Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to Haoma,Gilgongo,Raasu,Wasron,Steffers0, for Donating to support the site

Bemused

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 197
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Bemused

#47946

Postby swynn » April 23rd, 2017, 11:14 am

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."

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 197
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Bemused

#47950

Postby swynn » April 23rd, 2017, 11:36 am

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

Raptor
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1619
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 306 times

Re: Bemused

#47951

Postby Raptor » April 23rd, 2017, 11:38 am

The above link does not work.

The following should:-

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

Raptor.

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 197
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Bemused

#47980

Postby swynn » April 23rd, 2017, 1:42 pm

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.

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 197
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Bemused

#48100

Postby swynn » April 24th, 2017, 9:55 am

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.

swill453
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2605
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 158 times
Been thanked: 719 times

Re: Bemused

#48102

Postby swill453 » April 24th, 2017, 10:01 am

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.

Raptor
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1619
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 306 times

Re: Bemused

#48208

Postby Raptor » April 24th, 2017, 1:41 pm

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.

swill453
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2605
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 158 times
Been thanked: 719 times

Re: Bemused

#48224

Postby swill453 » April 24th, 2017, 2:18 pm

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.

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 197
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Bemused

#48634

Postby swynn » April 25th, 2017, 7:18 pm

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.

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 197
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Bemused

#48734

Postby swynn » April 26th, 2017, 8:52 am

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

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 197
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Bemused

#49179

Postby swynn » April 27th, 2017, 1:26 pm

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


Return to “Pensions - Practical Problems”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests