Maybe I'm reading this wrong but how can the Annual Cost Impact (If you exit in year 1) be to 2.76% with the specify charging structure we're talking about?
I don't know any actuary/manager who puts any credibility at all in KIDs. If you wanted to try and do a competitor comparison you'd not be looking at KIDs. They are really misleading.
In the context of Ongoing Costs each year but we're taking about year one.
Plus, you do see the 0.00% and 1.59% on those rows? What you should probably be doing is deducting the 0.75% from the 1.59% (AMC) giving you a to 0.84%, which would allow for other fund transaction costs too. Indexed Global Equity would bring the 0.75% to circa 0.77%.
I think we've been down this road before though with the fixation of a lot of folk on the figures on the right because they think you have to be buying the worst product available.
but that is exactly what the government has done with this stupid "deemed disposal" they have frightened people away from ETFs probably the best investments for retail investors ever. I know ETFs were still small back in 2008 but think how much better it would have been for small irish investors to have a diversified ETF investment than being wiped out by investments in irish banks and bulgarian properties. Yet the irish tax code still has not changed since then except for increasing all investment taxes.
Also your point that "deemed disposal" is necessary since some of these "gross roll up" funds could avoid any taxes since they roll up the dividend, but they are still taxing dividend paying ETFs every year aswell as 8 year "deemed disposal". So surely a better solution would be to remove all ETFs that pay dividends from "deemed disposal" tax and end "gross roll up" altogether and collect a "deemed dividend" tax from those funds that do not pay out dividends every year. Of course it could only be at most 3% since if they tried to match it to the now 41% tax take at year 8 it would expose it for the tax grab that it really is.