My selected retirement date will soon fall due and I have been
contacted by Standard Life, indicating the amount available to buy a
pension, and listing various options.
SL also say that I can choose to use a different pension provider if I
so wish.
Would SL be a good choice, or am I likely to obtain better value
elsewhere?
MM
"MM" <> wrote in message
news:
> My selected retirement date will soon fall due and I have been
> contacted by Standard Life, indicating the amount available to buy a
> pension, and listing various options.
>
> SL also say that I can choose to use a different pension provider if I
> so wish.
>
> Would SL be a good choice, or am I likely to obtain better value
> elsewhere?
>
> MM
Almost certainly elsewhere. But it's best to see an IFA who can look round
for you.
Rob Graham
"MM" <> wrote in message
news:
> My selected retirement date will soon fall due and I have been
> contacted by Standard Life, indicating the amount available to buy a
> pension, and listing various options.
>
> SL also say that I can choose to use a different pension provider if I
> so wish.
>
> Would SL be a good choice, or am I likely to obtain better value
> elsewhere?
>
> MM
Have a read here:
and especially play with this:
Whatever you buy wherever, whenever, you could always have got better value
somewhere else :-)
On Thu, 25 May 2006 14:16:01 +0100, "Rob graham"
<> wrote:
>
>"MM" <> wrote in message
>news:
>> My selected retirement date will soon fall due and I have been
>> contacted by Standard Life, indicating the amount available to buy a
>> pension, and listing various options.
>>
>> SL also say that I can choose to use a different pension provider if I
>> so wish.
>>
>> Would SL be a good choice, or am I likely to obtain better value
>> elsewhere?
>>
>> MM
>
>Almost certainly elsewhere. But it's best to see an IFA who can look round
>for you.
Trouble is, how on earth does one choose the "right" IFA?!!
MMM
MM wrote:
> SL also say that I can choose to use a different pension provider if I
> so wish.
>
> Would SL be a good choice, or am I likely to obtain better value
> elsewhere?
Ask elsewhere and see if they offer more.
The main decisions you have to make are whether or not to have a level or
index linked payment. Level means you get more initially, but it doesn't
increase each year. The second decision is whether or not your husband /
wife should continue to receive your pension if you die, and if so, how
much of it. If you choose this option, then it will reduce the amount you
get now.
Make sure you are comparing like with like when looking at quotes.
"Jonathan Bryce" <> wrote in message
news:
> MM wrote:
>
>> SL also say that I can choose to use a different pension provider if I
>> so wish.
>>
>> Would SL be a good choice, or am I likely to obtain better value
>> elsewhere?
>
> Ask elsewhere and see if they offer more.
>
> The main decisions you have to make are whether or not to have a level or
> index linked payment. Level means you get more initially, but it doesn't
> increase each year. The second decision is whether or not your husband /
> wife should continue to receive your pension if you die, and if so, how
> much of it. If you choose this option, then it will reduce the amount you
> get now.
>
> Make sure you are comparing like with like when looking at quotes.
Avoid Standard Life. I have a "frozen" pension with them and it has lost
some of its value since I was made redundant 6 years ago. I will be 60 this
year and saw a financial advisor about my "frozen" pension. If I take it now
and put it in a high interest savings account it will be worth more in 5
years time than if I left it with Standard Life. The only good thing about
Standard Life is that I am getting 2070 shares which should go part of the
way to offset my £9000 shortfall in my endownment.
Mark
On Thu, 25 May 2006 17:15:57 +0100, Jonathan Bryce
<> wrote:
>The main decisions you have to make are whether or not to have a level or
>index linked payment.
or whether to take an unsecured pension using income
withdrawal/drawdown even.
Daytona
In message <lBndg.75598$>, Mark
<> writes
>Avoid Standard Life. I have a "frozen" pension with them and it has lost
>some of its value since I was made redundant 6 years ago. I will be 60 this
>year and saw a financial advisor about my "frozen" pension. If I take it now
>and put it in a high interest savings account it will be worth more in 5
>years time than if I left it with Standard Life. The only good thing about
>Standard Life is that I am getting 2070 shares which should go part of the
>way to offset my £9000 shortfall in my endownment.
All of which is completely irrelevant. The guy wants an annuity not a
pension.
--
John Boyle
In message <>, MM
<> writes
>My selected retirement date will soon fall due and I have been
>contacted by Standard Life, indicating the amount available to buy a
>pension, and listing various options.
>
>SL also say that I can choose to use a different pension provider if I
>so wish.
>
>Would SL be a good choice, or am I likely to obtain better value
>elsewhere?
You dont want a 'pension' you want an annuity.
Any IFA will be able to tell you in less than a minute what other
annuity rates are currently on offer.
--
John Boyle
"Mark" <> wrote in message
news:lBndg.75598$
>
> "Jonathan Bryce" <> wrote in message
> news:
>> MM wrote:
>>
>>> SL also say that I can choose to use a different pension provider if I
>>> so wish.
>>>
>>> Would SL be a good choice, or am I likely to obtain better value
>>> elsewhere?
>>
>> Ask elsewhere and see if they offer more.
>>
>> The main decisions you have to make are whether or not to have a level or
>> index linked payment. Level means you get more initially, but it doesn't
>> increase each year. The second decision is whether or not your husband /
>> wife should continue to receive your pension if you die, and if so, how
>> much of it. If you choose this option, then it will reduce the amount
>> you
>> get now.
>>
>> Make sure you are comparing like with like when looking at quotes.
>
> Avoid Standard Life. I have a "frozen" pension with them and it has lost
> some of its value since I was made redundant 6 years ago. I will be 60
> this year and saw a financial advisor about my "frozen" pension. If I take
> it now and put it in a high interest savings account it will be worth more
> in 5 years time than if I left it with Standard Life. The only good thing
> about Standard Life is that I am getting 2070 shares which should go part
> of the way to offset my £9000 shortfall in my endownment.
> Mark
>
I think the OP is referring to an annuity (i.e. a pension in payment) rather
than a pension in the investment stage.
Rob Graham
In message <>, MM
<> writes
>>Almost certainly elsewhere. But it's best to see an IFA who can look round
>>for you.
>
>Trouble is, how on earth does one choose the "right" IFA?!!
Almost any IFA can get an online annuity comparison for you in seconds.
--
John Boyle
"MM" <> wrote in message
news:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 14:16:01 +0100, "Rob graham"
> <> wrote:
>
>>
>>"MM" <> wrote in message
>>news:
>>> My selected retirement date will soon fall due and I have been
>>> contacted by Standard Life, indicating the amount available to buy a
>>> pension, and listing various options.
>>>
>>> SL also say that I can choose to use a different pension provider if I
>>> so wish.
>>>
>>> Would SL be a good choice, or am I likely to obtain better value
>>> elsewhere?
>>>
>>> MM
>>
>>Almost certainly elsewhere. But it's best to see an IFA who can look round
>>for you.
>
> Trouble is, how on earth does one choose the "right" IFA?!!
>
> MMM
Ask the IFA if he's able to search for all the going annuity rates. If he
just goes for say three quotes you know he isn't looking at them all. If he
gets a comparison of all the providers then he can choose the best. If you
do it yourself, you won't necessarily get the best. You may think that
buying it direct will get you a better deal. Forget it. The only winner
would be the insurance company who won't have to pay out any commission, and
you may lose because you don't get the best rate on the day.
Remember, there's only one 'best' on any day. S/L are not generally the
best, although they may not be far behind. They are not known for their good
annuity rates. The best tend to be L&G, NU, Canada Life and Pru, but not
necessarily in that order.
If you have a health problem or are a smoker you may get an even better
deal.
Also, check that you don't have a guaranteed annuity rate with your S/L
pension. If you do it is doubtful if you would want to take it elsewhere.
Rob Graham
On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:42:31 +0100, "Rob graham"
<> wrote:
>Ask the IFA if he's able to search for all the going annuity rates.
Do they still take a percentage of the fund, or can you get them to do
it for a reasonable fixed fee ?
Daytona
In message <>, Daytona
<> writes
>On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:42:31 +0100, "Rob graham"
><> wrote:
>
>>Ask the IFA if he's able to search for all the going annuity rates.
>
>Do they still take a percentage of the fund, or can you get them to do
>it for a reasonable fixed fee ?
If the IFA is truly independent then either way.
--
John Boyle
On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:35:48 +0100, john boyle
<> wrote:
>In message <>, MM
><> writes
>>>Almost certainly elsewhere. But it's best to see an IFA who can look round
>>>for you.
>>
>>Trouble is, how on earth does one choose the "right" IFA?!!
>
>Almost any IFA can get an online annuity comparison for you in seconds.
If the data is online, can't I do it myself? Where is such a
comparison to be found?
MM
On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:42:31 +0100, "Rob graham"
<> wrote:
>Also, check that you don't have a guaranteed annuity rate with your S/L
>pension. If you do it is doubtful if you would want to take it elsewhere.
Is this is what they term the "Guarantee period"? They've given me six
options (quotes) for the Ordinary Fund and four for the Protected
Rights Fund.
In the case of the Ordinary Fund, 2 options give a guarantee period of
"none", 3 options each give 5 years, and the sixth option gives 10
years.
In the case of the Protected Rights Fund, 2 options give a guarantee
period of "none", and the other 2 options give 5 years.
It sounds like the options with guarantee periods would be the better
choice, especially in the case of the Ordinary Fund, where the sixth
option with a guarantee period of 10 years differs only by a few
pounds in the actual pension paid from, say, the first option where
the guarantee period is "none".
MM
"MM" <> wrote in message
news:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:42:31 +0100, "Rob graham"
> <> wrote:
>
>>Also, check that you don't have a guaranteed annuity rate with your S/L
>>pension. If you do it is doubtful if you would want to take it elsewhere.
>
> Is this is what they term the "Guarantee period"? They've given me six
> options (quotes) for the Ordinary Fund and four for the Protected
> Rights Fund.
>
> In the case of the Ordinary Fund, 2 options give a guarantee period of
> "none", 3 options each give 5 years, and the sixth option gives 10
> years.
>
> In the case of the Protected Rights Fund, 2 options give a guarantee
> period of "none", and the other 2 options give 5 years.
>
> It sounds like the options with guarantee periods would be the better
> choice, especially in the case of the Ordinary Fund, where the sixth
> option with a guarantee period of 10 years differs only by a few
> pounds in the actual pension paid from, say, the first option where
> the guarantee period is "none".
>
> MM
No, I'm not talking about guarantee periods. I'm talking about guaranteed
annuity rates, which are part of the contract on some earlier pension
schemes. These are valuable goodies in today's world and you should not buy
an annuity with another provider without thinking of this.
I can't understand why you don't discuss this with an IFA. Blimey, your
talking about your retirement income here!
Rob
On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:35:16 +0100, "Rob graham"
<> wrote:
>
>"Mark" <> wrote in message
>news:lBndg.75598$
>>
>> "Jonathan Bryce" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>> MM wrote:
>>>
>>>> SL also say that I can choose to use a different pension provider if I
>>>> so wish.
>>>>
>>>> Would SL be a good choice, or am I likely to obtain better value
>>>> elsewhere?
>>>
>>> Ask elsewhere and see if they offer more.
>>>
>>> The main decisions you have to make are whether or not to have a level or
>>> index linked payment. Level means you get more initially, but it doesn't
>>> increase each year. The second decision is whether or not your husband /
>>> wife should continue to receive your pension if you die, and if so, how
>>> much of it. If you choose this option, then it will reduce the amount
>>> you
>>> get now.
>>>
>>> Make sure you are comparing like with like when looking at quotes.
>>
>> Avoid Standard Life. I have a "frozen" pension with them and it has lost
>> some of its value since I was made redundant 6 years ago. I will be 60
>> this year and saw a financial advisor about my "frozen" pension. If I take
>> it now and put it in a high interest savings account it will be worth more
>> in 5 years time than if I left it with Standard Life. The only good thing
>> about Standard Life is that I am getting 2070 shares which should go part
>> of the way to offset my £9000 shortfall in my endownment.
>> Mark
>>
>
>I think the OP is referring to an annuity (i.e. a pension in payment) rather
>than a pension in the investment stage.
Yes, although the entire SL letter generally speaks of "pension",
"pension benefits" or "retirement benefits". In fact I can see the
word "annuity", as in "annuity rate", appear only once in all eight
pages.
Perhaps the word "annuity" is just a general term that has slipped
into the jargon over many years.
MM
On Thu, 25 May 2006 20:47:05 +0100, Daytona <> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 May 2006 17:15:57 +0100, Jonathan Bryce
><> wrote:
>
>>The main decisions you have to make are whether or not to have a level or
>>index linked payment.
>
>or whether to take an unsecured pension using income
>withdrawal/drawdown even.
Double Dutch, I'm afraid, Daytona! I haven't a clue what any of that
means: "unsecured" = company might go out of business?
"income withdrawal" = ? I am seeking an income from the benefits.
"drawdown" = ? Do you mean some kind of lump sum?
Put it this way. I worked in Germany for many years. In Germany you
pay into the Angestelltenversicherung, then you retire, you show your
dockets, apply for the pension, and end up fairly well off. Dead
simple. Here in the UK it all seems so unutterably complicated that I
am starting as early as possible to understand all the jargon. ;)
MM
On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:35:14 +0100, john boyle
<> wrote:
>In message <>, MM
><> writes
>>My selected retirement date will soon fall due and I have been
>>contacted by Standard Life, indicating the amount available to buy a
>>pension, and listing various options.
>>
>>SL also say that I can choose to use a different pension provider if I
>>so wish.
>>
>>Would SL be a good choice, or am I likely to obtain better value
>>elsewhere?
>
>You dont want a 'pension' you want an annuity.
The SL letter states under "Your pension quote": "Pension you could
buy with your Ordinary Fund of £xxx". Ditto for the Protected Rights
Fund. But yes, I understand that the pension benefit is commonly
referred to as an annuity.
MM
MM wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:35:14 +0100, john boyle
> <> wrote:
>>
>>You dont want a 'pension' you want an annuity.
No, he wants a pension.
> The SL letter states under "Your pension quote": "Pension you could
> buy with your Ordinary Fund of £xxx". Ditto for the Protected Rights
> Fund. But yes, I understand that the pension benefit is commonly
> referred to as an annuity.
Not "commonly", except by people within the finance trade. In common
parlance, a pension is what replaces your salary when you retire. An
annuity is merely the mechanism which (often) provides it, but the word
"annuity", as opposed to "pension", is virtually unknown to the plebs.
What you save into before you retire is a pension fund or pension scheme,
not a pension.
> john boyle wrote:
> >You dont want a 'pension' you want an annuity.
>
"MM" wrote
> ... I understand that the pension benefit
> is commonly referred to as an annuity.
No - an annuity is commonly referred to as a "pension benefit"!
MM wrote:
> It sounds like the options with guarantee periods would be the better
> choice, especially in the case of the Ordinary Fund, where the sixth
> option with a guarantee period of 10 years differs only by a few
> pounds in the actual pension paid from, say, the first option where
> the guarantee period is "none".
No. The guarantee period I think means that if you die before it is up, you
still get the money for that number of years. If you have nobody to leave
it to, you might not be too worried about that.
"MM" <> wrote in message
news:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:35:48 +0100, john boyle
> <> wrote:
>
> >In message <>, MM
> ><> writes
> >>>Almost certainly elsewhere. But it's best to see an IFA who can look
round
> >>>for you.
> >>
> >>Trouble is, how on earth does one choose the "right" IFA?!!
> >
> >Almost any IFA can get an online annuity comparison for you in seconds.
>
> If the data is online, can't I do it myself? Where is such a
> comparison to be found?
>
> MM
has a section for annuities.
On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:25:49 +0100, "Rob graham"
<> wrote:
>I can't understand why you don't discuss this with an IFA. Blimey, your
>talking about your retirement income here!
Because I am wary of being ripped off or receiving the wrong advice!
Heck knows, IFAs haven't exactly got a great reputation, have they!
Like estate agents.
MM
On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:36:15 +0100, MM <> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 May 2006 20:47:05 +0100, Daytona <> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 25 May 2006 17:15:57 +0100, Jonathan Bryce
>><> wrote:
>>
>>>The main decisions you have to make are whether or not to have a level or
>>>index linked payment.
>>
>>or whether to take an unsecured pension using income
>>withdrawal/drawdown even.
>
>Double Dutch, I'm afraid, Daytona! I haven't a clue what any of that
>means: "unsecured" = company might go out of business?
The level of income can vary according to the value of the pension
plan when it's reviewed every 3 years -
5% of £100,000 in 2006 = £5,000pa
5% of £90,000 in 2009 = £4,500pa
>"income withdrawal" = ? I am seeking an income from the benefits.
>"drawdown" = ? Do you mean some kind of lump sum?
It's explained towards the end of the excellent link given by Miss Toe
-
<>
I mentioned it simply because there are options other than an annuity.
I didn't know if you were aware of them and had already discounted
them or not.
>Put it this way. I worked in Germany for many years. In Germany you
>pay into the Angestelltenversicherung, then you retire, you show your
>dockets, apply for the pension, and end up fairly well off. Dead
>simple. Here in the UK it all seems so unutterably complicated that I
>am starting as early as possible to understand all the jargon. ;)
There are others on here who are more experienced at advising, but it
seems to me we need a basic principals of taking your pension thread.
I think the most important point is to work out the minimum you need
to survive on and purchase an index linked (RPI) annuity to cover
that. For a single person dividing that amount by ~3.27% (ie 0.0327)
will give you the fund required to do this - see the FSA tables.
All other income, if you have any is treated as the icing on the cake
and unless you are a spendthrift, the aim should be to get as much as
possible out of the rule bound pension plan environment as quickly as
possible and invest in the relatively flexible ISA environment.
You might also want to investigate setting up a trust to minimise
inheritance tax (IHT).
<>
It strikes me that there must basic strategies for single or married
people that IFAs apply all the time. It would be interesting to know
what they are.
Daytona
On Fri, 26 May 2006 16:10:59 +0100, MM <> wrote:
>Because I am wary of being ripped off or receiving the wrong advice!
>Heck knows, IFAs haven't exactly got a great reputation, have they!
>Like estate agents.
