What is a sipp trust?

xylophone

 but there is no shortage of advisers wanting to sell DB transfer advice.

I thought that there were limited numbers of advisers qualified to give such advice?

And anecdotally (from posts on forum), those that are don't seem all that anxious to encourage prospective clients to sign up for it?

Malthusian

ZingPowZing said:

Most advisers may not want DB transfer business, but there is no shortage of advisers wanting to sell DB transfer advice.

That'll be news to the guy I spoke to a few weeks ago who'd gone through the entire phone book trying to find an adviser willing to adviser him on cashing in his DB pension and failed. Along with pretty much everyone in the industry. Of course if he'd been savvy enough to ask MSE or another clued-up Internet forum, he'd've found someone, but not everyone is.

Anyway, the OP seems to have found one of the few FAs dodgy enough to transact nudge-nudge-wink-wink BS "insistent client" DB transfers who hasn't been rumbled yet.

[Deleted User]

About 2,000 firms are qualified to give DB pension transfer advice. A small market town should offer a couple but lockdown calls into question the advantage of a local connection with so many advisers literally “phoning it in.”

[Deleted User]

Malthusian said:

ZingPowZing said:

Most advisers may not want DB transfer business, but there is no shortage of advisers wanting to sell DB transfer advice.

That'll be news to the guy I spoke to a few weeks ago who'd gone through the entire phone book trying to find an adviser willing to adviser him on cashing in his DB pension and failed. Along with pretty much everyone in the industry. Of course if he'd been savvy enough to ask MSE or another clued-up Internet forum, he'd've found someone, but not everyone is.

Anyway, the OP seems to have found one of the few FAs dodgy enough to transact nudge-nudge-wink-wink BS "insistent client" DB transfers who hasn't been rumbled yet.

That is interesting. So, the guy who went through the phonebook, why did he end up calling you?

My guess is that your job - in whatever capacity - makes you conscious of the fact that most people seeking advice on DB pension transfers are looking for someone to guide them. 
You surely are not saying that financial advisers should have control over the determination of clients' DB pensions.
Why are you saying that financial advisers who offer a way out before insistent clients hit a brick wall are "dodgy"? Many would say they exhibit more honesty than the advisers who encourage "punters" to undertake the process, when they know the recommendation will be not to transfer. 

candie01

ZingPowZing said:

Malthusian said:

ZingPowZing said:

Most advisers may not want DB transfer business, but there is no shortage of advisers wanting to sell DB transfer advice.

That'll be news to the guy I spoke to a few weeks ago who'd gone through the entire phone book trying to find an adviser willing to adviser him on cashing in his DB pension and failed. Along with pretty much everyone in the industry. Of course if he'd been savvy enough to ask MSE or another clued-up Internet forum, he'd've found someone, but not everyone is.

Anyway, the OP seems to have found one of the few FAs dodgy enough to transact nudge-nudge-wink-wink BS "insistent client" DB transfers who hasn't been rumbled yet.

That is interesting. So, the guy who went through the phonebook, why did he end up calling you?

My guess is that your job - in whatever capacity - makes you conscious of the fact that most people seeking advice on DB pension transfers are looking for someone to guide them. 
You surely are not saying that financial advisers should have control over the determination of clients' DB pensions.
Why are you saying that financial advisers who offer a way out before insistent clients hit a brick wall are "dodgy"? Many would say they exhibit more honesty than the advisers who encourage "punters" to undertake the process, when they know the recommendation will be not to transfer. 

It seems that IFA s who would help a 47 year old two years ago and give them a positive recommendation before contingent charging, now won't even advise under 50s and if they do, it will be a no. Now that there personal indemnity insurance is so high.  It's not about what's best for the person like me, it's about what fits in with their insurance policy. It's disgusting. 

Prism

candie01 said:

ZingPowZing said:

Malthusian said:

ZingPowZing said:

Most advisers may not want DB transfer business, but there is no shortage of advisers wanting to sell DB transfer advice.

That'll be news to the guy I spoke to a few weeks ago who'd gone through the entire phone book trying to find an adviser willing to adviser him on cashing in his DB pension and failed. Along with pretty much everyone in the industry. Of course if he'd been savvy enough to ask MSE or another clued-up Internet forum, he'd've found someone, but not everyone is.

Anyway, the OP seems to have found one of the few FAs dodgy enough to transact nudge-nudge-wink-wink BS "insistent client" DB transfers who hasn't been rumbled yet.

That is interesting. So, the guy who went through the phonebook, why did he end up calling you?

My guess is that your job - in whatever capacity - makes you conscious of the fact that most people seeking advice on DB pension transfers are looking for someone to guide them. 
You surely are not saying that financial advisers should have control over the determination of clients' DB pensions.
Why are you saying that financial advisers who offer a way out before insistent clients hit a brick wall are "dodgy"? Many would say they exhibit more honesty than the advisers who encourage "punters" to undertake the process, when they know the recommendation will be not to transfer. 

It seems that IFA s who would help a 47 year old two years ago and give them a positive recommendation before contingent charging, now won't even advise under 50s and if they do, it will be a no. Now that there personal indemnity insurance is so high.  It's not about what's best for the person like me, it's about what fits in with their insurance policy. It's disgusting. 

The insurance is high because the risk is high. People who transferred in the 90's are able to raise a case based on guidance that has only existed for a few years. Why would anyone want to run an advisor business doing pension transfers based on rules that haven't even been thought up yet?

Malthusian

candie01 said:

 It's not about what's best for the person like me, it's about what fits in with their insurance policy.

Nobody is obliged to do business with anybody. What's best for me right now is for someone to make me a sandwich, but that doesn't oblige my local IFA to make and sell me one. If I want advice on a DB transfer and an IFA doesn't cater to that market, the onus is on me to go to someone who does.

DB transfers are the most risky transaction that the average person in the UK can undertake in their lifetime, and only suitable for a tiny minority of them. (Which is a much smaller group than people who think they should cash in their DB scheme, due to the average person's difficulty in correctly valuing a future guaranteed income stream compared to an immediate lump sum, also known as 'pound signs in the eyes effect'.)

Which means that what is best for clients is to be advised by people who a) are highly qualified and confident in their ability to get the advice right b) confident that their advice is worth the price they will have to put on it (which, via PI premiums, prices in the difficulty of getting it right and the risk of redress) c) financially stable enough to cope with any complaints if it does go wrong. I.e. advisers who will happily stump up high PI insurance premiums.

ZingPowZing said:
Why are you saying that financial advisers who offer a way out before insistent clients hit a brick wall are "dodgy"?

I didn't. I said that pretending you're advising against something when you're actually helping them do it, to the point of recommending a specific provider, is dodgy. If you're helping a client do something and recommending a specific way in which they can do it, the supposed recommendation against it is a sham. Reputable advisers don't help clients to hang themselves. (Whether candie01 is actually hanging themself or whether the adviser's recommendation against it is wrong, or more charitably unnecessarily cautious, is beside the point. The point is that the adviser has said they are but still helping them do it.)

Faux insistent client business which is nothing of the kind = dodgy.

The OP has still not said what the adviser is trying to get them to invest in via AJ Bell / PSG so alarm bells are still ringing.

There is no brick wall. You do not need a positive recommendation to transfer out of a DB scheme. As I said, an adviser can and should be open about the fact that if the advice is negative, the punter will still be able to transfer out but will have to handle it themselves.

[Deleted User]

Malthusian said:

candie01 said:

 It's not about what's best for the person like me, it's about what fits in with their insurance policy.

DB transfers are the most risky transaction that the average person in the UK can undertake in their lifetime, and only suitable for a tiny minority of them. 

Data summary

• 1,965 firms held the DB transfer advice permission as at 31 March 2020.

Of those firms who responded

• 49,456 clients were provided with a personal recommendation to transfer or convert their pension (57%) 
• 38,035 clients were recommended not to transfer or convert their DB pension (43%) 
• of those clients advised not to transfer, the total number of clients the firm arranged a pension transfer or conversion for on an insistent client basis was 2,936 (8%)
• firms advised on a total value of £30.3bn between October 2018 and March 2020. This is made up of £20.1bn in recommendations 'to transfer' and £10.2bn in recommendations 'not to transfer'

So, aside from the "tiny minority" who were advised in their best interests, what were financial advisers doing facilitating the other 50%, Malthusian?

Which means that what is best for clients is to be advised by people who a) are highly qualified and confident in their ability to get the advice right b) confident that their advice is worth the price they will have to put on it (which, via PI premiums, prices in the difficulty of getting it right and the risk of redress) c) financially stable enough to cope with any complaints if it does go wrong. I.e. advisers who will happily stump up high PI insurance premiums.
Rhetoric totally incompatible with FCA findings. I believe that the organisation felt compelled to act on DB pension transfers folllowing evidence that financial advice had a probability of being right worse than a coin toss. Right for the customer, that is; you can rely on self interest as a constant factor.

ZingPowZing said:
Why are you saying that financial advisers who offer a way out before insistent clients hit a brick wall are "dodgy"?

I didn't. I said that pretending you're advising against something when you're actually helping them do it, to the point of recommending a specific provider, is dodgy. If you're helping a client do something and recommending a specific way in which they can do it, the supposed recommendation against it is a sham. Reputable advisers don't help clients to hang themselves. (Whether candie01 is actually hanging themself or whether the adviser's recommendation against it is wrong, or more charitably unnecessarily cautious, is beside the point. The point is that the adviser has said they are but still helping them do it.)

Faux insistent client business which is nothing of the kind = dodgy.
So, let me understand you correctly. Granted that the final decision should belong to the client - you do accept that, don't you, Malthusian?- then you're saying it is better for the insistent client not to have assistance in that process? Clearly the financial adviser would not want to get involved but, again, that's purely self interest. 
More importantly, its a breach of the expert/client relationship. The guy trousering the fee is supposed to be the one in the know. To me, the adviser who abandons the insistent client after the recommendation has less integrity than one who accepts the will of the client. 

The OP has still not said what the adviser is trying to get them to invest in via AJ Bell / PSG so alarm bells are still ringing.

There is no brick wall. You do not need a positive recommendation to transfer out of a DB scheme. As I said, an adviser can and should be open about the fact that if the advice is negative, the punter will still be able to transfer out but will have to handle it themselves.
 Malthusian: after you state the above and they, quite reasonably, ask how? and where? they could then still transfer to, what do you tell your punters?

Because the feeling of many newbies coming to this board on this subject is that they are caught in a trap.

jamesd

A trust is normal with pensions so that bit tells us nothing.

Pension Solutions Group seems to have a type of pension called a Small Self-administered Scheme (SSAS) as their main product. A SSAS as used in this case is an outermost pension wrapper where PSG are paid to ensure that pension rules are followed and charge for this. The investments inside the pension can then be made via standard providers like AJ Bell. A SSAS can offer many useful features but none of them is needed by you. Since your money would be going to AJ Bell indirectly you don't needed to be worried about fraud.

However, you don't need to use a SSAS to achieve your objective. All Stakeholder pensions are required to accept these transfers. So instruct your IFA to pick one of them, handle the transfer for you, then do a routine defined contribution switch from the Stakeholder one to AJ Bell. This way you achieve the end result without adding another layer of third party charges.

Prism

jamesd said:

However, you don't need to use a SSAS to achieve your objective. All Stakeholder pensions are required to accept these transfers. So instruct your IFA to pick one of them, handle the transfer for you, then do a routine defined contribution switch from the Stakeholder one to AJ Bell. This way you achieve the end result without adding another layer of third party charges.

Why would an IFA do this if they are advising not to? And which stakeholder pension is currently allowing new accounts without advisor involvement? Its not looking as easy as it sounds.