Transfer of (small) Barclays DB Pension
Discussion
JulianPH said:
We hear a lot about the risks and costs to the IFA, but very little as to how their fees add value.
Genuinely interested.
Professional fees should be time based for the level of expertise you are buying. If I use £3K of time of an employment lawyer, for example, who negotiates an improved settlement position by £30K, the value add can be quantified. I don’t believe an IFA can negotiate improved terms or an increased transfer value, so what is the value add, aside from ensuring the facts of the DB scheme are correct and fully understood? Genuinely interested.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
Would you still be happy to pay £3000 where the improvement to a settlement was £1000. After all, the same time as been spent?
In that case I’d have misjudged the requirement for professional advice. My fault and my problem (unless the lawyer was a complete duffer or just ripping me off!).
mids said:
Yes, I'm going through this process at the moment and finding the whole thing very frustrating.
I don't even want to type out what's gone on as it'll just wind me up but a summary is that, despite my circumstances being very simple and having several very solid reasons for the transfer to be preferable, I'm 5 months down the line with no end in sight (my initial CETV about to expire) and current cost estimates about 4x what I was originally advised.
Like you said, I'd have gladly signed a disclaimer right at the start to declare that I wouldn't take legal action against any advice. All I want is to transfer my pension into an IM SIPP but it's proving incredibly difficult, complicated and expensive.
Sounds a nightmare. How can costs spiral 4X? That’s the other thing of course, the Barclays CETV is valid for 3 months so could find a situation of increasing costs and reducing value. I’m thinking for such a relatively small pot, it’s just not worth the agro. I don't even want to type out what's gone on as it'll just wind me up but a summary is that, despite my circumstances being very simple and having several very solid reasons for the transfer to be preferable, I'm 5 months down the line with no end in sight (my initial CETV about to expire) and current cost estimates about 4x what I was originally advised.
Like you said, I'd have gladly signed a disclaimer right at the start to declare that I wouldn't take legal action against any advice. All I want is to transfer my pension into an IM SIPP but it's proving incredibly difficult, complicated and expensive.
WhiskyDisco said:
I am no expert, but wanted to mention that an Aviva pension I've just joined charge nothing to transfer in/consolidate another pension.
If the value is small, could it be an option for her.
Thanks but unfortunately not that simple, you need an IFA involved. Many personal pensions also won’t accept transfers in from a DB Scheme. Her personal pension, administered by WTW (who also run the Barclays Scheme) won’t accept it but her SIPP provider (HL) will. If the value is small, could it be an option for her.
Jasey_ said:
Wouldnt surprise me if the Gov are making this difficult because they want to start means testing the state pension against other guaranteed pension income !
I’m convinced this will happen, give it 10 - 15 years. Technology will enable HMRC to know everyone’s net worth to an accurate enough level to means test everything, including state pension. If you are over a certain wealth threshold, you can look after yourself.
didn't read it Brave Fart said:
A very interesting thread, and Troika I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I find it ridiculous that I can totally alter the risk profile of my DC pension scheme, or even cash savings, with no barriers. Yet if my wife wishes to convert her DB pension (which will pay peanuts IF she lives another ten years) into a £75k DB sum she is prevented from doing so. Where is the fairness in that?
I also question the £30k cut off point where advice becomes compulsory. Would it be sensible to raise that limit to, say, £100k, or £250k or something? This would remove the "sue the IFA even if it's my decision" culture, and remove this stupid barrier that stops people accessing their own money.
It would mean that only serious lump sums would require compulsory advice.
What am I missing?
The more I research this, the more I realise what a complete farce it is. In an attempt to protect financially illiterate people, many have likely paid through the nose for questionable or unnecessary advice. I can see the PPI claim machines firing up, driven by the next group of parasites to jump on the train for their slice of other peoples money. What a mess. The FCA need investigating for incompetence in facilitating this situation. I also question the £30k cut off point where advice becomes compulsory. Would it be sensible to raise that limit to, say, £100k, or £250k or something? This would remove the "sue the IFA even if it's my decision" culture, and remove this stupid barrier that stops people accessing their own money.
It would mean that only serious lump sums would require compulsory advice.
What am I missing?
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff