Downsides to PRSA with Standard Life

Status
Not open for further replies.
to be fair Mark add to this site in getting posters to be more forthcoming when it comes to investing,
 
I agree but very few if any reveal all of their charges unless pushed into doing so,
I hope Marc keeps posting,
 
Last edited:
On reflection, maybe @Marc is right to compare the performance of an index fund with the gross (rather than the net) return of the index it is attempting to track, even if that is not the industry convention. After all, withholding taxes reduce the return to investors.

So, the difference in annualised performance of the Vanguard Global Stock Index Fund Institutional Plus EUR Acc compared to the gross return of the MSCI World Index over the 3 years to 31 July 2021 was 0.61%. That's 0.7% better than the 1.31% difference in annualised performance of the Standard Life Vanguard fund compared to the gross return of the MSCI World Index over the same period.

However, a difference of 0.7% is still nowhere near enough to make up for the cost of the PRSA wrapper plus advisory costs associated with Marc's unbundled offering.
 
I thought we already ascertained that they track two different indexes? So comparing them like this doesn't allow us to reason about performance difference from the two investment wrapper routes.

Imo, We need to compare SL to ideally a vg ETF that tracks the same index.
 
Marc said:
It’s impossible to debate serious points on here
Click to expand...

I also appreciate your posts Marc, but I don't think your habit of deleting / editing posts serves you or the community well.

I was following the thread and I didn't understand why you are finding it impossible to debate (or what).

My line of interest way about SL costs vs a low cost ETF which I think is an interesting and relevant topic to debate
 
SPC100 said:
I thought we already ascertained that they track two different indexes? So comparing them like this doesn't allow us to reason about performance difference from the two investment wrapper routes.
Click to expand...
No, both funds track the MSCI World Index.
 
PensionAdvic said:
Is there any downsides to moving a PRSA to Standard Life and using the Vanguard funds.

0.65% seems to be the best rate in the market?
Is there any extra costs?
Click to expand...
To go bring this back to basics & clarify a few points:
  1. Is this the [broken link removed] from Standard Life?
  2. The total cost to the average punter is 1.31% for transfers over 100k, based on past performance?
  3. The total cost is 1.56% (i.e. +0.25% + 1.31%) for anything under that?
  4. Anyone can open a PRSA by contacting SL directly?
 
mojoask said:
The total cost to the average punter is 1.31% for transfers over 100k, based on past performance?
Click to expand...
No, 1.31% is the annualised difference in return of the SL/Vanguard fund (which I assume reflected their standard AMC of 0.90%), compared to the gross total return (concept explained in an earlier post) of the index (MSCI World) it purports to track for the three year period to 31 July 2021.

I appreciate this thread has become very difficult, probably impossible, to follow now that @Marc has deleted/edited his previous posts.

The bottom line is that the SL/Vanguard offering is probably as good as it gets for PRSA transfers over €100k.
 
I don't blame Marc some of the comments on this site were not so nice a few days ago,I hope he will be back posting again soon,
 
I agree. I feel their is a tendency for posters to be a bit too aggressive in general in replying to Marc. I think this mainly tends to happen on Mark's posts that are leaning towards marketing his products.
 
Sarenco said:
The bottom line is that the SL/Vanguard offering is probably as good as it gets for PRSA transfers over €100k.
Click to expand...
If you plan to add more thought aren't the charges higher?
What about Davy and buying a vanguard ETF direct?
 
Marc said:
The cheapest and undeniably the most transparent PRSA on the market is 0.50% wholesale for the pension wrapper and dealing and custody combined with access to a couple of thousand funds/ETFs
Click to expand...
If it was possible to access this unbundled product without incurring advisory and/or investment managements costs, then I would agree with yesterday's reformulation of your original response.

But that's obviously of academic interest to the OP.
 
yes there are
Mark posts has opened up a lot of good discussions flushing out hidden charges others may not have revealed without Mark input,
Mark reveals enough to open up discussions rather than trying to close down discussions,
 
Last edited:
kinnjohn said:
yes there are
Mark posts has opened up a lot of good discussions flushing out hidden charges others may not have revealed without Mark input,
Mark reveals enough to open up discussions rather than trying to close down discussions,
Click to expand...

Yes - I'd welcome any posts that seek to inform readers here, by making information available freely. Marc does that in other threads and I hope he continues doing that.

In this particular thread, he posted a comparison between his own product and the Standard Life / Vanguard product claiming that his product was better. But he showed the Standard Life charges including sales commission and left out the sales commission on his own product. That makes the comparison invalid on the basis of charges. This was challenged by me and others and instead of clarifying or correcting his posts, he simply deleted them and replaced them with rather sulky-looking comments about not being able to debate here, which effectively destroyed most of the entire thread by rendering it virtually impossible to read or follow. I still think that this was a rather petulant and unhelpful thing to do. That said, it's just one thread. I repeat that I'd be happy to see more constructive and helpful contributions from Marc in the future, like the helpful and informative posts he has made before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register