What is ' Good advice"

BillyM

Registered User
Messages
12
I've been reading the posts on NSP/AVC with interest as I went through same issue a few months ago.
The issues raised by Prime Time seem to have been missed as the posts mount up..
The main issue is not are NSP's better, surely its have people got the right advice!!

In my opinion RTE and the guy from Cork pushed a line that NSP's are allways right.
Surely this is as inaccurate as AVC's are always right.

As someone who cannot avail of NSP's, ' A new entrant' the Prime Time show was wrong for me.. So I took out an AVC,paid a fee(E400) and opted for 5% charge because I liked the fund choice and service option of tax relief at source.


The moral of story is everyone's circumstances are different.
Good advice is what suits you not someone in Cork or a TV show.

Let sanity prevail and post away!!
 
5% contribution charge plus a 400e setup charge is a very expensive. Not only are you losing the 5% but your also losing the interest on the 5% over the term of your avc.
 
5% contribution charge plus a 400e setup charge is a very expensive. Not only are you losing the 5% but your also losing the interest on the 5% over the term of your avc.

I think your missing my point. I made a choice to pay the 5% on a 6k per year AVC, this is 300E per year increasing I know as salary rises( Great to be back in the Public Sector).

Anyway as a number cruncher I would point out, it's the little noticed 1% that all the providers,even the no deduction/no service guys have, that's where the real money is made in the pension industry.

I've spent the last number of years, before coming back to teaching in the investment game and one thing I learned is that the lowest charging fund is seldom the highest returning fund.

Cheapest is not always best...

Anyway I made my decision on the overall package provided to me and that's what I would "advise".
 
I've spent the last number of years, before coming back to teaching in the investment game and one thing I learned is that the lowest charging fund is seldom the highest returning fund.

But the highest charging fund is never the best performing one. And you will never know which will be the best performing one in the future, so go for low charges.
 
Anyway I made my decision on the overall package provided to me and that's what I would "advise".

Thats your choice but i as a said your charging structure is still expensive and the funds available through irish life are not any better then whats available through other prsa avc providers.
 
Last edited:
I've been reading the posts on NSP/AVC with interest as I went through same issue a few months ago.

As someone who cannot avail of NSP's, ' A new entrant' the Prime Time show was wrong for me.. So I took out an AVC,paid a fee(E400) and opted for 5% charge because I liked the fund choice and service option of tax relief at source.

I've spent the last number of years, before coming back to teaching in the investment game and one thing I learned is that the lowest charging fund is seldom the highest returning fund.

BillyM fascinates me.

He has investment expertise and is happy to pay a start-up fee 2 or three times bigger and 5% rather than 0% ongoing deductions from contribution for a policy almost identical to one he could get on an execution-only basis.

He must really love Irish Life and Cornmarket.

That's always possible.

But I just hope during his financial services years he wasn't managing my investments.

That attitude to fee-charging must have made him quite the up and coming youngster in the financial services world. Many's the master of the universe who must have passed his desk but taken the moment required to ping BillyM's braces and give one of his cherubic cheeks a playful squeeze.

What I can't quite get my mind around,however, is that he describes himself as a "new entrant" in one post who cannot avail of NSP and then in a separate post we learn he interrupted his teaching career to spend "the last number of years....in the investment game". The only reason a teacher can't join NSP is that he/she would have 40 years pension contributions at normal retirement age. Just how many years did Billy put in "in the investment game". Even if he's a post-2004 starter and his normal retirement age is 65 it'll have been a hell of a rush to

  • get a degree
  • get a post-graduate teaching qualification
  • search for his first teaching job (for most normal teachers that requires a period of part-time work)
  • work for a "number of years" in "the investment game"
  • search for his current teaching job
  • serve 40 years as a teacher
and all before the age of 65.

One hell of a guy.

The investment industry's loss is teaching's game.
 
BillyM fascinates me.

He has investment expertise and is happy to pay a start-up fee 2 or three times bigger and 5% rather than 0% ongoing deductions from contribution for a policy almost identical to one he could get on an execution-only basis.

He must really love Irish Life and Cornmarket.

That's always possible.

But I just hope during his financial services years he wasn't managing my investments.

That attitude to fee-charging must have made him quite the up and coming youngster in the financial services world. Many's the master of the universe who must have passed his desk but taken the moment required to ping BillyM's braces and give one of his cherubic cheeks a playful squeeze.

What I can't quite get my mind around,however, is that he describes himself as a "new entrant" in one post who cannot avail of NSP and then in a separate post we learn he interrupted his teaching career to spend "the last number of years....in the investment game". The only reason a teacher can't join NSP is that he/she would have 40 years pension contributions at normal retirement age. Just how many years did Billy put in "in the investment game". Even if he's a post-2004 starter and his normal retirement age is 65 it'll have been a hell of a rush to

  • get a degree
  • get a post-graduate teaching qualification
  • search for his first teaching job (for most normal teachers that requires a period of part-time work)
  • work for a "number of years" in "the investment game"
  • search for his current teaching job
  • serve 40 years as a teacher
and all before the age of 65.

One hell of a guy.

The investment industry's loss is teaching's game.


Sorry Oysterman, I thought this was an adult discussion. Now I see that if a contributor offers a different opinion then Sarcasm " the lowest form of wit" is used.

My service is quite simple and normal for a lot of teachers, I got a job @ 22 as Maths/Physics Grads were in short supply in '86.
I resigned and left teaching in 03.

Thankfully I worked with mature company were pinging braces and squeezing cheeks was left to to Ricky Gervais in The Office.
Unfortunately the downturn resulted losing my job and my return to teaching.
On coming back in 06 I discovered the rules had changed and I was now a new entrant, my bad luck that I had chosen to resign rather than take a career break.
Anyway simple addition gives 40 yrs at 65.
Quod erat demonstrandum!
 
sorry to jump on a post,
I was wondering who the execution only brokers are apart from labrokers and what investment houses do they represent?
Tks
 
Most people would be safer in NSP if they qualify versus taking out a risk -based savings policy. Just look at equity returns and todays news from the Defined Benefit Sector. If I were an employee who qualified for a State superannuation linked to increases in my salary grade ( typically well over the CPI), I'd take it.
 
Back
Top