Do you have a pension?

QuinDixie

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh that is true, and pension funds are usually quite conservative with their investments.
But in 2007, 2008 the markets as we know it nearly ended and the full ramifications of that time have not been allowed to play out yet.
The state and private debt globally will cause further scares like recently and that will alter our economies including our pensions in the future.

I am not saying not to pay into a pension, but I am saying is people should not compare private pension payments of today to what will be available to them in 20 - 30 years.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

kazamo

Ronnie Worried Workaholic wrote: »

Not at all. But why pick someone up on an expression by twisting what was said? You obviously just like to stir things. :)

I didn't twist anything.
I answered a query from another poster which was seized upon by another who wished to bring the time value of money aspect into it.
This thread which you will admit is already complicated enough without bring in the future value of 10k today. I didn't wish to raise this aspect although was tempted to earlier in the thread based on one of my own pension statements.

So here goes based on my own PRSA
Projected Fund Value at your retirement date 182k
What your pension fund could be worth at retirement (in todays terms) 99k
What your monthly income could be when you retire (in today's terms) 340.55
I am 21 years away from retirement so based on the above there will be a 45% reduction in spending power in 21 years. Not even going into the annuity rate at this point.


So now we go back to the earlier example of 50k salary aged 30 retiring at 68 and annual contribution of 7k

On retirement 25k pension split 13k private and 12k state.
Based on reduction in spending power in 38 years ......45% divided by 21 x 38 leaves a 81% reduction

13k state pension reduced to 2,470 in today's terms
12k state pension reduced to 2,280 in todays terms

So pension of 25k would be worth 4,750 in todays terms.


Now this is based on my own PRSA pension statements dated January 2015.


I get the prudent planning and saving for the future and especially the tax relief, but the idea even half the 4m people in Ireland will each have a pension pot of at least one million on retirement is a nice idea but just that, an idea.

I would have had a similar view to you re pensions in the past and I have always paid attention to my pension plan but unsure of the logic of them (especially when 100% self funding) other than a means of saving tax.

The pension levy disturbs me but also the realisation that on retirement my private pension income will probably count against me when being assessed for a contributory old age pension.
We don't need to go far for a comparable example.
The fair deal scheme for nursing home care has people who have saved prudently all their lives and invested in pensions living side by side
with others without a cent of income other than the non contributory old age pension.
Doesn't seem a fair deal to me

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

kazamo

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My advice would be if you have a DB scheme or an employer helping to fund your pension pot, take advantage of that and maximise the free money

Outside of that, it's down to tax relief mainly and a less clear cut choice.

KomradeBishop

Phoebas wrote: »

KomradeBishop wrote:

Portfolio theory is marketing, it bears no resemblance to the real world, where unexpected events happen to wipe out large amounts of value from individual investments - without that being restored in the next market 'upswing'.

Really, start googling 'portfolio theory criticism' and the like - it is total nonsense.

And if you google 'moon landing faked' you'll get lots of evidence that the moon landings were faked.

Ah yes, the "everyone who disagrees with me is a conspiracy theorist" argument :rolleyes:

I mean, lets analyse this a bit further - you're implying that "start googling 'portfolio theory criticism' and the like" = 'start googling conspiracy theories'.

So you're effectively implying, that any criticism of portfolio theory, is a conspiracy theory - which just displays completely blind belief and lack of critical thinking on your part, and of those thanking your post.

Does this only apply to 'portfolio theory' or does googling "*insert any subject here* criticism" also = 'google conspiracy theories'?


If posters are actually trying to dissuade people from googling criticism of the investing methods that these pension funds use, then you have to wonder whether people on the thread are really just trying to blindly sell the idea of pensions to posters.

KomradeBishop

Worth remembering as well, that many of same posters warning of a 'pensions crisis' on other threads - particularly a 'public pensions crisis', when the exact same criticisms applied to that (greater difference in proportion of young vs old pension contributors), those criticisms apply to private pensions too (but you won't hear them criticize private pensions for that...) - many of those same posters are here trying to sell the idea of private pensions to people.

