Transfer Defined Benefit Pension & the great suitability report ripoff

dunstonh

We need to get the legislation changed to either increase the threshold or allow some form of waiver/indemnity for those who have an understanding of the benefits of asset based pension investment.  I am considering starting another thread with the sole purpose of lobbying MPs to update this now obsolete legislation.  If anyone is interested, please let me know.

It's worth noting the strength the FCA has in law.  It has gone against recommendations made by the Treasury Select Committee and they had no powers to make it change its mind.  It is an extremely powerful regulator and MPs have not been successful in the past in getting the FCA to support changes it does not want to make.    

Waivers have a weakness.   A lot of people claim high knowledge and experience but have nothing of the sort.  They are also frequently the ones that get their fingers burnt and the first to complain and seek compensation when it goes wrong.   So, how do you know the genuine high knowledge people or the Daily Mail readers that think they do?        

You also have the problem that your objective is to move it to £50k as that suits you.   However, with any line in the sand you will get people just the wrong side of it.  Someone with £51k will then start saying that its unfair and we start the cycle again.

Cus

The odd thing is that if the CETV was £55k or £45k the poster would still feel outraged to pay £5k for the transfer.  This is probably daft, but why not enforce the pension companies to build the transfer cost into the cetv.  So there system pops out a £55k cetv, the rules ensure that the number reported to the individual is £50k. Force the transfer advice and process to be given to a regulated official entity and with no transfer costs ( 5k goes to them without client caring)
Most people wouldn't even know they were paying £5k for the transfer and so not get all upset. Even call it a pension tax 😁

garmeg

Cus said:

The odd thing is that if the CETV was £55k or £45k the poster would still feel outraged to pay £5k for the transfer.  This is probably daft, but why not enforce the pension companies to build the transfer cost into the cetv.  So there system pops out a £55k cetv, the rules ensure that the number reported to the individual is £50k. Force the transfer advice and process to be given to a regulated official entity and with no transfer costs ( 5k goes to them without client caring)
Most people wouldn't even know they were paying £5k for the transfer and so not get all upset. Even call it a pension tax 😁

So you decide not to transfer and your DB gets reduced proportionately to, say DB x (CETV - Fee) / CETV to pay the charge.

Not sure that is a good idea really.

NottinghamKnight

garmeg said:

Cus said:

The odd thing is that if the CETV was £55k or £45k the poster would still feel outraged to pay £5k for the transfer.  This is probably daft, but why not enforce the pension companies to build the transfer cost into the cetv.  So there system pops out a £55k cetv, the rules ensure that the number reported to the individual is £50k. Force the transfer advice and process to be given to a regulated official entity and with no transfer costs ( 5k goes to them without client caring)
Most people wouldn't even know they were paying £5k for the transfer and so not get all upset. Even call it a pension tax 😁

So you decide not to transfer and your DB gets reduced proportionately to, say DB x (CETV - Fee) / CETV to pay the charge.

Not sure that is a good idea really.

Presumably not, even if it could be construed as a form of contingent charging. It's an answer to the whine that advisers are taking 'my money', the charges should be looked upon as a cost of the transfer, far more rational.

RoadToRiches

unbelievable contingent charging only just been banned and I miss out again!

garmeg

NottinghamKnight said:

garmeg said:

Cus said:

The odd thing is that if the CETV was £55k or £45k the poster would still feel outraged to pay £5k for the transfer.  This is probably daft, but why not enforce the pension companies to build the transfer cost into the cetv.  So there system pops out a £55k cetv, the rules ensure that the number reported to the individual is £50k. Force the transfer advice and process to be given to a regulated official entity and with no transfer costs ( 5k goes to them without client caring)
Most people wouldn't even know they were paying £5k for the transfer and so not get all upset. Even call it a pension tax 😁

So you decide not to transfer and your DB gets reduced proportionately to, say DB x (CETV - Fee) / CETV to pay the charge.

Not sure that is a good idea really.

Presumably not, even if it could be construed as a form of contingent charging. It's an answer to the whine that advisers are taking 'my money', the charges should be looked upon as a cost of the transfer, far more rational.

Not contingent as you pay it whether you transfer or not.

NottinghamKnight

garmeg said:

NottinghamKnight said:

garmeg said:

Cus said:

The odd thing is that if the CETV was £55k or £45k the poster would still feel outraged to pay £5k for the transfer.  This is probably daft, but why not enforce the pension companies to build the transfer cost into the cetv.  So there system pops out a £55k cetv, the rules ensure that the number reported to the individual is £50k. Force the transfer advice and process to be given to a regulated official entity and with no transfer costs ( 5k goes to them without client caring)
Most people wouldn't even know they were paying £5k for the transfer and so not get all upset. Even call it a pension tax 😁

So you decide not to transfer and your DB gets reduced proportionately to, say DB x (CETV - Fee) / CETV to pay the charge.

Not sure that is a good idea really.

Presumably not, even if it could be construed as a form of contingent charging. It's an answer to the whine that advisers are taking 'my money', the charges should be looked upon as a cost of the transfer, far more rational.

Not contingent as you pay it whether you transfer or not.

Not necessarily, if the transfer didn't occur then no fee may be paid, which would make sense as there wouldn't be a liability.

garmeg

NottinghamKnight said:

garmeg said:

NottinghamKnight said:

garmeg said:

Cus said:

The odd thing is that if the CETV was £55k or £45k the poster would still feel outraged to pay £5k for the transfer.  This is probably daft, but why not enforce the pension companies to build the transfer cost into the cetv.  So there system pops out a £55k cetv, the rules ensure that the number reported to the individual is £50k. Force the transfer advice and process to be given to a regulated official entity and with no transfer costs ( 5k goes to them without client caring)
Most people wouldn't even know they were paying £5k for the transfer and so not get all upset. Even call it a pension tax 😁

So you decide not to transfer and your DB gets reduced proportionately to, say DB x (CETV - Fee) / CETV to pay the charge.

Not sure that is a good idea really.

Presumably not, even if it could be construed as a form of contingent charging. It's an answer to the whine that advisers are taking 'my money', the charges should be looked upon as a cost of the transfer, far more rational.

Not contingent as you pay it whether you transfer or not.

Not necessarily, if the transfer didn't occur then no fee may be paid, which would make sense as there wouldn't be a liability.

But the fee still needs paying if the transfer does not happen - presumably by the DB scheme which could reduce the member's pension to reflect the cost. Not fair that the scheme should have to pay, so it must be the member? Either by reduced benefits or by paying the fee.

Anyway this isn't going to happen anyway, so irrelevant.

NottinghamKnight

garmeg said:

NottinghamKnight said:

garmeg said:

NottinghamKnight said:

garmeg said:

Cus said:

The odd thing is that if the CETV was £55k or £45k the poster would still feel outraged to pay £5k for the transfer.  This is probably daft, but why not enforce the pension companies to build the transfer cost into the cetv.  So there system pops out a £55k cetv, the rules ensure that the number reported to the individual is £50k. Force the transfer advice and process to be given to a regulated official entity and with no transfer costs ( 5k goes to them without client caring)
Most people wouldn't even know they were paying £5k for the transfer and so not get all upset. Even call it a pension tax 😁

So you decide not to transfer and your DB gets reduced proportionately to, say DB x (CETV - Fee) / CETV to pay the charge.

Not sure that is a good idea really.

Presumably not, even if it could be construed as a form of contingent charging. It's an answer to the whine that advisers are taking 'my money', the charges should be looked upon as a cost of the transfer, far more rational.

Not contingent as you pay it whether you transfer or not.

Not necessarily, if the transfer didn't occur then no fee may be paid, which would make sense as there wouldn't be a liability.

But the fee still needs paying if the transfer does not happen - presumably by the DB scheme which could reduce the member's pension to reflect the cost. Not fair that the scheme should have to pay, so it must be the member? Either by reduced benefits or by paying the fee.

Anyway this isn't going to happen anyway, so irrelevant.

Pointless having this discussion as it is a suggestion made by one individual, but why is there a fee when no action is taken? A cetv would be generated and then reduced by projected fees, no transfer and no fee would be charged as there would be no report and no risk.

garmeg

NottinghamKnight said:

garmeg said:

NottinghamKnight said:

garmeg said:

NottinghamKnight said:

garmeg said:

Cus said:

The odd thing is that if the CETV was £55k or £45k the poster would still feel outraged to pay £5k for the transfer.  This is probably daft, but why not enforce the pension companies to build the transfer cost into the cetv.  So there system pops out a £55k cetv, the rules ensure that the number reported to the individual is £50k. Force the transfer advice and process to be given to a regulated official entity and with no transfer costs ( 5k goes to them without client caring)
Most people wouldn't even know they were paying £5k for the transfer and so not get all upset. Even call it a pension tax 😁

So you decide not to transfer and your DB gets reduced proportionately to, say DB x (CETV - Fee) / CETV to pay the charge.

Not sure that is a good idea really.

Presumably not, even if it could be construed as a form of contingent charging. It's an answer to the whine that advisers are taking 'my money', the charges should be looked upon as a cost of the transfer, far more rational.

Not contingent as you pay it whether you transfer or not.

Not necessarily, if the transfer didn't occur then no fee may be paid, which would make sense as there wouldn't be a liability.

But the fee still needs paying if the transfer does not happen - presumably by the DB scheme which could reduce the member's pension to reflect the cost. Not fair that the scheme should have to pay, so it must be the member? Either by reduced benefits or by paying the fee.

Anyway this isn't going to happen anyway, so irrelevant.

Pointless having this discussion as it is a suggestion made by one individual, but why is there a fee when no action is taken? A cetv would be generated and then reduced by projected fees, no transfer and no fee would be charged as there would be no report and no risk.

Because the adviser would need paying for his advice (whether or not) to transfer.

Anyway it doesn't matter, we may be at cross purposes and it won't happen anyway.