And at retirement

Never forget that these rules apply at retirement. I suspect many advisers - including provider direct operations - are not looking at a ceding scheme in this way when they execise OMO. It is absolutely clear to me that these rules apply equally at retirement but this never seems to get publicity. We had a case this month where a provider did not correctly identify protected tax free cash and tried to sell OMO with 25% cash.

Posted by: Bob Bullivant

we don't work for the regulator

"a recent survey of over 200 advisers found almost half did not have a single coherent process for pension switching advice." This could be because each case in which a transfer is made is dealt with on its own merits and using the particular comparison method and rationale which should be applied to its case in particular. The FSA checklist is NOT one which can be applied across the board -instead it tries to fit all cases into a template which will in pratice perhaps suit a regulator but will not do the job for the client. IFA's have an overarching duty to do the best for the client-this duty sits above any duty to make life easier for a regulator.

Posted by: snooks

Not just pensions

Pensions may be more complicated but the requirement for cost comparison and justification of addtional cost arises on any replacement business, not just pensions. My experience from talking to a lot of IFAs is that this message is still not understood, let alone being acted upon, by a significant swathe of advisers - hence the FSA geting tough, how else do they get the message across?

Posted by: Stan Kirk

be fair

Stan When you say this "My experience from talking to a lot of IFAs is that this message is still not understood, let alone being acted upon, by a significant swathe of advisers - hence the FSA geting tough, how else do they get the message across? " you are giving anecdotal and subjective evidence to back your own opinion. The FSA tend to do that as well - that is base a policy or an action on a less than objective less than sound analysis of IFA and/or client behaviour. That isn't good policy surely and it can't be good use of public funds. It may well be that if an objective analysis was properly carried out of the quality of advice and recommendations and their cost the FSA might find that concentrating their resources on where teh majority of consumer detriment is taking place leaves IFA's to get on with treating their clients fairly which is what 'in my experience' exactly what we have been doing even before the phrase was coined.

Posted by: snooks