HL SIPP - Inundated by Drawdowns?

molerat

I see it simply as they are giving those who made a knee jerk decision a chance to reverse that choice before it is too late and in the process ease the workload on themselves caused wholly by those who took that knee jerk option.  Win all round.

singhini

molerat said:

I see it simply as they are giving those who made a knee jerk decision a chance to reverse that choice before it is too late and in the process ease the workload on themselves caused wholly by those who took that knee jerk option.  Win all round.

That's exactly the same way i see it.
Unfortunately, common sense often gets drowned out by conspiracy theories.

leicestersq

dunstonh said:

The only way I can make sense of it is that HL deliberately held up withdrawals, probably in concern for those wishing to take their money out of a tax wrapper. Why would HLdo this? 

No they wouldnt do that.    That is just a tin foil hat allegation by you.

My guess is that they were in contact with HM Treasury and told the Treasury about all of the withdrawal requests.

Whilst some have accused the Treasury of bias towards HL and Vanguard (financial press following the budget), why would the Treasury have taken interest in smaller or medium sized players like HL? (in respect of pensions).

 I suspect that the Treasury told them that there wouldnt be a change to the tax free cash amounts (maybe what HL even helped them decide not to change the limit).

The Treasury told everyone about 2 weeks before the budget that there wasnt going to be a change.

Of course all of the above is speculation. But I cannot interpret the communication from HL about 'are you sure you want to drawdown your cash?' plus the timing of it immediately after the budget in any other way.

Its silly speculation.

Virtually all providers that have a fairly manual back office drawdown process had issues with workload and extended their usual service standards.

DIY providers appear to be more susceptible to people making rash, silly decisions.     

To me, it actually seems like common sense for them to do.  If they can get x% of those drawdown cases cancelled, it helps reduce their backlog and saves them money.

I am only speculating, I do not know.

What we would need to see is just how many requests were processed in the days before the budget. If they processed lots of requests to drawdown tax free amounts, as many as they could at the normal rate that they process them, then my suggestion was wrong. If however, they processed very few/none of them, then my theory holds good.

The only evidence I have to offer is that my own requests were not processed despite a much longer lead time than previous months. Does anyone else have any evidence?

Albermarle

molerat said:

I see it simply as they are giving those who made a knee jerk decision a chance to reverse that choice before it is too late and in the process ease the workload on themselves caused wholly by those who took that knee jerk option.  Win all round.

Although the fact that any cancelled requests will mean more money still on the platform, earning 0.45%, will not have escaped the notice of the HL management. An extra win you could say.

DavidT67

I am only speculating, I do not know.

What we would need to see is just how many requests were processed in the days before the budget. If they processed lots of requests to drawdown tax free amounts, as many as they could at the normal rate that they process them, then my suggestion was wrong. If however, they processed very few/none of them, then my theory holds good.

The only evidence I have to offer is that my own requests were not processed despite a much longer lead time than previous months. Does anyone else have any evidence?

It was exactly the same last year with the press whipping up a frenzy of panic that time as well.  HL timelines to process drawdowns increased from weeks to months due to an order of magnitude increase in requests.  

They offered the headless chicken littles a chance to recant their rash decision.  Those of us who suffered extended delays on our normal planned drawdowns received compensation for the delay.