# QROPS con or worth considering?



## Navaron (Oct 13, 2014)

Any thoughts as i've been cold called three times in the past two weeks and its getting annoying


----------



## Mr Rossi (May 16, 2009)

Only if you've had a recent windfall from an African prince and diamond mine owner.


----------



## twowheelsgood (Feb 21, 2013)

Con. 

Avoid.


----------



## Gavtek (Aug 23, 2009)

Being cold called is generally a good indication.


----------



## Navaron (Oct 13, 2014)

yeh exactly my thoughts too


----------



## Froglet (May 7, 2014)

Just plan a meeting with them an never show up. I don't think they'll call you after that again...


----------



## londonmandan (Jul 23, 2013)

Avoid it, once I get a call I then block the number on my iPhone.


----------



## brain55 (Sep 18, 2014)

I have been cold called by two numbers in Spain and also two in France. the interesting thing is that the woman on the line for both the numbers in France had the same strong Scottish accent!


----------



## SirReg (Sep 8, 2014)

You would be much better off buying a seafront property I own in Leicester, UK.


----------



## marr (Apr 8, 2015)

Just saw this and thought I'd add my view from within the pensions industry (where I work as an adviser). As per the above, be wary of anyone who has cold-called you. There are some companies/individuals who are unscrupulous, and even some who are fraudulent.

The general concept of QROPS is however not a con. For someone living in the UAE, a transfer to QROPS will enable you to get your pension income with no deduction of UK tax. By comparison, if you keep your UK pension and draw it under the UK rules, you'll pay up to 45% in tax.

Purely from the point of view of taxation, it represents good planning.


----------



## twowheelsgood (Feb 21, 2013)

marr said:


> Just saw this and thought I'd add my view from within the pensions industry (where I work as an adviser). As per the above, be wary of anyone who has cold-called you. There are some companies/individuals who are unscrupulous, and even some who are fraudulent.
> 
> The general concept of QROPS is however not a con. For someone living in the UAE, a transfer to QROPS will enable you to get your pension income with no deduction of UK tax. By comparison, if you keep your UK pension and draw it under the UK rules, you'll pay up to 45% in tax.
> 
> Purely from the point of view of taxation, it represents good planning.


There's a surprise - a Pensions Adviser advising you give them your pension so they can earn a big fat fee and you get SFA. 

'Up to 45%' - it'll be 45% only if you're completely dumb. In reality it'll be a lot less and certainly nothing like the loss of money given over to unregulated shysters here.


----------



## marr (Apr 8, 2015)

twowheelsgood said:


> There's a surprise - a Pensions Adviser advising you give them your pension so they can earn a big fat fee and you get SFA.
> 
> 'Up to 45%' - it'll be 45% only if you're completely dumb. In reality it'll be a lot less and certainly nothing like the loss of money given over to unregulated shysters here.


I can't blame you for being cynical, but I can blame you for being presumptuous.

For anyone with a pension income exceeding £42,386, the 40% tax band will be difficult to avoid. Indeed, if it comes from a defined benefit scheme where the benefits are fixed (defined, as the name suggests), it may be impossible to avoid.

For others with pension funds exceeding £160,680 who intend to liberate their entire pension under the new rules, the 45% tax band is a real concern and may deter them from doing so. They can easily avoid the issue altogether through QROPS.


----------



## twowheelsgood (Feb 21, 2013)

marr said:


> I can't blame you for being cynical, but I can blame you for being presumptuous..


And I can't blame you for trying. I've dealt with enough 'pensions advisors' to know they are only interested in one thing - their own welfare and not your.



marr said:


> For anyone with a pension income exceeding £42,386, the 40% tax band will be difficult to avoid.


Thats what percentage of the population and how common ? 1%, 2 % , 3% ? Basically you are doing the typical advisor trick of suggesting what might happen even if its utterly unrepresentative of the majority of people in the UK. What is clear is that paying people for advice in a completely unregulated market full of parasitic liars and cheats isn't wise. If people want advice, get it from a UK IFA and not from someone with a smart suit, who looks 25 years old and wears too much aftershave.

Also, anyone with any sense has a diverse portfolio and not all in a pension pot, which are not bound by those limits. And you won;t get a remotely set of independent advice here to put money into things which wont get them a fee.



marr said:


> Indeed, if it comes from a defined benefit scheme where the benefits are fixed (defined, as the name suggests), it may be impossible to avoid.


Again, what percentage of the UK population are still on large DB schemes ? If you;re on a DB then frankly, you are better off than any other possible scheme so anyone that suggests getting out of a db scheme is undoubtedly trying to rip you off. DB's are the DB's and should not be touched.



marr said:


> For others with pension funds exceeding £160,680 who intend to liberate their entire pension under the new rules, the 45% tax band is a real concern and may deter them from doing so.


Another pointless atypical example to catch the gullible. There are better ways to achieve liberation as you call it without trusting an unregulated amateur in the UAE.



marr said:


> They can easily avoid the issue altogether through QROPS


But they won't avoid getting ripped off by charlatans here. The charges you guys levy will cripple any pension scheme.

This would make more sense providing you like Portugal http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...m-Retire-in-Portugal-and-reduce-your-tax.html


----------



## marr (Apr 8, 2015)

twowheelsgood said:


> And I can't blame you for trying. I've dealt with enough 'pensions advisors' to know they are only interested in one thing - their own welfare and not your.


There are some fairly major presumptions in your post. I can't defend the UAE QROPS industry because I'm not part of it; but I can pretty easily defend QROPS as a concept. There is very little controversial about what I've said above - a statement of the tax treatment of QROPS - a matter of fact, not conjecture.




twowheelsgood said:


> Thats what percentage of the population and how common ? 1%, 2 % , 3% ? Basically you are doing the typical advisor trick of suggesting what might happen even if its utterly unrepresentative of the majority of people in the UK.


You think that pension income of more than £42,386 is unusual? Really?




twowheelsgood said:


> What is clear is that paying people for advice in a completely unregulated market full of parasitic liars and cheats isn't wise. If people want advice, get it from a UK IFA and not from someone with a smart suit, who looks 25 years old and wears too much aftershave.


Are you absolutely sure you were talking to an IFA?



twowheelsgood said:


> And you won't get a remotely set of independent advice here to put money into things which wont get them a fee.


Utter nonsense. Perhaps in the market you're thinking of - not in mine.



twowheelsgood said:


> Again, what percentage of the UK population are still on large DB schemes ? If you;re on a DB then frankly, you are better off than any other possible scheme so anyone that suggests getting out of a db scheme is undoubtedly trying to rip you off. DB's are the DB's and should not be touched.


It's now a requirement that anyone thinking of a DB transfer must obtain advice from a firm that is UK regulated and has the appropriate permissions. I think a UK critical yield analysis would probably give a better indication of the merits of a transfer than anything either you or I could say on an internet forum.



twowheelsgood said:


> Another pointless atypical example to catch the gullible. There are better ways to achieve liberation as you call it without trusting an unregulated amateur in the UAE.


I've spent several years working in the UK as a regulated IFA, and have worked in regulated markets ever since. So you can't possibly be referring to me. I don't work in the UAE either.



twowheelsgood said:


> But they won't avoid getting ripped off by charlatans here. The charges you guys levy will cripple any pension scheme.


Quite. Why worry about the small matter of detail when it's more convenient to make presumptions about the people who post here?



twowheelsgood said:


> This would make more sense providing you like Portugal The ultimate pension freedom: Retire in Portugal and reduce your tax - Telegraph


Valid for those who want to retire in Portugal, but how many will opt to do that? 1% or 2%? The whole point of proper advice is that it accommodates a person's circumstances; not the other way round.


----------



## Fat Bhoy Tim (Feb 28, 2013)

Okay, to summarise:
QROPS - fine in principle
UAE - full of hucksters
IFAs - find an accredited one not in the UAE


----------



## imac (Oct 14, 2012)

Fat Bhoy Tim said:


> Okay, to summarise:
> QROPS - fine in principle
> UAE - full of hucksters
> IFAs - find an accredited one not in the UAE


damn... should have just read the last post instead of two pages of gobbledigook...


----------



## marr (Apr 8, 2015)

Fat Bhoy Tim said:


> Okay, to summarise:
> QROPS - fine in principle
> UAE - full of hucksters
> IFAs - find an accredited one not in the UAE


I think that is probably a reasonable summary.


----------



## marc (Mar 10, 2008)

And on that bombshell its time to end the show. Thank you. Goodnight!


----------

