Removing Financial Adviser From SIPP

magd36

Albermarle said:

magd36 said:

Albermarle said:

There should not be any cost normally to remove an IFA, unless you have signed some sort of contract with that included.
If you want to go DIY, AJ Bell is a perfectly good platform popular with retail clients.
However they may want to switch you internally, to their retail branded platform.

There is no cost to remove them but there are additional costs to AJ Bell if there is no FA registered to the account as described ie

"£50 quarterly fee, £30 fee for any cash movement and a £29.95 for the telephone dealing per line of stock"

I just worry how often I’d be charged the cash movement and telephone charge. I presume rarely, if at all. I need to try and find out what happens if the cash element goes to zero. Do I need to do anything or will it be topped up automatically?

Thanks

AJ Bell have a platform designed for use with Advisors - ' Invest Centre' which is presumably where your money is.

They also have a platform for Retail investors ( Man & Woman in the street) called 'YouInvest' 

I presume the charges you mention are for the small number of non advised clients they have on the InvestCentre platform ( who presumably had an advisor and dumped them) .

The charging structure of YouInvest is totally different.

If you want to DIY, I suggest you request a transfer to YouInvest. I would hope that AJ Bell could arrange this easily.

Thanks. As mentioned it's actually an RIA not a SIPP. Invest Centre is indeed where the money is.

magd36

Bostonerimus1 said:

magd36 said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

If you can't point to actual services and steps both IFA and MPS have taken to manage your money and do more than you could have done with a simple DIY approach then I don't see a reason to employ them. But before you cut them lose you should understand the minimal actions necessary to manage the SIPP yourself. My worry is that IFA and BD have come up with an overly complicated portfolio of funds that you will need to rationalize. Many times financial professionals create complex asset allocations according to models that claim to optimize risk vs reward, but a perhaps sub-conscious motivation is to make it look like they are doing something clever for the fees they charge.

How would I get to understand the “minimum actions”. I don’t intend to remove BD who appear to be doing all the buying and selling. I only intend to remove the IFA who I can’t see are doing anything within the portfolio. They just seem to offer an annual review and recommendations, but have failed to even contact me in almost 2 years.

My question would be what buying and selling are BD doing and why? If you have an asset allocation appropriate for your circumstances there should be very little selling going on and any buying is just the usual monthly contributions and automatic reinvestment of dividends.

The product is called "MPS Passive Plus Growth" which is a portfolio of 14 assets. Each asset (or part of each asset) is either bought or sold every month. I think this is to ensure each asset makes up a specific percentage of the total fund depending on the growth/shrinkage of the asset value. The transaction charges are such that they equal 0.02% over the year. At least that's what it looks like.

Bostonerimus1

magd36 said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

magd36 said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

If you can't point to actual services and steps both IFA and MPS have taken to manage your money and do more than you could have done with a simple DIY approach then I don't see a reason to employ them. But before you cut them lose you should understand the minimal actions necessary to manage the SIPP yourself. My worry is that IFA and BD have come up with an overly complicated portfolio of funds that you will need to rationalize. Many times financial professionals create complex asset allocations according to models that claim to optimize risk vs reward, but a perhaps sub-conscious motivation is to make it look like they are doing something clever for the fees they charge.

How would I get to understand the “minimum actions”. I don’t intend to remove BD who appear to be doing all the buying and selling. I only intend to remove the IFA who I can’t see are doing anything within the portfolio. They just seem to offer an annual review and recommendations, but have failed to even contact me in almost 2 years.

My question would be what buying and selling are BD doing and why? If you have an asset allocation appropriate for your circumstances there should be very little selling going on and any buying is just the usual monthly contributions and automatic reinvestment of dividends.

The product is called "MPS Passive Plus Growth" which is a portfolio of 14 assets. Each asset (or part of each asset) is either bought or sold every month. I think this is to ensure each asset makes up a specific percentage of the total fund depending on the growth/shrinkage of the asset value. The transaction charges are such that they equal 0.02% over the year. At least that's what it looks like.

So you've got yourself one of a vast array of multi-asset funds available. Do your due diligence on all the fees as 0.02% is probably a mistype/misreading. You might not be able to continue with your account without an advisor, but if you can learn enough to DIY, getting away from your IFA and BD might be a good thing. If you transfer to a DIY SIPP it will probably reduce the fees you are paying, but you must understand what you are doing and why you are doing it and how to invest your money yourself.

magd36

Bostonerimus1 said:

magd36 said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

magd36 said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

If you can't point to actual services and steps both IFA and MPS have taken to manage your money and do more than you could have done with a simple DIY approach then I don't see a reason to employ them. But before you cut them lose you should understand the minimal actions necessary to manage the SIPP yourself. My worry is that IFA and BD have come up with an overly complicated portfolio of funds that you will need to rationalize. Many times financial professionals create complex asset allocations according to models that claim to optimize risk vs reward, but a perhaps sub-conscious motivation is to make it look like they are doing something clever for the fees they charge.

How would I get to understand the “minimum actions”. I don’t intend to remove BD who appear to be doing all the buying and selling. I only intend to remove the IFA who I can’t see are doing anything within the portfolio. They just seem to offer an annual review and recommendations, but have failed to even contact me in almost 2 years.

My question would be what buying and selling are BD doing and why? If you have an asset allocation appropriate for your circumstances there should be very little selling going on and any buying is just the usual monthly contributions and automatic reinvestment of dividends.

The product is called "MPS Passive Plus Growth" which is a portfolio of 14 assets. Each asset (or part of each asset) is either bought or sold every month. I think this is to ensure each asset makes up a specific percentage of the total fund depending on the growth/shrinkage of the asset value. The transaction charges are such that they equal 0.02% over the year. At least that's what it looks like.

So you've got yourself one of a vast array of multi-asset funds available. Do your due diligence on all the fees as 0.02% is probably a mistype/misreading. You might not be able to continue with your account without an advisor, but if you can learn enough to DIY, getting away from your IFA and BD might be a good thing. If you transfer to a DIY SIPP it will probably reduce the fees you are paying, but you must understand what you are doing and why you are doing it and how to invest your money yourself.

Thanks. That’s just the transaction fee. The total charges are 0.32% Don’t have enough experience for the DIY … yet.

dunstonh

After a bit of digging following the questions and advice I now realise it isn't a SIPP I have. It's actually a Retirement Investment Account (RIA) in the InvestCentre platform.

That is a SIPP.  It's just their own marketing names.  Many providers will give their pension product a marketing name where the SIPP is not a full SIPP.  e.g. they are whole of market for conventional investments but don't allow illiquid assets, obscure investments or property.

The product is called "MPS Passive Plus Growth" which is a portfolio of 14 assets. Each asset (or part of each asset) is either bought or sold every month. I think this is to ensure each asset makes up a specific percentage of the total fund depending on the growth/shrinkage of the asset value. The transaction charges are such that they equal 0.02% over the year. At least that's what it looks like.

Ignore the transaction charges figure as its synthetic.   It came about due to an EU directive with the good intention of showing your share of the underlying trading costs incurred by the fund.  However, the EU created multiple calculation methods that lead to different outcomes and include an element of profit or loss.    The FCA is proposing making changes to it now that we do not need to follow the EU directive.

Under current rules, TC has to be shown but its meaningless.

. I will confirm if I can stay with BD even if I drop the IFA. They've not suggested I can't.

If you ask AJ Bell to remove the adviser from the account then you could stay.    By orphaning yourself, you break the requirement for the IFA to provide ongoing due diligence.

magd36

dunstonh said:

After a bit of digging following the questions and advice I now realise it isn't a SIPP I have. It's actually a Retirement Investment Account (RIA) in the InvestCentre platform.

That is a SIPP.  It's just their own marketing names.  Many providers will give their pension product a marketing name where the SIPP is not a full SIPP.  e.g. they are whole of market for conventional investments but don't allow illiquid assets, obscure investments or property.

The product is called "MPS Passive Plus Growth" which is a portfolio of 14 assets. Each asset (or part of each asset) is either bought or sold every month. I think this is to ensure each asset makes up a specific percentage of the total fund depending on the growth/shrinkage of the asset value. The transaction charges are such that they equal 0.02% over the year. At least that's what it looks like.

Ignore the transaction charges figure as its synthetic.   It came about due to an EU directive with the good intention of showing your share of the underlying trading costs incurred by the fund.  However, the EU created multiple calculation methods that lead to different outcomes and include an element of profit or loss.    The FCA is proposing making changes to it now that we do not need to follow the EU directive.

Under current rules, TC has to be shown but its meaningless.

. I will confirm if I can stay with BD even if I drop the IFA. They've not suggested I can't.

If you ask AJ Bell to remove the adviser from the account then you could stay.    By orphaning yourself, you break the requirement for the IFA to provide ongoing due diligence.

Thanks. All very useful. It's interesting as they have a SIPP product as well as the RIA. One of the main differences appears to be that you can remove the IFA from the RIA but not the SIPP.

I'm following up a lot of the suggestions.

Appreciate everyone's input.

Thank you.