It’s Not Just About Costs

The announcement today from the Government with regard to cost transparency is welcome. It should not be hard for members to understand what they are paying – and what costs are being charged for both administration and investments.

There is one concern though- a rush to the lowest charges may not mean the best deal. There needs to be care involved in explaining costs. A higher administration charge in some cases may mean a local company DC plan can continue, rather than being swallowed up by one of the big providers, or by a master trust. And there’s a good reason for that additional cost if the result is a plan that is better suited to that company’s workforce, as well as it being better presented and explained.

As to investment costs being more transparent- about time too! But again, take care in explaining that lowest charges don’t always equate with best returns.

As employers and providers, we can’t just rely on costs being understood. Members need to understand the value of their pension plan, the fact that it’s tax efficient and that employer money is being paid in as well. These are basic things, but so often still misunderstood by a workforce that is apathetic to pensions. The employer and provider can’t afford the same apathy.

As always, pensions will remain complicated. And it's not just about costs. Good communication is key. Enthusiasm from the provider and employer sponsor is key too.

Ten Pension Predictions for 2015

1.       A lack of clear and detailed regulation relating to the new pension freedoms.

As April draws near, many will be shouting loudly for clarity on detail, but it won’t arrive. Political parties will be in election mode and the April ‘new start’ will be hindered by poorly thought out regulation.

2.       Increasing pension scams.

Inevitable with the new pension freedoms. And frequent too, until the new systems get bedded in and the new government knows what to do.

3.       Appalling pension headlines.

Probably led by the Daily Mail as usual. People defrauded of pensions. People confused by the new freedoms. Anything to sell a paper.

4.       Quiet success with new products offering good customer value.

Probably won’t make the Daily Mail, but many providers will successfully navigate the new legislation and come up with quality, innovative products at a reasonable cost.

5.       New quality systems.

This has been ongoing since auto-enrolment was announced, but providers are making good strides with new data management tools integrated to pension provision. Again, unlikely to trouble the Daily Mail headline makers.

6.       Covenant worries.

No predictions here on a Russia collapse, Islamic militants and all the rest, but whatever happens in the world affects investments. And with that in mind, trustee covenant concerns regarding the remaining DB plans will increase.

7.       Adverts relating to not cashing in your pension.

As the new freedoms kick in, how long before we see adverts and articles relating to the need to think before you spend?  In Australia (a country we seem to be mimicking re pensions) it’s called ‘double dipping’ - people who spend their pension and then live off the Sate.

8.       Strengthened DC governance.

Whatever government is in power, I expect some firmer legislation around DC governance and management, akin to trustee governance.

9.       Pension Apps that work.

With a continued move to everything being in front of you on a smart phone, pension apps will come of age.

10.   Closure of small and medium pension schemes.

Whether DB or DC, there will be closures, mergers and buy-outs of smaller schemes, as the new legislation and auto-enrolment continue to change the landscape.

NAPMI?

The announcement that the NAPF and PMI are likely to merge is an interesting one.

Both are citing improvements in management, pooling of resources and greater influence in the industry. But I guess it also reflects a decrease in DB schemes, traditionally the ‘bread and butter’ for the NAPF. They came to embrace DC rather late in the day and I’m guessing not so many DC schemes are interested in being part of (and paying a fee for) membership of the NAPF.

Of course, the NAPF gets a lot of support and income from consultants and providers as well, but if they can’t claim to be speaking for company pension schemes as well, there’s a problem.

As for the PMI, they came out of the Chartered Insurance Institute originally and have kept close to their original remit of maintaining and promoting pensions excellence through professional exams. I’m not so sure what’s in a merger for the PMI –unless of course they are low on volunteers which would be pretty essential for their continuation.

All in all, it’s a reflection of a decreasing profile for employer sponsored pension plans. And with auto-enrolment and the new proposed tax changes, that decrease will pick up pace as companies embrace standard industry products.

Not the happiest of backgrounds for the NAPF conference which starts today.

The True Colours of the NAPF

The true colours of the National Association of Pension Funds are showing through in their latest comments. They are recorded in Professional Pensions Magazine as saying that signposting members to the guidance guarantee could cost: ‘In the case of the largest schemes this could be in excess of £100,000 a year’.

And so, the NAPF is again exposed as thinking about their largest members. If a plan has millions under investment and the company is a multi-million pound enterprise, then £100,000 could be seen as quite reasonable.

What about the small and medium sized employers? Their costs of signposting may be less than £100,000 of course, but in real terms, a much higher percentage of funds under management or of the company’s value.

The NAPF are also recorded as questioning the need to signpost every time pensions are mentioned, especially if the member is ‘many years’ from needing it. Again, this is missing the point. If the member is in a guaranteed Defined Benefit plan, then maybe so. But if it’s Defined Contribution, then the more they can save at an earlier age the better. Again, the NAPF has shown its true colours. Not just a big company bias, but a DB bias.

From Ford Model T to Lamborghini

It’s nearly six months since Steve Webb made his controversial Lamborghini comment - that people should be able to use their pension savings to buy a Lamborghini if they want to. 

And it was the extent of the pension changes announced by George Osborne at that time that took us all by surprise. But six months on, with a lot of reflection, and considerable hard work from the pensions industry, we’re getting used to the idea, the flexibility. And to some extent, the increased simplicity and reasonableness of the changes. Annuities will still exist, but gone is the need for an annuity and with it, the effect of the fluctuations in annuity rates from month to month that created a lottery for the approaching retiree.

In its place is a need to communicate like never before. The trustees need to decide how to respond to changes that affect their plans (the Taxation of Pensions Bill is just out). And then they need to act. Members will need that oft-spoken of information that Steve Webb speaks of like never before.

We’ve come a long way from a prescribed defined benefit pension plan (the Ford Model T of pensions) to the Lamborghini type choice that awaits today’s pensioners. I think that’s good. But trustees need to start reviewing the changes early, and then to shout loud those changes to a workforce that still has a mental block the moment you mention the word ‘pension’.

House Moves and Pension Moves

Just recovering from moving house, so therefore catching up a bit with all that has been happening in the world of pensions.

(Incidentally, well done to all the various third parties, institutions and providers –and especially the Post Office- for responding so well to our house move. All except BT that is. Did you know you can’t order broadband if there is no recognised house phone? Actually there is a house phone- but it’s been offline with the house being empty. Anyway, BT rant over....)

The main pension move of course has bee CDC’s. Not new, but a new energy for the idea post Queen’s Speech. And Steve Webb linking it to his Defined Ambition project. Is it really DC+ (to use a Webb phrase)? Sort of.

Plus in terms of increased certainty by way of volume. Plus in terms of lower costs, again due to volume. But not plus in terms of additional guarantees. The pot can still go down as well as up. There’s no protection even on pensions in payment.

I remember managing a Dutch CDC for a large international company. The news was not good one year. There were going to have to be reductions in pensions in payment. It was a hard one for the local Dutch company to manage in terms of a news story that could get out to the press. No one wants their pensioners to suffer. The US parent company didn't like it one bit. How did we get to this, they were asking? It was a communications nightmare.

What looks good on paper and works logically for pension professionals is still hard to explain to a member. Especially a pensioner who’s just found out they are getting less in their bank account each week.

Nevertheless, I think it’s a good step forward so long as we can manage the message with the members.

In Modest Praise of the Active Manager

There’s no doubt active managers are under the cosh right now. The Hymans Robertson findings show that active management, after paying fees, has achieved little or nothing for the Local Government funds. Michael Johnson of the Centre for Policy Studies sees no on-going active role in listed assets.

The problem is the solution. The solution seems to be passive management and passive management follows the herd. Down as well as up. The herd aren’t always right.

But it’s a hard job to convince the investor of that. In the age of defined contributions, it’s the member that needs convincing, not so much the company. And the individual investor is cautious. State Street research shows young investors, often new to pensions via auto-enrolment, are averse to risk. They don’t want to see decreases on their benefit statements -and they find it hard to rationalise that they should save at all if they can’t get the money until retirement.

Back to communications here. If the State Street conclusion was to be followed in practice, you end up with extreme caution, cash and bonds, lack of growth and potentially, a lack of pension. The long term investor needs to accept a degree of risk. Not to do so is to live in poverty in retirement. How we need that pension advice and education aimed at the member!

There is a role for the active investor in both defined benefit and defined contribution plans. They can add value, especially when everyone else is doing the same thing. Hymans results are disappointing but not conclusive to the demise of the active manager. Fees can be an issue. And communicating risk positively; even more so. But the demise of the active manger? Not while investment tactics can still produce superior returns when compared to a tracking computer.

Strong and Direct

Great piece in Professional Pensions. Lee Hollingworth of Hymans Robertson is correct in saying ‘people need a strong, direct approach to tell them what ‘adequate’ is, what they need and how they’re doing against that target’.

The comment comes following analysis by Hymans Robertson via their Guided Outcomes platform which shows only 18% of over one hundred thousand defined contribution members are likely to build an adequate retirement income.

Apathy has done well for us. The new auto-enrolment approach relies on it for getting members into pension plans. But that’s just the start. If the employer stops with the minimum, then pensions at retirement will be inadequate, and as Hollingworth says, poor pension results will lead to ‘workforce management issues’.

We are going the right way with UK pensions. Auto-enrolment was needed. But that’s just the start.