Shocked

Benny2020

you want me to give back the money I made?
I don't believe in bitcoin any more than you do but it doesn't stop me making money out of it.
I would not be investing my pension in bitcoin or Aim stocks by the way.

[Deleted User]

Benny2020 said:

Why wouldn't I take the tax free money? 
Unless you want to spend £200k directly, it works better for you in the tax-sheltered environment of a SIPP. For example, your investments are free of CGT and dividend-tax. 

£850k is a hell of a lot of money and much more than I was expecting.
Good for you. I don't share the negativity of some respondents (the usual suspects) and it may help to look at the valuations this way: the CETV is a bit less than what your pension is worth in the open market, but in the right ballpark.
But you know things about yourself and your kin and your circumstances that the valuers don't, and that tips the odds back in your favour. 

Who would handle the transfer, I am in Lincolnshire.
My advice would be to decide on the outcome you want before engaging an adviser, and the destination of your pension, otherwise you risk being led to act in the adviser's interest, rather than your own. The compulsion to use an adviser was imposed by the FCA with the best of intentions; but the advice could well be compromised by the adviser's interest, and if you follow you could lose a lot more than his fee.
A tax-adviser would be of more use to you than a pension-transfer-specialist imo, There is a firm of local IFA/tax-specialist who may suit but don't know them from Adam and Eve.
If you do decide to transfer, there are pitfalls to avoid, happy to flag them up but take your time, be happy in your mind before you embark on the journey.

cfw1994

Thrugelmir said:

cfw1994 said:

Thrugelmir said:

cfw1994 said:

SonOf said:

Actuarial advice in the UK is that 3% is considered more suitable for someone in their 50s and 3.5% in their 60s as a withdrawal rate using medium risk investments or above.

Using a the credit crunch as an example of before and after is good on the one hand.  However, there are two other scenarios that are worth modelling.   1 - dot.com style decline.  i.e. three negative years in a row.  and 2) Japan style decline. i.e. a drop in value with no recovery.
Most people making posts on DB transfers do not have any past experience of investing and virtually no understanding.  So, I make no apology about my comments and I suspect other regular posters here giving similar warnings feel the same way.

I've often wondered about this SWR topic.......it is often said that the US suits 4%, the UK 3.5%.   I've not seen research suggesting 3%, so that is new to me..
 
However......if your investments are global.....why would it mean aiming for the lower % numbers?
(& FWIW, before y'all bark at me, I do think there is much more to retirement finances than SWR )

What research are you basing the US 4% SWR on. The original research dates back to the early 90's. Based on a portfolio split 50% US Equities and 50% US Government bonds. With the data points being annual and no allowance for fees. Since then it's taken on a life of it's own. With a series of rules attached. 

Increase the bond weighting and the overall return of any portfolio will most certainly diminish. 
Investing is an art not a science. 

“A series of rules attached”?  & yet it’s “an art, not a science”.  

What a tricky conundrum you pose!

Nothing is guaranteed, nothing is perfect.....going with a 90% chance of success, FireCalc would generally imply 4% is okay.  
As I said, I believe retirement finances are much more than just SWR...but there are plenty of good reads still suggesting 4% (generally with some flexibility) is okay.  

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/29/how-much-do-i-need-for-retirement/ is not a bad start: the comments bring it more up to date....
...including a link to http://www.gocurrycracker.com/the-worst-retirement-ever/, another good read!

https://www.gocurrycracker.com/what-is-your-retirement-number-the-4-rule/ - some sage words here too!

My *personal* view is that 4% may be okay, but it is more important to be flexible enough to go with less when needed and have a backup plan.  I expect to put off accessing pension funds, then possibly take a bit more than 4% in some early years, and a bit less later (when other DB funds kick in).   Hence my “nervousness” about the sequence of returns risk  

All that said, if you have the “new series of rules” in a simple language a fool like me can absorb, please share

I naturally assumed that you knew the full facts behind SWR  without the need to spell them out. Any investor should do their own research and make a fully informed decision. That's applicable to them personally. Not latch onto the current fad and blindly follow the herd. Invest for long enough and you'll realise that ideas are cyclical. They come and go with market conditions. 

PS. You reference historic data based on a 50/50 holding of the S&P 500 and US Treasury bonds from an article published in 2012. What's the relevance to a UK investor?  

The full facts behind SWR.  Care to share those?

Maybe you can enlighten us: although I thought you said it was an art, not a science....

Apologies, I didn’t realise UK investors were not allowed to invest outside the UK....
It gets more mysterious and enigmatic by the day