• 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.

Bundled or unbundled approach

C

Curious_actuary

Member
I read in one of the Examiner's reports -

An employer has to decide in a DC whether to adopt a bundled or unbundled approach to Investment/Administration/Insurance.

I am not sure what does bundled/unbundled approach means?

Can anybody put forward their thoughts?


Thanks
 
In a bundled approach you assign one provider to deal with all these aspects of running your scheme.

In an unbundled approach you choose one or more provider(s) of each service separately (or may choose to handle some of these in-house).

The first can be more cost effective, and a single point of contact is likely to be more convenient for the sponsor.

The second can deliver superior results, most notably in terms of offering a suitably diverse range of investment options to members. It also makes it easier to cut off a poorly performing provider without dramatic upheavals.

The following Q&A is interesting to read if you want to understand it better, or my explanation isn't clear:

http://www.standardlife.co.uk/conte...int/article/dear_donald_trust_or_contact.html
 
In a bundled approach you assign one provider to deal with all these aspects of running your scheme.

In an unbundled approach you choose one or more provider(s) of each service separately (or may choose to handle some of these in-house).

The first can be more cost effective, and a single point of contact is likely to be more convenient for the sponsor.

The second can deliver superior results, most notably in terms of offering a suitably diverse range of investment options to members. It also makes it easier to cut off a poorly performing provider without dramatic upheavals.

The following Q&A is interesting to read if you want to understand it better, or my explanation isn't clear:

http://www.standardlife.co.uk/conte...int/article/dear_donald_trust_or_contact.html

Thanks. That was of great help..appreciate the link posting:)
 
Back
Top