Beware of 'pension deals' in sheep's clothing

Beware - in my early years because of compny take overs etc I had my 6 years 7

month years of calculation on a 80 ths scheme in the compay reduced to 1 year by the new company taking over and was told take it or leave it in the take over and was at the time encouraged to accept it to my detriment now - I did try to persue it a number of years later but although in theory I had a case got no where.

My lesson - Beware get at least more than one lot of opion /advice.

If Steve Webb wants to put a stop to this type of change, why doesn't he reverse all the detrimental-to-private-sector-dc-and-db-pensions changes made by Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor of the exchequer? Private companies need to be able to thrive, to pull the country out of its current mess and in order to pay for the bloated public sector.

Agree with dd, who makes a very very good point.

Industry now is suffering from the changes as much as the pensioners, which makes the situation even worse.

However the 5-7Billion a year Gordon ripped off pensions (total around £80 Billion since 1997) may be too much for the LibCons to restore when labour have made the country nearly bankrupt, and by the time it can be afforded most of the schemes will have been closed.

I appreciate there are other factors such as life expectancy dragging down pensions, but the spiteful tax raid, one of the worst stealth taxes unnoticed at the time, was a big contributory factor.

I'm really amazed that GB got away with so much with so little outcry.

How did his incompetence go so un-noticed?

Must have been the Scottish cleric's claim to prudence.

Could hardly claim to take a conservative stance could he?

Lessons learned I guess!

What worries me is that lessons have only been learned by those of us who lived through it. Younger people (new voters) are not likely to know about the Gordon Brown (stealth activities behind the scenes) era unless they are told about it. They will think that bad conditions in retirement are purely the result of the current government's policies.

If GB wanted to spend as he did, he should have taxed accordingly, to make the books balance. What he did was deceitful and now the Archbishop of Canterbury seems to think that we should carry on borrowing to spend, GB style.

dd and Philmo, agreed. Very worrying.

And who is the shadow chancellor now? The person who was advising Gordon Brown, (Ed Balls for those readers not with our long memories).

This morning EB also had some very bad publicity over the nasty infighting over Blair.

I have been and still am extremely concerned over the integrity and competance of those politicians, especially as they may very well be in power again in a few years. If there was an election now, they would win. It would seem the ignorant public as well as their faithful actually believe their spin.

"if you say it often enough and loud enough, the public will believe it". I think that this has been one of Labour's tactics.

BTW, was it Ed Balls, as Education Secretary, who stated that children should have x number of lessons of this and y number of lessons of that, so many of something else - and the total wouldn't even fit into a school week? I remember him as the Education Secretary who couldn't add up and now he is shadow Chancellor? Scary indeed.

.

Investing in pensions is a negative sum game. Very few of those doing so now will get as much or even more, in real terms, than their total contributions returned to them.

The tax bribe sucks you in, and your money gets used to support a rapaciously greedy industry. Many will die before they retire. Many more will make it to retirement age, only to get a pitiful annuity worth less than they could get by buying, say, now, National Grid shares with the same amount of money as their pension pot. Many of these will live only a few years before mortality catches up with them, and long before they have received anything like their contributions back, the money is swallowed up by the provider. Nothing to leave for your heirs. Pension schemes are, from start to finish, elaborate Ponzi schemes.

I should myself be grateful, as a lucky exception after collecting an annuity for 15 years in that (a) I am still alive and (b) I've almost got my contributions back. But my annuity pays me only 8% of my personal income. It should, if based on the contributions I made, be over half. As it is my DIY investments , made with less initial contribution than my pension plan keeps me relatively wealthy, and provides the other 92%.

And I am one of the lucky ones. Listen to the hard luck stories of those who have already lost (as above). Think Maxwell. Think Equitable Life. How do you know that your boss, your company, and your provider, won't be in the headlines half way through your working life for the rogues and scammers they were? That could be you, that could!

Tony, I agree, the whole pensions system is rotten.

At one time, the "norm" for a pension investment fund was to invest in a selection of solid income growth blue chips, both UK and overseas, and some bonds directly held to maturity. With tax relief compounded, this would give a good income to pay pensions, and the growth in income and capital over the long-term needed for the fund to remain solvent.

Now "risk profile" has forced many trustees to invest in tracker funds, hedge funds, bond funds, either where the income content is diluted in poor parts of the funds which are just "closet trackers" or just siphoned off as high fees. Hedge funds are particularly disappointing in this regard. It has been a recipe for continuing disaster.

With ignorant government interference, bad regulation and a greedy incompetant industry, we have toxic combinations.

The solution? Well part of it must be education of individuals to assume more responsibility for their savings, with corresponding publicity and encouragement for better pension fund models than at present.

As a former expatriate, my pension is paid from a (UK) Company fund located in Guernsey. A cash offer was made to me this year which I turned down. Can anyone help with advice on the pension/ fund protection mechanism available to the likes of myself in this situation.

It seems to me that an alternative source of income in retirement, such as from a second property, is regarded as wealth to be penalised in times of austerity, even if the individual has no other source of income (apart from state pension).

In contrast, substantial income from an unfunded final salary scheme (in addition to state pension) is regarded as a right which may never be touched in the same time of austerity, in fact there are demands that it should rise whatever the state of the economy .

Popular assessment of wealth is skewed, imo.