Pension charges need help

Yes although I don't think the OP has a problem with the Irish Life policy...I think they have a problem with the ES policy!
 
i cant remember being offered a choice it was all done for us and then he came in to speak to us and see who wanted to take it and explained it to us

my problem is yes with my ES policy and costs ,can i switch to a lower cost ES or just move it somewhere else

have emailed ES requesting info from below so just waiting
 
rohora said:
i cant remember being offered a choice it was all done for us and then he came in to speak to us and see who wanted to take it and explained it to us
Click to expand...

Seems my original thoughts about this transaction were correct after all.

Let us know the reply from Eagle Star.
 
LDFerguson said:
Seems my original thoughts about this transaction were correct after all.
Click to expand...

How did you reach that conclusion - you're very quick to pat yourself on the back!

It seems pretty clear that the PRSA Members are receiving a higher level of attention than normal because their Employer advised the PRSA Provider or Pension Adviser that Non-Standard PRSAs were to be put in place.

By the way - our lawyer has confirmed that the Company can insist on a Non-Standard PRSA if it desires, in the same way it can decide on no Company contribution at all if it desires.

Seems like your initial thoughts were quite incorrect.
 
If a Non-Standard PRSA is recommended to a client, it must be clearly explained to the client why a Non-Standard PRSA is better for the client (not the agent or employer) than a Standard PRSA.

Rohora has said s/he can't remember even being offered a choice.

So the lovely PRSA advisor didn't offer the choice of a Standard PRSA, never mind explain the difference between a Standard and a Non Standard. :mad:

Q.E.D.
 
As I already pointed out, given the choice between an Employer contribution to my PRSA of:
  • (say) 5% of salary and a (say) 1.5% fund management charge...Non-Standard PRSA
OR
  • 0% of salary and a 1% fund management charge...Standard PRSA
I guess it's a pretty simple decision to go for the former (given that it is clearly better for THE CLIENT because of the extra contribution) no matter who explains it to you :confused:
 
So your point is that the advisor was acting correctly in evading his legal obligation to explain the difference between Standard and Non Standard to the client, because the Non Standard is better?

(By the way, you're assuming that the employer is not prepared to offer employer contributions to Standard PRSAs. Nowhere in this thread is that said.)
 
I am saying that it's an easy decision to go for Non-Standard over Standard if there is an Employer Contribution to the Non-Standard and not to the Standard.

I just wanted to rubbish the remarks you made earlier in this thread about this all being to do with "commission" and bringing a bad name to the industry.

I have no knowledge of the specifics of this Company's nor of the Adviser's situation here, so cannot comment on whether any law was broken (as you imply above)...you don't have the knowledge of this specific situation either, hence your earlier remark was baseless, hence to coin your terminology: Q.E.D.
 
You suggested it was to do with commission.

You seem to have no understanding of the background to the case.

You were wrong when you said an Employer cannot choose one type of PRSA over another.

You were right on something you said were you?

I am not sure but will take your word on it.
 
Go on so, I will leave you off this time, once you can see it the rest of us will have to take your word for it.
 
rohora said:
my problem is yes with my ES policy and costs ,can i switch to a lower cost ES or just move it somewhere else

have emailed ES requesting info from below so just waiting
Click to expand...

Rohora

Was there a broker on your ES Policy?

That might be your quickest route for answers about that policy, IF there was a broker that is...
 
Fisher Black said:
I just wanted to rubbish the remarks you made earlier in this thread about this all being to do with "commission" and bringing a bad name to the industry.
Click to expand...

Please see my earlier post:

oopsbuddy said:
Liam didn't say the decision was made TO generate more commission, just that an end result is that it does generate more commission for the sales guy. No unfair comment there, just a statement of fact.
Click to expand...
 
Fergie is spot on.

The ES policy has the conventional charging structure of high initial and low onging charges, possibly even loyalty bonuses. Could be very bad advice indeed to switch now that the upfront charges have been suffered.

I do hope the sales agent has done a proper analysis of the ES policy to justify the claim that switching to a Non Standard PRSA is cost effective.

But the real issue is that it seems that a Non Standard PRSA is being promoted here without any attempt whatsoever to explain that they are far more costly than a Standard PRSA.

If, and I very much doubt it, the employer is forcing its contribution into a Non Standard PRSA Fund then the employee should implement a standing instruction to immediately switch the funds to a Standard PRSA Fund. It is after all the employee's Personal Retirement Savings Aaccount.

Does even the employer know the true difference between Standard PRSAs and Non Standard PRSAs?:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top