Poor pension advice

sammyjammy

How much did you pay for this advice?  It seems very strange to pay for advice, got the answer you wanted but will do so in a few years?  You realise you'll have to pay all over again?

artyboy

Deleted_User said:

I do agree that the person giving the “advice” shouldn’t have the right of veto. In the latter case he shouldn’t be called an “advisor” as he is really a “decision-maker”.  People should be able to make wrong decisions about their money.  

The other side of the coin is that “spending more early” is a great strategy for leaving the taxpayer on the hook for nursing care, so one can see why the government might want to make it difficult.  Incidentally, this objective appears to clash with the desire to leave a legacy.

But that’s a philosophical discussion about regulations rather than anything specific to this particular IFA. 

It's not the advisor that has the veto though - they provide a recommendation to transfer or not (ie 'advice') - the problem then comes that no pension company wants to execute the client's wishes to transfer if that advice is negative. 

Which of course is down to the fact they could get sued because however many times the client signs to say they have had advice and are going ahead anyway, our legal system will always favour them over a professional financial firm.

So your broader point about people being allowed to take responsibility is perfectly fair, but there is no veto by a single party here...

coopsy0

If you wanted to retire early then did you not build up another pot in the form of a SIPP or ISA? That is what many if us have had to do.

I have got another pension and I have got a number of ISAs.  maybe I can still retire early and keep my DB pension as it is.  But that is not the point and not what I wanted

xylophone

I do agree that the person giving the “advice” shouldn’t have the right of veto. In the latter case he shouldn’t be called an “advisor” as he is really a “decision-maker”.  People should be able to make wrong decisions about their money.  

There was a long, long discussion about this some while ago.

The Advisor does not have the right of veto.

He has the  duty  to advise his client on the suitability of a DB transfer, having taken into account all relevant factors.

Once he has provided the advice, the client then decides on whether or not to take it.

The client's problem is to find a scheme to accept a transfer against advice.

This is very difficult (although  apparently not impossible, judging by a previous thread   which gave details of a somewhat convoluted process). As I recollect, in the end the poster didn't have to go through that process as she received a positive recommendation.

It is  surely the pension providers who exercise the veto?

JoeCrystal

artyboy said:

Deleted_User said:

I do agree that the person giving the “advice” shouldn’t have the right of veto. In the latter case he shouldn’t be called an “advisor” as he is really a “decision-maker”.  People should be able to make wrong decisions about their money.  

The other side of the coin is that “spending more early” is a great strategy for leaving the taxpayer on the hook for nursing care, so one can see why the government might want to make it difficult.  Incidentally, this objective appears to clash with the desire to leave a legacy.

But that’s a philosophical discussion about regulations rather than anything specific to this particular IFA. 

It's not the advisor that has the veto though - they provide a recommendation to transfer or not (ie 'advice') - the problem then comes that no pension company wants to execute the client's wishes to transfer if that advice is negative. 

Which of course is down to the fact they could get sued because however many times the client signs to say they have had advice and are going ahead anyway, our legal system will always favour them over a professional financial firm.

So your broader point about people being allowed to take responsibility is perfectly fair, but there is no veto by a single party here...

I can vague recall that someone complained against Barclays for allow them to buy risky shares/funds on "Execution only" share funds dealing with no advices from Barclays. Still won and got compensations!

[Deleted User]

coopsy0 said:

If you wanted to retire early then did you not build up another pot in the form of a SIPP or ISA? That is what many if us have had to do.

I have got another pension and I have got a number of ISAs.  maybe I can still retire early and keep my DB pension as it is.  But that is not the point and not what I wanted

I hate to say it but most of what you’ve written in this thread tends to suggest that the advice you received was spot on. 

[Deleted User]

artyboy said:

Deleted_User said:

I do agree that the person giving the “advice” shouldn’t have the right of veto. In the latter case he shouldn’t be called an “advisor” as he is really a “decision-maker”.  People should be able to make wrong decisions about their money.  

The other side of the coin is that “spending more early” is a great strategy for leaving the taxpayer on the hook for nursing care, so one can see why the government might want to make it difficult.  Incidentally, this objective appears to clash with the desire to leave a legacy.

But that’s a philosophical discussion about regulations rather than anything specific to this particular IFA. 

It's not the advisor that has the veto though - they provide a recommendation to transfer or not (ie 'advice') - the problem then comes that no pension company wants to execute the client's wishes to transfer if that advice is negative. 

Which of course is down to the fact they could get sued because however many times the client signs to say they have had advice and are going ahead anyway, our legal system will always favour them over a professional financial firm.

So your broader point about people being allowed to take responsibility is perfectly fair, but there is no veto by a single party here...

Yes, thanks for correcting. Still, for practical purposes the advisor has an effective veto. Noting that under certain circumstances there might be a way around it. 

dunstonh

Deleted_User said:

artyboy said:

Deleted_User said:

I do agree that the person giving the “advice” shouldn’t have the right of veto. In the latter case he shouldn’t be called an “advisor” as he is really a “decision-maker”.  People should be able to make wrong decisions about their money.  

The other side of the coin is that “spending more early” is a great strategy for leaving the taxpayer on the hook for nursing care, so one can see why the government might want to make it difficult.  Incidentally, this objective appears to clash with the desire to leave a legacy.

But that’s a philosophical discussion about regulations rather than anything specific to this particular IFA. 

It's not the advisor that has the veto though - they provide a recommendation to transfer or not (ie 'advice') - the problem then comes that no pension company wants to execute the client's wishes to transfer if that advice is negative. 

Which of course is down to the fact they could get sued because however many times the client signs to say they have had advice and are going ahead anyway, our legal system will always favour them over a professional financial firm.

So your broader point about people being allowed to take responsibility is perfectly fair, but there is no veto by a single party here...

Yes, thanks for correcting. Still, for practical purposes the advisor has an effective veto. Noting that under certain circumstances there might be a way around it. 

The adviser does not have a veto and the regulatory position is that an adviser cannot refuse to sign the advice given declaration even if the advice was not to transfer as the regulatory requirement is to seek. The adviser is only signing to say that they have given advice.   So, the adviser has no veto whether it is actual, practical or theoretical.

ader42

I do feel for the OP and others in their position.

If it was me and I clearly stated to an IFA that I was going to retire transfer the funds to a SIPP within the next couple of years, and I asked if now was a good time to action that transfer I would have expected the IFA to say yes now would be a good time.

40X is a good valuation for a retirement pot and the timescale as to when to do this (not if, when) being considered is very short in retirement terms - roughly 24 months from that point? The longer that timescale for transfer the less likely should be a yes imho.

I suspect the IFA ignored the real question being asked and answered “if it should be transferred (at all, ever) ?” and not the question being asked = “when” - as in “is now an okay time to do it?”

I would feel aggrieved too. I’m so glad I transferred all my pensions to a SIPP as soon as I was allowed. 

Albermarle

If it was me and I clearly stated to an IFA that I was going to retire transfer the funds to a SIPP within the next couple of years, and I asked if now was a good time to action that transfer I would have expected the IFA to say yes now would be a good time.

Yes, I think it was generally known ( not just with hindsight) that these 40x valuations were historically very high, and more likely to go down rather than up.