Pension Dummy - lots of little ones dotted about

MoonChild91

I've just combined my 2 into my current employer's scheme (People's Pension) - was really easy, no charges, and frankly much easier to get my head around. 

chlove

It's worth thinking about how you might take your pensions and when. It's worth maximising contributions to and emoployer scheme if they increase the their contribution too. If you go the SIPP route, you can choose the underlying funds. Many pre-packaged funds carry layers of charging which can eat into growth. There are plenty of low cost, plain vanilla UK Index Trackers and ETF's to pick. If you start small, Fidelity charge a % unlike Hagreaves Lansdown who tend to charge fixed fees - which is more cost effective for 100k and upwards. You can always transfer between SIPP providers later on. I think SIPPs still have the edge for flexibility, like for example, bringing forward a 25% lump free sum from age 55 whilst holding the rest of the pension back for later. I found myself 'pension-rich' but cash-poor in my mid 50's, so I did exactly that and took early retirement.

Albermarle

 If you start small, Fidelity charge a % unlike Hagreaves Lansdown who tend to charge fixed fees - which is more cost effective for 100k and upwards

HL also charge a % ( at 0.45% one of the highest ones) . As do many other SIPP providers, all traditional pension providers, like Standard Life, Aviva, Royal London and all auto enrolment pension providers .

There a handful of fixed fee providers, which usually work out cheaper for larger sums as you say. The best known is Interactive Investor and even cheaper is Iweb.

womble12345

Is there an argument for keeping all the separate pots as they are to spread your risk against providers going bankrupt or a particular fund you are invested in having very poor performance? Obviously you would need to keep on top of what pensions you have with which providers.

LHW99

womble12345 said:

Is there an argument for keeping all the separate pots as they are to spread your risk against providers going bankrupt or a particular fund you are invested in having very poor performance? Obviously you would need to keep on top of what pensions you have with which providers.

IMO there is certainly an argument for having at least 2 separate ones, since if one company is hit by IT or other problems that take time to resolve, you still have a second source of pension funds that could be accessed.

Albermarle

womble12345 said:

Is there an argument for keeping all the separate pots as they are to spread your risk against providers going bankrupt or a particular fund you are invested in having very poor performance? Obviously you would need to keep on top of what pensions you have with which providers.

Mainstream providers are very unlikely to go bankrupt. If they were struggling then most likely they would get sold to a competitor.
Investments funds are separate from the provider, and their performance is unrelated to the provider. You can just change funds whilst staying with the same provider. Most offer a decent choice.

Having said that, if you have a large pot and are taking an income from it, then you might feel more comfortable with two providers, as said above.

Steve_666_

womble12345 said:

Is there an argument for keeping all the separate pots as they are to spread your risk against providers going bankrupt or a particular fund you are invested in having very poor performance? Obviously you would need to keep on top of what pensions you have with which providers.

Been thinking about this myself, I have a online SIPP and a company dc pension. The plan was to merge the company pension to the SIPP as the charges wont increase. Having read through the SIPPs web info, there are rare circumstances where you could lose money. So now looking for a low cost alternative SIPP with a ISA on the side (my current ISA will breach the 85K when the market eventually upturns).

Albermarle

Steve_666_ said:

womble12345 said:

Is there an argument for keeping all the separate pots as they are to spread your risk against providers going bankrupt or a particular fund you are invested in having very poor performance? Obviously you would need to keep on top of what pensions you have with which providers.

Been thinking about this myself, I have a online SIPP and a company dc pension. The plan was to merge the company pension to the SIPP as the charges wont increase. Having read through the SIPPs web info, there are rare circumstances where you could lose money. So now looking for a low cost alternative SIPP with a ISA on the side (my current ISA will breach the 85K when the market eventually upturns).

Why not just stick with the company DC pension and the current SIPP ( which is also a DC)?  If it is a current employer DC pension then the employer usually will only contribute to that anyway.

Also for a S&S ISA with a mainstream provider, the £85K is hardly relevant and not worth worrying about.

Steve_666_

Albermarle said:

Steve_666_ said:

womble12345 said:

Is there an argument for keeping all the separate pots as they are to spread your risk against providers going bankrupt or a particular fund you are invested in having very poor performance? Obviously you would need to keep on top of what pensions you have with which providers.

Been thinking about this myself, I have a online SIPP and a company dc pension. The plan was to merge the company pension to the SIPP as the charges wont increase. Having read through the SIPPs web info, there are rare circumstances where you could lose money. So now looking for a low cost alternative SIPP with a ISA on the side (my current ISA will breach the 85K when the market eventually upturns).

Why not just stick with the company DC pension and the current SIPP ( which is also a DC)?  If it is a current employer DC pension then the employer usually will only contribute to that anyway.

Also for a S&S ISA with a mainstream provider, the £85K is hardly relevant and not worth worrying about.

I need to open the ISA next year, and move the pension when I retire. As I don't like the charges, the web interface, and the fund options on the DC. So forward planning, where I want to move the pension will be where I open the 2nd ISA, again looking to reduce overall charges. This was about splitting my pension into two providers. Not too concerned about the ISA security, but the terms of the SIPP indicate you can lose funds under certain circumstances.

Was thinking, IWEB which is owned by Lloyds and run by AJ Bell, dont expect to trade too often. Has a larger range than Investengine and Vanguard. Can anyone comment on the PC based interface?