PRSAs + Consumer Choice

CAI ratings

I was surprised at the CAI ratings. The main surprise was EBS being 2nd last, not so sure about Ark Life being last.

But what do EBS and AL have in common?

a) They don't have non-standard PRSAs

b) They don't deal with brokers.

(Perhaps not entirely uncorrelated features.)

Let's look at the winner. Eagle Star deal exclusively with brokers and they pay the highest commissions whether it be for Standard or their preferred Non standard PRSAs.

Now here's the rub. The editor behind the CC article, i.e. the finance spokesperson for CAI, is a broker and an ex employee of Eagle Star and a well known supporter of that company. This article certainly didn't do him any harm!

Expect Eagle Star to milk it!!
 
I think I've had just about enough of Savyy on his high horse about Non Standard PRSAs - any neutral observer will realise that Ark Life has no non standard PRSAs for one reason only - so they can use that fact as a marketing message!

In any case, even the highest charging non standard PRSAs will probably yield a bigger pension that you'd get with Ark Life's Standard PRSA, what with AIB investment managers uncanny ability to yield below par returns year on year on year. I know the past performance not a guide to future performance mantra is well established on askaboutmoney. I won't rehash the arguments over that issue again but I would say that there has been no significant study that has proven that the past performance of the same investment team (not just the same investment management company) is no guide to future performance.

Just to respond to a couple of Savvy's points:

No enhanced allocations for higher contributions. This is in line with the majority of companies and those which do give enhanced allocations only do so in a very limited way.Ok so you're not giving a better deal because most other companies aren't?!??!

DIS tailored to an ARF or an Annuity? You may or may not be aware that the whole issue of DIS strategy was and is a hot actuarial debate. The majority actuarial consensus is, as with Ark Life, against making this differentiation.
I see you have appointed yourself spokeperson for the majority! Personally, I can't see the problem with providing a choice to the consumer.
 
Answering Merlin

We are giving a better deal because all other companies (ex EBS) are majoring on Non standard PRSAs. Their Standard PRSAs are mere showboating.

By definition a Default is not a choice. It is what the PRSA provider thinks is best.

No way am I a spokesperson for the majority of actuaries. I am merely reporting the fact of what is current actuarial consensus.

Why do my arguments evoke such irrational attacks?

At least Merlin you accept that Standard PRSAs have marketing appeal. Please tell that to all the others who do their utmost to denigrate Standard PRSAs and present Non standard PRSAs as the best thing since Brennan's bread.
 
Does it matter

Ah to hell with it, does it matter. The whole thing is a cock up, much like The Luas. We all know that PRSA's can't and won't work. The sales are a disaster, a huge loss maker, and would probably have been made anyway with all this crapology about PRSA's.

And as for the Consumer magazine favouring one or the other, if I remember they have persisently called for PRSA's to be scrapped.
 
Conspiracy

"We all know that PRSA's can't and won't work".

Conspiracy theory 1: Who doesn't want it to work? Is it (a) The insurance companies. (b) The media, (c) The Govt (d) The intermediaries, (e) IFSRA, (f) The pensions board, (g) The general public, or (h) Ask About Money?
 
What about service

Brendan,

No-one has mentioned premium collections yet. I've no doubt you will curse the day you chose your PRSA provider - especially if a few staff members take it up and decide to change the premium on a regular basis, as they are entitled to do.

They have not invested in their systems to handle the likley volumes of business. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

Why else would they wany 14 days notice!

Eagle Star have invested heavily in their systems over the last couple of years (anyone remember how appauling their service record was before?!).

Another plus for ES as far as I'm concerned.

Ali
 
Re: CAI ratings

Now here's the rub. The editor behind the CC article, i.e. the finance spokesperson for CAI, is a broker and an ex employee of Eagle Star and a well known supporter of that company. This article certainly didn't do him any harm!

Suspicious Mind

Eddie Hobbs is the spokesperson for the CAI. He hasn't been that involved in the magazine in the past - he is certainly not the editor.

I don't know if he inspired or edited this article. Even if he did, I doubt if he would show any favouritism to Eagle Star or bias against any other products. They used criteria which were inappropriate in my opinion. I don't think that they are biased as such.

Eddie is an Authorised Advisor. If he is a "well known supporter of Eagle Star", it's news to me. He may well be, but I have never heard him single them out for special comment. He tends to attack products rather than institutions. He always strikes me as fair, even if I don't always agree with him.

As far as I know, he is 100% fee only, so I don't know how the article did him any good?

Brendan
 
Re: CAI ratings

Here we go again with the EH bashing... yawn .... ZZZzzzzzz....... :rolleyes
 
EH Decoy

Brendan,

You are quite right. EH would never have approved this most naive analysis.

As always one must suspect that on AAM things are not quite what they might seem. I suspect the EH factor has been introduced to detract from the arguments against the article and it ratings.
 
Standard non Standard is best

Am I missing something?

The Standard Life PRSA (which wouldn't have got into the survey because it is Non standard, confusing isn't it?) levies the usual 5% contribution charge and an incredibly low 0.5% charge on its With Profit fund. Apparently this is beacause of a mutualisation divvy of 0.5% set against the 1% charge.

This is clearly far better than any of the Standard PRSAs in the survey and light years ahead of Irish Life's quasi With Profit PRSA which charges a whopping 1.85% per annum.

Add on to this that if SL ever were to demutualise (after 3 years) there would be a generous windfall then the whole proposition becomes a "no brainer". How can AAs advise anything else and still honestly say they are giving best advice? And BTW the commissions are perfectly okay as well!

Getting back to the main theme. If Standard Life's PRSA had qualified for the contest I guess it would have picked up 1 point for having half the management charges as the others i.e. equal value to allowing cash contributions. This is a nonsense.
 
Re: Standard non Standard is best

As always one must suspect that on AAM things are not quite what they might seem
Click to expand...

What is your evidence for this statement?
 
AAM Mischief

Tedd, by its nature it is not possible to have evidence of false pretences on AAM given its anonymous nature.

In this particular case the unwarranted introduction of the EH factor serves to seriously undermine the credibility of the criticism of the Consumer Choice article. Therefore one has to suspect that that was exactly as was intended even though ostensibly the anti EH post supported the anti Consumer Choice arguments.

I have seen this happen before on AAM but, as I said, given its anomynous nature absolutely impossible to prove.
 
Re: AAM Mischief

I object to the "as always...on AAM" aspect of your comments. It is an entirely unwarranted criticism of the site. If you feel comments in relation to Eddie Hobbs on AAM are malicious/spurious/whatever, then of course you should say so.

Just don't tar the whole site with the same brush.
 
Apology

Sorry, Tedd, I did not intend to castigate AAM which is a truly excellent site.

I feel quite sure that the introduction of the anti EH factor into this thread is meant to discredit the anti CAI argument. Of course, I have no proof.
 
suggestions?

Following up from all the words of wisdom of the past two pages of criticism, does anybody have alternative suggestions as to how to survey/rate the various PRSA products on the market (apart from plugging their own company products or preferred choice?). Naive it may be, but the Consumer Choice survey is the only survey I know of that actually went to the bother of rating PRSAs.
 
Re: suggestions?

regarding Standard Life's product, I think it's pretty
meaningless to quote a "management charge" on a with
profits policy, so I'm not sold on the .5% PA charge. who
knows what charges and costs are buried in that financial
hairball known as a "with profits policy". at least with index
funds or even managed funds, the management charge
means something in theory; i.e. if you were to perform all
the necessary trading yourself you would save that amount
of money.
 
Yellow Packs

does anybody have alternative suggestions as to how to survey/rate the various PRSA products on the market
Click to expand...
The point is the
 
Slipped and press enter

As I was saying, there is no diff between the Standard PRSAs.

Imagine if the CAI did a survey of petrols: Esso might come out on top for the following reasons:

Nicer smell
Easier to spell
The cuddly tiger is cute
Lots of outlets
Sponsor a tiger at the zoo

Would this justify giving Esso 5 points and Texaco 0 points.

Most people see no difference in petrols except price, and with Standard PRSAs there isn't even that except for very token reductions in the stratospheric end of the market.

Understandably, CAI were frustrated that the statutory price control removed the possibility of Savermark 2 but this very arbitrary beauty parade on the most trivial of factors was quite irresponsible, and has of course been milked to bits by Eagle Star, see their website.
 
But does it matter

Nobody is going to agree on any subjective measure once you stray beyond price. But does it matter anyway, given the tiny number of PRSA sales?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register