You don't have to buy anything from an IFA - they are good for a
holistic view of things, indeed they are duty bound to do this - you
don't have to sign up to anything and can double check their
recommendations here. Your suspicions are perfectly reasonable given
the past failings of the industry and the inability of good IFAs to
clearly disown the bad.
Daytona
"MM" <> wrote in message
news:
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:25:49 +0100, "Rob graham"
> <> wrote:
>
>>I can't understand why you don't discuss this with an IFA. Blimey, your
>>talking about your retirement income here!
>
> Because I am wary of being ripped off or receiving the wrong advice!
> Heck knows, IFAs haven't exactly got a great reputation, have they!
> Like estate agents.
>
Look, you've got quote/s from S/L. See an IFA and found out if he can better
it. If you don't like what he's saying then don't do it. It's not rocket
science.
Rob
In message <>, MM
<> writes
>On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:35:48 +0100, john boyle
><> wrote:
>
>>In message <>, MM
>><> writes
>>>>Almost certainly elsewhere. But it's best to see an IFA who can look round
>>>>for you.
>>>
>>>Trouble is, how on earth does one choose the "right" IFA?!!
>>
>>Almost any IFA can get an online annuity comparison for you in seconds.
>
>If the data is online, can't I do it myself?
Sure you just need the subscribe to the service. I think you also need
to be on the FSA register as well.
>Where is such a
>comparison to be found?
>
Its called eXweb.
--
John Boyle
In message <>, MM
<> writes
>
>Perhaps the word "annuity" is just a general term that has slipped
>into the jargon over many years.
No, its very specific thing which has been around for 100s ofd years. It
is the use of the word 'pension' in the way you describe that is new to
make it easy for people who are unfamiliar with the word 'annuity'.
--
John Boyle
In message <>, MM
<> writes
>On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:25:49 +0100, "Rob graham"
><> wrote:
>
>>I can't understand why you don't discuss this with an IFA. Blimey, your
>>talking about your retirement income here!
>
>Because I am wary of being ripped off or receiving the wrong advice!
>Heck knows, IFAs haven't exactly got a great reputation, have they!
>Like estate agents.
If you go to an IFA who will accept payment only by commission then
going to him wont cost you any more than going direct. At last he will
explain the process, which you dont seem to understand.
By the way, if the IFA will not agree to be paid by fee and refund the
commission to you, then he is only an FA, not an IFA.
--
John Boyle
In message <Cgzdg.75874$>, Ronald
Raygun <> writes
>MM wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:35:14 +0100, john boyle
>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>You dont want a 'pension' you want an annuity.
>
>No, he wants a pension.
No, he wants an annuity.
>
>> The SL letter states under "Your pension quote": "Pension you could
>> buy with your Ordinary Fund of £xxx". Ditto for the Protected Rights
>> Fund. But yes, I understand that the pension benefit is commonly
>> referred to as an annuity.
>
>Not "commonly", except by people within the finance trade. In common
>parlance, a pension is what replaces your salary when you retire. An
>annuity is merely the mechanism which (often) provides it, but the word
>"annuity", as opposed to "pension", is virtually unknown to the plebs.
Agreed, but that isnt the reason why we should agree that their use of
the word is correct. Oh, hang on though, perhaps that is what the
Government really WANT us to do when educating people. If the kids get
it wrong, then agree with them!
>
--
John Boyle
"MM" <> wrote in message
news:
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:25:49 +0100, "Rob graham"
> <> wrote:
>
>>I can't understand why you don't discuss this with an IFA. Blimey, your
>>talking about your retirement income here!
>
> Because I am wary of being ripped off or receiving the wrong advice!
> Heck knows, IFAs haven't exactly got a great reputation, have they!
> Like estate agents.
>
You may like to consider that last year about 13% of the complaints received
by the Financial Ombudsman Service were about IFAs. The rest were banks,
building societies and insurance companies.
Rob
john boyle wrote:
> In message <Cgzdg.75874$>, Ronald
> Raygun <> writes
>>MM wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:35:14 +0100, john boyle
>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>You dont want a 'pension' you want an annuity.
>>
>>No, he wants a pension.
>
> No, he wants an annuity.
No, he wants retirement income. That's what a pension is. An annuity
is merely the vehicle which provides the pension he wants. So although
he does therefore indirectly want an annuity, it's not something he's
particularly aware of or cares about. He just wants the pe^H^Hmoney.
>>In common
>>parlance, a pension is what replaces your salary when you retire. An
>>annuity is merely the mechanism which (often) provides it, but the word
>>"annuity", as opposed to "pension", is virtually unknown to the plebs.
>
> Agreed, but that isnt the reason why we should agree that their use of
> the word is correct.
Then what *is* the reason why we should agree that their use of the word
is correct?
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:48:28 +0100, Daytona <> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 May 2006 16:10:59 +0100, MM <> wrote:
>
>>Because I am wary of being ripped off or receiving the wrong advice!
>>Heck knows, IFAs haven't exactly got a great reputation, have they!
>>Like estate agents.
>
>You don't have to buy anything from an IFA - they are good for a
>holistic view of things, indeed they are duty bound to do this - you
>don't have to sign up to anything and can double check their
>recommendations here. Your suspicions are perfectly reasonable given
>the past failings of the industry and the inability of good IFAs to
>clearly disown the bad.
The thing is, how many IFAs are there in the UK? Thousands. And
everyone would be beating a path to my door as soon as they sniff
money. How is a financial virgin supposed to judge who will form the
long-term relationship and isn't just there for a quick shag,
metaphorically speaking? I have more than my fair share of warm words
and empty promises over the past forty years, financially speaking.
MM
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:42:40 +0100, Daytona <> wrote:
>It strikes me that there must basic strategies for single or married
>people that IFAs apply all the time. It would be interesting to know
>what they are.
I think the "confusion marketing" that arises from all this complexity
is very beneficial to the finance industry. I am sure I am not alone
in not being able to make head nor tail of it all. Where is the CD I
can pop in and run a flow chart, selecting my options and seeing
immediately the advantages and disadvantages? Something like that
doesn't exist!
Thanks for all the advice, by the way.
MM
On Fri, 26 May 2006 21:16:16 +0100, john boyle
<> wrote:
>In message <Cgzdg.75874$>, Ronald
>Raygun <> writes
>>MM wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:35:14 +0100, john boyle
>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>You dont want a 'pension' you want an annuity.
