Stakeholder pensions

AIUI the provider is a seperate entity to the funds it is running. It can't help itself to money from your pension fund if it gets a bit short. If one of the providers went under I'm certain it's funds would find themselves being run by another provider. I'm also certain it wouldn't get to that stage.

All of which is not to imply your pension fund can't go down as well as up . :-(

DG

Maximum protection of 48,000 - see

Have you a link?

Says

Our rules are made by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the independent watchdog set up by government to regulate financial services and protect consumers. The rules tell us which type of claims are eligible for compensation, and how much compensation we are allowed to pay. We must abide by these rules at all times.

Under our rules, there are limits to the amounts of compensation the Scheme can pay to a claimant.

The maximum levels of compensation are:

- Long-term insurance (e.g. pensions and life assurance) firms: unlimited, 100% of the first £2,000 plus 90% of the remainder of the claim. Policyholder protection is triggered if an authorised insurer is unable, or likely to be unable, to meet claims against it, for example if it has been placed in provisional liquidation or administration

"Derek *" wrote

Equitable? !

In message , Mark Blewett writes

You havent read the whole page :

Quote

Investments: £48,000 per person (100% of £30,000 and 90% of the next £20,000). FSCS provides protection if an authorised firm is unable to pay claims against it. For example:

for loss arising from bad investment advice, poor investment management or misrepresentation; when an authorised investment firm goes out of business and cannot return investments or money. Investments covered include: stocks and shares; unit trusts; futures and options; *personal pension plans* and long-term policies such as endowments.

Mortgage advice and arranging: £48,000 per person From 31 October 2004 the Scheme will be able to pay up to £48,000 (100% of the first £30,000 and 90% of the next £20,000) for claims against authorised mortgage firms that are unable to pay claims against them.

Long-term insurance (e.g. pensions and life assurance) firms: unlimited,

100% of the first £2,000 plus 90% of the remainder of the claim. Policyholder protection is triggered if an authorised insurer is unable, or likely to be unable, to meet claims against it, for example if it has been placed in provisional liquidation or administration.

END"

So the £48k limit applies to Stakeholder Pensions because they are a Personal Pension.

Also although the page refers to "pensions and life assurance" firms it does so only in the context of Insurance and the companies inability to meet a claim, not the investment element of a Pension Plan.

That was going to be my response also. Con the majority of the members to accept some crap solution then continue to rob it blind.

Kevin

Tim + Kevin,

I worked for a small company that split into smaller fragments in 1986.

A retired ex colleague in one fragment found that Equitable couldn't pay his annuity to the extent they'd agreed, and another colleague somewhere else still working put a lump sum of £20k into Eq. Life weeks before the trouble broke. I know about Eq Life to that extent.

But I don't think that was the prime concern of the OP. I took the view he had observed that companies were going breasts uppermost and employees were losing their *company* pensions because they were underwritten by the sundry bankrupt company. I don't think the same can prove to be the case of a stakeholder pension provided by an :

"Actual stakeholder provider ie Virgin/Norwich Union"

Am I wrong?

I was of the opinion that the Equitable life problem arose because they made guarantees which turned out to be unwise and which the High Court ruled (perhaps contraversially) took precedence over the interests of other (non guaranteed) fund members even if they had joined and paid in later.

Have I got it right this far?

If so ISTM that it wasn't the provider that went down the Swannee, the problem arose because there was one fund and it's members did not all have equal rights, some were disadvantaged, and when the shit hit the fan the ones with the advantage scooped the pool. Yes/No ?

Moral seems to be all members of a fund should have equal rights. Hopefully this is the case in a Stakeholder Pension Fund.

DG