ISAs v Pensions: The Official Retirement Debate

fairleads

Aegis wrote: »

Why couldn't you transfer it? Stakeholder pensions are pretty much designed to receive small contributions and transfers, so I can't see why you would have been unable to transfer. I'm also confused as to what you were invested in to see a drop of nearly 70% - charges can't account for all of that, there must have been some atrociously bad investment decisions made.

The reason I say this is that it's never clear cut as to what to do. A blanket "leave it alone" ignores the possibility of cheaper alternatives, or ones with wider investment choices, while a blanket "move it away" ignores the fact that many occupational pensions have specially negotiated low charges even for deferred members. Every case needs to be assessed on its own merits to determine which course of action is likely to be better.

And adding another layer of fees no doubt.

Aegis

fairleads wrote: »

And adding another layer of fees no doubt.

Did you have something useful to add to my post? All I see is a thinly veiled attack on advisers following on from a post where I specifically claimed that in a lot of cases it would make sense to do nothing and merely advocated assessing each case on an individual basis. I'm not sure why you found that to be offensive, but perhaps you should re-read and see if you actually disagree with anything I said rather than simply trolling some sort of anti-adviser agenda.

dunstonh

The letter I got a few weeks ago informs my my pot is now £650 and my pension will be no more that £16 per year. All down to the charges.

No wonder pension companys are so RICH !!!

The benchmark charge for pensions is just 1% a year. So, a pot of just £2000 will earn the pension company £20. You think that makes pension companies rich?

At £1000 per year after 10 years you will have paid: £550, and with a fund of £100,000 you will pay £1000 per year and going up.

Factor inflation in it otherwise you end up misreading the information.

fairleads

Aegis wrote: »

Did you have something useful to add to my post? All I see is a thinly veiled attack on advisers following on from a post where I specifically claimed that in a lot of cases it would make sense to do nothing and merely advocated assessing each case on an individual basis. I'm not sure why you found that to be offensive, but perhaps you should re-read and see if you actually disagree with anything I said rather than simply trolling some sort of anti-adviser agenda.

So a statement of fact is now construed as an attack on a vested interest.

Aegis

fairleads wrote: »

So a statement of fact is now construed as an attack on a vested interest.

Given that it wasn't a statement of fact, yes. At no point did I suggest anything that would add to the fees of the pension. The only thing I said was that these cases need to be assessed on an individual basis. Such an assessment can be done by the policyholder if they know what they are looking for, in which case there is no cost for doing so.

Like I said, if you have something constructive to add to my comments, then do so. At the moment you seem to simply be trolling the issue of adviser charging rather than paying attention to what's actually being said, which isn't helping anyone at all.

Paul_Herring

fairleads wrote: »

So a statement of fact is now construed as an attack on a vested interest.

I didn't see a statement of fact - would you care to rephrase it? While not espousing your own vested interest of course....

fairleads

Aegis wrote: »

Did you have something useful to add to my post? All I see is a thinly veiled attack on advisers following on from a post where I specifically claimed that in a lot of cases it would make sense to do nothing and merely advocated assessing each case on an individual basis. I'm not sure why you found that to be offensive, but perhaps you should re-read and see if you actually disagree with anything I said rather than simply trolling some sort of anti-adviser agenda.

All I've done, for clarity's sake, is include a pertinant fact, that appraisals/ assessments by IFAs often have a cost penalty.
Why so touchy? All you need do is dissprove my statement, not launch into another unprofessional tirade that is becoming the hallmark of your trade. Further, I am not a troll. If i come across as anti-adviser, sorry, but thats just the opposite side of the coin of transparency. This messenger is not for killing.

dunstonh

not launch into another unprofessional tirade that is becoming the hallmark of your trade.

You left the industry then?

fairleads

dunstonh wrote: »

You left the industry then?

No connection. And your contribution to this aspect of the never ending cost debate is.............

atush

fairleads wrote: »

All I've done, for clarity's sake, is include a pertinant fact, that appraisals/ assessments by IFAs often have a cost penalty.
Why so touchy? All you need do is dissprove my statement, not launch into another unprofessional tirade that is becoming the hallmark of your trade. Further, I am not a troll. If i come across as anti-adviser, sorry, but thats just the opposite side of the coin of transparency. This messenger is not for killing.

You seem trollish in your constant need to pick a fight. Esp with anyone who is an advisor or says that pensions have a place in an overall investment strategy. And he never said there was a need for professionals in the case of looking over an investment/s.

I guess MSE's cost penalty is listening to your broken record;)