Brown /***** & Pension Funds

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
My choice currently would be a minority Tory Gov't working with the moderating influence of the Liberals. I think we should give the Labour Party long enough in the wilderness to completely renew its potential ministers and PM.

I think nothing could be worse for the country than a government without any power to do anything. It would be about as productive as a Local Government office on a Friday afternoon.

There is too much legislation, and it can driven through almost without reference to public opinion with our First Past The Post system of electing a ruling Gov't on about a third [or less] of the electorate. What is needed is fewer new laws, and better administration of the ones we have already.

This may well require better running of the Police and other Public Services, which is mainly a question of the Civil Service not being hamstrung by continuous changes in current legislation. Parliament and the Executive would better serve the public if it spend more time on the dull business of getting administration of current law improving and making only a small number of new laws.

So I rather like the idea of a bit Friday afternoonish quantities of new Acts of Parliamant...

Kindest regards from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Diode100:

Just wait till the papers spill the beans on the Brown/Balls sell off of the UK gold reserves, then we'll see how his reputation as the most succsessful Chancellor of the last hundred years (?) stands up.

Ho Hum, here is comes .....

Gordon Goldfinger

quote:

Stakeholder's are a relatively recent invention for this century and frankly are not an investment in themselves, merely a cheap wrapper around cheap funds. And now, not so cheap either. Many of these funds are relatively poor performers, perhaps because they are cheap? Of course it f*cking is.

Jamie,

I contracted out of SERPS in 1990. Two years ago I changed both my pensions to stakeholder ones. During this two year period they've gone up 23% & 19% in 2005/06 and 13% & 10% in 2006/07 respectively. This calculation does not include the monies I'm putting in each month.

From what little knowledge I have on pension investment, my figures don't seem too bad. Or do they?

Why do you say stakeholder pension are poor performers?

quote:

Why do you say stakeholder pension are poor performers?

Hi count, I did not say Stakeholders are poor performers.

They can't by definition be as such as they are not a particular fund, merely a vehicle by which you can invest. However, many funds available through Stakeholders are comparatively poor within their relative sectors (there are exceptions as ever), maybe because they are less dynamically managed and cost less to run which may be why they cost less to the investor. That said, a cheap or expensive fund does not by definition mean either is good or bad. It's just a lot of bad ones are cheap and available as stakeholders! There are plenty of expensive and apalling funds outside stakeholders too though.

At a guess, your funds have a heavy equity (shares) bias. An average UK equity fund in the four discrete (individual) years to 6th April 07 has made 35% (to 2004), 21% (05), 33% (06) 9% (to 07). So they're about average and I would guess again that they're heavily influenced by the FTSE 100 because this pretty much determines the average in UK equity sector.

(By the way, the three preceeding years averages in the same sector were -8.8%, -2.91% and -28.55%)

Absolutely nothing in this communication should be thought of as advice in any way shape or form.

I opened a pension last year after observing my dad average 30% gains throughout his various pensions (not including contributions) over the last three years.

He set one up for me with Hargreaves Lansdown - I am a total novice, all I know is that its a HL vantage SIPP - so far I have averaged 15%.

Given that you get tax reief, and the option of taking out 25% tax free upon retirement, I think they can be a good idea.

Peter

Ooooh a SIPP! Plenty of options there...certainly way more than a stakeholder.

More investment choice is not always a good thing.

Most people simply will not need a SIPP.

Back on Brown and pensions funds, as has been said above and elsewhere, the real killers for Final Salary schemes are the increased lifespan of members requiring a greater fund to pay out the pension ( as the member is alove longer ); reduced interest rates leading to poor annuity ates - ie every pound of pension need more money behind it; and the increasingly stringent funding requirements for schemes.

Those schemes that remain will be much stronger but considerably more expensive - so rarer.

To say its all down to Brown is wrong.

Spot on Mike.
Trouble is it won't stop those that want to blame all their pension woes on Nulab, stoked up by the press, from doing so.

Too true Bob.

Next question for those detractors of the UK pensions system;

How much is in UK funded pension schemes? This exclues eg, the NHS schemes...

M

So now we have a Pension Advisor and a Socialist [not a dirty word in my book] teamed up! No less terrifying than Mr Howard supporting Mr Blair [suporting Mr Bush] over the Iraq invasion, and more serious for most people, potentially!

ATB from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

How much is in UK funded pension schemes? This exclues eg, the NHS schemes...

M

I'll guess at 100 billion?

Frederik
If it is me you are calling a Socialist you couldn't be more wrong. I have never voted for Nulab in my life. Unlike the idiots on this forum who think they vote for Blair, Cameron etc. I vote for the man who will represent me in my constituency best, regardless of party.
But hey, don't beat yourself up over it.

Was I specific? I observe that when I make a post, I invariably note and remember the reaction, and the respondent. If you are no socialist, then then I shall remember you said so, for another time!

Fredrik

quote:

Most people simply will not need a SIPP.

True, at present but it may be nice to have the options available in the future...and there are means to run a SIPP as a regular PP and only use the SI part (and pay for it) later.

I just can't help feeling that an easy way of getting some of your tax back to boost your retirement income is not a bad thing (whether the funds themselves are taxed or not, taxed strong growth is still usually better than tax efficient poor growth, especially on the back of a tax refund boosting the value of your 'pot' by 28% to 66% from the off) but that far too many folks see the reasons against doing anything at all (e.g. Robber Brown, crappy one-sided journalism, their mate down the pub) then exclude the reasons for. Then many who do something, can wish they hadn't because they end up with products that aren't as flexible or effective as they could be because the advice they receive is restricted.

Bit like buying anything else I guess but to many, money for their lifetime use is far more important than a PC, HI-FI or car where previous buying mistakes can be easily rectified (albeit still at some cost).

quote:

Unlike the idiots on this forum who think they vote for Blair, Cameron etc. I vote for the man who will represent me in my constituency best, regardless of party.
But hey, don't beat yourself up over it.

Given what is the numbers game of our first-past-the-post system a vote for your local constituency MP is either a vote for Blair, Cameron or a just null vote.

quote:

Originally posted by Beano:

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

How much is in UK funded pension schemes? This exclues eg, the NHS schemes...

M

I'll guess at 100 billion?

Nope.

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

quote:

Originally posted by Beano:

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

How much is in UK funded pension schemes? This exclues eg, the NHS schemes...

M

I'll guess at 100 billion?

Nope.

Is it more or less, as I seem to remember it was about 69 billion in 2004?

Beano

Out by a factor of >10.

Funded Pensions in the UK are in such a dismal state that at £1,300 billion they exceed the rest of Europe combined.

Yes, £1.3 trillion.

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:
Out by a factor of >10.

Funded Pensions in the UK are in such a dismal state that at £1,300 billion they exceed the rest of Europe combined.

Yes, £1.3 trillion.

As much as that ?
So what exactly is it you are all bitching about ?

Or can it be that most of that has been contributed by private sector tax payer's into the public sector pension funds ?

quote:

Originally posted by Diode100:

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:
Out by a factor of >10.

Funded Pensions in the UK are in such a dismal state that at £1,300 billion they exceed the rest of Europe combined.

Yes, £1.3 trillion.

As much as that ?
So what exactly is it you are all bitching about ?

We're British, we enjoy bitching about things.

Diode
read Mike's post very carefully again.

I wasn't far out then!

Would my estimate of 100 billion be about right for total private pension contributions (non-state)since 1996-2007?

Beano

quote:

Would my estimate of 100 billion be about right for total private pension contributions (non-state)since 1996-2007?

I believe that's simply the extra what Gordon's had in tax from pensions over the last ten years...

quote:

I believe that's simply the extra what Gordon's had in tax from pensions over the last ten years...

He should be applauded for doing so.

Nothing wrong in closing loopholes and stopping scams.

Not sure how he has closed any loopholes or what scams he has stopped, though...