Dan1987
2019-12-17 10:07:06
- #1
Hello everyone,
I have been reading passively here for some time and am now happy to finally be able to take advantage of the advice of the well-informed people myself.
First of all, about my current situation:
- pregnant girlfriend (civil servant) and me (employee) and both "well" earning planning to purchase a property in the next 1 - 2 years
- equity is available in an amount that can cover the ancillary purchase costs, the rest of the loan needs to be financed
- in addition to purchasing the property, I would like to save a small amount monthly for retirement provision
I am certainly no expert in the field of investment, but I have already read up quite well on the basics. Therefore, I never wanted to conclude funds because of the high costs and instead invest in cheaper options (especially ETFs).
In the course of acquiring the property, I am currently organizing my finances and came across a clever (independent) financial advisor from a business consulting firm who proposed the following scenario:
He recommended the product "Generation private plus" from Canada Life. This is a unit-linked pension insurance – the costs are accordingly high. €4,500 acquisition and distribution costs, monthly administrative costs of €5.43, and €274 fixed costs in the first 10 years. To make the product attractive to me, he now told me that the product is of course expensive, but it has a very important advantage: private retirement provision would have a significant impact on the approved loan interest rate for construction financing at a bank (0.1 - 0.2 percentage points). Through private retirement provision, I would give the bank more security. Since the financial advisor can also negotiate the conditions with banks for me when purchasing a property, this would accordingly reduce my interest rate. That means I would deliberately accept the high costs of Canada Life in this case in order to get a cheap construction loan in return. Thus, it would ultimately have a positive effect on me again.
As already described, a unit-linked pension insurance was never an option because of the high costs, but the described scenario at least makes me suspicious. In my research, I could not find any meaningful evidence anywhere for his thesis. Is such a scenario realistic? Am I being taken for a ride here?
If I have forgotten any important information, please let me know! I look forward to your feedback!
I have been reading passively here for some time and am now happy to finally be able to take advantage of the advice of the well-informed people myself.
First of all, about my current situation:
- pregnant girlfriend (civil servant) and me (employee) and both "well" earning planning to purchase a property in the next 1 - 2 years
- equity is available in an amount that can cover the ancillary purchase costs, the rest of the loan needs to be financed
- in addition to purchasing the property, I would like to save a small amount monthly for retirement provision
I am certainly no expert in the field of investment, but I have already read up quite well on the basics. Therefore, I never wanted to conclude funds because of the high costs and instead invest in cheaper options (especially ETFs).
In the course of acquiring the property, I am currently organizing my finances and came across a clever (independent) financial advisor from a business consulting firm who proposed the following scenario:
He recommended the product "Generation private plus" from Canada Life. This is a unit-linked pension insurance – the costs are accordingly high. €4,500 acquisition and distribution costs, monthly administrative costs of €5.43, and €274 fixed costs in the first 10 years. To make the product attractive to me, he now told me that the product is of course expensive, but it has a very important advantage: private retirement provision would have a significant impact on the approved loan interest rate for construction financing at a bank (0.1 - 0.2 percentage points). Through private retirement provision, I would give the bank more security. Since the financial advisor can also negotiate the conditions with banks for me when purchasing a property, this would accordingly reduce my interest rate. That means I would deliberately accept the high costs of Canada Life in this case in order to get a cheap construction loan in return. Thus, it would ultimately have a positive effect on me again.
As already described, a unit-linked pension insurance was never an option because of the high costs, but the described scenario at least makes me suspicious. In my research, I could not find any meaningful evidence anywhere for his thesis. Is such a scenario realistic? Am I being taken for a ride here?
If I have forgotten any important information, please let me know! I look forward to your feedback!