# Executive Pension pot transfer



## NotMyRealName (1 Jan 2021)

Any advice welcomed. I've 600k in an EPP with a main provider. Currently pay 1%AMC plus 3% on lump sum contributions. Plan  to load up by approx 100k over next 3-4 years in lump sums and then leave work, take lump sum and invest in ARF.  Is it worth moving this to another provider at this stage?I'd be comfortable with execution only and picking my own investments.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (1 Jan 2021)

The 3% is a joke. With that sort of money, you can probably negotiate better than 1%.


----------



## kevhenry (2 Jan 2021)

Have you always had that 3% contribution charge or is it a more recent thing?

Executive pensions are priced in tiers (based on age brackets) but they should have an allocation rate of 100% at inception. Anything less than 100% allocation on lump sums at the stage you're at now would get you lower than 1% elsewhere. It should also qualify you for lower charges with your current provider too.

Insurers don't like rewriting their own contracts for many reasons but I think they would look at it to prevent a €600k fund (or potential €700k-€800k ARF) from walking out the door so I would start there if I was you.

If you don't have an assigned advisor to discuss it with (who won't want it rewritten either) then give their customer services a call with the same approach as you would if ringing to switch your broadband provider.

You could simply tell them that you're looking to transfer your fund to another manager and want to know what paperwork they would need from you to facilitate this. Once your account balance pops up on to their screen someone from their business retention team would be on to you pretty quick to have a chat and/or arrange an appointment to speak with one of their advisors.

If you get that far then it would be the advisors job to keep you on board and this is when you can start to negotiate terms. If they don't offer you better terms in the end then you have a lot of alternatives to explore in the market since €600k would give you some leverage.

Aviva, for example, have an EPP pricing platform where base annual management charges start from 0.3% for their lifestyle strategy and 0.4% for standard funds. There's a minimum transfer value requirement of €200,000 to be eligible for this particular contract (with a 3 year minimum term) and you might also need to factor in an additional trail fee which could be an extra 0.25% or 0.5%.

There are commissioned options on the Aviva platform that start at 0.4% (0.5% for standard funds) excluding trail fees that have nominal monthly policy fees for the lower initial transfer requirement of €25,000. However, these contracts are set over a 5 year minimum term rather than a 3 year term.

Similarly, the other providers in the market offer full platform EPP options which can be set up on a commissioned or non-commissioned basis (depending on your age and remaining term to retirement) for lower than what you're currently paying.

It's also possible to have EPP's set up with no early exit penalties with some providers or you could change course altogether and look at self-administered arrangements but it might be better to leave that for your ARF in a few years.

In any case, there's a big market out there and there are always deals to be had for those prepared to look for them.

Notwithstanding the fact that charges are only one part of the equation, you're still paying *both* a 1% AMC on €600,000 (which is costing you €500/mo currently) and a 3% contribution charge (representing €3,000 from your future €100,000) so I think you're paying more in charges than you should be IMHO. And I'm assuming you're not paying trustee fees but that's not a given either.

What you're looking to have in terms of investment functionality would also need to be factored in. There's a lot of things to consider in all this as you can see  

kevin
www.thepensionstore.ie


----------



## NotMyRealName (2 Jan 2021)

Kevin,
Thanks for that. 
Yes re. 3%.  In fact that's for lumps of over 12k......it's 5% if under that. 
I've neglected this,attention-wise, for quite a while and only in the last few years as I've added substantial lump sums, and the pot grew bigger, did I pay more attention to the fees. 
The pot is diversified in 5 funds ( 4 are my selection, and 1 is the original opening lifestyle option)
Contributions have ALWAYS been slow to be applied to my account, but last summer hit a new low. I transferred the funds (16k)in July and, after prodding, finally saw it in my account in mid Sept.  I complained and asked for the contribution charge (€480) to be waived. They declined and offered €100. I took that as an insult and told them to shove it. They countered with €250......which I took but now I'm angry....and here. 
"A satisfied customer tells 3 people, a dissatisfied customer tells 10"
I have a couple of business associates with the same type of plan with that provider, so I'll encourage them, and any readers out here, to pay attention.......mostly when your pension pot is modest. That's when the legacy damage is done. 
I'll get into this on Monday and I'll post my results on the thread. 
Any other posters input/ experiences by the way, is welcome. 
Thanks


----------



## GSheehy (2 Jan 2021)

@NotMyRealName 

Is there a difference in value between the nominal fund value and transfer value ie are you hit with penalties if you transfer out?


