"Six in every ten euro in a pension pot being consumed by charges"

...Used the find function in Adobe to locate the 2.18% charge. It is the reduction in yield for a maximum commission pension. It has been discussed on here before that the RIY shows the highest charges that can be applied, so it is far from relevant from a lot of pension plans.

The next bit is the Trinity paper that is referenced. This is more of a comment than an analysis and while it gives out about the opaqueness of pension charging structures, it says nothing more than the charges are likely higher than stated.

How the writer of the Labour paper can then conclude that the charge is in fact 3% is nothing more than a guess! Which national publications have run with!!


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie
 
I think Stephen is right.

All that really needs to happen is for Financial Advisers to clearly set out the charges that actually apply to a pension to the highest possible standard available rather than the minimum regulatory standard - which in the case of pensions in Ireland is virtually non existent.

We have invested heavily in being able to set out all the real costs using very clear guidance from the UK regulator, the FCA, on what a gold standard disclosure should look like. This is informed by the EU MIFID II regulations which unfortunately don't currently apply to Irish Pensions.

So for example if you are a Company Director, like me and you want to establish a small-self administered scheme, have it professionally managed and invest in a portfolio of smart-beta funds (this is my pension by the way) then you should expect to receive something like this

1618998078575.png




1618998125971.png


So, that's ex-ante cost disclosure but how do real investors do compared to all the "traditional" fund offerings? Well, we track that too

1619097552579.png


Or over 9 years here which we believe clearly demonstrates that this approach is better value than life company unit-linked offerings.



If consumers demand this level of clarity then it is down to pension companies to provide it. If they can't or won't then consumers should vote with their feet.

As we can see consumers can access an unbundled Emerging Markets equity index fund in an Irish pension on a like for like basis for a wholesale cost of

0.40 Pension trust (0.50% PRSA)
0.16% OCF
0.56% Total

Advice and investment management are costed separately unlike the case with a life company contract which pays for distribution by manipulating allocation rates and AMCs and early surrender penalties.

In fact we have only just submitted a proposal for a client with a flat fee trustee of €2000pa and reduced fee custodian of 0.1% and a flat advice fee of €2,500pa. So on their €2m pension the whole package comes in at 0.325%pa.

So for investors with more than €100,000 we are clearly able to provide a more transparent and higher value advice service and my average client has over €1m to invest. But we don’t aim to provide an execution only discount brokerage for DIY investors. We are a Chartered financial planning firm.

We generally recommend that for smaller pension funds and small regular contributions a life company is the best option and my team can do that as well but it’s not our first choice.

Naturally we don’t set out to be the cheapest in the market as we don’t see our value as simply offering the cheapest solution but what we can say is that we are consistently more transparent which we believe is more important as this debate is showing.

The distinguishing features of our Wealth Management service are our expertise, transparency and willingness to challenge the status quo for the benefit of our client

As we say, “integrity is always doing the right thing, even when no one is watching”

Marc Westlake
Chartered Certified and European Financial Planner
www.globalwealth.ie
 
Last edited:
It's not apples with apples. A pension fund is a highly regulated savings product with a lot more regulation and reporting requirements than an investment product, so the cost is obviously going to be higher

Other than the report, I don't think anyone really has much issue with the costs being higher. We are after all paying for a service.
It is more the level of costs + the way they aren't transparent. The repeated message is that the published figures are wrong, trust us, it'll actually be lower.

The breakdown @Marc has provided above would, imo, be perfect to highlight the fees. Sure it would need to be customised for different customers, but we are in the computerised world so I can't see any real blocker to a company filling in a template like that when producing the yearly report.
 
Now we can see that the real difference between the index and the fund is 1.42%pa
So, 1.42% versus a disclosed cost of 1.00%, right?

That's still lower than accessing an EM tracker through your unbundled offering @1.61%.
 
0.40 Pension trust (0.50% PRSA)
0.16% OCF
0.56% Total
Which certainly seems competitive until you realise that you have pay a further 1.05% in advisory and investment management fees just to access that product.

While I genuinely applaud the transparency of your unbundled offering, I don’t think you have made out your case yet that your offering is better value than unit-linked pension products offered by life companies. However, I would be happy to be convinced otherwise.
 
On a self administered pension, you can get all of that for about 1.1%. A long way from 3.25%
...

Steven
Steven would this be best case? Been running some projections in recent days and obviously fees can change things massively. What % should I assume as someone only starting to build a pension. 1.5% of pot per annum all in?
 
Brokers Ireland have commissioned a report debunking many of the false claims that were reported last month. It can be read here.
 
There is a lot written in there about how clear the fee structures are from his members that does not marry with my experience of trying to get some fairly basic information over the last couple of years.
 
There is a lot written in there about how clear the fee structures are from his members that does not marry with my experience of trying to get some fairly basic information over the last couple of years.

Agreed. The pensions industry here could do an awful lot more in terms of communicating charges in a transparent and jargon-free manner. Some good suggestions in this thread on that subject.
 
Brokers Ireland have commissioned a report debunking many of the false claims that were reported last month
This report is as bad as the original report it is trying to debunk.

The author states that there is full disclosure by life assurance companies of charges and the impact of those charges on the pension product. However, he then details the "additional charges" (ranging from 0.09% to 0.18%) that need to be added to the disclosed costs to arrive at a product's TER!

The solution to this issue is really very simple - life assurance companies should be required to disclose a complete and accurate ongoing charges figure (OCF) for all unit-linked contracts.

The ongoing failure of the Central Bank to insist on this very basic disclosure is a scandal IMO. :mad:
 
Last edited:
After a bit of hounding, I eventually got TER figures from my occupational pension provider for their funds. The passive global equity fund is a very reasonable 0.21% (the AMC is 0.18%). Honestly I'm surprised it's that low, but the TER is just that, right? Are there any other probing questions I should be asking?
 
Just a quick question that I don't think is worth a new thread;

If I leave my employer, do the fees/AMC's on my DC pension change?
 
Back
Top