• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

April 06 Q2 (iv) - DC fund investments

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
 
1% of fund value vs 1% of contribution value...

...without looking at the paper I would guess that "1% of fund value" means 1% of the accumulated assets rather than the incremental contributions. This is also consistent with the way in which investment managers tend to set up their charging structures (that is % of funds under management rather than % of cashflow in). What would happen in the case of net cash outflow?

Subtracting from the investment return assumption is based on the fact that at whatever rate the fund grows at in future, it will also reduce annualy by 1% as charges are taken from the fund. To nit-pick their formula, I would use (1+i)/(1-1%)-1 rather than i-1% as the net investment return assumption.

Admin costs calculated per member would be subtracted from contributions as it has no bearing on the size of the assets under management.
 
Back
Top