Success at Last Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Does anyone have any "been there, done that" advice regarding which QROPS to choose and which have the lowest/highest admin and management charges? I am wondering about what the charges (i.e. admin and management annual charges) are through Westpac; their London office were absolutely no help, would not even see me. Trying to find this information out here in the UK is like banging your head (hard) on a brick wall, clearly they want you to pay for a financial adviser. As my circumstances are really very simple, I am trying to avoid that. My parent 103 visa arrived after 8 years of waiting, I am jumping over first thing 2013, taking my UK pension with me. :smile: Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Remember that you cannot access benefits from your transferred fund for 5 years under the QROPS requirements - which is moving to 10 years from 06/04/2012. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mumoffour Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 This is one of my "things to research" - hubby is in a final salary scheme and has been since he started with the Co - I've been putting off this research for another day for a while now but really should sort it soon - suspect a little bit of planning willl go a long way :embarrassed: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew from Vista Financial Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Does anyone have any "been there, done that" advice regarding which QROPS to choose and which have the lowest/highest admin and management charges? I am wondering about what the charges (i.e. admin and management annual charges) are through Westpac; their London office were absolutely no help, would not even see me. Trying to find this information out here in the UK is like banging your head (hard) on a brick wall, clearly they want you to pay for a financial adviser. As my circumstances are really very simple, I am trying to avoid that. My parent 103 visa arrived after 8 years of waiting, I am jumping over first thing 2013, taking my UK pension with me. :smile: Thanks! Hi I would not write off financial advice due to you not wanting to pay. Quality advice could enhance your position and/or save you from doing something that may create a breach or incur extra taxation/penalties. The paperwork to transfer might be quite a simple affair but the understanding of the UK Pension system and regulations and the Australian Superannuation system and regulations is certainly not a simple matter. There can be many complex issues to have to navigate. In addition to this taking financial advice will ensure that your funds if transferred will eventually be invested into an asset allocation that you are comfortable with. Most people just opt for the default fund option when investing into their Super, the default fund option in 99% of cases is a Balanced Fund. Therefore around 65% - 70% of their money is invested in shares clearly not very balanced and probably not what they intended to do. Don't look to much into the fees, unless you really understand the breakdown of what the charges are (admin, member, MER), the options offered and are comparing like for like then it becomes irrelevant. WestPac do not actually have available public offer funds anymore, their financial arm is BT Financial Group who have many Super Funds to choose from although only a handful are QROPS. Super Fund choice should be made on the basis of what you are looking to achieve (growth, income a combination, wide fund choice, Term Deposits, guaranteed funds, share/ETF access etc) and how you are looking to invest as well as other features that may be available for instance good insurance options. Regards Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew from Vista Financial Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Remember that you cannot access benefits from your transferred fund for 5 years under the QROPS requirements - which is moving to 10 years from 06/04/2012. Best regards. That's another point to note as well, thanks Alan. The rule around the 5 years relates to unauthorised payments, this means that if an unauthorised payment is made a charge of between 40%-55% of the fund can be applied by HMRC and as mentioned this is due to move to 10 years. Generally within the time period (currently 5 years) a withdrawal constitutes an unauthorised payment however it is not technically right to say benefits cannot be accessed within this time period, it may be possible to access retirement benefits but they must adhere to very strict prescribed HMRC requirements as to amounts withdrawn. Regards Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Success at Last Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 Andy, thank you; I am beginning to think that I may well take advice (but in Australia, not here in the UK) after all, will check your website out. So far, all I have been able to find out about is the AON Master Trust, and this only because AON are our brokers for our UK pension fund; I am fortunate to work in a legal and financial services company and am able to ask a knowledgable partner for QROPS advice, so I have found out and am aware of most of the groundwork and rules; where I will need the advice is where actually (and in what manner) to transfer my (not huge sadly!) pension to. And Alan - thank you too, yes, I am aware of the ten year thing, that is not a problem for me. Kind regards Linda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim bean Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 People seem to make hard work out of moving private pension funds. I just went on Australian Supers website and transferred my pensions myself, ( obviously you have to contact your British pension supplier and tell them what you want to do) didnt pay any commission or fees, did have to pay a bit of tax though as l waited seven years untill l was sure l would stay in Australia. Australian Super took care of that and the tax money just came out of my super balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geraint Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Some interesting observations. But I do need to declare my interest, I designed the first ever transfer product for Australia back in 1994 it was Tower Bridge, it was complicated then and it’s even more complicated now – watch this space post 06/04/12. I can’t understand the pre-occupation of transferring pensions to Australia in 2012 – very different to 1994. FX is against you for one thing. Tax is not the monkey on your shoulder to worry about – despite it being the prime reason wheeled out by most Australian advisers for a transfer to Australia. Following 2002 announcements – one could orchestrate in many cases a Zero tax, so I am surprised Jim to be paying tax – suggest a check back on that. Personally I would be more concerned about when to transfer – Australia is beautiful for tax when drawing benefits but a horror story if you return to UK if you think you can draw benefits tax free from a former UK scheme once back in UK. Some have already been caught out on this one and Aussie advisers don’t mention it – not good! Australian QROPS always? Don't think so! Australian advisers will rarely recommend a non-Australian option despite it being a clearly more suitable option in many cases – lets not forget the limited choice of UK or Australia went in 2006. Yet ask an Australian adviser what to do and you will inevitably end up with a form for an Australian scheme. Sad but true. Though “Australian only QROPS” for Australian residents is a myth perpetrated by marketing Australian solutions, I would not be surprised it were to return if the 06/12/11 initiative fails. Quality advice today will examine 40+ jurisdictions, restricted advice, i.e. UK or Australia is of concern. So never say never to Malta or Guernsey or even New Zealand (despite recent press – NZ may top the poll in some cases). DIY should never have been and must be finally on its last legs following tomorrows 26/02/12 announcement of a joint exercise by the Pensions Regulator, HMRC and the Financial Services Authority into amongst other matters QROPS and overseas transfer schemes – few would countenance not using a professional. There is now evidence of unregulated firms marketing services into the UK – if you happen to come across a firm operating from overseas into UK – make sure the person you are working with has Professional Indemnity Insurance. This will be a prime focus of tomorrow’s expected announcement they are rightly concerned about consumers getting the right advice. Its pleasing to see Westpac not marketing its services in UK as regards pension transfers, their compliance people would no doubt have warned them off selling unlicensed product in UK. This may explain why you could not get Westpac in London to assist, they would also no doubt be aware that an Australian choice is not always the best choice. I think we are going to find some discoveries in the coming weeks and months and some well known firms are going to have some explaining to do. We are of the view that many Australian schemes do not know what they need to do to run QROPS – hence the 06/12/11 announcement if it ain’t broke why fix it? Well when we secretly shopped 10 Australian schemes – not one was compliant. So charges are not the sole determinant - they are but one. And you will have read in this thread news of change, come 06/04/12, please don’t think you can’t access your fund within 5 years – this is not correct, one glaringly obvious time would be if you had attained the age of 55 and the jurisdiction of choice stated you could access at 55. Clearly there are other times but also consider the retirement access of an Australian QROPS for one born post 30/06/64 is 60. Other countries are earlier, we are already finding clients who were not advised of such and now see themselves planning to work for longer than they planned all because they didn’t read the fine print. The 5 year for unauthorised payments is not due to change – it’s the reporting which will change to 10 years. HMRC have moved from an electronic to paper reporting process – defying progress in a would be paperless society. This was a move so that all schemes that have ever been transferred post QROPS birth date could be investigated. So for the likes of Jim his 10 year reporting begins the date of transfer, which assuming he transferred 01/01/12 would take him to midnight 31/12/21. However we should add the legislation is in draft format, though you will see FAQ’s floating out in the next few days and the final legislation should be out 20/03/12. We see the 10 years as a temporary move set up so all QROPS transfers ever could be examined. Expect the 10 years rule will be reviewed when the 06/04/06 to 06/04/12 business block has been thoroughly checked over. Geraint Davies Managing Director Montfort International www.miplc.co.uk and www.qrops.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim bean Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I would agree with Geraint you shouldnt rush to transfer private pensions until you are sure you want to stay in Aus and you have an understanding of QROPS and super. That said l could never let someone l dont know access my pension fund and transfer it. a, it might disapear and b, 10 to 1 the transferrer will have an ongoing commission where ever he advises you to put it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geraint Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I would agree with Geraint you shouldnt rush to transfer private pensions until you are sure you want to stay in Aus and you have an understanding of QROPS and super. That said l could never let someone l dont know access my pension fund and transfer it. a, it might disapear and b, 10 to 1 the transferrer will have an ongoing commission where ever he advises you to put it. Jim, thereby stands the problem - people are being panicked into transferring, when they should be focussing on the advice. Lots to do before even a transfer takes place. We have for example a number of cases where financial advisers believe its all about transfers and nothing to do with readying a situation for a potential transfer or even moving a scheme ex-UK or switching a non-UK QROPS scheme to A$ - we did quite a bit of this in 2008. Somebody the other day said Montfort gave birth to the idea of transferring pensions ex-UK - but even though we may have "this honour" it still ain't easy for the likes of a total stranger to put their faith and trust in anyone "even us". You are actually highlighting the very issue HMRC and the other regulators have unearthed - so called advisers taking outrageous commissions. Little wonder we as a firm when we obtained our adviser permissions would not countenance a position whereby a client could transfer client pension or investment monies into our account. So I am your biggest supporter for a. as regards b. if someone does a good job then they should be rewarded. There is now another issue where people who have moved into QROPS will if their scheme de-lists from HMRC as a QROPS will find that they have to report themselves to HMRC as and from 06/04/12 - so it really pays to have selected the right QROPS carrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 "You are actually highlighting the very issue HMRC and the other regulators have unearthed - so called advisers taking outrageous commissions. Little wonder we as a firm when we obtained our adviser permissions would not countenance a position whereby a client could transfer client pension or investment monies into our account." Geraint, These are two separate issues - how the advisor is remunerated, and the mechanism for the transfer of pension benefits. * Are you saying that Montfort receives no financial reward in the event that a pension transfer eventuates? * I am not aware of any firms in this area of advice administering the transfer of pension benefits through their own client account. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 "We have for example a number of cases where financial advisers believe its all about transfers and nothing to do with readying a situation for a potential transfer or even moving a scheme ex-UK or switching a non-UK QROPS scheme to A$ - we did quite a bit of this in 2008. Somebody the other day said Montfort gave birth to the idea of transferring pensions ex-UK - but even though we may have "this honour" it still ain't easy for the likes of a total stranger to put their faith and trust in anyone "even us"." With respect Geraint, I think you'd come across better if you weren't so disparaging of other advisors, and didn't seek to put yourself out there as the fount of all knowledge, particularly as this is only your second post on this forum ... Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geraint Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Alan I can’t agree that these are the issues. But first your questions. For the record, Montfort provides technical guidance as well as advice and offers to implement recommendations for its clients. When a client engages our services they can pay for our services according to the service engaged. This will be either by means of fee and or commission, (or its equivalent) or a combination, this will be confirmed in their bespoke client agreement. (Commission as you may be aware is being phased out in the UK as of 31/12/12). With regards to the specifics of your question are we paid for managing the transfer process or as you have stated “Are you saying that Montfort receives no financial reward in the event that a pension transfer eventuates?” The answer is of course as you would expect a Yes because we are rewarded. Similarly I am sure and I would presume you would expect to have your time covered where you do work for a client? We are no different to any commercial enterprise we are paid for what we do . Turning to the transfer of pension benefits through their client account, I think you are both misinterpreting my comment to Jim ad seemingly not aware of what is going on out there. First our position we chose not to have a client account as we saw this as giving client comfort that we would not hold their funds and quoting from our terms of business , “Clients’ Money WE ARE NOT AUTHORISED TO HANDLE OR HOLD CLIENTS’ MONEY. We do not accept cash or cheques made out to us unless it is fee for service or for a disbursement for which you were invoiced”. Now to the mis-use of pension monies, as you might be aware a transfer from a Registered Pension Scheme to a QROPS must go scheme to scheme – this would indicate that the funds cannot be accessed by an advisor – as there is seemingly no access point. Well as the Financial Services Authority have published in recent days I wouldn’t bank on that stopping outrageous charges (this is the first access point – they have I believe seen examples). We came across someone being charged 22% against the transfer. The evidence is out there and I doubt if the FSA would go public unless they had seen examples! They may have seen the same. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/consumerinformation/scamsandswindles/latest/early-release-pension-schemes.shtml So that would seem to indicate there are no issues, not so! Here are three examples post QROPS establishment, 1. investing in a scheme of no value promoted by an adviser where he or she gets a significant commission 2. hidden exit charges which = commission = 7%, 3. unregulated overseas advisers recommending actions to UK residents which are clearly suitable only to the advisers pocket \ client account. And of course once cashed out of a QROPS the Client Account is there ready and waiting to receive. We are of course independent and regulated and as such we do not always recommend a transfer to Australia. It is this latter matter which I believe is more to the point. This is why I don’t agree with you that this being about “the mechanism for the transfer of benefits”. Do you think a pension should always be transferred to an Australian scheme? because we don’t have this view. Have you seen the Financial Services Authority view that came out yesterday in relation to final salary schemes? There is indeed a lot of activity in this arena at present. You only have to link the messages of the URLs http://www.fsa.gov.uk/library/communication/pr/2012/019.shtml They seem also to have the view that a key step in the process is “should the transfer actually take place?” Surely the mechanism for the transfer of pension benefits comes later? So I wouldn’t say I am alone in my thinking that the consumer is suffering because of poor advice – the above URL is testimony. Readers of this forum really need to be aware that a transfer to Australia is not always the right solution. In fact a transfer ex-Australia might be best or leave as is in the current scheme might be best for the client. So its mechanism later, advice first and check the firm you are dealing with looks at all options. "You are actually highlighting the very issue HMRC and the other regulators have unearthed - so called advisers taking outrageous commissions. Little wonder we as a firm when we obtained our adviser permissions would not countenance a position whereby a client could transfer client pension or investment monies into our account." Geraint, These are two separate issues - how the advisor is remunerated, and the mechanism for the transfer of pension benefits. * Are you saying that Montfort receives no financial reward in the event that a pension transfer eventuates? * I am not aware of any firms in this area of advice administering the transfer of pension benefits through their own client account. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Hello again Geraint. As a general principle I am a believer in the free market and caveat emptor. So long as all costs are clearly identified - ideally on a comparable basis - those wishing to buy a product or service (eg the transfer of pension benefits) can make an informed decision as to whether or not to buy. You say, "The answer is of course as you would expect a Yes because we are rewarded. Similarly I am sure and I would presume you would expect to have your time covered where you do work for a client? We are no different to any commercial enterprise we are paid for what we do." Yes, I agree - but I am interested to know your thoughts on how receiving a reward for your time in respect of a pension transfer equates to receiving a percentage of the monies transferred, which is often the basis of financial reward for those involved in the pension transfer business. In other words, if it takes a pension transfer adviser the same time to arrange a pension transfer of £50k as for a pension transfer of £300k should the adviser receive more by way of introducer reward for the latter? "Turning to the transfer of pension benefits through their client account, I think you are both misinterpreting my comment to Jim ad seemingly not aware of what is going on out there." and "Now to the mis-use of pension monies, as you might be aware a transfer from a Registered Pension Scheme to a QROPS must go scheme to scheme – this would indicate that the funds cannot be accessed by an advisor – as there is seemingly no access point." As I said in my last post, are you aware of any pension transfer advisors who are actually handling pension transfers through their client bank account? "Do you think a pension should always be transferred to an Australian scheme?" No, I don't. And I have yet to hear of any firms advising in the pension transfer area who would have a different view to me and thee. There will always be shonky operators at the fringes though, which brings me back to my preference of caveat emptor, rather than burdensome regulation imposing onerous and costly administration on the majority, which ultimately is passed onto the client through higher fees. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geraint Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Alan The key is the client gets the advice correct. In your post you keep referring to costs, but costs are not the only comparative. But whilst you are on the subject, we offer our clients a choice (invariably with a no charge initial consultation). 1. Time based fees – client funds from own pocket or 2. Maximum % - time then calculated back and adjusted to reflect actual time or 3. Fixed % - related to complexity and quantum of funds and schemes Most go for 3 as they know where they stand, with an initial report fee. We naturally cannot set the fixed % unless we have seen “the job”. You will be heartened that the general rule is the higher the sum involved the lower cost of service if expressed as a % of funds moved. But size doesn’t necessarily correlate to simplicity nor to complexity. Those involved in the pension transfer business should not be involved in it – as they tend to be one trick ponies who will always shift a scheme. This was always meant to be “pension advice and implementation” not pension transfer, many people who have moved their funds should not have done and those that should have not. I am troubled by the association of the term pension transfer business as it is actually advice – people are requiring as to whether a fund should be moved or not. The biggest cost is therefore bad advice. You are keen to ask a lot of questions of myself – which I have no problem with, but how about your views Do you have concerns when fees are charged to examine a set of circumstances in order to determine whether a scheme should be transferred? In other words if it takes time to examine benefits should the adviser be paid if he recommends benefits are not to be transferred? Do you have issues where a firm unregulated to advise in a country where a person is resident still gives advice? Should any firm (regulated or unregulated) carry Professional Indemnity that carries on “pension transfer”services? Turning back to advisers using their own client account you asked the question “As I said in my last post, are you aware of any pension transfer advisors who are actually handling pension transfers through their client bank account?” I thought I had answered this “As you might be aware a transfer from a Registered Pension Scheme to a QROPS must go scheme to scheme – this would indicate that the funds cannot be accessed by an advisor – as there is seemingly no access point” Were you suggesting that you thought a transfer could go direct to an advisers bank account? If you thought this could be done, it is prohibited due to the legislation. My reference was to events after the transfer. I am afraid it is the shonky who have caused burdensome legislation to be put in place and it is also those who should have known better who have caused problems. . Kind Regards Hello again Geraint. As a general principle I am a believer in the free market and caveat emptor. So long as all costs are clearly identified - ideally on a comparable basis - those wishing to buy a product or service (eg the transfer of pension benefits) can make an informed decision as to whether or not to buy. You say, "The answer is of course as you would expect a Yes because we are rewarded. Similarly I am sure and I would presume you would expect to have your time covered where you do work for a client? We are no different to any commercial enterprise we are paid for what we do." Yes, I agree - but I am interested to know your thoughts on how receiving a reward for your time in respect of a pension transfer equates to receiving a percentage of the monies transferred, which is often the basis of financial reward for those involved in the pension transfer business. In other words, if it takes a pension transfer adviser the same time to arrange a pension transfer of £50k as for a pension transfer of £300k should the adviser receive more by way of introducer reward for the latter? "Turning to the transfer of pension benefits through their client account, I think you are both misinterpreting my comment to Jim ad seemingly not aware of what is going on out there." and "Now to the mis-use of pension monies, as you might be aware a transfer from a Registered Pension Scheme to a QROPS must go scheme to scheme – this would indicate that the funds cannot be accessed by an advisor – as there is seemingly no access point." As I said in my last post, are you aware of any pension transfer advisors who are actually handling pension transfers through their client bank account? "Do you think a pension should always be transferred to an Australian scheme?" No, I don't. And I have yet to hear of any firms advising in the pension transfer area who would have a different view to me and thee. There will always be shonky operators at the fringes though, which brings me back to my preference of caveat emptor, rather than burdensome regulation imposing onerous and costly administration on the majority, which ultimately is passed onto the client through higher fees. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Good morning again, Geraint. "In your post you keep referring to costs ..." Maybe that's because I'm an accountant, and as such am perhaps more likely than others to focus in on this issue. :biggrin: Thank you also for clarifying how you charge for your expertise. Unless I am missing something - feel able to clarify - I note that 2 of the 3 options noted in your posting are based on pension funds actually being transferred. In other words if a client elects for option 2 or 3 no transfer of pension benefits means you aren't remunerated save for (I think) your initial consulting fee. Now I know that a professional firm won't be biased towards a transfer of pension benefits - they will want what is right for their client - but only being remunerated if a transfer progresses means that prospective clients have a concern there is a bias inherent in the advice process. A discussion on this subject took place on another forum only a week or so ago. " ... you asked the question “As I said in my last post, are you aware of any pension transfer advisors who are actually handling pension transfers through their client bank account?” I thought I had answered this “As you might be aware a transfer from a Registered Pension Scheme to a QROPS must go scheme to scheme – this would indicate that the funds cannot be accessed by an advisor – as there is seemingly no access point” Were you suggesting that you thought a transfer could go direct to an advisers bank account? If you thought this could be done, it is prohibited due to the legislation. My reference was to events after the transfer." Please don't twist my words. In an earlier post you said: Little wonder we as a firm when we obtained our adviser permissions would not countenance a position whereby a client could transfer client pension or investment monies into our account. I am simply asking why you would bother making such a comment when the transfer of client pension monies into any advisor's client bank account is not permitted. The inference of your original posting is that yours is the only firm that takes this position - it clearly isn't. "Do you have concerns when fees are charged to examine a set of circumstances in order to determine whether a scheme should be transferred? In other words if it takes time to examine benefits should the adviser be paid if he recommends benefits are not to be transferred?" I believe a professional advisor should be remunerated for his or her competencies, and advice given, whether or not a client chooses to follow the advisor's recommendations. Ideally the advisor's fee should be fixed and agreed with the client up front, so the client knows what s/he is committed to if s/he engages the advisor's services. That is how we endeavour to run our visa business, and how we run our tax and accounting practice - clients know what our fees will be before they decide to engage us. I come at the fee charging issue from the perspective of asking what would I want to know if I was a client. In other words - there should be no nasty surprises insofar as fees are concerned. "Do you have issues where a firm unregulated to advise in a country where a person is resident still gives advice?" How long have you got? Regulation is multi faceted, and regulators in some countries use it as a poorly disguised method of protecting domestic interests in the name of consumer protection. And of course in these days of global interaction and the ease of marketing internationally it could be contended that regulation is a toothless tiger. Indeed, there is evidence - eg the GFC - to say that regulation has failed in its efforts. The bottom line for me is competence, openness, and an ability to communicate in terms clients can understand - because without these attributes the advisor will not have a sustainable business. Frankly, from a business perspective I don't mind greatly if someone does business in Australia without having the appropriate competencies, and I don't think you should feel threatened by those who provide services in competition to you. If you are good at what you do at a technical and practical level, can get the message out there about your skills - ie your marketing is good - and are open with clients about how you operate, your fees, etc the need for regulation falls away. From the lay person's perspective, I again say caveat emptor. In these days of consumer empowerment through the internet - look at this forum for a great example - there are sufficient resources for individuals to make informed buying decisions. Indeed, I put it to you that shonky operators will find a way of doing business whether or not there is regulation. "Should any firm (regulated or unregulated) carry Professional Indemnity that carries on “pension transfer”services?" Probably - yes. It is only the commercially unwise that don't. That's enough from me for now - client work calls! Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rring Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Jim, this is the kind of action I understand, been through Financial Advisors, pretty clear where I want my money to go, and your post although over a year old is encouraging.. Question though, did you deal with the ATO in terms of tax directly? Be interested to know how things sit now with your pensions and Australian Super a year down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geraint Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Dear RRing Some 20 years ago I went to what was then Inland Revenue and took with me the first ever draft set of rules they had ever seen for an Australian Superannuation scheme to receive a transfer from a UK scheme. Never been seen before they said. And we launched some 2 years later such was the rigmarole and compliance checks we had to go through. Is this of consequence? Yes and its a big Yes. What may seem straightforward is far from it. More and more cases are surfacing where an adviser has either recommended: * a transfer that should never have been * a transfer that took across less value than it should have * has been gouged by bank charges * has got the scheme in the wrong jurisdiction with ridiculous charges * that has been transferred with no checks on past suitability * has been sent at the wrong time * is subject to UK unauthorised payment charges * has the member returning back to UK * has been caught by UK's tax on lump sums and so the list goes on. The funny thing about this subject is that there is a direct correlation between those who one would think would be capable of advising and those that one would think are incapable of advising. And our experience shows that the more qualified the adviser the more likely they are to refer to a specialist. In other words the better the adviser the more likely they are to seek specialist advice, i.e. most of our enquiries come from accountants and financial advisers Ask HMRC if QROPS rules made the decision process simpler - and they will say No! Ask the UK schemes if they fear the right decisions are being made and they will say No! Today the consumer needs to be aware of what can happen if one goes alone or fails to take specialist advice, in the former you have no one to run to. If you look at most Australian Statements of Advice they seem to be nothing more than a get out clause so you have no one to run to because what you have ended up with was a no advice - sign on the dotted line and we will move your pension ex-UK service. May masquerade at advice and when examined can be torn apart on its rationale for transfer. And then we have Mehjoo v Harben Barker - where failure to seek specialist advice can cause the adviser to be dragged in front of the regulators for failing to acknowledge that they are not specialist in this field. 