..And We Wonder Why We Have A Pensions Problem....

Number of Prime Ministers in last 20 years:  4

Number of Pension Ministers in last 20 years:  15

Average tenure of Prime Minister:  5 years

Average tenure of Pension Minister: 1 year, 4 months*


*This includes the impressive 5 year stint from Steve Webb.

Good-bye Ros

I wasn’t a fan of the Ros Altmann appointment as Pension Minister and am not unhappy to see her go. She has been a good champion of pension’s miss-selling and other inadequacies in our present system, but she has also been a champion of her own profile. A bit of self-promotion is okay so long as you get the right things done. But in her time as Pension Minister, frankly, she didn’t.

She appeared to put on hold Steve Webb’s Defined Ambition agenda but didn’t push through anything else in its place. She was caught out, seemingly, by Treasury initiatives around lifetime ISAs, and her most publicised comments during her tenure were not on the subject of pensions but her critical observations relating to her then-boss Iain Duncan-Smith.

As she continues to speak for pensions from her seat in the House of Lords, it is likely to be as a populist voice for change, but without the detailed knowledge of how to do it- something else that exposed her during her time as minister.

And I expect we will see a return to the OTT headlines in the Daily Express with Ros Altmann quoted as the expert. I suspect that many of these headlines in the past were her own creations and necessarily lessened whilst she was Pension Minister.

The more junior appointments that follow her tenure suggest a greater hold of pension policy at the Treasury as well as reflecting a perceived government view that pensions doesn’t need high profile ministers.

Common Sense and Efficiency

The latest research from Alliance Bernstein carries no surprises. It says that the consumer expects a common sense approaches to investment- a feeling of control but without certainty of outcome. A combination of good governance and a sensible default fund is expected. But consumer common sense also says it’s okay to expect a spread of outcomes at retirement.

What is also expected though is flexibility and freedom at retirement. That’s fine and good if we know what we’re doing. The NAPF tell us in Pensions Expert that we don’t know what we’re doing because the Government has failed to give us the detail. With 30 working days to go before the pension freedoms, what the consumer doesn’t want is someone telling them that ‘yes, the freedoms exist’, but ‘no, you can’t benefit from them because we don’t know what to do.’

Will we get the detail in time? Or has election fever already affected output?

Common sense and efficiency from the Government would be welcome right now.

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.

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.

When the 'P' in Pensions stands for 'Politics'

David Cameron is falling into the same trap as Gordon Brown. He’s worried about votes and is threatening to change pensions because of it.

The laudable ideas from Cameron’s work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith and his able pensions man Steve Webb are in danger of coming to nothing, having travelled so far.

It’s not the first time pensions has become political- Gordon Brown was renowned for this- but at this stage in a new process, it is particularly disappointing. The idea of a flat rate State pension looks like it may be kicked into the long grass and not considered further before the next election.

I suspect that the real motivator here is George Osborne, the Chancellor, and he is ‘using’ the Prime Minister to push home his points. I know the newspaper reports say otherwise, but the reform can be shown to be costly financially and not just costly in terms of the voters who may lose out. Why is Cameron bowing to the views of his Chancellor? Maybe it is the votes. More likely it’s the cost of the changes that the Opposition can latch on to before the election- so votes again, albeit one step removed.

Shame on you Mr Cameron. You could have saved the future of pensions in the UK, simplified the system and added a long term confidence in the system that is currently lacking. Instead, you have bowed to the ballot box.