Why would you use an IFA for choosing a pension fund
Why would anyone listen to someone else's advice? Because they believe that the person advising them knows better than they do. It's as simple as that.  The fact that you're doing any research at all - indeed, the fact that you know about a site on the internet where personal finance questions get asked and answered - puts you way ahead of the average member of the population when it comes to pensions.  If you think you know better than the SJP adviser (and I don't mean that aggressively, just as a matter of fact), then by all means do your own thing. But remember about unknown unknowns - you don't know everything the adviser might say, depending on your circumstances and changes to them over time...
Lets say that college costs 100K per kid and they you have 3 (ages 8,9,10) and expect tuition and fees inflation of 8% per year; you are 40 and want to retire at age 65, and would have to replace 80% of you final years salary and expect your salary to increase 2% above inflation, but you do have a pension that based on the number of years of service you will have if you don't switch companies will replace 40% of you final salary, but if you leave now will only cover 15%; the equivalent of social security will replace 10%; your spouse works part time and has no company provided pension; your big single bucket of long term savings has 123,456. Are you on target? You can't answer the question without first determining how much money each of those individual buckets (kid 1, kid 2, kid 3, pension, social security and retirement) needs to have today and in the future. Then you take the money you do have and assign it to the buckets. Of course different accounts have different tax, age, deposit and use rules. Also what happens after the last child graduates, so the amount of money available each year will change significantly. The key to not stealing money from long term savings goals is to realize you also need an emergency fund and a life happens fund. That way an engine repair does require you to pull money from the education fund. "I was able to attend an open discussion on Illinois pensions a few years back.  Dick Ingram, head of the Illinois Teacher's Retirement System spoke, as did a public employee union leader, Governor Quin's budget director and Christine Radogno who is a state lawmaker.  It was eye opening on many levels.  Some of the points that stick with me are:      * The state has never, over 30 years, followed standard practice and used an actuary to determine how much to put into the pension funds each year.  The legislators just pulled numbers out of the air each year.  As a result the pensions have never been properly funded.   The benefits are rich but, according to the people on this panel the main issue is this under funding.     * Some years the state declared a pension holiday and put nothing into the pension funds at all.  When this was brought up the largely union crowd started to turn on Radogno but she held up her hand, said she had voted against that and then commented that the unions all signed off on the pension holidays.  As one the crowd's heads turned to the union rep on the board.  He turned red and stared at the floor.     * 2/3 of the teacher's pension hole is for people already retired.  Changing benefits for current teachers will not help enough.     I asked Mr Ingram how much additional tax he would need to plug the hole in the system he manages.  He answered ""double"".  I asked for how long.  He said ""It doesn't work like that.  I'd need double the current amount forever.""  I came away much better informed but deeply saddened.  Like 69% of the people polled, I want these teachers and public employee to get their money.  I just don't see how it can happen." "I've been down the consolidation route too (of a handful of DC pensions; the DB ones I've not touched, and you would indeed need advice to move those around). What you should be comparing against is: what's the cheapest possible thing you could be doing?  Monevators' online platform list will give you an idea of SIPP costs (if your pot is big enough and you're a buy-and-hold person, ATS' flat-fee model means costs can become arbitrarily close to zero percent), and if you're happy to be invested in something like Vanguard Lifestrategy, Target Retirement or vanilla index trackers then charges on those will be something like 0.1%-0.4%.  Savings of 0.5-1.0% per year add up over pension saving timescales, but only you can decide whether whatever extra the adviser is offering vs. a more DIY approach is worth it for you. Are you absolutely sure that 0.75% pa fee isn't on top of whatever charges are built into the funds he'll invest you in?  For the £1000 fee, advisers claim to have high costs per customer because of ""regulatory burdens""; this is why there's talk of an ""advice gap"" these days: if you only have a small sum to invest, the fixed costs of advice become intolerable.  IMHO, nutmeg are still quite expensive for what they offer too (although still probably cheaper than any ""advised"" route)." "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/14/dont-let-unions-use-good-returns-to-defl) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Expect something to this effect: &amp;quot;The California Public Employees&amp;#039; Retirement System&amp;#039;s investment earnings for the fiscal year ending June 30 were above 9 percent, reconfirming the health of the state&amp;#039;s pension system-and debunking the naysayers who claim that unfunded pension liabilities will obliterate municipal and state budgets.""  &gt; Even a year of good returns will do little to correct the vast level of pension underfunding.  &gt; The Pensions &amp; Investments article about the latest returns is aptly headlined, &amp;quot;Strong returns nice, but aren&amp;#039;t expected to last.&amp;quot; Ed Ring&amp;#039;s May 2016 California Policy Center analysis concluded that public pension funds &amp;quot;Will be hit much harder in a downturn than private pension funds&amp;quot; because they &amp;quot;Are not subject to the same rules that private pension funds have to adhere to.""   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ngouf/california_still_facing_pension_crisis_even_with/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~167506 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **pension**^#1 **year**^#2 **fund**^#3 **return**^#4 **California**^#5" If your new employer has a Final Salary or defined benefit type pension scheme, join it. DB plans are attractive because they are often less a risk for the employee. If your employer has a defined contribution scheme and contributes to it, join it and contribute at least up to the maximum amount that they will match – otherwise you are leaving free money on the table. You also probably need to sit down with an independent adviser for what to do with your existing pension (is it a DC or DB) and if you want to have a pension outside of your employer. The product descriptions for FFA swaps and options can be found here:  http://www.lchclearnet.com/freight/ffas/products.asp The index (e.g. the BFA) is based on the settlement prices of the P2, P2A, and C4 contracts and the panamax TC routes.  As such it's just a performance index and replicates the returns you'd get from holding a portfolio of the constituents. I think from the clearing descriptions everything should be clear.  The wording in the link on the Baltic Exchange website is a bit nebulous.  I think they mean standardised instead of specified.  Because that's what sets the FFABA apart from OTC agreements or OTC spot markets. Edit: For more information on financial instruments in general see the Handbook of Financial Instuments.  I haven't got the latest edition but I doubt he will mention FFAs, CFSAs, or anything that's specific to maritime markets but after all they're just plain forward agreements over a not-so-common underlying. As sdg said, the consensus is that the CPP is pretty solid.  An actuarial report is submitted to Parliament every three years, and it's worth getting the numbers from that report so you know where your CPP contributions are invested.  You may think there's more risk in CPP's portfolio than they let on.  Either way, your own savings and investments are the best defense against inadequacy of the CPP.  But you should be careful, as the CPP mostly invests in the same stuff the retail investor does - equity and fixed income.  So the typical investor will be exposed to the risks as the CPP fund. However, CPP is not the only source of retirement income for Canadians.  There is also the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Old Age Security, and they are funded differently from CPP.  CPP benefits are funded by returns from the investment fund, as well as contributions.  GIS and OAS are paid out of the Government of Canada's revenue each year.  In my opinion, those programs are more vulnerable than CPP as they could just be legislated out of existence in tough economic times.  (However, I also see that as unlikely because the elderly are a pretty powerful block of voters.) You need a find a financial planner that will create a plan for you for a fixed fee. They will help you determine the best course of action taking into account the pension, the 403B, and any other sources of income you have, or will have. They will know how to address the risk that you have that that particular pension.  They will help you determine how to invest your money to produce the type of retirement you want, while making sure you are likely to not outlive your portfolio.