• The post you are reporting:
   
  I have been reading this. Ignoring the usual ignorant insults coming from Reg of course.
  
  A mixed bag story, some basis of truth, some nonsense. One of the biggest 'hidden' charges suffered by pension funds of course is the dividend tax imposed by Gordon Brown.
  
  The figures as quoted make a lot of assumptions that rarely apply in the real world.
  
  The truth is that pension charges fell dramatically after some rule changes by the PIA in 1995 and then again when stakeholder pensions were introduced. In 1997 Brown thought just providing a Stakeholder pension with low charges limited by law would have people flocking to buy them, as usual he was wrong and under his watch pension sales plummeted and that is a demographic time bomb.
  
  Charges are one part of the equation. Funny - I deal with a lot of people who built up substantial pension sums in schemes started before 1995 when charges were indeed appalling and yet it is these old pensions that these people have to thank for having quite sizeable pension funds. Far too few people have been investing into the newer cheaper pensions.
  
  Cheap, low cost pensions are easily available and such cheap pensions are right for those just starting in pension saving or have very small funds. More sophisticated schemes with higher charges create too much of a charges drag for them to be worthwhile for smaller investment and a lot of people who take them up do not benefit from the investment flexibility they provide.
  
  But, once a sizeable fund has been established and with some good advice, people can take advantage of more expensive schemes that can really pay off. Charges are less important than the right underlying investment strategy.
  
  It can be a big mistake to just go cheap with something as important as this. I certainly have not done so with my pension...
  
  What is important is for people to seek good advice and to make sure it is independent and pay a fee for the advice.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason