Thanks for all that information; it’s very helpful.
I think it gets to the nub of the issue.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that elsewhere on AAM, people have painted “insured” pension products as ridiculously expensive based on misleading information. Or am I wrong?
It appears as if the disclosure documents paint the worst picture possible (e.g. high AMC plus broker taking a big commission).
But I have a PRB through one of the life companies at 0.5% and it’s invested in their own equity fund. I don’t think the total cost measured in MiFID terms would be much higher than that.
Appreciate you clarifying the situation. Those costs exist in all funds, whether actively or passively managed, I would assume. In that respect, am I as well to ignore them for the purposes of comparison, at least within a Zurich portfolio?
Yes, they exist on all active/passive funds. As they're not explicitly disclosed, but reflected in the (Zurich Life) unit prices, you could park them for the purpose of your exercise.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that elsewhere on AAM, people have painted “insured” pension products as ridiculously expensive based on misleading information. Or am I wrong?
There's good value in some sectors of the 'insured' market for the €100 per month regular contribution plans and larger single (& some regular) contribution plans.
It appears as if the disclosure documents paint the worst picture possible (e.g. high AMC plus broker taking a big commission).
But I have a PRB through one of the life companies at 0.5% and it’s invested in their own equity fund. I don’t think the total cost measured in MiFID terms would be much higher than that.
Thanks Gerard. That’s completely at odds with what’s been contended elsewhere on the site, and it’s more in line with my own thinking. If I’m in Zurich’s International Equity fund at 0.5%, institutional trading costs behind the scenes obviously won’t be zero, but they can’t be much more than 10bps.