Pension Bond Management Charge Query

Background
I was made redundant last October and was a member of an occupational pension scheme. The scheme (along with its employee’s) was being terminated and so I had to realise the value of the fund and reinvest the monies (c. 50K) in another pension fund, as I have not reached retirement age.

Upon doing some research, I decided to invest the money in a Pension Bond. The Pension Bond was arranged by an investment adviser from a new Life Assurance Company (by e-mail and meetings). The following charges were to be attached to it (98% allocation rate and 0.75% annual management charge). I have chosen a medium risk investment split within the fund, half invested in deposits and half in equities. I am looking for between 5-6% growth pa.

The Issue
Upon transferring the funds and signing up with the new Life Assurance Company, a new and additional fee was included (not previously disclosed) in the annual management charge of c. 0.5%. This it appears is to pay for annual advice from the investment adviser to ensure that the fund is transferred to maintain its value and to keep it away from market falls etc. The investment adviser was very apologetic about the misinformation (in an e-mail) and has given me two options; One, invest the money at the old 0.75% annual management charge (where he will not receive an ongoing annual fee) or Two, invest the money at the new annual management charge of c. 1.25%.

What should I do?
I don’t feel there is any value in having a fight, as this will not get me any where and will ultimately be a waste of time.

Can any of you, who are well versed in value for money, let me know whether the c. 1.25% management fee is acceptable or should I take my business elsewhere. There seems little point in going for the 0.75% fee as there is no incentive for the investment adviser to look for long term value in a product where he is not getting a cut.

I think you need to be very clear on what you're getting for your 0.5% annual fee to the adviser.

I am a bit worried by this sentence..."This it appears is to pay for annual advice from the investment adviser to ensure that the fund is transferred to maintain its value and to keep it away from market falls etc."

Timing the market in this way is notoriously difficult to do consistently; many would say impossible. If I knew that a particular share or market was about to rise I could raise a loan of €100,000 against my home and invest in it. Equally if I knew that a particular share or market was about to fall, I could short it. Either way, I'd make a huge killing. If I could do it repeatedly, I'd be a billionaire before too long. This is why I'm wary of someone who seems to be suggesting they can, for a fee of 0.5% of a fund of €50,000.

In my view, long-term investing should be about matching investments with your own requirements and risk tolerance, not attempting to make short-term predictions. It can be useful to periodically review your investments with an adviser to make sure that the original choice is still suitable to your changing needs, look at new information, funds or developments that may be relevant to you and generally keep you updated. For this, it is only right that an adviser should be remunerated. But as I say, if the adviser is suggesting that he will be recommending fund switches based on predictions of short-term market movements, at the very least I'd be asking to see documentary evidence of his track record of successfully doing this before.

For the record, I'm a broker myself.

Many thanks LDFerguson, it is truthfully a matter of confidence on my part and not knowing what is reasonable either in terms of charge or expectation in terms of what is provided