D
daltonr
Guest
Re: Here we go again.
Laser do you work in the industry? Are you one of the Authorised Advisers that the Central bank regulates? if so my faith in the profession has gone way down.
It's fair enough for you to argue that 5% of all contributions represents good value. I happen to disagree. I don't know of anyone who has ever gotten any advice AFTER they signed the dotted line, so an ongoing charge makes no sense to me.
But you're more than welcome to try to convince me.
But when you personalise things the way you have you lose any chance you might have had of convincing anyone. I sure as hell woudn't like to be giving YOU 5% of my contributions if that's the approach you take.
First of all, you might want to rethink calling execution only PRSA's "Below Cost". I don't think that's the case.
Secondly, It doesn't take much advanced knowledge to decide between one PRSA that takes 5% of everything you contribute and another that doesn't. It's unfortunate that knowing about 0% PRSA's is considered advanced knowledge. That's why AAM exists. This kind of stuff should be COMMON KNOWLEDGE. You seem to be implying that Clubman is trying to secretly profit from some inside knowledge. The reverse is true.
I get the feeling that you'd prefer people not know about these 0% PRSAs. I wonder why that might be the case!?!
The simple fact is that small percentages matter MOST on long term investments or debts, such as pensions, or mortgages. A 5% loss on every contribution makes a HUGE difference over the life of a pension.
I hope my figures are right here, but if we take a person contributing €300 p/m, for simplicity forget about increases, and forget about the 1% management fee. The difference in the final balance assuming just 7% growth is €17,000.
It gets worse, if the pension grows at 12%, the difference is a whopping €43,500. In other words the better the fund performs the more you pay for the advice, even though the adviser has no way of affecting the performance of the fund, and will make a point of telling you that he can't predict it.
I have never received any advice of any kind from anyone that was worth €17,000. Certainly none worth €43,500. And if you don't mind I'll stay a skinflint and keep that money in my fund. It'll help overcome inflation.
Also it's fine to say that people can switch after year one, and then average the 5% of year one over the life of the pension. But how about this! Average 0% over the live of the pension. It works out even better!
-Rd
Laser do you work in the industry? Are you one of the Authorised Advisers that the Central bank regulates? if so my faith in the profession has gone way down.
It's fair enough for you to argue that 5% of all contributions represents good value. I happen to disagree. I don't know of anyone who has ever gotten any advice AFTER they signed the dotted line, so an ongoing charge makes no sense to me.
But you're more than welcome to try to convince me.
But when you personalise things the way you have you lose any chance you might have had of convincing anyone. I sure as hell woudn't like to be giving YOU 5% of my contributions if that's the approach you take.
First of all, you might want to rethink calling execution only PRSA's "Below Cost". I don't think that's the case.
Secondly, It doesn't take much advanced knowledge to decide between one PRSA that takes 5% of everything you contribute and another that doesn't. It's unfortunate that knowing about 0% PRSA's is considered advanced knowledge. That's why AAM exists. This kind of stuff should be COMMON KNOWLEDGE. You seem to be implying that Clubman is trying to secretly profit from some inside knowledge. The reverse is true.
I get the feeling that you'd prefer people not know about these 0% PRSAs. I wonder why that might be the case!?!
The simple fact is that small percentages matter MOST on long term investments or debts, such as pensions, or mortgages. A 5% loss on every contribution makes a HUGE difference over the life of a pension.
I hope my figures are right here, but if we take a person contributing €300 p/m, for simplicity forget about increases, and forget about the 1% management fee. The difference in the final balance assuming just 7% growth is €17,000.
It gets worse, if the pension grows at 12%, the difference is a whopping €43,500. In other words the better the fund performs the more you pay for the advice, even though the adviser has no way of affecting the performance of the fund, and will make a point of telling you that he can't predict it.
I have never received any advice of any kind from anyone that was worth €17,000. Certainly none worth €43,500. And if you don't mind I'll stay a skinflint and keep that money in my fund. It'll help overcome inflation.
Also it's fine to say that people can switch after year one, and then average the 5% of year one over the life of the pension. But how about this! Average 0% over the live of the pension. It works out even better!
-Rd
E
extopia
Guest
Re: Actually
Laser said:
you assume that the industry, including consumers, are driven by cheapest price.
No, my friend, I never made that assumption at all. However, I DO think that consumers are driven by VALUE. Although perhaps not yet in the choosing of financial products, due to the lethargy, confusion and general lack of sophistication to which I referred.
