>
>>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.
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!
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.
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').
Bitstring , from the wonderful person john boyle said
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).
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.
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".
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).
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 , from the wonderful person john boyle said
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.
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?
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.