Insistent client

Marcon

Prism said:

Marcon said:

Prism said:

Marcon said:

Prism said:

What would concern me was that nobody seems to have heard of them before and they don't advertise their charges or investment options on their website. Then there is the possibility that if you decide to transfer again from them to a more popular SIPP platform then if that platform asks about the original source of funds they may refuse the transfer leaving you stuck.

Wouldn't matter because it would by then be a DC to DC transfer. The 'original source of funds' doesn't come into it after the initial transfer out of the DB scheme.

Always the option to transfer to a stakeholder pension, which must accept any transfer from a UK registered pension scheme (something I've already pointed out to this poster as an option).

I am not sure we can say that for definite though. If a pension company wants to find out about the original source of funds then they can ask on the transfer form and choose to deny the transfer if they deem there to be a risk. I would still there is a risk that after the initial DB pension transfer a number of doors may have closed. 

We can say it quite definitely - read the relevant legislation if you're in doubt, or contact the FCA and ask them to confirm if you're really bothered.

I'm not talking about the stakeholder option. SIPP providers can refuse any transfer if they wish. Thats what I mean by doors closing

Completely agree they can - but no doors close because a transfer earlier on was from a DB arrangement. 

The crucial transfer is DB to DC, which is the point at which the safeguarded benefits are lost. Which bit of legislation/FCA rulebook do you believe could be infringed by a DC to DC transfer where the funds originated in the ceding DC scheme came from a DB arrangement? If you can't cite that, your comment is just scaremongering.

Prism

Marcon said:

Prism said:

Marcon said:

Prism said:

Marcon said:

Prism said:

What would concern me was that nobody seems to have heard of them before and they don't advertise their charges or investment options on their website. Then there is the possibility that if you decide to transfer again from them to a more popular SIPP platform then if that platform asks about the original source of funds they may refuse the transfer leaving you stuck.

Wouldn't matter because it would by then be a DC to DC transfer. The 'original source of funds' doesn't come into it after the initial transfer out of the DB scheme.

Always the option to transfer to a stakeholder pension, which must accept any transfer from a UK registered pension scheme (something I've already pointed out to this poster as an option).

I am not sure we can say that for definite though. If a pension company wants to find out about the original source of funds then they can ask on the transfer form and choose to deny the transfer if they deem there to be a risk. I would still there is a risk that after the initial DB pension transfer a number of doors may have closed. 

We can say it quite definitely - read the relevant legislation if you're in doubt, or contact the FCA and ask them to confirm if you're really bothered.

I'm not talking about the stakeholder option. SIPP providers can refuse any transfer if they wish. Thats what I mean by doors closing

Completely agree they can - but no doors close because a transfer earlier on was from a DB arrangement. 

The crucial transfer is DB to DC, which is the point at which the safeguarded benefits are lost. Which bit of legislation/FCA rulebook do you believe could be infringed by a DC to DC transfer where the funds originated in the ceding DC scheme came from a DB arrangement? If you can't cite that, your comment is just scaremongering.

Nothing is being infringed to allow a DB to DC transfer directly to a SIPP as an insistent client and yet those platforms obviously see a risk of future rule changes being a problem. So most of them, with the exception of AJ Bell didn't allow it. Now, although nothing has changed AJ Bell are also refusing them. Do you not think that these platforms may consider going a step further if they feel they need to? A simple block on transfers from certain stakeholder pensions could be implemented if they felt that they are still at risk from possible future cases.

All I am suggesting is that this is all based on moving goalposts. Someone could start a transfer process today to find that Standard Life closes to retail customers in a few months. So maybe they should consider opening a small pot today just in case. Then lets say their preferred end destination is a Vanguard SIPP. It would be worth checking specifically if the Vanguard SIPP allows transfers from a Standard Life Stakeholder rather than just assuming it does. If this becomes a well troden path for insistent clients then the various platforms could well decide to lock it down if they believe there to be a risk.

I don't mean to scaremonger - I just think people should check out their paths rather than just assuming it will be ok, and like with the recent example of AJ Bell's changes, be prepared that things might not work out as they want them too.

Albermarle

I have mentioned this before but I do not think there was an answer .
I would have thought some of the smaller , more bespoke SIPP providers would accept an insistent client ?
Like Minerva for example ?

candie01

Prism said:

What would concern me was that nobody seems to have heard of them before and they don't advertise their charges or investment options on their website. Then there is the possibility that if you decide to transfer again from them to a more popular SIPP platform then if that platform asks about the original source of funds they may refuse the transfer leaving you stuck.

Thankyou. That what I thought.