Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Pension Fund

  • 27-08-2015 8:45am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8


    20+ yrs ago I worked for a company and had a pension. When i left and started a new job the New Ireland that did the pension for the new company advised that because the fund was only €10k let it be and start a new pension fresh.

    Now I've left the job again pension 1 is now worth €30 and pension 2 is worth €34k (contributions were much bigger on p2)

    Because of my work situation atm I will not be taking out a third pension for some time. I'm now being advised that I should amalgamate both funds and let them sit until I'm ready to decide the next step.

    My concern is that every change I make will incur charges/fees only to be possibly changed again later - more fees. I think I would be better off leaving everything as is for a few years until circumstances change and then make one move.

    Any advise please


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,150 ✭✭✭homer911


    Fees would not be the only consideration - you would need to consider the relative performance of each fund which could more than offset any fees.

    It's also worth saying that in terms of a pension pot, these are relatively small amounts and consolidating them will make little difference to any annual income that may be derived from them


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    I was advised against merging pensions with different companies. the advisor said Diversify your pensions like I'd advise you to diversify your investments. If a company goes tit sup at least it won't be all your pension stuck there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,622 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    I was advised against merging pensions with different companies. the advisor said Diversify your pensions like I'd advise you to diversify your investments.

    You can diversify within the same company, just split your pension money over different funds. Every life company offers a raft of different funds to suit all requirements.
    If a company goes tit sup at least it won't be all your pension stuck there.

    Life companies don't tend to go bust, regulators step in very early such as happened with Quinn.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,876 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    coylemj wrote: »
    You can diversify within the same company, just split your pension money over different funds. Every life company offers a raft of different funds to suit all requirements.



    Life companies don't tend to go bust, regulators step in very early such as happened with Quinn.

    Life companies would have all the customers funds held separately to their own money, so in theory if the company goes bust the funds should still be there. I suppose that's something like how Quinn funds ended up becoming Irish Life.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 261 ✭✭mbradso2003


    Personally I would keep them separate. This gives you greater flexibility in terms of retirement ages and potential access to funds if circumstances change.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8 ciderbaby


    Thanks for all the help. Think I'll leave them separate. I was surprised the first fund had tripled in the last 14 yrs to be honest


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    coylemj wrote: »
    Life companies don't tend to go bust, regulators step in very early such as happened with Quinn.

    That's what people said about banks a decade ago.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,622 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    That's what people said about banks a decade ago.

    Banks lend money, life insurance companies don't. That's why not one life company went bust in the recent crash. Their share prices may have crashed (e.g. Irish Life) but the underlying life business was never under threat, hence why foreign companies were more than happy to step in and take them over.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 347 ✭✭commonsense.


    coylemj wrote:
    Life companies don't tend to go bust, regulators step in very early such as happened with Quinn.


    Equitable Life?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,876 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    Equitable Life?

    A mutual company that didn't make proper provision for guarantees given to investors.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 347 ✭✭commonsense.


    McGaggs wrote: »
    A mutual company that didn't make proper provision for guarantees given to investors.

    Yes, but a life insurance company that went bust and left thousands badly out of pocket.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,876 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    Yes, but a life insurance company that went bust and left thousands badly out of pocket.

    A mutual company doesn't have customers investments separate to the company. Any pension fund in Ireland is unlikely to be in a mutual company. The Equitable situation would happen.


Advertisement