The BEST SIPP ?

dunstonh

Alternatively you could ask SL about putting the fund into drawdown now using their SIPP for the non PR money and assured funds for the PR portion.

Or use a personal pension or fund supermarket pension to do this which may be more appropriate than using SL's SIPP (certainly cheaper).

They might not impose the MVA if you did it this way.

unlikely. However, you have to weigh up the cost of the MVR against lost potential and decide if you are going to be waiting 10 years to get back the MVR but receive little in the way of returns going forward. No-one can answer that as its unknown and would be a judgement call but it needs to be considered. Is it taking a step back to take two forward or are you best holding firm?

Gatser

dunstonh wrote: »

Or use a personal pension or fund supermarket pension to do this which may be more appropriate than using SL's SIPP (certainly cheaper).
(A) BELOW

unlikely. However, you have to weigh up the cost of the MVR against lost potential and decide if you are going to be waiting 10 years to get back the MVR but receive little in the way of returns going forward. No-one can answer that as its unknown and would be a judgement call but it needs to be considered. Is it taking a step back to take two forward or are you best holding firm?
(B) BELOW

(A) Cheaper in charges? Can you explain please...
(B) The BIG question... but... if you start with (say) £100k and take Drawdown (at 7.8%) from age 60. Compare that with taking an Annuity at 50 (paying out 5% on the post TFC amount).
Cumulative (NPV) Annuity income will be greater in age 50's and 60's but
by age 70 the NPV of total funds flow is about equal with approx £30k remaining in the Drawdown account and thereafter the Drawdown income will exceed that from Annuity, assuming investments yield 5%+
Of course DEATH can totally screw up the above... Drat!!:cool:

EdInvestor

dunstonh wrote: »

unlikely.

How can they justify imposing the MVA on drawdown if you take benefits through them, since they know you are taking benefits, not just transferring, as you are doing it via their SIPP, and they are paying out your tax free cash?

Their policy is outrageous in any case, but in this case it would be clearcut discrimination, no question about it. :mad: I have heard of cases where they have climbed down when the person fought the decision.

Gatser

EdInvestor wrote: »

Alternatively you could ask SL about putting the fund into drawdown now using their SIPP for the non PR money and assured funds for the PR portion. They might not impose the MVA if you did it this way.

:wall: ...and HAVE I asked????
You bet I have X times! DUNSTON is correct....it ain't gonna happen.
I have sadly resigned myself to this fact.

Gatser

EdInvestor wrote: »

How can they justify imposing the MVA on drawdown if you take benefits through them, since they know you are taking benefits, not just transferring, as you are doing it via their SIPP, and they are paying out your tax free cash?

I agree that it is this sort of policy that gives pensions a bad reputation.
I can fully appreciate that if I just transfer WP funds elsewhere, I must suffer MVA in fairness to other WP policyholders, but (as you say) if I am genuinely proven to take TFC & a DD income at (say) 50, surely thats the purpose/benefit of having a pension fund in the first place.

....to be continued! ............;)

EdInvestor

Gatser wrote: »

:wall: ...and HAVE I asked????
You bet I have X times! DUNSTON is correct....it ain't gonna happen.
I have sadly resigned myself to this fact.

Pity.It's an outrageous policy that needs to be opposed by those it affects.

IIRC the original reason they disallowed it was because of the "danger of selection against the WP fund" .ie people might take a penalty free fund and then reinvest part of it via their drawdown in the SL WP fund, thus cheating other members of the fund.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Only SL could take the view that anyone would do such a crazy thing now.
And what does it tell us about their IT system that they can't block such an investment anyway?

If it were me I'd complain to SL and then to the FOS, draw the matter to the attention of TPAS and also the FSA.Not to mention the Treasury. You could try the financial press Agony Aunts as well.

dunstonh

How can they justify imposing the MVA on drawdown if you take benefits through them, since they know you are taking benefits, not just transferring, as you are doing it via their SIPP, and they are paying out your tax free cash?

The MVR is charged on the with profits fund not the personal pension it is in. The SIPP doesnt offer the with profits fund so there would be nothing to stop you moving it to the SL SIPP and then a week later transferring out to someone else. Hence why they wont do it.

(A) Cheaper in charges? Can you explain please...

SL's SIPP is not cheap and to do what is need you will effectively require two pots. A fund supermarket pension is technically a personal pension although it uses unit trusts rather than pension funds so it can put the whole lot in one pot and allow drawdown with the same options.

EdInvestor

dunstonh wrote: »

The MVR is charged on the with profits fund not the personal pension it is in. The SIPP doesnt offer the with profits fund so there would be nothing to stop you moving it to the SL SIPP and then a week later transferring out to someone else.

So you think SL is basically forcing the OP to give them his business, either via an annuity or by staying in the fund/paying the penalty to leave.

Can he take benefits without MVA if he buys his annuity eleswhere?

Gatser

EdInvestor wrote: »

Can he take benefits without MVA if he buys his annuity eleswhere?

I can take out an open market Annuity without suffering MVA so its not a total disaster ...:rolleyes:?

Gatser

dunstonh wrote: »

Or use a personal pension or fund supermarket pension to do this which may be more appropriate than using SL's SIPP (certainly cheaper).

... and these (better than HL) personal pension / fund supermarket providers are? I have seen this statement a few times now but no names so I am unanable to compare charges and try to see how and why they are better than HL.

Anyone use a non-HL pension and care to comment, please ?