Adviser fined £1.3m after pension transfer failures

dunstonh

Ibrahim5 said:

I always think it's funny when IFAs complain that they have expenses to pay. The dentist has all the same expenses plus much much more.

What is your experience of the expenses that a dentist incurs?
What is your experience of the expenses that an IFA incurs?
I doubt dentists have the same expenses as an IFA.

IFA costs are very high.  The fees reflect the costs.   However, those that are not in business may not understand those things.

If the dentist sees you for half an hour twice a year, he gets to charge you about £200.

5-10 minutes checking your teeth and doing nothing beyond that.   Watch the costs balloon the minute work is needed on your teeth.

Terron

Secret2ndAccount said:

dunstonh said:

My dentist is by no means poor, but he’s just making a living. No fast cars or long holidays for him. The IFA has a detached house with a wall around it and an electric gate. Inside the walls there is a separate office building, plus 6 cars and a trophy wife.

Hardly comparable.  A successful dentist and a successful IFA will both be earning in similar ballparks.  A less successful IFA or dentist will earn less.

An employee IFA will typically earn a lot less than a company director IFA.   Much the same as a dentist in the same scenario.

In my experience, certainly not comparable. If the dentist sees you for half an hour twice a year, he gets to charge you about £200.  If an IFA does the same he charges you £2000-5000.
I've had a number of dentists over the years. In retrospect, I don't think there was one that fell below the level of 'very good'. My anecdotal evidence suggests that a not so good IFA can stay in the game and make a good living. Of all of the group's earnings, I'm pretty sure the IFA was P1, possibly P2.

I would have said that all the dentists I had dealt with were good, until I moved and could not find a NHS dentist. The private one I saw instead of just commenting about my "funny bite" explained how it had been causing my problems over decades and treated it. It took many visits, several over 5 hours, oever 2 years and cost £18,000, but fixed the problems and was worth it.

Malthusian

dunstonh said:

If the dentist sees you for half an hour twice a year, he gets to charge you about £200.

5-10 minutes checking your teeth and doing nothing beyond that.   Watch the costs balloon the minute work is needed on your teeth.

Effectively that £200 consultation is a fact-finding initial consultation, to find out whether any work needs doing. (And the fact that you have one every year with a dentist whereas most people only have one with an IFA makes no difference.) Most IFAs do fact-finding consultations for free.

If you have an annual review with an IFA as part of your ongoing service, and as a result they determine that further work needs doing, that work will usually be covered within the fee you are already paying.

Different charging models exist but the above describes the most popular one. Most people prefer to pay their IFA on a "retainer" basis (they pay an ongoing fee and get advice as and when needed) rather than have conversations along the lines of "I think you should review how you use your tax allowances, if you'd like to discuss this further my fee will start at £1,000".

Comparing a £200 dentist's initial consultation with an IFA's regular review is an invalid comparison based on misunderstanding the purpose of each.

Malthusian

bostonerimus said:

Personal finance and pensions have become unnecessarily complicated and financial firms have profited by keeping things complicated so people end up paying fees for products and advice that they don't really need.

I think you mean they seem unnecessarily complicated. The statements "personal finance is unnecessarily complicated" and "anyone can manage their personal finances with a little effort" cannot both be true.

Financial firms didn't design the financial system. For that you have politicians, civil servants and mass social movements over a period of decades to thank.

To stay with the subject of the thread, the point of defined benefit schemes was to create a financial product that was extremely simple from the perspective of the punter (you work for x years and you get half your final salary when you retire) by loading all the complexity onto the financial firms running the product. (Maintaining that guarantee required a lot of work - actuarial calculations, fund management, etc - that would not have existed if all the workers were managing their own pensions.)

There will always be some naive and or foolish people who make mistakes, but anyone with a little common sense and basic mathematical ability can successfully invest and save for a pension.

What about people who don't have basic mathematical ability or common sense? They need retirement income and protection as well. "I'm alright Jack, sucks to be them, should have paid attention in school"? 

(NB: This is a digression because they aren't usually the target market for advisers, but they are the target market for financial products such as auto enrolment pensions, the likes of Pensionbee, and those stupid adverts a la "If you were born between 1962 and 1998 you'll be amazed at how much life insurance benefit you can get with this one weird trick".)