>>
>>No, he wants a pension.
>
>No, he wants an annuity.
>
>>
>>> The SL letter states under "Your pension quote": "Pension you could
>>> buy with your Ordinary Fund of £xxx". Ditto for the Protected Rights
>>> Fund. But yes, I understand that the pension benefit is commonly
>>> referred to as an annuity.
>>
>>Not "commonly", except by people within the finance trade. In common
>>parlance, a pension is what replaces your salary when you retire. An
>>annuity is merely the mechanism which (often) provides it, but the word
>>"annuity", as opposed to "pension", is virtually unknown to the plebs.
>
>Agreed, but that isnt the reason why we should agree that their use of
>the word is correct. Oh, hang on though, perhaps that is what the
>Government really WANT us to do when educating people. If the kids get
>it wrong, then agree with them!
Why are you getting so hung up on a bloody word, for Christ's sake!
You know what I mean, most everyone else here knows what I mean, so
why are you so insistent on proving yourself right?
MM
On Fri, 26 May 2006 22:19:32 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<> wrote:
>john boyle wrote:
>
>> In message <Cgzdg.75874$>, Ronald
>> Raygun <> writes
>>>MM wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:35:14 +0100, john boyle
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>You dont want a 'pension' you want an annuity.
>>>
>>>No, he wants a pension.
>>
>> No, he wants an annuity.
>
>No, he wants retirement income. That's what a pension is. An annuity
>is merely the vehicle which provides the pension he wants. So although
>he does therefore indirectly want an annuity, it's not something he's
>particularly aware of or cares about. He just wants the pe^H^Hmoney.
Exactly so, Ron. You speak da lingo!
MM
In message <>, MM
<> writes
>>Agreed, but that isnt the reason why we should agree that their use of
>>the word is correct. Oh, hang on though, perhaps that is what the
>>Government really WANT us to do when educating people. If the kids get
>>it wrong, then agree with them!
>
>Why are you getting so hung up on a bloody word, for Christ's sake!
>You know what I mean, most everyone else here knows what I mean, so
>why are you so insistent on proving yourself right?
Dont get hung up about. Its just Ronald & I having one of our pedantic
spats.
I'll put it another way. Colloquially, the word 'hoover' is often used
as being synonymous with 'vacuum cleaner'. Im saying you need a vacuum
cleaner. RR is saying the word 'hoover' will do because that is the word
you have used for taking income in retirement. The set of products
covered by the words 'vacuum cleaner' is quite different from the set of
products covered by the word 'hoover'. If you went into an electrical
shop and asked for a Hoover you could quite legitimately be sold a
washing machine made by Hoover.. If you went in the shop and asked for a
vacuum cleaner, you would get a vacuum cleaner, but it might not be made
by Hoover.
--
John Boyle
> >>> john boyle wrote:
> >>>>You dont want a 'pension' you want an annuity.
> >>
> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> >>No, he wants a pension.
> >
> john boyle wrote:
> > No, he wants an annuity.
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> No, he wants retirement income. That's what a pension is.
You are saying that "a pension is retirement income"?
Actually, no. "Retirement income" is "a pension" -BUT-
"a pension" is *not* (necessarily) "retirement income".
"Pension" is a more general word, and can be used
both before payment begins (investment stage) or
after payment begins (while income is being taken).
"Annuity" specifically refers to the later stage, and even in a
more precise way than that (eg excludes 'income drawdown').
> MM wrote
> >Perhaps the word "annuity" is just a general term
> >that has slipped into the jargon over many years.
>
"john boyle" wrote
> No, its very specific thing which has been around for
> 100s ofd years. It is the use of the word 'pension' in
> the way you describe that is new to make it easy for
> people who are unfamiliar with the word 'annuity'.
Agreed!
Bitstring <>, from the wonderful
person john boyle <> said
>In message <>, MM
><> writes
>>
>>Perhaps the word "annuity" is just a general term that has slipped
>>into the jargon over many years.
>
>No, its very specific thing which has been around for 100s ofd years.
>It is the use of the word 'pension' in the way you describe that is new
>to make it easy for people who are unfamiliar with the word 'annuity'.
Or what my scheme documentation calls a 'pension in payment', as opposed
to a 'pension in some other state' (typically investment, company scheme
pot, or Rupert Murdoch's pocket).
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Google may be your friend, but groups.google.com posters definitely aren't.
In message <>, GSV Three Minds in a Can
<> writes
>>No, its very specific thing which has been around for 100s ofd years.
>>It is the use of the word 'pension' in the way you describe that is
>>new to make it easy for people who are unfamiliar with the word 'annuity'.
>
>Or what my scheme documentation calls a 'pension in payment', as
>opposed to a 'pension in some other state' (typically investment,
>company scheme pot, or Rupert Murdoch's pocket).
>
That doesnt sound like an annuity though. It sounds like a defined
benefit occupational scheme so no annuity will be involved
--
John Boyle
On Sat, 27 May 2006 10:26:41 +0100, MM <> wrote:
>I think the "confusion marketing" that arises from all this complexity
>is very beneficial to the finance industry.
Sure, and that's why they do it.
>I am sure I am not alone
>in not being able to make head nor tail of it all.
Nope !
>Where is the CD I
>can pop in and run a flow chart, selecting my options and seeing
>immediately the advantages and disadvantages? Something like that
>doesn't exist!
I assume that IFAs have it.
>Thanks for all the advice, by the way.
No problem !
Daytona
Tim wrote:
>> >>> john boyle wrote:
>> >>>>You dont want a 'pension' you want an annuity.
>> >>
>> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> >>No, he wants a pension.
>> >
>> john boyle wrote:
>> > No, he wants an annuity.
>>
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> No, he wants retirement income. That's what a pension is.
>
> You are saying that "a pension is retirement income"?
> Actually, no. "Retirement income" is "a pension" -BUT-
> "a pension" is *not* (necessarily) "retirement income".
On the contrary. A pension is retirement income, but not all
retirement income is necessarily a pension (other sources of
retirement income could be investment dividends, bank interest,
drawings from savings (not strictly "income", of course, except
in the wider sense of something you "live off"), miscellaneous
earnings (which might mean you've not *really fully* retired),
rental income from land & property, etc), and then there is the
state pension, and there are superannuation pensions, and there
are annuities, which are another form of pension.
