Pension Comparison Charts ????

Anyone know where I can find information on the best place to start a stake holder pension.

Thanks.

Reply to
J-A-K-E
Loading thread data ...

Unless you can find a company funded "final salary" pension, which is exceedingly unlikely, or you are a wealthy entrepreneur in his late

40's, I wouldn't bother with it. By the time greedy fund managers and inflation have gobbled away at your money, it will be worthless. That "Forecast Income" of £1,000,000 in 2050 won't buy you a bag of chips.

Try to gather it together and invest at the bottom of the many crashes you will live through. Remember to get out before the next peak. We are at the top of every peak at the moment so salting it away in the Nationwide is the sensible thing to do. Play the rollercoaster cleverly, which means ignoring all advice (including this) and you can double your money in real terms every ten years.

Either that or spend it! :)

Reply to
Troy Steadman

Lots of info and comparison on the FSA consumer website at

formatting link

Reply to
Matt Robertson

The important thing is to save, not the type of investment vehicle as the tax benefits and withdrawal restrictions make stakeholder and ISAs similar.

I would use an ISA, as in the relatively short time I've had a pension, the government has reduced my potential pension twice, firstly by removing the tax credit on dividends (~-15%) and secondly by preventing me from retiring at 50 by upping the minimum age from 50 to 55.

Higher income investments (say dividend yield of 1.5 times the FTSE All Share ie approx 4.5%) have traditionally consistently beaten other types of investment and exchange traded funds (ETF) avoid rip-off manager fees. Consider the iShares FTSE UK Dividend Plus ETF

Equity and property markets are high at the moment, so the best investment may well be to pay off any debt or keep the money as cash.

Double check any advice you are given by so called independent advisors here first.

Daytona

Reply to
Daytona

If we look at stock market returns since the advent of the low inflation environment in 1993 -

FT All Share Index 1/1/1993 - 17/3/2006 = 6.3%pa excluding dividends

I believe that dividends have been circa 3.5% over the period, giving a nominal total return of 9.8%pa.

Inflation ~2.5% Fund managers fees ~1%

Which gives a real increase in value of ~6.3%pa, doubling your money every ~10 years.

Daytona

Reply to
Daytona

"Daytona" wrote

That didn't *reduce* your potential pension - it *increased* it!

Reply to
Tim

Surely that depends on when he dies, it may well have reduced it

100%...

Jim.

Reply to
Jim Ley

"Jim Ley" wrote

OK, so it might not *increase* it - but it still wouldn't *reduce* it...

"Jim Ley" wrote

No - even if he died before age 50, it would be the *same* before (when minimum age was 50) and after (with age 55).

[Zero both before & after is not a reduction by 100%.]
Reply to
Tim

"Tim" wrote

"Tim" wrote

... UNLESS he died between 50 & 55 :-((

Reply to
Tim

Delaying the taking of a pension will usually result in a lesser amount of money, over time, being received. The exception is for those who are able to extend their life well beyond the norm.

Reply to
Stickems.

"Stickems." wrote

Why do you think that?

The pension instalments are calculated so that their value is equivalent (on average, across a population of pensioners) to the value of the fund at time of retirement.

"Stickems." wrote

There will, of course, be "winners" (those that live for longer than average), and some "losers" (those that live for less than average).

But **on average**, people will tend to live for, ahem, an "average lifetime"!!

Reply to
Tim

Because of the pension lost during the period of deferment would not be made up unless you live longer than the average.

Reply to
Stickems.

erm, why? Let's look at a simplified example, no annuity, you just get the pot:

guy dies at 70, retires at 50 with 60,000 pension pot.

pension pot pays out at 3000 per year.

guy dies at 70, retires at 55 with 60,000 pension pot

pension pays out at 4000 per year.

The total paid out in both examples is the same. Of course in reality, there would be 5 extra years of pension contributions meaning that in reality the person would be getting a larger pension, not the same pension.

Of course in reality an individual may win or lose from the extra 5 years of work, but the average is with them gaining - at the cost of working an extra 5 years.

Jim.

Reply to
Jim Ley

"Stickems." wrote

What proportion of people do you think live longer than *average*?

Reply to
Tim

That was my thinking given that I intend to take the maximum out as quickly as possible.

Daytona

Reply to
Daytona

"Daytona" wrote

... but flawed thinking!

"Daytona" wrote

That's a different issue.

Reply to
Tim

In message , Tim writes

But what about the case of member of a paid up money purchase scheme who retires. It will likely take about 9ish years before his cumulative income will have been exceeded by his twin brother's who retired exactly a year later. If the first twin dies within those 9 years he will be a winner, and might also be a winner for longer if he saved his pension income for that year to spend later.

Reply to
john boyle

"john boyle" wrote

Also: "If the first twin dies *after* those 9 years he is a loser."

Exactly - some winners & some losers.

Stickems seems to think that there are more losers than winners, but the concept of the "average" is that there are roughly equal numbers either side (ie roughly equal numbers of "winners" and "losers").

"john boyle" wrote

If he doesn't spend it during those 9 years, how is he better off for not spending the first year's pension?

Anyway - if he saved his pension income for that year to spend later, then at the time that his twin takes his pension the year later, they both effectively have the *same* pot (it's just that the first twin has some outside his pension plan and some left to come out of the plan as a pension, while all of the second twin's pot is still within the plan).

Reply to
Tim

In message , Tim writes

If he saved the pension in, say, and equity ISA then the quasi 'income' he could take by way of regular withdrawals would be tax free and the capital would also be available whereas the pension fund 'income' would be taxable and the capital would be lost.

Reply to
john boyle

"john boyle" wrote

But he would have *already* paid tax when it came out of the pension!!

In contrast, the other brother will receive tax-free rollup within the pension then pay tax on the way out, rather than paying tax on the way out then getting tax-free rollup in the ISA afterwards.

The overall result will be much the same...

"john boyle" wrote

It doesn't matter whether the pension is taken earlier or later, it is always taxable.

If you consider amounts not yet paid out of the pension plan as "gross" and amounts that have already been paid out as "net" (this would include the amounts put into the ISA in your example), then you can consider (say) 100 still in the plan as equvalent to (say)

78 out of the plan (assuming tax is paid at 22%).

Now add up both for each brother, and each one's total "pot" will be much the same!

"john boyle" wrote

No, the capital is paid back as part of the pension.

Reply to
Tim

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.