Peoples Pension Refusing to Transfer Out

Albermarle

Dazed_and_C0nfused said:

Albermarle said:

'm with you OP I find it frustrating that I'm stuck in the same way you describe, although for different reasons. Most DC pension schemes have a limited range of self-select funds.

There might be a limited range of funds, but the large majority of the customers will never change anything, or even be aware that they can, or if they were aware they could, they would have no knowledge of what to change to and why.

I was looking at the website of another auto enrolment pension provider recently and they said 99% of their customers were in the default fund . 

So commercially there is no incentive for these providers to offer a wider range, or offer partial transfers or whatever. They have a simple offering, with low charges, because that is what the market wants.

Or maybe what the accepts rather than wants?

I do not think so, because really in these cases it is the employer who picks the provider.
The employer is wanting to fulfil their obligation to provider a workplace pension. They may be wary about offering their employees too much choice of possibly risky investments ( for the very small % who would be interested) in case John Smith from accounts puts all their money in BG American at the Top of the market and then blames the employer when it drops 50%.
So for the employer, low cost, simple to operate, simple index/multi asset funds, means job done.

Pat38493

I had a look at the PP funds earlier - there are not many but the fund mix looks pretty standard compared to what most employers would choose anyway even with wider choices.

Universidad

Albermarle said:

I do not think so, because really in these cases it is the employer who picks the provider.

This is the killer point, right here.

If you set up a SIPP, you are the customer.

If you're paying into a workplace pension, your employer is the main customer.

The market will meet customers needs.

But you aren't really a customer of the pension company; they're catering to your employers needs.

You might have the knowledge and/or the desire to be a customer... but you aren't offering up millions of pounds of cash to invest each year.

As a matter of fact, every one of your direct interactions with the pension company catering to your employer is a cost.

Especially when you want to do something obscure, non-standard, or bespoke.

There really ought to be a name for service users who aren't economially viable to support.

Costomers?

Marcon

Universidad said:

Albermarle said:

I do not think so, because really in these cases it is the employer who picks the provider.

There really ought to be a name for service users who aren't economially viable to support.

Costomers?

NESTlings?

Albermarle

Universidad said:

Albermarle said:

I do not think so, because really in these cases it is the employer who picks the provider.

This is the killer point, right here.

If you set up a SIPP, you are the customer.

If you're paying into a workplace pension, your employer is the main customer.

The market will meet customers needs.

But you aren't really a customer of the pension company; they're catering to your employers needs.

You might have the knowledge and/or the desire to be a customer... but you aren't offering up millions of pounds of cash to invest each year.

As a matter of fact, every one of your direct interactions with the pension company catering to your employer is a cost.

Especially when you want to do something obscure, non-standard, or bespoke.

There really ought to be a name for service users who aren't economially viable to support.

Costomers?

In my job ( B2B rather than B2C) , we used to have lists of customers, based on their costs/profitability/ difficulty to deal with .
Then we would 'bottom slice' the list.
 Painful.....

penners324

PP are a very basic pension provider set up for the auto enrollment.

They don't accept partial transfers why your employer is still paying into it.