Pizz Poor Pension Fund Retuns?

missile

I shall not respond to any other banal comments.

mgdavid

missile wrote: »

I shall not respond to any other banal comments.

Oh dear...

atush

missile wrote: »

I shall not respond to any other banal comments.

It is not banal to ask what th actual investment was (and not an amalgamation).

PeacefulWaters

missile wrote: »

I shall not respond to any other banal comments.

You're in danger of putting a bag over your head and running out of the room shouting nanu nanu shazbot.

There is something wrong somewhere. You've chosen to believe it is the investments. While not impossible, it seems highly unlikely.

This suggests the firms involved have either provided incomplete information or incorrect information.

I'd recommend taking a far less defensive attitude to other posters than you are doing. They might just help you identify where the issue is and find a larger sum of money than you think there is,

missile

atush wrote: »

It is not banal to ask what th actual investment was (and not an amalgamation).

It is when that information has already been posted and commented on :A

Apodemus

Missile, please keep an open mind on the advice you have been given. Most of the posters above have huge experience and no axe to grind. They are trying desperately to help you. Please at least consider the possibility that they may be correct.

justme111

[QUOTE=dunstonh;71914

Why are you so willing to accept something that is clearly wrong?

Because it is written as an official report by authorities? Let's be honest, one would not usually challenge people in a position of authority when one has no knowledge on the topic.

Correct. She should have monitored them better.
It is not the remit of the pension provider or the employer to make those decisions.

.

Inflammatory statement. Most people do not have expertise to chose investments and pension scheme paperwork is written in very technical language. If you had solar panels installed on your house and were disappointed you were paying more for electricity after doing it how would you appreciate someone stating it could not been the case and you should have installed them yourself to avoid it happening ?

dunstonh

Because it is written as an official report by authorities? Let's be honest, one would not usually challenge people in a position of authority when one has no knowledge on the topic.

However, when told that the information supplied looks wrong and why it looks wrong by multiple people, it is strange to then attack those people.

It isnt as if we have just said its wrong and left it at that. We have explained why it looks wrong.

Inflammatory statement. Most people do not have expertise to chose investments and pension scheme paperwork is written in very technical language. If you had solar panels installed on your house and were disappointed you were paying more for electricity after doing it how would you appreciate someone stating it could not been the case and you should have installed them yourself to avoid it happening ?

I can't see how your solar panels example compares with the situation as you are comparing DIY vs paying someone to do it for you.

As for expertise, you are correct. Most do not. Which is why so many people end up in the medium risk default fund that will never be the best but never be the worst. In the case of the Aegon pension, that is exactly the fund she is in. A half decent medium risk fund with sector average performance over the long term and the last three years have been above average. In the period mentioned, it has grown by 5.5% p.a. after charges.

It seems that missile wants us to agree with his rant and that any different point of view or comment pointing out errors/misunderstandings gets attacked. A very strange thing to do when people are trying to help point out there is an issue.

justme111

We agree that most do not have expertise and end up in medium performing funds and dare I guess they are happy with it. You and others were saying though "you should have had more expertise and not leave it to others". Hearing they should have had skills they don't and not rely on people they are supposed to rely on due to them not being competent in this area is hurtful and unfair at the best of times let alone coupled with an official statement saying their work pension lost 50%
The end result is good - the guy been empowered and informed enough to question ehat appears to be misunderstanding or incomplete information and I am sure he is greatful for it. It could been done without telling him how wrong he was in his past actions given that he does not have and can not be expected to have expertise for doing anything differently.

dunstonh

You and others were saying though "you should have had more expertise and not leave it to others".

Not quite. Missile was blaming the employer and the pension provider for his wife's choices. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Aegon fund selection. It is exactly the type of fund she should be in. It is a good fund for someone that doesnt understand investments and doesnt know what to do. A good default fund with good performance for what it is.

Hearing they should have had skills they don't and not rely on people they are supposed to rely on due to them not being competent in this area is hurtful and unfair at the best of times let alone coupled with an official statement saying their work pension lost 50%

The employer is no more competent to select funds than the individual. The provider is not allowed to pick funds. So, blaming both of them is not correct.

If we are getting to the point where we cannot correct misunderstandings or point out errors or issues then there is little point of this site existing.

Is it "fairer" to let them remain in ignorance or provide the correct information to give better understanding?