@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.