Stakeholder v SIPP

happyflea

..........

Loughton_Monkey

The only difference between a Stakeholder and any other pensions [in respect of charges] is that the former are limited by law to charging no more than 1½% for the first 10 years, and 1% thereafter.

In practice, I have never seen a Stakeholder charging more than 1%. But they tend to offer a limited range of funds.

In general terms, a SIPP was designed for the more sophisticated and 'higher end' pension buyer who is more interested in investments into wider vehicles than simple managed funds.

In my view, someone throwing in the 'minimum' fits rather more into 'stakeholder' territory than into SIPP territory.

dunstonh

would stakeholder be better than SIPP because lower charges?

Depends on what investments you would use. Chances are the cheapest option (assuming funds) would be a personal pension rather than stakeholder or SIPP.

HL website gives impression their SIPP is free for most funds, apart from fund annual charges of up to 1.5%

HL are known for their marketing being like that.

With a stakeholder, do they make an annual charge for administering the pension, then also an annual charge for funds e.g. 1.5%-ish like a SIPP?

The bottom line with a stakeholder is that they do not exceed 1%. Whether its charged on the funds or on the contract doesnt matter.