Retirement income
Discussion
The other aspect DB is that I don't believe there is any kind of issue obtaining funding from conventional lenders for start-ups and businesses. I think the real problem is the abject failure of modern parents to have educated and raised their children to be able to function in the real world.
The world hasn't changed. Despite all the fancy gadgets, new words and beards, nothing actually works differently than before. If you want access to other people's money then you need to do the same things as everyone else has always had to do.
The real problem in the U.K. is a total failure of the adult class to raise the child class to be competent. You see it in the retail sphere which is littered with totally incompetent floor workers. But it's not their fault. No one has ever taught them how to work on the shop floor in retail. Managers simply don't bother to teach or train. But you also see this in finance. No one has or is teaching the young businessfolk of today/tomorrow how to sit up straight, speak properly and fill out the forms.
Large numbers of youngsters are starting their own enterprises but when you talk to them you realise that behind all the trendy facade are people who have been taught by someone how you write a business plan that will get you the loan. They understand the hours and work needed. And crowdfunding is brilliant for them as long as they handle the fee side intelligently as most platforms milk their corporate customers into positions of failure.
But, young adults have, on the whole, been comprehensively failed by their parents, teachers, university's and work managers. No business can afford to hire some unprogrammed muppet waster (apart from a family business, the Civil Service or the clergy).
I'm not concerned about pensioners (above the breadline) to be honest. They've had 60 years to work out what to do and in their working time they've had massive tax breaks to buy homes, tax breaks to educate their children, tax breaks to save in PEPs/ISAs, tax breaks for pensions etc etc. There is no benefit for society in investing in people who are at the end of their working life and who haven't got themselves sorted. The welfare state will give them a roof and a bowl of rice a day and that's sufficient.
What is essential is to try and reverse the devastating damage of their rubbish parenting, teaching and employing.
As such and finally getting to my point (;)), I would say that rather than trying to create a lending environment that panders to people unable or unwilling to fill out a form the money would be far better spent offering genuine education and guidance to people wanting to get a loan or investment for their idea/business.
The world hasn't changed. Despite all the fancy gadgets, new words and beards, nothing actually works differently than before. If you want access to other people's money then you need to do the same things as everyone else has always had to do.
The real problem in the U.K. is a total failure of the adult class to raise the child class to be competent. You see it in the retail sphere which is littered with totally incompetent floor workers. But it's not their fault. No one has ever taught them how to work on the shop floor in retail. Managers simply don't bother to teach or train. But you also see this in finance. No one has or is teaching the young businessfolk of today/tomorrow how to sit up straight, speak properly and fill out the forms.
Large numbers of youngsters are starting their own enterprises but when you talk to them you realise that behind all the trendy facade are people who have been taught by someone how you write a business plan that will get you the loan. They understand the hours and work needed. And crowdfunding is brilliant for them as long as they handle the fee side intelligently as most platforms milk their corporate customers into positions of failure.
But, young adults have, on the whole, been comprehensively failed by their parents, teachers, university's and work managers. No business can afford to hire some unprogrammed muppet waster (apart from a family business, the Civil Service or the clergy).
I'm not concerned about pensioners (above the breadline) to be honest. They've had 60 years to work out what to do and in their working time they've had massive tax breaks to buy homes, tax breaks to educate their children, tax breaks to save in PEPs/ISAs, tax breaks for pensions etc etc. There is no benefit for society in investing in people who are at the end of their working life and who haven't got themselves sorted. The welfare state will give them a roof and a bowl of rice a day and that's sufficient.
What is essential is to try and reverse the devastating damage of their rubbish parenting, teaching and employing.
As such and finally getting to my point (;)), I would say that rather than trying to create a lending environment that panders to people unable or unwilling to fill out a form the money would be far better spent offering genuine education and guidance to people wanting to get a loan or investment for their idea/business.
