Meeting with financial advisor today re pension planning...

CharlieMac said:
But are you so sure that buying an annuity from another provider will be as good value as directly from the PS employer?
Click to expand...

How could I be? How could I know what annuity rates or NS rates will be in 20/30 years time? I'm saying it's an option under current rules.

Maybe the HSE won't have the funds/resources to 'bump up everyone's salary' in 20/30 years time.

If the advisors to the PS Scheme are telling you that an AVC and AVC PRSA are treated differently on the options you might have as regards buying benefts from each product at retirement, then maybe, they want you to buy one over the other. I don't know of any (pensions manual) impediment that favours one over the other. Maybe it's a bit like that line about salary deduction being 'handy' but leaving out the part about the potential cost savings to the customer by doing the alternative.

And, if you are still really concerned about this, in my opinion, misguided anomaly then there's nothing to stop you setting up two separate PRSA AVCs with different policy numbers.

But, again, we've no idea what the pension rules will be in 20/30 years time. We can only work with the rules as we understand them now and base our choices on having all the relevant information to make an informed decision now.


Gerard

www.prsa.ie
 
GSheehy said:
there's nothing to stop you setting up two separate PRSA AVCs with different policy numbers.
Click to expand...
I thought of that but if I did it that way would I forgo the compounding effect of having all my money in one fund?

E.g: 50k in one pot and 50k in a separate pot (policy) won't compound together as well as 100k under one policy? There might be other provider charges I would have to double up on too?
 
It's a problem for me and I'm trying to educate myself as best I can. I'm very grateful for all the help I've received on this excellent website.

If anyone could confirm my last comment above, am I right or wrong there, I would really appreciate it.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
How/why do you think that two separate policies would be worse than one in these respects? The compounding results will surely be the same overall and unless there is some fixed cost to setting up a policy then the charges should also be equivalent? If you don't agree then outline a simple scenario where you think that there's a disadvantage to having two policies maybe?
 
CharlieMac said:
E.g: 50k in one pot and 50k in a separate pot (policy) won't compound together as well as 100k under one policy?
Click to expand...

If all things are equal - fund growth, charges - on an AVC PRSA, then it makes no difference at all to the rate of compounding and growth whether you have two at €50,000 each or one at €100,000.


CharlieMac said:
There might be other provider charges I would have to double up on too?
Click to expand...

Under law, an AVC PRSA can only impose charges as a percentage of the fund and/or a percentage of the contribution. Fixed charges are not permitted. There are no such restrictions on an AVC that is not an AVC PRSA. So in theory an AVC might have a fixed charge per policy, e.g. a monthly flat policy fee of €5 or something like that. If that was the case, then you'd be paying extra charges by having two. But not with an AVC PRSA.

Make sure that the charges for two €50,000 AVC PRSAs are identical to one at €100,000. There's a huge variety of charges available on PRSAs.
 
@LDFerguson thank you, that's just what I was looking for.
@ClubMan I thought I was OK with numbers but I guess not. Working with one pot I can visualise the idea of compounded fund growth: maximised by uninterrupted accumulation of contributions added to the ongoing growth from all those contributions combined. But it feels counter-intuitive to me that, even with all things being equal, you get the same effect by splitting the fund in two. I suppose working in reverse: 1 + 1 cannot be less than 2. I made a spreadsheet to confirm!
 
I don't really understand any of that but, as @LDFerguson has also said, the effects of compounding are no different with one or two policies (all other things being equal).
 
In the civil service, a person would get a form for this purpose from the NSSO pensions people. I was helping a civil servant sort local authority service some time back. Once they got the NSSO form they just completed it with their service in the local authority and forwarded it to their HR/Pensions people. They confirmed the service and returned the form to the NSSO, who gave it a case number and they transfer the service once its deemed reckonable. I don’t know whether it was the local authority or the NSSO, which decided that it was reckonable.

It took some time but I reckon that the local authorities retain good records; just takes a little time to locate them

I expect that the S41 form as mentioned by publicservice1 will be the one for any previous service in teaching or nursing?

The challenge for Jumbled is to find the relevant people and for them to locate the records of service. I don’t know who in the system would make the decision in Jumbled's case.

Do teachers have an equivalent of the NSSO? Or is it just the Department of Education who deal with these matters?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register