Royal London Pension

[bitchstewie]

I have an old pension from a past employer that sat with Royal London.

No new money goes in.

Am I right in thinking that if I leave it with them I can access at 55 but if I chose to transfer it to a SIPP that would rise to 57 given I'm only in my 40's now?

I know the obvious answer is to ask them but it's just a bit of Sunday afternoon spreadsheet work on wider finances

[jonah35]

57 regardless

[PistonHead007]

jonah35 said:

57 regardless

And that's why you don't get financial advice from Joe Bloggs...

https://techzone.abrdn.com/public/pensions/minimum...

If it's an occupational scheme you're probably already stuck with 57 but you need to ask Royal London for your specific policy.

Protection is only given if the scheme rules specifically gave an 'unqualified right' to retire at 55. This isn't simply the ability to take benefits from age 55, but rather that the member doesn't need the consent of the trustees, the scheme administrator or employer to take benefits at this age. Consent is likely to be a more common feature in occupational schemes.

[bitchstewie]

Bank holiday bump as I'm doing a bit more reading on this.

I never did confirm with RL that it's 55 but anything I can see on their portal mentions 55.

[bitchstewie]

Another bank holiday

I did call Royal London this week and they confirmed it's an unqualified right at 55 though I should probably try to get that in writing as I don't see it in black and white in any of the booklets and literature I have.

I'm paying 0.35% all-in on the pension.

Is there any sensible reason I'd move this out of Royal London and into a SIPP?

All it seems to do is lock me in for another 2 years (and possibly more by that time).

[williaa68]

I moved ( on advice) the DC bit of my pension to Royal London a few years ago. I have been very happy with it. As you note they are extremely cheap and actually rebate some of the management fees given their mutual status. I end up paying less than 20 basis points. Given the time to retirement that you have it is likely that fees could make a significant component of your investment return. I tend to think the next few years may benefit from more active management. I’ll be inclined to leave it where it is.

[PistonHead007]

Only if the fund performance in the available range is that bad.

[bitchstewie]

Performance is acceptable and a good scour of my last annual statement definitely seems to confirm the 0.35% is what I'm actually paying them in fees.

I've left this in the Balanced Lifestyle Strategy (Drawdown) which right now means I'm in Governed Portfolio 4.

[PistonHead007]

Depending on your personal circumstances I'd be tempted to come out of lifestyling and into straightforward funds where you control any changes. Otherwise, you may find yourself in much lower risk than is necessary well before you would have made such changes.