KomradeBishop

Ronnie Worried Workaholic wrote: »

You do not understand pensions.

Oh look, a poster pulling the 'intellectual trump card' - funny that, you were trying to back posts attempting to criticize me of that earlier.

KomradeBishop

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ya and multiple brokers have been fined for mis-selling these financial instruments, without disclosing the risks involved with them, causing loads of investors to lose money - which ProShares was brought to court over, but where only brokers of their ETF's were successfully fined.

If you hold those ETF shares more than one day, you are likely to make losses, despite the companies claims:
http://www.stopbrokerfraud.com/beware-improper-use-of-proshares-etfs_1.html

These are exactly the kind of thing that people should stay well away from, unless they are properly trained and are experts at investing, as there are all sorts of complex financial instruments that get mis-sold to people, that end up being misleading and creating losses.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

QuinDixie wrote: »

what is this magical private pension you have.
How can it be paying anything exciting if there is more being paid out than in. It is not possible due to 2007 and 2008 when the markets took a beating.
Are you in a public sector pension, this is different to a private pension.

As I stated previously, in the coming years Pension funds both private and public payments will be affected by inflation, poor investment yields and an ageing pop.

There will still be pensions but the payments will very low due to cuts and taxes compared to what the grey brigade are getting now.:)

Not all pension funds were wiped out. I'm not naming ours but there massive funds available and sufficient to pay all members to an average age of 85. It also pays CPI +1% minimum increase each year. Well managed funds didn't disappear with the stock market drop. Private sector pension.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Oh look, a poster pulling the 'intellectual trump card' - funny that, you were trying to back posts attempting to criticize me of that earlier.

Oh look a poster taking a small piece of a post out of context completely in order to try to show some superiority when they have no actual content to add. Come off it with the constant knocking of people and stick to the discussion at hand.

At this return to nonsense. I'm gone.

KomradeBishop

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah so I used an apostrophe to indicate plural, when it was not strictly needed in the obscure case of acronyms, therefore the content of my post is invalid - right :rolleyes: (I see there are still some 'intellectual trump cards' flying around)

You present it as 'fraud' with a scare quote (oh dear, misuse of apostrophes again...), as if it is not really fraud - yet I have shown that brokers have been fined for fraudulently mis-selling those ETF's in the past.

earlyevening

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Love it! Couldn't agree more.

KomradeBishop

Ronnie Worried Workaholic wrote: »

Oh look a poster taking a small piece of a post out of context completely in order to try to show some superiority when they have no actual content to add. Come off it with the constant knocking of people and stick to the discussion at hand.

At this return to nonsense. I'm gone.

Well actually, pulling you out on your hypocrisy is adding something - which wasn't out of context either (and unless you hadn't noticed, you're not the only poster I replied to in the last page or so...).

Drumpot

I have to refrain from responding to some of the barstool drivel being posted.

The best advice anybody can take from this thread is do not take any advice from a forum whereby the advice given has zero ramifications for the people giving it.

Sure, you can get bad advice from a broker or Pension company, but you do actually have some way of disputing it if it goes wrong. Many claims/complaints against brokers/pension companies end up with clients getting their funds back. That's why there is the investor compensation scheme.

If you take bad advice from some of the posters on this thread and it goes wrong, all you can do is come back here and complain. What ramifications will they face if they give poor advice?

As a financial broker I have my own cynical view of the industry but in many regards its like a wolf dressed in wolf clothing. I mean, most people know that there is corruption and immoral vested interests pushed in our industry, but that doesn't mean its all bad. In many industrys there are loads of immoral/unethical practises, but people either dont care or dont hear about it, so lets not pretend that financial services industry has a exclusive hold over unethical behaviour (politics, public services, healthcare, charities etc etc etc).

I had a great discussion with my doctor last week. I go through bouts of anxiety and depression regularly and when I feel this way I get very down about my job. I was talking to him about how I hate the way I have to rely (to a degree) on information from Major Pension providers who I actually don't fully trust. I regularly have crisis of conscience trying to decide if what I am doing is right for my client or is it what the industry is telling is best for them!

