All my eggs in one Aviva basket

PaellaParaMi

I have my entire DC pot split across 2 funds within Aviva.  Minimum 12 years to run until I could start drawdown.

I have started a new role within the Civil Service and will no longer be contributing to my DC pension.  So my question is should I consider moving some of this fund to HL or another to hedge my risk in terms of something terrible happening to Aviva?  I should also state I'm happy with the funds current performance and charges..

El_Torro

Do you have the opportunity to transfer some or all of your DC money to your DB Civil Service pension? I have no experience of doing this myself but I know it can be an option when you join the Civil Service pension scheme. This is a great pension scheme and worth looking into (if it's possible). 

You could have more than 1 DC pension, by that I mean use more than 1 pension platform. I do this, mainly in case there is an IT issue at one platform and I can't access my money for a period of time. Remember that if Aviva goes bust your money will still be invested, another platform will be appointed to look after your investments for you. In the unlikely event that Aviva did go bust it might be some time before you can access your pension. 


Short story: If it makes you feel better you can have more than 1 DC pension platform. I wouldn't say there is a strong need for it though.

PaellaParaMi

Many thanks for the insights.  I didn't know transferring my DC into CS DB might be an option.  I will dig into this.

ali_bear

You could keep contributing at the minimum level for the time being? Perhaps increase this in future. 

PaellaParaMi

I will be contributing to the DB scheme so not planning on continuing to contribute to my Aviva DC

dunstonh

So my question is should I consider moving some of this fund to HL or another to hedge my risk in terms of something terrible happening to Aviva?

If you are in an Aviva personal pension or workplace pension then you have more financial security than you do with HL.  So, if that minuscule risk is a concern, to you why would you increase the risk further by moving some to HL?

PaellaParaMi

Not thinking HL specifically but the question was really probing if it was sensible to have a multi pot strategy.  Concensus seems to be that there's not real benefit in doing so.

kempiejon

I have 3 credit cards in my wallet, different providers, I have 2 current accounts, I have a spare set of car and house keys. My SIPPs are across 3 providers currently I am consolidating to 2. My retirement income will come from ISAs too and I have 2 ISA providers.
Interruptions to IT systems delaying payment being my concern.

gm0

PaellaParaMi said:

Not thinking HL specifically but the question was really probing if it was sensible to have a multi pot strategy.  Concensus seems to be that there's not real benefit in doing so.

Not a consensus. But certainly the majority opinion here from prior discussions.  Yet I set up that way and I do it.

The tradeoff is complexity. A downside) for you and heirs/executors which may be about to get worse with DC pot IHT changes and the executor working with each pension provider.

The upside is increased resilience to a range of unknown problems. IT outages, fraud investigations and other things.  Risk (of your providers being the one hit goes up).  Risk impact - how much of your accessible money is impacted - goes down to a half or a third.  This is the DR / Business continuity planning angle.

Not mentioned but there is a timelimit for buying into any DB civil service or similar scheme from prior employment.  12 months I believe so don't sit on your hands.  People take different views on the value of the extra income years vs having more flexibility with DC alongside.  You don't know if you don't look at it in your particular circumstances.

dunstonh

The tradeoff is complexity. A downside) for you and heirs/executors which may be about to get worse with DC pot IHT changes and the executor working with each pension provider.

And lets not forget lower FSCS protection.  Aviva, if you use the insured funds, you get 100% FSCS protection with no upper limit (reflecting how low the actual risk is)

gm0

Indeed. But 100% protection and major SIPP platform failure (85k x lots) haven't had their Equitable Life moment as yet.  So lawsuits aplenty and similarly generational delays in political intervention can be expected if a massive liability should - at any point - for some unforeseen reason actually appear.   Once it's happened and paid out without problems perhaps we can believe in tinkerbell after all.

Subjective opinion - but not inconsistent with the house of lords briefing on pensions reform and its as is legal underpinnings - old trusts, legistlation supporting sipps etc. etc. "Untested - nobody really knows". Not a lawyer myself. But recognise  a self serving mess generating billable hours inflating virtuous circle when i see one

If you can't find a handy crisis to hero solve.  It may be necessary to create one.  This appears to be about 30% of lawyering - sloppy drafting with purpose of creating long term dispute potential.