Transfer of (small) Barclays DB Pension

[Stay in Bed Instead]

troika said:

My solicitor and accountant also have to be suitably qualified. My accountant would have this sussed out in minutes. Why can’t these ‘experts’ charge for the time it takes at a rate which reflects their qualifications?

You have obviously found a niche in the market.

Why don't you qualify to provide financial advice and then transfer advice, and then you can offer to sign off defined benefit transfers for £500 a pop.

What could go wrong?

Edited by Stay in Bed Instead on Friday 24th January 20:31

[troika]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

You have obviously found a niche in the market.

Why don't you qualify to provide financial advice and then transfer advice, and then you can offer to sign off defined benefit transfers for £500 a pop.

What could go wrong?

Edited by Stay in Bed Instead on Friday 24th January 20:31

The thing is, it’s her money, is a very small % of her overall net worth and she doesn’t need or want to give thousands of it away in return for a boiler plate report which won’t give a conclusive recommendation either way. She’d happily sign any disclaimer that she can’t sue anybody, ever.

Edited by troika on Friday 24th January 21:13

[NickCQ]

troika said:

The more I look into this, the more I’m starting to think the whole thing is a sham.

It’s a situation entirely of the regulator’s creation. What we are seeing here and elsewhere is the flip side of the ‘redress / compensation’ industry that the FOS created with the PPI payouts.

[troika]

NickCQ said:

troika said:

The more I look into this, the more I’m starting to think the whole thing is a sham.

It’s a situation entirely of the regulator’s creation. What we are seeing here and elsewhere is the flip side of the ‘redress / compensation’ industry that the FOS created with the PPI payouts.

Meaning people like my wife are at the mercy of a system which allows ‘experts’ to effectively extort money in order for her to obtain her own money. Brilliant.

[anonymous-user]

troika said:

Meaning people like my wife are at the mercy of a system which allows ‘experts’ to effectively extort money in order for her to obtain her own money.

It isn't "her money" - what she has is a DB promise of a future income. To convert that promise into hard cash involves some sensible regulation to protect people, many of whom get over-excited at the sight of a pound sign with lots of zeroes after it - and don't appreciate the considerable value of a DB promise.

In the situation you describe it may be well worth exploring a transfer-out, and I doubt that spending a couple of thousand pounds (or whatever) on advice would make someone decide not to proceed.

It can't be the first time Barclays administrators have seen this situation. They have almost certainly seen cases before and may be able to point you in the direction of independent advisers who have assisted other people on an acceptable basis.

[troika]

rockin said:

It isn't "her money" - what she has is a DB promise of a future income. To convert that promise into hard cash involves some sensible regulation to protect people, many of whom get over-excited at the sight of a pound sign with lots of zeroes after it - and don't appreciate the considerable value of a DB promise.

In the situation you describe it may be well worth exploring a transfer-out, and I doubt that spending a couple of thousand pounds (or whatever) on advice would make someone decide not to proceed.

It can't be the first time Barclays administrators have seen this situation. They have almost certainly seen cases before and may be able to point you in the direction of independent advisers who have assisted other people on an acceptable basis.

I fully appreciate what you are saying. It is clear from the figure offered (i.e. what they are willing to pay now to relinquish their future obligation to her) and from due diligence that Barclays are very keen to shift these obligations from their books. It just seems distasteful to be forced to pay thousands to a third party to rubber stamp it with no added value.

[Brads67]

rockin said:

It isn't "her money" - what she has is a DB promise of a future income. To convert that promise into hard cash involves some sensible regulation to protect people, many of whom get over-excited at the sight of a pound sign with lots of zeroes after it - and don't appreciate the considerable value of a DB promise.

In the situation you describe it may be well worth exploring a transfer-out, and I doubt that spending a couple of thousand pounds (or whatever) on advice would make someone decide not to proceed.

It can't be the first time Barclays administrators have seen this situation. They have almost certainly seen cases before and may be able to point you in the direction of independent advisers who have assisted other people on an acceptable basis.

It is her money though. She has been offered it in lieu of her DB pension so yes, it is her money, just like mine is my money.
Paying thousands to access it feels like a rip off.

[darreni]

Your anger is misplaced. It should be directed toward the regulators.

I’ve advised on DB transfers for the last 25 years & I agree that you should be able, as a grown up, to sign an indemnity and make your own transfer decisions.

[vindaloo79]

I think this is the cheapest place you can get it done.

https://www.finalsalarytransfer.com/p/117/about-ou...

They wanted my wife to provide a full transparency of all her outgoings and financials in order to get my DB done. They charge a low fee.

I heard Barclays had one of highest multipliers when I did my transfer in 2017. Mine was 35 times prospective pension. I think theirs was a staggering 53 times. If you feel like you won't live more than 25 years then I felt like having the money at multipliers beyond 30 times was worthwhile - at least for those with a risk appetite.

[troika]

vindaloo79 said:

I think this is the cheapest place you can get it done.

https://www.finalsalarytransfer.com/p/117/about-ou...

They wanted my wife to provide a full transparency of all her outgoings and financials in order to get my DB done. They charge a low fee.

I heard Barclays had one of highest multipliers when I did my transfer in 2017. Mine was 35 times prospective pension. I think theirs was a staggering 53 times. If you feel like you won't live more than 25 years then I felt like having the money at multipliers beyond 30 times was worthwhile - at least for those with a risk appetite.

Thank you, but it appears you have to let them manage your money post transfer. It all stinks.

Yes, the Barclays figures are very high, particularly in this case as there is no annual increase in the pension paid. If we’re both not dead by the time the multiplier years have passed, it might buy a loaf of bread. It all makes total sense to transfer, but it seems Dick Turpin has the keys to the exit door.

[troika]

darreni said:

Your anger is misplaced. It should be directed toward the regulators.

I’ve advised on DB transfers for the last 25 years & I agree that you should be able, as a grown up, to sign an indemnity and make your own transfer decisions.

Thanks, the pendulum certainly seems to have swung too far. I understand that some people have been scammed but that doesn’t mean everyone else should be held to ransom to manage their own finances.

As someone who sees this on a daily basis, do you think any changes will be made to loosen the handcuffs? She has 5 years until this pension starts to be drawn.

Edited by troika on Saturday 25th January 09:23

[Brads67]

darreni said:

Your anger is misplaced. It should be directed toward the regulators.

I’ve advised on DB transfers for the last 25 years & I agree that you should be able, as a grown up, to sign an indemnity and make your own transfer decisions.

I fully agree that the regulators created the bad situation, but it really feels like IFA'a have colluded to strip as much money from that situation as possible because people are left with no choice.

As I have said, I understand about the ambulance chasing scum who will sue anyone if they can but that shouldn't stop intelligent people who are willing to indemnify IFA's against future action from being able to make that choice.

The FCA have handed them a license to print money.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Brads67 said:

I fully agree that the regulators created the bad situation, but it really feels like IFA'a have colluded to strip as much money from that situation as possible because people are left with no choice.

As I have said, I understand about the ambulance chasing scum who will sue anyone if they can but that shouldn't stop intelligent people who are willing to indemnify IFA's against future action from being able to make that choice.

The FCA have handed them a license to print money.

The Law requires potentially transferring members to seek financial advice. The FCA stipulate that the individual doing so must have the appropriate qualifications to do so.

Love it when people who have no idea what it takes to obtain those qualifications and maintain a regulated financial advice business, including costly PI insurance, consider that it is a license (sic) to print money.

I can assure you that millionaire IFA's a few and far between.

Edited by Stay in Bed Instead on Saturday 25th January 09:41

[troika]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

I can assure you that millionaire IFA's a few and far between.

Edited by Stay in Bed Instead on Saturday 25th January 09:41

Maybe they should get better at managing their money?!

I’m not blaming the player, I’m blaming the game. Seems crazy that it’s so easy for people to rack up huge debts, yet people who actually have money are treated like children.

[darreni]

Brads67 said:

I fully agree that the regulators created the bad situation, but it really feels like IFA'a have colluded to strip as much money from that situation as possible because people are left with no choice.

As I have said, I understand about the ambulance chasing scum who will sue anyone if they can but that shouldn't stop intelligent people who are willing to indemnify IFA's against future action from being able to make that choice.

The FCA have handed them a license to print money.

You are wrong.

Despite never having had any complaints, our PI cover increased by 50k this year, purely because we had advised on DB transfers. Our insurers also tried to exclude any past advice given from the cover.
The choice for IFA’s is to either recover that cost via fees charged for the work and the ongoing potential liability taken on or to cease offering DB transfer advice.

This is the reason that you may struggle to find someone that is prepared to offer advice on the transfer and those that do will charge a premium based on the risk.

[Ziplobb]

My wife is in a similar postion. We are both members of the HSBC scheme and worked in financial services for 17/18 years and have seen all the scams, particpated in mis-selling PPI because because we were ordered to by greedy managers, watched unqualifed finacial advisers sell endowment mortgages when clearly capital repayment would have been obviosuly better even to a monkee could see it and then pocket £000s in commission - you get the picture.

The cash value of hers is around £75k and the benefit from 60 is basically pocket money. We would like to put the cash in our SIPP and use it to purchase off one of our shops thereby releasing capital to pay down some borrowing. Its a small shop that will always rent for around £500/£600 in todays money. For us its a no brainer.

[phope]

troika said:

darreni said:

Your anger is misplaced. It should be directed toward the regulators.

I’ve advised on DB transfers for the last 25 years & I agree that you should be able, as a grown up, to sign an indemnity and make your own transfer decisions.

Thanks, the pendulum certainly seems to have swung too far. I understand that some people have been scammed but that doesn’t mean everyone else should be held to ransom to manage their own finances.

As someone who sees this on a daily basis, do you think any changes will be made to loosen the handcuffs? She has 5 years until this pension starts to be drawn.

Edited by troika on Saturday 25th January 09:23

Hypothetically, the only I could ever such a indemnity process ever working would be making it mandatory for the pension beneficiary to have to seek independent legal advice about the implications of waiving their rights for potential redress before signing such an indemnity, in a similar vein to equity release lenders requiring the borrower to have independent legal advice before releasing capital/home reversion plans, or if someone wished to act as a guarantor for someone else's borrowings, banks require the potential guarantor again to have full independent legal advice, separate to that of the borrower.

In theory, you'd have a fully documented watertight staged process where it showed that the individual had every opportunity along the way to back out and have sought full financial advice.

Edited by phope on Saturday 25th January 10:04

[Wilmslowboy]

Yep regulators at fault.

I looked into transferring mine, it will provide £8k a year in about 20 years time...but gave up as the fees appeared excessive and the process lengthy.

BIL is a very well qualified IFA, and had advised dozens and dozens of Barclays employees, he decided to stop doing them about a year ago, in large part as the risk of future litigation was too high (and PI for his small firm was eye watering).

[darreni]

phope said:

Hypothetically, the only I could ever such a indemnity process ever working would be making it mandatory for the pension beneficiary to have to seek independent legal advice about the implications of waiving their rights for potential redress before signing such an indemnity, in a similar vein to equity release lenders requiring the borrower to have independent legal advice before releasing capital/home reversion plans, or if someone wished to act as a guarantor for someone else's borrowings, banks require the potential guarantor again to have full independent legal advice.

In theory, you'd have a fully documented watertight staged process where it showed that the individual had every opportunity along the way to back out and have sought full financial advice.

The problem there is that you’d still have clients down the line saying that they didn’t understand what they were signing & those like the OP complaining it’s a cartel & the fca have given the solicitors a license to print money.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

troika said:

Maybe they should get better at managing their money?!

I’m not blaming the player, I’m blaming the game. Seems crazy that it’s so easy for people to rack up huge debts, yet people who actually have money are treated like children.

They can only manage their own income, and that is rarely excessive. There are some, A J Bell, Matiolli & Woods, Hargreaves and Lansdown but they are the exception rather than the rule. The FCA also regulates to reduce their income.

The system has evolved that way because most people are stupid, and will happily cry wolf if it all goes tits up. Signing a disclaimer has no meaning if they claim they had no choice and did not understand what they were signing. Execution only is really a thing of the past now.

Have a look into the Berkeley Burke SIPP legal case if you want an example of an insistent customer blaming everyone but themselves when they lose their money.

Edited by Stay in Bed Instead on Saturday 25th January 10:14