He started to share that he felt something similar with regards to the pharmacutical companies. He said that he has patients, i have clients and in both cases these are usually people who trust our guidance. He has drug companies advising on certain drugs and I have certain financial institions advising on their investment products. We both want solutions that meet our clients/pateints needs but it can be difficult to decide if this advice is best for them or is something that we have been convicned is right by the bigger companies. Life just isnt that straight forward, no matter how simple people try to make it out to be.

For example, 4 months ago I advised a client (who has another broker looking after their pension), to move to cash. This person is 18 months from retirement, yet they were still invested in medium risk investments. At the time, I asked them what their priority was and they said "that what I have now will be there when I draw it down". The markets had been shooting up and their adviser didnt tell them to move any of their funds.

The advice I gave was to move 80% of their funds into cash, that will go down circa 1.5% over the term (charges). The remaining 20% could be left in medium risk investments with only 1 fifth of the return/loss to try and cover the management charges. An acceptable level of risk.

Their son in law (investments specialist) wanted to read my advice and know why I was recommending cash. The recent events in china have pretty much clarified why. I was speaking with this client yesterday and they were extremely grateful and happy that they dont have to worry about the current volatility. But the industry would generally frown on cash and in many regards the industry can be very bullish about other peoples money (that annoys me).

For the record, its my aunty and the other broker is a friend of their employer so they only maintain their pension to not upset their employer!

Some of the most personally satisfying work I do pays little but allows me to get the most for a client at the pension providers expense. Like many people come to me when they arent happy with their retirement options and in some cases I can get them better options. 2 weeks ago I helped a woman get €64k tax free lump sum after they had been given retirement options offering them a max of €29k. I also managed to get them to use the balance of their funds for an AMRF (as opposed to Annuity) which meant they didnt waste 26k on a 58 year old annuity!

Why do I post this here? Not because I am perfect, but because not all brokers are the kind of immoral leeches some people are trying to suggest.

I must also state that while the comissions paid to brokers can create a conflict of interest, in most cases the comissions paid by differant companies is the same and in my experience (asides from doing the right thing) there is little benefit to screwing a client for a once off gain.

I know there are some brokers who go with the comission and churn (move business regularly from company to company for comissions) business but these are becoming fewer because of regulation. In some cases it makes sense for the client to move and in some cases its a case of older brokers growing up in a differant sales culture. I am not excusing bad advice, but its not a simple case of them being bad people, no more then a doctor always advising medication (because hes not sure what else to advice) is a bad person or looking to do wrong by their patient.

PS. I am not saying being a doctor is the same as being a financial broker. I was quoting my doctor comparing an element of our profession.

sunnysoutheast

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Might be a dip now if that train does turn out to be full of Nazi gold

sunnysoutheast

kazamo wrote: »

My advice would be if you have a DB scheme or an employer helping to fund your pension pot, take advantage of that and maximise the free money

Outside of that, it's down to tax relief mainly and a less clear cut choice.

I agree. It's also down to "life stage" I would say. Whilst the advice earlier to start as early as possible is wise to leverage compounding effects I wouldn't suggest prioritising pension payments over saving for a home deposit or emergency fund, for example.

In the long term the most important factor is probably the development of good financial habits at an early stage, whether you put the money in a pension or not. Minimising unnecessary spending, avoiding non-mortgage debt if possible, commitment to saving will all make a huge difference. I never cease to be amazed at what people will waste their money on.

KomradeBishop

Drumpot wrote: »

...

How are you meant to dispute bad advice when a pension goes wrong? In many cases it will be a decade+ or you'll be well on your way to retirement before you even find out, in many cases, at which stage it's too late - and it's the state that is liable for bailing people out then (and only in specific circumstances, up to ~40% of the pension).

The only people on this thread actually offering advice, are those advising going into pension funds - most others having been pointing out the risks of pension funds, and usually the closest to advice from those pointing out risks, is stating what they personally will do, rather than advising anyone to follow the same path (and stating what you personally would do, is not the same as endorsing that as advice).

It's good that you are aware of the conflicts of interest in your industry, and are cognizant about trying to provide a good deal for your clients - but what you have described there actually completely justifies the criticisms of this industry, as you have just admitted yourself, that even as a broker you don't actually know if all of what you're selling is of sound quality, because you have to rely on non-transparent information from pension providers.

That is a massive conflict of interest on the part of pension providers. That's exactly the kind of thing I've been criticising throughout the whole thread.

So, while it's good you are aware of all that and I sympathise, having good intentions doesn't cut it, because there is much to criticize about the whole industry there - and it should make people take pause and be very concerned.


Nobody was focusing all of their attention on brokers either - there's reason to be concerned at multiple levels of financial services, with brokers really only being the point of contact.

You're focusing on deliberate bad behaviour as well. The entire problem with the financial/banking industry is the culture, where certain fraudulent practices are not actually viewed as being bad - and where a lot of the fraud in the industry is caused by creating 'perverse incentives' (incentivizing people to act in unethical ways, usually through money, but with a culture that doesn't view that as unethical).

People are great at fooling themselves into thinking that what they are doing is ok, because almost everyone has a need to feel that they are a good person (so there is an inherent bias for rationalizing/justifying things) - and this can extend to an entire business or even industry, where people see nothing wrong with certain practices - until regulations against those practices are suddenly enforced.

Also, why not completely ban commissions and remove that entire set of problems? I showed earlier that the UK has already done this, and they are doing fine.


Really, a lot of posts from people just come across as wanting to play-down criticism of the financial industry, and to 'big-up' the idea of pensions (though in your case it's good to see some acknowledgement of criticism-worth practices) - many posters are presenting pensions as some magical pot of growing money with zero risks (that really is how peoples advocation of them comes across...), so you can be guaranteed that that is going to attract a lot of criticism, when the reality is very different - and especially when posters have a very suspiciously defensive attitude to criticism of the pension industry.

kazamo

KomradeBishop wrote: »

How are you meant to dispute bad advice when a pension goes wrong? In many cases it will be a decade+ or you'll be well on your way to retirement before you even find out, in many cases, at which stage it's too late - and it's the state that is liable for bailing people out then (and only in specific circumstances, up to ~40% of the pension).

Unfortunately the state may be liable for bailing out DB schemes but they offloaded the cost of funding it by increasing the private pension levy.
Based on previous experience of levies, once in, they never go.


Pensions Levy
The Minister for Finance announced that he is introducing a new levy on pension funds of 0.15%. While the existing levy (of 0.6%) will be abolished after 2014, this new levy will result in an increase in the overall pensions levy for 2014 from 0.6% to 0.75%.
The new levy will be continued into 2015 at a rate of 0.15%. The Minister explained that this is being done to help to continue to fund the jobs initiative and to make provision for potential State liabilities which may emerge from pre-existing or future pension fund difficulties. Also, there was no express commitment from the Minister yesterday that this new levy will be discontinued after 2015.

http://www.irishlifecorporatebusiness.ie/budget-2014-pension-related-announcements

Drumpot

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Also, why not completely ban commissions and remove that entire set of problems? I showed earlier that the UK has already done this, and they are doing fine.
.

I do not wish to go into everything with you, because I don't completely disagree with all your sentiments.

However, There are significant downsides in the whole "banning commission" strategy. There is no guarantee that people will get better deals with Pension companies (that they will pass on the savings from not paying intermediary's). There is a greater argument to say that less people will have access to objective advice because not only will the current fees be maintained but they will have to pay separate, independent fees to get independent advice. It might mean that you can be "sure" that you are getting independent advice, but less people will most likely do this because of the extra cost, forcing most to trust banks/pension providers. So only high net worth clients will be able to afford an independent broker while yellow pack small investors will have to either do it on their own or trust big financial institutions bias financial advice.

Right now, a person can contact me and ask for Pension advice from all providers and my charges can be included in their Pension or they can ask to pay a fee. In many cases (there aren't any instances where I can actually think its cheaper going directly!) I can get them a better deal then they can get doing the work themselves!

I believe a more prudent measure would be to make charging structures more conformed/similar then completely banning so that brokers are not incentivised in the manner you speak. Perhaps also recommending more people ask about charges and what its costing to use that broker? Make people more responsible for their money as opposed to pawning off responsibility on others seems like a more long term prudent strategy to me!

For example, a person who is looking to invest €20,000 in a Pension/investment could do all their research and right now if they had any sense they would still consider using a broker. One or two of my clients do their own research and basically ask me to share commissions on an execution only basis. So if they were to go directly to a company they might get 100% of their investment allocated, but if they come through me they could get an extra 2.5% (in some cases) or a lower management charge.

Do you honestly think that Pension companies wont maintain their charging structures just because they don't remunerate brokers? They already charge direct clients (people who go to them directly) the same fees that includes brokers commissions. By that I mean that instead of a broker getting commission, the company just makes more out of direct clients. Again this goes back to my point that banning commissions is using a blunt instrument that will end up costing clients more as opposed to protecting them.

Incidentally, in relation to your "bad advice" question, there are many variables to this question. Bad advice is an extremely subjective statement because its a different meaning to different people.

For example I have one client who back in 2008 complained about his Pension fund going down a lot. He's in his 30s so I explained he had time to recover and to hold firm and review in a few years. I contacted him a few months ago to say now is the time to consolidate and review whether or not a medium-high risk strategy is something he is comfortable with.

I tried to arrange a meeting with that guy but he says "I am really happy with the investment and don't want to change anything". I asked him if he would still meetup to discuss but hes not interested. This happens a lot with people, they only want to talk with you when the sh*t hits the fan. I know I wont hear from that guy until he gets a pension statement with his fund down. He will complain and come onto forums like this protesting that he lost his shirt. What can I do? Is it my fault? The only way I can defend myself is by recording my request (write out to him), but he can easily say that I didn't warn him.

The thing you have to remember is that people complaining about investment advice seldom look at their own responsibility to their money. Yes, you use a broker and hope they advice you right, but you should make it your business to understand the risks and many people don't do that.

In my experience, the people who only contact me when things go down, need to show more interest in their investments. They think its my job to make sure it all works out for them, when in truth I can only do my job when they want to work with me.

FURET

Drumpot wrote: »

I had a great discussion with my doctor last week. I go through bouts of anxiety and depression regularly and when I feel this way I get very down about my job. I was talking to him about how I hate the way I have to rely (to a degree) on information from Major Pension providers who I actually don't fully trust. I regularly have crisis of conscience trying to decide if what I am doing is right for my client or is it what the industry is telling is best for them!

If you have doubts about the pension providers you sell to your clients, you should feel down. I despise financial advisers, and this is exactly why. If the AMC plus your fee is even a little over 1.5%, your customers are getting a bad deal and you know it. That is why your conscience is tickling you. Please don't make me roll out historical index returns and the deleterious impact of just 1% of cost - you know you can't beat the market average over periods of twenty years. Why not advise ultra low-cost (e.g. 0.25%) passive broad-market index funds? (I think that question answers itself.)

For example, 4 months ago I advised a client (who has another broker looking after their pension), to move to cash. This person is 18 months from retirement, yet they were still invested in medium risk investments. At the time, I asked them what their priority was and they said "that what I have now will be there when I draw it down". The markets had been shooting up and their adviser didnt tell them to move any of their funds.

The advice I gave was to move 80% of their funds into cash, that will go down circa 1.5% over the term (charges). The remaining 20% could be left in medium risk investments with only 1 fifth of the return/loss to try and cover the management charges. An acceptable level of risk.

Your timing was fortunate rather than skillful. Now you have to be fortunate twice and *guess* the correct time to get your client back in. I mean, he has just retired and potentially has a period of 30 years in retirement still to go, and you just moved him to 80% cash. So you have to get him back in, right? Otherwise his pension will shrivel by a compounded 3% per annum going forward most likely. :rolleyes: A 60:40 bonds:stocks would be better. 70:30 or even 80:20 if client was that nervous - plus some coaching on market history.

Phoebas

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ah yes, the "everyone who disagrees with me is a conspiracy theorist" argument :rolleyes:

I don't know why you took that from my post.

I was really implying a confirmation bias, not a conspiracy . If you google 'portfolio theory criticism', you're likely to get only one perspective, (and maybe not a true picture). You've decided that portfolio theory is, in your words, 'total nonsense' and you're directing people to google information that's likely to agree with your position (and maybe not an accurate position).

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I mean, lets analyse this a bit further - you're implying that "start googling 'portfolio theory criticism' and the like" = 'start googling conspiracy theories'.

That's not an analysis. That's just your own bias kicking in....

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So you're effectively implying, that any criticism of portfolio theory, is a conspiracy theory - which just displays completely blind belief and lack of critical thinking on your part, and of those thanking your post.

... which you take to the max ...

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If posters are actually trying to dissuade people from googling criticism of the investing methods that these pension funds use, then you have to wonder whether people on the thread are really just trying to blindly sell the idea of pensions to posters.

... and then some.

kazamo

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

I agree. It's also down to "life stage" I would say. Whilst the advice earlier to start as early as possible is wise to leverage compounding effects I wouldn't suggest prioritising pension payments over saving for a home deposit or emergency fund, for example.

In the long term the most important factor is probably the development of good financial habits at an early stage, whether you put the money in a pension or not. Minimising unnecessary spending, avoiding non-mortgage debt if possible, commitment to saving will all make a huge difference. I never cease to be amazed at what people will waste their money on.

Agree with most of above and difference down to personal choice.
For me, free money from employer into pension was more important than house deposit.
At the time, if I contributed 6%, they put in 8%, and I made sure I got the max while I was there. So it cost me 3.5% to get 14%.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

sunnysoutheast

kazamo wrote: »

Agree with most of above and difference down to personal choice.
For me, free money from employer into pension was more important than house deposit.
At the time, if I contributed 6%, they put in 8%, and I made sure I got the max while I was there. So it cost me 3.5% to get 14%.

Yes absolutely, if there is an employer contribution then the decision is easy. I was in that position up to ten years ago and also made AVCs when I could. Mind you I bought a house (in the UK) with 5% deposit and interest-only mortgage - things are different now

Since then I have worked differently and the level of pension contributions has been discretionary and used for effective tax planning.

Drumpot

FURET wrote: »

If you have doubts about the pension providers you sell to your clients, you should feel down. I despise financial advisers, and this is exactly why. If the AMC plus your fee is even a little over 1.5%, your customers are getting a bad deal and you know it. That is why your conscience is tickling you. Please don't make me roll out historical index returns and the deleterious impact of just 1% of cost - you know you can't beat the market average over periods of twenty years. Why not advise ultra low-cost (e.g. 0.25%) passive broad-market index funds? (I think that question answers itself.)

Your timing was fortunate rather than skillful. Now you have to be fortunate twice and *guess* the correct time to get your client back in. I mean, he has just retired and potentially has a period of 30 years in retirement still to go, and you just moved him to 80% cash. So you have to get him back in, right? Otherwise his pension will shrivel by a compounded 3% per annum going forward most likely. :rolleyes: A 60:40 bonds:stocks would be better. 70:30 or even 80:20 if client was that nervous - plus some coaching on market history.

I have a clear conscience about how I advise, its the industry I don't like . . I don't feel the need to entertain your "matter of fact" rant that does little but show that you know what you know and you will attack anybody who thinks otherwise!

Secondly, you completely missed the point of the exercise with my Aunty. I sat down with her and asked her what her priority was at that time. It wasn't about timing the markets, it was about what was best for her at that time.
The important thing is that the investment decision reflected the clients risk aversion at that time. You don't seem to understand this at all!

She is not retiring for 18 months. At that stage she will get a substantial lump sum and will decide what to do with the balance. At that stage, we review what's best in her circumstances at that time. See the pattern? Its not about timing the markets its about reviewing the clients risk aversion and them investing based on it.

Strategies/priorities of Investing money is not the same for everybody, if you take nothing but this from this thread you have actually learned something today.

KomradeBishop

Drumpot wrote: »

...

Well ya, banning commissions isn't aimed at solving all problems, just the ones that commissions bring up - as I said, the UK did it, and seem to be doing fine.

Here is a report showing largely positive effects of banning commissions in the UK, without many of the negatives you cite:
http://www.investmentexecutive.com/-/embedded-commission-ban-improving-outcomes-for-uk-investors-report

It does cite a reduction in clients seeking advice in the industry, but then, that is the tradeoff needed for having a better quality brokerage industry; that's just supply and demand, if it costs more less people will seek out the advice, and brokers will have to up their game too.


The problem with making people more responsible for their money with brokerage, is the agency problem, especially with 'asymmetric information' i.e. where the client does not have all the information he needs to make an informed decision, and where information can be withheld.

Agents i.e. brokers have to face up to their professional responsibility first and foremost, and not shirk it off onto clients.
People should be responsible with their money, but there is absolutely no way that brokers should ever be able to shirk any of the responsibilities for their biases and screwups, onto the clients.

I mean it's a bit unusual to say 'make people more responsible', when the whole point of a broker is that they are being paid to take a big share of that responsibility.


On the bad advice regarding pensions - you're presenting a situation where sound advice is put forward, and the client rejects it.
That's completely different to the situation I put forward, of bad advice being given and costing the client - which could be a decade+ down the line (if not multiple decades, with retirement nearing), from the advice being given to the collapse in funds, depending on economic conditions - so it's very easy for there to be an IBGYBG conflict of interest among brokers/pension-funds, and its a timescale that's potentially so long, that by the time you seek legal recourse, you've already lost a ton of money.

That's just not good enough. In many cases it will be far too late. Especially when we're talking about peoples pensions, the money they are going to be relying on in retirement - which they could see wiped out effectively, with little recourse.

I think there is a danger in this discussion, of shirking too much responsibility onto the clients. There seems to be a 'bait and switch' going on, where all the situations put forward of bad advice/investment within parts of the financial industry, are getting replaced/reframed in a 'bait and switch' manner, with scenario's where a client ignores prudent advice - i.e. where faults within the financial industry get reframed as faults with the client.

KomradeBishop

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't know why you took that from my post.

I was really implying a confirmation bias, not a conspiracy . If you google 'portfolio theory criticism', you're likely to get only one perspective, (and maybe not a true picture). You've decided that portfolio theory is, in your words, 'total nonsense' and you're directing people to google information that's likely to agree with your position (and maybe not an accurate position).

You're engaging in the balance fallacy, and have failed to show any confirmation bias - you seem to display a lack of understanding of what confirmation bias is - you don't have to present two sides of a viewpoint on a topic, in order to achieve 'balance'.

If you seek out criticism of a topic, that doesn't automatically mean the criticism is biased. Merely seeking out criticism of a topic, doesn't display 'confirmation bias' either - you're completely lacking anything that would show that.

QuinDixie

Ronnie Worried Workaholic wrote: »

Not all pension funds were wiped out. I'm not naming ours but there massive funds available and sufficient to pay all members to an average age of 85. It also pays CPI +1% minimum increase each year. Well managed funds didn't disappear with the stock market drop. Private sector pension.

billions were wiped out of pension funds and insurance companies in 2007,2008.
the insurance company losses are a big issue as they helped pension funds manage risk.
In time our pension system will mirror UK, it will have to as the state cannot continue to pay billions into public sector pensions and state pensions.

Pension sustainability, private,public, state are gauged by population pyramids. All pension schemes are glorified pyramid schemes.

the EU know this and are pushing hard for high pension levies. They see whats coming in the next 15 plus years.
State pensions will be for those who have no private pensions and they are seriously worried about underfunded private pension funds.