time to plan
Registered User
- Messages
- 910
They said zero commission. I’m just a naturally suspicious person. But also, having been told there is 100% allocation and 0.75% AMC, I’m wondering whether commission is relevant. Is it a sepearste potential charge from those two factors?When you asked the direct agent what commission he/she was going to earn from your transaction did he/she tell you how much it was, or are they refusing to disclose that?
Gerard
Does that actually matter? I presume the commission comes out of the AMC, in which case whether the provider gives the agent all of it or none of it makes no difference to us punters, right?When you asked the direct agent what commission he/she was going to earn from your transaction did he/she tell you how much it was, or are they refusing to disclose that?
Does that actually matter? I presume the commission comes out of the AMC, in which case whether the provider gives the agent all of it or none of it makes no difference to us punters, right?
That’s my assumption too, but always best check your assumptions.Does that actually matter? I presume the commission comes out of the AMC, in which case whether the provider gives the agent all of it or none of it makes no difference to us punters, right?
Perhaps I’m missing something, but what information am I missing? The AMC is say 0.75%, if that is split 50/50 with the agent or 100/0 makes literally no difference to me, right?I doesn't matter at all, if you're happy to deal with someone who isn't giving you all the information you need to make an informed decision.
From my perspective, I’m not looking for advice, just to set up a pension. But I’ll check out LA Brokers.I doesn't matter at all, if you're happy to deal with someone who isn't giving you all the information you need to make an informed decision.
They said zero commission.
I know nothing about how the people in this industry are compensated to be honest, I’d assume similar to my own that there is commission involved.
But you’re saying that my decision would be influenced by knowing what the commission paid is and I don’t see how? I can see that when dealing with an independent financial advisor that is important, because their commission structure might help you determine if there is a bias towards one pension provider over another. However when you’re dealing directly with a single pension provider, that bias cannot be there, you’ve already chosen that provider.
With respect Gerard, you’re saying our decision should be influenced by this information, I think it is irrelevant and irrational to allow it to do so or to even concern yourself with it. Again only in the case where you are dealing directly with a pension provider, it is highly relevant when dealing with independent advisors and transparency here is critical.Of course your decision is influenced by what the commission paid is, the charging structure you receive is a reflection of the commission structure.
That holds true for all distribution channels.
Gerard
www.prsa.ie
Thanks Marc, I think this actually gets to the nub of the conversation; how can we demonstrate which pensions are actually the best options for people on AAM. I don't think the discussion of whether an agent gets 50/50 or 75/25 split from a clearly advertised AMC adds a jot to that discussion, in fact it distracts from it.I’ll never understand why, when you can obtain a demonstrable better quality pension (more choice and transparency) for a lower cost that anyone would continue to pursue this line of reasoning.
So that's a total cost to an investor of 0.70% (0.30% + 0.40%) to invest in a global equity tracker through an unbundled pension wrapper.In the vanguard document substitute in the column PI the following pension wrapper charge
Exec pension/buy out bond etc 0.40%pa
PRSA 0.50%pa
(Subject to a min €300pa so not suitable for smaller pensions under say €80k)
So that's a total cost to an investor of 0.70% (0.30% + 0.40%) to invest in a global equity tracker through an unbundled pension wrapper.
Is that correct? Or are there any advisory fees or commissions that aren't being mentioned?
I think what I really want to know is the total cost. I put money in. Hopefully there is growth which add to the money put in. Then deducted from that sub total are costs. There are some one off costs on entry (e.g. reduction in allocation) or exit and some recurrent (e.g. AMC, trusteeship fees). I’m not sure commission comes into it as an additional cost item variable as it is really an operating cost for Zurich, accepting that it must impact on the AMC etc.This thread does make me think.
We have a Zurich Life tied agent claiming that they're working for zero commission.
For all other financial services products, commission disclosure has been mandatory for years. But due to a loophole in that legislation, commission disclosure is not mandatory on Executive Pensions. Is it really acceptable for a salesman to hide behind that loophole and refuse to disclose commission just because they can get away with it when selling this particular type of product? Several people on here seem to think it is.
We have a broker saying that unbundled products are better and more transparent, but not saying how much the additional broker commission / fee is, thus only disclosing some of the charges.
Is it any wonder why the public is wary of tied agents and brokers?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?