Pension has finally landed - As an insistent client acting against advice -*DOORS CLOSED 03/09/2021*

HappyHarry

Ibrahim5 said:

HappyHarry said:

Diplodicus said:

If financial advisers tell their clients at the outset that they can still transfer against a recommendation and there are no ways to do that then they are selling them a service that they can't use as intended. And that's failing to treat their client fairly.

Why would a financial adviser do that?  I can't see why it would come up at the outset? It's not something I do, nor something any of my peers do, as far as I am aware. 

You would have to be pretty crooked not to discuss the implications of the various possible outcomes.

Not at all. As I have said previously, I would be employed to advise a client to transfer or to retain a DB pension.

If I client told me that they were looking to transfer anyway, then I would decline to give advice.

HappyHarry

arty688 said:

Maybe it might be nice to tell someone there is a good chance they are wasting £K's as the deck is stacked against them. As the financial adviser is defiantly not acting as a wingman as covering their chances of being sued seem to be the primary aim of the report .

Absolutely. A client must know that they might not get a recommendation to transfer.

If it is clear from the outset that the recommendation will be to retain the DB pension, then I, and any other decent PTS will decline to give advice, and save the client some fees.

arty688

HappyHarry said:

Absolutely. A client must know that they might not get a recommendation to transfer.

If it is clear from the outset that the recommendation will be to retain the DB pension, then I, and any other decent PTS will decline to give advice, and save the client some fees.

maybe change the might not to more than likely or very likely or extremely likely

HappyHarry

arty688 said:

HappyHarry said:

Absolutely. A client must know that they might not get a recommendation to transfer.

If it is clear from the outset that the recommendation will be to retain the DB pension, then I, and any other decent PTS will decline to give advice, and save the client some fees.

maybe change the might not to more than likely or very likely or extremely likely

No.

As mentioned before, I have recommended a transfer more often than I have recommended someone retain a DB pension. 

There is a general consensus amongst some posters on this board that a PTS will usually advise retaining a DB pension, because it is better and safer for the PTS to do so.

This is not the case.

I do not know any PTS who would willingly take on a DB transfer case and charge a client when they were certain that the outcome would be to retain the DB pension.

In most cases, it is unclear as to whether a transfer should be recommended or not until a huge amount of work has been completed. This is the nature of DB transfer work.

In some cases, it is clear from the outset that a transfer will almost definitely be in the client's best interest. This is a great situation for the adviser and client, but does not happen very often.

In some cases, it is clear from the outset that a transfer will almost definitely not be in the client's best interest. No decent PTS would take on such a case and charge a client a fee for producing that formal conclusion, except under exceptional conditions.

Diplodicus

HappyHarry said:

Diplodicus said:

xylophone said:

 If the client in practical terms is unable to make that choice, the pension advice process is broken.

That is not the responsibility of the Pension Transfer Specialist.

He has fulfilled the contract with his client to provide advice on the transfer.

If the client wishes to proceed against advice then it is up to him to explore any available pathway.

If the pathway has obstacles, it is the pension providers who have put them there.

But the client’s contact through this process is not the pension provider but the financial adviser. The client engages the financial adviser from the position of a supplicant. He expects the adviser to know more than him and, since he is paying him handsomely, may reasonably expect the adviser to be on his side. Failing that, should at least expect the adviser to be honest at the outset about how difficult it would be to effect a transfer by himself.

Are you suggesting that it should not concern the PTS whether their client is able to transfer against a recommendation?

It would not concern me whether or not a client is able to transfer against my recommendation.

HappyHarry has already made his position clear on p11 of this thread. He does not care whether his client is able to transfer against his advice. 

Pablo7474

arty688 said:

Pablo7474 said:

Why would the adviser help them if they had advised against transferring?

Maybe if an individual is not up to setting up a SSAS due to lack of knowledge, then they would be better off staying in the DB scheme where they are taken care of? 

Very patronizing 

So what??

Malthusian

Zingy: You can't transfer out of a DB pension against advice if there's no route to do that. If there are any routes then tell me what they are.

Forum: Open a SSAS*

Zingy: How?

Forum: Here's how

Zingy: That sounds like a faff and I expect a lot of people can't be bothered

Forum: It's a free country

*the other option of opening a stakeholder pension appears to have been discounted due to there being only one direct-to-consumer provider believed to be open for business, which is fair enough although not the same as "non-existent"

arty688

Malthusian said:

Zingy: You can't transfer out of a DB pension against advice if there's no route to do that. If there are any routes then tell me what they are.

Forum: Open a SSAS*

Zingy: How?

Forum: Here's how

Zingy: That sounds like a faff and I expect a lot of people can't be bothered

Forum: It's a free country

*the other option of opening a stakeholder pension appears to have been discounted due to there being only one direct-to-consumer provider believed to be open for business, which is fair enough although not the same as "non-existent"

not that free it would seem

arty688

Pablo7474 said:

arty688 said:

Pablo7474 said:

Why would the adviser help them if they had advised against transferring?

Maybe if an individual is not up to setting up a SSAS due to lack of knowledge, then they would be better off staying in the DB scheme where they are taken care of? 

Very patronizing 

So what??

nothing just like to point out arrogance when i see it

Pablo7474

Is it really arrogance when posters on here have DB pensions, think they are getting the DOL figures, don’t  think it has increases in payment, don’t  understand GMP yet have had a couple of good years in a work default fund or other and think they know it all. They then don’t get the recommendation they wanted yet are offered alternatives on here such as a SSAS but they deem that too difficult. It appears they understand nothing yet still think they know best. If that makes me arrogant, so be it.