Thoughts on the three bucket strategy.

[Deauville]

Back to the OP, it is basic planning

1. Cash account for cashflow purposes
2. Investment account for medium term expenses. This can be anything from paying for education expenses or anything other expense you may have before retirement
3. Pension for long term wealth
4. Use the investment account in point 2. for other excess cash

Some people need to segment money for different needs., like keeping money for children's education separate to the excess cash investment account. There is no need to do this but if it makes you feel more comfortable with your finances, then go for it, it's not the end of the world. Having two accounts instead of one isn't the end of the world. It's the people who have none that is the issue.

All investment accounts should be equity based primarily. This is where your growth is going to come from. Add in bonds to reduce volatility as per your tolerance.


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie

Steven, I had my pension blinkers on and wandered off topic. Which was general bucket strategy and financial management.
Apologies to OP, theObserver.

 

[Fortune]

It's how accumulating ETFs also work. You gain through the fund compounded price growth without paying the tax a dividend would trigger (until you sell of course).

I'd rather invest in companies that invest in themselves, rather than pay out dividends that don't benefit me in my investment strategy.

 

[theObserver]

Steven, I had my pension blinkers on and wandered off topic. Which was general bucket strategy and financial management.
Apologies to OP, theObserver.

No problem at all. I am concentrating perhaps too much on personal investments without enough joined-up-thinking around my actual pension fund.

 

[nest egg]

Here’s the title of the paper I referred to. A search on google should bring it up.

The Bucket Approach for Retirement: A Suboptimal Behavioral Trick?

Thanks for posting Deauville. I have toyed with the idea of a two-bucket approach when thinking about what I do come draw down. The paper you've referenced however says you'll be better off if you avoid a bucket approach, and I can see the logic in its arguments. You're not making my life easier!

 

[Deauville]

Thanks for posting Deauville. I have toyed with the idea of a two-bucket approach when thinking about what I do come draw down. The paper you've referenced however says you'll be better off if you avoid a bucket approach, and I can see the logic in its arguments. You're not making my life easier!
View attachment 8993View attachment 8994

. Sorry about that.

Even if it’s only a psychological support I’m okay with that.
I’m okay too with the premium I’d be paying for that.
It will only be a temporary strategy while I’m lucid or when the cash fund runs out.

One of the advantages for many of having an advisory intermediary is simply having someone to help you not panic.
If it works, it works.

A lot of this is behavioural psychology.

I’ll have a way of mitigating sequence of return risk for a few years. The early years can be the most impactful.

 

[theObserver]

Thanks - managed to find the Fund Manager Charge for the Prisma funds (0.4%) so presumably this is the FMC for all the funds without additional AMC called out on their list.

Given that execution only brokers charge 0.15% to .25% pa (depending on broker and ARF value) I should hopefully be able to source a Zurich ARF with AMC/TER of 0.65%-0.7% which sounds reasonable.

Any idea of the tax implicatations of investing through a Zurich product instead of eg via an ETF?

 

[Flybytheseat]

Any idea of the tax implicatations of investing through a Zurich product instead of eg via an ETF?

If invested outside of a pension the rate of tax on growth and income from 'Funds' is 41%. This is irrespective of what rate of Income Tax you pay i.e. Standard Rate or Marginal Rate. This rate of 41% is chargeable on the profits on the sale of the fund or after 8 years, whichever comes first. Zurich will deduct and pay revenue directly.