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

Aylesbury_Duck

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?

A couple of points from me:

Did you call Moneyhelper for that mandatory safeguarding call?  If so, was anything said about the risk?

and

Back in April, you said:

"I was told a hundred times about the "great" benefits I'd be leaving behind and a few other risks but not once about the risks of exiting financial markets in a big way for 2 weeks during the transfer. In retrospect, its a pretty obvious and big risk for any transfer. That said, the IFA did almost exactly what I wanted and it would feel morally wrong to apportion any blame."

to which wjr4 replied:  "Your suitability report will say this somewhere on it.    Have you read it?  Does it mention it?"

You then replied with: "I'll take a look but I _think_ this risk only applies for my slightly unusual hybrid pension. A pure DB wouldn't be exposed to this risk. So if the warning is there, it would have been added bespoke to me rather than boilerplate. Not that it matters because I shan't be making a complaint about it. Its those complaints that have left us in the situation we are today."

Did you take a look?  And did it mention the risk of being out of the market during the process?

michael1234

eskbanker said:

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?

Looking back I don't think so but as we got close to transfer I think I figured that out so I wouldn't be claiming I didn't know that would happen. Actually I'm really not sure. I probably knew from elsewhere. But it is whether the transfer taking place in that manner is a risk in itself or not which is at the heart of my question.

I certainly didn't until 5 minutes ago know that all transfers take place like that. As I said my only prior experience was moving a portfolio from one broker to another and that did not include any sale.

michael1234

Aylesbury_Duck said:

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?

A couple of points from me:

Did you call Moneyhelper for that mandatory safeguarding call?  If so, was anything said about the risk?

and

Back in April, you said:

"I was told a hundred times about the "great" benefits I'd be leaving behind and a few other risks but not once about the risks of exiting financial markets in a big way for 2 weeks during the transfer. In retrospect, its a pretty obvious and big risk for any transfer. That said, the IFA did almost exactly what I wanted and it would feel morally wrong to apportion any blame."

to which wjr4 replied:  "Your suitability report will say this somewhere on it.    Have you read it?  Does it mention it?"

You then replied with: "I'll take a look but I _think_ this risk only applies for my slightly unusual hybrid pension. A pure DB wouldn't be exposed to this risk. So if the warning is there, it would have been added bespoke to me rather than boilerplate. Not that it matters because I shan't be making a complaint about it. Its those complaints that have left us in the situation we are today."

Did you take a look?  And did it mention the risk of being out of the market during the process?

Yes I did and there is a statement about risk of the market volatility but not about the risk of selling up and buying it all again a few weeks later.

And yes I was 100% sure I wouldn't be complaining due the "risk" of me losing my DB benefits. I think at the time I'd convinced myself I shouldn't complain no matter what. Now looking back I'm not so sure. This was a specialist DB-->DC  pension transfer FA and virtually 100% of the Advice seemed to go on that single risk and not a lot else. Yes I'm obviously P'd off about the markets but I'm wondering if my 10K could have included a line about the risk of selling up and then getting back in.

Due to the turmoil I'm still not 100% back in to the market as was advised to drip in slowly. So I've lost even more but again that's obviously my fault. The icing on the cake for me was the new pension scheme operates only by telephone with long waits to make fund purchases (that definitely wasn't explained but as I say that's just crumbs)

Isthisforreal99

michael1234 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

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?

A couple of points from me:

Did you call Moneyhelper for that mandatory safeguarding call?  If so, was anything said about the risk?

and

Back in April, you said:

"I was told a hundred times about the "great" benefits I'd be leaving behind and a few other risks but not once about the risks of exiting financial markets in a big way for 2 weeks during the transfer. In retrospect, its a pretty obvious and big risk for any transfer. That said, the IFA did almost exactly what I wanted and it would feel morally wrong to apportion any blame."

to which wjr4 replied:  "Your suitability report will say this somewhere on it.    Have you read it?  Does it mention it?"

You then replied with: "I'll take a look but I _think_ this risk only applies for my slightly unusual hybrid pension. A pure DB wouldn't be exposed to this risk. So if the warning is there, it would have been added bespoke to me rather than boilerplate. Not that it matters because I shan't be making a complaint about it. Its those complaints that have left us in the situation we are today."

Did you take a look?  And did it mention the risk of being out of the market during the process?

Yes I did and there is a statement about risk of the market volatility but not about the risk of selling up and buying it all again a few weeks later.