The Regulator today published its Retirement Outcome Review interim review. The research quotes were illuminating, and probably many here could relate to some of them! Basically, 'Pension Freedoms' should have been much better conceptualised and managed, and the problems we're facing now (and will be in the future) were wholly predictable and avoidable.
http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/this-...
http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/this-...
DonkeyApple said:
The other aspect DB is that I don't believe there is any kind of issue obtaining funding from conventional lenders for start-ups and businesses. I think the real problem is the abject failure of modern parents to have educated and raised their children to be able to function in the real world.
The world hasn't changed. Despite all the fancy gadgets, new words and beards, nothing actually works differently than before. If you want access to other people's money then you need to do the same things as everyone else has always had to do.
The real problem in the U.K. is a total failure of the adult class to raise the child class to be competent. You see it in the retail sphere which is littered with totally incompetent floor workers. But it's not their fault. No one has ever taught them how to work on the shop floor in retail. Managers simply don't bother to teach or train. But you also see this in finance. No one has or is teaching the young businessfolk of today/tomorrow how to sit up straight, speak properly and fill out the forms.
Large numbers of youngsters are starting their own enterprises but when you talk to them you realise that behind all the trendy facade are people who have been taught by someone how you write a business plan that will get you the loan. They understand the hours and work needed. And crowdfunding is brilliant for them as long as they handle the fee side intelligently as most platforms milk their corporate customers into positions of failure.
But, young adults have, on the whole, been comprehensively failed by their parents, teachers, university's and work managers. No business can afford to hire some unprogrammed muppet waster (apart from a family business, the Civil Service or the clergy).
I'm not concerned about pensioners (above the breadline) to be honest. They've had 60 years to work out what to do and in their working time they've had massive tax breaks to buy homes, tax breaks to educate their children, tax breaks to save in PEPs/ISAs, tax breaks for pensions etc etc. There is no benefit for society in investing in people who are at the end of their working life and who haven't got themselves sorted. The welfare state will give them a roof and a bowl of rice a day and that's sufficient.
What is essential is to try and reverse the devastating damage of their rubbish parenting, teaching and employing.
As such and finally getting to my point (;)), I would say that rather than trying to create a lending environment that panders to people unable or unwilling to fill out a form the money would be far better spent offering genuine education and guidance to people wanting to get a loan or investment for their idea/business.
Good rant. Enjoyed it. The world hasn't changed. Despite all the fancy gadgets, new words and beards, nothing actually works differently than before. If you want access to other people's money then you need to do the same things as everyone else has always had to do.
The real problem in the U.K. is a total failure of the adult class to raise the child class to be competent. You see it in the retail sphere which is littered with totally incompetent floor workers. But it's not their fault. No one has ever taught them how to work on the shop floor in retail. Managers simply don't bother to teach or train. But you also see this in finance. No one has or is teaching the young businessfolk of today/tomorrow how to sit up straight, speak properly and fill out the forms.
Large numbers of youngsters are starting their own enterprises but when you talk to them you realise that behind all the trendy facade are people who have been taught by someone how you write a business plan that will get you the loan. They understand the hours and work needed. And crowdfunding is brilliant for them as long as they handle the fee side intelligently as most platforms milk their corporate customers into positions of failure.
But, young adults have, on the whole, been comprehensively failed by their parents, teachers, university's and work managers. No business can afford to hire some unprogrammed muppet waster (apart from a family business, the Civil Service or the clergy).
I'm not concerned about pensioners (above the breadline) to be honest. They've had 60 years to work out what to do and in their working time they've had massive tax breaks to buy homes, tax breaks to educate their children, tax breaks to save in PEPs/ISAs, tax breaks for pensions etc etc. There is no benefit for society in investing in people who are at the end of their working life and who haven't got themselves sorted. The welfare state will give them a roof and a bowl of rice a day and that's sufficient.
What is essential is to try and reverse the devastating damage of their rubbish parenting, teaching and employing.