That, of course, will change.
If 5% is good value, I will happily pay it, and so will countless others. Show me what it's worth, and I'll happily make the decision. As I said, I have been disappointed in the past by the "advice" proferred by financial professionals, both of the tied and independent variety. A large part of my point is that the supposed advice given is often stuff that even the most casually informed consumer should know already, though admittedly often does not.
You know, you can tell the minute you walk in the advisor's door whether you're dealing with a bored and burned out "lifer" or someone with a genuine interest in trying to understand your needs and offering you the appropriate solution. It's just not that hard to figure out.
Laser said:
you assume that the industry, including consumers, are driven by cheapest price.
No, my friend, I never made that assumption at all. However, I DO think that consumers are driven by VALUE. Although perhaps not yet in the choosing of financial products, due to the lethargy, confusion and general lack of sophistication to which I referred.
That, of course, will change.
If 5% is good value, I will happily pay it, and so will countless others. Show me what it's worth, and I'll happily make the decision. As I said, I have been disappointed in the past by the "advice" proferred by financial professionals, both of the tied and independent variety. A large part of my point is that the supposed advice given is often stuff that even the most casually informed consumer should know already, though admittedly often does not.
You know, you can tell the minute you walk in the advisor's door whether you're dealing with a bored and burned out "lifer" or someone with a genuine interest in trying to understand your needs and offering you the appropriate solution. It's just not that hard to figure out.
N
None
Guest
Do it all for 1%
I think some of the contributors are losing touch with reality here.
Lets look at the market the PRSA is designed to meet - those not covered who are probably smaller contributors.
Lets say they put in 1200 a year
So the Company gets 12,24,36,48 euro etc from the 1%
And from this comes
Product Development
Sales Advice + Planning
Pension Board Fees
Investment Management Fees
Cost of Compliance
Quarterly Statements
Policy Document + Brochures
Cost of Unit Allocation System
Cost of Claims on termination
Get real guys
Put your car in for a 2 hour service and the cost of labour will be €180
I think some of the contributors are losing touch with reality here.
Lets look at the market the PRSA is designed to meet - those not covered who are probably smaller contributors.
Lets say they put in 1200 a year
So the Company gets 12,24,36,48 euro etc from the 1%
And from this comes
Product Development
Sales Advice + Planning
Pension Board Fees
Investment Management Fees
Cost of Compliance
Quarterly Statements
Policy Document + Brochures
Cost of Unit Allocation System
Cost of Claims on termination
Get real guys
Put your car in for a 2 hour service and the cost of labour will be €180
Re: Do it all for 1%
Lets say they put in 1200 a year
So the Company gets 12,24,36,48 euro etc from the 1%
Obviously a single PRSA sale will never be commercially viable. :rolleyes However you seem to be saying that for a single PRSA a 1% p.a. management charge yielding €660 over 10 years (assuming fixed ongoing contributions and no growth for simplicity) is not viable but somehow an additional €600 (i.e. 5% on €100 p.m. for 10 years) is? How do you reckon that then? Why is c. €1,200 some sort of magic figure? Why not €660?
Earlier on Alan Moore responded to my query as to why 1% p.a. on it's own might not be sufficient to remunerate all interested parties with:
"You probably need an actuary to explain why 1% isn't sufficient as it is in the UK. May come down to economies of scale. Couldn't tell you where the breakeven point is for an insurance company."
so perhaps you've done just that and can enlighten us poor plebs?
Lets say they put in 1200 a year
So the Company gets 12,24,36,48 euro etc from the 1%
Obviously a single PRSA sale will never be commercially viable. :rolleyes However you seem to be saying that for a single PRSA a 1% p.a. management charge yielding €660 over 10 years (assuming fixed ongoing contributions and no growth for simplicity) is not viable but somehow an additional €600 (i.e. 5% on €100 p.m. for 10 years) is? How do you reckon that then? Why is c. €1,200 some sort of magic figure? Why not €660?
Earlier on Alan Moore responded to my query as to why 1% p.a. on it's own might not be sufficient to remunerate all interested parties with:
"You probably need an actuary to explain why 1% isn't sufficient as it is in the UK. May come down to economies of scale. Couldn't tell you where the breakeven point is for an insurance company."
so perhaps you've done just that and can enlighten us poor plebs?
