Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators
Thanks to Wasron,jfgw,Rhyd6,eyeball08,Wondergirly, for Donating to support the site
Bemused
Bemused
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."
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."
Re: Bemused
The link does not seem to work. This is to CP 16/30 Transaction cost disclosure in workplace pensions.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:39 pm
- Has thanked: 139 times
- Been thanked: 306 times
Re: Bemused
The above link does not work.
The following should:-
CP16/30: Transaction cost disclosure in workplace pensions [pdf]
Raptor.
The following should:-
CP16/30: Transaction cost disclosure in workplace pensions [pdf]
Raptor.
Re: Bemused
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.
Re: Bemused
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.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7989
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
- Has thanked: 989 times
- Been thanked: 3658 times
Re: Bemused
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.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:39 pm
- Has thanked: 139 times
- Been thanked: 306 times
Re: Bemused
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.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7989
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
- Has thanked: 989 times
- Been thanked: 3658 times
Re: Bemused
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.
Re: Bemused
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.
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.
Re: Bemused
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
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 27 guests