Transfer Advice Complaint - Do I have a leg to stand on here?

poseidon1

A friend of mine invited me round for dinner In April ( after Trump tariffs had disrupted the markets) to discuss various DC schemes he was transferring across to Schroders.

 His transfer quotes were from early February, but he was under the mistaken assumption that they were guranteed, and represented the cash that would arrive with Schroder once he submitted the signed authority.

I had to patiently explain that the values were only good on the day in February they were issued, since they would continue to oscillate up or down until the transfers were activated.

 I got him to go online to check current valuations and he was shocked to see falls in excess of 10% across most of the 4 DC schemes in question. On this basis, I told him to delay the entire transfer process, and have a chat with the Schroder adviser to confirm transfers would have happened at the reduced values,

In the end he deferred the transfer process until June, when much of the 'losses' had been recouped.

Now he being clueless about the transfer process, my friend may have had a case against the Schroder FA had he signed off on  the transfer in April but for my intervention. However, as @HappyHarry so eloquently put it, the OP here does not have a single leg to stand.

Does make one wonder however, how many other equally clueless indviduals like my friend, did actually take an absolute caning as a result of the unfortunate timing of their transfers in April.  

dunstonh

I recently transferred my DC pension that had some guarantees which meant I needed to take advice to do so (technically it was classed as a DB for transfer purposes but in reality it was a pension consisting of several normal funds that I could buy and sell at will). I paid for the advice and the transfer went ahead.

Movement of pensions are either treated as a transfer, switch or conversion.
DC to DC with no safeguarded benefits a switch (if pre-retirement) or conversion (if about to commence benefits)
DB or any DC plan with safeguarded benefits is a transfer.
Transfers need higher regulatory permissions and qualifications.

Unfortunately the sale took place in early April and given most of the funds had a high reliance on American stocks, I lost about 10% of its value within a week or so. The day the sale took place was Trump's Tarif Day and stocks sunk and then recovered in quick succession. The sale took place at the bottom of the sharp V. I was not able to buy back into the market until the transfer completed which was weeks later.

That is luck of the draw.  However, I question your statement as perhaps not being accurate.
The low point was April 7th and recovery didn't start until after April 22nd and still has yet to recover in full.
The bulk of the loss was late March.

The US fell over 20%.    If your loss overall was 10% from peak to trough, then you avoided much of the drop.

Anyway, I suspect I haven't a leg to stand on but the finances are such even a 1% chance might be worth trying?

Complaints are individually registered against the individual.     They are very serious and will create stress and anxiety for those involved.  They also create cost.       I cannot post what I think of people who do that sort of thing as a try it on.

michael1234

I was hoping to be convinced that the advice was sound but I can't see anyone has addressed it head on.

This is not about markets moving up, down before or after. It is about paying a five figure sum for advice I didn't want, that didn't make it clear someone else would sell all my funds on a day of their choosing and that would expose me to _additional_ market risk. Yes the fact it was sold in the biggest dip for years was unlucky (catastrophic actually) but had the funds transferred to the new platform without this enforced sale there would have been no risk of this discontinuity. And yes, had the markets continued to tank I'd be sitting pretty but isn't this additional risk that I normally wouldn't have faced by selling up as par of the transfer?

Emmia

michael1234 said:

I was hoping to be convinced that the advice was sound but I can't see anyone has addressed it head on.

This is not about markets moving up, down before or after. It is about paying a five figure sum for advice I didn't want, that didn't make it clear someone else would sell all my funds on a day of their choosing and that would expose me to _additional_ market risk. Yes the fact it was sold in the biggest dip for years was unlucky (catastrophic actually) but had the funds transferred to the new platform without this enforced sale there would have been no risk of this discontinuity. And yes, had the markets continued to tank I'd be sitting pretty but isn't this additional risk that I normally wouldn't have faced by selling up as par of the transfer?

But presumably you sought/needed the advice because you wanted to transfer or were considering transfer?

fuzzzzy

I haven't read the OP's other thread about the actual transfer process, but surely the only question here is whether they were explicitly warned by the FA that there was the possibility of a loss due to market turmoil during the transfer process.

fuzzzzy

poseidon1 said:

A friend of mine invited me round for dinner In April ( after Trump tariffs had disrupted the markets) to discuss various DC schemes he was transferring across to Schroders.

 His transfer quotes were from early February, but he was under the mistaken assumption that they were guranteed, and represented the cash that would arrive with Schroder once he submitted the signed authority.

I had to patiently explain that the values were only good on the day in February they were issued, since they would continue to oscillate up or down until the transfers were activated.

 I got him to go online to check current valuations and he was shocked to see falls in excess of 10% across most of the 4 DC schemes in question. On this basis, I told him to delay the entire transfer process, and have a chat with the Schroder adviser to confirm transfers would have happened at the reduced values,

In the end he deferred the transfer process until June, when much of the 'losses' had been recouped.

Now he being clueless about the transfer process, my friend may have had a case against the Schroder FA had he signed off on  the transfer in April but for my intervention. However, as @HappyHarry so eloquently put it, the OP here does not have a single leg to stand.

Does make one wonder however, how many other equally clueless indviduals like my friend, did actually take an absolute caning as a result of the unfortunate timing of their transfers in April.  

Genuine question: why do you think that your friend may have had a case against their FA but that the OP does not have a leg to stand on. What are the differences?

MyRealNameToo

artyboy said:

Might as well close this thread now, as I suspect MSE doesn't condone blatant greedy ambulance chasing activities like what the OP appears to be proposing.

Hu? You've been here more than 20 minutes havent you? 

This whole site was founded on arguing your way out on loopholes and technicalities. 

dunstonh

This is not about markets moving up, down before or after.

It is if you are making an allegation that is wrong.   You said it sold in early April and then weeks later reinvested.  Most of the drop occurred before early April and the recovery didn't start until "weeks later".   

You have assumed a loss but it is unclear whether you have as your dates suggest you probably haven't.

 It is about paying a five figure sum for advice I didn't want, that didn't make it clear someone else would sell all my funds on a day of their choosing and that would expose me to _additional_ market risk. 

You were told the fee.   You agreed the fee.  Moaning about it later isn't going to achieve anything.

The funds were not sold on a day of someone's choosing.  They were sold in line with the process.   Once the ceding scheme receives the transfer request,  they act on it.   

but had the funds transferred to the new platform without this enforced sale there would have been no risk of this discontinuity. 

How would the transfer happen without the funds being sold first?     Pension funds cannot be transferred any other way.  They have to be moved to cash first.

eskbanker

dunstonh said:

but had the funds transferred to the new platform without this enforced sale there would have been no risk of this discontinuity. 

How would the transfer happen without the funds being sold first?     Pension funds cannot be transferred any other way.  They have to be moved to cash first.

OP - are you asserting that you weren't advised of this?

penners324

You can complain. Probably a couple of routes to take.

1. The Office of President of the USA
2. The voters who voted for the current President