Rebelrebel
Registered User
- Messages
- 36
@Dave K
Would you have an idea of what level of fee the OP would have to pay if he/she set out their stall in the same way as in post #1 ?
Im not sure if this is what you mean, but in regard to the fee (AMC - Annual management charge) for managing an Occupational Schemes all I know is that they are considerably less than say having your own private pension or PRB.
Far too often people focus on differences in amc of 10, 20, 30 bps and invest in a fund which underperforms relative to its peers. For me this is where a quality advisor really adds value.
Are you saying that a quality advisor can pick a fund that will outperform others with lower charges by at least 10, 20 or 30 bps per year and thus justify the higher charges?
I think what G Sheehy was asking was how much an advisor fee would be for this scenario where the advisor adopts the fee model vs commission from the life office. I think you can only give balance to the OP if a guideline as to what that fee would be is given. You mention commission of €6k, vs a fee of ?
Hi,
I would agree with GSheehy in respect of the above.
Also with your own remark about putting it into a new occupational scheme. you could limit yourself by doing this.
Putting it in to the PRB option for example there is the option to draw it down from the age of 50 on-wards in some cases where as in the occupational scheme you could be looking at 65.
I think for yourself the option of the PRB seems correct but the main thing you should concentrate on will be the charges.
For info purposes:
Take your time choosing a financial advisor to action this. The industry standard and norm is for advisors to charge commission but you can find financial advisors who charge a fee which can be more transparent.
In this case, been charged commission for a PRB Bond they could look at taking anything from 0 - 5% commission and depending on which would affect your allocation. Anything from 0-3% you still get 100% of your transfer value but anything between 3% and 5% that added % comes off your transfer value.
in this case of 200,000 to a PRB and Even taking the 3% commission where you get 100% of your fund the broker will walk away with €6,000 for just getting you to sign a couple of forms and possibly never giving you any more advice. I dont know about you but I find that slightly excessive. They could then take a recurring percent in charges each year (known as the trail)
Some advisors will actually agree a fee with you and so you may benefit having the extra in your PRB from the start.
Regards
David K
@Dave Vanian I thought it was very obvious from reading my post in it’s entirety and in the context of the thread. But I apologise if it wasn’t for you. I’ll try to expand for you rather than focusing on a few words in isolation.
There are many many threads on this forum referencing best amcs on financial products. Scheme winds ups where employers and/or scheme trustees source the most “competitive charges” for their members typically ignore the investment options available on the market. This is an area best left to advisors rather than to scheme trustees. An advisor can work with you to provide you with something more wholistic, which suits your goals rather than just a product that has a low amc. Now as part of that plan the right / chosen product might just have a low amc. That will come down to how your advisor will be remunerated for their advice.
An example might be useful. Last Friday I sat with a family member for 2.5 hours looking a a scenario very similar to that of the OP. A scheme transfer to a PRB. The option was a PRB of 0.37% with 4 investment choices available. These were 4 passive funds 3 of which had over 50% concentration in eurozone (both equities & bonds). Having started with what he wanted to achieve we worked back through all the usual stuff - target benefits in retirement, how benefits might be taken, risk, tax, what return would be needed to achieve, options at various time frames etc. The last part of this plan then was to look at potential investment funds and the product that can give us the best possibility of reaching the desired outcome. This requires a wide range of knowledge of both the products and funds available on the market.
When we looked at long term performance across a wide range of suitable funds there were several that stood out over the one fund that he would likely have chosen from the default option. Of course these is no magic wand that you can shake to guarantee the same future outperformance, however drilling down through asset mix, long term volatility, sharp ratios, TERs etc we came up with a short list. He has now selected a product with a 0.6% amc (so .23% higher than the default), and a fund, similar in it’s objective to the one viable option from the default list, which in the past outperformed annually by 2.5% over a 15 year term. Working through projections we just need 1.2% outperformance (Over the projection provided by the default) to achieve his aims. Usual caveats re projections noted, now we just need to monitor the progress over the next number of years & make adjustments if there are any changes to any element of the plan.
So in summary what I am saying is while an advisor can’t guarantee you that you will achieve the best outcome, they should be able to help you make an informed decision. A cheap amc is just one part of the picture, on which far too much emphasis is placed, in my opinion.
Expanding that a bit David, I left a tiny occupational pension in Scotland back 25 years ago when I came back to Ireland. The scheme was wound up in 2005 or 2006 and I never replied to the options letters that I got (worse luck). I am now mid-50s so, I started chasing this down 2 - 3 years ago. Turns out my fund (c.£20k) defaulted into a Personal Retirement Bond and I have had some comms with Aviva in the UK, they tell me I have no early encashment options and have to wait until 65 to get an annuity of c.£700pa. Does that sound right?
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?