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

Diplodicus

Malthusian said:

It may be that the better SSAS providers decline to take such funds, in a similar way to the way personal pension providers do.

The advantage of the SSAS route is that you don't need any provider at all. I believe that is why it is now being routinely proposed as the backstop option. You need a Scheme Administrator but they do not have to be professionals.

(If I had a DB pension I wanted to transfer against advice, I would be trying the stakeholder pension route first, but I understand why people are discounting that and referring exclusively to SSASes. The single provider left in the direct-to-consumer arena - so far as we know - could withdraw at any time. So you need to be prepared to either follow the SSAS route or give it up as not worth the faff)

I assumed the above was reliable, particularly as both xylophone and dunstonh thanked the author for the post.



Anyway, when the inevitable question arises: "What happens if the advice is negative and I still want to transfer"? I assume the answer is "You can still transfer but you would have to make your own arrangements." 

But in reality, the insistent client would have no chance of setting up an SSAS between a recommendation not to transfer and the expiry of the CETV. And in fact, it would be in the interests of the financial adviser if the insistent client was unable to transfer, because if there is no transfer, there is no potential future case against the adviser. So brownie points there. Not to mention abandoning the client to the unregulated aspect of the SSAS market. 

It appears that the SSAS route is working, but only for advisers, to provide the business with a fig leaf.

HappyHarry

"It appears that the SSAS route is working, but only for advisers, to provide the business with a fig leaf."

Just to be clear, I haven't seen any advisers  on this board suggesting that SSAS would be the way to go. 

Diplodicus

Then what is the way to go for someone wanting to transfer against advice?

Daniel54

Diplodicus said:

Then what is the way to go for someone wanting to transfer against advice?

Maybe follow the regulated advice you have paid for and received ?

There is a limited universe of those who wish to transfer against advice,and within that universe there will be those who want to invest in the likes of Spanish vineyards ,storage pods and airport parking places.In my view it is correct that there are now significant obstacles to consumers making poor decisions of this type. 

I know people who have transferred out but no-one who has done so against advice received.

As this thread has  shown, commercially there is now no appetite to accept insistent client transfers.

It is what it is.

DB pensions serve their recipients well overall ,with a certainty that is not available in the investment space.

Diplodicus

Daniel54 said:

Diplodicus said:

Then what is the way to go for someone wanting to transfer against advice?

I know people who have transferred out but no-one who has done so against advice received.

Well you do now.

The intent of the legislation is rightly that advisers advise and clients decide. If that hierarchy is reversed, it doesn't work. You're right, it is what it is:- a process that is broken.

Dunky62

For what it's worth, I know of  several people who are transferring DB pensions with SJP.  I assume they are getting positive recommendations but have to say, I don't know all the details.

dunstonh

Dunky62 said:

For what it's worth, I know of  several people who are transferring DB pensions with SJP.  I assume they are getting positive recommendations but have to say, I don't know all the details.

There are plenty of recommendations to transfer happening.   The ratio is reported to be back around the level it was before the factory line companies got involved and spoilt it for everyone.

Malthusian

Diplodicus said:

Anyway, when the inevitable question arises: "What happens if the advice is negative and I still want to transfer"? I assume the answer is "You can still transfer but you would have to make your own arrangements." 

But in reality, the insistent client would have no chance of setting up an SSAS between a recommendation not to transfer and the expiry of the CETV.

Yep. They'd probably need a new CETV after setting up the SSAS and should check what fees and limitations are applied by their scheme.

And in fact, it would be in the interests of the financial adviser if the insistent client was unable to transfer, because if there is no transfer, there is no potential future case against the adviser.

Wrong. The biggest business risk to an adviser who provides a formal recommendation to stay in a DB scheme is that the client pops his clogs shortly after and his heirs put in a complaint. If the client has cashed in the pension against advice, that risk is - entirely thanks to the client - eliminated.

Not to mention abandoning the client to the unregulated aspect of the SSAS market.

They are not "abandoned" to the SSAS market. If they want to open a SSAS that is entirely up to them. They can also stay in the DB scheme or try the stakeholder option.

It appears that the SSAS route is working, but only for advisers, to provide the business with a fig leaf.

And for everyone who feels strongly enough about transferring out of their DB scheme against advice that they are prepared to put up with a level of faff and expense commensurate with the risk involved.

It only doesn't work for people labouring under lottery winner syndrome for whom the faff and expense spoils the illusion that cashing in the DB pension = easy financial security forever. But it's not supposed to.

Diplodicus

May we just clarify something, Malthusian? Are you in a position to back up last week's statement I believe that is why the SSAS route is now being routinely proposed as the backstop option ?

dunstonh

Diplodicus said:

May we just clarify something, Malthusian? Are you in a position to back up last week's statement I believe that is why the SSAS route is now being routinely proposed as the backstop option ?

I am not answering for Malthusian but it's clear from the pages of this thread that a SSAS has been frequently mentioned as one of the options.     Do not mistake the contents of this thread as being the same as what happens in the real world.