And yes I was 100% sure I wouldn't be complaining due the "risk" of me losing my DB benefits. I think at the time I'd convinced myself I shouldn't complain no matter what. Now looking back I'm not so sure. This was a specialist DB-->DC  pension transfer FA and virtually 100% of the Advice seemed to go on that single risk and not a lot else. Yes I'm obviously P'd off about the markets but I'm wondering if my 10K could have included a line about the risk of selling up and then getting back in.

Due to the turmoil I'm still not 100% back in to the market as was advised to drip in slowly. So I've lost even more but again that's obviously my fault. The icing on the cake for me was the new pension scheme operates only by telephone with long waits to make fund purchases (that definitely wasn't explained but as I say that's just crumbs)

So what does 'market volatility' mean to you then? That somehow the markets won't go down because you knew best?

Aylesbury_Duck

michael1234 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

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?

A couple of points from me:

Did you call Moneyhelper for that mandatory safeguarding call?  If so, was anything said about the risk?

and

Back in April, you said:

"I was told a hundred times about the "great" benefits I'd be leaving behind and a few other risks but not once about the risks of exiting financial markets in a big way for 2 weeks during the transfer. In retrospect, its a pretty obvious and big risk for any transfer. That said, the IFA did almost exactly what I wanted and it would feel morally wrong to apportion any blame."

to which wjr4 replied:  "Your suitability report will say this somewhere on it.    Have you read it?  Does it mention it?"

You then replied with: "I'll take a look but I _think_ this risk only applies for my slightly unusual hybrid pension. A pure DB wouldn't be exposed to this risk. So if the warning is there, it would have been added bespoke to me rather than boilerplate. Not that it matters because I shan't be making a complaint about it. Its those complaints that have left us in the situation we are today."

Did you take a look?  And did it mention the risk of being out of the market during the process?

Yes I did and there is a statement about risk of the market volatility but not about the risk of selling up and buying it all again a few weeks later.

Isn't that the same thing, though?  Market volatility wouldn't have any effect on an in specie transfer of something like funds in a S&S ISA, so why mention it for this pension transfer unless it was a warning?  It only becomes relevant in the instance where you are out of the market for a period.

Putting the moral argument aside, it seems to me that this is the crux of any complaint you might make - that you weren't warned that you'd be out of the market for a period.  Only you can say if that's really true or not, based on any documentation you were provided with or documented communication with your advisor.  

eskbanker

We're all just guessing in the absence of any visibility of OP's actual advice but surely market volatility will always be flagged as a risk when transferring from DB to DC, but primarily in the context of what happens to the money after transfer rather than during?

michael1234

As far as the question is concerned you could consider it a DC to DC transfer done with advice and yes this is about during.

Let me ask this: If someone has a bunch of investments in a pension or at the stock broker and they've been sat there with little trading over the years. Now if someone came along and said "I advise you to sell the lot at a random time around this date and then buy back in 3-5 weeks later" would that be good advice? Probably not. Would it be risky advice though? I'm not sure. (Ignoring trading fees etc)

I suspect the biggest risk in doing the above is simply being out of the market for X weeks over which the _expected_ long term gain would be X/52 x about 10% which might be the long term expected gain of those markets. Clearly that would be a tiny fraction of my loss but maybe that is the limit to any claim?

michael1234

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Isn't that the same thing, though?  Market volatility wouldn't have any effect on an in specie transfer of something like funds in a S&S ISA, so why mention it for this pension transfer unless it was a warning?  It only becomes relevant in the instance where you are out of the market for a period.

Putting the moral argument aside, it seems to me that this is the crux of any complaint you might make - that you weren't warned that you'd be out of the market for a period.  Only you can say if that's really true or not, based on any documentation you were provided with or documented communication with your advisor.  

I don't think I'd be claiming that as it isn't true but certainly there was zero focus on it.

wjr4

You’re wrong, end of conversation. You got the advice you wanted, welcome to stock market volatility, which you wanted instead of a guaranteed income. 

Aylesbury_Duck

michael1234 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Isn't that the same thing, though?  Market volatility wouldn't have any effect on an in specie transfer of something like funds in a S&S ISA, so why mention it for this pension transfer unless it was a warning?  It only becomes relevant in the instance where you are out of the market for a period.

Putting the moral argument aside, it seems to me that this is the crux of any complaint you might make - that you weren't warned that you'd be out of the market for a period.  Only you can say if that's really true or not, based on any documentation you were provided with or documented communication with your advisor.  

I don't think I'd be claiming that as it isn't true but certainly there was zero focus on it.

Doesn't that sink any complaint you might make, then?