You might not want to merge pension if by doing so you would pay higher charges than keeping them separate (at the cost of a little bit of admin hassle). For example transferring a pension fund subject to 0.5% annual management fee into one with a 1% management fee doesn't make sense unless there is some tangible benefit attributable to the higher charges.CapitalCCC said:it is usually tidier (but not necessary) to transfer your old pension to the new arrangement (I gather this is what you're going to do).
Read my post(s) - that is not an accurate reflection of what I said above and many other times. If you want to rant about things take it to LOS. If you insist on breaching the posting guidelines you will be banned (for the second time).CapitalCCC said:I think it demeans the webite when the only advice repeated over and over again is "CHEAPER is BETTER".
And people who don't know the price of things often claim that they are being ripped off when they find out. As I have said many, many, many times before - all things being equal (in particular stuff like customer service, fund selection, administrative burden etc.) lower charges are indeed better because the result in less erosion of gains. I have never, ever said that cheaper is necessarily and of itself better.people who know the price of everything often know the value of nothing
You can always deal directly with the underwriting company or transfer to a buy out bond (assuming the charges are competitive, fund selection is suitable etc. etc.).CapitalCCC said:When you leave a company then that pension scheme is paid-up, the consultant to that company's pension normally does not care about you because they are paid by the company that you have left, and that company probably does not care about you now that you have left.
Benefit statements/valuations can be requested any time and, these days, often by email or online.Benefits statements (with up to date fund values etc) are sent to members that are still in a scheme, they are not sent to members that have "paid-up" benefits in a scheme.
Surely this is academic for all but the highest paid employees/directors?When calculating max contributions that can be made to a pension (by the comapny that you work for) the total accrued pension needs to be taken into account - these type of actuarial calculations would be more speedy for the individual if s/he had accuarate record at all times of pension entitlement - not easily done with scattered approach (reasons outlined above).
Why?CapitalCCC said:
- Transfer to buy-out bond is a very poor choice if now in a company arrangement
Not in my experience - I have several existing pensions and have had no problem getting valuations and other information as and when I required it. Perhaps your vested interest in having people deal through intermediaries such as your own employer is clouding your judgement here?
- Dealing directly is disaster - hours spent on phone to fresh-faced college kids/summer employees
Neither has it taken a significant amount of time. I tend to keep tabs on the pensions very few months and try to do a bit of a review at least annually.
- More time spent online looking for details etc (exactly as I said)
When/why? What are the funding limits? How many people are actually likely to start hitting them?
- Not true at all, it is very important to have this info
Two specific situations in which it may not be a good idea. Hardly a "poor choice" or "disaster" in most or all cases though?CapitalCCC said:Buy-out bond disaster - if you leave your new company with less than 2 years in new company pension then you lose your right to company money that they put in for you , HOWEVER if you transferred from old pension to new co pension then the service would carry across...this is so useful to make sure you get company money if you leave the new co.
I am a skeptic. I don't automatically assume that because lots of people say something that it is necessarily true. I certainly don't take the word of somebody who can't explain their argument for themselves.Vested interest - a lot of people that write in financial pages, that put posts here, that I speak to every day find the service provided by insurance companies direct is not good enough for them - I take it from your message that it is good enough for you, that's great for you.
On what basis do you assume that most people leaving an employment have been members of the company occupational scheme for less than two years or have not previously "transferred in" vesting time from a previous scheme in which case the caveat about buy out bonds is a moot one? BOBs are certainly not a "poor choice" or "disaster" in many situations!CapitalCCC said:It was just ONE situation - and it is one that most people find themselves in.
I don't know but you did!Dealing with an insurance company is not "per se" a bad thing, how could I possibly argue that it is?
CapitalCCC said:Dealing directly is disaster - hours spent on phone to fresh-faced college kids/summer employees
Eh!?!The argument is that it is what most people say.
There can be no other "argument".
Dealing with an insurance company is not "per se" a bad thing, how could I possibly argue that it is?
It is only a bad thing, if people consistently comment on it being bad.
The fact that you find it fine does not change the general level of satisfaction.
I think that you think I am writing messages just for you, I was not commenting on how you find it, you find it fine, I am delighted for you.
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?