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

Dale72

Malthusian said:

Not everyone who holds a high risk portfolio of individual shares is a high risk investor. They might be a lockdown trader who traded shares on eToro because everyone else was. Or inherited a portfolio of individual shares from a husband or parent.

And talking about "risk tolerance" in your case is a red herring. The kind of portfolio that can generate an 80%pa return (simple) for five years (which means either the investor is day-trading or holding a concentrated portfolio of early-stage companies or both) is off the scale on the risk charts. The likely outcome of them cashing in their DB scheme is that they will lose it and end up much worse than if they'd taken the DB pension. Everyone's luck runs out eventually.

This may not apply to you because you have some magic formula that allows you to generate 80%pa returns forever without the risk of losing it. Unfortunately this is no use to you in getting a positive recommendation. For an IFA to be able to give a positive recommendation on the basis of "My client has a magic formula that will allow him to get 80%pa returns on his CETV without the usual risk of loss", you would have to share the magic formula with him, at which point he and the rest of the finance industry would start copying what you're doing, and you would lose your future returns.

But that doesn't matter as you have as much need for a positive recommendation as Lewis Hamilton has for a Pass Plus certificate. Even if you were transferring today, the barriers to transferring with a negative recommendation would be no issue to you as anyone who can generate 80%pa returns consistently from the stockmarket will find it easy to open a SSAS, and the cost will be trivial next to their future returns.

For anyone who can consistently quadruple their money every five years, their DB pension will be pin money anyway, regardless of how much money they have outside the DB pension.

I'll ignore the rest of your bilge malthusian, but interesting that you think you can make 80%pa returns by day trading, you haven't got a pamphlet on that that you could sell me have you??

jimi_man

Dale72 said:

Malthusian said:

Not everyone who holds a high risk portfolio of individual shares is a high risk investor. They might be a lockdown trader who traded shares on eToro because everyone else was. Or inherited a portfolio of individual shares from a husband or parent.

And talking about "risk tolerance" in your case is a red herring. The kind of portfolio that can generate an 80%pa return (simple) for five years (which means either the investor is day-trading or holding a concentrated portfolio of early-stage companies or both) is off the scale on the risk charts. The likely outcome of them cashing in their DB scheme is that they will lose it and end up much worse than if they'd taken the DB pension. Everyone's luck runs out eventually.

This may not apply to you because you have some magic formula that allows you to generate 80%pa returns forever without the risk of losing it. Unfortunately this is no use to you in getting a positive recommendation. For an IFA to be able to give a positive recommendation on the basis of "My client has a magic formula that will allow him to get 80%pa returns on his CETV without the usual risk of loss", you would have to share the magic formula with him, at which point he and the rest of the finance industry would start copying what you're doing, and you would lose your future returns.

But that doesn't matter as you have as much need for a positive recommendation as Lewis Hamilton has for a Pass Plus certificate. Even if you were transferring today, the barriers to transferring with a negative recommendation would be no issue to you as anyone who can generate 80%pa returns consistently from the stockmarket will find it easy to open a SSAS, and the cost will be trivial next to their future returns.

For anyone who can consistently quadruple their money every five years, their DB pension will be pin money anyway, regardless of how much money they have outside the DB pension.

I'll ignore the rest of your bilge malthusian, but interesting that you think you can make 80%pa returns by day trading, you haven't got a pamphlet on that that you could sell me have you??

I think you may have (intentionally) grasped the wrong end of the stick!

Dale72

jimi_man said:

I think you may have (intentionally) grasped the wrong end of the stick!

I think there's too many ends of the stick to that guy to be able to count. There is an expression about following you into a revolving door and coming out first that springs to mind.

Diplodicus

Without a way for insistent clients to transfer against advice, the DB pension transfer business cannot function as intended by its legislators. So a theoretical route is vital to the integrity of the process.  
No MSE poster - as far as I know - has gone that route.
And it’s advocates on here seem unconcerned whether it is doable. As long as it provides a signpost, the SSAS route works. For them. 
That should be a big concern on a consumer website. 

xylophone

So a theoretical route is vital to the integrity of the process.  

You mean a practical route presumably - in theory, there is the stakeholder or the SSAS?

https://www.financialadvice.net/are_you_an_insistent_client/zone/8096

Diplodicus

Sorry, I mean a theoretical route is vital to the illusion of the integrity of the process: - a totem  that those with a vested interest in the DB pension advice business can point to and say “it’s working.”

dunstonh

I have seen evidence of pensions transferred to SSAS.   And I believe around 27,000 SSAS are running (2019 figures).

it is also worth noting that the Cape Verde scammers used SSAS  because the lack of regulation and checks made it easy for them.   

It is not theoretical.

Diplodicus

dunstonh said:

I have seen evidence of pensions transferred to SSAS.   And I believe around 27,000 SSAS are running (2019 figures).

it is also worth noting that the Cape Verde scammers used SSAS  because the lack of regulation and checks made it easy for them.   

It is not theoretical.

Are you going to propose it as a backstop when taking on a DB pension transfer client then, dunstonh?

dunstonh

Diplodicus said:

dunstonh said:

I have seen evidence of pensions transferred to SSAS.   And I believe around 27,000 SSAS are running (2019 figures).

it is also worth noting that the Cape Verde scammers used SSAS  because the lack of regulation and checks made it easy for them.   

It is not theoretical.

Are you going to propose it as a backstop when taking on a DB pension transfer client then, dunstonh?

No.  It would be a breach if I was to do that and I do not knowingly break the rules.

xylophone

It is not theoretical.

 It seems to me that "in theory" implies true in essence.....  but ........

https://www.pruadviser.co.uk/knowledge-literature/knowledge-library/transfer-pension-scheme/

A stakeholder pension scheme is currently the only type of scheme which must accept any transfer from another registered pension scheme.

But........ (discussed ad nauseam in previous threads).

An SSAS?  Yes....but  not without administrative hurdles.....and would a firm wish to be involved in setting up/administering an SSAS if it was clear that it was simply a vehicle to facilitate a DB transfer for an insistent client?

Are you going to propose it as a backstop when taking on a DB pension transfer client then, dunstonh?

Well......... I doubt that the adviser would want to mention an SSAS as a route out if the advice were not to transfer... and if the advice were to transfer and the SSAS were to run into trouble and the client complained, his insurer could be on the hook.

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/finalised-guidance/fg21-3.pdf

A firm may advise on a transfer to a scheme that is usually outside the FCA’s regulatory remit, such as a small self-administered scheme (SSAS). When giving DB transfer advice, even though advice on a SSAS is usually unregulated, the adviser may still be responsible for the advice on the SSAS because the 2 pieces of advice are connected. If the investment in the SSAS is a direct consequence of the regulated advice to give up the safeguarded benefits, the 2 pieces of advice will be interconnected.