K
kathrynT
Member
Hi
I've got a bit of a query with the above question - I'm hoping someone can shed some light! It's how you allow for the expenses. In the question it says the expenses are:
"1% pa of DC fund value"
I took this to mean if the employer pays conts of 7% say, and the member pays 5%, that the total going into the fund would be 7% + 5% - 1%(for expenses)=11%.
How the institute answers have done it is to knock the 1% off the investment return assumption. So it says equities are assumed to return 7% pa, so you assume the fund returns 6% to allow for expenses.
I'm not that familiar with DC work, but I thought the institute's way was what happened in practice, but the wording of the question threw me into doing something different. I'm just confused because the wording of the question doesn't seem to fit the answer.
I'm probably just picking on a tiny point as an excuse not to study but it'd be nice if anyone has any thoughts!
Thanks
Kathryn
I've got a bit of a query with the above question - I'm hoping someone can shed some light! It's how you allow for the expenses. In the question it says the expenses are:
"1% pa of DC fund value"
I took this to mean if the employer pays conts of 7% say, and the member pays 5%, that the total going into the fund would be 7% + 5% - 1%(for expenses)=11%.
How the institute answers have done it is to knock the 1% off the investment return assumption. So it says equities are assumed to return 7% pa, so you assume the fund returns 6% to allow for expenses.
I'm not that familiar with DC work, but I thought the institute's way was what happened in practice, but the wording of the question threw me into doing something different. I'm just confused because the wording of the question doesn't seem to fit the answer.
I'm probably just picking on a tiny point as an excuse not to study but it'd be nice if anyone has any thoughts!
Thanks
Kathryn