D
daltonr
Guest
Re: Do it all for 1%
I didn't notice anyone complaining too strongly about the 1% annual charge. It's the fact that 5% of your money never sees the inside of the fund that prompted the original post.
So, let's say we take the 1200 per year example. over 30 years €1800 of that persons contributions would never get into the fund. We're told this upfront charge is for advice etc.
now, if it was just a cost of €1800 over the lifetime of the pension to a person contributing only €1200 a year I'd still maintain that was a bit steep.
But as I said it's much worse than that. You also loose the growth that that extra 5% would have generated. over 30 years assuming 7% growth, our €1200 per year contributor would lose out on almost €6000. Assuming 12% that rises to a cost of almost €15000. That's real money that the investor is losing. And In my opinion financial advice for a small time investor is not worth that much.
Remember at least with the 1% charge based on the value of the fund, there's an incentive to increase the value of the fund. By taking 5% of everything you put in, there's only an incentive to get you to put in more. What happens after they get it is incidental.
The bottom line is this. Is any broker/financial adviser/bank/insurance company rep ever going to give you any advice that will earn you back the money you lose in up front charges of 5% on every contribution. I don't think so.
If they can't turn a profit on less than 5% then we have a problem. PRSA's and Pensions will have to be looked at again and a new solution found. But of course there are PRSA's with just the 1% annual fee, so obviously it IS possible to turn a profit on this. So the 5%ers are just profiteering, or running very innefficient businesses.
As a consumer the choice is simple. Pay 5% or don't.
-Rd
I didn't notice anyone complaining too strongly about the 1% annual charge. It's the fact that 5% of your money never sees the inside of the fund that prompted the original post.
So, let's say we take the 1200 per year example. over 30 years €1800 of that persons contributions would never get into the fund. We're told this upfront charge is for advice etc.
now, if it was just a cost of €1800 over the lifetime of the pension to a person contributing only €1200 a year I'd still maintain that was a bit steep.
But as I said it's much worse than that. You also loose the growth that that extra 5% would have generated. over 30 years assuming 7% growth, our €1200 per year contributor would lose out on almost €6000. Assuming 12% that rises to a cost of almost €15000. That's real money that the investor is losing. And In my opinion financial advice for a small time investor is not worth that much.
Remember at least with the 1% charge based on the value of the fund, there's an incentive to increase the value of the fund. By taking 5% of everything you put in, there's only an incentive to get you to put in more. What happens after they get it is incidental.
The bottom line is this. Is any broker/financial adviser/bank/insurance company rep ever going to give you any advice that will earn you back the money you lose in up front charges of 5% on every contribution. I don't think so.
If they can't turn a profit on less than 5% then we have a problem. PRSA's and Pensions will have to be looked at again and a new solution found. But of course there are PRSA's with just the 1% annual fee, so obviously it IS possible to turn a profit on this. So the 5%ers are just profiteering, or running very innefficient businesses.
As a consumer the choice is simple. Pay 5% or don't.
-Rd
Re: Do it all for 1%
Ah so Clubman, we get to the bottom of the argument. As I suspected all the guff on AAM is for the informed skinflints, leveraging their advanced knowledge on the subject and buying at below cost.
I missed out on that barb directed at me by Laser earlier and had it come from an otherwise reasonable contributor I would have found it slightly offensive but as it is I simply find it laughable.
Ah so Clubman, we get to the bottom of the argument. As I suspected all the guff on AAM is for the informed skinflints, leveraging their advanced knowledge on the subject and buying at below cost.
I missed out on that barb directed at me by Laser earlier and had it come from an otherwise reasonable contributor I would have found it slightly offensive but as it is I simply find it laughable.
L
Laser
Guest
Hiya Dalton
Dalton, stick to the day job- your maths is hopeless. did you ever hear of discounting to present values, inflation or that kind of thing, or have you spent too much of your time attending Clubman meetings - in Telephone Boxes!
Dalton, stick to the day job- your maths is hopeless. did you ever hear of discounting to present values, inflation or that kind of thing, or have you spent too much of your time attending Clubman meetings - in Telephone Boxes!
L
Laser
Guest
What's the point
What's the point. So long as you are both wedded to your belief that advisors are only dummies that should be paid silly money, no matter what effort I'd make to present NPV's on Standard PRSA's, you won't change.
Until you can accept that most people want face to face encounters to deal with important financial purchases, you can't be expected to alter your thinking.
