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

Pablo7474

arty688 said:

whilst building it did you decide what materials were delivered when or did you have a little bit arrive every year with the tower being finished after you were gone , so you never got to enjoy it?

Ahh, is that how a DB works, it gets paid once you are gone and you don’t get to enjoy it. Thanks for clarifying. 

arty688

I was thinking more like you tower costing £100k to build and you getting £2.5k a year budget so 40 years to build , is that simple enough for you ?

of course build costs and budget rise every year sorry if that's to complicated

Pablo7474

Yeah you have lost me, good job you are so clever. 

Malthusian

arty688 said:

I was thinking more like you tower costing £100k to build and you getting £2.5k a year budget so 40 years to build , is that simple enough for you ?

I understood it. But it's literally the exact opposite of how a DB pension works so I'm not sure you did.

arty688

not convinced you did as it wasn't meant to be describing a pension , just an example of control of expenditure . 

The gamble if you like is that you can't go over budget if you are given £2.5k per year forever but if you spend you £100k straight away and it falls over because you built it on a slate mine you have lost everything  Personally I would be careful where I built it.

Diplodicus

Malthusian said:

Diplodicus said:

Malthusian said:
 That sounds like a faff 

Your words. Considering the "9 essential steps" guide pasted earlier, chances of being able to set up a SSAS in the window between a negative recommendation and a CETV deadline appear dicey to the client prepared in advance to scale the route and completely unfeasible to the average client. 

The average client doesn't want to transfer out of their DB scheme in the first place.
Agreed. That cohort need no consideration here, because they are not forced to buy advice from the financial advice industry.

If one of the extremes thinks they want to but can't be bothered, is free country.
A glib misrepresentation of the difficulty now facing the potential insistent client. 

Why would you only start the process when you receive the negative recommendation?
Because setting up a limited company for the sole purpose - aside from being a corruption of the purpose of a SSAS - would be unnecessary expense and beyond the scope of most people who come to the process.

It is hard to escape the reading that, for those who staunchly defend the pension advice industry, their prime concern - after they take their fee-is to promote the possibility of a mountain pass through the Alps of the DB pension transfer process for the client who wants to transfer against advice, even if the client is barefoot.

Certainly, IFA HappyHarry says that he is not concerned whether his client is able or not to transfer following his recommendation. But he doesn't speak for the whole pension transfer advice industry. Or does he?

dunstonh

Certainly, IFA HappyHarry says that he is not concerned whether his client is able or not to transfer following his recommendation. But he doesn't speak for the whole pension transfer advice industry. Or does he?

You may wish to quote HappyHarry correctly.   You can transfer a pension if the advice is not to transfer.  

Diplodicus

I have quoted HappyHarry correctly. There is a route to transfer for the insistent client in theory but his financial adviser does not care whether that is practicable for his client.

Is that you position also, dunstonh?

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.

You thanked him for the quote, dunstonh.

HappyHarry

Diplodicus said:

Malthusian said:

Diplodicus said:

Malthusian said:
 That sounds like a faff 

Your words. Considering the "9 essential steps" guide pasted earlier, chances of being able to set up a SSAS in the window between a negative recommendation and a CETV deadline appear dicey to the client prepared in advance to scale the route and completely unfeasible to the average client. 

The average client doesn't want to transfer out of their DB scheme in the first place.
Agreed. That cohort need no consideration here, because they are not forced to buy advice from the financial advice industry.

If one of the extremes thinks they want to but can't be bothered, is free country.
A glib misrepresentation of the difficulty now facing the potential insistent client. 

Why would you only start the process when you receive the negative recommendation?
Because setting up a limited company for the sole purpose - aside from being a corruption of the purpose of a SSAS - would be unnecessary expense and beyond the scope of most people who come to the process.

It is hard to escape the reading that, for those who staunchly defend the pension advice industry, their prime concern - after they take their fee-is to promote the possibility of a mountain pass through the Alps of the DB pension transfer process for the client who wants to transfer against advice, even if the client is barefoot.

Certainly, IFA HappyHarry says that he is not concerned whether his client is able or not to transfer following his recommendation. But he doesn't speak for the whole pension transfer advice industry. Or does he?

HappyHarry has also made clear that he would not deal with insistent clients from the outset, in fact, HappyHarry has made clear that he would decline to give advice to a client that said they were going to transfer regardless of the recommendations.

Given that, it is reasonable for HappyHarry to not be concerned whether or not his clients can or can't transfer after he has given a recommendation to retain a DB pension.

Diplodocus appears to trying to stoke a non-existent fire against those in the financial services industry who follow the rules, and do not prioritise keeping a client happy at any cost.