About time
You know that's the first time a skinflint has admitted to accepting my argument - thanks to Homer's insightful and clearly informed post.
Execution only could be as cheap as the market will bear- even less than 1% amc and nothing upfront. But what I've always objected to was the attempt to transfer this loopy pricing by armchair generals into the advisory market. I called these the Skinflints just to get their attention and use the tactics often applied on AAM to describe professional advisors. Skinflints is catching on.
The facts are that the UK model of 1% has failed Stakeholders, and finally the Regulator is coming around to understanding that (a) people want advice, and (b) it must be reasonably paid for. Large players like Norwich Union have bluntly told the Govt that it has to pull out unless the cap is lifted.
In Ireland, with appallingly low volumes and an effective cap at the "Standard", players are losing lumps of money, and advisors aren't advising/selling because they're not being paid in many cases for low income business. It's a mess, with zero chance of pulling the missing 500,000 into the net.
Against this background I jumped at contributors on AAM who, in the face of initially reasoned conter-argument, persisted with their prejudical dogma of trackers for all, cheapest is best, advisors aren't needed, and all the other baloney that got us into the stupid position of intervening in a free market with pricing models.
Time and again its been proven that simplistic though well meaning interference backfires. It's happening here and in the UK.
Unadjusted, the propagation of the cheapest is best dogma is ultimately self-defeating and damaging if it gains credence. It won't get 500,000 fellow citizens to buy a pension. End of Story. And if Daltonr feels miffed somewhat, perhaps he'll understand why if he reflects on the bigger issue. Doh!