What's the point. So long as you are both wedded to your belief that advisors are only dummies that should be paid silly money, no matter what effort I'd make to present NPV's on Standard PRSA's, you won't change.
Until you can accept that most people want face to face encounters to deal with important financial purchases, you can't be expected to alter your thinking.
D
daltonr
Guest
Re: What's the point
Laser,
I specifically said I was simplifying the calculations, cutting out increases for inflation and the effects of inflation.
But since you've decided to call me on it....
If you include Inflation the figures work out even worse.
On top of the 5% fee for all contributions, inflation knocks another 5% off the total value of the fund. The absolute value in the find isn't affected by inflation, only it's buying power, so the figures I gave are still acceptable to illustrate the point. Not have the 5% contribution fee goes some small way towards negating inflation.
There is only one rule with paying for financial advice. If it costs more than it saves or earns, then it's not worth the price. A financial genius like youself should have figured that out by now. Or perhaps you disagree with this???
Can you show how that 5% will pay for itself and make me a profit over and above an execution only PRSA (which requires no special knowledge to set up). If you can't then I suggest you stop attacking people that put perfectly rational points in a perfectly reasonably manner.
By the way, and no offence intended here, but you have serious interpersonal issues that I think you need to address. I'm just offering that as a bit of "free" advice.
I think I prefered dealing with the pyramid scammers. They were misguided, but at least some of them were polite.
-Rd
Laser,
I specifically said I was simplifying the calculations, cutting out increases for inflation and the effects of inflation.
But since you've decided to call me on it....
If you include Inflation the figures work out even worse.
On top of the 5% fee for all contributions, inflation knocks another 5% off the total value of the fund. The absolute value in the find isn't affected by inflation, only it's buying power, so the figures I gave are still acceptable to illustrate the point. Not have the 5% contribution fee goes some small way towards negating inflation.
There is only one rule with paying for financial advice. If it costs more than it saves or earns, then it's not worth the price. A financial genius like youself should have figured that out by now. Or perhaps you disagree with this???
Can you show how that 5% will pay for itself and make me a profit over and above an execution only PRSA (which requires no special knowledge to set up). If you can't then I suggest you stop attacking people that put perfectly rational points in a perfectly reasonably manner.
By the way, and no offence intended here, but you have serious interpersonal issues that I think you need to address. I'm just offering that as a bit of "free" advice.
I think I prefered dealing with the pyramid scammers. They were misguided, but at least some of them were polite.
-Rd
T
Traumas
Guest
the point
"face to face encounters"
From your communication thus far, I assume the outcome is normally fatal?
Lets dump the recommendation that IFSRA will supply a list of financial advisers to consumers - at least for a few years....
"face to face encounters"
From your communication thus far, I assume the outcome is normally fatal?
Lets dump the recommendation that IFSRA will supply a list of financial advisers to consumers - at least for a few years....
E
extopia
Guest
Re: Hiya Dalton
Laser says:
your maths is hopeless. did you ever hear of discounting to present values, inflation or that kind of thing
Do you really undersand NPVs, Laser? Clutching at straws, mate, clutching at straws. Much more interested in the future value of a wasted 5% per contribution, compounded over twenty, thirty, or forty years.
Laser says:
your maths is hopeless. did you ever hear of discounting to present values, inflation or that kind of thing
Do you really undersand NPVs, Laser? Clutching at straws, mate, clutching at straws. Much more interested in the future value of a wasted 5% per contribution, compounded over twenty, thirty, or forty years.
T
tom
Guest
prsas, fees etc
guys, guys!!!
It never ceases to amaze me how penny-pinching people get over fees on financial advice. It shouldn't be any surprise - it's the way we are. Humans! If we walked into Spar in the morning, and were told at the door that the price of everything we bought would be simply loaded by 50%-100% because of the convenience of the shop location and opening times, we would be indignant... how dare they... and would probably walk out to save face. Simple fact is that every price in Spar is loaded by 50%-100% and we pay it. We might know it, but because no-one is telling us directly that they're taking it off us, we are saving face and hence can deal with it.
Finanical services, unfortunately, falls into a category where all consumers are told exactly how much is being taken off them. Shocked!! Of course we are. Horrified!! Of course we are. But what eejits and innocents we are to be shocked or horrified. Every service is loaded above the cost. The average, or even better than average financial advice, can be quickly worth more than the hidden profit in your Saturday shop, or the washing machine you just bought, or that dvd you can't work...... God, it pains me to listen to any moaners reluctant to let a cent out of their hands, when they do it every day with every euro they spend. God knows, if you got a receipt from dunnes outlining the profit they made - you'd be up in arms... how dare they tell you how much profit they're making from you!! can't they be a bit more discreet. Oh, humans, when they get some sense, can someone let me know.
guys, guys!!!
It never ceases to amaze me how penny-pinching people get over fees on financial advice. It shouldn't be any surprise - it's the way we are. Humans! If we walked into Spar in the morning, and were told at the door that the price of everything we bought would be simply loaded by 50%-100% because of the convenience of the shop location and opening times, we would be indignant... how dare they... and would probably walk out to save face. Simple fact is that every price in Spar is loaded by 50%-100% and we pay it. We might know it, but because no-one is telling us directly that they're taking it off us, we are saving face and hence can deal with it.
Finanical services, unfortunately, falls into a category where all consumers are told exactly how much is being taken off them. Shocked!! Of course we are. Horrified!! Of course we are. But what eejits and innocents we are to be shocked or horrified. Every service is loaded above the cost. The average, or even better than average financial advice, can be quickly worth more than the hidden profit in your Saturday shop, or the washing machine you just bought, or that dvd you can't work...... God, it pains me to listen to any moaners reluctant to let a cent out of their hands, when they do it every day with every euro they spend. God knows, if you got a receipt from dunnes outlining the profit they made - you'd be up in arms... how dare they tell you how much profit they're making from you!! can't they be a bit more discreet. Oh, humans, when they get some sense, can someone let me know.
T
tom
Guest
prsa and fees
...and daltonr, if I can add an analogy. why do you insist on projecting out the 'horrific' fees the companies might be making out of you over the next 30 years. Can you do the same sum on dunnes, superquinn, quinnsworth, your favourite restaurant, your dry cleaners, your child minder, the cost of servicing your car, your travel agent........ etc. etc. To compare expenditure over such a term of 30 years, and come up with a big figure and be shocked by it doesn't make any sense - do you have any idea how much your local shop has made out of you in the last year even, not to mind how much it is going to make over the next 30 years? Can we get some sense of balance into this?
...and daltonr, if I can add an analogy. why do you insist on projecting out the 'horrific' fees the companies might be making out of you over the next 30 years. Can you do the same sum on dunnes, superquinn, quinnsworth, your favourite restaurant, your dry cleaners, your child minder, the cost of servicing your car, your travel agent........ etc. etc. To compare expenditure over such a term of 30 years, and come up with a big figure and be shocked by it doesn't make any sense - do you have any idea how much your local shop has made out of you in the last year even, not to mind how much it is going to make over the next 30 years? Can we get some sense of balance into this?
D
daltonr
Guest
Re: prsa and fees
Tom
thanks for posting a reasonable point. Something that's been lacking lately.
A loaf of bread is a consumable item, it's useful life is about 2 days, so it makes no sense to asses it's cost over anything longer than that. I need bread, here's some bread, price seems reasonable. Secondly purchasing a loaf of bread our goal is to feed ourselves, not to get rich, or save money, so simply comparing the price of a loaf of bread might not be the best solution. E.g. I'm sure I could pick up a stale loaf for much less, but that's not the goal.
Financial Advice serves no other purpose other than to save money or earn money. Some forms serve other purposes like legal compliance etc, but when you buy retirement planning advice you want advice that will maximise your wealth on retirement. It therefore makes sense to consider the COST of the advice, as well as the BENEFIT, and assess both over the full lifetime of the product. i.e. until you retire (and possibly after if you consider annuities and other options.
The point I made was that over the long term the difference between buying an execution only PRSA and a PRSA with a 5% contribution charge, is far more than just the 5% of contributions, it is also the lost growth on those contributions.
Just as a matter of interest, do you think people are wrong to chose execution only PRSA's rather than one which charges 5% of all contributions? If so why?
-Rd
Tom
thanks for posting a reasonable point. Something that's been lacking lately.
A loaf of bread is a consumable item, it's useful life is about 2 days, so it makes no sense to asses it's cost over anything longer than that. I need bread, here's some bread, price seems reasonable. Secondly purchasing a loaf of bread our goal is to feed ourselves, not to get rich, or save money, so simply comparing the price of a loaf of bread might not be the best solution. E.g. I'm sure I could pick up a stale loaf for much less, but that's not the goal.
