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

fuzzzzy

dunstonh said:

Does that warning not underplay potential losses that could occur if transferring when markets are very volatile?

The risk of adding many qualifying statements to risk warnings is that people stop reading them, as they are too long and unwieldy.       A statement of fact that is short and simple to understand is best.

Ok. Just putting myself in the shoes of someone totally ignorant of investing (which is not too far from the truth) I think I probably would like it pointed out more obviously that the actual switching process, unlike an in-specie transfer, could result in some loss.

MeteredOut

fuzzzzy said:

dunstonh said:

Does that warning not underplay potential losses that could occur if transferring when markets are very volatile?

The risk of adding many qualifying statements to risk warnings is that people stop reading them, as they are too long and unwieldy.       A statement of fact that is short and simple to understand is best.

Ok. Just putting myself in the shoes of someone totally ignorant of investing (which is not too far from the truth) I think I probably would like it pointed out more obviously that the actual switching process, unlike an in-specie transfer, could result in some loss.

I'd suggest someone totally ignorant of investing should not be transferring from a DB scheme to a DC scheme, and are probably unlikely to heed the warnings they will have been given. And not realising the very obvious risk of being out of the market  (which could result in a positive or negative outcome) is proof of that.

@michaels1234 Would you share the warnings you were provided as part of your advice?

fuzzzzy

MeteredOut said:

fuzzzzy said:

dunstonh said:

Does that warning not underplay potential losses that could occur if transferring when markets are very volatile?

The risk of adding many qualifying statements to risk warnings is that people stop reading them, as they are too long and unwieldy.       A statement of fact that is short and simple to understand is best.

Ok. Just putting myself in the shoes of someone totally ignorant of investing (which is not too far from the truth) I think I probably would like it pointed out more obviously that the actual switching process, unlike an in-specie transfer, could result in some loss.

I'd suggest someone totally ignorant of investing should not be transferring from a DB scheme to a DC scheme, and are probably unlikely to heed the warnings they will have been given. And not realising the very obvious risk of being out of the market  (which could result in a positive or negative outcome) is proof of that.

@michaels1234 Would you share the warnings you were provided as part of your advice?

All the more reason for good clear advice.

The OP was also transferring DC to DC which is slightly different. It does seem they were not initially expecting to be out of the market during the transfer process.

MeteredOut

fuzzzzy said:

MeteredOut said:

fuzzzzy said:

dunstonh said:

Does that warning not underplay potential losses that could occur if transferring when markets are very volatile?

The risk of adding many qualifying statements to risk warnings is that people stop reading them, as they are too long and unwieldy.       A statement of fact that is short and simple to understand is best.

Ok. Just putting myself in the shoes of someone totally ignorant of investing (which is not too far from the truth) I think I probably would like it pointed out more obviously that the actual switching process, unlike an in-specie transfer, could result in some loss.

I'd suggest someone totally ignorant of investing should not be transferring from a DB scheme to a DC scheme, and are probably unlikely to heed the warnings they will have been given. And not realising the very obvious risk of being out of the market  (which could result in a positive or negative outcome) is proof of that.

@michaels1234 Would you share the warnings you were provided as part of your advice?

All the more reason for good clear advice.

The OP was also transferring DC to DC which is slightly different.

From the first post

"technically it was classed as a DB for transfer purposes"

Agree on clear advice. We've seen no evidence that did not happen.

Dazed_and_C0nfused

Having had time to look at the original thread the following comments, all from the op except a quote from @Hoenir seem to make the opening post of this thread even more of a cheek really.

I'm thinking about moving the pension exposure from its existing fund allocation to the safest possible gilt or cash-in-bank for the duration. That way if I need a second CETV at least the fund value wouldn't have moved much. No idea if that's a good idea or not.

I can actually obtain an "unofficial" in real time as my pension is really a DC pension with a very low guarantee. Not sure if that helps. Its worth about 5% more than it was when the CETV was obtained in Sep/Oct

Today's value is £522,742.75 and when the markets next open it will be different again. The value isn't "offered" by the Trustees. They have no choice in the matter. The DC pension is invested in certain public funds whose values are known and change daily (when the markets are open). Therefore it cannot be to encourage me to transfer.

Hoenir said:

» show previous quotes

Watching the markets in turmoil might not be a relaxing pastime. 

That's why you invest over the long term

Interesting the pension industry gives the impression of safety first to the point of overriding individuals decisions for their "own good". 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.

Everyone is different. I'm very happy with the decision I made. Trade certainty for greater expected gain any day.

I was unlucky to have the markets dip 10% and then partially recover whilst my assets were being sold. In fact I think I was particularly unlucky as this would not normally be a risk transferring from a "regular" DB scheme to a DC.

I'm not moaning though. I'll drip the money back in and benefit from 10% per year over the next 40 years....oh yeah ! 

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.

fuzzzzy

MeteredOut said:

fuzzzzy said:

MeteredOut said:

fuzzzzy said:

dunstonh said:

Does that warning not underplay potential losses that could occur if transferring when markets are very volatile?

The risk of adding many qualifying statements to risk warnings is that people stop reading them, as they are too long and unwieldy.       A statement of fact that is short and simple to understand is best.

Ok. Just putting myself in the shoes of someone totally ignorant of investing (which is not too far from the truth) I think I probably would like it pointed out more obviously that the actual switching process, unlike an in-specie transfer, could result in some loss.

I'd suggest someone totally ignorant of investing should not be transferring from a DB scheme to a DC scheme, and are probably unlikely to heed the warnings they will have been given. And not realising the very obvious risk of being out of the market  (which could result in a positive or negative outcome) is proof of that.

@michaels1234 Would you share the warnings you were provided as part of your advice?

All the more reason for good clear advice.

The OP was also transferring DC to DC which is slightly different.

From the first post

"technically it was classed as a DB for transfer purposes"

Agree on clear advice. We've seen no evidence that did not happen.

I agree we have not seen any evidence. I am not necessarily defending the OP (especially having read a bit more of the original thread about the actual transfer), but just making a general point that it does all come down to the risk warnings given.

I would like to think in the case of someone wanting to transfer this type of hybrid pension to a DC pension that clear indication would be giving at the outset of how the transfer process works in these situations and the possible risk of loss in transferring at a time of market volatility. I would expect this advice should be given early on before any paid advice.

MeteredOut

fuzzzzy said:

MeteredOut said:

fuzzzzy said:

MeteredOut said:

fuzzzzy said:

dunstonh said:

Does that warning not underplay potential losses that could occur if transferring when markets are very volatile?

The risk of adding many qualifying statements to risk warnings is that people stop reading them, as they are too long and unwieldy.       A statement of fact that is short and simple to understand is best.

Ok. Just putting myself in the shoes of someone totally ignorant of investing (which is not too far from the truth) I think I probably would like it pointed out more obviously that the actual switching process, unlike an in-specie transfer, could result in some loss.

I'd suggest someone totally ignorant of investing should not be transferring from a DB scheme to a DC scheme, and are probably unlikely to heed the warnings they will have been given. And not realising the very obvious risk of being out of the market  (which could result in a positive or negative outcome) is proof of that.

@michaels1234 Would you share the warnings you were provided as part of your advice?

All the more reason for good clear advice.

The OP was also transferring DC to DC which is slightly different.

From the first post

"technically it was classed as a DB for transfer purposes"

Agree on clear advice. We've seen no evidence that did not happen.

I agree we have not seen any evidence. I am not necessarily defending the OP (especially having read a bit more of the original thread about the actual transfer), but just making a general point that it does all come down to the risk warnings given.

I would like to think in the case of someone wanting to transfer this type of hybrid pension to a DC pension that clear indication would be giving at the outset of how the transfer process works in these situations and the possible risk of loss in transferring at a time of market volatility. I would expect this advice should be given early on before any paid advice.

Agreed. But in this specific case, even if the time-out-of-market risk wasn't given as part of the paid advice (which I doubt), I'm sure it was given in the previous thread here (though I've not gone back to check), so I don't see how the OP can claim they were not aware.

fuzzzzy

MeteredOut said:

fuzzzzy said:

MeteredOut said:

fuzzzzy said:

MeteredOut said:

fuzzzzy said:

dunstonh said:

Does that warning not underplay potential losses that could occur if transferring when markets are very volatile?

The risk of adding many qualifying statements to risk warnings is that people stop reading them, as they are too long and unwieldy.       A statement of fact that is short and simple to understand is best.

Ok. Just putting myself in the shoes of someone totally ignorant of investing (which is not too far from the truth) I think I probably would like it pointed out more obviously that the actual switching process, unlike an in-specie transfer, could result in some loss.

I'd suggest someone totally ignorant of investing should not be transferring from a DB scheme to a DC scheme, and are probably unlikely to heed the warnings they will have been given. And not realising the very obvious risk of being out of the market  (which could result in a positive or negative outcome) is proof of that.

@michaels1234 Would you share the warnings you were provided as part of your advice?

All the more reason for good clear advice.

The OP was also transferring DC to DC which is slightly different.

From the first post

"technically it was classed as a DB for transfer purposes"

Agree on clear advice. We've seen no evidence that did not happen.

I agree we have not seen any evidence. I am not necessarily defending the OP (especially having read a bit more of the original thread about the actual transfer), but just making a general point that it does all come down to the risk warnings given.

I would like to think in the case of someone wanting to transfer this type of hybrid pension to a DC pension that clear indication would be giving at the outset of how the transfer process works in these situations and the possible risk of loss in transferring at a time of market volatility. I would expect this advice should be given early on before any paid advice.

Agreed. But in this specific case, even if the time-out-of-market risk wasn't given as part of the paid advice (which I doubt), I'm sure it was given in the previous thread here (though I've not gone back to check), so I don't see how the OP can claim they were not aware.

To be honest given their response to Hoenir on the 31 March which seems to be just after the actual transfer was signed off it does seem they were rather oblivious.

Hoenir:

Watching the markets in turmoil might not be a relaxing pastime. 

OP:

That's why you invest over the long term 

I read that as Hoenir commenting on the market turmoil at the time of the transfer and OP simply interpreting it as a comment on investing in general.

xylophone

OP, below may be of interest.


https://techzone.aberdeenadviser.com/public/pensions/Tech-guide-pension-transfers-dc

Pension transfers - DC to DC

In-specie pension transfers

The usual way of making pension transfers is for the investments under the transferring scheme to be encashed and then transferred to the receiving scheme.

Sometimes an alternative to the traditional cash transfer is an in-specie transfer - where assets are transferred directly from one pension scheme to the other.......................

But it's not a given that an in-specie transfer will be an option. Some pension schemes can't, or simply won't, accept some types of asset. In all cases, it's best to check at an early stage that the administrator of the receiving pension scheme is willing, in principle, to accept the proposed in-specie transfer of assets.

And also presumably to check that the ceding scheme is able/willing to facilitate an in specie transfer.....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6556908/pension-advisor-would-want-21-000-for-a-failed-transfer/p9

gives details of the proposed transfer including portion variable in line with market conditions.

There is no indication here that anything other than a cash sum would be paid by the ceding scheme to the receiving scheme on

completion of the transfer?

And the amount of that cash sum would depend on the sale price of the shares/funds on the day of sale?

You have paid for advice on  the suitability of transferring the hybrid pension to a pure DC scheme and have received it.

I am not entirely clear as to whether the recommendation was positive or negative but since it appears that it was managed throughout by

the adviser, I am assuming positive.

The scheme to which you have transferred does not look like the stakeholder mentioned in the previous thread so presumably chosen by 

the adviser for you to self manage?

thead123

As a former Pension Transfer Specialist Adviser (PTS) with 25 years experience, based on the information provided by the OP it is hard to see that there is much call here for a complaint.  Where there are safeguarded benefits, it is extremely unlikely that an in-specie transfer would have been possible and the sale / purchase of units from one fund to another (old pension provider to new pension provider) is the only other way.  Transfers of this nature are never immediate; the ceding scheme must undertake due diligence to prevent scams etc prior to transfer, whilst the new pension can't just appear instantly, so there is always a period 'out of the market' and, as others have said, this is simply the nature of investments / risk and not grounds for a complaint.