The Lemon Fool

People tend to be bemused about pensions. They are going to be even more bemused by being given information about transaction costs, such as "slippage cost" explained in:

ttps://www.fca.org.uk/publication/consu ... p16-30.pdf

DP 15/2 says:

"the Pensions Act 2014 places a duty on the Government and the FCA to make rules and regulations requiring the disclosure of some or all transaction cost information to members and / or other prescribed persons, and the publication of information about transaction costs and administration charges."

The link does not seem to work. This is to CP 16/30 Transaction cost disclosure in workplace pensions.

The above link does not work.

The following should:-

CP16/30: Transaction cost disclosure in workplace pensions [pdf]

Raptor.

As I pointed out on the dash for cash thread, there is an obvious solution to the problem of transaction costs. That is to require funds to hold their investments for a minimum time such as two years. This a cost-benefit situation. The benefit in reduction of transaction costs because of reduced trading will far exceed the loss because of reduced investment opportunities. I am currently discussing this proposal with various high-ups.

If the slippage cost is high this will indicate that there is excessive trading. If funds had to hold their investments for a minimum period, there would be no excessive trading, so no need to calculate slippage. I suggest two years for unit trusts and oeics and three for pension funds.

swynn wrote:As I pointed out on the dash for cash thread, there is an obvious solution to the problem of transaction costs.

I don't see that thread here. Was it on another board?

swynn wrote:The benefit in reduction of transaction costs because of reduced trading will far exceed the loss because of reduced investment opportunities.

That's by no means guaranteed.

Personally I'd prefer the highest total return, taking charges into account of course.

Scott.

swill453 wrote:

swynn wrote:As I pointed out on the dash for cash thread, there is an obvious solution to the problem of transaction costs.

I don't see that thread here. Was it on another board?

swynn wrote:The benefit in reduction of transaction costs because of reduced trading will far exceed the loss because of reduced investment opportunities.

That's by no means guaranteed.

Personally I'd prefer the highest total return, taking charges into account of course.

Scott.

Hi Scott, unlike TMF the search facility here works a treat. Here is the referenced Dash for cash

Raptor.

Raptor wrote:Here is the referenced Dash for cash

Hmm, a topic of 32 posts, all by a single poster. Not much of a "discussion"

Scott.

This issue of the disclosure of transaction costs seems to be a nightmare: Reading:

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/cons ... p16-30.pdf

There are 22 "questions". But most "questions" contain more than one question mark. So there are really 22 issues and 55 questions., Transaction costs have to be disclosed to IGCs and trustees, who then disclose them in a simplified form to employers and members.

The link in my last post was to DP 15/2.

The topic of transaction costs is a nightmare which the government is offloading onto busy IGCs, trustees, employers and members.

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/disc ... p15-02.pdf