# Reduce your mortgage before starting pension?



## wanball (12 Jul 2007)

Brendan recommends that before worrying about a pension you should get your mortgage 'down'. For us that would cost around €50000 I reckon (303k 30yr). Realisticaly what are the chances of that???!!!

We are OK, after all bills & mortgage out we have about €3700 net. But, we are in the middle of doing the whole house up, we need a new car, then probably get married.....

Surely it would be a good idea to setup a PRSA each and let the mortgage run its course?? We wouldn't notice the money say 150 each (before tax) going out after a while.

What do yis (Brendan!) reckon?


----------



## capall (12 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brandans comments on the Last Word last night*

It makes sense to avail of the tax relief afforded by a pension regardless of mortgage situation


----------



## South (12 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brandans comments on the Last Word last night*

Diversification is important.

If you tie up all of your wealth in one asset class (for example shunning a pension to pay off the mortgage) - one could leave oneself very very exposed to a property wobble.


----------



## ubiquitous (12 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brandans comments on the Last Word last night*



South said:


> If you tie up all of your wealth in one asset class (for example shunning a pension to pay off the mortgage) - one could leave oneself very very exposed to a property wobble.



Can you explain? I don't see how periodic ups and downs in the value of one's home should affect one's investment priorities.


----------



## South (12 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brandans comments on the Last Word last night*

If one ploughs all their money into their own house with the intention that on retirement one wants to trade down and live off the equity - and ignore a pension - then there is an obvious lack of diversification and over-concentration of risk...not to mention the loss of tax relief on pensions


----------



## tiger (12 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brandans comments on the Last Word last night*

I think the original argument makes sense, but is now distorted by relatively low interest rates & tax.  In the past, mortgage rates were 8%+, hard to find a guaranteed return better than that after tax.  Now rates are 4-5%, less maybe if you take interest relief into account.  On the other hand, pension contributions potentially get tax relief at the top rate of tax which is a great immediate return, but locks your money away until you retire.


----------



## GeneralZod (12 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brandans comments on the Last Word last night*

Start the pension now.  Your mortgage is so big that you'll probably need several years before you get it down to a comfortable level.  

It was much easier to follow that advice several years ago before mortgages ballooned (well ahead of wage inflation) to their present multiples. 

Chip away at the mortgage with prepayments whenever you can as well.


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendans comments on the Last Word last night*

I agree with Brendan. Its important to reduce one's mortgage to a manageable level as early as possible. Tax advantages apart, there may little point in stashing surplus money away in a pension which can only be accessed at age 60 if the size of a person's mortgage would leave them (and their homes) vulnerable in the event of loss of employment, illness etc.


----------



## South (13 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendans comments on the Last Word last night*

People may be starting to price risk correctly - when they do, house prices could underpeform for some time...diversification is crucial.


----------



## oysterman (15 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

I don't mean to put words into Brendan's mouth - this is an argument many of us have made repeatedly in these pages and elsewhere.

The point is not to do with investment so the diversification argument is not particularly relevant.

For most people the main motivation for buying their their house is not that it's an investment; it is a purchase.

It's funded with debt.

Debt is potentially a problem for ordinary people - rising interest rates; redundancy; illness; bereavement; family breakdown etc.

Getting debt under control as a priority is a good move. It gives security. That's not fashionable nor is it a goal of entrepreneurial types. That's good for them. But I know when I was briefly quite ill a couple of years ago I was more concerned with the size of my mortgage than that of my pension fund.

And, in any event, there are numerous posts on this site from people noting that their pension investments have been providing risible returns for years. Lots of people would have quite happily settled for fund growth equal to mortgage rates over the last five years. They'd have got that if they'd reduced their mortgages - the tax relief on pension contributions would presumably be available to them as they increase their pension contributions significantly once their debt has been reduced.

Finally, the biggest clincher is that basic rate taxpayers with mortgage debt should never feel under pressure to get on the personal pension treadmill if there is any possibility of them moving into the higher rate as they get older. Wait until you pay tax at the higher rate to get serious about funding your pension - particularly, of course, if you're likely to revert to being a basic rate payer in retirement.


----------



## South (15 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



oysterman said:


> The point is not to do with investment so the diversification argument is not particularly relevant.
> 
> For most people the main motivation for buying their their house is not that it's an investment; it is a purchase.


 
However the opportunity cost of the purchase is alternative investments.


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



oysterman said:


> And, in any event, there are numerous posts on this site from people noting that their pension investments have been providing risible returns for years. Lots of people would have quite happily settled for fund growth equal to mortgage rates over the last five years. They'd have got that if they'd reduced their mortgages - the tax relief on pension contributions would presumably be available to them as they increase their pension contributions significantly once their debt has been reduced.



Tax reliefs not used in one year do not get carried over to another year.
It is interesting to see that the pension managed fund returns achieved by the top five Irish managed funds over the last five years are as follows:
Standard Life: 11% per annum
Irish Life Investment Managers 10.9% per annum
Eagle Star: 10.9% per annum
Friends First: 10.2% per annum
Hibernian Investment Managers 9.9% per annum

These returns would seem to be well ahead of mortgage interest rates over the last five years.


----------



## GeneralZod (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



South said:


> Tax reliefs not used in one year do not get carried over to another year.



When did that happen? I thought unused relief from the immediately preceding year could be carried over.


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

The limit on personal contributions in a year is x% of salary (x being age related).


----------



## GeneralZod (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

Yes, but isn't there a retrospective facility where the unused limit from the previous year can be used.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



South said:


> The limit on personal contributions in a year is x% of salary (x being age related).


Yes...but the % levels are quite high, and unused relief can be carried forward - For example someone over 40 years old can get tax relief on up to 30% of their non-pensionable income in any given year. A 41-year old who earns €100,000 in 2007 can get tax relief on contributions up to €30,000 made in that tax year or by 31 October in the following year. Contributions of over that level can be carried forward to later years. (eg if in the above example, a payment of €40,000 is made in 2007, the tax relief on the remaining €10,000 can be used in 2008 or later years.)


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

It is still in respect of the same tax year, it is just a question of timing of the payment.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

So? 

The point of my illustration was that a 40 year old earning an average of €100,000 per annum can invest up to €300,000 in a pension over a 10 year period and get full tax relief on all sums contributed, even if earnings fluctuate to a degree within that timeframe.


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

My point is that the same person needs a fund of over €2m to retire on a pension of 2/3rds of salary - so the contributions need to be made consistently in each tax year - €300k won't go far for such an individual.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

But why would someone earning €100,000 today need a pension of €66,000 (in todays money) on retirement?


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

To maintain their standard of living in retirement.

If they had a fund of €300k - they would need to survive on an income of about €10k!!


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



South said:


> To maintain their standard of living in retirement.


 
I remain unconvinced. I don't know of any pensioners in my own circle of family, friends and practice clients who need €66,000 per year to survive. Most of those of whom I know could afford this level of annual personal expenditure, and who live very well in retirement with plenty of holidays etc,  choose to withdraw much smaller sums from their pensions in order to fully avail of the over-65 tax exemption limits.

I suspect most of the "2/3rds of final salary" statistics are sales bumph from the pensions industry. To prioritise the pursuit of such a target at the expense of reducing one's mortgage to a reasonably safe level shows a rather skewed sense of financial priorities, in my book.



South said:


> If they had a fund of €300k - they would need to survive on an income of about €10k!!


You misread my example. Anyone who manages to put away €300,000 between ages 40 and 50, will surely continue to make sizeable contributions beyond age 50, and most likely also for a number of years prior to then.


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

I think they may be better off investing over the longer-term, what if for some reason or other the person fell ill in their 50s...bang goes any chance of making their contributions in the 50s.

What's more...the investment risk is spread over a much longer period when one contributes over a period of 30 years rather than suddenly in the last ten to fifteen years.

Defined Benefit Pension Schemes in Ireland and the UK have been designed around the target 2/3rds of salary for in excess of 50 years, so it is a very widely recognised rule of thumb rather than "Sales bumph" - obviously everyone's situation will differ...all Civil Servants in Ireland are in pension schemes based around this universally accepted target of 2/3.

I was with a relative over the weekend who is paying over €30k per annum to share a room in a nursing home, so in that person's case I am quite sure a pension of 2/3 of salary would be very important.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



> I think they may be better off investing over the longer-term, what if for some reason or other the person fell ill in their 50s...bang goes any chance of making their contributions in the 50s.
> ...I was with a relative over the weekend who is paying over €30k per annum to share a room in a nursing home, so in that person's case I am quite sure a pension of 2/3 of salary would be very important.



Most people who fall in their 50s are unfortunately unlikely to need long-term nursing care in their old age. The average nursing home patient only lives a further 2-3 years from the date they first need such care.




> Defined Benefit Pension Schemes in Ireland and the UK have been designed around the target 2/3rds of salary for in excess of 50 years, so it is a very widely recognised rule of thumb - obviously everyone's situation will differ...all Civil Servants in Ireland are in pension schemes based around this universally accepted target of 2/3.


 
Which is presumably not unconnected to the suspicion amongst economists and financial experts that such schemes are financially unsustainable for both the State exchequer and for private sector employers - so much so that Defined Benefit Schemes are now largely a thing of the past in the private sector. If this model is unsustainable for British Airways, the ESB & Bank of Ireland, why not so for the mortgage-strapped Jo Public?


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



ubiquitous said:


> Most people who fall in their 50s are unfortunately unlikely to need long-term nursing care in their old age. The average nursing home patient only lives a further 2-3 years from the date they first need such care.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would not like to save for retirement banking on the prospect of dying quickly once I retire!!
None of these commentators have ever once mentioned - your notion - that it is because these people are over-saving for retirement  These economists are merely pointing out that due to increasing longevity, these pensions are expensive for companies and the exchequer ALSO note that over 80% of Irish occupational pension scheme assets belong to defined benefit pension schemes, they are far from a thing of the past


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



South said:


> would not like to save for retirement banking on the prospect of dying quickly once I retire!!



No, neither would I. But, given a choice, I would rather have my mortgage down to a reasonable level if I did happen to fall ill in middle age.



South said:


> None of these commentators have ever once mentioned - your notion - that it is because these people are over-saving for retirement



I repeat: Why would anyone (except maybe JP McManus) need €66,000 per annum in today's money to survive in retirement? At that stage in life, few people generally have mortgage commitments or family dependents.


South said:


> note that over 50% of Irish occupational pension scheme assets belong to defined benefit pension schemes, they are far from a thing of the past


My point was in relation to the private sector. Defined benefit schemes ARE largely a thing of the past in the private sector - at least new ones.


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

Public sector pensions are not funded schemes - they have no assets included in surveys of occupational pension scheme assets - they are funded on a pay as you go basis.

I know a number of people with pensions in excess of €100k and they do not feel that their pension income is excessive.
It allows them to have holidays, move house if they wish, maintain investments and other interests, see and help their family etc...


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



South said:


> Public sector pensions are not funded schemes - they have no assets included in surveys of occupational pension scheme assets - they are funded on a pay as you go basis.


So? That doesn't mean that they are or are not sustainable. In fact it could be an explanation as to why DB pensions have survived so far in the public sector despite the fall in their popularity in the private sector 



> I know a number of people with pensions in excess of €100k and they do not feel that their pension income is excessive.


How many?


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*


So they are not included in the survey of assets of Irish occupational pension schemes showing that over 80% are DB assets
About 80 or 90


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



South said:


> [*]So they are not included in the survey of assets of Irish occupational pension schemes showing that over 50% are DB assets


Again, so? It quite obvious that for legacy reasons, this would be the case. For example the troublesome ESB scheme, I would imagine, was set up donkeys years ago.

The real question is: what percentage of Irish occupational pension schemes set up in th e past 5-7 years are defined benefit schemes?


South said:


> [*]About 80 or 90


Are they representative, in terms of income and assets, of the general population? What age on average were they when they paid off their domestic mortgages?


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

A low number - that is why there have been repeated warnings from the Minister, economists and the Society of Actuaries that people are not saving enough for their retirement.

You are the first person that I have heard in a long time implying that we are saving too much, it's refreshing!

The reason companies do not set-up DB nowadays are:


Longevity
New acconting disclosure regulations
Global competitiveness
One thing is for sure - it has nothing to do with whether or not 2/3rds is too large a pension - it has everything to do with increasing company profitability.

In relation to pensioners on higher pensions, they would all have contributed to their pension over a long period - and that is what I am advocating as a general rule of thumb.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



South said:


> You are the first person that I have heard in a long time implying that we are saving too much, it's refreshing!



Your capacity to spin another person's opinion in order suit your own agenda is also refreshing!...if only to amuse. 

For what its worth, my opinions are not as novel as you make out. This entire thread has arose from statements from Brendan where he made points that are not a million miles away from what I am saying.



South said:


> In relation to pensioners on higher pensions, they would all have contributed to their pension over a long period - and that is what I am advocating as a general rule of thumb.



Yes, but are they representative, in terms of income and assets, of the general population, or (as I suspect) are they in the High Net Worth category occupied by a small percentage of Irish people? 

If the latter, I am not sure if the cases of a small minority of wealthy individuals should be used as a template for financial planning for the general population.


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

You said that nobody needed a pension of €67K - I said I know a lot of people on a higher pension than that and that they need it.

I never suggested that everybody needs a pension of €100k - what a crazy conclusion that would be!


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



South said:


> You said that nobody needed a pension of €67K - I said I know a lot of people on a higher pension than that and that they need it.



Yes, but 



> are they representative, in terms of income and assets, of the general population, or (as I suspect) are they in the High Net Worth category occupied by a small percentage of Irish people?





> Does anyone really need a billion dollar rocket
> does anyone need a $60,000 car


_Lou Reed, Strawman_


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

Yes, they certainly are representative of Irish pensioners requiring an income in excess of €67k.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

I take it then that they are NOT representative, in terms of income and assets, of the general population.


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

They are a good example of the benefits on not putting all the eggs in one (property) basket!!

If a 30 year old today were to take on the advice of paying off mortgage before saving...with a typical 30 year + mortgage he/she would never start a pension until the last few years before retirement, such a suggestion is not prudent.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



South said:


> They are a good example of the benefits on not putting all the eggs in one (property) basket!!
> 
> If a 30 year old today were to take on the advice of paying off mortgage before saving...



Did anyone suggest this?
I didn't. Brendan (afaik) didn't either.


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

Is that not the premise of this thread (please see first post)?


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

First post on this thread...





wanball said:


> Brendan recommends that before worrying about a pension you should get your mortgage 'down'.



You said


South said:


> If a 30 year old today were to take on the advice of paying off mortgage before saving...with a typical 30 year + mortgage he/she would never start a pension until the last few years before retirement



There is a big difference...


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

So there is an optimal 'down' % is there?

I wonder how they calculate that then


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



South said:


> So there is an optimal 'down' % is there?
> 
> I wonder how they calculate that then



Presumably, this is a matter for each individual to judge.


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

So a person should get their mortgage down before they start a pension, but how much they get it down by is up to them, fair enough.


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

Lots of smoke and very little light. 
How about a little less bickering and a little more constructive comment? I've seen it from both of you before so I know you can!

Can either of you suggest what income to mortgage ratio is optimal for the average family (private sector as this is a non-topic for public sector) before a pension should take precedence?
At what income to mortgage ratio should you not bother? For example if I have two kids, owe €300k and earn €100k what should I do?
If I owe €1’000’000 and earn €250’000 (two kids), should I do differently?


----------



## tiger (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

2/3 of final salary is a good rule of thumb whether you're earning €25K or €250K _if you want to maintain a similar standard of living_.  Obviously it depends on your financial commitments (kids still in college?) and plans (want to do lots of travelling).

In general I think we need a new set of rules, as lots of things are/will change:
- with a 20 year mortgage, you could spend the last 10-15 years of your working life pumping the extra into a pension.  What if you have a 35 yr mortgage you'll be paying until you retire?
- how many years of retirement do you need to plan for?  What will life expectancy be in 50 years time?


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

What a crazy question with such little info and without a crystal ball 

It is a matter of taste - like asking how much should a family spend on clothes!

Do these people on 250 k and 100 k respectively have pensions?


----------



## oysterman (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



Purple said:


> Can either of you suggest what income to mortgage ratio is optimal for the average family (private sector as this is a non-topic for public sector) before a pension should take precedence?
> At what income to mortgage ratio should you not bother? For example if I have two kids, owe €300k and earn €100k what should I do?
> If I owe €1’000’000 and earn €250’000 (two kids), should I do differently?


I think this is, on the contrary, a very interesting question. Like most important questions, it doesn't have a one-size-fits-all answer.

I'd suggest you might consider:

1) What would the impact on your family's finances be of a 2-3% rise in interest rates? If it would be serious, your mortgage is a potential problem you should consider working to reduce.

2) If you got sick, how long would your income continue at roughly its current level and how would you fund your mortgage after that? If you would be unable to afford to fund it, the size of your mortgage is an issue.

3) Is there a second income in your household? If one income had to be sacrificed, could you pay the mortgage?

4) How long before your normal retirement age will your mortgage be paid off? If it won't, it might well be worth tackling it to give you a possibility of taking early retirement. This is one of the reasons I'm wary of the 35-year mortgage culture. Banks don't want people debt free by their early fifties as so many of our parents' generation were - it gives them too much flexibility.


----------



## South (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



oysterman said:


> it doesn't have a one-size-fits-all answer.


 
Exactly - unlike the comments on the last word!!

In any event Purple - an important point to consider would be mortgage interest relief.

You obviously get the tax break on mortgage interest up to the mortgage interest relief threshold, so it may make sense not to pay down the mortgage below this limit.

On the other hand, with a salary of the magnitude in your post - marginal interest rate tax relief is available on your pension contributions.

I would suggest, as a very general guide, (we do not have full details here before everybody starts giving out for giving a general guide ) that the optimal balance is that while you are gaining tax relief at the highest rate, you make pension contributions, once you reach the point where you are not getting marginal relief then consider investing those surplus funds towards repaying mortgage.

Don't forget you can also get tax relief on contributions to an income protection policy - so you could use this to cover the evenutality of falling sick also.


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

Thanks Oysterman and South. I have already asked myself these questions and have a plan in place (big mortgage, big pension, two big salaries = happy days). 
My point above was that it is far more constructive to have posts like the last few on the thread than a bickering match between two posters that are in a position to be far more informative.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



Purple said:


> My point above was that it is far more constructive to have posts like the last few on the thread than a bickering match between two posters that are in a position to be far more informative.



My deepest apologies if the above discussion bored you, upset you or failed to entertain or inform you. As one of the participants in the discussion, I thought that it was a useful exercise in that it teased out a few points in the "mortgage repayments v pension contributions" debate that triggered this thread. I do not count it in the least as bickering, especially as South & myself basically ended up largely agreeing with each other, at least to an extent, and the thread has continued to evolve usefully from there.


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



ubiquitous said:


> My deepest apologies if the above discussion bored you, upset you or failed to entertain or inform you.


It did none of the above. Your posts are usually very informative and this is an interesting thread, I just thought the focus was very narrow in that is consisted of tit of tat answers on very specific issues. Your and South's posts around 12.00 were what I was referring to.


----------



## CCOVICH (16 Jul 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

Can we please leave it at that and stick to the topic?

Thanks.


----------



## OtherMe (12 Dec 2007)

*Re: Brendans comments on the Last Word last night*



ubiquitous said:


> I agree with Brendan. Its important to reduce one's mortgage to a manageable level as early as possible. Tax advantages apart, there may little point in stashing surplus money away in a pension which can only be accessed at age 60 if the size of a person's mortgage would leave them (and their homes) vulnerable in the event of loss of employment, illness etc.



Isn't that what mortgage protection is for?  To get you thru unexpected unemployment, illness etc?


----------



## John Rambo (12 Dec 2007)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

It's in interesting thread this...of a little old!I agree with Ubiquitous that the obsession with 2/3 of final salary is being used by salespeople to strike fear into people hearts. Personally I don't feel I'd need 2/3 of my final salary or even my present salary when I retire.When you eliminate residential and investment mortgages, raising children and the inherent costs of working someone could live quite nicely on not a huge amount of money. (certainly not €100,000 pa)


----------



## Betsy Og (8 Feb 2008)

*Re: Brendans comments on the Last Word last night*



OtherMe said:


> Isn't that what mortgage protection is for? To get you thru unexpected unemployment, illness etc?


 
not really, mortgage protection is just a category of life assurance, so when you pop off this mortal coil the mortgage isnt left after you.

I think you're referring to payment protection which, as far as I recall, only applies to credit card bills - its pays your bill if you get ill etc. My view on these was that is wasnt worth the money, save your premiums into a rainy day fund. - the notion of "self-insurance".

The other aspect of this is PHI, permanent health insurance. So if you're out of work for more that 6 months and can never work in an occupation similar to what you had then it'll pay out. These are expensive, only give benefit in fairly extreme cases. Good thing is that they are often rolled into employer pension schemes, so a nice little perk but I'd say few enough of us would shell out for them out of our own pockets. More self-insurance.


----------



## dodo (10 Feb 2008)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*

With irish stocks down over 26% in 2007 how can you say they are up as in this thread,It does not add up.What pensions say they are up and what one really gets in their retirement are 2 different things, Please expalin how irish stocks are down but pensions up.And have you seen the markets across the world fall this year


South said:


> Tax reliefs not used in one year do not get carried over to another year.
> It is interesting to see that the pension managed fund returns achieved by the top five Irish managed funds over the last five years are as follows:
> Standard Life: 11% per annum
> Irish Life Investment Managers 10.9% per annum
> ...


----------



## ClubMan (10 Feb 2008)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



dodo said:


> With irish stocks down over 26% in 2007 how can you say they are up as in this thread,It does not add up.What pensions say they are up and what one really gets in their retirement are 2 different things, Please expalin how irish stocks are down but pensions up.And have you seen the markets across the world fall this year


Perhaps because (a) that comment was from July 2007 and (b) it was referring to specific managed funds which don't necessarily invest mainly/solely in _Irish _shares? _Irish _managed funds does not necessarily mean _Irish _stocks! Nothing necessarily contradictory in what _South _said as far as I can see.


----------



## Fisher Black (11 Feb 2008)

*Re: Brendan's comments on the Last Word last night*



dodo said:


> With irish stocks down over 26% in 2007 how can you say they are up as in this thread,It does not add up.What pensions say they are up and what one really gets in their retirement are 2 different things, Please expalin how irish stocks are down but pensions up.And have you seen the markets across the world fall this year


 
The poster said that the figures shown were annual *five* year returns to July, they are still positive over five years to now...investing is a long-term game, a few months volatility here or there does not wipe-out stock markets.


----------