Gerard

www.prsa.ie


----------



## NotMyRealName (2 Jan 2021)

Ok Gerard,
It seems that they changed the format of my annual statement after 2017....It no longer lists total transfer/surrender value. ( More sleight of hand??)
Anyway, as of Feb 2017 , Value of unit holding and Total surrender/Transfer value were identical to the cent...


----------



## TheBig40 (2 Jan 2021)

NotMyRealName said:


> Kevin,
> Thanks for that.
> Yes re. 3%.  In fact that's for lumps of over 12k......it's 5% if under that.
> I've neglected this,attention-wise, for quite a while and only in the last few years as I've added substantial lump sums, and the pot grew bigger, did I pay more attention to the fees.
> ...


I’d a similar situation to this and eventually managed to move to 100% allocation and .55AMC on funds. I still have some stuck in one of the older funds because the transfer value was shocking but should be able to shift this towards the end of the year. I did the calcs on additional cost of fees versus what’s id lose in TV and just left some where it was.

whole process was a chore in trying to get information from the broker and the pension company. They made it as hard as possible to look at all the options and it only made me more determined to make changes. Shifted the whole company pension scheme in the end.


----------



## NotMyRealName (2 Jan 2021)

Well ,as it turns out, my contract has transfer value at total fund value on date of transfer. Also my company is the scheme trustee if that's relevant


----------



## kevhenry (2 Jan 2021)

If the current value and the transfer value/surrender value are the same then you don't have a contract with either initial units or applicable early exit penalties. This means you're free to move which, again, is just one more potential roadblock that's not in your way.

Initial units are an incredibly powerful 'incentive' to prevent people from moving providers because it means penalising them a lot of money to do so. Therefore, most people stay put. 

That said, if neither of these penalties apply then this gives you additional leverage in your advisor meeting since you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

The cost of outsourcing the trusteeship is nominal but it does offload any responsibilities to an external, third party trustee company. The costs of the trustee are not a major factor at all but they would be waived on a new EPP with a potential €600,000 transfer coming in anyway. Some providers even take on the trustee fee on an EPP regardless of transfer value size or regular contribution amount.

They just include it as part of their offering to act as a differentiator in a very competitive market.

kevin
www.thepensionstore.ie


----------



## thumbelina (2 Jan 2021)

kevhenry said:


> Aviva, for example, have an EPP pricing platform where base annual management charges start from 0.3% for their lifestyle strategy and 0.4% for standard funds. There's a minimum transfer value requirement of €200,000 to be eligible for this particular contract (with a 3 year minimum term) and you might also need to factor in an additional trail fee which could be an extra 0.25% or 0.5%.
> 
> There are commissioned options on the Aviva platform that start at 0.4% (0.5% for standard funds) excluding trail fees that have nominal monthly policy fees for the lower initial transfer requirement of €25,000. However, these contracts are set over a 5 year minimum term rather than a 3 year term.



What is the 'trail fee' outlined above - is it potential broker commission which could be negotiated with the broker? Do Aviva have any kind of a minimum there or is it purely between the client and the broker.

For example, with a large fund - could it be setup as 0.3% to Aviva and 0.1% to the broker?


----------



## NotMyRealName (2 Jan 2021)

Kevin/Gerard
Many thanks for your input. I note you are both professionals in the field. However, your free contributions to a forum like this are GREATLY appreciated by dabblers, like me. Perhaps I may require professional assistance and ,if so , I'll be in touch. 
On Monday I'll contact my provider and attempt a negotiation. But I won't be dilly-dallied. If there's reluctance, I'll just move on. 
My feeling is if I got the allocation rate to 100% and the AMC close as possible to 0.5%  then that might represent a reasonable deal with the least disruption. Any thoughts?
Also, I'm thinking, with a new arrangement and only 3-4 years left then future transfer value charge is probably not important but what's normal @ redemption lump sum stage? Might a new policy have a sneaky end of term charge?


----------



## kevhenry (2 Jan 2021)

The discussion on trail fee is one between the broker and the client which will encompass ongoing service levels and agreements etc..

Ultimately people want to get value for a service they're paying for but the fees themselves are negotiable for larger cases like anything else in life.

However, some providers have fixed increments of trail fee e.g. either 0.25% or 0.5% whilst others offer tiered increments of 0.05% up to a set maximum of 0.5% for example.

kevin
www.thepensionstore.ie


----------



## kevhenry (2 Jan 2021)

NotMyRealName said:


> Kevin/Gerard
> Many thanks for your input. I note you are both professionals in the field. However, your free contributions to a forum like this are GREATLY appreciated by dabblers, like me. Perhaps I may require professional assistance and ,if so , I'll be in touch.
> On Monday I'll contact my provider and attempt a negotiation. But I won't be dilly-dallied. If there's reluctance, I'll just move on.
> My feeling is if I got the allocation rate to 100% and the AMC close as possible to 0.5%  then that might represent a reasonable deal with the least disruption. Any thoughts?
> Also, I'm thinking, with a new arrangement and only 3-4 years left then future transfer value charge is probably not important but what's normal @ redemption lump sum stage? Might a new policy have a sneaky end of term charge?



Apologies if I misinterpreted something you said earlier. If you're saying that there is a transfer value charge then that's always an important factor to consider.

If you have funds with initial units on your EPP i.e. funds that would impose a financial penalty on you for moving them before their set maturity date, then that is a barrier.

If your provider is who I suspect it to be then you could have initial units that are set to an NRA (normal retirement age) of 70. I have had more than a few clients over the years who latterly discovered that that was the type of plan they had. Hopefully you don't have that but you need to know what to look for and that's certainly something to check.

With initial units built into a contract there isn't really anything you can do to alter them without triggering the penalty i.e. it may not advantage you to rewrite it unless the cost of the penalty can be offset somewhat by an extra allocation on your transfer value.

It's all very simple and straightforward! 

kevin
www.thepensionstore.ie


----------



## GSheehy (2 Jan 2021)

NotMyRealName said:


> My feeling is if I got the allocation rate to 100% and the AMC close as possible to 0.5%  then that might represent a reasonable deal with the least disruption. Any thoughts?



Yes, that's reasonable for your fund level.



> Also, I'm thinking, with a new arrangement and only 3-4 years left then future transfer value charge is probably not important but what's normal @ redemption lump sum stage? Might a new policy have a sneaky end of term charge?



When you're negotiating a price on the transfer, ask that question and get the answer in writing. Remember, there are no disclosure requirements on EPPs so it's important to nail down the facts about all charges before you commit. 

You should be able to get a competitive price with and without early exit/transfer charges. The AMC on the no exit charges contract might be a small bit higher though.


PS: When you paid the €16K in July and it wasn't applied to the policy until mid-September, was the €16K invested at the unit price in July? 


Gerard

www.prsa.ie


----------



## NotMyRealName (2 Jan 2021)

Normal retirement age is 60. And it looks like transfer value is the FULL fund value at time of transfer


----------



## kevhenry (2 Jan 2021)

Right, well then it's all to play for so state what you want and see how it goes.

kevin
www.thepensionstore.ie


----------



## NotMyRealName (2 Jan 2021)

GSheehy said:


> Yes, that's reasonable for your fund level.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## NotMyRealName (2 Jan 2021)

Gerard,
They've always applied the unit price of the day I transferred in the money


----------



## NotMyRealName (11 Jan 2021)

**UPDATE**
My advisor tells me that he'll have an update on possible new terms by tomorrow morning at the latest. In conversation earlier he was not very optimistic about my request for 100% allocation and .5% AMC.  Which of the other main providers might be more likely to offer best terms to me, as I'd like to start looking at fund selection?


----------



## NotMyRealName (11 Jan 2021)

***UPDATE.. UPDATE***
They'll do 100% allocation , but .75% with no early encashment or transfer charges.
Can I do better....is it worth it??


----------



## kevhenry (11 Jan 2021)

That's a great result, well done! It's always worth trying 

kevin
www.thepensionstore.ie


----------



## TheBig40 (11 Jan 2021)

NotMyRealName said:


> ***UPDATE.. UPDATE***
> They'll do 100% allocation , but .75% with no early encashment or transfer charges.
> Can I do better....is it worth it??


I think they would be able to do better than .75 for the amc. I’d no where year as big a pot and managed better. If you do the maths on the difference it will make overall to your end funds you’ll find you could buy a nice car with the difference. 

Maybe suggest you them that you’ve seen .5 in the market and want to know how they can do better before you switch? Either way well done so far!!


----------



## SGWidow (11 Jan 2021)

What does AMC really mean?

If the AMC is 0.5% and I'm tracking the S&P and the S&P returns 10% in a given period and there is no tracking error, does that mean that the net return on my investment after all charges is 9.5% (assuming 100% allocation)?

Or, are there additional charges? Otherwise put, what is included in the 0.5% AMC?


----------



## NotMyRealName (13 Jan 2021)

TheBig40 said:


> I think they would be able to do better than .75 for the amc. I’d no where year as big a pot and managed better. If you do the maths on the difference it will make overall to your end funds you’ll find you could buy a nice car with the difference.
> 
> Maybe suggest you them that you’ve seen .5 in the market and want to know how they can do better before you switch? Either way well done so far!!



Thanks for your encouraging input. They've drawn an iron curtain @ .75% AMC. I want to move as I feel I've been shoddily treated notwithstanding my inattention to this. 
Big40  did you engage a broker to get you to .55% ?
I'm ready to move.


----------



## TheBig40 (13 Jan 2021)

NotMyRealName said:


> Thanks for your encouraging input. They've drawn an iron curtain @ .75% AMC. I want to move as I feel I've been shoddily treated notwithstanding my inattention to this.
> Big40  did you engage a broker to get you to .55% ?
> I'm ready to move.


Kinda, it was the same “broker” that we always used but he could not answer a lot of my questions so started just to copy his contact in friends first on the mails so they would answer them directly.
Whole process was very frustrating and in the end we stayed with FF/Aviva but “had to” open new funds as some of the old funds were subject to transfer value loss (what could be moved without costing money was and the rest will shift later this year). I was annoyed about this as I viewed it as churning the accounts for fees and commissions but in the end with the funds 100% allocations and lower amc it was to my benefit.
I’d be hard pushed to recommend the people I deal with mostly because the whole thing was a mystery wrapped in shanaangans


----------



## NotMyRealName (13 Jan 2021)

TheBig40 said:


> Kinda, it was the same “broker” that we always used but he could not answer a lot of my questions so started just to copy his contact in friends first on the mails so they would answer them directly.
> Whole process was very frustrating and in the end we stayed with FF/Aviva but “had to” open new funds as some of the old funds were subject to transfer value loss (what could be moved without costing money was and the rest will shift later this year). I was annoyed about this as I viewed it as churning the accounts for fees and commissions but in the end with the funds 100% allocations and lower amc it was to my benefit.
> I’d be hard pushed to recommend the people I deal with mostly because the whole thing was a mystery wrapped in shanaangans


Thanks for that


----------



## NotMyRealName (13 Jan 2021)

kevhenry said:


> That's a great result, well done! It's always worth trying
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## NotMyRealName (13 Jan 2021)

Kevin,
In your professional opinion can I do better than .75%AMC ?
Providers fees etc are not really transparent across the board.
My motivation to move is historic shoddy treatment and not losing future value to ongoing charges.


----------



## kevhenry (14 Jan 2021)

Well, yes you can get lower platform fees than 0.75% as per the earlier thread re: Aviva but they're not unique to them.

I called your effort a great result because the new charging structure does represent a significant cost reduction from your original terms and it was offered (at least from my understanding of what you posted) without any hassle and without any of the usual sneaky clauses that get inserted into re-written cases.

As you've been with this provider for a reasonable period time, it can be a difficult undertaking to actually move since you're moving from the familiar to the unfamiliar. Better the devil you know and all that....

Shoddy treatment is a different matter though.

kevin
www.thepensionstore.ie


----------



## NotMyRealName (14 Jan 2021)

Kevin,
In a nutshell, what I'm after is,
* 100% allocation, a better AMC than .75% ( I'm hoping this would include trail fees etc.) . No sneaky exit charges ( not because I want to tinker, but in case of death, serious illness and when it comes to lump sum /ARF time. 
It's a 3 year timeframe, and additional contributions are planned. 

I've considered the devil I know and that was why I tried the advised negotiation. By my rough calcs ,assuming 5% -ish p.a.  growth and inc. projected contributions the difference between (.75% and .55% could be approx 6k in 3 years. My crude calcs can be wrong .......and have been.If better terms are available from a devil I've not yet met, well then I'm ready to make that move. 

Anyway, I post this so , hopefully, others can learn from my experiences ( which haven't been as bad as some other peoples) , not because I'm looking for pension advice for free. 
My STRONG advice to any readers here is review your particular arrangement. The earlier in your contributing phase, the better. 
If you can't, or don't want to, understand it........Look for professional help. 

" The best time to have done something is then.......the next best time is Now."


----------



## SGWidow (14 Jan 2021)

SGWidow said:


> What does AMC really mean?
> 
> If the AMC is 0.5% and I'm tracking the S&P and the S&P returns 10% in a given period and there is no tracking error, does that mean that the net return on my investment after all charges is 9.5% (assuming 100% allocation)?
> 
> Or, are there additional charges? Otherwise put, what is included in the 0.5% AMC?



Can one of the financial experts confirm/clarify this please?


----------



## kevhenry (14 Jan 2021)

SGWidow said:


> Can one of the financial experts confirm/clarify this please?


Yes, the difference between the gross return and net return would be the management charge in this case. However, funds may also have associated running costs that are not included in the quoted AMC figure. This represents the total expense ratio (TER) of the fund and these figures can be much more difficult to obtain.

kevin
www.thepensionstore.ie


----------



## kevhenry (14 Jan 2021)

NotMyRealName said:


> Kevin,
> In a nutshell, what I'm after is,
> * 100% allocation, a better AMC than .75% ( I'm hoping this would include trail fees etc.) . No sneaky exit charges ( not because I want to tinker, but in case of death, serious illness and when it comes to lump sum /ARF time.
> It's a 3 year timeframe, and additional contributions are planned.
> ...


As per earlier, charges are one part of the equation (albeit important) because it ultimately comes down to the overall value you're getting; all things considered. But, Yes, there are different pricing options on the market that effectively operate on the basis of a volume discount above certain thresholds. €600,000 would qualify.

kevin
www.thepensionstore.ie


----------



## SGWidow (14 Jan 2021)

Thanks Kevin,

So a fund of an Irish company tracking a major index, what is the TER likely to be if the AMC is 0.5%?

Otherwise put, what is included in the AMC and what is not?

Note: I don't think that this is a simple question - well, maybe the question is simple but the answer isn't coz I have seen others ask it before on this site and I'm not conscious of it ever receiving a decent answer! Long way of saying that I appreciate very much you taking the time to reply!


----------



## Gordon Gekko (14 Jan 2021)

I like taking exit penalties if it gives me extra allocation and a lower AMC.

As I’m not going to move, it’s a win-win


----------



## kevhenry (14 Jan 2021)

SGWidow said:


> Thanks Kevin,
> 
> So a fund of an Irish company tracking a major index, what is the TER likely to be if the AMC is 0.5%?
> 
> ...


The TER is more prevalent with managed funds as opposed to index tracking funds. Some actively managed funds would have very high TER’s as it relates to the ongoing management activity undertaken by the team.

TER’s tend to be historical in nature and only used (when you can get them) to give an estimation of the likely costs that will be incurred by the fund in the future. But sub-funds within a branded range of multi-asset funds could also have different TER’s as a reflection of the different asset weightings that each one has.

Some well-known multi-asset funds on the market here have a base AMC of 1% but the TER could be anywhere from an additional 0.1% to an additional 0.45%. Focussed managed funds can have ongoing transaction costs that are even higher again. 

In summary, it is essentially the total cost of all the administration and third party charges borne by the investment manager over a given period of time which will include the stated AMC. This is ultimately passed on to the individual investor so it is in addition to the AMC as opposed to being a fixed percentage of it.

kevin
www.thepensionstore.ie


----------



## SGWidow (14 Jan 2021)

Thanks Kevin,

 A final question......


SGWidow said:


> Otherwise put, what is included in the AMC and what is not?


----------



## SPC100 (14 Jan 2021)

I think for index tracking looking at the difference in return between the fund  the index is the best way to determine value/costs. As the TER is effectively hidden in many cases.


----------



## kevhenry (14 Jan 2021)

SGWidow said:


> Thanks Kevin,
> 
> A final question......


It can be broadly broken down as business costs vs activity costs.

The AMC covers the cost of operations to the firm which would include everything from hiring the individual asset managers, investment analysts, support teams, admin and back office, marketing, legal, compliance, reporting, audit and regulatory fees etc…as well as the everyday costs associated with running a business e.g. light & heat, computer systems, networks, software packages, rent, rates, tax, salaries, pensions, benefits etc…the list goes on.

There would also be a built in profit margin for the firm and sufficient margins to pay commissions and other fees/remunerations to intermediaries.

The TER would account for the other costs associated with the actual investment activity itself i.e. transaction fees on acquisition or disposal of assets (usually the biggest component), hedging costs, option costs, external analysts/advisors, company research, market research, third party performance fees, incentive payments and/or bonuses based on achieving certain benchmarks.

The base AMC on any given fund will usually remain relatively consistent over time while the TER is variable and more heavily influenced by a multitude of external factors.

kevin
www.thepensionstore.ie


----------



## SGWidow (14 Jan 2021)

Thanks Kevin

My initial query was about an index tracking funds. 

So a lot of those TER expenses listed wouldn't apply and so should be minimal - as in 10 basis points or less?


----------



## RedOnion (14 Jan 2021)

SGWidow said:


> index tracking funds.
> 
> So a lot of those TER expenses listed wouldn't apply and so should be minimal


How exactly would a fund track an index without buying and selling shares? They should be low on a 'pure' tracker fund, but there are still expenses.


----------



## SGWidow (14 Jan 2021)

RedOnion said:


> How exactly would a fund track an index without buying and selling shares?



I don't know - why do you ask?


----------



## RedOnion (14 Jan 2021)

SGWidow said:


> I don't know - why do you ask?


I'm trying to help you understand why there would be some costs within even the most efficient perfect index tracking fund.

@kevhenry already pointed out that buying and selling would be the largest component of the TER within a fund. So if a fund has to buy & sell assets, it will have expenses.


----------



## SGWidow (14 Jan 2021)

With respect, I never said otherwise.

In any event, in a fund like an S&P tracker, there ain't much turnover, right?


----------



## GSheehy (15 Jan 2021)

NotMyRealName said:


> I've considered the devil I know and that was why I tried the advised negotiation.



You got the 0.75% from the advisor (and pension provider) that you have been dealing with all along, or someone else and a different pension provider?


----------



## NotMyRealName (15 Jan 2021)

Yes, .75% from the same provider...


----------



## NotMyRealName (18 Jan 2021)

** RESULT *
My provider has come back with an improved offer....
*   .5% AMC
**  100% allocation  on lump sums of €20k or over , otherwise 95% allocation. In my case ,this is do-able as my contributions are likely to be in that order....( However, I would attempt to negotiate that down, even though I'm confident I can avoid it)
*** Full transfer value protected with NO exit penalties. 
I have not accepted this offer yet as I have a similar proposal from another provider which would include ( paid-for) set-up and ongoing advice. 
Anyway, as a case-study, I think this is a very positive outcome. 
I'd like to thank you all for your advice and encouragement over the last couple of weeks. 
No matter why you're reading this, please act soon and get a review of your own situation. If you think you need professional assistance, then get it......but, above all, don't do nothing. Thanks to ALL of you.


----------



## TheBig40 (18 Jan 2021)

That’s 


NotMyRealName said:


> ** RESULT *
> My provider has come back with an improved offer....
> *   .5% AMC
> **  100% allocation  on lump sums of €20k or over , otherwise 95% allocation. In my case ,this is do-able as my contributions are likely to be in that order....( However, I would attempt to negotiate that down, even though I'm confident I can avoid it)
> ...


That’s really great! I think you should push - 100% allocation on everything regardless of the size. We get that on our monthly contributions and lumps and as I said before we are dealing with a smaller account than you are.
The 100% allocation is actually likely to me 102% with the 2 going to the “advisor”

either way I’m delighted for you and hope it inspires others.


----------



## Younginvestor93 (23 Jan 2021)

I'm currently comparing prsa pensions and I have been offered Davy at 0.75 management fee and of course I have to add on the TER of the fund I invest, say for example is 0.2. This brings the total charge to 0.95, is that accurate?

When comparing against say an Irish life pension or Zurich Fund pension that have a 1% annual management charge. I automatically assume that includes the TER of the Zurich fund I invest in within the 1% or is that wrong? Should I add on the Zurich fund TER on to the 1% charge to make a proper comparison?

Im not sure what is correct in this case


----------



## GSheehy (25 Jan 2021)

TheBig40 said:


> The 100% allocation is actually likely to me 102% with the 2 going to the “advisor”



Highly unlikely, as original poster was talking about a 3/4 year time frame.

If company paid 2% to an advisor and charged 0.5% AMC, they'd be doing it for 'free', if not at a loss.

Gerard

www.bond.ie


----------

