Pension with Scottish Widows Consensus fund

jinkster

I currently have a pension with Scottish Widows from my previous employer. Its in the Consensus fund - circa £25,000 in the fund.

Is it worth me switching the pension to a different manager? Is it worth switching the pension to a different fund. I am 32 and looking for something more adventurous (risky). I haven't paid into the pension for 6 months (since leaving my old employer).

Should I keep it topped up? I have been told if I pay £20/ month then the management fees will reduce from 1% to 0.45% - sounds like a no brainer.

Happy for any advice.

bigadaj

Definitely pay in the nominal account for reduced charges, as you say this is a no brainer.

Otherwise it seems to have performed very averagely amongst its peers, so wouldn't rush to change, do some research and give it some thought.

You can certainly go for higher risk, and potentially reward, options. But you'll need to give this some thoughit and research.

Al.

Jinkster,

Don't underestimate the value to you of those find charge rebates. Instead of changing fund manager, ask why you want to change. Could you move the fund within the existing manager?

Have you got a plan, what does your pension need to make for you? If you need to take risk, why take it!

Scottish Widows though, as said - distinctly average!! But try and think top down, see the big picture.

jinkster

I am finding the whole IT system very clunky. I've had 3 x passwords posted in the past few months and it only seems to be available between 9 and 5 Monday to Friday.

Scottish Widows do not seem to give any advice. Talk about charges within the funds etc.

Im in the Consensus fund and ask to ask which Consensus fund as there seems to be various 'series' of the fund.

I joined my previous employers scheme basically because it was free money. I have my own grand plans for retirement so this is just free money to play with. I'm 32 so can afford to take a risk.

dunstonh

SW's product is not designed to have decent online functionality. Its a simple system to cater for simple products which match the requirements of the average consumer.

Scottish Widows do not seem to give any advice.

That is because they are not advisers.

Im in the Consensus fund and ask to ask which Consensus fund as there seems to be various 'series' of the fund.

There are different versions to cater for different types of pension over the years.

Al.

jinkster wrote: »

I am finding the whole IT system very clunky. I've had 3 x passwords posted in the past few months and it only seems to be available between 9 and 5 Monday to Friday.

Scottish Widows do not seem to give any advice. Talk about charges within the funds etc.

Im in the Consensus fund and ask to ask which Consensus fund as there seems to be various 'series' of the fund.

I joined my previous employers scheme basically because it was free money. I have my own grand plans for retirement so this is just free money to play with. I'm 32 so can afford to take a risk.

It's an appalling system; in this day and age, there's no excuse for it. If other companies can provide modest savers with a decent system which offers a good experience, why can't Scottish Widows?

No excuses.

Loughton_Monkey

Scottish Widows Consensus Fund is in the sector "Mixed fund 40% - 85% Shares". As such, this is a very 'vanilla flavoured' sector with lots of funds available in it. Personally, I would suggest a 32 year old ought to be thinking a little bit more adventurously, with virtually 100% in equities, albeit spread around a bit more.... UK, USA, India, Far East.....

Your SW scheme has low charges, but a useful exercise for you might be to pour through Trustnet. Take the above-mentioned sector for example. At the time of writing, I can see almost 30 providers who returned double digit growth in the last 12 months whereas SW produced <5% I believe.

Go through every fund focus and see where SW are ranked. I don't want to knock them. I have used them in the past. They are a solid, trustworthy company with decent service.... but I find their fund performance generally lacklustre.

Many of us choose to invest via a 'platform' that provides funds from a very wide range of managers (JPM, Invesco, Newton, Fidelity et al..). Some would say that lower charges are available from a 'single' provider with funds in almost every sector, but you need to ask if they are 'good' at investing in UK and China and Property and India etc. Personally I say no.

I find it useful to decide first of all 'where I want to be', and having decided that, I do extensive research into those fund providers who seem to "know their onions" in that flavour of fund. This approach has not let me down.

When (as occasionally happens) something goes a bit wobbly, then I find, with hindsight, that my judgement on "where I want to be" turned out to be a bit unfortunate. But that's 100% my own responsibility. I have rarely (if ever) been let down by my pick of which fund manager to use. Past performance does not guarantee the future, but I find that (with hindsight) virtually all my funds have delivered top decile performance for their focus and sector.

Back to your question "should I keep it topped up?", I would answer a very strong "Yes! You should contribute as much as you can to a pension". How and where you do it is a different issue.

nearlyrich

My company switched to SW for our pension scheme last year they have the worst on line experience going I have had more frustrations with it than the rest of my financial affairs combined.

dunstonh

Al. wrote: »

It's an appalling system; in this day and age, there's no excuse for it. If other companies can provide modest savers with a decent system which offers a good experience, why can't Scottish Widows?

No excuses.

We know why Scottish Widows cant. They are owned by Lloyds Bank. No insurance company has thrived under bank ownership. Lloyds has chewed up and spat out several over the years. The banks starve them of money and turn once well regarded brands into obsolete dinosaurs.

Scottish Widows were good in their day. Now they havent got a single product that offers anything of value. That said, if you do have someone who doesnt care for internet access and only wants the annual statement and nothing else, their product is still suitable because the simplicity means they cant actually do too much wrong. it will never be best but it will never be worst.

Al.

Some of the trackers come close to 1% and have a tracking error you could drive a bus through; it would rather lose a little through seepage than spend a lot to keep the client bank.

xylophone

to pour through Trustne

Pore over the information in Trustnet?:)