Hired and fired. Fired and hired. Impacts on pension.
Discussion
I work as a surveyor/PM in the facilities management maintenance and reactive repair sector of the construction industry.
Most, if not all, of my work is on fixed term contracts won and lost on a regular basis at tender renewal time.
This contractual churn has me thrown in an out of favour with my employers.
If I am working on a contract where my technical and contractual knowledge along with my historic working relationships with client counterparts is relevant I am flavour of the month. If not I can be taken or left.
I don't take this personally nor do the employers I have parted company with over the years. Quite often ex employers have taken me back after winning back contracts a few years on.
My career history is one of doing the same jobs for the same clients, quite often under the same line
manager, for more or less the same salary and catagory of company car with the only thing
changing being the logo on my polo shirt.
The breaks have always been clean rather than TUPEs apart from the odd buyover.
A consequence of this is I have multiple pension pots rather than one big one. I spoke to a financial advisor about conglomerating these multiple pot into one big one to achieve some sort of management cost economy of scale but have been advised not to.
It wasn't something I'd given much thought to but having just turned 60 and with every time I blink another birthday passes I'm left wondering has my love them and leave them career cost me over the long term.
Most, if not all, of my work is on fixed term contracts won and lost on a regular basis at tender renewal time.
This contractual churn has me thrown in an out of favour with my employers.
If I am working on a contract where my technical and contractual knowledge along with my historic working relationships with client counterparts is relevant I am flavour of the month. If not I can be taken or left.
I don't take this personally nor do the employers I have parted company with over the years. Quite often ex employers have taken me back after winning back contracts a few years on.
My career history is one of doing the same jobs for the same clients, quite often under the same line
manager, for more or less the same salary and catagory of company car with the only thing
changing being the logo on my polo shirt.
The breaks have always been clean rather than TUPEs apart from the odd buyover.
A consequence of this is I have multiple pension pots rather than one big one. I spoke to a financial advisor about conglomerating these multiple pot into one big one to achieve some sort of management cost economy of scale but have been advised not to.
It wasn't something I'd given much thought to but having just turned 60 and with every time I blink another birthday passes I'm left wondering has my love them and leave them career cost me over the long term.
Depending on the pensions, they may be worth transferring. Any defined Benefit ones, (like final salary)? They usually stay where they are. DC ones of what you get now, not had one that was worth staying put, all mine have been merged and it's the best thing you can do. Company pensions are so over cautious, you money is being held back where it is in 99% of cases.
Tannedbaldhead said:
I'm left wondering has my love them and leave them career cost me over the long term.
So long as you've been paying into the pots, then it shouldn't have ay negative impact other than the added complexity of having to manage several funds/pots.I'm don't really understand why your FA has advised against consolidation unless you have funds that heavily disincentivise doing that.
Mr Pointy said:
What reason did he give for not consolidating them? Are they all Defined Benefit or Defined Contribution pensions?
Some of the older ones are defined benefits. One he described as "worth it's weight in gold".The reason for not consolidating was that given the costs of closing old and setting up new funds would outweigh the reduced management costs of a consolidated fund.
He also said multiple funds spread risk. Who wants all their eggs in one basket?
Edited by Tannedbaldhead on Friday 6th March 16:13
Tannedbaldhead said:
Some of the older ones are defined benefits. One he described as "worth it's weight in gold".
The reason for not consolidating was that given the costs of closing old and setting up new funds would outweigh the reduced management costs of a consolidated fund.
He also said multiple funds spread risk. Who wants all their eggs in one basket?
If you DIY the transfers of the DC schemes there are no costs. The reason for not consolidating was that given the costs of closing old and setting up new funds would outweigh the reduced management costs of a consolidated fund.
He also said multiple funds spread risk. Who wants all their eggs in one basket?
Edited by Tannedbaldhead on Friday 6th March 16:13
Multiple funds spread risk is an odd thing to say. None of them are likely to go bust, but they may all be invested in the same asset classes so the risk of under performance is still there. You can have whatever mix of investments you wish in a SIPP.
Tannedbaldhead said:
Some of the older ones are defined benefits. One he described as "worth it's weight in gold".
The reason for not consolidating was that given the costs of closing old and setting up new funds would outweigh the reduced management costs of a consolidated fund.
He also said multiple funds spread risk. Who wants all their eggs in one basket?
Depending on the size of the DB pot/s you will also struggle to find a company that is even prepared to do the due diligence and compliance needed to satisfy their own PI Insurance to see any transfer through. The reason for not consolidating was that given the costs of closing old and setting up new funds would outweigh the reduced management costs of a consolidated fund.
He also said multiple funds spread risk. Who wants all their eggs in one basket?
Edited by Tannedbaldhead on Friday 6th March 16:13
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff