Further to the recent correspondence regarding polarisation and multi-ties, the problem lies in the stakeholder decision trees.
If a person needs further help because they already have a pension arrangement and want to review their position or because their circumstances do not seem to fit the tree or because they wish to obtain advice which takes account of all their financial circum stances, then they are advised to speak to their financial adviser, if they have one.
Does no one in a position of authority realise that the only reason my partner has an Allied Dunbar pension is because he had exactly these queries, but the Allied Dunbar adviser he consulted was not able to tell him to carry on with his Prudential pension.
What will happen to those clients who have advisers multi-tied to the “wrong” company who cannot advise on the par ticular existing arrangement?
And what about those “orphan” clients of now defunct offices, perhaps Equitable, who may not find advisers tied to their own particular office and able to advise on the suitability of their current arrangements?
Only an independent adviser in the true and conventional meaning of the word will be able to help all of these people.
Gillian M. Cardy
Certified Financial Planner, emailed