Unable to transfer my DB pension - can anyone help?

Dale72

Marcon said:

So you're suggesting that pension scheme trustees should effectively be giving financial advice by deciding whether or not a transfer should proceed...? It's a criminal offence for someone to purport to give regulated advice if they are not regulated/do not hold the necessary permissions.

Trustees already have some responsibility for checking that the scheme to which the transfer is being made is a bona fide scheme, and you don't have to look far to see the fuss which results when they (or more likely the scheme's administrators) identify a dubious destination scheme and refuse to make the transfer. Their hand will be strengthened if the latest DWP proposals (currently under consultation) are adopted, as expected. In particular, it will make it very much more difficult to transfer to a dodgy SSAS - in most cases impossible, where the so-called SSAS is nothing but a receiving vehicle for the transfer.

The problem isn't DB transfers and never has been. It is the introduction of 'flexible access' to benefits that has created the current situation. 

By flexible access, you mean giving the pensioner the choice of how to use their pension.

Marcon

Dale72 said:

Marcon said:

So you're suggesting that pension scheme trustees should effectively be giving financial advice by deciding whether or not a transfer should proceed...? It's a criminal offence for someone to purport to give regulated advice if they are not regulated/do not hold the necessary permissions.

Trustees already have some responsibility for checking that the scheme to which the transfer is being made is a bona fide scheme, and you don't have to look far to see the fuss which results when they (or more likely the scheme's administrators) identify a dubious destination scheme and refuse to make the transfer. Their hand will be strengthened if the latest DWP proposals (currently under consultation) are adopted, as expected. In particular, it will make it very much more difficult to transfer to a dodgy SSAS - in most cases impossible, where the so-called SSAS is nothing but a receiving vehicle for the transfer.

The problem isn't DB transfers and never has been. It is the introduction of 'flexible access' to benefits that has created the current situation. 

By flexible access, you mean giving the pensioner the choice of how to use their pension.

Exactly so.

[Deleted User]

Marcon said:

Dale72 said:

Marcon said:

So you're suggesting that pension scheme trustees should effectively be giving financial advice by deciding whether or not a transfer should proceed...? It's a criminal offence for someone to purport to give regulated advice if they are not regulated/do not hold the necessary permissions.

Trustees already have some responsibility for checking that the scheme to which the transfer is being made is a bona fide scheme, and you don't have to look far to see the fuss which results when they (or more likely the scheme's administrators) identify a dubious destination scheme and refuse to make the transfer. Their hand will be strengthened if the latest DWP proposals (currently under consultation) are adopted, as expected. In particular, it will make it very much more difficult to transfer to a dodgy SSAS - in most cases impossible, where the so-called SSAS is nothing but a receiving vehicle for the transfer.

The problem isn't DB transfers and never has been. It is the introduction of 'flexible access' to benefits that has created the current situation. 

By flexible access, you mean giving the pensioner the choice of how to use their pension.

Exactly so.

Marcon, I haven't been posting long enough to know whether you represent some branch of the financial services industry.

But the sentiment - ordinary people should be protected from themselves - accords with others who do represent financial services ( and echoed by other posters on here who seek to ingratiate themselves with them).

So the problem arises from ordinary people having that agency. 

How do you square that with changes since 2014? 

Just say if you think they were a mistake, but there is a philosophical argument that lies behind Pension Freedom that I, for one, agree with.

xylophone

Just say if you think they were a mistake, but there is a philosophical argument that lies behind Pension Freedom that I, for one, agree with.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8382/#:~:text=The 'pension freedoms' introduced in,provide an income in retirement.

Marcon

ZingPowZing said:

Marcon said:

Dale72 said:

Marcon said:

So you're suggesting that pension scheme trustees should effectively be giving financial advice by deciding whether or not a transfer should proceed...? It's a criminal offence for someone to purport to give regulated advice if they are not regulated/do not hold the necessary permissions.

Trustees already have some responsibility for checking that the scheme to which the transfer is being made is a bona fide scheme, and you don't have to look far to see the fuss which results when they (or more likely the scheme's administrators) identify a dubious destination scheme and refuse to make the transfer. Their hand will be strengthened if the latest DWP proposals (currently under consultation) are adopted, as expected. In particular, it will make it very much more difficult to transfer to a dodgy SSAS - in most cases impossible, where the so-called SSAS is nothing but a receiving vehicle for the transfer.

The problem isn't DB transfers and never has been. It is the introduction of 'flexible access' to benefits that has created the current situation. 

By flexible access, you mean giving the pensioner the choice of how to use their pension.

Exactly so.

Marcon, I haven't been posting long enough to know whether you represent some branch of the financial services industry.

But the sentiment - ordinary people should be protected from themselves - accords with others who do represent financial services ( and echoed by other posters on here who seek to ingratiate themselves with them).

So the problem arises from ordinary people having that agency. 

How do you square that with changes since 2014? 

Just say if you think they were a mistake, but there is a philosophical argument that lies behind Pension Freedom that I, for one, agree with.

Look again at what I said. I merely pointed out that the current situation has arisen as a direct consequence of the introduction of flexible access - which is entirely accurate. What stoked up interest in transferring from DB schemes was the ability to access the cash, which in many cases was of an order beyond people's wildest dreams. If the previous scenario still existed (transfer from a DB scheme to a DC scheme and you then (usually) could take tax free cash, but had to buy an annuity with the rest), the DB transfer market would have continued on a fairly untroubled path. We've seen some huge hikes in CETVs in recent years courtesy of market conditions, but that isn't what has been the underlying driver.

My interest is protecting people from scammers. I have a quaint old fashioned notion that a member's pension money should be in their pension scheme/pot until such time as it moves to a new home in the member's bank account/is passed on by way of inheritance. I'd much prefer it not to go walkabout in unregulated waters.

[Deleted User]

Of course there should be safeguards. First concern is not to lose the whole nest-egg in a scam.

That said, Marcon, if you accept that the guiding principle of pension freedom is that the final choice lies with the individual, you also have to accept that the system should enable clients to follow that path.

[Deleted User]

. What stoked up interest in transferring from DB schemes was the ability to access the cash, which in many cases was of an order beyond people's wildest dreams. If the previous scenario still existed (transfer from a DB scheme to a DC scheme and you then (usually) could take tax free cash, but had to buy an annuity with the rest), the DB transfer market would have continued on a fairly untroubled path.

Also, Marcon, how would the old way have fitted my case? 
I transferred a DB pension against advice and it has risen from £300k to£550k inside thirty months. 

Prism

ZingPowZing said:

. What stoked up interest in transferring from DB schemes was the ability to access the cash, which in many cases was of an order beyond people's wildest dreams. If the previous scenario still existed (transfer from a DB scheme to a DC scheme and you then (usually) could take tax free cash, but had to buy an annuity with the rest), the DB transfer market would have continued on a fairly untroubled path.

Also, Marcon, how would the old way have fitted my case? 
I transferred a DB pension against advice and it has risen from £300k to£550k inside thirty months. 

You have done well. However it could just as easily drop back to £300k over the next thirty months. The problem is that some could not cope with such volatility.

Marcon

ZingPowZing said:

. What stoked up interest in transferring from DB schemes was the ability to access the cash, which in many cases was of an order beyond people's wildest dreams. If the previous scenario still existed (transfer from a DB scheme to a DC scheme and you then (usually) could take tax free cash, but had to buy an annuity with the rest), the DB transfer market would have continued on a fairly untroubled path.

Also, Marcon, how would the old way have fitted my case? 
I transferred a DB pension against advice and it has risen from £300k to£550k inside thirty months. 

I don't understand the question. What's the point you are trying to make? If you'd transferred out under the old regime and used the same investment strategy, you'd have got the same result in cash terms but probably had to use 75% of it to buy an annuity.

And what your pension pot looks like in another couple of years is, of course, a question for another day...

hyubh

ZingPowZing said:

 transferred a DB pension against advice and it has risen from £300k to£550k inside thirty months. 

I'm sure that proves something, but I'm not sure what - that 'ordinary Joe and Jo' should gamble on almost doubling their money in two and half years...?

Interested on what you think of this (genuinely)...
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/306001/DRN-2456197-v2.pdf