> "Pension" is a more general word, and can be used
> both before payment begins (investment stage) or
> after payment begins (while income is being taken).
Well, most words have several meanings, so why should "pension"
be any different? Your and JB's preferred meaning, is, I put it
to you, very restricted ("restricted" in the popularity sense, i.e.
not as widely used as the other meanings, so "general" in the sense
of opposed to "specific" need not here contradict "restricted"). I
would guess that it derives from an abbreviation:
While working, if you (or your employer on your behalf) contributes
into a scheme designed to fund a pension when you retire, you are
*not* contributing *into* a pension, but saving *for* a pension.
You are paying into a pension scheme or a pension fund, but those
terms have over time and through laziness been abbreviated to
"pension", thus notching up a new and non-original dictionary
definition of "pension".
> "Annuity" specifically refers to the later stage, and even in a
> more precise way than that (eg excludes 'income drawdown').
It's not a later stage, it's a completely detached beast.
You're not paying into a pension, you're accumulating a nest egg
fund, and when the time comes, you omelette it, eat some of it, and
trade the rest for an annuity (i.e. a pension).
john boyle wrote:
> In message <>, MM
> <> writes
>>>Agreed, but that isnt the reason why we should agree that their use of
>>>the word is correct. Oh, hang on though, perhaps that is what the
>>>Government really WANT us to do when educating people. If the kids get
>>>it wrong, then agree with them!
>>
>>Why are you getting so hung up on a bloody word, for Christ's sake!
>>You know what I mean, most everyone else here knows what I mean, so
>>why are you so insistent on proving yourself right?
>
> Dont get hung up about. Its just Ronald & I having one of our pedantic
> spats.
>
> I'll put it another way. Colloquially, the word 'hoover' is often used
> as being synonymous with 'vacuum cleaner'. Im saying you need a vacuum
> cleaner. RR is saying the word 'hoover' will do because that is the word
> you have used for taking income in retirement. The set of products
> covered by the words 'vacuum cleaner' is quite different from the set of
> products covered by the word 'hoover'. If you went into an electrical
> shop and asked for a Hoover you could quite legitimately be sold a
> washing machine made by Hoover.. If you went in the shop and asked for a
> vacuum cleaner, you would get a vacuum cleaner, but it might not be made
> by Hoover.
Sounds like a load of nonsense to me. Everyone knows the difference
between "hoover" and "Hoover", though of course when it's only spoken
you can't tell how you've spelt it.
Bitstring <SS7e+>, from the wonderful
person john boyle <> said
>In message <>, GSV Three Minds in a Can
><> writes
>>>No, its very specific thing which has been around for 100s ofd years.
>>>It is the use of the word 'pension' in the way you describe that is
>>>new to make it easy for people who are unfamiliar with the word
>>>'annuity'.
>>
>>Or what my scheme documentation calls a 'pension in payment', as
>>opposed to a 'pension in some other state' (typically investment,
>>company scheme pot, or Rupert Murdoch's pocket).
>>
>
>That doesnt sound like an annuity though. It sounds like a defined
>benefit occupational scheme so no annuity will be involved
Oh it could well be an annuity, if the company scheme decides to lay off
the risk by buying one. =HOW= they deliver the income to the pensioner
is pretty much up to them, afaik.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Google may be your friend, but groups.google.com posters definitely aren't.
MM wrote:
> My selected retirement date will soon fall due and I have been
> contacted by Standard Life, indicating the amount available to buy a
> pension, and listing various options.
>
> SL also say that I can choose to use a different pension provider if I
> so wish.
>
> Would SL be a good choice, or am I likely to obtain better value
> elsewhere?
>
> MM
Whatever you do, don't chose Scottish Equitable. A bunch of thieves, in
my experience.
Irma
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita
Irma Troll wrote:
> MM wrote:
>> My selected retirement date will soon fall due and I have been
>> contacted by Standard Life, indicating the amount available to buy a
>> pension, and listing various options.
>>
>> SL also say that I can choose to use a different pension provider if I
>> so wish.
>>
>> Would SL be a good choice, or am I likely to obtain better value
>> elsewhere?
>>
>> MM
>
>
> Whatever you do, don't chose Scottish Equitable. A bunch of thieves, in
> my experience.
> Irma
And whatever you do, DON'T EVEN THINK OF USING AN IFA.
Irma
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita
In message <>, GSV Three Minds in a Can
<> writes
>>That doesnt sound like an annuity though. It sounds like a defined
>>benefit occupational scheme so no annuity will be involved
>
>Oh it could well be an annuity, if the company scheme decides to lay
>off the risk by buying one. =HOW= they deliver the income to the
>pensioner is pretty much up to them, afaik.
Thats true, they are leaving their options open. Which is why the word
'annuity' isnt used. The OP had no such option.
--
John Boyle
In message <j35eg.76872$>, Ronald
Raygun <> writes
>Sounds like a load of nonsense to me. Everyone knows the difference
>between "hoover" and "Hoover", though of course when it's only spoken
>you can't tell how you've spelt it.
>
I spell it D Y S O N.
--
John Boyle
Irma Troll wrote:
> Whatever you do, don't chose Scottish Equitable. A bunch of thieves, in
> my experience.
Equine? Just because they're on horseback doesn't mean they're thieves.
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
On Sun, 28 May 2006 11:47:45 +0100, john boyle
<> wrote:
>In message <j35eg.76872$>, Ronald
>Raygun <> writes
>
>>Sounds like a load of nonsense to me. Everyone knows the difference
>>between "hoover" and "Hoover", though of course when it's only spoken
>>you can't tell how you've spelt it.
>>
>I spell it D Y S O N.
Dysons suck.
MM
On 28 May 2006 11:56:22 +0200, Irma Troll <> wrote:
>Irma Troll wrote:
>> MM wrote:
>>> My selected retirement date will soon fall due and I have been
>>> contacted by Standard Life, indicating the amount available to buy a
>>> pension, and listing various options.
>>>
>>> SL also say that I can choose to use a different pension provider if I
>>> so wish.
>>>
>>> Would SL be a good choice, or am I likely to obtain better value
>>> elsewhere?
