Second Rate and More Expensive?

There was an interesting article in Investment and Pensions Europe magazine the other day. Reporting on an OECD review of pensions in Ireland, the OECD recommended pensions compulsion. They indicated that their view of Auto-Enrolment was that it was second rate and more expensive.

My initial reaction was one of scorn. After all, aren't these OECD bods from Europe somewhere, clearly not British. But having set aside my Britannia prejudices, further thought on their comment suggests they may be right.

Let's deal with the easier one first. Yes, Auto-Enrolment is bound to be more expensive than mandatory plans. All the opting in and opting out results in complex administration and, I would suggest (well and truly wearing my Grumpy Old Pension Men hat), it produces a good income to a lot of providers and administrators. One compulsory system is definitely cheaper.

Now the more difficult argument. Compulsion or Auto-Enrolment? In the end, I think it is more to do with politics than pensions, as is often the case. Thatcher destroyed compulsion. Blair put Frank Field out to grass when Field 'thought the unthinkable' - and it proved to be just that!

Australia, New Zealand and Chile were the countries Field looked at. It works there. It could have worked here. But too late now I think. We have Auto-Enrolment for better or for worse. More expensive yes. But second rate? Not necessarily. We have to face up to extended longevity, to the fact that 'pensions' will never be top of a young persons shopping list and push on through. It has to work.

Politics in Pensions

Roger Mattingly, chair at the Society of Pension Consultants commented in the press that if Auto-Enrolment did not work, it would be the end to the careers of Steve Webb, the Pensions Minister, and his other pension colleagues. I think Roger has got it wrong. (Professional Pensions 11 March).

Steve Webb is a Liberal Democrat. He has no political ambition! It’s a surprise to him that he’s in power at all! His boss Iain Duncan Smith has been to the top of the party and back again- so he is a rare thing, an altruistic Tory!

It is to the pension industry’s advantage that we have two ministers involved in pensions policy  that are able for the most part to keep the politics on the side lines and do what’s right.

As for Roger’s comments, who’s the real one being political then?

The Price of Paper

The DWP has suggested that companies should be allowed to ditch paper communications on the basis that it may save as much as £74 million a year according to their calculations.

Having worked in the industry for years with over-cautious pension lawyers telling me I was not allowed to just communicate electronically, this may appear to be good news. However, I’m not so sure.

The fact we might be able to ditch some of the ‘grey pages’ -the small print that has to go out to everyone, especially for contract based schemes- would be more than welcome. And to be able to make a decision as to when it makes sense to communicate just electronically would be great.

But if the legislation allowed a less than paternal company to ditch paper communications for cost reasons alone, this would not be right.

If we want people to understand their pension, then we need to communicate in a way that best suits them. And that will vary with each person. If we want to get the message over, we probably need to communicate by various methods –electronically, face to face, pay-slips, newsletters, personal letters, notice boards- you name it, we should do it.

In my view, a well thought out communication strategy will always include paper at some stage. It may cost a tree or two, but if the result is a better pension, a better understanding and a better industry, it’s worth the cost.

Democratic Pragmatism

Diageo’s pension plan has been in the news recently.

Praised in the press for enlisting pensioners in order to find the current whereabouts of deferred pensioners, they are in the press again for a change they are making to their trustee appointments.

It appears that Diageo have had to replace their Member Nominated Trustees every three years. Just as they were getting useful, I would think. It must take that long just to understand the intricacies of a Defined Benefit plan.

Now, they will no longer have to replace the trustee automatically and can have them on board for a second term and longer. Slightly less democratic maybe, but infinitely more useful for everyone.

My only concern would be the possibility of ‘Chairperson Control’. By that I mean the fact that trustees will inevitably get set in their ways to a degree. The Chair will have a considerable say in how things are managed. Having someone new in the mix that is not afraid to ask ‘daft’ questions can help improve the way a trustee group operates.

Well done Diageo, but watch for complacency.

Faceless Corporates or a Real Pension Plan?

The latest pontifications from the Pensions Regulator encourages employers to consider moving away from small-scale schemes on the basis that they are less likely to deliver good member outcomes. This is too broad a generalisation. Many (most?) small schemes are run well. They often have the touch and feel of the company to which they belong. They have been nurtured and promoted by local management and relate to the company, carrying something of the company ethos.

So to say ‘move to NEST or NOW or the L&G’ etc (which is what the Pension Regulator seems to imply) is effectively saying to the employer ‘wash your hands of your own scheme’ and let some faceless corporate entity take over.

A move may make some cost savings and reduce investment charges, but at what cost to genuine buy-in from the employees?

Pensions Gone by 2050....

That’s the prediction of Michael Johnson from the Centre for Policy Studies. If that’s what the Centre would do, I’d retire them now!

Pensions get a lot of bad press and Johnson seems to be saying that not only will this continue (seemingly helped by his headlines in the Daly Telegraph: “Pensions will not exist by 2050”) but that youngsters will not invest in something so far into the future.

So far so old hat. It’s been the problem for as long as there has been a pension plan to join- we don’t think we will get old. We don’t think we can afford it, so put off the day. I remember presenting to some DJ’s at Kiss FM- talk about not accepting they were going to get old!

Johnson says that young people today should only invest in workplace pensions if their employer is making “sizeable” contributions and if they are 40 per cent taxpayers, meaning they get more tax relief. He says that if this is not the case then it is “almost certainly not worthwhile” for young people to save into a pension scheme. In the meantime, Johnson points to ISAs as the preferred investment.

With friends like Michael Johnson, who needs enemies? What a load of old…. retirement talk. The Auto-Enrolment of members of pension plans is good news. It means more will invest and more people will have more in old age. Of course there are problems to solve (annuities for example). And the pension may not be at levels akin to previous defined benefit plans, but it’s still a pension; an income in later years with tax benefits along the way, including tax free cash.

Longer term than ISAs and ensuring there is something there to make the final years good years, pensions are here to stay.

The term ‘retirement’ may fade away as people take part time jobs, live healthier longer and manage their life balance – but that’s another discussion entirely.

Small details – Big concern

One of the more outspoken debates on Pensionweb has been with regard to the Pension Regulator recommending 100% accuracy in data for everything post June 2010.

As one of the pension managers says, with their regular interaction with HR, payroll, different company divisions etc, it will never be possible have 100% accuracy on common data such as addresses.  One of the other Pensionweb correspondents suggested that a way out may be to put the company office address where one is missing. And another suggested simply accepting it will never be 100% as constantly chasing deferred pensioners for new addresses is not worth the administrative expense.

The section in the ‘record keeping’ section on the Regulator’s site says this:

“14. The targets for the standard of common data we recommend is achieved by December 2012 are:

• For new data created after June 2010 – 100%
• For legacy data (created before June 2010) – 95%; this lower level is in recognition that many schemes will have greater difficulties with older data and may inherit problems from previous trustees, managers or administrators.”

An unreasonable target? Definitely. For any largish scheme, data changes every day. Yes, I guess you could cheat the system by putting in a temporary address, but better the Regulator understood the issue and stated up front that he was aware that the 100% would not be achieved. Better still, give a few percent leeway, as he has done with legacy data.

A small point. But not a small issue. If the Regulator wants to work with the industry, he needs to be careful how he speaks.