As such and finally getting to my point (;)), I would say that rather than trying to create a lending environment that panders to people unable or unwilling to fill out a form the money would be far better spent offering genuine education and guidance to people wanting to get a loan or investment for their idea/business.
Ginge R said:
The Regulator today published its Retirement Outcome Review interim review. The research quotes were illuminating, and probably many here could relate to some of them! Basically, 'Pension Freedoms' should have been much better conceptualised and managed, and the problems we're facing now (and will be in the future) were wholly predictable and avoidable.
http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/this-...
Just more of the usual FCA incompetency.http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/this-...
Hyena said:
Just more of the usual FCA incompetency.
To an extent, yes (I'm no apologist for the regulator). In its defence, the measures were done on the back of a fagpacket almost the night before the March 2014 Budget. The sector had to move (and has continued to do so) so quickly and unpredictably, that it and the FCA hasn't known, almost, which way to turn. Yup, both have made masses of mistakes.But ultimately, however good or otherwise pensions freedoms are, the introduction and implementation was a shocker and completely arse about face - it was like getting married without thinking it through. Many financial professionals predicted these things would happen, and they have. The Treasury and the coalition Government must take the lions' share of that blame.
Ginge R said:
To an extent, yes (I'm no apologist for the regulator). In its defence, the measures were done on the back of a fagpacket almost the night before the March 2014 Budget. The sector had to move (and has continued to do so) so quickly and unpredictably, that it and the FCA hasn't known, almost, which way to turn. Yup, both have made masses of mistakes.
But ultimately, however good or otherwise pensions freedoms are, the introduction and implementation was a shocker and completely arse about face - it was like getting married without thinking it through. Many financial professionals predicted these things would happen, and they have. The Treasury and the coalition Government must take the lions' share of that blame.
I don't think there have been any major negative repercussions. There will always be a small minority of idiots who will take and blow the lot, but the vast majority should not be penalised just to protect a handful of morons.But ultimately, however good or otherwise pensions freedoms are, the introduction and implementation was a shocker and completely arse about face - it was like getting married without thinking it through. Many financial professionals predicted these things would happen, and they have. The Treasury and the coalition Government must take the lions' share of that blame.
The main area of concern was always going to be DB transfers, but these seem to be pretty well controlled by the requirements involved.
Although quite a few have clearly been taking out money and investing in pixie gold, elf bamboo, bitgoblin funds, troll wine and any number of other imiginary investments that not even a 4 year old would believe existed or be dumb enough to throw their pocket money at.
Bit at least all these grown ups removing their life savings from their pension and lobbing it at every single Gibraltan crook promising 8% guaranteed knows exactly what they are doing, has appreciated that their money has long gone and won't be troubling the taxpayer begging for more money while blaming it all on Jews or kids.
Bit at least all these grown ups removing their life savings from their pension and lobbing it at every single Gibraltan crook promising 8% guaranteed knows exactly what they are doing, has appreciated that their money has long gone and won't be troubling the taxpayer begging for more money while blaming it all on Jews or kids.
DonkeyApple said:
Although quite a few have clearly been taking out money and investing in pixie gold, elf bamboo, bitgoblin funds, troll wine and any number of other imiginary investments that not even a 4 year old would believe existed or be dumb enough to throw their pocket money at.
Bit at least all these grown ups removing their life savings from their pension and lobbing it at every single Gibraltan crook promising 8% guaranteed knows exactly what they are doing, has appreciated that their money has long gone and won't be troubling the taxpayer begging for more money while blaming it all on Jews or kids.
If you had read the report, you would know that the vast majority of pots cashed in were less than 30K, with many below 10K. And half of those have been reinvested rather than splurged on holidays and cars.Bit at least all these grown ups removing their life savings from their pension and lobbing it at every single Gibraltan crook promising 8% guaranteed knows exactly what they are doing, has appreciated that their money has long gone and won't be troubling the taxpayer begging for more money while blaming it all on Jews or kids.
