This week....
Lockdown ‘panic policy’ was disproportionate
Regarding your article ‘Sunak warns of recession like no other’ (May 28). Why on earth is Rishi Sunak warning us of a recession like no other as a result of the lockdown?
Perhaps he had better listen to his own words as it was he and the cabinet that took the reckless and unnecessary action to send our economy over the cliff edge. The ‘panic policy’ of lockdown was completely disproportionate and irrational.
Imperial modelling was guesswork dressed up as science, and it is the job of government to test the evidence and to make sure sense prevails and balance the priorities of lives lost against livelihoods destroyed.
There is no evidence that shutting down an economy will save any lives, just a presupposition. Otherwise, countries such as Sweden and Japan would be top of the death charts per million.
Professor Ferguson has now admitted the Swedish authorities “got a long way to the same effect” without a full lockdown and Camilla Stoltenberg, director of Norway’s public health agency, also concedes.
We only needed to shield the vulnerable. We should have tried to keep our businesses open to limit the damage. Why quarantine the mass healthy?
They have done a fine job too of scaring the nation and they use the abstract R rate to justify their continued actions.
Whether the UK recovers remains to be seen, but the daily debt levels of £2.4bn raids future generations of good public services, with lower expectations and a poorer NHS, one that could not provide PPE at the best of times.
We live in a dystopian world of silly made-up rules of social distancing and muzzles until they admit their mistake that they cried ‘wolf’.
An independent enquiry led by Lord Sumption is needed for full accountability and to avoid costly mistakes in the future.
Name and address supplied
Stick to professional opinion
I read your article ‘Advisers warn of consequences from contingent charging ban’ (June 5) and I am very dismayed at the reaction from advisers to a contingent charging ban.
As usual, the advisers take the higher moral ground, claiming that most potential clients will not be able to afford advice. If that is the case, these advisers must be working for free when they advise a client not to transfer, and also, if a client cannot afford to pay for advice, surely they should not be contemplating giving up a secure defined benefit income.
At my company, we moved away from contingent charging a long time ago and, while not all clients agree with the outcome of our investigations into their DB schemes, we charge for our time and stick to our professional opinions.
Name and address supplied
Remedy for poor advice
Thank you for your article ‘FCA’s DB advice warning signals complaint rise’ (June 10). I enjoyed it very much and as an IFA I thought it was well balanced and did not portray IFAs in the worst light possible.
I was disappointed to read that the regulator is approaching 7,700 former British Steel pension members and asking them to revisit the advice that they received.
This is exactly the situation that causes me most concern and disappointment, and why I would never recommend financial services as a career.
As you say in your article, clients should be able to complain, especially where poor or inappropriate advice has been given.
However, the current system of complaints is without cost to the client, and for those who the Financial Ombudsman Service finds in favour of simply means getting additional money.
I recently had a conversation with a good friend’s father-in-law, who said that the transfer of one of his final salary pensions was the best thing he had done – flexible access to pension and outside of his estate for inheritance tax purposes and that he was intending to leave it to the children. He then confirmed he had in the past complained and been paid compensation.
Where final salary transfers are concerned, I believe that the answer to poor advice is simple. Where the advice is found to be unsuitable, the member should be transferred back into the final salary pension or transferred to an annuity that guarantees the benefits that they would have got from the final salary pension.
Ideally, the final salary pension scheme trustees would be made to accept the transfer back.
I wonder how many clients would change their minds about complaining when told that they would, if successful, not get more cash but be transferred back to the final salary pension, losing the flexibility, death benefits, etc?
Name and address supplied
Woodford blame game
Regarding your article ‘What has the FCA been doing about Woodford?’ (June 3). I make no bones, I’m a great admirer of Jeff Prestridge, but on this occasion I think he may be a little off-beam.
The blame game often misses some important points. First, any decent adviser should look at what is in the fund. There is plenty of analysis around, not least annual and half-yearly reports.
Why did anyone not bother to look? If they had done so they may well have seen some of the higher-risk holdings.
Most importantly, much of the success of the Woodford funds was down to the hype.
I invested about 1.5 per cent of my portfolio in the fund. I knew it was high risk, but I thought it had long-term potential.
In my opinion, there is blame all round, including with the regulator, whose penchant for running from behind is legend.
Harry Katz,
HA7 Consulting