The most difficult thing is often finding the capital to invest given a combo of low wages, high housing and education costs and the constant encouragement to consume.

Wages have never been higher, housing costs whatever you want it to cost, and education is free until around age 21 for anyone earning less than median income post-graduation (and heavily subsidised for those earning less than £60k average).

You can't say "anyone with a little common sense can manage their personal finances" with one breath and with the next breath say that managing your personal finances is really difficult because of tired old Guardian tropes about how everyone is oppressed by the Man and forced to spend all their money by television.

Secret2ndAccount

Deleted_User said:

Secret2ndAccount said:

In my experience, certainly not comparable. If the dentist sees you for half an hour twice a year, he gets to charge you about £200.  

And how much does he get to charge the taxpayer? 

We need a dentist to chime in here, but I'm pretty sure the answer is not very much.
The check-up is actually the exception because the NHS pays for check-ups. Cost of a check-up is £23.80. I'm assuming the dentist gets about £100.  Whenever I need some work done he offers me the NHS price or the private price. If you opt for identical treatment there is little or no difference in the cost. He would prefer you to be treated privately as he gets to keep all the money with minimal admin. If you opt for NHS, the fee (or part of it, I'm not sure) goes to NHS, and he has to claim for your treatment. Usually there is a clinically better or cosmetically better, or longer lasting option which costs more. The NHS option, reasonably enough is the most basic.
My previous dentist was private only, and his prices weren't so different from the NHS.

bostonerimus

Malthusian said:

bostonerimus said:

Personal finance and pensions have become unnecessarily complicated and financial firms have profited by keeping things complicated so people end up paying fees for products and advice that they don't really need.

I think you mean they seem unnecessarily complicated. The statements "personal finance is unnecessarily complicated" and "anyone can manage their personal finances with a little effort" cannot both be true.

Financial firms didn't design the financial system. For that you have politicians, civil servants and mass social movements over a period of decades to thank.

To stay with the subject of the thread, the point of defined benefit schemes was to create a financial product that was extremely simple from the perspective of the punter (you work for x years and you get half your final salary when you retire) by loading all the complexity onto the financial firms running the product. (Maintaining that guarantee required a lot of work - actuarial calculations, fund management, etc - that would not have existed if all the workers were managing their own pensions.)

The financial world can be complicated and financial firms often exaggerate the complications to exploit the fears of their clients. But it doesn't need to be complicated and the investor must ignore the vast majority of information and advice given. The difficult thing is seeing through the barrage of mis-information and have the courage to do things simply.

I agree that politicians etc have brought about the financial environment we have today, but I think its naive to think that the financial industry hasn't played an enormous part through lobbying of all types legal and illegal, or at least morally dubious.

[Deleted User]

Terron said:

Secret2ndAccount said:

dunstonh said:

My dentist is by no means poor, but he’s just making a living. No fast cars or long holidays for him. The IFA has a detached house with a wall around it and an electric gate. Inside the walls there is a separate office building, plus 6 cars and a trophy wife.

Hardly comparable.  A successful dentist and a successful IFA will both be earning in similar ballparks.  A less successful IFA or dentist will earn less.

An employee IFA will typically earn a lot less than a company director IFA.   Much the same as a dentist in the same scenario.

In my experience, certainly not comparable. If the dentist sees you for half an hour twice a year, he gets to charge you about £200.  If an IFA does the same he charges you £2000-5000.
I've had a number of dentists over the years. In retrospect, I don't think there was one that fell below the level of 'very good'. My anecdotal evidence suggests that a not so good IFA can stay in the game and make a good living. Of all of the group's earnings, I'm pretty sure the IFA was P1, possibly P2.

I would have said that all the dentists I had dealt with were good, until I moved and could not find a NHS dentist. The private one I saw instead of just commenting about my "funny bite" explained how it had been causing my problems over decades and treated it. It took many visits, several over 5 hours, oever 2 years and cost £18,000, but fixed the problems and was worth it.

Dentistry = one of the major differences between U.K. and N America.  In Canada its all private/insurance funded.   When you compare the quality of care on NHS vs Canada, it seems like its in a different century and UK is a developing country.  At least thats what it felt like when I left UK in 2004.  And the difference is still obvious in British smiles.

AlanP_2

Deleted_User said:

Terron said:

Secret2ndAccount said:

dunstonh said:

My dentist is by no means poor, but he’s just making a living. No fast cars or long holidays for him. The IFA has a detached house with a wall around it and an electric gate. Inside the walls there is a separate office building, plus 6 cars and a trophy wife.

Hardly comparable.  A successful dentist and a successful IFA will both be earning in similar ballparks.  A less successful IFA or dentist will earn less.

An employee IFA will typically earn a lot less than a company director IFA.   Much the same as a dentist in the same scenario.

In my experience, certainly not comparable. If the dentist sees you for half an hour twice a year, he gets to charge you about £200.  If an IFA does the same he charges you £2000-5000.
I've had a number of dentists over the years. In retrospect, I don't think there was one that fell below the level of 'very good'. My anecdotal evidence suggests that a not so good IFA can stay in the game and make a good living. Of all of the group's earnings, I'm pretty sure the IFA was P1, possibly P2.

I would have said that all the dentists I had dealt with were good, until I moved and could not find a NHS dentist. The private one I saw instead of just commenting about my "funny bite" explained how it had been causing my problems over decades and treated it. It took many visits, several over 5 hours, oever 2 years and cost £18,000, but fixed the problems and was worth it.

Dentistry = one of the major differences between U.K. and N America.  In Canada its all private/insurance funded.   When you compare the quality of care on NHS vs Canada, it seems like its in a different century and UK is a developing country.  At least thats what it felt like when I left UK in 2004.  And the difference is still obvious in British smiles.

Have you checked the smiles of those who can't afford the fees and don't have the insurance cover in the US?

Personally I would rather have the NHS offering a basic service to the vast majority of the population irrespective of financial circumstances, that can be improved upon by paying for private treatment, than the US system.

As for dentists, don't get me started. My wife pays a private monthly fee for her dentist with treatments on top (getting an NHS dentist is not easy around here, and her teeth do need good care and attention).

Nearly £50 per month plus treatment - and they effectively shut up shop during the worst of Covid, no offer of a fee refund though.

What are the stats for literacy and numeracy in Canada / US? Better or worse than UK?

It's surprising how many people struggle with reading, writing and basic numeracy that many of us take for granted.

Ibrahim5

It's no good having good teeth if you get shot. Have you seen the number of people that get killed by hand guns in North America? It's massive.

dunstonh

Deleted_User said:

Terron said:

Secret2ndAccount said:

dunstonh said:

My dentist is by no means poor, but he’s just making a living. No fast cars or long holidays for him. The IFA has a detached house with a wall around it and an electric gate. Inside the walls there is a separate office building, plus 6 cars and a trophy wife.

Hardly comparable.  A successful dentist and a successful IFA will both be earning in similar ballparks.  A less successful IFA or dentist will earn less.

An employee IFA will typically earn a lot less than a company director IFA.   Much the same as a dentist in the same scenario.

In my experience, certainly not comparable. If the dentist sees you for half an hour twice a year, he gets to charge you about £200.  If an IFA does the same he charges you £2000-5000.
I've had a number of dentists over the years. In retrospect, I don't think there was one that fell below the level of 'very good'. My anecdotal evidence suggests that a not so good IFA can stay in the game and make a good living. Of all of the group's earnings, I'm pretty sure the IFA was P1, possibly P2.

I would have said that all the dentists I had dealt with were good, until I moved and could not find a NHS dentist. The private one I saw instead of just commenting about my "funny bite" explained how it had been causing my problems over decades and treated it. It took many visits, several over 5 hours, oever 2 years and cost £18,000, but fixed the problems and was worth it.

Dentistry = one of the major differences between U.K. and N America.  In Canada its all private/insurance funded.   When you compare the quality of care on NHS vs Canada, it seems like its in a different century and UK is a developing country.  At least thats what it felt like when I left UK in 2004.  And the difference is still obvious in British smiles.

It is pleasing to see just how many young people in the UK have good teeth.  Having a brace is no longer a thing of ridicule from other children but normality.          Under 18s can have braces on the NHS.    

Do children in the US get free orthodontic treatment?