I haven't seen any evidence that much has been reinvested unwisely, most has gone into cash accounts and/or ISAs. The previous regime where scammers where encouraging people to "liberate" their pensions was much more dangerous.
It is however ironic that the motivation for cashing in the pot was in many cases due to distrust of pensions,as if it was suddenly going to disappear or something.
. O my poor wee thread! Hijacked by pessimists, cynics and pension salesmen Nevertheless
Here's an up to date list of how all kinds of people might fund a retirement......
1)state pension + a variety of other state benefits if so entitled
2)occupational pension of one kind or another
3)personal pension of one kind or another
4)financial instrument of one kind or another (pep/isa/etc etc)
5)pile of cash (in bank/under mattress etc). Could include from sale of business.
6)managed business investment (btl portfolio/share portfolio/zillion other things)
7)angel investment of one kind or another
8)continuing profit sharing in one form or another from previously owned and operated enterprise of a zillion types
9)goodwill of relatives etc. (esp guilt tripping financially astute children)
Then there's semi retirement where that old 9-5 career's ended but the fogey still can or needs to or wants to do SOMEthing to stave off atrophy or boredom or just because they actually enjoy the interaction
10) part time job of any type or quality from private hire driving to sitting sleeping in the House of Lords
11)self managed small btl or share portfolio ('small' because 'big' would need full-time attention which ain't even semi retirement)
And, finally, 12) aka 'The Confucian Solution', namely find a job you love which means you'll never work a day in your life, so the idea of retirement equates to punishment and the whole concept becomes something you'll never have to bother with.
There you are. A reference for those puzzling about how they'll survive when their career ends.
All list additions welcome.
Coming next......which one of the list, if in isolation, is most likely to bring the best returns.?
Edited by drainbrain on Wednesday 12th July 16:38
Hyena said:
If you had read the report, you would know that the vast majority of pots cashed in were less than 30K, with many below 10K. And half of those have been reinvested rather than splurged on holidays and cars.
I haven't seen any evidence that much has been reinvested unwisely, most has gone into cash accounts and/or ISAs. The previous regime where scammers where encouraging people to "liberate" their pensions was much more dangerous.
It is however ironic that the motivation for cashing in the pot was in many cases due to distrust of pensions,as if it was suddenly going to disappear or something.
The size of the pot doesn't have much relevance without knowing their full finances though. £30k could be 1% of their investment portfolio or 100%. I haven't seen any evidence that much has been reinvested unwisely, most has gone into cash accounts and/or ISAs. The previous regime where scammers where encouraging people to "liberate" their pensions was much more dangerous.
It is however ironic that the motivation for cashing in the pot was in many cases due to distrust of pensions,as if it was suddenly going to disappear or something.
All of the monkey products I listed above are investments. They are just yield scam investments. A massive market that targets the over 55s desperate for yield numbers they remember from 10 years ago.
The key here is what are these 'investments' that are so popular anyway. On the surface it would seem to suggest that pensioners are investing in equities. Is that suitable for a pensioner? It never used to be. It has always been given that pensioners need security and less volatility so would be under weight in equities by retirement. I'm sure longer life expectancy has pushed that switch further out but it remains a big question.
What we do know is that these pensioners are desperate for yield as their pots are too small to enable them to maintain their lifestyles in the current zero yield market place. So they are adopting far higher risks such as investing in equity portfolios at a late stage in their life, investing in property at what is almost certainly the bottom of the yield curve and ultimately, as per my glib post above, throwing money at yield orientate scams and unregulated investments.
The long and short is that it appears that the 'investments' they are generally opting for are much higher risk than you would want investors of their stage in life being over exposed to.
This article has a more pragmatic lean: https://www.ft.com/content/d561a8b0-66d9-11e7-9a66...
And this covers the rampant increase in pension losses due to investment in fairy land products:
https://www.ft.com/content/4b4fba9c-3707-11e7-bce4...
