# Pension query



## JJones (31 Oct 2003)

I talked to a pension advisor yesterday and went through all the forms for a company pension.
I thought I understood it clearly but repeated questions by me didnt clarify it for me, and I would like someone who understands it better than me to clarify it to me.

I am limited company and the sole employee I am starting the pension and paying 4500 divided in monthly installments to the year end and also putting in a lump sum of 4500.  
Now the The costs state

A premium charge of 5% will be deducted from each regular payment I make, so for this year this will four payments of 1125 for this year will this mean a 5% charge on each payment.

Also a yearly charge of 1.25% for managing the fund will also be charged.  

So is it 5% on each payment for the duration.


----------



## Alan Moore (31 Oct 2003)

*Sounds expensive....*

....... unless it's a specialist fund.


----------



## JJones (31 Oct 2003)

its a bank of Ireland executive pension


----------



## GCS (31 Oct 2003)

*Pension*

JJones

Sounds like it's a flat 5% charge on each contribution for the term of the policy. Has the advisor said what sort of service you are going to get for this payment?

Is there a policy fee per month?

1.25% is expensive if it's a BIAM managed fund.

Here's the ironic part. You can accesss BIAM through Hibernian at an management charge of 0.75% although the contribution charge, policy fee can be more expensive.


----------



## Alan Moore (31 Oct 2003)

*Options*

"You can accesss BIAM through Hibernian at an management charge of 0.75%"

And New Ireland


----------



## JJones (31 Oct 2003)

the costs read as the following

A premium charge of 5% will be deducted from each regular payment that I pay.

A yearly fund related charge of 1.25% will be charged on  the value of my fund each year.

It is access to the standard BOI pension


----------



## GCS (31 Oct 2003)

*Options*

On a like for like basis who comes out on top. Hibernian or New Ireland?


----------



## Alan Moore (31 Oct 2003)

*Depends......*

"On a like for like basis who comes out on top"

Assuming costs float your boat. Just ran off a quote based on the level of premium suggested. Hibernian worked out better but the Final estimated funds were almost identical. Difference at retirement worked out to be less than 0.06% of the final fund value. Neither company were the cheapest.


----------



## Director (31 Oct 2003)

*Ooch!!*

I have my executive pension with Quinn Life.  Straight 1% pa management charge.  No other charges.  You would be mad to go with a pension taking 5% out of that level of contributions.


----------



## Skinflint (31 Oct 2003)

*.*

Don't forget that QL levy an additional flat €3.81 per month on regular pension contributions. You should also be able to buy a PRSA charging only 1% per annum and nothing else for a once off flat fee of c. €100.


----------



## JJones (3 Nov 2003)

*Re: .*

"You should also be able to buy a PRSA charging only 1% per annum and nothing else for a once off flat fee of c. €100. "

Where exactly is this available

Thanks,


----------



## Alan Moore (3 Nov 2003)

*This is a prime example of.....*

the dangers of execution only business.

Are you sure that a PRSA is the best option for you? Based on what you have said to date I would suspect it may not be. And if you do a PRSA for 100 euro what company/funds will you choose and why?


----------



## Ratna (3 Nov 2003)

*the dangers of execution only business*

I see nothing wrong with a person getting financial advice eleswhere and placing their business on discounted terms through an execution only broker.

The person(s) who gave the free advice might not be happy but there you go.

Didn't Niall Brady hint at this yesterday - at least the healdine writer did. Get a factfind completed, identify your needs. The fact find is free and you're under no obligation, needs are identified, solutions recommended. 

The only thing a fact find doesn't tell is is where you should purchase such products. If you can get the exact same product cheaper elsewhere then shouldn't you be told about it?

No point having a factfind if the conclusions are wrong.


----------



## Alan Moore (3 Nov 2003)

*The issue I had was that*

.... someone was possibly going to take out a policy that doesn't suit their needs.

"I see nothing wrong with a person getting financial advice eleswhere and placing their business on discounted terms through an execution only broker.
The person(s) who gave the free advice might not be happy but there you go"

A) You will have no comeback if the advice given was incorrect

B) I believe you are  basically suggesting taking advantage of someone that has put time and effort into your welfare and not being remunerated for same. Most clients don't operate this way. What I have no problem with is someone agreeing a fee for a report on the understanding that any business transated as a result of the report will be carried out on a nil commission basis.


----------



## Ratna (3 Nov 2003)

*taking advantage of a financial adviser*

A) You will have no comeback if the advice given was incorrect

So for example if the fund a client invests in doesn't perform to their expectations, they can sue their financial adviser. Sounds like a win / win for the client and a very dangerous situation for the adviser.

B) I believe you are basically suggesting taking advantage.... 

But a financial adviser that allows him or herself to supply information free of charge will be taken advantage of. If one wants to impart knowledge free of charge then they have themselves to blame not otheres or the execution broker.

Imagine a GP who took your blood pressure etc told you what was wrong with you, wrote a prescription but only got paid when you purchased your prescription at his/her favourite chemist!!


----------



## Alan Moore (3 Nov 2003)

*Skinflints*

1) The comeback applies where you have been sold a policy that does not best suit your need. So in your example if your investment underperforms the advisor will have to demonstrate that the policy undertaken met your agreed risk profile.

2) "But a financial adviser that allows him or herself to supply information free of charge will be taken advantage of. 

I mainly operate on a fees so you wouldn't get a report for nothing from me but in the past have worked on the basis of the free report and commission. Can see how the "skinflints" could take advantage but the reality is that the majority of people don't.


----------



## Late Night Poker (3 Nov 2003)

*taking advantage of a financial adviser*

Take the hint Alan. This is exactly the type of post that should preclude any advisor ever getting involved on this site. You are perceived as being surplus to requirements by the eggheads and skinflints and serve no purpose.

Niall Brady is talkin through his ass. If he took the time to read the Terms of Business of any advisor with a bit of cop-on he would understand that what he says is nonsense. Yes folks, the Terms of Business you get BEFORE you complete the Fact Find and receive any advice.


----------



## Not Ratna (3 Nov 2003)

*Laserish*

Late Night your stance reminds me of Arthur Scargill and the mineworkers. Is there some sort of a personal picket in place?


----------



## LNP (4 Nov 2003)

*Laserish*

Who's Arthur Scargill


----------



## Alan Moore (4 Nov 2003)

*Arthur Scargill & The Mine Workers......*

Very big in the 1980's. Had I number 1 with "I don't like Mondays I think"


----------



## Alan Moore (4 Nov 2003)

*Evening Rant*

LNP/Laser position.

AAM attracts those (like me) that like to ensure that they are not getting ripped off and want to avail of good deals.

However, I think that sometimes we go too far, e.g. www.vietnamonlinestore.com. Here in this thread there are also two examples of same though maybe not as extreme.

1. JJones was attracted to a PRSA because of the low entry costs on offer even though from the few details given it would appear on the surface of it that a PRSA would not be the best vehicle.

2. Now my pet hate. The Quinn Life recommendation in the "Holy Grail" i.e. the Guide. 

"It has by far the lowest charges of any pension fund available in Ireland"

Not true. If you are serious about your pension ( i.e. contributing to a level to give a reasonable retirement income ) the best value you'll achieve is by going to a financial adviser, agreeing a fee for advising and setting up a tailor made pension whereby the adviser does not receive commission. If you are solely hung up on costs it won't be Quinn Life that is recommended.

Second pet hate is that "We recommend that you should invest 100% of your pension in equities". Put all your eggs in one basket? Only for the high risk investor only. Take the Quinn Life Biotech. It is getting reviews for being the best performing fund this year. No mention of how it did last year. Why? Because it was worth 50% more at one point as recent as last year. If you have built up a considerable fund do you want to exposed to this type of volatility. 

Point is, each of us has different needs / objectives and attitudes to risk. Going the cheap road may cost you more than you can afford in the long run. I perceive that we (the financial advisers) are sometimes considered to be bad guys.  

There was a comparison made with a doctor earlier. Well I'll ask if self-prescription were allowed would you diagnose yourself or seek advice?


----------



## Ratna (4 Nov 2003)

*The recommendation*

Physician heal thyself! 

Alan you are in a minority as you choose to operate mainly on a fee basis. 

How many AAs out there operating on fees or commission have recommended Quinn Life for anything - Life Assurance, Savings etc? An educated guess would put it at not many if any. Yet, under regulations, this is impossible. Quinn should be doing quite well in some areas even if we could imagine their only source of business was obtained from AA referrals. We all know this is not happening, so there must be quite a lot of 'bad guys' still out there.

Call it Quinn, call it PRSAs call it Direct, Discount, Execution only... they are all threats to the existing commission models.

Lets welcome the fact that there is more competition in the financial marketplace today than there was five years ago, so its a move in the right direction. Thank God for competition and may competitors thrive.


----------



## Alan Moore (4 Nov 2003)

*Aye carumba....*

"Quinn should be doing quite well in some areas even if we could imagine their only source of business was obtained from AA referrals"

I disagree (well for Pensions/Investment Business anyhow) . Assume for a moment that all business was done on nil commission for a moment. QL works out to be one of the more expensive. 

If the client has done his/her own research themselves they will get a better deal by going to a broker asking for an execution only deal with another company.

If the client wants to pay a fee for advice rather than commissions the AA can get a better deal than Quinn.

If the client wants to pay for advice by way of commission, QL don't pay, so its not an option for the client.

If the client doesn't want to go near an adviser well then Quinn is one of the cheapest options out there for going directly to an insurance company.

In addition they only offer 5 equity funds and 1 bond fund. Hardly a range to cover all clients.

Explain to me now, why Quinn should do well from AA referrals, given that the client has come to the adviser for advice?

I have done business with QL for mainly for those that want a Biotech investment.


----------



## Ratna (5 Nov 2003)

*slight deviation*

Alan, If a client takes advice and then proceeds to arrange the business through a provider then this advice has to be paid for.  One cannot assume that a fee is only payable if business is transacted.

As an exercise would anyone care to find out exactly how much business Quinn, One, Acorn and others have obtained from AA referrals?

I'd imagine you'll find most AAs have rather negative preconceived notions about these non broker companies or direct sellers and thats the reason why no business is 'recommended' their way.

Regarding fact finds and customer disputes. I think the customer should keep their own record of advice given as they understand it and get the financial adviser to agree and sign it. The other way is one sided and offers the consumer little real protection should complaints go to investigation or court. Wouldn't you all agree?


----------



## LNP (5 Nov 2003)

*One Sided*

Yes Ratna. I think everyone should contact IFSRA and get them to reverse the new imposed legislation, on the advisor market, on the grounds that it offers no protection to the customer because consumers should never be held responsible for their own decisions.

T.I.C.


----------



## Alan Moore (5 Nov 2003)

*I give up.......*

You haven't answered my question and given me a reason why Quinn should be recommended for pensions/investments but only retorted that you "imagine" that we (the AAs) have preconceived negative notions about the likes of Quinn.


----------



## Ratna (5 Nov 2003)

*if you wish...*

One should take the broad view of things and not give up so easily. Reading the various posts on AAM I recognise many financial adviser prejudices when I read one.

Peoples needs differ (as you mentioned Biotec fund for eg) and its not beyond the realms of probability that some of the people advisers would be in contact with as they go about their daily businesss would fit the Quinn, Tesco etc mould of suitability. This isn't happening. Why?

LNP. If I asked you to sign a statement which out lines my understanding of the product you wish to sell to me would you think I was being unreasonable? If I'm investing a large sum or if my retirement or family future depends on your advice I would't think so. I may think it would be folly for me not to.


----------



## Alan Moore (5 Nov 2003)

*Are you going to answer the question?*

You said

"Quinn should be doing quite well in some areas even if we could imagine their only source of business was obtained from AA referrals"

Why? Why? Why? Why?

Statements containing "I'd imagine" and "realms of probability" don't count. 

Why? Why? Why? Why?


----------



## Ratna (5 Nov 2003)

*the question*

Well Alan you admitted earlier that you sent one investment Quinn's way so I'm sure you know why you did it.


----------



## Alan Moore (5 Nov 2003)

*Answer the question.......*

I know the reason why I had a reason to recommend Quinn but YOU DON'T. Client had a 1 in 1,000,000 scenario. 

I'll remind you of the question.

"Quinn should be doing quite well in some areas even if we could imagine their only source of business was obtained from AA referrals"  -  Why

Would love if you started a reply with

"Quinn should be........ from AA referrals" because of the following facts:

Either answer the question or please tell me you don't know why.


----------



## Ratna (5 Nov 2003)

*comment*

I'm not asking you to take it personally. I stand by my comments which in passing are not directed at you. Read my post carefully. You have my ISP pick up the phone if it helps but please leave commentry on the subject open to all.


----------



## Alan Moore (6 Nov 2003)

*Re: comment*

Apologies if I appear to be taking this personally. But I'm always open to different points of view once I see some logic. Best way to hopefully convince you that we (the AA's) aren't complete biggots. If QL were so good, it should go hand in hand that AAs would give them a lot of their personal business? They don't.


----------



## alannah (6 Nov 2003)

*Car 54 where are you ?*

Alan do you need Laser's help ?


----------



## Alan Moore (6 Nov 2003)

*Lasers Help?*

Haven't resorted to the columbian necktie treatment just yet?


----------



## LNP (6 Nov 2003)

*Quinn,EBS etc*

Ratna

Do you have any practical experience or suggestions of how an advisor should deal with these companies? Particularly, in terms of administration and what the companies can and can't tell the advisor about his clients policy.

What are the implications for the advisor in respect of his code of conduct when he is not an agent of the company?


----------



## LNP (6 Nov 2003)

*Quinn,EBS etc*

Where is the evidence to suggest that these little outfits are actually interested in doing business with advisors?


----------



## Biggles (6 Nov 2003)

*re: Quinn, EBS etc*



> Where is the evidence to suggest that these little outfits are actually interested in doing business with advisors?



Well, according to a snippet in this month's Irish Broker magazine, the IBA are in discussions with Quinn Life.


----------



## LNP (6 Nov 2003)

*re: Quinn, EBS etc*

Fair enough, but ratnas argument revolves around the past.


----------



## Not Ratna (6 Nov 2003)

*re: Quinn, EBS etc*

if a company sells directly and dont share this information then how do financial advisers get up to date detailed information on their product range so they can advise their clients?


----------



## Eland (7 Nov 2003)

*All quiet*

I wonder why the advisers are speechless on question posed, Not Ratna? Perhaps it touches a nerve.


----------



## Alan Moore (7 Nov 2003)

*The answer.......*

Quiet? Thats rich seeing that nobody can explain to me why Quinn should do well from AA referrals and why AAM has listed Quinn as "The Pension Recommendation"

Anyhow, in response to "not ratna", its quite easy to attain info on the direct sellers. Indeed there are companies that sell systems/websites to brokers that compare some of these products with those that are sold through broker channels.


----------



## Not Ratna (7 Nov 2003)

*attaining info on the direct sellers*

Under regulations, financial advisers (AAs) must recommend the best product from all the companies on the market.

A handful of AAs possibly do, but talking to many of these providers its safe to assume the vast majority do not. 

It's not because they can't find anything good to say, (these companies sell business with or without AA help) it may be, they simply don't have the required data on the products to feel comfortable recommending them.

If they don't readily have access then this surely questions some regulatory rules. 

Alan and others in the industry.  If we just take the life and pensions providers -

I'd like to ask how many of the following providers/ distributors provide easy access to technical manuals (as opposed to promotional brochures) to financial advisers? 

Acorn
Ark
Boi Life
Quinn
Royal Liver

One Direct
Tesco

I suppose we could also include Combined, Anglo, and the business of Scottish Prov, Scottish Legal, Royal Life and Equitable (although some not trading, people would have policies). 

Lets not single out Quinn for example but look at the broad picture.

How many of the above provide necessary technical manuals on their product range to AAs?


----------



## Alan Moore (7 Nov 2003)

*Methinks.....*

We are going to agree to disagree.

"Under regulations, financial advisers (AAs) must recommend the best product from all the companies on the market"

Agreed

"A handful of AAs possibly do, but talking to many of these providers its safe to assume the vast majority do not."

Or in other words, its same to assume that the vast majority of AAs are in breach of IFRSA regulations. Total hearsay. Give me some facts.

We have used a number of the companies on your list ( when they have been most appropriate for the client, one of which does quite well from our referrals ). 

Again, much of the information is available through third parties (who provide comparison engines etc) and much of the information including technical details is readily available from these companies. 
If companies believe they have the best product they will give you the info (and actively seek business) if they believe you should be recommending business to them. In my time in Equitable I made approaches to the broker market. 

The reason I picked on Quinn is that they get a lot of postive publicity on AAM which I feel isn't necessarily warranted and to give the AAM contributor a chance to prove that AAs aren't giving Quinn a fair deal.


----------



## Not Ratna (7 Nov 2003)

*technical information*

All of the above companies provide all of the relevant up to date data to AAs whenever required? Is this how others interpret the situation?


----------



## Alan Moore (7 Nov 2003)

*Good luck......*

.... and hope you find your witch.

Won't be commenting further unless someone has some facts.


----------



## Not Ratna (7 Nov 2003)

*Good luck......*

Thats understandable and I shouldnt have expected or brought pressure to bear on a resistered user to comment further.


----------



## Shiela (9 Nov 2003)

*comment*

Working in the marketing department of one of the larger life offices I concur with Not Ratna. Information in any great detail can be difficult to obtain from some providers. It must be a difficult situation for those who must offer broad based advice.


----------



## Alan Moore (10 Nov 2003)

*Isn't "Shiela" spelt "Sheila"*

Most lame. I suspect multiple schizophrenia. If Joe Public can get info out of these companies surely an adviser with half a brain can.

Finished with this thread unless someone can show me using FACTS proof of either:

(A) Ratnas argument - That Quinn should be doing well from AA referrals or
(B) Not Ratnas argument - That the vast majority of AAs are in breach of regulations to give best advice)


----------



## Ratna (10 Nov 2003)

*Information*

Sean Quinn has an instinct for business and common sense, Alan. The company has demonstrated that there is a market for their products through their own unique selling proposition. 

Your analysis may be unrealistic, and prejudiced in many ways. Yet, as an AA you cannot afford to be naive in your judgment. Astute customers recognise this trait a mile off. 

Right now I can say that most of the AAs out there do not have a clear understanding of the Acorn's, Tesco, Ones, Ark, BOI Life, Combined, Quinn, Royal Liver etcs products because I know the quality of the information given to them by these providers just isn't there and worse still its too arduous a task for most AAs to obtain themselves. 

If they don't have the required information then there is not a strictness in practice and its therefore not illogical to assume that best advice suffers.

Regulation needs to take one more step.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Nov 2003)

Hi Alan

You said in an earlier post that you have two pet hates:
The Guide's recommendations
1) of Quinn Life as by far the lowest charges of any pension fund and
2)"We recommend that you put 100% of your investment in equities"

You then combine the two pet hates with an illustration of the Quinn Biotech fund. I hope it's clear from everything I have written that I would never recommend 100% investment in any specialist fund, whether it has low charges or not. The overall point is that investing your pension fund in equities is likely to be the safest option and the highest return over the longer term. I disagree strongly with the lemming like wisdom which says that you should switch into cash as you approach retirement age. This only applies if you are obliged to buy an annuity. For many people, retirment means switiching from a pension fund into an ARF. They should remain in equities and, yes, they should be 100% in equities.

Now let's look at the statement that Quinn Life is by far the cheapest. I have not updated the book as often as I would have liked. So perhaps it should now be updated to "one of the cheapest"? 

This advice would have held good for the initial question from JJones. He is being charged a 5% initial charge on every premium. From the subsequent discussion, it appears that he could get the exact same product through Hibernian or New Ireland for a lot less. How can the advisor justify this? Surely the products from Hibernian and New Ireland should have been recommended? Presumably it was a Lifetime "counsellor"?

Maybe if you go to a discount broker and get a product on a nil commission basis, it will be marginally cheaper than Quinn Life. But, for most people, choosing Quinn Life instead of one of the funds with 5% initial charges and initial allocation periods, will save them a lot of money. 

Pensions can be complicated and good advice can save you money. But many people go to advisors and get bad advice or get ripped off. By going directly to Quinn Life, you will at least know that you are not getting ripped off.

Brendan


----------



## gerry (11 Nov 2003)

*Pension Choice*

Just because something is cheapest doesn't mean it is the best Brendan. 

Where are Equitable now ? 

Where are Scottish Provident Ireland ? (Down to the present and future cost of providing Guaranteed Annuity Rates).

Similarly just because an execution broker provides a cheap service doesn't mean best unless the client knows what they are doing.

Ever dealt direct with a general insurer after an accident ?


----------



## Alan Moore (11 Nov 2003)

*Response.....*

Will respond to yor post Brendan when I get a bit of time. Might be tomorrow, there is a lot in there.


----------



## Alan Moore (11 Nov 2003)

*There goes the lunch hour....*

Hi Brendan.

First off I appreciate you’ve put a lot of time and effort into the guide and no matter what the content is, someone is doing to pick holes in it. 

So takes take each of your points in turn.

“The overall point is that investing your pension fund in equities is likely to be the safest option and the highest return over the longer term.”

I would generally agree that equities will most likely out perform other asset classes. Safest I’m not so sure. Best example would be Japans Nikkei, peaked in 1989 at 39,000. It is now at 10,200, over 14 years later. Now if your Japanese employee had 100% of their retirement fund 100% in local equities, they would have committed hari kari long ago.  Even with growth of 7% per annum it will take 20 more years for this market to get back to it’s peak.

Now I’m not saying that we’re due a similar collapse here but the point I’m trying to make is that as a financial adviser I would only recommend total equity funds to those that understand that this is a high risk approach and there is a potentially large downside as well as upside. 

I have found that there are two types of client that will invest 100% in equities:

1)&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Those that are new to pensions and are generally younger. They understand that they have a long term to drawing down on the proceeds and volatility does not effect them too much in the early days ( 25% drop in a fund of €10,000 is not as horrific as a 25% drop in €1M ).

2)&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp The client that understands the risks involved but is not solely dependent on a pension fund in retirement ( i.e. people that can afford to take the risk, that are coming into large inheritances or have property).

In summary on this point, if a client demonstrates to me that they are looking for some degree of safety and I produce a report that shows  “that investing your pension fund in equities is likely to be the safest option and over the longer term.” IFRSA will ensure that I never work in the industry again. Most clients that are serious about their pensions and have funds built up that they generally tend to be more cautious and need/want a more balanced portfolio of equities, property and bonds.

Next up

“I disagree strongly with the lemming like wisdom which says that you should switch into cash as you approach retirement age. This only applies if you are obliged to buy an annuity”

Okay, I think from reading between the lines that you may be agreement that those that must buy an annuity may be best advised to go the cash/index linked route. And this covers the bulk of people.

“For many people, retirement means switching from a pension fund into an ARF. They should remain in equities and, yes, they should be 100% in equities”

For those that avail of the ARF/AMRF, not so sure 100% equities would be best. e.g. Would I be comfortable putting my folk’s savings over 40 years 100% into equities? Answer is no? Because they wouldn’t be comfortable with the potential downside and again most clients I have met are not comfortable with 100% equities and especially post retirement, think Eircom was an eye opener for many. Most are more comfortable with a balanced proportion of equities, bonds, property. It comes back to risk and affordability and where you want to strike the balance.  There will be those that will be full comfortable with 100% equities.





Now onto Quinn Life

“Now let's look at the statement that Quinn Life is by far the cheapest. I have not updated the book as often as I would have liked. So perhaps it should now be updated to "one of the cheapest?”

I’ve done a few quotes comparing Quinn Life with the industry on a nil commission basis. 
Person aged 35 retiring at 65 with an indexing premium. Saving at retirement by going nil commission with another company 5-7% at retirement based on the premium. Hardly marginal? 

If you want cheapest option and don’t want to put in the legwork, go to a financial adviser, and negotiate a fee for the set up of the cheapest. Would agree 100% with Gerry though that cheapest isn’t always the best. Personally I would prefer my funds to be actively managed by a fund manager I have confidence in. Quinn used tracker funds and is therefore passively managed.  But that’s a separate issue.

“This advice would have held good for the initial question from JJones. He is being charged a 5% initial charge on every premium. From the subsequent discussion, it appears that he could get the exact same product through Hibernian or New Ireland for a lot less. How can the advisor justify this? Surely the products from Hibernian and New Ireland should have been recommended? Presumably it was a Lifetime "counsellor"?”

Can’t speak for the other adviser? Maybe he/she is a tied agent. Maybe the agent is expensive and would set up New Ireland/Hibernian on similarly high charging structures.
The higher the charges, the higher the commission. 

When you go to an advisor what do you expect?

A pension review on your current holdings?
Advice on which is the best pension for you?
Advice on your full financial situation?
Ongoing annual advice on your financial situation?
No advice ( execution only )?
Advice on which is the cheapest?

Like an accountant, advisers have to be paid for their time and services. The amount the adviser charges should be proportional to the amount of work done or to be done. Once agreed at the outset the client can either pay a fee or the products can be structured in such a manner that the commission ( which is flexible ) to cover the costs.  Some advisers will charge more some less.

“Maybe if you go to a discount broker and get a product on a nil commission basis, it will be marginally cheaper than Quinn Life” 

See above, 5% to 7% ain’t marginal on a good size pension fund.

“But, for most people, choosing Quinn Life instead of one of the funds with 5% initial charges and initial allocation periods, will save them a lot of money. Pensions can be complicated and good advice can save you money. But many people go to advisors and get bad advice or get ripped off. 

Bad advice – You can sue for bad advice. Ripped Off- It’s the only industry that I know off with disclosure of commissions. 

“By going directly to Quinn Life, you will at least know that you are not getting ripped off”
Are you sure? If you go to an adviser and agree a fee for setting up a pension (on nil commission) you could save.


----------



## Skinflint (11 Nov 2003)

*.*



> “By going directly to Quinn Life, you will at least know that you are not getting ripped off”
> 
> Are you sure?



What evidence do you have that QL are ripping people off then?


----------



## Alan Moore (11 Nov 2003)

*Rip Off.......*

Maybe too strong a term....... 

You are taking me slightly out of context as the point I was trying to illustrate that there are better deals out there ( 5-7% based on the illustration I did ). 

The only criticism on the charges would be the AMC with is 1% when most personal pensions tend to have an AMC of 0.75%.

The following is taken from the motley fool.
Trackers vs Managed Funds
their charges (trackers) tend to be a lot lower. They don't employ expensive fund managers that make numerous buy and sell decisions that in the end merely cancel each other out.


----------



## Skinflint (11 Nov 2003)

*.*

Fair enough - I just thought that it was a cheap shot to insinuate that QL might be ripping people off.


----------



## Investor (12 Nov 2003)

*Illustration*

Hi Alan

5-7% difference.

Are you sure your illustration is reflecting the fact that QLife management charge reduces from 1% to 0.5% after 15yrs?  Can you provide details on the funds/providers you are comparing QLife to?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Nov 2003)

*Re: Illustration*

Alan

I think the 100% equities position has been argued exhaustively - well at least I am exhausted by it, so I will stick with Quinn Life.

Quinn Life is a tracker and will have a much lower TER than any actively managed fund. It is not fair to do comparisons between a tracker and an actively managed fund. My guess is that actively managed funds quoting .75% probably charge around 1.75% in TER. 

Despite all the data, it's just impossible to convince people that they simply cannot predict which actively managed funds will outperform over their chosen time period. The passively managed funds will outperform the average.

Brendan


----------



## Alan Moore (12 Nov 2003)

*Response.....*

Brenadan
"I think the 100% equities position has been argued exhaustively - well at least I am exhausted by it, so I will stick with Quinn Life."
Fair enough, we'll agree to differ.

"It is not fair to do comparisons between a tracker and an actively managed fund"
Well why not compare to a passively managed fund ( like a consensus fund ). 

Investor,
What providers/funds did I use for the comparison? Off the top of my head Quinn/Arklife/Friends/Hibernian/New Ireland/Eagle Star/ILAC. I know there are others ( some even cheaper again, depending on the fund chosen).


----------



## Alan Moore (12 Nov 2003)

*P.S*

The reduction in AMC was taken into account. They are not the only company offering this type of reduction.


----------



## Skinflint (12 Nov 2003)

*.*

As with anything in life perfection is a futile pursuit. For somebody who has identified their need for one, better to arrange SOME form of pension with a generally competitive charging structure and a "reasonable" investment strategy (which means different things to different people) rather than aiming for some sort of pension nirvana. For some people this will mean going direct to providers which offer limited choices (not always a bad thing) such as QL. For others it will mean getting further advice from an intermediary. 

Unfortunately some (many?) people seem to think that going the latter route is necessarily better and that intermediaries will do some magic or make hard decisions for them particularly because they are getting some form of remuneration. Obviously any decent intermediary will make it clear that they are simply providing advice/guidance but that the decisions are ultimately the consumer's to make.


----------



## Alan Moore (12 Nov 2003)

*Wow....skinflint*

"As with anything in life perfection is a futile pursuit"

Bet you saw "The Matrix" last night? Very Morpheus :lol


----------



## Skinflint (12 Nov 2003)

*.*

Naw - I hate all that sort of Sci-Fi fantasy nerdy This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language and anyway, I would sooner stick rusty nails in my nether regions than watch Keanu Reeves "act". On the latter point, even though I haven't watched the film in question, I'm 100% with this guy: maddox.xmission.com/matrix2.html


----------



## Ratna (24 Nov 2003)

*Most AAs*

Today's report by Martin Fitzpatrick in Sunday Indo regarding anti competitive practices by most brokers and Quinn was music to my ears.  Most AAs it appears are not acting as AAs!


----------



## Alan Moore (24 Nov 2003)

*Mmmmm*

Didn't read the article regarding "anti competitive practices by most brokers" but would be interested in hearing the argument put up, if someone could post a link.


----------



## Alan Moore (24 Nov 2003)

*Chinese Whispers?*

Found it online. The article reports that Quinn claims that 
the company is the subject of a partial boycott by insurance brokers.  A Quinn spokesman also said the company used a LARGE number of brokers, but strictly on a fee arrangement basis where there was total transparency. 

Where did it say anything about "anti competetive practices by most AAs"? Indeed your post would leave me to believe that the journalist had come up with this conclusion rather than just reporting what Quinn believes.  Why is it music to your ears?

I originally said that I would like proof that 

(A) Ratnas argument - That Quinn should be doing well from AA referrals or
(B) Not Ratnas argument - That the vast majority of AAs are in breach of regulations to give best advice)

I still see no proof.


----------



## Ratna (24 Nov 2003)

*Clear as a bell*

Under current legislative interpretation how could a direct provider possibly feel the victim of a 'partial broker boycott' Alan? Nowadays, that's Out of bounds wouldn't you say.

Reasons most AAs do not recommend direct providers.

(a) they don't have the required technical information on a particular providers product range to feel confident in preparing a recommendation (whose fault is that?).
(b) The direct provider doesn't play ball and pay them commission.
(c) The direct provider doesn't wine and dine them.
(d) AAs are slow to change and most of their advice is still somewhat 'restricted'.

BTW, Ratna's argument concerns all providers who don't pay commission. Prove that its not happening.


----------



## Alan Moore (25 Nov 2003)

*More hearsay*

Again, from my own experience we have and do recommend some of the direct providers and again there is one company that does quite well from us. The majority of our business is now done on a fee only basis.

It was you that said that Quinn Life should be doing well from AA referrals but you cannot demonstrate why. I said before that I was finished with this thread unless I saw some facts.

And I am gone. I just felt compelled to reply to your misreporting of the article in the Sindo.


----------



## Ratna (25 Nov 2003)

*Direct*

You obviously have nothing to hide or worry about Alan, but consider why you feel it necessary to protect others who are obviously not doing their job.

The article is reproduced herewith:

"Executives from Sean Quinn's insurance company Quinn Direct, have made an extraordinary claim that the company is the subject of a boycott by insurance brokers. The claim was made to the Oireachtas Committe on Enterprise and Small Business, who are taking it seriously - Committee chairman Donnie Cassidy having referred the complaint to the Competition Authority.

The company said that many of its products were not being offered to consumers because of 'cosy relationships between some brokers and some insurance companies'. They believe brokers are effectively boycotting their products because of its non-commission policy.

Commenting on the complaint, a Quinn spokesman said the company used a large number of brokers, but strictly on a fee arrangement basis where there was total transparency.

In 2003, Quinn cut motor and commercial liability rates by around 19 per cent and 22 per cent. More reductions are realistic with a continuation in the insurance reform agenda, the firm insisted."

I ask if Quinn Life-Direct and Quinn-Direct paid commission to intermediaries do you think this would result in more business going their way? Of course it would... but if I said that I'd have fallen into Ratna's trap.


----------



## Alan Moore (25 Nov 2003)

*Misreporting......*

www.unison.ie/irish_indep...e_id=10075

I note that you have changed "partial boycott" to "boycott".

"why you feel it necessary to protect others who are obviously not doing their job"

If it is obvious then surely it should be easy to demonstrate. The reality is that nil commission with Quinn vs Nil commission elsewhere, Quinn rarely come out tops.

P.S

"I ask if Quinn Life-Direct and Quinn-Direct paid commission to intermediaries do you think this would result in more business going their way?"

If Quinn believed this why don't they do it.


----------



## John Palmer The Wise (25 Nov 2003)

*Re: Misreporting......*

Rat

We know you can read, but do you understand what you read?

The article is specific to GENERAL INSURANCE and not Life & Pensions as you would lead us to believe.

If Quinn Direct were in any way interested in doing business with the broker market they would write to them and tell them that this is the case. It's not as if they need permission from representative bodies to do this. 

The reality of the situation is that they want to CHERRY PICK the brokerages they do business with. Sound familiar?  

Quinn are beginning to sound like the moaners that frequent this site on a regular basis.


----------



## Ratna (25 Nov 2003)

*The reported (partial) Boycott*

AAs are supposed to advise on all, oh wise one.

Alan, of course its only a 'partial boycott' if you are giving them business! 

"it should be easy to demonstrate. The reality is that nil commission with Quinn vs Nil commission elsewhere, Quinn rarely come out tops."

Acorn was castigated by all and sundry as one of the most expensive SSIA providers. But Acorn paid commission to their agents and managed to sell 10,155 policies (Bill Tyson, SSIA final tally).

Quinn, one of the lowest charging providers, got great publicity, consumer endorsements etc selling direct (no commission) only managed to sell what can only have been for them a disappointing 2612 policies.

Commission is the motivator. The point against commission has been argued here on AAM many times. 

I'm sure Quinn has considered methods of remunerating intermediaries for the introduction of business. Selling direct is cheaper. Perhaps their stance questions traditional insurance practices, similar to Equitable. The Irish market is small but its early days yet. 

If Quinn didn't come out 'tops' in aspects of their business I somewhat doubt they would be making representations to the Oireachtas Committee and the competition authority. Would they?


----------



## John Palmer The Wise (25 Nov 2003)

*Re: The reported (partial) Boycott*

I think its about time that Quinn realised that the spoofings of their consultants will not realise them the gains that were promised by polarisation.

You need to get out there and talk to the relevant people and stop waiting for the business to come to you. The management are pretty useless as far as I can see and I am surprised that Sean Quinn hasn't tufted the lot of them out on their ear.

Early days yet, my ass. Remind us of how long they are around again?


----------



## The Listener (27 Nov 2003)

*Re: The reported (partial) Boycott*

Wow everything is so silent here all of a sudden.


----------

