Countrywideflam
New Member
- Messages
- 6
In many cases people will be rolling a pension/AVC into an ARF (or vested PRSA) - having taken the relevant tax free lump sum - rather than buying an annuity. So retirement isn't the cliff edge that it commonly was in the past when an annuity was the only or more common choice. In which case the investment timeframe isn't 7 years but 7 + your retirement years...I absolutely agree, but to move now to a riskier fund 7 years out from retirement,
Assuming one moves to same fund will they get 100% allocation or lose on a spread through moving ?Life companies do not do in specie transfers.
thanks Clubman, I will contact Zurich to see if it is possible to roll the AVC's forward and remain invested in the same fund, if it is the case, I will change the fund I am inIn many cases people will be rolling a pension/AVC into an ARF (or vested PRSA) - having taken the relevant tax free lump sum - rather than buying an annuity. So retirement isn't the cliff edge that it commonly was in the past when an annuity was the only or more common choice. In which case the investment timeframe isn't 7 years but 7 + your retirement years...
But it still gives them are larger risk budget to spend on the AVC portion.That portion of their retirement income that is a defined benefit may be modest.
Since the TFLS is a % of fund value, is this not a consideration with switching to a risker fund closer to retirement?In many cases people will be rolling a pension/AVC into an ARF (or vested PRSA) - having taken the relevant tax free lump sum - rather than buying an annuity. So retirement isn't the cliff edge that it commonly was in the past when an annuity was the only or more common choice. In which case the investment timeframe isn't 7 years but 7 + your retirement years...
Not necessarily.Since the TFLS is a % of fund value
% of final salary? I thought the 25% usually worked out more.Not necessarily.
Yes it's a consideration but there are other potential options to mitigate the risks of any cliff edge - e.g. fragmenting a pension into different policies and retiring smaller amounts at different times so that retirement isn't a one time "big bang" event but more of a phased process. In the general case I think that not being invested significantly or fully in equities 7 years out from a nominal retirement rate is probably too conservative and unnecessarily throttling potential medium/long term returns.Since the TFLS is a % of fund value, is this not a consideration with switching to a risker fund closer to retirement?
I've seen many cases where the salary and service route was much higher? I thought the 25% usually worked out more.
I quibble.you are in the situation where a large part of your pension is Risk Free.
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?