Frozen LGPS Pension - What can I do?

dunstonh

5% cautious, 7% medium risk, 9% high risk.

Retired_I.F.A.

dunstonh wrote: »

5% cautious, 7% medium risk, 9% high risk.

Whose opinion is that, yours your networks or the FSA's ?

Personally today I'd say..

>6% Mr very cautious... cash/gilts no equities
6%-7% Mr Average... managed fund mixture of above and UK equities
8%-9% Mr Wise.. ... global equity investment approach with max 50% UK
9%-12% Mr lets go for it...global smaller companies,emerging markets
12%+ Mr gambler, the 3 legged donkey at Newmarket will do him.

Combine that with the typical pros and cons of transferring a retained benefit I 'd have no qualms recommending a transfer to Mr Average if the critical yield was up to 9% today and above it I'd do my darnest to get the TV recalculated.

EdInvestor

the PIA used to often say (same people today in the same job at the FSO nothing different again but for a job title)

I assume you mean the FSA ( Financial Services Authority).
Or perhaps your mean the FOS (Financial Ombudsman Service) ?

It's quite easy to excuse this kind of typical and frequent error from posters who have little financial knowledge and come here for help.But frankly someone who purports to be offering advice of a quasi official nature really ought to try a bit harder to get the simple basics correct IMHO.

Otherwise he might find it has an effect on his credibility (such as it is).

5% cautious, 7% medium risk, 9% high risk.

We are talking drawdown here.You criticise me for suggesting it to people with PPs who have comparative little experience but are willing to learn and have been taking the risk themselves all along.

Retired IFA promotes it to people with gold plated Government backed final salary pensions who have no idea about risk.

What I suggest might be a potentially high risk transaction (according to the FSA) but what he suggests would be regarded by most people as plain ordinary misselling. Yet he dignifies himself with a quasi professional title.

Isn't this dangerously misleading?

Retired_I.F.A.

Congratulations Ed you've managed to turn a typo into a case for slagging my credibility. 10/10

Now try explaining the tosh you wrote or have you not read post #18

Retired_I.F.A.

Better still why dont we just put this on indefinite hold as it's all conjecture. What we really should be doing is getting a copy of a fact find of someone with retained benefits a copy of the TVA and the IFA's report blanking out names addresses and such posting it for download and discussing it then when the full picture is available. It'd make a lot more sense to all then.

Ian_W

Retired_I.F.A. wrote:

TOSH... It's neither guaranteed, zero risk or high benefit.
If any FSS were guaranteed why did the government come up with the PPF?

Strange that an expert isn't aware that
public sector schemes providing pensions to local government employees
are to be excluded from the PPF because they're backed by the government already and therefore not remotely likely to suffer "an insolvency event" - or you could say they are "copper bottomed" for short.

You chose your user name but if I was a current IFA I'd be squirming with embarrassment at some of your posts - they're often rude, arrogant, sometimes helpful, often a bit of an ego trip for someone obviously at a loose end. IFA's [wrongly for many IMO] are often tarnished with reputation of commission grabbing self servers, as I say not my opinion, but you could go a long way towards changing it!

Yes I suppose I am a sexist if this were a conversation in a pub I'll call her a stupid cow but if it were a bloke I'd call him far worse.

Blimey. Remind me not to start any conversations about pension transfers down your local. :rotfl:

Come into my local and speak to folks in the manner you sometimes post on here and I'd say you be drinking through a straw for a couple of months and passing your teeth through your backside for days! :eek:

As you're a guest on a privately owned website, as all of us are, respecting the forum etiquette [to the right of the screen] as the owner asks is common courtesy - you've obviously not read the first point.

Congratulations Ed you've managed to turn a typo into a case for slagging my credibility.

Whatever gave you the impression you have any? :rolleyes:

Retired_I.F.A.

I've never claimed to be an expert though I was qualified with G60 status to conduct transfers and neither do I claim to be totally up to date. My nick retired IFA should make that obvious.

I retired 6 years ago having been in the business for 20 odd years and never once has any claim ever been lodged on any business I did although it may be possible that someone has since i retired.

I don't give a monkeys if folks on this board find me rude arrogant a sexist pig whatever I'm merely posting my opinion as does everyone else.

If you don't want to read my comments thats your choice maybe you might want to add me to your ignore list like I said I don't give a monkeys.

When someone posts something I know to be wrong and can at least show it to be or better still prove it wrong then I am as polite as anyone, but when they continue to repeat it knowing full well it is false misleading or illegal as Ed often does and never ever admits she is wrong then what do you do? I call a spade a spade in such circumstances and !!!!!!!! to common courtesy.

Schnorbitz_2

meester wrote: »

Blimey. Remind me not to start any conversations about pension transfers down your local. :rotfl:

Ah, come to Bar Red Square in Croydon on a Friday evening!

Debtaholic, I'm not sure at all about the practicalities of taking money out of your local government pension scheme and spending it on yoru business. But I would imagine that you would be taxed on it if it doesn't go into a pension scheme.

As for the theoretical actuarial calculations of transfer values, though.... I could talk about those until a bovine return to their domicile.

dunstonh

I retired 6 years ago having been in the business for 20 odd years

Since then we have had endowment claims and the introduction of claims companies that will go to the nth degree to get complaints upheld. Some by telling lies and using templates that list every conceivable possibility whehter it applies or not.

Most complaints about investment adviers relate to attitude to risk. You have the FOS that assumes everyone is a cautious investor unless you document otherwise. Partly as everyone who complains says they are cautious investors and wouldnt take on that risk. So the adviser has to document the risk profile.

This isnt just ticking a risk profile box and a quick bit of wording any more, you now have to give evidence of their investment experience, examples of what investments they have had in the past and confirm they are able to understand the advice and risk by relating it their IQ (typically by occupation or past times).

So, relating that back to occ pension transfers, if the person is a cautious investor and the critical yield is say 9%, then you wont stand a chance of a complaint going in your favour if you recommended someone moved on the basis of getting returns above the critical yield.

You also need to remember that a large number of pension transfers handled under pension review were upheld with redress paid on execution only cases and where an approved acturial calculation had taken place. Under TCF doing a transaction that you know is wrong even if the client is insistent is likely to see a complaint upheld.

Final salary pension transfers do still happen but you cannot just do them on a whim. There has to be a good and justifiable reason.

Retired_I.F.A.

I see what you Saying Dunstonh and appreciate it however as you well know certain people on this board are experts at twisting ones words and reading between the lines so before one of them jumps in and says something along the lines of "See RIFA you cant get away with it nowadays" I'd like to point out the following.

I have never ever done a transfer on a whim nor on the basis of saying someone will get a return above the critical yield. As I have said a few times now it is but one of the many factors to consider.

Though I laughed when you first told me you need to take the IQ of the client into account looking back on it I always did. The typical report I wrote consisted of about 10- 15 pages besides numerous micropal graphs as well as the TVA report itself. Of my report 5 or so pages were entirely "what if" scenarios mostly addressing risk. If the client could not understand it or disagreed then the transfer was dead in the water. Which is why I transfered say 80% of retained benefits cases whereas many other IFA's active in this field did nearer 100%

Though I never envisaged the claim companies coming about I was well aware of the possibility of solicitors touting for clients and pushing for compensation for them if investments did not yield x% and being so very wary of the cost of that compensation even though it would not fall on my shoulders I made damn sure my recommendations were as airtight as they could possibly be. For the bulk of my time doing transfers I was in the same network as you and no prop was ever submitted without my getting the nod from the compliance department after they had read the TVA and my report. (which incidentally they often suggested rephrasing some of the content as my English is nowhere nears as good as my maths)

With a transfer there is no definite right choice. You are taking the value of the benefits held under one set of rules and transferring them to another set of rules. Which one works out to be the ultimate winner only Dr Who knows but doing a comprehensive comparison and addressing numerous what if scenarios one of the two horses in the race will be favorite and for most people in my experience the favorite has been the transfer.

Bottom line is it's a judgment call and if the IFA complies with the rules fully he should have no fear in doing such business today. If the FSO change their rules and apply them retrospectively which leads to a compensation ruling the IFA and his indemnity insurer should refuse to pay and take it to the courts where no sane judge should rule in the FSO's favor.

Anyways sod it I'm out of it now it's not my problem. Enjoy your retirement overseas Dunstonh.;)