Pension funds are constantly rising in price for new customers. Future fund costs the commission for her by two billion crowns. Were it not for these costs, the funds would normally attribute 5 and 6% returns to a conservative strategy.
Pension funds pay intermediaries thousands of fees for drawing up new supplementary pension contracts. In addition, reward employers with high one-time and regular bonuses for contributions to the pension of your employees.
From which pension funds these commissions castle? There are always no daily pension fees (as is the case with life insurance) and at least 85% of the achieved profit is always written. Due to the inseparable assets, these commissions and bonuses are paid out from one package of pensions, which the funds manage.
In the ethnic group, they are kept on the input commission and fee, while their contribution is hidden in the assets for the current period.
Pension funds present a steadily declining ratio in operating costs to the volume of assets under management. Point out the efficient management. But this is a natural process. The reason is the reason for the growing volume of managed disputes resulting from the constant growth of new employees, from the growth of average lows to the pension supplement and the resulting effective portfolio management.
There is also a concentration of the market and an integrated fund with insurance companies, where some personnel and marketing expenses are paid from the budget of the insurance company from the same financial group, not from the budget of the fund. There must be no effective dispute.
Which criteria are kliov?
The highest costs of pension funds, ie costs of commissions and bonuses, are not included in the fund’s current cost indicators. It is often effectively discussed with the help of the indicator of the volume of operating costs to the volume of total assets, which in pension funds is most often between 1% and 1.5%.
Is this indicator objective to assess the effectiveness of the administrative dispute, which does not take into account not only the future costs of pension funds, but also the cost of commissions and fees in a given year?
The objective indicator, the ratio of total costs to assets, in 2005 reached the most values for individual funds in the range of 1.5% and 2.5%. The indicator indicates the value of the cost of assets after accruals, which takes into account the costs of three periods and thus takes into account the consumption of the pension fund in the coming years.
In this indicator, the funds are markedly different and most often reach values in the range of 2 and 5%, and the impact of this indicator is also performed by the phases. PF esk spoitelny, Allianz PF and Generali PF are the least affected by future costs. On the contrary, the most obvious is SOB PF Progres, according to ING PF, Winterthur PF and PF esk pojiovny.
The most common approach used by most of the funds they hold as KPMG’s auditors (for example, PF P or ING PF) is a linear commission for the entire period of validity of the pension contract, for a maximum period of 15 years.
The full commission paid should therefore be paid at the latest by the time the claimant for the retirement pension arises. This method allows the pension fund to report profits, not as they would correspond to the facts. Another approach used by some pension funds with a Deloitte auditor (for example, PF S) is a non-linear way in which the commission must be allowed for a maximum of 4 years from the conclusion of the contract. This method is more in line with sound management, or the fund is not so burdened by future costs.
You will find the full link on the server www.investujeme.cz.