There’s a lot of discussion on Pensionweb right now about the latest proposals from the National Association of Pension Funds to put up their subscription charges.
It raises the same old questions- if we pay, what do we get? Questionable lobbying? Possibly a listening ear? Maybe some good training that may be free elsewhere?
The NAPF has a problem and always will have. It purports to be a spokesperson for the pension scheme- but it is largely sponsored by consultants and investment managers. Its council in years gone by has been flooded with providers, lawyers and actuaries. How can it speak for the pension scheme with such strong external influences?
It gets by- or at least it has until now. If the subscription charge goes up, the very members it says it represents will be the first to leave. Most sponsoring businesses are going through the recession with reduced workforces and cutbacks. The NAPF? No sign of any cut backs that I can see. And not clever to talk of increased subscriptions when times are hard.
It wouldn’t be so bad if they really did speak for the industry, but when there is a need for a spokesperson on TV, the news channels usually turn to Ros Altmann of Saga for the provocative sound bite.
When they do get it right, when they do get on TV as spokespeople, it’s good news. It just doesn’t happen enough. Not enough for a subscription rise anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment