Know nothing about pensions - advice appreciated

[Deleted User]

dunstonh said:

A university degree which allows one to become a chartered accountant. The kinds of people who work for the big 4 - or smaller versions of EY/Deloitte etc.  In Canada/US its CPA or CA. 

Absolutely bizarre.   

Is it really? https://www.city.ac.uk/prospective-students/career-development/pathways/how-to-become-a-chartered-accountant

Perhaps its a language issue.  What you are describing as an accountant is really a bookkeeper or an accounting technician. https://www.rightnetworks.com/blog/bookkeeper-vs-accountant/

[Deleted User]

najan49 said:

Deleted_User said:

An accounting student in the UK would be attending 8 to 10 hours of daily lectures for 3 years (not counting self-study). He would be done with financial advisor’s course in 8 weeks. 

Can you back this up? I’d be amazed to find an accounting student spending 8-10 hrs per day for 3 years in lectures, plus needing to spend additional time self-studying. These lectures seem to be an incredibly poor investment of time.

Checked with an accountant. University of Waterloo programme required 20 hours of lectures per week and 2 to 3 hours of self study for every hour of lectures. Its a 4 year course. Some of that is work placement. So I was wrong. You do get people who can work hard and know the basics. 

dunstonh

Is it really? https://www.city.ac.uk/prospective-students/career-development/pathways/how-to-become-a-chartered-accountant

Yes, it is bizarre.  On multiple fronts.

You are comparing the top 10% educated accountants and suggesting that should be a minimum equivalent for all financial advisers. You ignore the fact that there is a chartered level for financial advisers.    And you think that normal retail consumers doing routine transactions should be using the most qualified people in the world.

You criticise a 65% pass mark on the adviser side yet the chartered accountant exam has a 50% pass mark.

Diplodicus

Deleted_User said:

Canuck01 said:

Dunstonh - don't expect Mordko to say 'sorry I was wrong', I had a long boring discussion where I was told that the 2008 crash was a minor blip, no one's retirement savings affected at all, strangely including the ten million people in the US who lost their homes.  Good luck talking some sense into him. 

That’s completely false.  I never said that.  Your memory is failing you. It was a discussion in the context of investing. Of course some people had their retirement savings affected. Those who sold at the bottom would have suffered quite badly. 

I will have said it was a minor blip in terms of long term market performance over an average persons retirement saving period.  Felt bad at the time but the markets recovered quickly and then some.  A balanced portfolio recovered within a year. Nothing compared to crashes in the 70s or 30s. 

Many people in the US who lost their homes often walked out of their mortgages because they were under water and it was way too easy to do.  They basically got rid of debt and improved their overall financial position. And happily own houses today.  

Others should never have been given mortgages in the first place. They didn’t really have these houses to lose. 

It was stressful for many people, but keep in mind that “about 10 million people” is a fraction of 1 percent of US population.

I agree with Mordko. The proximity of "Be wary of people on the internet trying to put bad ideas into your head" following Mordko's reasonable suggestion kind of sums up the reaction awaiting any post that doesn't conform to the board's pro IFA narrative.

[Deleted User]

Diplodicus said:

Deleted_User said:

Canuck01 said:

Dunstonh - don't expect Mordko to say 'sorry I was wrong', I had a long boring discussion where I was told that the 2008 crash was a minor blip, no one's retirement savings affected at all, strangely including the ten million people in the US who lost their homes.  Good luck talking some sense into him. 

That’s completely false.  I never said that.  Your memory is failing you. It was a discussion in the context of investing. Of course some people had their retirement savings affected. Those who sold at the bottom would have suffered quite badly. 

I will have said it was a minor blip in terms of long term market performance over an average persons retirement saving period.  Felt bad at the time but the markets recovered quickly and then some.  A balanced portfolio recovered within a year. Nothing compared to crashes in the 70s or 30s. 

Many people in the US who lost their homes often walked out of their mortgages because they were under water and it was way too easy to do.  They basically got rid of debt and improved their overall financial position. And happily own houses today.  

Others should never have been given mortgages in the first place. They didn’t really have these houses to lose. 

It was stressful for many people, but keep in mind that “about 10 million people” is a fraction of 1 percent of US population.

I agree with Mordko. The proximity of "Be wary of people on the internet trying to put bad ideas into your head" following Mordko's reasonable suggestion kind of sums up the reaction awaiting any post that doesn't conform to the board's pro IFA narrative.

And thwnks dor correcting my maths.  It was a late and a loong day

dunstonh

Diplodicus said:

Deleted_User said:

Canuck01 said:

Dunstonh - don't expect Mordko to say 'sorry I was wrong', I had a long boring discussion where I was told that the 2008 crash was a minor blip, no one's retirement savings affected at all, strangely including the ten million people in the US who lost their homes.  Good luck talking some sense into him. 

That’s completely false.  I never said that.  Your memory is failing you. It was a discussion in the context of investing. Of course some people had their retirement savings affected. Those who sold at the bottom would have suffered quite badly. 

I will have said it was a minor blip in terms of long term market performance over an average persons retirement saving period.  Felt bad at the time but the markets recovered quickly and then some.  A balanced portfolio recovered within a year. Nothing compared to crashes in the 70s or 30s. 

Many people in the US who lost their homes often walked out of their mortgages because they were under water and it was way too easy to do.  They basically got rid of debt and improved their overall financial position. And happily own houses today.  

Others should never have been given mortgages in the first place. They didn’t really have these houses to lose. 

It was stressful for many people, but keep in mind that “about 10 million people” is a fraction of 1 percent of US population.