>>>
>>> MM
>>
>>
>> Whatever you do, don't chose Scottish Equitable. A bunch of thieves, in
>> my experience.
>> Irma
>
>And whatever you do, DON'T EVEN THINK OF USING AN IFA.
Dunno whether this is a joke? Is it, or do you genuinely avoid them?
MM
On Sun, 28 May 2006 14:36:51 GMT, Shirl
<> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 May 2006 14:06:29 +0100, MM <> wrote:
>
>>My selected retirement date will soon fall due and I have been
>>contacted by Standard Life, indicating the amount available to buy a
>>pension, and listing various options.
>>
>>SL also say that I can choose to use a different pension provider if I
>>so wish.
>>
>>Would SL be a good choice, or am I likely to obtain better value
>>elsewhere?
>>
>>MM
>
>I asked my IFA to get quotes from the open market when I retired. I
>was not given a choice, but told he had a better quote from NU. By
>the time all the paperwork/forms etc. where completed, I had lost 1
>months pension. All this for an extra £3. per month (net) which will
>take about 2 years to make up for the lost month
Ah. Good point.
MM
MM wrote:
> On 28 May 2006 11:56:22 +0200, Irma Troll <> wrote:
>
>> Irma Troll wrote:
>>> MM wrote:
>>>> My selected retirement date will soon fall due and I have been
>>>> contacted by Standard Life, indicating the amount available to buy a
>>>> pension, and listing various options.
>>>>
>>>> SL also say that I can choose to use a different pension provider if I
>>>> so wish.
>>>>
>>>> Would SL be a good choice, or am I likely to obtain better value
>>>> elsewhere?
>>>>
>>>> MM
>>>
>>> Whatever you do, don't chose Scottish Equitable. A bunch of thieves, in
>>> my experience.
>>> Irma
>> And whatever you do, DON'T EVEN THINK OF USING AN IFA.
>
> Dunno whether this is a joke? Is it, or do you genuinely avoid them?
>
> MM
Christ, it's no joke! Avoid them at all costs. If you really, really,
really, really feel you need your hand held, then make sure you see a
fixed fee IFA (ie. not commission based).
But best bet (unless you like being screwed) is to AVOID - trust me, I
speak from experience.
Irma
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita
In message <>, MM
<> writes
>>>Sounds like a load of nonsense to me. Everyone knows the difference
>>>between "hoover" and "Hoover", though of course when it's only spoken
>>>you can't tell how you've spelt it.
>>>
>>I spell it D Y S O N.
>
>Dysons suck.
:-) !!
--
John Boyle
In message <>, Shirl
<> writes
>I asked my IFA to get quotes from the open market when I retired. I
>was not given a choice, but told he had a better quote from NU. By
>the time all the paperwork/forms etc. where completed, I had lost 1
>months pension. All this for an extra £3. per month (net) which will
>take about 2 years to make up for the lost month
>
Hmm, NU, hmm nuff said, but you do have a good point. None the less, I
assume you expect to live more than two years? so would you have rather
had the lower pension for the rest of your life?
If you think the £3 per month wasnt sufficient for the hassle, why did
you go along with it?
--
John Boyle
> >"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> >>Sounds like a load of nonsense to me. Everyone knows the
> >>difference between "hoover" and "Hoover", though of course
> >>when it's only spoken you can't tell how you've spelt it.
> >>
> john boyle wrote:
> >I spell it D Y S O N.
>
"MM" wrote
> Dysons suck.
Yep, and they carry on sucking -- just as
strongly -- even when they are nearly full!!
On Mon, 29 May 2006 02:32:20 +0100, John Boyle
<> wrote:
>In message <>, Shirl
><> writes
>>I asked my IFA to get quotes from the open market when I retired. I
>>was not given a choice, but told he had a better quote from NU. By
>>the time all the paperwork/forms etc. where completed, I had lost 1
>>months pension. All this for an extra £3. per month (net) which will
>>take about 2 years to make up for the lost month
>>
>
>
>Hmm, NU, hmm nuff said,
Okay, just that comment alone tells me a lot! So you don't rate it
very highly. A very useful addition to the debate might be had by
listing (by you or someone else) the names of the main companies in
order of dependability.
Let us see whether the lists tally from e.g. Miss L Toe, John,
Daytona, Ron et al !
Now, despite the greatly reduced bonuses and shortfalls in recent
years, which seem common to all insurance companies, I still rate SL
as somewhat less of a fly-by-night organisation than, say, Equitable
Life, over which I have heard far more doom and gloom for longer.
So, where are the lists, say the top five so as not to tax people too
much, of the best companies to consider. Let's forget about IFAs for
the moment and concentrate on the actual companies that will, or could
be, providing a pension.
MM
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Shirl wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2006 02:32:20 +0100, John Boyle
> <> wrote:
>>
>>Hmm, NU, hmm nuff said, but you do have a good point. None the less, I
>>assume you expect to live more than two years? so would you have rather
>>had the lower pension for the rest of your life?
>>
>>If you think the £3 per month wasnt sufficient for the hassle, why did
>>you go along with it?
>
> Because I knew nothing about pensions and he was my IFA!!
>
> I am following this debate very carefully as my OH will be 65 at the
> end of the year, and has his private pension with SL.
Whose fault was it that paperwork took so long? Yours for not making up
your mind early enough, or not contacting the IFA early enough? This
should all have been sorted out months in advance of when you should
have begun drawing your pension.
In your bemoaning that you "lost" one month's pension, did you make
allowance for the fact that your pension fund would have enjoyed
one extra month's growth (since the annuity will have been bought a
month later)? Should that not have allowed you to buy a slightly
bigger annuity? Of the order of half a percent or so.
On Mon, 29 May 2006 15:02:41 GMT, Shirl
<> wrote:
>I am following this debate very carefully as my OH will be 65 at the
>end of the year, and has his private pension with SL.
How does he feel he has been treated by SL overall?
