Pensions industry

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Can't wait to see this develop. His ferreting away now on Google looking for replies, if he can't find them he will use a rofl with a sarcastic remark.

I don't need to use Google - I'll use 20+ years of knowledge and experience. As for you, however,...

[sidicks]

V8 Fettler said:

Off you go then http://lmgtfy.com/?q=monkeys+beat+fund+managers

Well, the first post compares the performance of a hedge fund against a combination of cash and stock market assets over a 6 month period which is a period where the stock market had performed very strongly.

That is a fairly meaningless comparison - it would be easy to pick numerous 6 month periods where the opposite occurred.
And this ignores risk. In other words it is comparing apples and pears.

The second post starts off talking about equally weighted baskets of stocks, when the market index is not equally weighted, which flaws the comparison a little.

Regardless, it's certainly true that transaction costs have an impact on portfolio returns - hence on numerous ocassions I've recommended using beta products (ETFs and passive index products for equity exposure) rather than actively managed funds.

Finally, as mentioned previously, some markets are more favourable for active managers and some less favourable - recently the market environment has been less conducive to active managers and hence the impact of trading costs has been greater and in many cases outweighed the added value from active management. That's not to say this won't change in the future.

Having said that, there is a key point that is often missed here, which I alluded to earlier, is that the average returns only tell a small part of the story. You need to account for volatility and risk. The vast majority of active index managers will provide a return that is very close to the the index. The 'monkeys' that you are so fond of, (random allocation) will have a much wider dispersion of outcomes, making the 'average' less meaningful.

I suspect the other links are similarly flawed.

However, if you want to undertake random stock picking then please go ahead, for me I'll pick passive equity funds and select other actively managed fund where I believe there is value.

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 11th January 12:21

[V8 Fettler]

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

Off you go then http://lmgtfy.com/?q=monkeys+beat+fund+managers

Well, the first list compares the performance of a hedge fund against a combination of cash and stock market assets over a 6 month period which is a period where the stock market had performed very strongly.

That is a fairly meaningless comparison - it would be easy to pick numerous 6 month periods where the opposite occurred.
And this ignores risk. In other words it is comparing apples and pears.

There's 600k results on that link, you've done well to review them all in such a short time.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Can't wait to see this develop. His ferreting away now on Google looking for replies, if he can't find them he will use a rofl with a sarcastic remark.

I don't need to use Google - I'll use 20+ years of knowledge and experience. As for you, however,...

Ouch, that really hurt, is this why some see you as a rottwieler when provoked

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

You do come across in your posts as a little boy stamping his feet in the playground when he gets things wrong. Sarcasm is also the lowest form of wit, you have that in spades.

Once again you're full of nonsense.

1) you claim that underperformance is evidence of 'coasting', which is nonsense
2) you then cite Bob Diamond and Fred Goodwin to support your claims.

And then you think I'm the one that has got things wrong?!

crankedup said:

Back to my request for you to specify which FTSE indexes you wish to nominate, no, thought not.

In response to your silly comments about 'paltry' returns, asked you which pension funds, investing in FTSE assets during 2016 obtained materially different returns than the return on the index.

There you go, you sit there inventing words that completely alter what I have stated, using sentences out of context.
I made no such clain that underperformance is evidence of coasting.
I said that, in response to your earlier question, that diamond and goodwin are two examples of people at the top of the finance industry that represent failure.

Make an attempt to keep it real and not figments of your imagination.

[ATG]

WindyCommon said:

V8 Fettler said:

ATG said:

V8 Fettler said:

That's a flawed statement, it's not a zero sum game. In the medium to long term, the total value of many markets (but not all markets) can outstrip inflation e.g. FTSE 100 since inception. Therefore additional (new) value is created for investors.

New value can also be created for investors on a smaller scale e.g investing in a well-managed start-up company in a rapidly growing new sector

This is getting a bit painful. You haven't understood what I said. Another poster has already made the same mistake as you and I've already explained it to them. When the value of assets increase wealth is created ... OBVIOUSLY. But all a fund manager is doing is moving the ownership of assets around. The fund managers are not creating the wealth. So fund management itself is a zero sum game for the investors collectively. If you can't get your head around this I can see why you might think all asset managers can reasonably be expected to out-perform the markets simultaneously.

You don't appear to understand that fund managers can be instrumental in creating wealth by making good medium and long term investments in companies that require investment capital to grow. I realise that's probably an unfashionable concept in an age of short-term trading.

V8 Fettler is correct here. ATG you are perhaps too ready to accept superficially attractive ideas (equity investment is a zero-sum game, funds in aggregate can't beat the market, fund managers play no role in value creation etc). Sometimes - when underlying flaws are pointed out - it is better to reconsider a view than it is to reassert it.

Equity investment is a zero-sum game???? Before asking people to reconsider their view, perhaps you could make the effort to read and understand what they said?

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

There you go, you sit there inventing words that completely alter what I have stated, using sentences out of context.
I made no such clain that underperformance is evidence of coasting.

crankedup said:

You keep asking why a manager does not WANT to maximise performance, once again I have to tell you that human nature creeps in, a lazy year or two perhaps, manager burning out ia another reason, because as a manager I don't have to try to hard any more, just for starting. Evidence can be found found every year of funds under performing.

I'm sure you meant something entirely different from what you actually said...

[ATG]

V8 Fettler said:

ATG said:

V8 Fettler said:

That's a flawed statement, it's not a zero sum game. In the medium to long term, the total value of many markets (but not all markets) can outstrip inflation e.g. FTSE 100 since inception. Therefore additional (new) value is created for investors.

New value can also be created for investors on a smaller scale e.g investing in a well-managed start-up company in a rapidly growing new sector

This is getting a bit painful. You haven't understood what I said. Another poster has already made the same mistake as you and I've already explained it to them. When the value of assets increase wealth is created ... OBVIOUSLY. But all a fund manager is doing is moving the ownership of assets around. The fund managers are not creating the wealth. So fund management itself is a zero sum game for the investors collectively. If you can't get your head around this I can see why you might think all asset managers can reasonably be expected to out-perform the markets simultaneously.

You don't appear to understand that fund managers can be instrumental in creating wealth by making good medium and long term investments in companies that require investment capital to grow. I realise that's probably an unfashionable concept in an age of short-term trading.

That is an entirely different point to the one you made previously, so I'm impressed you can determine my understanding from it. Primary market activity obviously allows companies to generate wealth. But primary market activity represents a tiny amount of the asset allocation decisions made by fund managers. It also makes damn all difference for how long a fund holds an asset. The whole point of listed assets is that they can be exchanged freely in the secondary market. The company raising capital has very little interest in who holds its investments unless someone is acquiring a controlling stake. The price at which their assets are traded matters, but who holds them does not (unless its someone like Berkshire Hathaway because that confers some bragging rights).

[WindyCommon]

ATG said:

Equity investment is a zero-sum game???? Before asking people to reconsider their view, perhaps you could make the effort to read and understand what they said?

What you said was:

ATG said:

... let's pretend the was a group of really good managers who could outperform. Their investors would "win" by exactly the same amount that another group of investors would "lose" by ...

This is incorrect because not all securities are owned by funds (a point you eventually acknowledged earlier in the thread) and because engaged fund managers are able to contribute to value creation (a point V8 has made several times).

I can explain this to you. I can't understand it for you.

[FredClogs]

The rise or fall in a stock price doesn't in itself provide capital for a PLC to increase its business activity - does it? It shows a market confidence in the company which may help their business prospects of raising capital through new share offerings, acquisitions or refinancing but the fund management business is about winning on fees and capital growth through market rises, people don't really invest these days because they want to help a company grow, do they - would it even be ethical?

[V8 Fettler]

ATG said:

V8 Fettler said:

ATG said:

V8 Fettler said:

That's a flawed statement, it's not a zero sum game. In the medium to long term, the total value of many markets (but not all markets) can outstrip inflation e.g. FTSE 100 since inception. Therefore additional (new) value is created for investors.

New value can also be created for investors on a smaller scale e.g investing in a well-managed start-up company in a rapidly growing new sector

This is getting a bit painful. You haven't understood what I said. Another poster has already made the same mistake as you and I've already explained it to them. When the value of assets increase wealth is created ... OBVIOUSLY. But all a fund manager is doing is moving the ownership of assets around. The fund managers are not creating the wealth. So fund management itself is a zero sum game for the investors collectively. If you can't get your head around this I can see why you might think all asset managers can reasonably be expected to out-perform the markets simultaneously.

You don't appear to understand that fund managers can be instrumental in creating wealth by making good medium and long term investments in companies that require investment capital to grow. I realise that's probably an unfashionable concept in an age of short-term trading.

That is an entirely different point to the one you made previously, so I'm impressed you can determine my understanding from it. Primary market activity obviously allows companies to generate wealth. But primary market activity represents a tiny amount of the asset allocation decisions made by fund managers. It also makes damn all difference for how long a fund holds an asset. The whole point of listed assets is that they can be exchanged freely in the secondary market. The company raising capital has very little interest in who holds its investments unless someone is acquiring a controlling stake. The price at which their assets are traded matters, but who holds them does not (unless its someone like Berkshire Hathaway because that confers some bragging rights).

I'm pleased that you're impressed.

High levels of churn in secondary markets = volatility = good news for traders and short-termists but generally not so good for those looking at the medium to long term. Primary and secondary markets are closely linked, look at what happens to primary markets when secondary markets crash. The holding of shares long term + demand tends to drive up the price of a company's share, thus enabling further share issues, increased company value, improved company performance and increased dividends over the medium / long term

A steady long term increase in share values with minimal volatility = everyone wins bar the traders and short-termists.

I recognise that this is an old fashioned view.

[V8 Fettler]

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

Off you go then http://lmgtfy.com/?q=monkeys+beat+fund+managers

Well, the first post compares the performance of a hedge fund against a combination of cash and stock market assets over a 6 month period which is a period where the stock market had performed very strongly.

That is a fairly meaningless comparison - it would be easy to pick numerous 6 month periods where the opposite occurred.
And this ignores risk. In other words it is comparing apples and pears.

The second post starts off talking about equally weighted baskets of stocks, when the market index is not equally weighted, which flaws the comparison a little.

Regardless, it's certainly true that transaction costs have an impact on portfolio returns - hence on numerous ocassions I've recommended using beta products (ETFs and passive index products for equity exposure) rather than actively managed funds.

Finally, as mentioned previously, some markets are more favourable for active managers and some less favourable - recently the market environment has been less conducive to active managers and hence the impact of trading costs has been greater and in many cases outweighed the added value from active management. That's not to say this won't change in the future.

Having said that, there is a key point that is often missed here, which I alluded to earlier, is that the average returns only tell a small part of the story. You need to account for volatility and risk. The vast majority of active index managers will provide a return that is very close to the the index. The 'monkeys' that you are so fond of, (random allocation) will have a much wider dispersion of outcomes, making the 'average' less meaningful.

I suspect the other links are similarly flawed.

However, if you want to undertake random stock picking then please go ahead, for me I'll pick passive equity funds and select other actively managed fund where I believe there is value.

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 11th January 12:21

A link extracted from the 600k plus:

http://www.barrons.com/articles/SB5000142405311190...

Selection of cap-weighted funds by fund managers is an issue which the monkeys avoid. Active fund managers who step away from cap-weighting appear to perform better then those who stay with cap-weighting. Does cap-weighting offer some sort of comfort zone?

sidicks said:

-

V8 Fettler said:

At a tangent, Warren Buffett's 10 year bet is approaching a conclusion:

http://fortune.com/2016/05/11/warren-buffett-hedge...

As identified by others, it's the fees that appear to be the key element in undermining the fund managers' efforts.

That's certainly part of the reason in this case (because the fees on hedge funds is very high) but an equally important reason is that the period over which the comparison has been assessed has been one which has proved favourable for passive versus active funds (fewer opportunities for active managers) and one which has been favourable for equity beta strategies.
The comparison would have been very different in a period ending in mid-2009, for example.

Equities are volatile - over long periods they tend to show good returns. Over short periods they can show large negative returns. In contrast hedge funds should provide a more consistent return, with lower volatile and generally avoiding large drawdowns. Of course some hedge funds are more volatile than others and may take more market beta.

Is not the point of an active fund that the fund manager can actively minimise losses and maximise gains? Thus leaping ahead of the monkeys as a good poker player should do?

[sidicks]

V8 Fettler said:

"Selection of cap-weighted funds by fund managers is an issue which the monkeys avoid. Active fund managers who step away from cap-weighting appear to perform better then those who stay with cap-weighting. Does cap-weighting offer some sort of comfort zone?"

If an investor is asking you to manage an investment against an index benchmark - FTSE 100 / FTSE All Share etc, then your portfolio exposures need to broadly align with that benchmark.

Of course if you take an 'equally-weighted' approach, investors won't complain when you outperform, but when you underperform the benchmark it is difficult for them to understand the impact of equal-weighted portfolio v market cap-weighted index on the performance.

In the credit markets some institutional investors are moving away from managing assets against credit benchmarks and having more equally weighted portfolios, however this can make it much more difficult to demonstrate good performance.

V8 Fettler said:

Is not the point of an active fund that the fund manager can actively minimise losses and maximise gains? Thus leaping ahead of the monkeys as a good poker player should do?

It is certainly one of the 'points' of active funds (as well as potentially reducing downside risk) but there is no guarantee, particularly in the short term. As I explained earlier, some investment environments are constructive for active managers - where there is a lot of dispersion between companies in an index, a good active manager has the opportunity to take advantage of extensive research and be overweight one name relative to another. Most recently however, shares have been more highly correlated with each other, meaning that opportunities to add value have been limited.

As I mentioned I think that with equities, 'beta' I.e. Market risk, is the main purpose of investment, so I prefer passive / index strategies. Plus it is difficult to know what the future environment will be like, to determine whether a good active manager is likely to outperform.

However in other strategies, credit, absolute return etc then I'm happy to pay extra for active management, given the importance of 'alpha' in those strategies.

What I certainly wouldn't do is to pick stocks randomly because of a misperceptions about 'average' returns and the impact of management fees because I'd be opening myself up to significant volatility and drawdown risk.

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 12th January 07:38

[ATG]

WindyCommon said:

ATG said:

Equity investment is a zero-sum game???? Before asking people to reconsider their view, perhaps you could make the effort to read and understand what they said?

What you said was:

ATG said:

... let's pretend the was a group of really good managers who could outperform. Their investors would "win" by exactly the same amount that another group of investors would "lose" by ...

This is incorrect because not all securities are owned by funds (a point you eventually acknowledged earlier in the thread) and because engaged fund managers are able to contribute to value creation (a point V8 has made several times).

I can explain this to you. I can't understand it for you.

As I already said, the proportion of total assets that are managed by fund managers is sufficiently high that active managers cannot collectively outperform their benchmarks. Not only is this pretty obvious from first principles, but it is also borne out by looking at actual outcomes. It's the reason some posters are saying "they can't outperform monkeys". Collectively they can't, but that DOESN'T reflect incompetence. It is inevitable in reasonably efficient markets in which the assets available to the active managers are an unbiased sample of the total. The primary market makes no difference to this. It doesn't give the active managers an edge. As new assets become available they're just part of the pool that's included in the benchmarks, held by passive managers, private investors, etc.

[ATG]

V8 Fettler said:

I'm pleased that you're impressed.

High levels of churn in secondary markets = volatility = good news for traders and short-termists but generally not so good for those looking at the medium to long term. Primary and secondary markets are closely linked, look at what happens to primary markets when secondary markets crash. The holding of shares long term + demand tends to drive up the price of a company's share, thus enabling further share issues, increased company value, improved company performance and increased dividends over the medium / long term

A steady long term increase in share values with minimal volatility = everyone wins bar the traders and short-termists.

I recognise that this is an old fashioned view.

Steadily increasing share prices is not an objective in its own right. The key thing is that share prices should always be at fair value. Liquidity in the secondary market allows prices to adjust to fair value. If the secondary market created additional price volatility, then that risk would drive up the cost of capital and that would clearly be a very bad thing. But there's no evidence that it does. On the other hand there's plenty of evidence that a lack of liquidity in an asset is seen as a risk and leads it to trade at a discount to more liquid assets. If you issue a new asset without giving investors the reasonable expectation of liquidity in the secondary market, they will demand you pay a risk premium.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

There you go, you sit there inventing words that completely alter what I have stated, using sentences out of context.
I made no such clain that underperformance is evidence of coasting.

crankedup said:

You keep asking why a manager does not WANT to maximise performance, once again I have to tell you that human nature creeps in, a lazy year or two perhaps, manager burning out ia another reason, because as a manager I don't have to try to hard any more, just for starting. Evidence can be found found every year of funds under performing.

I'm sure you meant something entirely different from what you actually said...

Yes by that I mean that when the pension forecast drops through the letterbox the bottom line reads as a joke. As I said earlier our lad pays into a pension scheme, as well as having other interests for his pension. The forecast are always miserable and the bottom line is the total sum forecast to be payable is paltry, hense his need to invest elsewhere for example his btl. He has no choice but to pay into his employer pension scheme, which is where I say these schemes offer poor value for money.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Yes by that I mean that when the pension forecast drops through the letterbox the bottom line reads as a joke. As I said earlier our lad pays into a pension scheme, as well as having other interests for his pension. The forecast are always miserable and the bottom line is the total sum forecast to be payable is paltry, hense his need to invest elsewhere for example his btl. He has no choice but to pay into his employer pension scheme, which is where I say these schemes offer poor value for money.

You might want to educate your self about current levels of market interest rates etc which affect a) expected investment returns achievable and a) annuity rates. Then you'd be able to understand the difference between investment markets and pensions (which are just a wrapper). Having said that, the tax benefits of the pensions wrapper should not be overlooked.

Presumably if he's forecast to get a 'paltry amount' out, then he must be paying a 'paltry amount' in, which begs the question - how can you fund a 'buy to let' by investing a 'paltry amount'?

Of course diversifying exposure into other assets makes perfect sense, e.g. BTL, but this is relevant to the investment strategy within a pension, not the pension itself, which is just a wrapper, as has been explained on numerous ocassions....

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 12th January 10:12

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Yes by that I mean that when the pension forecast drops through the letterbox the bottom line reads as a joke. As I said earlier our lad pays into a pension scheme, as well as having other interests for his pension. The forecast are always miserable and the bottom line is the total sum forecast to be payable is paltry, hense his need to invest elsewhere for example his btl. He has no choice but to pay into his employer pension scheme, which is where I say these schemes offer poor value for money.

You might want to educate your self about current levels of market interest rates etc which affect a) expected investment returns achievable and a) annuity rates. Then you'd be able to understand the difference between investment markets and pensions (which are just a wrapper). Having said that, the tax benefits of the pensions wrapper should not be overlooked.

Presumably if he's forecast to get a 'paltry amount' out, then he must be paying a 'paltry amount' in, which begs the question - how can you fund a 'buy to let' by investing a 'paltry amount'?

Of course diversifying exposure into other assets makes perfect sense, e.g. BTL, but this is relevant to the investment strategy within a pension, not the pension itself, which is just a wrapper, as has been explained on numerous ocassions....

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 12th January 10:12

I don't need to educate myself about how low interest rates are, as a pensioner I am fuly aware how low the rates are. Once inflation is factored in and tax paid I would be better off putting cash iunder the mattress, so to speak. On the upside at least our siblings enjoy low mortgage interest rates.
True to say at least our so. has his employer stick in a lump into the pension scheme every month.
The atea within pension schemes that I query and believe are poor value are the management charges, I have said this numerous times in this thread yet am told these charges are minimal. This being the case why is it some pensions companies charge 1.0% whilst others can charge 0.3% for the same service Thats a massive difference, my beef is that workers get offered a very limited choice of aschemes and companies, they are in effect lumbered.

so far as his BTL's go he is wise enough to have invested his cash into property, this has no effect upon his formal pension scheme, although he will of course have tax implications when/if he sells his properties. Fundemental
y this is his pension, he knows his company scheme is hopeless owing to the current financial landscape. Pension companies suggesting that they are doing thier best under difficult conditions will not help him build up a lump sum of cash he needs upon retirement.

His monthly payment into the company scheme is far from paltry, but he is obliged to maintain his payments. The problem is, far far better returns in the medium and long term are available for the monthly sum he pays currently . Add to this throwing more money into a dead duck is hardly good financial advise for anyone is it.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

I don't need to educate myself about how low interest rates are, as a pensioner I am fuly aware how low the rates are. Once inflation is factored in and tax paid I would be better off putting cash iunder the mattress, so to speak. On the upside at least our siblings enjoy low mortgage interest rates.
True to say at least our so. has his employer stick in a lump into the pension scheme every month.
The atea within pension schemes that I query and believe are poor value are the management charges, I have said this numerous times in this thread yet am told these charges are minimal.

Who has claimed these charges are 'minimal'? Seems like you are making stuff up again...

crankedup said:

This being the case why is it some pensions companies charge 1.0% whilst others can charge 0.3% for the same serviceThats a massive difference, my beef is that workers get offered a very limited choice of aschemes and companies, they are in effect lumbered.

In most cases it's not the same service. As explained on numerous ocassions. Please try and read and understand when these things are explained to you...

crankedup said:

so far as his BTL's go he is wise enough to have invested his cash into property, this has no effect upon his formal pension scheme, although he will of course have tax implications when/if he sells his properties. Fundemental
y this is his pension, he knows his company scheme is hopeless owing to the current financial landscape. Pension companies suggesting that they are doing thier best under difficult conditions will not help him build up a lump sum of cash he needs upon retirement.

If instead of investing into his pension, what sort of property would he be able to afford with those contributions?

crankedup said:

His monthly payment into the company scheme is far from paltry, but he is obliged to maintain his payments.

Who is forcing him? It should be optional.

crankedup said:

The problem is, far far better returns in the medium and long term are available for the monthly sum he pays currently . Add to this throwing more money into a dead duck is hardly good financial advise for anyone is it.

Still struggling with pensions being a tax efficient wrapper unrelated to the underlying investment markets?

No wonder you are so confused and so wrong so much of the time!

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 12th January 10:57

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

I don't need to educate myself about how low interest rates are, as a pensioner I am fuly aware how low the rates are. Once inflation is factored in and tax paid I would be better off putting cash iunder the mattress, so to speak. On the upside at least our siblings enjoy low mortgage interest rates.
True to say at least our so. has his employer stick in a lump into the pension scheme every month.
The atea within pension schemes that I query and believe are poor value are the management charges, I have said this numerous times in this thread yet am told these charges are minimal.

Who has claimed these charges are 'minimal'? Seems like you are making stuff up again...

crankedup said:

This being the case why is it some pensions companies charge 1.0% whilst others can charge 0.3% for the same serviceThats a massive difference, my beef is that workers get offered a very limited choice of aschemes and companies, they are in effect lumbered.

In most cases it's not the same service. As explained on numerous ocassions. Please try and read and understand when these things are explained to you...

crankedup said:

so far as his BTL's go he is wise enough to have invested his cash into property, this has no effect upon his formal pension scheme, although he will of course have tax implications when/if he sells his properties. Fundemental
y this is his pension, he knows his company scheme is hopeless owing to the current financial landscape. Pension companies suggesting that they are doing thier best under difficult conditions will not help him build up a lump sum of cash he needs upon retirement.

If instead of investing into his pension, what sort of property would he be able to afford with those contributions?

crankedup said:

His monthly payment into the company scheme is far from paltry, but he is obliged to maintain his payments.

Who is forcing him? It should be optional.

crankedup said:

The problem is, far far better returns in the medium and long term are available for the monthly sum he pays currently . Add to this throwing more money into a dead duck is hardly good financial advise for anyone is it.

Still struggling with pensions being a tax efficient wrapper unrelated to the underlying investment markets?

No wonder you are so confused and so wrong so much of the time!

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 12th January 10:57

You said the charges are minimal and you even gave an example showing the impact of the charge, You used £50 a month in your example!

He is obliged to participate in a company pensions scheme by Government legislation.

All the stuff about wrappers and tax efficiency is not making his projected lump sum anymoe attrative when it comes to the payout time. Especially when inflation is factored in.
This is what I keep saying and you keep coming. ack with everything except a admittance that pensions schemes are hardly worth the bother owing to the paltry return. May as well stick the cash into bottles of fine wine as well as property. I just can't see the value in the graditional pension route for working people anymore.

Nothing you have mentioned changes the fact that tradtional pensions are dead ducks. You have told me that the fees are reasonable, fund managers don't coast, I can't expect high rates of return owing to market conditions and a whole load of other stuff on the technical side.

Look at it this way, if I want to book a flight to Europe I source the best value v my convenience and pay the company. All that interests me is the service provided, take off on time and get me to my distination on time. I don't want to know about the pilot flying the plane and how clever he is. I don't want to know how the company manages to undercut its compeitiors offering the same service. I don't want to know that the airline may reduce or increase costs next year owing to market conditions. I just want the best value at given times and be able to pick and choose which company is my best option at those times I want to employ the service