback for any subsequent mismanagement by themselves.

That would be a face to face interview to check there's no duress and the third parties decision would be final n whether they understand the consequences, and not just based on financial criteria, eg maybe i might be worse off long term but i have other income ample for what i need.
And crucially the regulator would stand by and be locked into that disclaimer and unable to reverse it.

Until then, Nanny Statism rules.