Canada Life say I can get a bigger pension but won't tell me where from!

Jerry_Mander

xylophone said:

https://adviserbook.co.uk/   You would tick "confirmed independent" 

Thanks for that. What is the significance of the adviser being independent?

xylophone

What is the significance of the adviser being independent?

See https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/choosing-a-financial-adviser


Independent financial advisers can recommend all types of retail investment products and pension products from firms across the market without restriction.

Malthusian

Jerry_Mander said:

xylophone said:

https://adviserbook.co.uk/   You would tick "confirmed independent" 

Thanks for that. What is the significance of the adviser being independent?

If they are not independent they may not recommend the best quote available, which would partially defeat the point of using an adviser.

It is still theoretically possible for a tied adviser to beat non-advised because they may charge less than a no-advice price comparison website, or extract a better quote from the insurers' sales offices (especially after obtaining your medical information), which could cancel out the disadvantage of not considering all insurers. Nonetheless the advantages of using a tied adviser instead of an independent adviser are nil.

TVAS

You can negotiate the IFA fee you do not have to pay what they want to charge. Why don't you go online and do an annuity quote. You will get a table of providers. If you have any health conditions or smoke you may be able to get a better rate called an enhanced annuity subject to having a medical to prove let's say you smoke more than 20 cigs a day.

dunstonh

You can negotiate the IFA fee you do not have to pay what they want to charge. 

Although the FCA do not like that unless there is justification.   What justification are you proposing?

 Why don't you go online and do an annuity quote. You will get a table of providers.

The OP appears to have done that. Hence how they got CanLife.  CanLife often come out top on the tables but not so much in the real world comparisons.

If you have any health conditions or smoke you may be able to get a better rate called an enhanced annuity subject to having a medical to prove let's say you smoke more than 20 cigs a day.

Medicals are rarely required and the majority of people could qualify for enhancements based on non-health related things. (such as postcode and occupation whilst working).  Some providers do not require as many as 20 a day.

squirrelpie

dunstonh said:

You can negotiate the IFA fee you do not have to pay what they want to charge. 

Although the FCA do not like that unless there is justification.   What justification are you proposing?

That sounds surprising. The IFA proposes a fee and if you don't like it you simply have to go and listen to what the next IFA says? What's the FCA's justification for such a restriction of the market? Why is it different to anything else?

dunstonh

squirrelpie said:

dunstonh said:

You can negotiate the IFA fee you do not have to pay what they want to charge. 

Although the FCA do not like that unless there is justification.   What justification are you proposing?

That sounds surprising. The IFA proposes a fee and if you don't like it you simply have to go and listen to what the next IFA says? What's the FCA's justification for such a restriction of the market? Why is it different to anything else?

If you can offer £xyz fee for one person why can you not offer it for everyone else?   - that is the effective position.
It does allow special offers.   Or justified discounts (family IFA for example)

It found evidence in the past that firms (not just advice) had a published fee but consumers were routinely being offered discounts for no other justification than the fact they asked and they didnt like it.

squirrelpie

I can understand the thinking but equally it smacks of nanny-state big-brother-knows-best rulemaking for the sake of it. I wonder if they also had evidence of material harm being caused? Or complaints about unfair treatment maybe?

Marcon

dunstonh said:

squirrelpie said:

dunstonh said:

You can negotiate the IFA fee you do not have to pay what they want to charge. 

Although the FCA do not like that unless there is justification.   What justification are you proposing?

That sounds surprising. The IFA proposes a fee and if you don't like it you simply have to go and listen to what the next IFA says? What's the FCA's justification for such a restriction of the market? Why is it different to anything else?

If you can offer £xyz fee for one person why can you not offer it for everyone else?   - that is the effective position.
It does allow special offers.   Or justified discounts (family IFA for example)

It found evidence in the past that firms (not just advice) had a published fee but consumers were routinely being offered discounts for no other justification than the fact they asked and they didnt like it.

The FCA didn't like the fact that people were given discounts because they asked for one? How does that tie in with their role in promoting competition: https://www.fca.org.uk/about/promoting-competition

dunstonh

squirrelpie said:

I can understand the thinking but equally it smacks of nanny-state big-brother-knows-best rulemaking for the sake of it. I wonder if they also had evidence of material harm being caused? Or complaints about unfair treatment maybe?

There is also the possibility that the FCA have no such problem with it and it may have just been raised by an FCA employee with a compliance officer as something to be aware of (as a minor issue) and then got around the compliance firms and became the recommended stance.     The vagueness of some of the guidelines along with incomprehensible bits and Chinese whispers means that so much of it is open to interpretation.   Certainly, it was raised about offering on-the-quiet deals for those that asked whilst pricing others higher who didnt ask.    However, I suspect in the case of smaller advice firms, they wouldn't be too bothered with the odd person here and there as long as it wasn't widespread or discriminatory.

There is also reputational damage.  Person A finds out that Person B was charged less for a similar job.