Mick McAteer describes himself as a “critical friend” to the savings industry. He has been both critical and a friend to me for many years. Occasionally we find ourselves (nearly ) on the same page, as we did yesterday.

Responding to my call to bring the CMA in to look at the risk-transfer market where occupational pensions are being bought out by insurers, Mick wrote this long post on linked in.

If not the CMA – who?

Mick, at the end of his piece questions whether the CMA are fit for purpose.

My thinking on this is that so long as the CMA is involved, the issues that lead it to be involved will be highlighted to trustees and employers prior to their committing to a buy-out or buy-in.

It has been an unfortunate feature of recent financial calamities that they have been investigated after the fact. Typically those calling for action prior to the calamity have been ignored or vilified. After the event, their voices are drowned out in more general hand-wringing.

Here is an opportunity for the CMA to act now, and put a marker in the sand. It has the capacity to act quickly because it is relatively apolitical. The complex politics that slow down decisions between TPR , FCA and PRA mean that the issues raised in my and Mick and articles by William McGrath and others , will only be recognised when a crisis occurs.

Whatever we consider the crisis -the failure of a reinsurer,  a primary insurer getting into trouble  or just the realisation that otherwise productive assets have been consigned to UK and offshore bond management, I would not want it to happen without a full consideration of the arguments for and against buy-out.

Right now , we have insufficient debate on the matter and most of the debate is framed by people with skin in the game (me included). Putting the matter in the hands of the CMA may not be the perfect solution (see Mick’s comments above) but until we have found a better , the CMA is likely the best option for a review of what looks to me like a very real systemic risk.