Associate
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 384
- Location
- Manchester
Great, thanks! So which is better in your opinion? Unfunded public where you're guaranteed to get what you're owed? Or a funded scheme which, through investments, could earn you more pension at the risk of going belly up?
Like muon said the best is final salary.
It makes no difference to you whether the scheme is funded or not you get exactly the same pension (assuming similar rules).
The only difference funding makes is how much extra it costs your pension provider. The government or the company you work for are the ones who have to makes up the difference (and without investment returns in an unfunded scheme, it is a massive difference).
In a final salary scheme the benefits are defined in that you know at the end what you are going to end up with (e.g. for 40 years service, you get 2/3rds of your salary or whatever). You don't care how well the money is invested or if it is even invested, because you know what you are getting and it is up to the provider to make sure it's paid.
In a money purchase scheme, only the amount you pay in is known and what you get out at the end is entirely dependant on investment returns. As a result the investment returns are hugely important to you and if you have one of these schemes (I do) you need to be much more active in making sure your money is in right place.
That being said, even with great investments money purchase schemes are rarely as valuable as final salary. If I had a choice I'd choose final salary every time.
I know there has been many numbers flying around in this thread regarding contribution percentages but if you look at averages:
Final salary - combined employee + employer conts are around 20-30+% of salary
Money purchase - combined employee + employer conts are around 8-15% of salary
No matter how well your money purchase scheme invests the money, all those extra final salary conts add up.