Db pension transfer advice/suitability report.

xylophone

Then, as a fellow adviser and answering for dunstonh, is that "Yes", from you xylophone?

I am not an adviser nor am I answering for another poster - I was simply"adding my mite" to the discussion by pointing out Prudential's own statement and indicating what appears to be the relevant legislation.

Malthusian

Cheers Xylophone. I was 99% certain that there was almost nothing to stop you cashing in an unfunded DB pension before 2015 (except the fact that it would not just be a bad idea, but that prior to pension freedoms it was unappealing even to people with pound-signs-in-the-eyes syndrome). But I have lived in the post pension freedoms world for so long that the concept of a time when you could just go ahead and cash out of NHS and police pensions on request seemed too absurd.

Diplodicus said:

No, you don't prove it by reading section 1 (6) of the Stakeholder Pension Schemes Regulations 2000.

You prove it by providing a recent example of someone effecting a DB pension transfer an an insistent client to Prudential.
Or the Pru themselves vouchsafing  this process. 

"It" was "that pension legislation says they have to accept it [a DB transfer]". If you want someone to prove that somebody somewhere transferred a DB pension to a specific insurer while riding a magic unicorn between shifting goalposts then maybe start a new thread.

I don't care tuppence whether anyone has transferred a DB pension to Prudential. My interest in this thread is in correcting the myth that financial advisers decide whether someone can cash in their DB pension or not, and whether anyone has transferred a DB pension to Prudential has no bearing on that.

Diplodicus

xylophone said:

Then, as a fellow adviser and answering for dunstonh, is that "Yes", from you xylophone?

I am not an adviser nor am I answering for another poster - I was simply"adding my mite" to the discussion by pointing out Prudential's own statement and indicating what appears to be the relevant legislation.

Apologies, xylophone. I took you for an adviser because the statement you pointed out is on Prudential's site for advisers.


So, is it the case that the Pru must accept a DB pension transfer to their stakeholder pension on an insistent client basis?
(to dunstonh, once more).

Diplodicus

Malthusian said:

I don't care tuppence whether anyone has transferred a DB pension to Prudential. My interest in this thread is in correcting the myth that financial advisers decide whether someone can cash in their DB pension or not, and whether anyone has transferred a DB pension to Prudential has no bearing on that.

No myth. When there are no practical means by which a customer can overcome a recommendation not to transfer then, in reality, advisers determine whether a DB pension is transferrable.
 
So, playing the "stakeholder pension" card is central to the pitch of the financial adviser when asked - as always happens - "What are my choices if you make a recommendation not to transfer?"

Don't you think, Malthusian?

I'm still waiting to hear back from a real adviser.

dunstonh

So, is it the case that the Pru must accept a DB pension transfer to their stakeholder pension on an insistent client basis?
(to dunstonh, once more).

I thought this has been answered a number of times now in respect of the stakeholder pension rules.

However, I suspect Pru and the other intermediary based providers will refuse it under distribution rules.  i.e. their products can only be transacted via an intermediary and are not available direct to the client.    So, it would need an intermediary to complete the transaction via their agency. - back to square one.   

So, you would need a stakeholder pension that was available direct to the consumer and not via an intermediary.

Diplodicus

dunstonh said:

 

So, you would need a stakeholder pension that was available direct to the consumer and not via an intermediary.

Name one.

dunstonh

Diplodicus said:

dunstonh said:

 

So, you would need a stakeholder pension that was available direct to the consumer and not via an intermediary.

Name one.

I have named the available stakeholders previously based on Defaqto and they showed just one is available direct to client.

Diplodicus

dunstonh said:

Diplodicus said:

dunstonh said:

 

So, you would need a stakeholder pension that was available direct to the consumer and not via an intermediary.

Name one.

I have named the available stakeholders previously based on Defaqto and they showed just one is available direct to client.

Dunstonh, at the bottom of each of your 106,000 posts is a disclaimer - you are not dispensing financial advice. 

Can you really not oblige?

Malthusian

Diplodicus said:

No myth. When there are no practical means by which a customer can overcome a recommendation not to transfer then, in reality, advisers determine whether a DB pension is transferrable.

As there are, I am glad we have reached agreement that you do not need a positive recommendation to transfer.

People deciding they can't be bothered to employ the practical means != there being no practical means.

So, playing the "stakeholder pension" card is central to the pitch of the financial adviser when asked - as always happens - "What are my choices if you make a recommendation not to transfer?"

The adviser's only answer to that question is "You can either follow the advice or transfer to a provider who accepts insistent clients". Unless you subsequently provide a separate recommendation to them on an insistent client basis ("I advise you not to do this, but since you insist, here is how I recommend you do it"), which by my understanding is now virtually impossible to get as almost everyone believes it's a guaranteed complaint waiting to happen and most advised pension providers won't accept the business.

If you advise someone not to do something it does not oblige you to provide free advice on how to do what you've advised them not to do. If you want to DIY the onus is on you to DIY.

dunstonh said: I have named the available stakeholders previously based on Defaqto and they showed just one is available direct to client.

Personally I count 2 as in my book the providers' own consumer-facing websites count for more than third-party lists. But providers' own websites can sometimes be outdated (as can third-party research) so I'm not saying you're wrong. I'll be happy to be corrected, if someone ever provides a convincing tale of trying and failing to open one of those stakeholder pensions with a nominal contribution.

dunstonh

Personally I count 2 as in my book the providers' own consumer-facing websites count for more than third-party lists. But providers' own websites can sometimes be outdated (as can third-party research) so I'm not saying you're wrong. I'll be happy to be corrected, if someone ever provides a convincing tale of trying and failing to open one of those stakeholder pensions with a nominal contribution.

Whether it is one or two is immaterial really but the reason I think it is one rather than two is that one of these appears to operate a tied sales team to set it up rather than proper direct to client offering.   So, it is possible that they could refuse on the distribution side.     

However, it's all theory until someone tries it.  Yet those that want to succeed in getting their pensions transferred don't appear to want to try it.