62 times the judge mentioned the term "reasonably competent" Please take on board that the least of your worries is the ATO, its HMRC who are the ones to be more wary of as well as should you have, when you should, was the value correct, should you have waited for a birthday, was the provenance of the scheme checked before you transferred. 20 years on this remains the most complex advice out there - riddled with issues. Little wonder a recent client said "I thought it was expensive using a professional thank goodness I didn't use an amateur" There are many booby traps and some will not surface for years - HMRC have 10 years plus to look at your situation - that is a long time to be without the protection of quality regulated advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsainsbury Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Please refer to the other posts on this forum BEFORE engaging the services of Montfort International. I paid £1,000 for "advice", being nothing more than a 250 page print out from the Australian Taxation office! What's more, the "advice" they peddle is dangerous. You think you're getting best practice, but they're just there to sell you policies. Once you spot their policy purchasing advice is based on how much commission they make, not on what's best for you, they vanish! I ended up embroiled with the FOS/FSA trying to get my money back. Do yourself a favour, contact the Commonwealth Bank as soon as you start the migration process. They'll allocate you our own Migration Financial Advisor who'll do everything you need... for free. Pensions, banking, insurances, the lot. If your affairs are really complex, then speak to Alan. Whilst I've not dealt with him directly, he's been posting helpful advice for years and I've heard nothing but praise for the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlehippy Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 [pulling up a chair to wait for the reply to dsainsbury above]. Interesting! I'm just starting to think about moving my UK pension to Australia. Timely and entertaining thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pommyaussie Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Just resurrected this thread to see if there is any update on the transfer of UK pension to Aus especially in response to the above comment on Montfort International. The Montfort International MD Geraint Davies seems to have gone quiet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourcandles Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 I moved my uk pension to a QROPS back in 2009. My preservation age is 60, now 47, so still a few years before I can or even want to draw on it so no problems with any unauthorised payment. I have been reading through this thread with some interest and a little worried as I may, for family reasons, be returning to the UK. It may well transpire that I will be in the UK when I reach my preservation age. Even though I would have reached the required age and will not be receiving any unauthorised payment as far as the QROPS and HMRC is concerned, does anybody know if I will be hit by HMRC for any tax, and if so how much, when I access my fund, as I will then resident in the Uk? Thanks for any advice or info. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pommyaussie Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Gary you may have done the right thing as (from what I understand) if you leave a pension in UK some of the pension schemes may in effect not be able to pay out in the future so anyone within those schemes who do not move their money over to Aus may lose out anyway if they happen to be in a scheme that *folds* due to the lack of funds to pay out. The above is a big concern - conversely some of the pension schemes in Aus have performed terribly resulting in money within those schemes being lost due to poor investment funds or alternatively administration fees. Either way - it seems pension schemes over the years in both UK and Aus have made millions from those people who have invested in them only to find they have been poorly run by the very people trusted to look after them. Then when you move to Aus and have to make a decision as to what to do ie whether to transfer over or keep in the UK, neither is failsafe and also if you transfer it to Aus then decided to go back to UK after all you have to move it all again! This is a mine field and still as clear as mud :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 It was a pretty straight forward decision for me, firstly my UK pension was dwindling because of fees and charges to the account, and at that time I could not pay into the fund from overseas, not even to pay the fees, secondly If I died the wife got 50% of the pension if we both died the kids got nothing zero ziltch, the government got it all, where as here in OZ the whole lot goes to your next of kin..... NO CONTEST really whatever the cost of transfer. Also industry super funds are generally the better ones here and you do tend to have some control over how your funds are invested, but as with any investment there are risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pommyaussie Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Thanks Keith and Linda - how did you choose which QROPS company to choose please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.