A somewhat startling increase! And it won't include the tax liabilities that have been generated or cover much of the true scale either as scammed investors always keep scamming themselves over what they have done and rarely face the truth.
DonkeyApple said:
The size of the pot doesn't have much relevance without knowing their full finances though. £30k could be 1% of their investment portfolio or 100%.
All of the monkey products I listed above are investments. They are just yield scam investments. A massive market that targets the over 55s desperate for yield numbers they remember from 10 years ago.
The key here is what are these 'investments' that are so popular anyway. On the surface it would seem to suggest that pensioners are investing in equities. Is that suitable for a pensioner? It never used to be. It has always been given that pensioners need security and less volatility so would be under weight in equities by retirement. I'm sure longer life expectancy has pushed that switch further out but it remains a big question.
What we do know is that these pensioners are desperate for yield as their pots are too small to enable them to maintain their lifestyles in the current zero yield market place. So they are adopting far higher risks such as investing in equity portfolios at a late stage in their life, investing in property at what is almost certainly the bottom of the yield curve and ultimately, as per my glib post above, throwing money at yield orientate scams and unregulated investments.
The long and short is that it appears that the 'investments' they are generally opting for are much higher risk than you would want investors of their stage in life being over exposed to.
This article has a more pragmatic lean: https://www.ft.com/content/d561a8b0-66d9-11e7-9a66...
And this covers the rampant increase in pension losses due to investment in fairy land products:
https://www.ft.com/content/4b4fba9c-3707-11e7-bce4...
A somewhat startling increase! And it won't include the tax liabilities that have been generated or cover much of the true scale either as scammed investors always keep scamming themselves over what they have done and rarely face the truth.
Many of their pension investments will be asset backed, so switching to an alternative asset backed investment is not necessarily an issue. If anyone is daft enough to invest in Albanian gold fairy dust, then they are beyond help anyway.All of the monkey products I listed above are investments. They are just yield scam investments. A massive market that targets the over 55s desperate for yield numbers they remember from 10 years ago.
The key here is what are these 'investments' that are so popular anyway. On the surface it would seem to suggest that pensioners are investing in equities. Is that suitable for a pensioner? It never used to be. It has always been given that pensioners need security and less volatility so would be under weight in equities by retirement. I'm sure longer life expectancy has pushed that switch further out but it remains a big question.
What we do know is that these pensioners are desperate for yield as their pots are too small to enable them to maintain their lifestyles in the current zero yield market place. So they are adopting far higher risks such as investing in equity portfolios at a late stage in their life, investing in property at what is almost certainly the bottom of the yield curve and ultimately, as per my glib post above, throwing money at yield orientate scams and unregulated investments.
The long and short is that it appears that the 'investments' they are generally opting for are much higher risk than you would want investors of their stage in life being over exposed to.
This article has a more pragmatic lean: https://www.ft.com/content/d561a8b0-66d9-11e7-9a66...
And this covers the rampant increase in pension losses due to investment in fairy land products:
https://www.ft.com/content/4b4fba9c-3707-11e7-bce4...
A somewhat startling increase! And it won't include the tax liabilities that have been generated or cover much of the true scale either as scammed investors always keep scamming themselves over what they have done and rarely face the truth.
I don't subscribe to the FT so your links are of no help. The BBC story however indicates that out of all these small pot encashments, only 9% go into something other than mainstream investments or spending. So a tiny percentage of an already small amount.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40579736
This really is a non-starter of a non-issue.
Hyena said:
Many of their pension investments will be asset backed, so switching to an alternative asset backed investment is not necessarily an issue. If anyone is daft enough to invest in Albanian gold fairy dust, then they are beyond help anyway.
I don't subscribe to the FT so your links are of no help. The BBC story however indicates that out of all these small pot encashments, only 9% go into something other than mainstream investments or spending. So a tiny percentage of an already small amount.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40579736
This really is a non-starter of a non-issue.
But note how no one is defining what these investments are. I don't subscribe to the FT so your links are of no help. The BBC story however indicates that out of all these small pot encashments, only 9% go into something other than mainstream investments or spending. So a tiny percentage of an already small amount.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40579736
This really is a non-starter of a non-issue.
We can take the BBC's 9% into mainstream investments. Such as what? The key surely is suitability is it not? Where is the actual clarity in any of these words?
Like I said, I bet they are hunting yield and therefore in this climate taking on risk levels somewhat abnormal for a pensioner.
We'll find out when the equity markets rebase won't we.
And don't ignore that Stella growth in pension fraud that is clearly linked to the changes. We are in for another decade of bellends whinging about losing their money that's almost certain.
We moved house recently and I'm currently having an awful lot of deliveries from Amazon.
All the delivery drivers have been young English Pakistanis. Had a long chat with the one this evening and asked him how it works. He informed me that he pays £140/week for then van and is then paid 16p/mile. He earned £130-£200 a day. And that with the exception of this week (the amazon sale) he is home every day for tea.
I'm sure the main reason for the drivers being Pakistani is due to the franchise that runs this area being owned by a Pakistani but it strikes me as a pretty easy and well paid job where the only skills required are to be able to drive, able to listen to a satnav and being able to smile. Perfect for an able bodied pensioner who has no pension. Apart from the having to listen and smile bits.
All the delivery drivers have been young English Pakistanis. Had a long chat with the one this evening and asked him how it works. He informed me that he pays £140/week for then van and is then paid 16p/mile. He earned £130-£200 a day. And that with the exception of this week (the amazon sale) he is home every day for tea.
I'm sure the main reason for the drivers being Pakistani is due to the franchise that runs this area being owned by a Pakistani but it strikes me as a pretty easy and well paid job where the only skills required are to be able to drive, able to listen to a satnav and being able to smile. Perfect for an able bodied pensioner who has no pension. Apart from the having to listen and smile bits.
DonkeyApple said:
But note how no one is defining what these investments are.
We can take the BBC's 9% into mainstream investments. Such as what? The key surely is suitability is it not? Where is the actual clarity in any of these words?
Like I said, I bet they are hunting yield and therefore in this climate taking on risk levels somewhat abnormal for a pensioner.
We'll find out when the equity markets rebase won't we.
And don't ignore that Stella growth in pension fraud that is clearly linked to the changes. We are in for another decade of bellends whinging about losing their money that's almost certain.
No, only 9% goes into something OTHER than mainstream investments (ISA etc) , spending and debt repayment. We can take the BBC's 9% into mainstream investments. Such as what? The key surely is suitability is it not? Where is the actual clarity in any of these words?
Like I said, I bet they are hunting yield and therefore in this climate taking on risk levels somewhat abnormal for a pensioner.
We'll find out when the equity markets rebase won't we.
And don't ignore that Stella growth in pension fraud that is clearly linked to the changes. We are in for another decade of bellends whinging about losing their money that's almost certain.
The 9% other is not known and could be your bellend Tasmanian Cannabis Growth Fund.
But that's the point . It's an insignificant amount.
Hyena said:
No, only 9% goes into something OTHER than mainstream investments (ISA etc) , spending and debt repayment.
The 9% other is not known and could be your bellend Tasmanian Cannabis Growth Fund.
But that's the point . It's an insignificant amount.
I do think that you're missing the other point that what are 'mainstream investments'? Obviously the ISA is just the wrapper and 'mainstream investments' is a very wide term that includes many assets that have historically been argued shouldn't be held in large weightings by pensioners. The 9% other is not known and could be your bellend Tasmanian Cannabis Growth Fund.
But that's the point . It's an insignificant amount.
What was the old basic guide? 80% equity, 20% govt bonds during working period and migrating to the reverse approaching retirement?
What we do know is that pensioners today are running much more equity and corporate bond exposure than ever before in the desperate hunt for yield. We now even have the scenario where certain P2P deals are ISAble so would fit under the catch all of 'mainstream investments'!!!
So, my main point is that the statement that 90% of withdrawn funds are going into 'mainstream investments' doesn't necessarily give any credible assurance that all is well. Arguably, given the nature of advice on funds within a pension wrapper versus funds outside it is very fair to assume that higher levels of risk are being run is it not?
It's worth signing up to the FT to read those two links. It should be free as I believe you get a few pages before the firewall kicks in. They give a much better view of the likely scenario.
DonkeyApple said:
I do think that you're missing the other point that what are 'mainstream investments'? Obviously the ISA is just the wrapper and 'mainstream investments' is a very wide term that includes many assets that have historically been argued shouldn't be held in large weightings by pensioners.
What was the old basic guide? 80% equity, 20% govt bonds during working period and migrating to the reverse approaching retirement?
What we do know is that pensioners today are running much more equity and corporate bond exposure than ever before in the desperate hunt for yield. We now even have the scenario where certain P2P deals are ISAble so would fit under the catch all of 'mainstream investments'!!!
So, my main point is that the statement that 90% of withdrawn funds are going into 'mainstream investments' doesn't necessarily give any credible assurance that all is well. Arguably, given the nature of advice on funds within a pension wrapper versus funds outside it is very fair to assume that higher levels of risk are being run is it not?
It's worth signing up to the FT to read those two links. It should be free as I believe you get a few pages before the firewall kicks in. They give a much better view of the likely scenario.
Well, time will tell. My experience of ISA ownership is that Mr & Mrs pensioner would much rather get 1% in a cash ISA than consider anything risk based.What was the old basic guide? 80% equity, 20% govt bonds during working period and migrating to the reverse approaching retirement?
What we do know is that pensioners today are running much more equity and corporate bond exposure than ever before in the desperate hunt for yield. We now even have the scenario where certain P2P deals are ISAble so would fit under the catch all of 'mainstream investments'!!!
So, my main point is that the statement that 90% of withdrawn funds are going into 'mainstream investments' doesn't necessarily give any credible assurance that all is well. Arguably, given the nature of advice on funds within a pension wrapper versus funds outside it is very fair to assume that higher levels of risk are being run is it not?
It's worth signing up to the FT to read those two links. It should be free as I believe you get a few pages before the firewall kicks in. They give a much better view of the likely scenario.
What people choose to do with pension lump sums is no different from any other investment choice. If they buy anything regulated, they should be taking advice unless they know what they are doing. If they are being ripped off or misled then that is a failure of regulation.
Back to the FCA being crap.
Hyena said:
Well, time will tell. My experience of ISA ownership is that Mr & Mrs pensioner would much rather get 1% in a cash ISA than consider anything risk based.
What people choose to do with pension lump sums is no different from any other investment choice. If they buy anything regulated, they should be taking advice unless they know what they are doing. If they are being ripped off or misled then that is a failure of regulation.
Back to the FCA being crap.
In 25 years of broking in the City and the last 15 being a bookmaker I am quite happily convinced that humans are pretty much the worst animal on the planet when it comes to evaluating risk. What people choose to do with pension lump sums is no different from any other investment choice. If they buy anything regulated, they should be taking advice unless they know what they are doing. If they are being ripped off or misled then that is a failure of regulation.
Back to the FCA being crap.
. I very much suspect that most pensioners fall into this and either sit on cash earning what is basically a negative income at present or take extraordinary risks without any awareness of what they are doing. Hence why I suspect many who are managing their own finances are overweight in equity markets and high yielding products. As for the FCA, I think I end up ranting about them on most threads. They are s
t. Each employee probably has a tattoo of Gordon Brown and the words 'Light Touch Regulation' covering their fat, incompetent arses. Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff