Is Quinn Life the best option for personal pension?

D

donncha

Registered User
Messages
34
I've been trying to work out the best personal pension options around this year.

From what I can see, fund performance aside, the best regarding fees is Quinn Direct.

However, because I am transferring over 40,000 euro from another pension, I can get a 101% allocation rate from Irish Life, via . Quinn will not offer 101%.

But after that, it seems Irish Life allocation rates are 97%.

So - should I transfer to Irish Life to get the 1%, and then park it; and have a second pension with Quinn Direct... or am I missing something?
Thanks in advance
Donncha
 
If you can get 101% on the existing fund, take it. Harder to call on the ongoing contributions.

Quinn Life's ongoing annual management charges are 1% or 1.2% (depending on the chosen fund) per year, reducing to 0.5% or 0.7% after 15 years. Irish Life's annual management charges are generally lower than these, from 0.75% per annum, again depending on the chosen fund.

A quarter of a percent per year may not seem like a lot but it's a quarter of a percent of the entire accumulated fund every year, so it can add up, particularly if you have a long time to go before retirement.

If you've got 15 years or thereabouts to go until retirement, I'd say the Irish Life plan will work out better, as the 3% lower allocation is a once-off hit, while the extra 0.25% for 15 years is every year.

Harder to work out for shorter or longer periods, as the QL charges drop.
 
donncha said:
From what I can see, fund performance aside, the best regarding fees is...
Click to expand...
Sorry to answer a question with a question, but surely (unknowable) fund performance is more crucial than small-ish (but at least knowable) differences in the fees/annual charges?

It's not my area either, and I'm not proffering any judgement on the respective merits of the Quinn Life/Irish Life/RaboDirect products mentioned - in your shoes, Donncha, I'd also be looking closely at the % charge structures!

But - while I'm aware of the Commandment whereby Thou-shalt-not-make-assumptions-based-on-past-performance... :confused: - shouldn't one factor in the decision also be "whose/which fund is likely to be in the Top 10, in 15/25/35 years' time?"

I'm asking, rather than answering...
 
DrMoriarty said:
Sorry to answer a question with a question, but surely (unknowable) fund performance is more crucial than small-ish (but at least knowable) differences in the fees/annual charges?
Click to expand...
Surely you have answered your question - future performance is unknown and unknowable whereas charges are known a priori. Charges are a drag on performance and you have to make them back before you really start making money. All other things being equal (e.g. choice of funds and investment strategy) lower charges hold out the prospect of better returns. Over the long term all similar funds should gravitate towards the relevant mean so, unless there is a very good reason for doing so, it does not make sense to pay higher charges when lower charges are available. Of course, technically this is not my area of expertise either but I don't let that stand in the way of having an opinion on the matter! :D
 
God forbid! And me neither... :D

"Cut and thrust [...] robust and challenging debate", and all that! Jaysus, I said I was adding a question to the question...:rolleyes:
 
Thanks for all ... Marianne's advice to watch the % rather than the contribution charge sounds like good advice.

Has anyone ever posted a spreadsheet where you can plug in the various fees and model the outcome?

I agree with ClubMan - at least the fees are a known quality, the future performance is not. I am not in the financial industry, but it seems that even the biggest blue chips have almighty investment disasters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top