OK - so paperwork alone is not a reason for "consolidating"?If that is not possible then isn't it going to be very complicated at retirement time dealing with three/four pensions separately? It is not complicated at all. A bit more paperwork alright but that's about it.
I presume that the 150% is taxed?Are PRSAs, PRBs, PPPs and occupational pensions treated differently at retirement time or are they all aggregated when calculating things like 25% tax free lump sum, ARF/AMRF purposes etc.? - Occupational pensions & PRB's give you the option of up to 150% final salary as a lump sum (based on years service).
OK - it's a while since I was in an occupational scheme but when I was the charges were outrageous. This may have been back in the days of the first year or two of contributions going in charges which I presume is no longer the case?If (as I expect) my new employer's occupational scheme has higher charges than my current PRSA can I contribute the minimum to take advantage of their matching contribution and then use my PRSA for the rest of my age related tax relief limit? - You must use a PRSA AVC plan in this case. Employer schemes are very competitively priced these days, so they should be cheaper.
I thought that TUPE legislation might have some relevance here?Can the new employer unilaterally change the pension benefits like this or do I have any statutory rights in this respect? - I don't manage group schemes but I am almost sure they can.
The thing is that the contract that I have seen says 3% employer contribution and a maximum of 5% employee contribution to the occupational plan. This seems odd and maybe mistaken to me. As I mentioned early I am waiting for more clarification on these issues from the company.You can also make AVCs directly into the main scheme. If it is an occupational PRSA scheme, you can top up into that plan.
To be fair I didn't get that impression from the providers but rather from the statutory bodies tasked with providing info about PRSAs. They gave the impression that PRSAs were a lot simpler (and more cost effective) than alternative options. Looks like that is not necessarily the case...A PRSA is not a PRSA. That was a marketing trick.
This is not quite correct. A standard PRSA has a MINIMUM allocation rate of 95% and a MAXIMUM AMC of 1%. Mine has an allocation rate of 100% and an AMC of 1%. I have seen many people make this mistake about standard PRSA charges for many years.A standard PRSA has an allocation rate of 95% and annual management charge of 1% and has a vastly restricted fund choice.
This is not quite correct. A standard PRSA has a MINIMUM allocation rate of 95% and a MAXIMUM AMC of 1%. Mine has an allocation rate of 100% and an AMC of 1%. I have seen many people make this mistake about standard PRSA charges for many years.
So you keep saying @Marc but, in practice, many/most punters can't do much about this as there's not always any like for like index/fund to compare against to get a better idea of effective charges.Of course the disclosed charges are a complete red herring.
Remember that pensions in Ireland are not subject to a formal disclosure regime.
PRSAs are subject to an entirely different regime to everything else under watch of the Pensions Authority.
All the allocation rate and contract charge really tell you is what commission option you signed up to. It doesn't give you any information about the real charges on your pension.
Thanks @SBarrett- can you clarify what you mean by personal pension contracts here?What I meant is that most PRSA's are charged under that structure. There are of course different ones too.
There are lots of personal pension contracts out there with 100% allocation and a 0.5% amc
What I meant is that most PRSA's are charged under that structure. There are of course different ones too.
Thanks @SBarrett- can you clarify what you mean by personal pension contracts here?
PRSAs? Personal Pension Plans? PRBs? Something else? All of these?
You've lost me. Again.If a post mentions allocation rates or annual charges as being a reason for doing "x" course of action it is simply the case that the post is describing a commission schedule not the fees charged to the investor.
How is an allocation rate of 100% (or more) NOT in the customer's favour?I've lost count of the number of posts that talk about allocation rates as if these were somehow in the interests of the investor when in reality they simply reflect the payment terms negotiated by the adviser.
How is an allocation rate of 100% (or more) NOT in the customer's favour?
How on earth do allocation rates and annual management charges NOT reflect the charges payable by the customer?
I'll allow that there could be ADDITIONAL effective charges that are not transparent but, as I've said, the average punter has little insight into and practically no control over these...
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?