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

jimjames

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?

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. 

Was that really advice? As in from a regulated adviser? If so then that might be a case for complaint as no-one can say that drip feeding back in is better than moving immediately.

MeteredOut

We've still not see the advice the OP was given.

Marcon

jimjames said:

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?

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. 

Was that really advice? As in from a regulated adviser? If so then that might be a case for complaint as no-one can say that drip feeding back in is better than moving immediately.

Ever heard of pound cost averaging, which is a well-established strategy and highly unlikely to give any grounds whatsoever for complaint if the rationale has been explained to the investor:  https://www.aviva.co.uk/investments/investing-for-beginners/what-is-pound-cost-averaging/

ClashCityRocker1

Never really been convinced by pound cost averaging - especially just after a stock maket crash!

DeLaSole

jimjames said:

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?

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. 

Was that really advice? As in from a regulated adviser? If so then that might be a case for complaint as no-one can say that drip feeding back in is better than moving immediately.

He accepted it was his fault, though it could read a little wooly. Anyway, from April: "Now that they are sold and will soon be accessible as a cash fund, I'll have to time my re-entrance which I know is impossible. Perhaps I'll drip the money in over a 6 months period." 

So he knew the options to re-enter and that market timing is impossible. That's true whether it's him buying in on any given day of his choice, or the sale happening during a time frame of the transfer he wanted to happen. 

jimjames

Marcon said:

jimjames said:

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?

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. 

Was that really advice? As in from a regulated adviser? If so then that might be a case for complaint as no-one can say that drip feeding back in is better than moving immediately.

Ever heard of pound cost averaging, which is a well-established strategy and highly unlikely to give any grounds whatsoever for complaint if the rationale has been explained to the investor:  https://www.aviva.co.uk/investments/investing-for-beginners/what-is-pound-cost-averaging/

Pound cost averaging isn't really relevant if you're already 100% invested

wjr4

NickPoole said:

Never really been convinced by pound cost averaging - especially just after a stock maket crash!

What stock market crash? 

Qyburn

jimjames said:

Marcon said:

jimjames said:

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?

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. 

Was that really advice? As in from a regulated adviser? If so then that might be a case for complaint as no-one can say that drip feeding back in is better than moving immediately.

Ever heard of pound cost averaging, which is a well-established strategy and highly unlikely to give any grounds whatsoever for complaint if the rationale has been explained to the investor:  https://www.aviva.co.uk/investments/investing-for-beginners/what-is-pound-cost-averaging/

Pound cost averaging isn't really relevant if you're already 100% invested

Are we not speaking about reinvesting, after his pension was transferred as cash?