MM
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
"MM" <> wrote in message
news:
> On Mon, 29 May 2006 02:32:20 +0100, John Boyle
> <> wrote:
>
> >In message <>, Shirl
> ><> writes
> >>I asked my IFA to get quotes from the open market when I retired. I
> >>was not given a choice, but told he had a better quote from NU. By
> >>the time all the paperwork/forms etc. where completed, I had lost 1
> >>months pension. All this for an extra £3. per month (net) which will
> >>take about 2 years to make up for the lost month
> >>
> >
> >
> >Hmm, NU, hmm nuff said,
>
> Okay, just that comment alone tells me a lot! So you don't rate it
> very highly. A very useful addition to the debate might be had by
> listing (by you or someone else) the names of the main companies in
> order of dependability.
>
> Let us see whether the lists tally from e.g. Miss L Toe, John,
> Daytona, Ron et al !
ARRRGGH
Why drag me into this :-)
I just provided a link I found that has been interesting for my personal
future planning.
I am not an IFA - although becoming one has crossed my mind as I seem to
know more (without formal training) than the few I have encountered.
"MM" <> wrote in message
news:
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 10:22:22 +0100, "Miss L. Toe"
> <> wrote:
>
> >
> >"MM" <> wrote in message
> >news:
> >> On Mon, 29 May 2006 02:32:20 +0100, John Boyle
> >> <> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In message <>, Shirl
> >> ><> writes
> >> >>I asked my IFA to get quotes from the open market when I retired. I
> >> >>was not given a choice, but told he had a better quote from NU. By
> >> >>the time all the paperwork/forms etc. where completed, I had lost 1
> >> >>months pension. All this for an extra £3. per month (net) which will
> >> >>take about 2 years to make up for the lost month
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Hmm, NU, hmm nuff said,
> >>
> >> Okay, just that comment alone tells me a lot! So you don't rate it
> >> very highly. A very useful addition to the debate might be had by
> >> listing (by you or someone else) the names of the main companies in
> >> order of dependability.
> >>
> >> Let us see whether the lists tally from e.g. Miss L Toe, John,
> >> Daytona, Ron et al !
> >
> >ARRRGGH
> >
> >Why drag me into this :-)
>
> Entirely optional!
>
> MM
I have only been looking at anuinty rates and pension options for future
planning purposes. I am leaning towards Income Drawdown (but have lots of
questions I will reasearch over the coming years).
But If I was to chose an Insurance Company for Annuity purposes:
1) - I would check what Government protection is available (if any) and what
rules/limits apply to it.
2) - I would look seriously at splitting my fund between 2 or more
providers.
3) - I would only deal with companies that had been in business at least 20
years - probably at least 50.
4) - I would then checkout the top 5 payers for the type of annuity I wanted
and see if I could spot any reasons to avoid any of them.
Ronald Raygun <> wrote:
> Irma Troll wrote:
>
> > Whatever you do, don't chose Scottish Equitable. A bunch of thieves, in
> > my experience.
>
> Equine? Just because they're on horseback doesn't mean they're thieves.
SE have so far taken seven weeks to *send out a form* regarding a
pension fund transfer.
SW got a similar letter and had the dosh with the new provider in 10
days.
HTH, Alan
--
99 Ducati 748BP, 95 Ducati 600SS, 81 Guzzi Monza, 74 MV Agusta 350
"Ride to Work, Work to Ride" SI# 7.067 DoD#1930 PGP Key 0xBDED56C5
Alan Frame wrote:
> Ronald Raygun <> wrote:
>> Irma Troll wrote:
> Whatever you do, don't chose Scottish Equitable. A bunch of thieves, in
> my experience.
> SE have so far taken seven weeks to *send out a form* regarding a
> pension fund transfer.
Mine took 14 weeks to transfer. They forgot to pay some of the tax free element
and NEVER answered a letter. Not one. Most of the fund was "floating" somewhere.
"Irma Troll" <> wrote in message
news:447a2e88$
[snip]
>>> And whatever you do, DON'T EVEN THINK OF USING AN IFA.
>>
>> Dunno whether this is a joke? Is it, or do you genuinely avoid them?
>>
>> MM
>
> Christ, it's no joke! Avoid them at all costs. If you really, really,
> really, really feel you need your hand held, then make sure you see a
> fixed fee IFA (ie. not commission based).
> But best bet (unless you like being screwed) is to AVOID - trust me, I
> speak from experience.
Experience of how many IFAs ?
On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:00:27 +0100, "Miss L. Toe"
<> wrote:
>3) - I would only deal with companies that had been in business at least 20
>years - probably at least 50.
I don't think that means an awful lot as circumstances can change.
I believe that the tier 1 capital ratio is commonly used to measure
the strength of financial institutions -
<>
Money Management magazine probably still does periodic rankings.
Daytona
Rob <> wrote:
> Alan Frame wrote:
>
> >> Irma Troll wrote:
******
> > Whatever you do, don't chose Scottish Equitable. A bunch of thieves, in
> > my experience.
******
> > SE have so far taken seven weeks to *send out a form* regarding a
> > pension fund transfer.
>
> Mine took 14 weeks to transfer. They forgot to pay some of the tax free
> element and NEVER answered a letter. Not one. Most of the fund was
> "floating" somewhere.
Please be carefull with your quoting - I didn't say all of the above.
thanks, Alan
--
99 Ducati 748BP, 95 Ducati 600SS, 81 Guzzi Monza, 74 MV Agusta 350
"Ride to Work, Work to Ride" SI# 7.067 DoD#1930 PGP Key 0xBDED56C5
Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> "Irma Troll" <> wrote in message
> news:447a2e88$
> [snip]
>>>> And whatever you do, DON'T EVEN THINK OF USING AN IFA.
>>> Dunno whether this is a joke? Is it, or do you genuinely avoid them?
>>>
>>> MM
>> Christ, it's no joke! Avoid them at all costs. If you really, really,
>> really, really feel you need your hand held, then make sure you see a
>> fixed fee IFA (ie. not commission based).
>> But best bet (unless you like being screwed) is to AVOID - trust me, I
>> speak from experience.
>
> Experience of how many IFAs ?
Three.
Irma
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita
Alan Frame wrote:
> SE have so far taken seven weeks to *send out a form* regarding a
> pension fund transfer.
Just wait until you actually send it back - mine sat in an in tray (or
out tray) for nearly a year. It only got to Scotland when I chased it
up. Transfer finally got done 18 months late and cost me literally tens
of thousands.
Irma
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita