IFA Rubber Stamp
Comments
-
. and the way that the fund is being administered, worries me still further. Do you think I can assume that this would be some justification for the case of transferring out as far as an IFA is concerned?
Why would administration worry you unless you believe there is some sort of systemic failing which is going to have an adverse impact of the funding position of the scheme and/or benefit calculation? Could you be a little more specific - it's hard to reassure (or agree) in the absence of any information. What you describe as 'slow' response times may simply be over-optimistic expectations as to how quickly things can/will be done.
If you have genuine concerns based on hard facts, bring these to the attention of the trustees who are responsible for ensuring the scheme is properly run.Googling on your question might have been both quicker and easier, if you're only after simple facts rather than opinions!0 -
Thanks for your reply.
I’ve always been cynical about pensions and this is another example of why I think so little of them. Once again, legislation makes it difficult for the owner of the pension to make an informed choice. I don’t need advice, I don’t wish to pursue a complaint against the administrators of the pension to hopefully improve the fund performance and/or their customer service.
Thats what you say now but when you can fill a form in and possibly get £££ compo at no risk/cost to yourself, maybe you'll do it, and statistically enough will to make it difficult for those that would provide this advisce, however many disclaimers waivers and whatever they sign.
Look at those claiming they were missold IO mortgages despite having been in a position where without lower cost of IO they wouldnt even have been able to buy a house at all. BUt that point seems to evade them.
I prefer to vote with my feet and deal with a pension provider that *I* have confidence in, having used them for years for my other pensions. An IFA isn’t going to be able to convince me that I should put up with the service I’ve received so the “advice” I want is simply to acknowledge that I’m quite prepared to potentially reduce the value of my fund for the sake of a more reliable provider. As an aside, I can also tell you that the administrator of my pension recently passed my personal details onto a third party; they have subsequently apologised for the error but it’s just one more nail in the coffin as far as I’m concerned.
Incidentally, £4-5k sounds a lot!
The issue here is not "pensions" its the nanny state and the compensation culture, in this case struggling to find a good balance between reasonable opt out and utter mugs who will cash in their gold plated pension for a bag of magic beans.
Its quite feasible at the moment that you will sign a bunch of waivers promising its all your own fault, and waive any rights to compensation,and then find in ten years time some barking mad (IMO) tribunal will allow you to claim a whack of compo when your investments turn out to b a bust.
There have already been claims where the advisor advised not to convert, the person did it against that advice,and then later got compo on the grounds that by even discussing the issue with her, they were making it possible for her to make a bad decision and obviously she didnt understand what she was doing (despite ton of waivers) and that adviser had enabled that by providing a report even if it said "dont do it".
Then of course you have all the suckers investing their dB pensions into vineyards, brazil nut trees, student pods etc etc.0 -
I’ve always been cynical about pensions and this is another example of why I think so little of them. Once again, legislation makes it difficult for the owner of the pension to make an informed choice. I don’t need advice, I don’t wish to pursue a complaint against the administrators of the pension to hopefully improve the fund performance and/or their customer service.
It's always easy to be cynical about things you misunderstand or don't understand - and boy, is there plenty to get to grips with in pensions!
In your case, legislation (the requirement to receive financial advice if you wish to transfer your DB benefits) ensures that you do make an informed choice.0 -
There have already been claims where the advisor advised not to convert, the person did it against that advice,and then later got compo on the grounds that by even discussing the issue with her, they were making it possible for her to make a bad decision and obviously she didnt understand what she was doing (despite ton of waivers) and that adviser had enabled that by providing a report even if it said "dont do it".
Do you have a link to where these claims are published? I would be interested in reading why the claims were allowed, because on the face of it they should not have been, and allowing them makes a mockery of the regulatory system.The comments I post are my personal opinion. While I try to check everything is correct before posting, I can and do make mistakes, so always try to check official information sources before relying on my posts.0 -
-
Do you have a link to where these claims are published? I would be interested in reading why the claims were allowed, because on the face of it they should not have been, and allowing them makes a mockery of the regulatory system.
Not offhand the case in question was referenced here some time ago.
Here's a reference from an adviser pointing out that clients who want to transfer whatever the recommendation "insistent clients" are then by definition not regarded as capable of signing disclaimers since they aren't financial experts and so advisers are on dangerous grounds when it comes to advising even if its against. . My emphasis
From https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/richard-leeson-fca-has-let-us-down-on-insistent-client-rules/
Having given the advice not to transfer, an adviser might be asked by the client to provide an administration service to facilitate the transfer. How should the adviser respond? There is an ethical question about helping a client to go against the advice that has already been given. That aside, there is the practical question of liability for the adviser if they do go ahead. From past experience, we know both FOS and FCA will be unsupportive of advisers if the client subsequently complains. I have spoken to some who have asked about disclaimer letters and whether their use would protect them from liability. My response has been to point out that a client who has no financial services qualifications is almost certainly unable to sign a disclaimer that says they knew what they were doing .
As I said it's a fine line between letting the less capable get ripped off (and they will be) or letting those who either are or think they ar3, capable of making their own decisions, take responsibility for their actions. The problem is a stream of hard luck stories from people who ahve had their "hard earned pensions" stolen from them doesn't look good from a politicians POV and its very difficult to frame legislation to cover all cases. If you are allowed, so is the financially illiterate working woman who is convinced to move her DB pension to an investment in vanilla plantations in Madagascar.0 -
There is a conflict in the FCA guidelines. On the one hand it allows clients to go against advice under the insistent client rules. On the other it says advisers should not transact where they know it to be bad advice.
A local firm near us took on a new client from another firm. That person was heavily invested in a high risk non-mainstream property fund. The new adviser kept telling him to get out. The client refused the returns were good. The fund collapsed. The client complained to the new adviser who rejected the complaint as they had been trying to get him out of it for ages and they were not the adviser that recommended it. He went to the FOS and the FOS upheld the complaint because although it could see the audit trail telling the person to get out of the fund and why they should get it, they didnt feel the adviser was forceful enough.
This is what advisers are up against.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Clive_Woody wrote: »Not at all, I think he has been quoted £3000 - 5000
:money:
On another note, while "performance" may not apply to a final salary scheme, surely there are some that are better than others. For example, if the transfer value is £100k and the annual payment on retirement is (say) £3k (assuming you haven't had enough contributions to meet the final salary amount) with £1.5k paid to dependants in the event of death before retirement age, then surely that can be compared to an alternative pension which might pay (say) £4.5k per annum. In the event of the latter offering a better deal then surely a transfer out could at least be considered?0 -
In the event of the latter offering a better deal then surely a transfer out could at least be considered?
You could have an apple a year plus guaranteed increases. Or you could have a pear a year which might be 2 pears one year and 1/2 a pear the next with no guaranteed increase.
I'm 52 now so could take action to change my income stream, I'm not sure I could do that at 72 years old. I know which one I'd prefer to reduce financial uncertainty in retirement.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards