Transfer of (small) Barclays DB Pension
Discussion
darreni said:
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.
It still wouldn't stop people trying to claim '...I know nothing..." but just like with equity release, they are then free to do what they want with the money.If that type of process could be fully documented with stages (and an ideal world, video or audio-recorded with a retention date to say age 99 of the beneficiary), then there's no reason why it couldn't stand up to scrutiny in court.
It could also be forbidden to charge a percentage of fund value if going down this route and instead base the legal stages on an hourly rate.
troika said:
Seems crazy that it’s so easy for people to rack up huge debts, yet people who actually have money are treated like children.
It really isn't yet "her money". If she were to die tomorrow (heaven forbid) it evaporates. The money only becomes hers when she's met the necessary conditions for transfer-out which include,- Staying alive, and
- Getting advice.
rockin said:
It really isn't yet "her money". If she were to die tomorrow (heaven forbid) it evaporates. The money only becomes hers when she's met the necessary conditions for transfer-out which include,
Well, I don’t need to take advise on how and where to invest in DC pensions, shares, ISA’s etc. Don’t tell me, that will be coming down the line (what with Woodford etc). People will have to pay for advice before buying a particular fund, share, bond etc. Where will it stop?- Staying alive, and
- Getting advice.
troika said:
Well, I don’t need to take advise on how and where to invest in DC pensions, shares, ISA’s etc. Don’t tell me, that will be coming down the line (what with Woodford etc). People will have to pay for advice before buying a particular fund, share, bond etc. Where will it stop?
That's different.The advice here relates to the possible benefits and pitfalls of giving up a guaranteed income, in favour of an unguaranteed income. Not advice on where to invest it thereafter. Essentially transferring the future income risk/reward from the DB pension arrangement to the member.
Ask yourself this, why are Barclays offering such a generous transfer value to do so?
troika said:
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.
I used a firm to do mine, negotiated a fixed price of £5k give or take.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.
I then transferred to his recommended Royal London provider. Then the day after funds cleared transferred to my SIPP account at no cost. I felt a bit sorry for wasting Royal Londons paperwork and time. But was painless for me.
I actually checked in with the recommended portfolio he chose for me should I have not wanted a transfer out, that was up approx 13% last month and was fairly medium to high risk. Since 2017 then I have managed to grow the savings 10% ish. And I have been mostly over cautious and in cash. I still don't regret the move, but one has to be realistic about the possibility of f*** it up.
I believe for friends who got a quote 2 years on from mine, their quote had grown 20% since 2017.
If you want the advisors details PM me.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
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.
Sustainable Energy in Cambodia.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.
https://www.hughjames.com/blog/berkeley-burke-sipp...
What could possibly go wrong
Stay in Bed Instead said:
That's different.
The advice here relates to the possible benefits and pitfalls of giving up a guaranteed income, in favour of an unguaranteed income. Not advice on where to invest it thereafter. Essentially transferring the future income risk/reward from the DB pension arrangement to the member.
Ask yourself this, why are Barclays offering such a generous transfer value to do so?
She knows exactly what she’s giving up. Even by the most basic DCF analysis assuming she lives to 100 makes it the right thing for her to do. I’m now resigned to the fact that I’m not going to get anywhere with this, it’s just a matter of principle. The advice here relates to the possible benefits and pitfalls of giving up a guaranteed income, in favour of an unguaranteed income. Not advice on where to invest it thereafter. Essentially transferring the future income risk/reward from the DB pension arrangement to the member.
Ask yourself this, why are Barclays offering such a generous transfer value to do so?
Barclays clearly know what they are doing. An increase in transfers benefits the Scheme accounts. Transfers are calculated on a best estimate basis and the liabilities are accounted for at mark to market. It’s a win win, if it could be carried out easily.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Sustainable Energy in Cambodia.
https://www.hughjames.com/blog/berkeley-burke-sipp...
What could possibly go wrong
Yup, high risk and unregulated, but the point is the member was warned of this several times and each time insisted he wanted to proceed. When he lost his money he wanted someone else to compensate him.https://www.hughjames.com/blog/berkeley-burke-sipp...
What could possibly go wrong
The public cannot be relied upon to act honourably, and the 'system' supports that they don't understand what they are doing, so the industry is now rapidly restructuring. Some SIPP's now even restrict property/land investments.
Edited by Stay in Bed Instead on Saturday 25th January 11:51
troika said:
She knows exactly what she’s giving up. Even by the most basic DCF analysis assuming she lives to 100 makes it the right thing for her to do. I’m now resigned to the fact that I’m not going to get anywhere with this, it’s just a matter of principle.
Barclays clearly know what they are doing. An increase in transfers benefits the Scheme accounts. Transfers are calculated on a best estimate basis and the liabilities are accounted for at mark to market. It’s a win win, if it could be carried out easily.
Have Barclay's ever made any discretionary increases to deferred pensions or pensions in payment?Barclays clearly know what they are doing. An increase in transfers benefits the Scheme accounts. Transfers are calculated on a best estimate basis and the liabilities are accounted for at mark to market. It’s a win win, if it could be carried out easily.
troika said:
I honestly don’t know because it’s irrelevant. Even if they have in the past, the only thing that’s guaranteed is what’s in the Scheme rules.
It does matter, that's the point. The member does not know exactly what they are giving up, just the minimum they are giving up. What if they have a history of granting RPI increases?A qualified IFA must take that into account.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
It does matter, that's the point. The member does not know exactly what they are giving up, just the minimum they are giving up. What if they have a history of granting RPI increases?
A qualified IFA must take that into account.
They have absolutely zero obligation to do so. It’s all pre 1988 GMP. The contract is all that counts in my book. A qualified IFA must take that into account.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
Yup, high risk and unregulated, but the point is the member was warned of this several times and each time insisted he wanted to proceed. When he lost his money he wanted someone else to compensate him.
The public cannot be relied upon to act honourably, and the 'system' supports that they don't understand what they are doing, so the industry is now rapidly restructuring. Some SIPP's now even restrict property/land investments.
I don't work in the industry so I'm struggling with that one The public cannot be relied upon to act honourably, and the 'system' supports that they don't understand what they are doing, so the industry is now rapidly restructuring. Some SIPP's now even restrict property/land investments.
A parallel almost seems like I go into my bank and ask to withdraw some of my own money which I then gamble away and sue the bank for giving me my money.
I'm sure there are lots of flaws in the parallel though.
I can see why in some cases people need protecting from themselves but it does also appear as if a few bad apples (customers and financial providers) can impact on what everyone is allowed to do.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
Which illustrates why the law mandates that financial advice is obtained.
Are you suggesting that if an advisor ‘thinks’ Barclays may be mega generous and pay more than the contract states, I can sue the advisor when they don’t?!BTW, I do appreciate your views on this topic...!
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I don't work in the industry so I'm struggling with that one
A parallel almost seems like I go into my bank and ask to withdraw some of my own money which I then gamble away and sue the bank for giving me my money.
I'm sure there are lots of flaws in the parallel though.
I can see why in some cases people need protecting from themselves but it does also appear as if a few bad apples (customers and financial providers) can impact on what everyone is allowed to do.
Not an unreasonable parallel. If you try to withdraw a large about of cash these days the bank will ask what it is for, if they suspect it is for unlawful purposes or that the customer is being coerced then they may well refuse to give you it.A parallel almost seems like I go into my bank and ask to withdraw some of my own money which I then gamble away and sue the bank for giving me my money.
I'm sure there are lots of flaws in the parallel though.
I can see why in some cases people need protecting from themselves but it does also appear as if a few bad apples (customers and financial providers) can impact on what everyone is allowed to do.
Isn't gambling going the same way? Online gambling companies should stop people gambling if they suspect the customer has an addiction?
Jump in front of a cyclist and it's their fault, cross the road on a green light and it's the drivers fault, etc.
We have slowly entering into a world where the public are constantly absolved from the consequences of their own actions.
troika said:
Are you suggesting that if an advisor ‘thinks’ Barclays may be mega generous and pay more than the contract states, I can sue the advisor when they don’t?!
BTW, I do appreciate your views on this topic...!
If they didn't ask the question and take into account the response, then yes potentially you could if in 20 years time you realise that the benefit given up was actually far more than what you understood it could possibly be.BTW, I do appreciate your views on this topic...!
There is a reason why IFA need to specifically qualify to provide transfer advice.
Latest FCA thinking is that the adviser is on the hook even if they say a transfer is not suitable ( the default FCA position).
The FCA also have an issue with insistent clients - those that would choose to ignore advice that the transfer is unsuitable (execution only if you will). Again, this is the reason advice is hard to find and expensive.
Risking regulatory sanction for a few grand, no thanks.
The FCA also have an issue with insistent clients - those that would choose to ignore advice that the transfer is unsuitable (execution only if you will). Again, this is the reason advice is hard to find and expensive.
Risking regulatory sanction for a few grand, no thanks.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
troika said:
Are you suggesting that if an advisor ‘thinks’ Barclays may be mega generous and pay more than the contract states, I can sue the advisor when they don’t?!
BTW, I do appreciate your views on this topic...!
If they didn't ask the question and take into account the response, then yes potentially you could if in 20 years time you realise that the benefit given up was actually far more than what you understood it could possibly be.BTW, I do appreciate your views on this topic...!
There is a reason why IFA need to specifically qualify to provide transfer advice.
If a company has previously decided to make non-obligatory increases, the decision was taken by specific people, at a specific time, under specific commercial circumstances, for specific reasons. Any or all of which are unknown to the ‘qualified adviser’ and any or all of which may well now have changed.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff