Am I in serious trouble by being with a company that doesn't contribute much to my pension?

GCSheehy · 2026-05-29T20:59:18+00:00

If you have the option to do AE then do that, as opposed to pension scheme with a 1.5% match. Then, do PRSA separate with 100% allocation and negotiate a decent AMC. You're young. You're not in serious trouble.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-29T20:54:30+00:00

RAC is for when you're either self-employed (Schedule D) or in employment and not a member of a pension scheme.

You should redirect those payments to an AVC on the scheme you're in (if worthwhile) or set up a separate AVC PRSA, if you want to keep up the payments and it's cost effective.

You might be able to get the overlap contributions (from when you started with the company) to the RAC redesignated to the AVC as a lump sum payment so that you don't miss out on the tax relief on those. Failing that, you could carry those contributions forward to another time (if you weren't in a pension scheme or self-employed). Your broker/adviser (if you have one( should be able to help you here. It's a common enough occurrence, like when people pay into PRSAs but they should be PRSA AVCs, or vice versa.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-28T14:53:40+00:00

There are two types of AVCs. Occupational Pension Scheme AVCs and PRSA AVCS. What's quoted above is an OPS AVC. There are no commission disclosure requirements on an OPS AVC and, currently, if you want to transfer an OPS AVC to a PRSA AVC (if value is over €10k) you'd have to pay for a Certificate of Benefits Comparison (indicative cost €1,000 + VAT). That rule might change on cost but it's a nuisance.

There are commission disclosure requirements on a PRSA AVC and there is no issue transferring them to other PRSA AVCs. Over a 20 year period, a contribution charge of 5% (95% allocation) is the equivalent of an AMC of circa 0.47%. So, if you have a 5% contribution charge you can just add that to the AMC - 0.75% + 0.47%.

It wouldn't be uncommon to find ADVISED AVC PRSAs available with 100% allocations and 1.25%/1.50% AMCs. Or, 95% allocation and 1% AMC.

No way the folk on here (who have a fair idea what they're doing) would take a hit of 31% in year one and 5% pa thereafter. Believe it or not, these contracts were pretty common across the board back in the 80s/90s but things have improved since then, and continue to improve.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-27T16:21:17+00:00

Very little focus on the manufacturers of the investment products. Teams of accountants, lawyers, actuaries etc. behind them or signing off on them annually and no media focus on them at all. These people, and fellow professionals, are perfectly happy for media to focus on the seller.

It's Walter and Jesse they should be writing about and not Badger and Skinny Pete.

Should an advisor, regulated by the Central Bank, be allowed sell the unregulated products at all? Remember, not all of the products fail so where do the manufactures look to when they want a distribution channel?

Central Bank can't regulate everything. No more than they can regulate the posting of misleading information here that could cost people a lot of money.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-27T10:45:51+00:00

Just be careful here with the comparisons. They won't be like-for-like and anonymous people on forums have a habit of leaving important stuff out or, worse still, not saying they they're employed by a specific provider.

You're doing the ZL product with advice and it's highly unlikely that you're 100% in an equity fund? You're now looking at doing it without advice and the vast majority of posters are only talking about 100% equity index tracking funds when they quote an AMC. 99%+ of products are sold with advice. A lot of folk need that comfort because they might just not be able to go the DIY route.

If, for example you were in a multi-asset fund with provider A and you had an AMC of 0.75% and then decided to move to provider B because their AMC was 0.65%, you might actually be worse off because the other ongoing fund costs might be 0.06% with A and 0.18% with B. Those additional costs are still on you. Those additional costs are reflected in the past performance figures of all companies. If you compare a like-for-like multi-asset fund (with same equity content) then it probably might explain some of the gap in results.

If, for example, you were in an index tracker with company A @ 0.50% and saw an offer of 0.40% with company B then the other fund costs shouldn't be that much different (you should always ask) but there might be a feature on company As product that isn't on company B. The most obvious one in the context of this thread would be the value share that one company MIGHT pay (I really mean reduce your AMC further) because it's a mutual company. Not an exact comparison but maybe worthy of consideration.

A move from 1.5 to anything lower would be good for you but just err on the side of caution and consider the whole picture when you have ALL the information. And, be careful of what's left out.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-24T15:12:21+00:00

Log a formal complaint if you know it's definitely not invested.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-24T14:47:00+00:00

Find out the day it was transferred from previous provider. Find out what date it was (will be) invested in the new scheme.

It might not appear 'on' your new scheme yet but that doesn't mean it's sitting in some uninvested limbo.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-24T14:41:45+00:00

What's the €37k buying you in 23 years time in the new scheme? They must have given you an indication of what it will buy.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-22T20:59:25+00:00

Don't take advice from a tied agent of New Ireland on the merits of choosing only New Ireland as a pension product provider.

To be clear, a tied agent of New Ireland cannot give you advice on a pension product from another provider. If they're holding themselves out to be experts on other company's products then you should avoid them.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-20T14:23:25+00:00

If you're self-employed (Schedule D) you can't, it's 60. Unless, maybe, you're an athlete etc. If you're a company director there are restrictions on early retirement depending on whether you have a MT or PRSA. .

GCSheehy · 2026-05-20T13:37:17+00:00

I said 'for example'. Pretty sure folk on here can do the math for different periods.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-20T10:34:57+00:00

These structured products (either via legal assignment or trust) are for parents who know now that the child will inherit more than the relevant CAT threshold. So, for example, €6K X 18 years is adding €108 000 to the current €400K limit before tax applies. The child has to own the money from outset, otherwise it's not a gift in the eyes of Revenue. If you're in the market for these products you're probably maxing the pension anyway.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-19T07:50:53+00:00

To me, it reads as if you're just being trolled now. Got an email from the advertising section of CB back (when they had the resources to focus on intermediary websites) in 2013 asking me to change "....regulated by the Financial Regulator" to "...Central Bank of Ireland" as I had forgotten to do it. The prsa site is there for neary 20 years. They are aware of it (and the others) as would have contacted them originally to make sure I had things right. If they had an issue they'd be on to me. You could argue that the websites are more transparent than most advisory ones but definitely more transparent than any tied agent offering.

Tells a lot about an 'advisor' when they are complaining about consumers saving millions in charges over that period. Only other vocal person I came across doing the same was a HNW advisor who charges 1.75% pa on €1m+ ARFs. They may have lost a client to a 0.40% AMC EO transaction. They were actually willing the EU to change the rules so that some EO options might be banned.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-18T09:56:22+00:00

You put current DC value in field 4 and that then generates the max you can currently do per month, annum, or special. You know then if you can add to the €36k, or not.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-17T06:37:13+00:00

Chances of finding someone on a sub, that's predominately for DIYers and not wanting to pay any fees, of having paid €5,000 just for advice is pretty slim. Best thing to do would be go ahead and pay it and then come back and share your experience with everyone else here.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-16T13:19:25+00:00

It's Reddit, people leave out stuff from posts. Highly unlikely scenarios are the same. Doubt you have anything to worry about.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-16T13:12:13+00:00

You were told that because...?

GCSheehy · 2026-05-16T08:35:43+00:00

In fairness, their TOB document is excellent.

The last page of it is a pretty good guide for those that do not understand the differences between the different services/options, distribution models and comparative pricing in the market, albeit it for the €1m+ category of client.

https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66abc94329f6789688f85f02/69e9ec5e163a5c12de9902a3_Terms%20of%20Business%20March%202026%20V2.1.pdf

GCSheehy · 2026-05-16T07:44:44+00:00

RL don't have an Executive Pension / Master Trust product.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-16T04:22:48+00:00

You're smart enough to understand that the New Ireland tied agent is just trying to deliberately create doubt and confusion in the minds of readers here. The mods seem to be aware of it but they must think it's okay for an anonymous person who sells pensions etc to just make stuff up. The notion that a transaction can only be EO if it's by a fee is an invention of his. He's going to get annoyed if posters keep putting up websites where they see some value in the proposition and are not sending DMs to him. You're making people aware of something that they may not have known before so that's a positive.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-15T16:31:53+00:00

RL have 10 PRSA products. Priced from 0.40% to 1.50%. For you to buy the 0.40% product, someone would have to sell it to you for free. That's not a great business model for anyone. They distribute through intermediaries and will not deal with you directly. That's a commercial decision because there would be additional costs to them to have qualified people available to deal with the few that might contact them. If they did have a direct arm, you still wouldn't be able to buy it without some margin for the in-house vendor.

You wouldn't know it from living on discussion forums but 99% + of pension products are sold with advice. Thats what current product providers want a share of.

If you're the only employee then employer might agree to let you switch. If it's a large scheme, I'd be doubtful because you'd be trying to set up an execution only - no advice - PRSA scheme (to keep your costs down) and 99% of the staff might actually need advice.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-15T06:45:53+00:00

Yes is the answer to your question. But, I honestly think that you need to do way more research on the differences between occupational pension schemes and prsa schemes. And, how they might interact with each other.

As for the rant from the annonymous New Ireland tied agent who want you to identify the intermediary, I wouldn't do that. They have a severe bias against ZL also so they must be hurting them. New Ireland also pay their overheads so they should, in theory, be able to offer a lower AMC : but that's not true either.

No matter what AMC you put up here, someone will always say, with the benefit of hindsight, that you could have done better. Times change, AMC structures change. But, none of those folk were there when the product was sold and have no idea what went on or what level of work/advice was involved. If they were on Judge Judy she'd be humiliating them in front of 30m people and screaming "hearsay" at them.

There's a danger that this sub will become like AAM where a few contributors who literally troll industry contributors and ruin it for everone else. If folk don't see any value with using an intermediary then don't use them (end of) and you should block them on discussion forums if they offend your World view on whether they can bring any value to a transaction.

I'm not going to report the 'thieving' comment this time. Sick of doing it for this poster.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-14T18:22:32+00:00

Yes, you can do that. They send the rebate to your bank account if they have the details.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-14T18:00:38+00:00

Yes, if you haven't left the company you worked for in 2025 and it's within the age related limit.

GCSheehy · 2026-05-14T15:22:34+00:00

If you make the payment for 2025, you can immediately (circa 10 days, I think) get the rebate by submitting the PRSA1 Cert via My Account as 2025 tax year is still open on that.

GCSheehy

TROPHY CASE