ARF charges

Generally the advice is for a one off decision. It's hard to understand how that doesn't translate into a fee for the advice, a one off fee. I really struggle to understand how it is fair that trail income of .25% (or whatever) is earned for potentially 20+ years. You could be talking thousands of euro a year for what is essentially putting options to someone at a point in time and asking them to choose. My understanding from my own advisor is that strictly speaking they can't even recommend what specific funds to invest in.
 
Why not ? Bonkers.ie does the leg work for utility and broadband providers. Why don't we have something similar for the largest investment decision many people are going to make in their lives ? Instead charges are cloaked in smoke and mirrors to protect vested interests (e.g. brokers) who are making a killing. Why is the average punter not being protected from sharks by the financial regulator ? Is our economy too small to allow transparency and fair pricing ?
Because nobody will put as much research or work into your money as you yourself. Nobody cares as much as you yourself about your future.
Off the topic got an insurance quote last July from Bonkers stating that the quote they were giving was the best from a large number of providers.
One phone call later I had a quote 20% cheaper.
ARF shop till you drop and make your decision.
 
I really struggle to understand how it is fair that trail income of .25% (or whatever) is earned for potentially 20+ years. You could be talking thousands of euro a year for what is essentially putting options to someone at a point in time and asking them to choose.

I think there are different types of ARF customer and different types of broker. Many retirees are understandably a bit nervous about the transition from earning a wage and accumulating assets for 40+ years to earning no wage and spending those assets, hoping that they'll last a lifetime. Some brokers will do cashflow projections for the ARF in conjunction with other income sources and make a plan, which also incorporates the fund choice. Client may want the reassurance of checking in regularly to make sure the retirement financial plan is "going to plan" and make adjustments in later years if required. In such cases, trail commission is justified as long as it's fully explained, understood and agreed from the outset.

Other people are well able to make a choice of ARF and funds once and manage it all themselves from that point on. For such people, no trail is justified and should be available as a choice.
 
My understanding from my own advisor is that strictly speaking they can't even recommend what specific funds to invest in.

I don't understand this. A broker gathers enough information about the client and then makes a recommendation on products and funds. They can't force a client to take the advice, but why does your advisor say they can't recommend specific funds?
 
Generally the advice is for a one off decision. It's hard to understand how that doesn't translate into a fee for the advice, a one off fee. I really struggle to understand how it is fair that trail income of .25% (or whatever) is earned for potentially 20+ years. You could be talking thousands of euro a year for what is essentially putting options to someone at a point in time and asking them to choose. My understanding from my own advisor is that strictly speaking they can't even recommend what specific funds to invest in.
Generally it is not, it is a lifetime of ongoing advice, especially for retirees who are now spending their life savings and are no longer working. They like to know that they are financially ok and are not going to run out of money. I've had clients ring me to ask if it's alright if they can go on a long haul holiday, flying business class without ruining their plan or help out their kids with weddings/ house deposits.

Of course, this won't suit everybody and some will be happy to DIY it. If you are, don't engage with an advisor. If you do to get the plan set up, do so and then have the advisor removed as the agent on your plan so they no longer have access to your plan or the life company won't contact them about your plan when there is an issue.*


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


*I recently set up a pension policy for a relative of a client who told me that once the policy was set up, she didn't need my advice. So when the policy was set up, I removed myself as the agent of the plan. She contacted me upset that I had done so!!:rolleyes:
 
Thanks @Steven Barrett - in reation to fees, if the advisor is removed does that mean then that "less is taken out" or the life company keeps what had to date been earned by the advisor? I don't have an AVC I've a PRB, but my "advisor" earns a % of the PRB annually and all they do is send me half yearly statements for a PRB I have online access to.
 
I believe it may have only become available after the latest post on this thread - but Royal London Ireland now offer an ARF with 100% allocation at an AMC of 0.35% if the value is over €100k and you invest in a range of nine passive BlackRock Funds (four equity, one property, three bonds and one cash).
 
I believe it may have only become available after the latest post on this thread - but Royal London Ireland now offer an ARF with 100% allocation at an AMC of 0.35% if the value is over €100k and you invest in a range of nine passive BlackRock Funds (four equity, one property, three bonds and one cash).

The Royal London ARF product launched in 2022. As far as I know Royal London don't sell directly to the public so you'll need a Financial Broker to arrange an ARF for you. You'll agree your additional charges with the broker for their services.
 
Generally it is not, it is a lifetime of ongoing advice, especially for retirees who are now spending their life savings and are no longer working. They like to know that they are financially ok and are not going to run out of money. I've had clients ring me to ask if it's alright if they can go on a long haul holiday, flying business class without ruining their plan or help out their kids with weddings/ house deposits.
This is very true. I have a number of relatively financially sophisticated and well-off retiree clients who are almost constantly in touch with their broker in relation to what I would term very basic budgeting decisions. My perception is that their dependence on their broker increases with age.
 
Does the Central Bank not impose obligations on brokers in terms of the ongoing suitability of products and changes to the client’s circumstances?
 
Coming late to this discussion on ARF charges.
It is very difficult to ascertain how much ARF holders are being charged, as I discovered when trying to compare my alternative approach to AE with government's current proposals.
For what it's worth, I assumed an average total cost of 1.5% a year for a typical AE retiree (i.e., someone with little or no knowledge of investments and a relatively small pot), made up of 0.9% for administration and asset management, 0.6% for investment advice (see p26 of this paper). I would appreciate if anyone could advise if I have over- or under-estimated what people are actually being charged (and remember the demographic we're talking about).
As is clear from the discussion on this thread, there's considerable confusion on what the costs are, even when the facts are known.
For clarity, I define the cost as the difference between the return on the underlying assets and the amount credited to the investor's account. Amounts charged outside the ARF must also be included, as should charges levied at the outset, e.g., initial commission (suitably amortised over an appropriate period, which in turn depends on whether funds are being moved between providers).
An example from my own experience shows the scale of the challenge.
Until the end of last year, I was being charged 0.615% a year (0.5% plus VAT) even though I made all the investment decisions. After much effort, I got a 35% reduction, to 0.4% a year (from another provider, with help from an adviser who had to be paid for his efforts - money well spent, I reckon). I'm told that that's about the best available, even for an ARF much bigger than what a typical AE investor would hope to have.
Even at that, there were additional costs. For example, if any of my ARF were invested in a mutual/ pooled fund (e.g., to get exposure to emerging market equities), the charges in that fund would have to be included in total charges. So too for the cost of buying and selling the underlying assets (which are completely hidden in a unit-linked fund) and margins in exchange rates when converting non-Euro assets to Euros for the purposes of taking an 'income' from the ARF. I've also found that there are all sorts of additional charges for investing in markets outside the 'usual', e.g., even for investing in other EU member states. All those costs must be taken into account.
Because I make my own investment decisions, I don't have a clue of adviser costs, but from what I see on this thread and elsewhere, they can vary enormously and can be either hidden or explicit.
Finally, it's worth remembering that a 1.5% charge on a 4% 'income' means that 37.5% of each withdrawal is disappearing in charges. A sobering thought.
 
Last edited:
Coming late to this discussion on ARF charges.
It is very difficult to ascertain how much ARF holders are being charged, as I discovered when trying to compare my alternative approach to AE with government's current proposals.
For what it's worth, I assumed an average total cost of 1.5% a year for a typical AE retiree (i.e., someone with little or no knowledge of investments and a relatively small pot), made up of 0.9% for administration and asset management, 0.6% for investment advice (see p26 of this paper). I would appreciate if anyone could advise if I have over- or under-estimated what people are actually being charged (and remember the demographic we're talking about).
As is clear from the discussion on this thread, there's considerable confusion on what the costs are, even when the facts are known.
For clarity, I define the cost as the difference between the return on the underlying assets and the amount credited to the investor's account. Amounts charged outside the ARF must also be included, as should charges levied at the outset, e.g., initial commission (suitably amortised over an appropriate period, which in turn depends on whether funds are being moved between providers).
An example from my own experience shows the scale of the challenge.
Until the end of last year, I was being charged 0.615% a year (0.5% plus VAT) even though I made all the investment decisions. After much effort, I got a 35% reduction, to 0.4% a year (from another provider, with help from an adviser who had to be paid for his efforts - money well spent, I reckon). I'm told that that's about the best available, even for an ARF much bigger than what a typical AE investor would hope to have.
Even at that, there were additional costs. For example, if any of my ARF were invested in a mutual/ pooled fund (e.g., to get exposure to emerging market equities), the charges in that fund would have to be deducted. So too for the cost of buying and selling the underlying assets (which are completely hidden in a unit-linked fund) and margins in exchange rates when converting non-Euro assets to Euros for the purposes of taking an 'income' from the ARF. I've also found that there are all sorts of additional charges for investing in markets outside the 'usual', e.g., even for investing in other EU member states. All those costs must be taken into account.
Because I make my own investment decisions, I don't have a clue of adviser costs, but from what I see on this thread and elsewhere, they can vary enormously and can be either hidden or explicit.
Finally, it's worth remembering that a 1.5% charge on a 4% 'income' means that 37.5% of each withdrawal is disappearing in charges. A sobering thought.
I've attached screenshots of the cheapest I've found after much searching. The fund AMC would be on top and I've attached a screenshot of the very limited selection of funds available at these rates.

This product has been around some time but I believe these lower rates only came into effect last November.

In addition to the AMC below and the AMC of the fund itself, there would be a fee to the advisor/broker for setting it up.

I believe most are probably paying closer to 1% AMC for the ARF itself but much better is available to those with larger funds where fees for setting it up are immaterial in percentage terms.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240210-113532.png
    Screenshot_20240210-113532.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 55
  • Screenshot_20240210-113600.png
    Screenshot_20240210-113600.png
    482.1 KB · Views: 45
Last edited:
My wife's ARF annual charges are 1.25% and 1.45% on two NIA balanced funds. Frankly, I think that is on the high side and was surprised they were that high.
 
Thanks @ronaldo. I'm not sure, though, if it does much to answer my question as to whether my estimate of an average total charge of 1.5% pa for an 'ordinary' ARF holder is reasonable, too high, or too low. There are some good people in Royal London but it has only a small share of the market.
It would be great if there was a database showing the distribution of total charges (asset manager, life company/other provider, advisor) for ARF's of different amounts. Is there any prospect of such a database being established? Who could set it up? Presumably the CBI, the Pensions Authority, or similar?
As far as my own ARF is concerned, I think I've got as good a deal as I could get, given that I only buy shares in individual companies, no unit-linked or mutual funds. I was only quoting my experience as an example of the difficulties of working out the charge, even for a reasonably straightforward case.
Thanks to you too @Nordkapp for the information. I don't disagree that the charges on your wife's ARF are on the high side; however, I still think that they're lower than the average for an unsophisticated retiree. Most of those won't be users of AAM.
I'm sure that life companies have a good idea what the total charges are for ARF's that they manage, but I don't think they'll voluntarily make the information public, especially if they're higher than my estimate.
 
My wife's ARF annual charges are 1.25% and 1.45% on two NIA balanced funds. Frankly, I think that is on the high side and was surprised they were that high.
Certainly seems on the high side.

For example Davy charge 0.9% + fund charges .

With a simple Vanguard Global Stock Fund (.18%)+fund portfolio transaction costs(.01%).
So all in for about 1.1%

A few years away yet but I'd like to know if there is scope to get the Davy charge lower for larger(€500k+) funds.
 
Last edited:
It would be great if there was a database showing the distribution of total charges (asset manager, life company/other provider, advisor) for ARF's of different amounts. Is there any prospect of such a database being established? Who could set it up? Presumably the CBI, the Pensions Authority, or similar?

Similar to the listing for PRSAs? Equally important to have ARF charges transparent like this in my opinion.
 
Certainly seems on the high side.

For example Davy charge 0.9% + fund charges .

With a simple Vanguard Global Stock Fund (.18%)+fund portfolio transaction costs(.01%).
So all in for about 1.1%

A few years away yet but I'd like to know if there is scope to get the Davy charge lower for larger(€500k+) funds.

You can buy a Zurich Life ARF off the shelf on an execution only basis with AMC of 0.75% with OOC of 0.01% for Global Index Tracker.


Gerard

www.prsa.ie
 
Back
Top