The comparison assumes that all Riester Fund providers can achieve the same performance with its share of equity funds, the different quality and yield of the Fund that are included in the various Riester products are not included in the comparison. But also at the free fund investment, decides to select a Fund just based on the performance and quality of the Fund, why should that be any different at Riester Fund. It only costs and backup techniques of the provider are compared, but not possible yield differences due to varying quality of the Fund. This is a simulation of the assurance techniques of the provider no past data are based, but only theoretical assumptions not enough, also. Would it be another Test result of the magazine FINANZtest from 2003 are followed and you would have chosen the UniProfirente as Riester product, you would have now generated a significant negative and set to the wrong concept, pure there ran the investors in this product into the so-called cash-lock pensions trap.
Now relativized and corrected financial test its unconditional recommendation of UniProfirente in 2008 and recommended some customers even switching to another provider. These examples show that comparisons of magazines for the Riester customers and independent investment advisors are not sufficient for a qualified and balanced decision in favor of one or the other Riester product. But there is another problem of the previous comparisons. It only offers of the Fund insurance on the compared one and Bauherrenmodelle on the other side separated from each other. But the Riester savers need a direct comparison of the expected end of benefits of all unit-linked Riester products, if they should choose for the one or the other form of saving. Because What, for example, the cheapest Riester product or that with the highest initial rate of investment in equity funds, if at the end of the wrong plant concept with high probability only the contributions and allowances available. .