I agree with Mordko. The proximity of "Be wary of people on the internet trying to put bad ideas into your head" following Mordko's reasonable suggestion kind of sums up the reaction awaiting any post that doesn't conform to the board's pro IFA narrative.

And it is easily seen from your posts that you sit completely on the opposite side of the fence entrenched in your biased views.  So, please do not make out that you are some unbiased observer.

ClaireLR

Thank you all for your help and advice.
I had a call this morning with the IFA.  He has explained to me about annuities and draw down (spoke to him before I'd managed to get back onto this thread).  He's explained about nominating each other and our children for the pension to go to, and about the tax we would pay when drawing out lump sums and/or taking an amount per month.  I spoke to him about the SW pension I have and he is going to write to them to see if I would lose any benefits by transferring that money to a different pension provider.  I haven't asked yet about charges as he is going to come back to me re the SW pension first and then take it from there.  

One thing I'm wondering is, is it just a case of finding the pension with the best rate? How do they find a "good" pension?

[Deleted User]

dunstonh said:

Is it really? https://www.city.ac.uk/prospective-students/career-development/pathways/how-to-become-a-chartered-accountant

Yes, it is bizarre.  On multiple fronts.

You are comparing the top 10% educated accountants and suggesting that should be a minimum equivalent for all financial advisers. You ignore the fact that there is a chartered level for financial advisers.    And you think that normal retail consumers doing routine transactions should be using the most qualified people in the world.

You criticise a 65% pass mark on the adviser side yet the chartered accountant exam has a 50% pass mark.

I am comparing education required for an actual accountant (who can be chartered once he/she gets enough experience and passes an extra exam).  You are comparing to someone who is not an accountant but a helper to an accountant. Terminology explained: https://t2inc.ca/en/blog/taxation/accounting-clerk-accounting-technician-and-accountant-what-are-the-differences

And the recommendation was to ask for credentials.  Exactly because some IFAs are educated. 

IFAs deal with very large amounts of money. Or amounts that should eventually become very large. And peoples livelihoods.  And many offer investment advice where they charge very large amounts of money over a long period of time  I find it jarring that education required to do that is not much more than a high school. 

Your 50% claim mark for passing an exam - what exactly are you referring to?  University exams are fundamentally different; many are not multiple questions.  And the grading system depends on jurisdiction.  Example of an exam required to become a chartered accountant is described here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Final_Examination. Clue: you need to do A LOT more than answer 65% of multiple choice questions. 

dunstonh

I am comparing education required for an actual accountant (who can be chartered once he/she gets enough experience and passes an extra exam).  You are comparing to someone who is not an accountant but a helper to an accountant. Terminology explained: https://t2inc.ca/en/blog/taxation/accounting-clerk-accounting-technician-and-accountant-what-are-the-differences

Accountants do not need to be chartered.  Financial advisers do not need to be chartered.  Both occupations have chartered level qualifications.

And the recommendation was to ask for credentials.  Exactly because some IFAs are educated. 

All IFAs are educated.  To suggest that someone who has achieved any level 4-6 qualifications is not educated insults the majority of the population.

IFAs deal with very large amounts of money. Or amounts that should eventually become very large. And peoples livelihoods.  And many offer investment advice where they charge very large amounts of money over a long period of time  I find it jarring that education required to do that is not much more than a high school. 

And if you have a lot of money, then you can seek out an adviser with further qualifications in the areas relevant to your scenario.  Just as you can with many professions, including accountancy.  I would not disagree with that and indeed, I personally feel that advisers that want to deal with drawdown, for example, should be required to have sat and passed a higher level qualification than the default.  Same with a number of other focused areas.  

However, the setting up of a new pension with small investment values does not require the study and qualifications of a chartered financial planner.  Indeed, a level 2 qualification could easily cover that.  

Whilst I have seen some advisers that make me wonder how they passed the exams, I have seen plenty of highly qualified people that completely lack any business sense, common sense or personal skills that are totally unsuitable to be advisers.  Although they can make excellent back-office compliance support.   As I am sure you are aware, there are exam question answers and real-world answers and the two can differ.  Passing exams doesn't give you that knowledge.  Experience does and realising that your learning continues beyond the exams.

Most accountants are not chartered.  Most self-employed/partnerships do not use chartered accountants. Indeed, not even limited companies need to use chartered accountants and most small limited companies do not.

Your 50% claim mark for passing an exam - what exactly are you referring to? 

Exactly what I said.  Some of the ACCA modules have a 50% pass mark.

here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Final_Examination. Clue: you need to do A LOT more than answer 65% of multiple-choice questions. 

Chartered financial planning exams are not multiple choice either and not all of the non-chartered level exams are multiple-choice either.   Some of the ACCA modules are multiple choice as well.  Indeed, they are even using multiple choice in legal and medical qualifications nowadays and are commonplace in most professional qualifications.

[Deleted User]

And if you have a lot of money, then you can seek out an adviser with further qualifications in the areas relevant to your scenario.  Just as you can with many professions, including accountancy.  I would not disagree with that and indeed, I personally feel that advisers that want to deal with drawdown, for example, should be required to have sat and passed a higher level qualification than the default.  Same with a number of other focused areas.  

Anyone who deals with pension investments deals with a lot of money, whether its in the early or late phases.  You need a lot to retire and you won’t get there if you follow bad investment advice on day one.  Advice on investment strategies from someone who does not really understand investment returns or stats behind various projections and strategies is worthless. Far better to read a short book by someone who is educated and does understand fundamentals and then follow recommendations.