Financial Advice serves no other purpose other than to save money or earn money. Some forms serve other purposes like legal compliance etc, but when you buy retirement planning advice you want advice that will maximise your wealth on retirement. It therefore makes sense to consider the COST of the advice, as well as the BENEFIT, and assess both over the full lifetime of the product. i.e. until you retire (and possibly after if you consider annuities and other options.
The point I made was that over the long term the difference between buying an execution only PRSA and a PRSA with a 5% contribution charge, is far more than just the 5% of contributions, it is also the lost growth on those contributions.
Just as a matter of interest, do you think people are wrong to chose execution only PRSA's rather than one which charges 5% of all contributions? If so why?
-Rd
Re: prsa and fees
What's the point. So long as you are both wedded to your belief that advisors are only dummies that should be paid silly money, no matter what effort I'd make to present NPV's on Standard PRSA's, you won't change.
No - I'm open to discussion on this but nobody has yet explained wh 1% p.a. cannot be sufficient to remunerate all interest parties. In the absence of any convincing argument of why this is not so I'll continue to believe that it is.
...... God, it pains me to listen to any moaners reluctant to let a cent out of their hands, when they do it every day with every euro they spend
Tom - same point. I have already agreed that service providers need to be paid for the service they provide but nobody can seem to explain where the breakeven point is and persist merely in name calling and tarring people like me as penny pinching simpletons with ulterior selfish motives because we question why 1% p.a. is not viable while 1% p.a. plus 5% on contributions some how is.
What's the point. So long as you are both wedded to your belief that advisors are only dummies that should be paid silly money, no matter what effort I'd make to present NPV's on Standard PRSA's, you won't change.
No - I'm open to discussion on this but nobody has yet explained wh 1% p.a. cannot be sufficient to remunerate all interest parties. In the absence of any convincing argument of why this is not so I'll continue to believe that it is.
...... God, it pains me to listen to any moaners reluctant to let a cent out of their hands, when they do it every day with every euro they spend
Tom - same point. I have already agreed that service providers need to be paid for the service they provide but nobody can seem to explain where the breakeven point is and persist merely in name calling and tarring people like me as penny pinching simpletons with ulterior selfish motives because we question why 1% p.a. is not viable while 1% p.a. plus 5% on contributions some how is.
E
extopia
Guest
Re: Fees for Financial "Advice"
It never ceases to amaze me how penny-pinching people get over fees on financial advice.
_____________________________
Nothing wrong with the fee if it is justified, i.e. it has a reasonable chance of resulting in gains equal to or higher than would otherwise be the case, adjusted for the cost of the advice, of course.
I once went to an independent advisor who advised me to invest in a film project, for the tax break that would result. Naturally, he would receive a commission on my investment. Only problem was I was investing post-tax money, and at the time had no income to which the tax break could be applied. I can only assume he thought I was an idiot. The feeling, as you can imagine, was mutual.
It never ceases to amaze me how penny-pinching people get over fees on financial advice.
_____________________________
Nothing wrong with the fee if it is justified, i.e. it has a reasonable chance of resulting in gains equal to or higher than would otherwise be the case, adjusted for the cost of the advice, of course.
I once went to an independent advisor who advised me to invest in a film project, for the tax break that would result. Naturally, he would receive a commission on my investment. Only problem was I was investing post-tax money, and at the time had no income to which the tax break could be applied. I can only assume he thought I was an idiot. The feeling, as you can imagine, was mutual.
H
HarryTheEar
Guest
1% Not Sufficent ?
Clubman,
The 1% on Stakeholder has a break-even of 8/9 years. This assumes that the the punter stays with the same provider for that period and contributes the same amount every month. It's a year or two since I read this and can't remember where but I assume that they took some sort of 'average' premium.
Bearing in mind that the minimum PRSA contribution is €10 per month, can someone do the math on that?
What is the average contribution in euro terms to company pension schemes in Ireland?
Clubman,
The 1% on Stakeholder has a break-even of 8/9 years. This assumes that the the punter stays with the same provider for that period and contributes the same amount every month. It's a year or two since I read this and can't remember where but I assume that they took some sort of 'average' premium.
Bearing in mind that the minimum PRSA contribution is €10 per month, can someone do the math on that?
What is the average contribution in euro terms to company pension schemes in Ireland?
H
HarryTheEar
Guest
1% Not Sufficent ?
.....and how often does the average employee change jobs?
.....and how often does the average employee change jobs?