Pension review of review
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sussex
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pension review of review
I arranged for an IFA to review my pensions over a years ago, probably 18 months ago now.
I have recently received the report which indicates a growth of only 4.2% without taking my contributions into account. I'm on a risk level of 4 (out of 10).
Does this sound reasonable ? Where do you get your review of a pension review done ?
cheers
sean
I have recently received the report which indicates a growth of only 4.2% without taking my contributions into account. I'm on a risk level of 4 (out of 10).
Does this sound reasonable ? Where do you get your review of a pension review done ?
cheers
sean
#6
Pensions are a con no idea what you will get at the end if your employer is involved then he can cut it at a wim
if you can only afford a small amount you would be better off spending it and living on benefits
if you can only afford a small amount you would be better off spending it and living on benefits
#7
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sussex
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks all, also charges for this IFA are 0.5% of the value of the pension fund (per annum but paid monthly from pension fund ie 1/12 of 0.5% paid monthly. They perform annual reviews and re-structuring, but so far I seem to have to prompt them for any kind of review.
Trending Topics
#8
Im on a more adventurous setting, 8/10 and fund grew 9.3 last year, Im only 29 so not fussed about YOY fluctuations.
Adrian, pensions are free money and a good source of tax relief Bugger living on benefits in old age.
#9
Scooby Regular
Do they automatically review and rebalance your pension but don't contact you or do you have to contact them and then they do the review?
If they aren't doing it automatically it might be worth a mention. However, if they are reviewing and rebalancing and they've done a proper risk profile on you to produce a 4 that has equated to a portfolio of funds that has returned 4.2% net then IMHO they are not doing too bad a job.
I work in an IFA practice and we provide a minimum of 1 review a year. Its all diarised so this months reviews flag up on the 28th of the previous month. Minimum is a letter providing our views of the market, a comment on thier portfolio performance and agreement that they are happy for us to auto-rebalance or if we feel the need, a fund switch.
If they aren't doing it automatically it might be worth a mention. However, if they are reviewing and rebalancing and they've done a proper risk profile on you to produce a 4 that has equated to a portfolio of funds that has returned 4.2% net then IMHO they are not doing too bad a job.
I work in an IFA practice and we provide a minimum of 1 review a year. Its all diarised so this months reviews flag up on the 28th of the previous month. Minimum is a letter providing our views of the market, a comment on thier portfolio performance and agreement that they are happy for us to auto-rebalance or if we feel the need, a fund switch.
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anything positive is good ATM. IIRC two years ago -30%, last year +20%, this year +5%.
#11
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sussex
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im 38 and im expecting these pensions to provide 75% of my required income. The ifa advised a risk level of 4 is probably too low and would recommend at least 5,so i'm thinking 6 would give me closer to the 7%minimum growth p.a. i want.
Does his charges seem reasonable?
Does his charges seem reasonable?
#12
Scooby Regular
We aim for a total charge of 2% or less a year. Fund charges, provider charges and our charge. If you do some research you'll find that is particularly cheap.
RB5 336. If you increase your risk rating you are increasing your risk of losses. It doesn't always equate that a higher risk rating will provide a higher return. However with say another 30 years to retirement you have time on your side to recover and improve on any losses. The risk should be backed off closer to retirement age.
The charge is industry standard - you might like to find out what your total charges are - fund charges and provider charges. I would however give them a flea in the ear if its you that has to initiate the review.
Last edited by EddScott; 06 March 2012 at 02:06 PM.
#14
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sussex
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No i didnt say salary. I said of my pension income. The point being its important the pension grows inline with expectations,rather than being insignificant.
#16
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (7)
Pensions, your all mad, i used to the prudential i think, anyway big pension company based in leicester, they bought most of a village, built a giant head quarters, landscaped japanese water gardens, with statues that cost 20 to 50k for a chunk of rock or lump of metal.
They all drove top of the range audi's, bmw's and merc's as well as any other top of the range car you care to mention, and everyone was on a big fat salary,and thought it was fantastic.
Needless to say my money is invested in a farm house on a hill, that i'm turning into 2x2 bed apartments and one 3 bed with a pool to let to tourists.
And i'll take the bog standard state pension, along with some shares from a couple of the top 100.
Pension companies are there to rob as much as possible for themselves in the form of fat salaries and perks and are a waste of money, make your own plan, that way all the money goes to you and yours not some fat cat.
They all drove top of the range audi's, bmw's and merc's as well as any other top of the range car you care to mention, and everyone was on a big fat salary,and thought it was fantastic.
Needless to say my money is invested in a farm house on a hill, that i'm turning into 2x2 bed apartments and one 3 bed with a pool to let to tourists.
And i'll take the bog standard state pension, along with some shares from a couple of the top 100.
Pension companies are there to rob as much as possible for themselves in the form of fat salaries and perks and are a waste of money, make your own plan, that way all the money goes to you and yours not some fat cat.
#17
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sussex
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of us aren't stupid enough to put all our eggs (dosh) into just one basket (a pension pot).
I certainly am concerned with other people milking my pension pot, hence ensuring i'm getting good returns on it, rather than lining other people's pockets. Getting 4.2% from an investment from my gross salary isn't too bad it seems, but I'm hoping to do better next year.
I certainly am concerned with other people milking my pension pot, hence ensuring i'm getting good returns on it, rather than lining other people's pockets. Getting 4.2% from an investment from my gross salary isn't too bad it seems, but I'm hoping to do better next year.
Last edited by rb5_336; 07 March 2012 at 08:58 AM.
#18
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (7)
I was not suggesting that you were stupid just sharing my experience, 4% in the current market is indeed ok, it's just with what i have seen them doing with other peoples money left me cold, and with the recent history with all of these plans and the state that these companies have put themselves in, with little or no accountability, and as usual it seems not to affect those in positions of power, it's no suprise when you see first hand the attitude of these people.
Just a word from the wise.
And sorry for the thread hijack, but it boils my pee, having seen it happen time and time again to people that have put bags of cash into plans to end up with next to nothing when they most need it.
Edit to add; what you get year on year still does not guarantee what you will get at the end.
Just a word from the wise.
And sorry for the thread hijack, but it boils my pee, having seen it happen time and time again to people that have put bags of cash into plans to end up with next to nothing when they most need it.
Edit to add; what you get year on year still does not guarantee what you will get at the end.
Last edited by ditchmyster; 07 March 2012 at 09:14 AM.
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sussex
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm certainly with you on having a distaste for such things, that's why currently only around 1/4 of my pension funds are with a pension, the rest, like yourself, are i nmy own property portfolio. I also intend to start to use the ISA route to saving next year to have a 3rd pension pot essentially.
The whole point of this thread was to evaluate 2 things. 1) Were my gains inline with the rest of the marked and 2) is my IFA milking my pension pot.
The answers above seem to indicate the answers of yes and no
cheers all
Sean
The whole point of this thread was to evaluate 2 things. 1) Were my gains inline with the rest of the marked and 2) is my IFA milking my pension pot.
The answers above seem to indicate the answers of yes and no
cheers all
Sean
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But also ditchy my employer matches my contribution +1%, so a no-brainer really.
To clarify; their management fee is 0.5% of salary per month.
So if I contribute 5%, the company adds 6%, then 10.5% reaches my fund.
However, the company has now realised that people who leave and stop making contributions are not paying any management fee, so things will be changing.
To clarify; their management fee is 0.5% of salary per month.
So if I contribute 5%, the company adds 6%, then 10.5% reaches my fund.
However, the company has now realised that people who leave and stop making contributions are not paying any management fee, so things will be changing.
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Employer contributions and tax deferral are the bribes that pull people in.
Parasitic managers/fees, underperformance, moving goalposts and usually loss of the capital are the sting in the tail.
It sounds like the management fee is going to take that 10.5% down to 10% then speedking, which is nearly 5%. Without the requirement to pay this to get the employer's contribution I bet you'd rather not pay these exorbitant fees for someone to make multiple page automated pdfs every year to justify their crap about it being balanced or cautious or other such nonsense they peddle. The only guarantee with this lot is that they will underperform for you and overperform for themselves.
Still, you're over a barrel if you want that employer contribution.
Parasitic managers/fees, underperformance, moving goalposts and usually loss of the capital are the sting in the tail.
It sounds like the management fee is going to take that 10.5% down to 10% then speedking, which is nearly 5%. Without the requirement to pay this to get the employer's contribution I bet you'd rather not pay these exorbitant fees for someone to make multiple page automated pdfs every year to justify their crap about it being balanced or cautious or other such nonsense they peddle. The only guarantee with this lot is that they will underperform for you and overperform for themselves.
Still, you're over a barrel if you want that employer contribution.
#23
Scooby Regular
Employer contributions and tax deferral are the bribes that pull people in.
Parasitic managers/fees, underperformance, moving goalposts and usually loss of the capital are the sting in the tail.
It sounds like the management fee is going to take that 10.5% down to 10% then speedking, which is nearly 5%. Without the requirement to pay this to get the employer's contribution I bet you'd rather not pay these exorbitant fees for someone to make multiple page automated pdfs every year to justify their crap about it being balanced or cautious or other such nonsense they peddle. The only guarantee with this lot is that they will underperform for you and overperform for themselves.
Still, you're over a barrel if you want that employer contribution.
Parasitic managers/fees, underperformance, moving goalposts and usually loss of the capital are the sting in the tail.
It sounds like the management fee is going to take that 10.5% down to 10% then speedking, which is nearly 5%. Without the requirement to pay this to get the employer's contribution I bet you'd rather not pay these exorbitant fees for someone to make multiple page automated pdfs every year to justify their crap about it being balanced or cautious or other such nonsense they peddle. The only guarantee with this lot is that they will underperform for you and overperform for themselves.
Still, you're over a barrel if you want that employer contribution.
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point I was making is that that is a % of the contributions. After a few years it will only be a small percentage of the total investment.
The OP said his fees were 0.5% of the Pension Fund, hence my comparison.
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Still lining the pockets of the pensions managers to get the aforementioned bribes. Without those bribes you might consider it poor value?
Do they have any other hidden charges as well as these headline charges? One I looked at played around with investing x% of your contribution in year a,b,c etc. They sounded remarkably generous at year 5 when they are investing "105%" of your contribution into the scheme. That was of course 105% of less than the total as there were other fees. It was opacity to fool the investor and line the pockets of the manager/scheme.
They also had a trick where if the policy was revised or updated then they would drop your allocation units again to cream off their fees for "advising" you.
At least Dick Turpin wore a mask, or did he and I've mixed up my fairy tales?
Do they have any other hidden charges as well as these headline charges? One I looked at played around with investing x% of your contribution in year a,b,c etc. They sounded remarkably generous at year 5 when they are investing "105%" of your contribution into the scheme. That was of course 105% of less than the total as there were other fees. It was opacity to fool the investor and line the pockets of the manager/scheme.
They also had a trick where if the policy was revised or updated then they would drop your allocation units again to cream off their fees for "advising" you.
At least Dick Turpin wore a mask, or did he and I've mixed up my fairy tales?
Last edited by john banks; 08 March 2012 at 02:15 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Suby786
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
0
19 September 2015 04:31 PM
WRXrowdy
Computer & Technology Related
6
15 September 2015 08:56 PM