Will people will take their pension losses to the courts? 

The point that JAFA is making is in  the comments section of Claer Barrett’s recent pension article

As Claer says, his frustration is that he has no way of knowing what his return on his investment is, let alone whether this compares well with what he could have got elsewhere.

Pension Schemes hide behind the mantra “past performance is no guide to the future” but your contribution history does infact reveal a lot about the risks you have taken over the years and whether they have paid off. Comparing your outcome with the outcomes you’d have got with other strategies allows you to see whether you chose wisely (or more likely had good or bad decisions taken on your behalf).

It may sit uncomfortably with pension providers that they can be called to account for their default funds (and for other funds offered on their platform) but if “fiduciary” means anything – it means taking responsibility as a “trustee”.

We are pioneering a system (agewage.com) where savers can access their data and share it with us, we will tell them by means of a score, how their pension has fared against the average pension and we will also give people like JAFA the actual internal rate of return achieved by them (rather than people like them).

But we are meeting a lot of headwinds

  1. Most pension providers do not give you online access to your contribution data (L&G do – but you need to be persistent)
  2. When you ask for the data in digital format, you rarely get what you ask for , making the cost of the calculation in terms of person-hours, very expensive
  3. Many providers simply give up and never provide the information.

So we are making a thumping loss providing this service at a reasonable charge (we charge £5 per score ). We should not have to charge at all.

This information could and should be available on our pension portals but we have had zero interest in using our algorithm , (supported by Hymans Robertson benchmark indices) by providers.  When we put the simple idea of telling people their VFM to Government , the DWP dismissed it on the basis of their being insufficient industry demand.

Like many “innovations”, ours has been supressed and invested money remains “dumb”. So long as the pension industry is in charge we will not get dashboards, online performance and we certainly won’t be able to choose our pot for life.

We have to ask ourselves, how will savers like JAFFA get information about how they have done, as they get in Australia and could get in the UK?

The answer of course is to make it part of the DNA of the consumer duty – to tell people how they have done in a way that makes sense to them. I suspect that it will be the FCA who sit up and listen to people like JAFFA, they haven’t listened to me.

Our idea may be five , or even ten years ahead of its time. But that is only because the pension industry lags other parts of the open finance ecosystem by five or ten years.

There is a flipside to this. Complacency and a lack of transparency is coming back to bite the Post Office and Fujitsu. Keeping people in the dark about their money is not a good long-term strategy. There is a  risk  to doing nothing.

That is that people get so fed up with being shrugged off by the complacent providers , that they take some action. I was interested to read this exchange on twitter this morning which calls for me take arms against the City (more Wat Tyler than the Pension Plowman).

 

Thanks Alan, you are absolutely on the money. If people cannot get action from Government, or answers from their providers, will people will take their pension losses to the courts?

 

About henry tapper

Founder of the Pension PlayPen,, partner of Stella, father of Olly . I am the Pension Plowman
This entry was posted in pensions. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Will people will take their pension losses to the courts? 

  1. PensionsOldie says:

    I think the most fundamental issue is that the insurance industry is seeking to become the sole provider of non-State pension income for the entire British population.

    Pension pots are managed on the assumption they will be used to purchase annuities.
    Barriers to transferring pots into self-managed drawdown vehicles.
    DB pensions being converted into fixed basis annuities without any regard to the potential benefits that could accrue to Members in a risk sharing scheme run on or through “discretionary” benefits that could accrue from “productive” investment.

    No one seems to measure the transfer of value from the individual to the insurer and the systemic risks are ignored.

  2. DaveC says:

    While I have sympathy with people “losing” money, it really is all there in black and white if you can be bothered to read the stuff they send.

    Passivity and apathy costs you.

    Activity sees you in a SIPP and taking control, and being able to be an activist investor avoiding businesses who don’t share your values.
    Don’t like Black Rock ruining the world (in your opinion)? Then don’t let a penny of your money get near them.

    Anyone using one of the established monoliths for their pension really has only themselves to blame for a poor outcome.

    As I understood it, any DC pot can be transferred. But I’m not sure about those actively paid into. Can you empty them out to a SIPP each year?
    If not then I’d suggest that needs to change.

  3. John Mather says:

    Until you link the movement of funds under management to AgeWage you will always struggle to recover costs. It measures IRR very well but there is no call to action.

    There will always be a normal distribution of performance. Eliminating costs is one way to boost performance but some costs come with benefits such as advice. Reducing costs by eliminating advice has been shown to have a detrimental effect on long term performance ( the much quoted 6% advised)

    At the roots of the issue is economic assumptions that are probably wrong leading to wrong conclusions and actions that are unsurprisingly also wrong. ( read recent paper by Andrew Smithers) I will send you a draft pdf of an article to be published in American Affairs on 20th February. The article includes a post-war history of the failures of consensus economic theory, noted by Nicholas Kaldor, Robin Marris, Milton Friedman, Hyman Minsky, and more recently by George Akerlof and Ricardo Caballero.

    AgeWage just needs to link with its own new mousetrap and success would be assured. Become a SIPP provider for those with £250,000 or more.?

  4. Pingback: What FT readers really think about their DC pensions | AgeWage: Making your money work as hard as you do

Leave a Reply