Advice on my pensions advice

BowerBadgers

xylophone said:

Is it possible to transfer your "old" pensions into your current workplace pension?

If so, is this worth considering from the point of view of retirement plans, costs and convenience?

Presumably all of the old plans are Defined Contribution and have no safeguarded benefits?

Had you considered consolidating all of them into a SIPP?

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/cheap-sipps/

Are you happy about choosing your own investments?

 Or had you considered eg Vanguard with a Target Retirement option?

https://www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk/investing-explained/what-are-target-retirement-funds


Assuming that you are over 50, book an appointment with Pension Wise for guidance on pension access.

https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/pensions-and-retirement/pension-wise

Thank you, Xylophone. Apparently my current work one isn't doing particularly well and I should change my fund allocation - but we didn't get as far as any specifics on that. Yes, no safeguarded benefits. One of my pensions is with Vanguard so I think I'll look into the Target Retirement option. Thanks. 

BowerBadgers

Thank you for all your comments, which have helped put some of my queries in perspective. I appreciate your taking the time to help me. I feel another discussion with my IFA coming on.  

sandsy

dunstonh said:

Costs are a secondary concern. Not primary.  Suitability is primary.    Low cost doesn't make it most suitable.

But considering costs is part of suitability. It's not a separate process. And if keeping costs low   - say, below what they pay currently - is part of someone's objectives, then making a recommendation which doesn't do that  doesn't meet their objectives (assuming it's a realistic objective). 

BowerBadgers

sandsy said:

dunstonh said:

Costs are a secondary concern. Not primary.  Suitability is primary.    Low cost doesn't make it most suitable.

But considering costs is part of suitability. It's not a separate process. And if keeping costs low   - say, below what they pay currently - is part of someone's objectives, then making a recommendation which doesn't do that  doesn't meet their objectives (assuming it's a realistic objective). 

I don't mind higher costs if I can be confident performance will more than compensate for them.

MetaPhysical

I am not a fan of IFA's.  I am not convinced that everything they say is "independent" enough for me. Sure they can give generalised advice but oftentimes you can get that by your own research.
YMMV I suppose.

Albermarle

BowerBadgers said:

sandsy said:

dunstonh said:

Costs are a secondary concern. Not primary.  Suitability is primary.    Low cost doesn't make it most suitable.

But considering costs is part of suitability. It's not a separate process. And if keeping costs low   - say, below what they pay currently - is part of someone's objectives, then making a recommendation which doesn't do that  doesn't meet their objectives (assuming it's a realistic objective). 

I don't mind higher costs if I can be confident performance will more than compensate for them.

I think this has already been mentioned but worth repeating.

No IFA will say ( or should not say ) that the investments they pick will outperform or beat the market.
Their prime objective is to pick an investment portfolio that is suitable for you.

For example high equity portfolios will normally perform best in the long run. However if the client is rather risk averse and nervous about volatility, then it would be wrong to put them in a high equity fund that may go down alarmingly at some point.