# The Irish Times/Eddie Hobbs Pension Survey



## rainyday (3 Nov 2001)

Thanks to Liam for the following links; 

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>*Quote:*<hr>  For those interested in reading the survey referred to, it's [broken link removed] and [broken link removed].<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

I was amazed at some of the outcomes of this survey and I'd welcome comments/discussion from those more knowledgeable than I. The big surprises for me;

- Huge advantage of with-profits funds over unit-linked funds over 15 & 20 years (15 years WP returns 91k-110k, 15 year UL returns 78k-93k - 20 year WP returns 206k-265k, 20 year UL returns 184k-223k) - I understood that WP funds were really just 'smoothed' equity funds, but why would they beat normal UL funds so consistently?

- Consistency of results in the WP funds, i.e. Standard Life & Caledonian Life share 1st & 2nd place over 10, 15 & 20 year periods

- Good showing by Acorn Life in recent UL performance (2nd place over 5 years), though they've been lambasted here for their generally high charges

- The huge differences in the end results depending on the provider chosen, e.g. a £57k difference in the 20 year results between the best provider (Caledonian Life) and the worst (Hibernian Life).

Comments & explanations welcome.

Regards - RainyDay


----------



## UDS (5 Nov 2001)

It's perhaps cheeky of me to comment on a survey I have only glanced at but, hey, here goes.

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*  <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->  "Consistency of results in the WP funds, i.e. Standard Life & Caledonian Life share 1st & 2nd place over 10, 15 & 20 year periods"<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

If we're talking about 10, 15 and 20 year periods <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_  all ending on the same date_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> then this is perhaps not so surprising - and it does not demonstrate consistency.  Funds that performed strongly in the last ten years will tend have very creditable performances in the last fifteen and twenty years.  If we're looking for consistency, we need to examine <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_  consecutive_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> periods, not <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_  overlapping_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> periods.

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*  <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->  Huge advantage of with-profits funds over unit-linked funds<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

Could this also be a result of the end date of the periods examned?  With-profits funds give smoothed returns, and I tentatively suggest that if we compare funds over a period that ends with a couple of poor years, the unit-linked funds will dip towards the end of the period while the WP funds will still be showing positive returns.  I think it would be interesting to see of the superior performance of WP funds is consistent - i.e. does it turn up in periods other than the examined in this year's survey.

As a general comment, what would be really interesting would be to see a comparison of the various funds and their relative performance, with a breakdown showing how much of their result was attributable to costs and expenses, and how much to investment performance.  But that would require an enormous amount of work and (I suspect) the co-operation of the fund managers in telling you more about charges and expenses than is generally released.


----------



## Freddie Kruger (5 Nov 2001)

Hi UDS,

Given the relative 'newness' of alot of the unit-linked funds, I do not think that the comparison proffered is of any relevance. It might be better to compare the companies that offered <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* both*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> U/L Managed Fund and With-Profit over the time scales indicated. This should verify your tentative suggestion.

Come to think of it, Friends launched their U/L Irish funds in 1984, anyone know when SLAC had the launch? Is there any office that offered both types of investment, that are in the market for 20 years?


----------



## Mithrandir (6 Nov 2001)

*Tip*

Might be helpful to read the report though, not a common enough habit I'm afraid before some lengthy AAM critiques before. And as far as I know Mr B has a copy.


----------



## Liam D Ferguson (6 Nov 2001)

*Re: Tip*

Hi Mith, 

This being the Irish Times Personal Pension Survey, surely what's published in the Irish Times is pretty representative of the findings (see links above)?    

Regards, 

Liam D Ferguson
www.ferga.com


----------



## Mithrandir (6 Nov 2001)

*Survey*

The survey report is larger, covering the pattern of maturities over eight years or so, together with other data such as preceding four year values, isolating the Terminal Bonus effect.


----------



## Grundy (6 Nov 2001)

*We're busy folk, you know*

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Mith_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->,  we can't spend all our time reading the fine print of reports.  The Media is there is inform us of the salient points.  What is important is not what is in the Reports but how they are interpreted by Joe Public through the media.:| 

If the Media synopsis <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ (summary)_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> is misleading it is up to the originators to have any false impressions corrected or else to desist from releasing their reports to the media.:rolleyes


----------



## Mithrandir (6 Nov 2001)

*Agreed, but*

Grundy, you're spot on.... if you're a consumer.

If you're a professional advisor, that statement is just the type of thing that's got the industry in pickles in the past. Grundy, see professionals are expected to read reports, study up, CPD, that kind of thing. Unprofessionals, don't. Wouldn't spend the money. Prefer to let their prejudices, ( and we all have them) go unchallenged.

The IT coverage was for consumers. Rainyday raises a few questions, so too does UDS. Neither are industry professionals. Are the professionals to respond by saying, "Hey, course we don't read reports, are you kiddin me, don't have the time. But we'll gladly go on junkets and listen to all type of drivel from life offices, but shag me if I'll spend any of my own loot learning a bit more". Is this where we're at I wonder?


----------



## curley mick (7 Nov 2001)

*IT Survey*

Mary Canniffe's article on the survey was so absolutely turgid as to have discouraged all but the saintly from seeking it out !

Perhaps she was mindful of the brouhaha which last year's reportage of the survey caused ?


----------



## Mithrandir (7 Nov 2001)

*Canada Life Participated*

Hi Curley, don't think so. Canada Life participated across all unit linked timeframes this year. That seems to suggest the opposite.

But the observation about professionals advising or commenting publically on a report they haven't read appears to go unanswered.


----------



## Grundy (7 Nov 2001)

*Reports*

I think, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Mith_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, you are looking for a response from me, even though I am no professional, merely a humble ex Derby winner.:O 

I think it is fair to comment on the public coverage of a Report without reading the Report itself. 

If that turns out to be a criticism it is not a criticism of the Report but of its public message which is in fact usually far more important.

For example, it is reported that <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Red Hat O'Connell_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> thinks <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Empty_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> is as thick as champ.  Maybe that's not what a detailed interpretation of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Red Hat's_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> comments actually said - it doesn't matter - what matters is the media coverage.:|


----------



## Freddie Kruger (7 Nov 2001)

*Re: Reports*

Hi Mithrandir,

What professionals(by this I assume you mean financial) advised or commented publically on <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*  the report*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->?


----------

