If that was true, then market forces would dictate that MAI's would have gone out of business and would have been replaced by AAs. In fact, more AAs have become MAIs over the years than vice versa.
I never mentioned my background either - you brought my background up (not for the first time)
(2)From working in the industry, I am quite familiar with the direct sales staff in a whole host of companies - independent advice (not tied to a specific investment manager/insurer) is often worthwhile addition based on my experience.
Bear in mind that the OP does not know what an ARF is - so the level of service she requires (especially if putting in 20K a year) is a lot higher than what the QL arrangement would offer.
The OP is also a proprietary director - so would need to consider maximum contributions that her company can make on her behalf, again this is not a service that she can expect from QL.
I never disputed that they reduce the FMC by 0.5% - I pointed out that only two (one is the ISEQ!) equity funds start out at 1.0%, obviously I am correct in this assertion, all other equity funds by QL start at > 1%.
Ah there is no doubt clients prefer to have the full market choice rather than the limited product choice of a MAI, the changes are more on the compliance monitoring and regulatory side, that's fair enough but clients still appreciate the extensive market coverage of an AA (I don't really care what they are called to be honest!!) over that of an MAI.
So do you also agree that in the example we have been using, QL offers the lower overall charges after 25 years, if a mix of their eight funds (four at 1% reducing to 0.5% and four at 1.2% reducing to 0.7%)?
And if so, Quinn Life should at least be included in an AA's pick list? If the client is unhappy with the range of funds offered, she can choose another provider. But she should still be made aware of the lowest-charging option.
But you just said that clients prefer...and clients appreciate...
If clients prefer, then no amount of marketing by MAIs will convince them to choose the "inferior product".
The general public would not have a clue what a MAI or an AA is.
Most financial commentators recommend AAs though - I would imagine you would prefer MAIs.
It depends how long the client maintains their pension - if less than 20 years, she would be best to avoid QL.
Yes, I have heard from a number of sources that the answers to technical pension questions have been hard to come by from QL, I can't comment on my experience because I would not use them.
Of course QL would be an option, but there are plenty of other options too - I did not realise you were expecting an AA to provide a full invesment review service on a chat forum!
Well AA means a full product offering versus MAI meaning a restricted product offering.
That is great that the MAI has worked out for you.
So by extension, if she maintains her pension for over 20 years, she would be best to consider QL.
I don't expect a full investment review service on a chat forum but I'm curious as to why Quinn Life wasn't mentioned in the original replies to Carolina, except by capall, who I understand is not an industry professional.
...the full range versus a limited agency...
You are quite incorrect here - there is more to selecting a suitable pension than selecting the cheapest, would the best car in a garage be the cheapest one?
Maybe because of widespread experience of the service offered by QL? I have no idea why but that is one possibility.
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?