# The Mysteries of Quinn Life/EBS



## Rupert Bear (7 Nov 2001)

Everybody knows that <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_     Quinn Life_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> is far cheaper than <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_     Irish Life_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> and yet the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_     QL Eurostoxx Tracker (Net)_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> is down <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*     26%*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> year to date whilst Irish Life's equivalent <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_     Eurostoxx Scope (Net)_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> is down only <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*     22%*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_     (See Here for details.)_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_     Cardinal Connell_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> will undoubtedly have an explanation based on the nature of angels but I believe I have a simpler answer which even <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_     Empey_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> could follow. 

See, both these funds are NET funds.  That is they are old style funds <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START-->taxed internally<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END-->.

When assets rise they are subject to 20% tax.  Conversely when they fall you get 20% tax relief for the losses.  But there is a catch -  you only get relief for the losses if you have gains or income to set them against (on second thoughts I've probably lost <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_     Empey_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> by now:lol     ).

Poor old QL.       They are far too small and new to have generated any taxable income.  So when the shutters came down on the old tax regime QL were left naked.  Any losses would have to be taken on the chin wild jolly old Irish Life had oodles of taxable income against which to set any losses.

Just in case you think this presents a chance to get in cheap to QLD's fund - no such luck - these funds are closed to new business.:eek


----------



## Dynamo (8 Nov 2001)

*Quinn Life*

Can we compare Irish Life's and Quinn Life's gross funds ?


----------



## Rupert Bear (8 Nov 2001)

*Re: Penions Comparison*

Excellent point Dynamo, can you give Lucretia a private lesson on life assurance taxation?:| 

The above link reveals QL Euro Pensions year to date <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* -26%*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, exactly the  same as their so called <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* Net*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> fund and Irish Life are <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* -27%*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> which goes to prove that <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Mith_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> is right QL are cheaper.:eek


----------



## CM (8 Nov 2001)

*Miaow!*

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* can you give Lucretia a private lesson on life assurance taxation*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

Now, now! Let's have no more of that and let's stick to the matter in hand! :lol


----------



## CM (8 Nov 2001)

*Net versus gross rollup*

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* Just in case you think this presents a chance to get in cheap to QLD's fund - no such luck - these funds are closed to new business.*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

Is that not the case for all net funds? I thought that any new business since Jan 2001 (?) was implicitly gross rollup? On the other hand I seem to remember EBS giving the option of choosing their Summit (net) or Mutual (gross) funds. More obfuscation methinks.... maybe I'll also sit in on that tutorial if it's going :\


----------



## Devils Ad (9 Nov 2001)

*Re: Net versus gross rollup*

You would seem to be correct CM, although I too don't understand how...

I spoke to EBS recently and the woman I spoke to said that they are offering both gross and net funds. She said it was because in certain circumstances the net fund performed better than the gross fund and vice versa.

It seemed to make sense, but what I can't figure out is how they are <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*  allowed*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> to continue to have a net fund open.

Dev.


----------



## CM (9 Nov 2001)

*Summit Funds*

Yes - I have the EBS Summit Funds brochure (dated February 2001) in my hand and on the front it has <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Summit Funds - with two tax options_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. Inside it goes on to explain these which are branded <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Summit Investment Funds_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> (net) and <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Summit Mutual Funds_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> (gross roll-up). Their illustrative tables (based on an assumed 8% p.a. and 12% p.a. growth and no partial encashments) show that (as pointed out in another post elsewhere on AAM today) generally the difference between the net and gross is small with net marginally ahead in years 1 to 7 while for terms of 10 or 15 years the gross fund is marginally ahead.

Anyway - it's still odd to me because I thought that once the gross roll-up regime came into force that net funds were supposed to be closed to new business.


----------



## Rupert Bear (9 Nov 2001)

*Re: Net versus gross rollup*

Let me assure everyone that there is no choice - <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*  all collective investments currently open to new business are Gross*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->.8)  

I suspect that prior to the intro of Gross on January 1 this year EBS may have being offering some kind of choice.  I fear that the woman who <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_  Devils Ad_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> was speaking to must have been absent on the day when EBS instructed its staff that Gross is now the only option.  

Alternatively, she confused her message with the party line in respect of <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* existing*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> customers.  You see on balance these customers should switch over to gross but then EBS would lose out on tax relief on their expenses.  

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_  Clubman_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, I was not suggesting that QL were being sneaky in debarring new business as you are correct this is universal.:|


----------



## Rupert Bear (9 Nov 2001)

*Re: Summit Funds*

Hi, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_  Clubman_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, our postings crossed paths.

This is most bizarre.:eek  

That brochure is <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*  WRONG*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->  - <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_  Devils Ad_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> can you phone again?  We gotta sort this out.:eek  

Incidentally the new life regulations which also came into force in January this year require a maximum illustration of <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*  10%*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> per annum.  I know Summit Funds are not life assurance funds but I thought EBS were one of the good guys - why are they using a regulatory loophole to oversell their products at <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*  12%*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. 

We have been missing the plot here.  Here we all our gunning for that minnow (<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_  Mith's_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> term), Quinn Life, when EBS are getting away with murder!  I've half a mind to go into the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Letting off Steam_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> room with this one.>:


----------



## CM (9 Nov 2001)

*EBS*

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* why are they using a regulatory loophole to oversell their products at 12%.*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

I'm no expert but I presume this "loophole" is that Summit funds are UCITS and, as such, not constrained by the IIF (?) illustration guidelines/rules? Unfortunately, as criticised by Brendan in the past, EBS also obfuscate   things by quoting some of their annual management charges net (sometimes also gross), the logic of which nobody seems to have been able to explain. Perhaps this is another UCITS related thing?


----------



## Rupert Bear (9 Nov 2001)

*Re: EBS Loophole*

Yes,

As UCITS, EBS do not have to follow life regulations (set by Government since January 1, IIF no longer involved), with max growth rates, year by year charges disclosure and full disclosure of commission/remuneration.

But one would have thought given the shininess of their halo that they would not have exploited this obvious discrimination in the legislation.>:


----------



## CM (9 Nov 2001)

*EBS*

Just back from the EBS in D'Olier Street and the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Summit Funds - with two tax options_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> booklets are still on display. A query about the availability of these two taxation options elicited a none to clear response which sounded like only gross roll-up is available nowadays.


----------



## Rupert Bear (10 Nov 2001)

*Re: EBS*

So there is some truth in the adage that Mutuals are less efficient than shareholder companies!:\ 

This cannot be excused by sloppy administration. 

It was their Head Office and the brochure was printed in February this year - very poor show.>:


----------



## CM (10 Nov 2001)

*Mistrust*

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* It was their Head Office and the brochure was printed in February this year*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

So you wouldn't take my word for it (above) then - wha'!? :lol


----------



## Rupert Bear (10 Nov 2001)

*Re: Mistrust/Celebration Bond*

I trusted you <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_   ClubMan_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.  I just thought you must have some old brochure which was mistakenly printed in February time.  But to hear that it is alive and well and residing at Head Office <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*   now in November*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->!  Well, I'm shocked:eek   

This Net/Gross thing has got a few other twists, methinks.  Maybe you can help me on this one <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_   CM (or somebody else for that matter)_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.

I see from a current brochure of Celebration Bond that the declared annual bonus for 2001 <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_   (not the Headline bonus, don't want to get into that old debate again)_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> is 6%.  This is presumably Gross i.e. subject to Exit Tax.

But the brochure tells me that Celebration Bond has been around since 1997 so earlier versions are clearly taxed internally.  What is the 2001 annual bonus on earlier Celebration Bonds? Is it also 6%?  If so Net Celebration Bonds are getting a far better deal than today's Gross versions.:|


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Nov 2001)

*The EBS Summit Funds are net Funds !*

Have a look at their [broken link removed] and you will see that the EBS do offer a net fund. It is the only such fund available to new investment at the moment.

I am surprised that our friend CM walked all the way down to Westmoreland Street when he could have found it on their website. 

I have been critical in the past of the EBS for quoting charges net instead of gross, but I was wrong to be so critical. I made a new year's resolution to understand their charging structure and the results are to be found . However, this post was in the pre Galileo/Ruper Bear days and I now suspect my conclusions will be challenged and found wanting...

Brendan


----------



## CM (11 Nov 2001)

*EBS visit*

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* I am surprised that our friend CM walked all the way down to Westmoreland Street when he could have found it on their website.*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

Just noticed that I relocated the EBS head office to D'Olier Street above! :O  I must have been mixing it up with the IBTS who also extract my blood from time to time. :lol  Anyway, far be it from me to walk when I can surf but I did have quite a bit of other business to carry out with the EBS on Friday as it happens. Happily mortgage free now!!! :rollin


----------



## Rupert Bear (11 Nov 2001)

*Re: The EBS Mystery deepens*

Thanks for those links, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_     Boss_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.



If EBS have a choice of Gross/Net for new customers, I'll eat my scarf.  

How do I explain CM's brochure and the EBS' website?

All I can think of is that before everything went Gross on January this year this would have been a valid choice.

It remains a valid choice for people who are in existing Net funds especially as EBS have no exit/entry charges.  It is a very real question for such clients whether to switch.  But I repeat that the option <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*     does not exist for new customers*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->.  I would ring EBS myself but as a bear my telephone technique is not the best. 

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*     The Issue of Net Management Charges*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

Read your comments, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_     Boss_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.  Nearly agree with all that, but just a little clarification <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_     (the following carries a Government Empey Warning:lol     )._<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Under the old Net regime there was in fact no difference in the <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*     actual*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> taxation <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*     payable to Revenue*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> of  customers of Unit Trusts <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_     (like EBS Summit Funds)_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> and life funds.  But there was a difference in what they respectively <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*     deducted*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> from the funds under the <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*   guise*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> of taxation.  Let me try and explain.

The actual taxation <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*   payable*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> to Revenue in each case was standard rate times the "income <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*     less*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> management charges".  Unit Trusts, being regulated by the Central Bank, were only allowed to charge customers the tax that they actually had to pay over to Revenue <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_    (eminently reasonable don't you think)_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.  

Life companies on the other hand developed the practice of deducting tax on <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*     ALL*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> the investment income in the fund and keeping the relief on the management charge  for themselves.  Every life company did it this way even QLD.>:      

In these circumstances EBS were quite right to net down their management charge so that one was comparing like with like.

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*     BUT*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->  everything is now levelled up.  There is no longer a distinction between a 1.4% management charge as levied by EBS Summit Fund and the same charge as levied by a life company.  Implicitly the customers enjoy 23% relief in either case through the exit tax mechanism. 

I note that with their latest offering the EBS are still using this "netting" device even though it is no longer relevant and is indeed now quite misleading as a life company with the exact same charge would describe it as 1.4% whilst EBS are describing it as 1.1% - I presume it's the same crass inefficiency which has them still labouring under the illusion that their Net funds are still open to new business.:|


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Nov 2001)

*Re: The EBS Mystery deepens*

Rupert

Do you take salt and pepper with your scarf ?

Brendan


----------



## Rupert Bear (12 Nov 2001)

*Re: Recommended Seasoning for Scarves*

Hi <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_   Boss_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->,


Does the implication that I should be considering the finer details of my meal suggest that you will be phoning EBS to sort this incredible mystery out once and for all? 8)


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Nov 2001)

*How the EBS can run a net fund for new investors*

As Rupert doesn't have the telephone technique, I got out of my sick bed to ring the EBS on his behalf.

The Summit Fund is a Domestic UCIT product and, as such, is not a unit linked product and is not covered by the gross roll- up regime. Investors become shareholders in Summit Funds Plc as distinct from holders of unit linked funds. 

The charges are publicised as 1.4% gross and 1.1% net and this is correct.

They also offer a gross roll-up fund with an annual management charge of 1.5% and they don't distinguish between gross and net as it would be misleading.

EBS are not alone in still offering net funds to new investors. The Bank of Ireland Mutual Funds range is similar and I understand that Ulster Bank may also have such a fund.

Rupert - put away the knife and fork - your contributions to Askaboutmoney are far too valuable to run the risk of choking on your scarf.

But it does go to show that being a mutual doesn't mean an organisation is inefficient. The EBS has been running these funds since about 1990 and one of the reasons why they chose this route is that they are much more transparent in their charging structure. There is nothing to stop any of the other fund managers offering a similar product.

Brendan


----------



## CM (12 Nov 2001)

*EBS Mutual v Investment funds*

Brendan - notwithstanding the fact that EBS prominently tout the different taxation options of the Summit Mutual (gross roll-up) and Investment (net) funds, both on their web site and in their printed literature, I have to agree with Rupert that they do seem a little confused. For example, if you look at the application forms for the [broken link removed] and the [broken link removed] you will see that they are both exactly the same and both state that:

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ 7. Tax is paid by the Investor on the gain made in the investment when an encashment is taken. Tax is deducted at the standard rate plus 3% and is paid to the Revenue Commissioners on your behalf._<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Now, surely that can't be a net fund!


----------



## Rupert Bear (12 Nov 2001)

*Re: Saved From a Horrible Death*

Thank you <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ CM_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.

I had just started eating my scarf and as the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Boss_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> pointed out, since I was still wearing it, I was starting to choke. 

But now we have it clear.  Mystery solved.:| 

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* Since the start of this year the taxation of all UCITS, Unit Trusts, Life Funds, OIECs etc. etc. have been Gross for new customers.*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

The EBS Website and Brochure is up the left.>:


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Nov 2001)

*Re: Saved From a Horrible Death*

Hi CM 

It seems to me that they have put up the wrong form on the website for the Summit Funds. I will draw it to their attention. 

Rupert - My main concern is that you have not choked on your scarf? 

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>*Quote:*<hr> The EBS Website and Brochure is up the left.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

I don't understand this analogy. Are you accepting that the EBS is right ?

Brendan


----------



## Rupert Bear (12 Nov 2001)

*Re: Saved From a Horrible Death*

Clearly wrong!  The Application Forms are correct. The Website and Brochure are wrong!:eek 

I have sent the scarf to the dry cleaners to remove the mayonnaise stains.


----------



## CM (12 Nov 2001)

*Source of quote?*

Rupert

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* Since the start of this year the taxation of all UCITS, Unit Trusts, Life Funds, OIECs etc. etc. have been Gross for new customers.*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

Where does this quote come from?


----------



## Dynamo (12 Nov 2001)

*Back to Quinn Life*

Way back at the start of this thread, I suggested comparing Quinn Life's and Irish Life's gross funds, to try to get behind the great pricing mystery.

The MoneyMate link provided by Rupert Bear doesn't actually do this, because the Irish Life funds quoted are net funds (indicated by the N after the fund name).

I have now had the chance to get the data, and the results are interesting. Irish Life's Europascope (gross) is down 26.4% for the year-to-date to end-October. Irish Life's Celticscope (gross) is down 7.6% for the same period.

Quinn Life's Euro Freeway Pension (ie a gross fund) is down 26.5% for the year-to-date to end-October. Quinn Life's Celtic Freeway Pension is down 8.1% for the same period.

My understanding is that these funds aim to track the same European and Irish indices. The results do not bear out the contention that Quinn Life is cheaper than Irish Life.

It seems to me there are only two possibilities - either (a) Quinn Life <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*  isn't cheaper *<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> than Irish Life, or (b) it is cheaper, but <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*  it isn't as good at index tracking*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> (perhaps because of its small size) and that deficiency has more than outweighed the cost saving.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Nov 2001)

*Re: Back to Quinn Life*

The differences on the Eurostoxx trackers products are probably due to tracking error.  I wouldn't expect these to persist.

The Quinn Celtic Freeway product doesn't track the ISEQ exactly. This is from the investment strategy section of the booklet:

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>*Quote:*<hr> Shares are held in each of the largest 20 companies in the ISEQ... Please note that...the Celtic Freeway fund does not aim to track this index<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

I don't know about the Irish Life fund, but I suspect that its strategy is slightly different which  would produce different, but similar, results.

Brendan


----------



## Rupert Bear (13 Nov 2001)

*Re: Getting Ready to eat my Scarf*

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Boss_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->,

This EBS mystery has really bamboozled me.  I have been pouring over Finance Act 2000 all day.:x 

The intention of FA2000 was to make all UCITS/Unit Trusts/Life Funds etc. Gross from January of this year.

The life industry asked for and received an exemption for business written <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START-->before<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--> January 2001.

Unbelievably, it seems that Section 58 of FA2000 made the equivalent exemption for UCITS that <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* Funds*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> launched pre 2001 could remain Net.

This appears to be a key and anomalous distinction for these Funds can continue to attract New Business. 

I am making further enquiries but at this stage it would seem that EBS may be right - they have the choice of tax options!:O 

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ (Even they seem to be somewhat unconvinced at this amazing anomaly as we have seen that their Application Forms suggest that all new business should be Gross.)_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

I am totally shocked if this anomaly transpires to be the case:

(a) Very, Very few <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ (even insiders)_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> know about this anomaly.

(b) The EBS are themselves extremely coy about it - I would have thought Niall Brady of the Tribune would have loved this one.

(c)  How did the life industry allow themselves to be stroked like this.

As to eating my scarf I am making preparations to that end whenever it returns from the cleaners.  I will be careful this time round not to be wearing it. 

Let me have one small little consolation prize - the EBS are no longer correct in regarding their management charge as any different from anyone else's from a tax point of view.  A 1.4% charge is effectively 1.1% net in the hands of the punter irrespective of whether it is on an old style UCITS, a new style UCITS or a Gross Life Fund.  EBS should cease this device of "netting" their charges.  

As to their innefficiency, Application Forms notwithstanding, they have pulled a stroke on the mighty life industry.  Why are they not shouting more about it?

Final, Final point, they should come into line with the life regulations and stop illustrating at 12% which is 2% in excess of the maximum permissible for life companies.:|


----------



## CM (13 Nov 2001)

*EBS*

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* Let me have one small little consolation prize - the EBS are no longer correct in regarding their management charge as any different from anyone else's from a tax point of view. A 1.4% charge is effectively 1.1% net in the hands of the punter irrespective of whether it is on an old style UCITS, a new style UCITS or a Gross Life Fund. EBS should cease this device of "netting" their charges.*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

Actually, for what it's worth, they have different charges for the Investment/net (1.4% p.a.) and Mutual/gross (1.5% p.a.) funds (apart from the Tech fund which is 1.75% p.a. in both cases).

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* Final, Final point, they should come into line with the life regulations and stop illustrating at 12% which is 2% in excess of the maximum permissible for life companies.*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

Although the brochure uses illustrations based on 8% and 12% assumed growth, when I started a PIP with them in April of this year the illustrations were based on 7% and 9% assumed growth.

Bon appetit! :lol


----------



## Brendan Burgess (14 Nov 2001)

*Re: EBS*

Hi Rupert

The EBS is not alone in having net funds.

Today I have received the brochure for the Bank of Ireland Asset Management Mutual Funds. On the cover, in prominent print is the expression "net version". The brochure was printed in May 2001. The application form says: <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>*Quote:*<hr>  ...the above Mutual Funds pay tax at the rate of 20% on income and gains. You have no further liability...<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

I agree with the point about the EBS optimistic illustrations. They should comply with the spirit of the legislation.They have an ad in their shop window which is equally misleading. 

Now that we have sorted that out I have started a new topic  

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Nov 2001)

*The Irish Insurance Federation is upset!*

Rupert said: <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>*Quote:*<hr>  The EBS are themselves extremely coy about it - I would have thought Niall Brady of the Tribune would have loved this one.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

...and six days later there is an article from Niall Brady on this very topic. 

A spokesman for the IIF said <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>*Quote:*<hr>  We were surprised when this came to our knowledge because the life industry has gone through a lot of tax changes that were supposed to bring about a level playing field.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

But I think that the IIF is missing the point. The advantage which the EBS and  BoI Asset Management has over the other companies has nothing to do with the fact that they are not life companies. As I understand it, the life companies could well have set up these funds if they had wanted to. It just didn't suit them to set up products which were transparent in their charges.

Am I right Rupert?

Brendan


----------



## Rupert Bear (19 Nov 2001)

*Re: Is the Boss Right?*

First of all, whilst it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt in another topic that not everyone in the IT is AAM literate, it is fairly clear that NB of the Tribune is. 8)   

Under Gross Roll Up charges <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START-->are<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--> very transparent, I agree that under Net they weren't, at least as practised by the life companies.

But I think your very question proves that life companies were caught on the hop.  If they had spotted this anomaly they would have set up these funds as they are no more transparent than the new Gross life funds anyway.

Maybe I'm missing <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START-->your<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--> point, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_   Boss_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Nov 2001)

*Re: Is the Boss Right?*

Hi Rupert

The IIF seemed to imply discrimination against life companies. My point is that the life companies could have set up these funds if they wanted to - they just didn't bother to do so for whatever reasons.

Life companies as such are not being discriminated against.

Brendan


----------

