DWP email reveals anti-IFA stance

P R Gone wrong

Obviously the PR for the IFA sector has been seriously lacking. (thank you AIFA, networks et-al!!! Surely the DEP should realise that IFAs are value for money as they will ensure that retirees are paid the best pension they can get for their pension fund. Someone has to do the work and they need to be paid so why not the EXPERT IFAs? AIFA etc, do your work on this, raise the profile of your members and the benefit they provide for their fees.

Posted by: Mike

I suspect they're not the only ones

The DWP's stance does not sound significantly different from that of other governmental and quasi-governmental departments who seem to see independent advice as offering some kind of threat. Maybe it's because a client is more likely to be told the truth by someone who is engaged by and working for them rather than either a civil servant or bank seller whose objectives may well lie elsewhere!

Posted by: Duncan Carter

Que???

These people run the system and yet have no idea of how the system works. How can they think that correspondence sent at retirement will affect auto-enrolment? Surely retirees should not be auto-enrolling anyway, as there is no benefit (or is this a clue that the priority is meeting uptake targets or generating management fees are more important than an individuals position in retirement). Regarding being anti "paid-for advice", I assume this means that when an employee needs to pursue a grievance that DWP would not encourage the use of a solicitor, as this would be construed as drivign people to seek "paid-for advice". You couldn't make it up! And now they have made it clear that they do not want to consider any alternative suggestions. Additionally,

Posted by: Anne Uity

Blind to reality.

This clearly demonstrates the mentality and comprehension of the problem relative to the solution that people who are empowered to address the issues lack. You need to have both an in depth knowledge of the subject matter, and hands on experience on how clients react to the maturity packs provided by providers. There is no one size fits all solution. Fund size, risk, health, marital status, Tax, flexibility income sources, legislation and even social security benefits all impact on outcome. The principle in seeking and paying for advice and administration is to avoid what would otherwise be common mistakes.

Posted by: Richard

DWP

And these are the very same public sector employees who are striking because they are not satisfied with their own pensions which are already far more generous than most in the private sector!! It's about time the Government took a hard line - no pay or pension if you strike.

Posted by: Tony

madness

This sort of thing shows how blinkered a lot of these people are, an ifa's income is no different than the salary that employees of the DWP have, paid for by us,but we do not have a say in the matter, it makes so much sense to have this sort of retirement fund advice, the DWP should remember that the cost of advice set against the extra income received over a long period of time makes it very cost effective for the client, also the DWP need to remember that when the income is increased potentially the government get more tax, and the public reduce there likelyhood of being able to claim any benefits.

Posted by: Geoff

Living in a bubble.

Anne has hit the nail on the head as this is the at retirement market Auto Enrolment is irrelevant, what these pampered Public Servants ought to realise is that good IFA's obtain better annuity returns for our clients which surely as an ethos is in line with the objectives of Auto Enrolment!!

Posted by: Steve Baker

What do you expect?

Why should this cause surprise? Think about it – bureaucrats are by definition free loaders. They automatically have a very left wing outlook and are the champions of the ‘something for nothing’ culture. If in their chosen (or co-opted) department they were any good at all they would be in the Private Sector – just as the few competent individuals at HMRC jump ship to the accountancy firms. Any first hand interface with the majority bureaucrats makes it immediately apparent that compared to their siblings in the ‘real world’ they are a long way behind. There are a few competent ones but sadly very few indeed. Pass the biscuits – and I’ll have another cup of tea.

Posted by: Felix Godwyn

Left Wing?

Felix - pathetic comment. Adds nothing to the argument and is symptomatic of the "chip on the shoulder" smug and superior attitude of too many in tis industry. It's no wonder there are so many lined up to kick the financial services industry. (PS- I'm no civil servant)

Posted by: Disgruntled

FELIX

Totally agree with the comments about Felix. Smug, patronising and 'stick in the mud' would be three expressions that come to mind. I am an IFA and support this sector but as I said to two clients (ex college principle with a CBE and a retiring English teacher - and so more left wing spongers living off the State, Felix) who came to seek pension advice this morning "whenever I have had interaction with the DWP (quite often as it happens) the people I have spoken to are helpful, informative and efficient with a sense of humopur too." It is a pity that some of the people on call desks in the private sector are not as informative, helpful or humane - perhaps a stint in the DWP might help.

Posted by: Geoff Pollock

Non-advised OMO?

This view from the DWP has rekindled an old question in my mind that pops up from time to time on open market options. How on earth is a policyholder supposed to shop around without an adviser? It's actually quite a big job for an adviser and that is with real time quote aggregators and access to IFA only and specialist companies. How is the punter supposed to do it unaided? Is there any data as to how many direct OMOs are actually transacted? If - as I suspect - it is negligible, then wouldn't the DWP be better admitting that the adviser is necessary and letting the pension documentation reflect this?

Posted by: Chris Jones

DWP Don't Want Pensions

I spent 31 years as a volunteer endeavouring to liaise with the DWP and its predecessor organisation DSS. From 1997 onward the level of knowledge in their representation went down and their political bias went up. All through the Stakeholder consultations, and I use the word advisedly, they pursued their own agenda and shunned genuine concerns and comments from practitioners and HR departments in the submissions discussed. O'Halloran & Co hosted groups of DWP senior managers, at their request and our cost in order to bring them up to speed on private pensions. They abused our time and effort. In 2003 I was attending one of eight (as we later found out) meetings of specialists (all volunteers) to discuss pensions. When I asked a question regarding state pensions I was informed that the subject was not on the agenda. I called a halt to my attendance at that point and subsequently resigned as the national pensions spokesman for the Federation of Small Business, a position that I had held for 31 years. These are politicised, wet behind the ears, representatives of no one but themselves and their prescribed theories. Gordon Brown went out of his way to populate the Treasury, HMRC and DWP with Government can do it better activists and what you are now witnessing is the fruit of his labour. IFAs are anathema because they really do care about their clients’ welfare and argue their corner. Supplication always finds favour with government officials; we simply do not bend to fit that mould.

Posted by: Terence P.O'Halloran

Anti-IFA stance

I have a theory as to why the DWP and other government agencies would rather people don't contact an IFA about OMO or any other matter concerned with pensions. It is that IFAs might point out the massive inequality and shocking value-for-money that the State pension represents. The government and regulators have 'bashed' the personal pensions industry for the past 20 years, and all but destroyed private sector pensions over the past decade, whilst presiding over the most depressingly unfair State scheme imaginable. Most ordinary people don't take much notice of these matters until they actually reach retirement - but then, if the IFA shines a light on how the government has failed them, the anger sets in. If there is ever a revolution in this country it will be led by the 'grey tops' because they are the ones that have been most betrayed by incompetent, meddling, self-serving politicians of all persuasions for the past 2 generations. And to cap it all, after all the millions of man-hours spent by IFAs over the past 20 years on assessing the relative merits (or not) of contracting out, the government is stopping the option to contract out into a defined contribution scheme and removing the obligation to buy a spouse's pension. A move to help NEST gain a foothold despite it being likely that it will prove to be another monumental disaster.

Posted by: Bill Wells

Eh?

The DWP don't like 'paid for advice'? Talk about nutty. If the client takes unpaid for advice (i.e. 'free') then who will be held responsible for it? The point about paying for advice is that someone takes professional responsibility for that advice. And substituting 'paid for advice' with 'state bureaucrats advice' begs the same question. Does anyone seriously think that sucha functionary will ever take resposibility for the advice?

Posted by: Steven Farrall

Out of step?

I happen to think that Felix Godwyn has made a very valid point. @ Geoff Pollock If you can’t afford the £20 for a decent dictionary I suggest you ask your retired English teacher to explain the difference between a bureaucrat and a teacher. As for Disgruntled I think perhaps it is you not Felix who is in a minority – after reading other posts. And believe me it isn’t just in financial services that you will find antipathy towards bureaucrats. If you have any clients in business or who run their own firms I suggest you ask them what they think of these jobsworths. I had a career in manufacturing and even then they were a pain in the backside. You defenders of bureaucrats have obviously not had a lot of dealing with HMRC, DWP, The Factory Inspectorate, The OFT, The ICO the HSE and so on ad infinitum.

Posted by: Harry Katz

Seems sensible to me

The majority of people seeking an annuity do not need full advice IMHO. A decent non-advised service that gives quality information allowing the customer to make up their own mind is perfectly sufficient especially when backed up with an advice alternative. In my experience some advisers lack the interest, experience, knowledge and market clout to secure the best deal for their clients anyway.

Posted by: Lee Rawding

Another Fanny

there's a lot of them about just now!

Posted by: Paul Burnside