The proposed Mansion House Compact II, of which a draft was reportedly circulated last month, would see DC providers commit to investing 10% of assets into unlisted equities by 2030, with half of those being devoted to the UK. The government is understood to be planning to announce the revised Compact this month.

Professional Pension readers were polled on whether this would be good for “DC pensions”

What do we mean by DC? Any idea?

We must be clear about what we are talking about. The headline refers to the DC sector being ( I suppose) a sector of pensions as a whole, yet we have not yet agreed that DC schemes are delivering pensions at all.

If the aim of the DC sector was no more than to deliver pots of money for people to spend in the latter parts of their lives , much of what Martin Richmond reports would make sense, we should not be committing people’s money to long-term investments (as promised by the Mansion House Compact II).

The industry doesn’t know what’s going on!

The most important finding from the survey is that there is no coherence around a single idea. We are neither for or against a long term investment strategy for the money we save into “DC”

28% of respondents said the new compact would be an encouraging move for DC schemes, compared to 38% who disagreed. The remaining 33% said they did not know.

This suggests a complete lack of leadership from “pensions”. Is that leadership coming from politicians (Reeves/Reynolds/Bell)? Is leadership coming from a trade body (PLSA/ABI/IA) or is there a groundswell that Professional Pensions is tapping into?

The PP readers support a more ambitious approach to investment for disparate reasons

Of the respondents who said Mansion House Compact II would be a positive move for DC schemes, one said they were “all for widening choice and diversification”.

Another said they supported it, providing “clients and their advisers can change the predominant ‘low cost is good’ focus when selecting/reviewing a DC provider”.

A third opined: “As long as we have our priorities right and our focus is member outcomes not propping up the economy. We also need to ensure consumers understand.”

There is as much diversity within those who are for Mansion House as there is overall- diversity equals no agreement nor is there diversity against those who do not want more ambitious investment

One pundit who did not back the proposals said: “Making UK investment an interesting proposition is one thing, partial nationalisation of British pension fund savings is another. The government has gone about this in an unnecessarily hostile and combative way.”

Another stated that while it could be seen as a constructive step for some, such as politicians and private equity houses, it might not necessarily be positive for members. They added: “Pension scheme investment should be governed by members’ interests, not external agendas.”

A third argued it would only be a positive course of action providing it could “ensure that this means higher, less risk returns” and emphasised that this could not be guaranteed.

I am pretty sure we would all sign up to guaranteed returns from investment that improved matters for savers but has there ever been a time when we have funded pensions without speculation that purchased assets will deliver? It strikes me that many people have lost confidence in the principle of funding for pensions in the shift towards a world where saving is foremost and spending no business of the industry.

The one thing that is for sure is that there is no certainty amongst those for , against or undecided.

A further pundit said it “depends on the scheme position” and noted “asset security is one of our prime aims as well as growth”. They warned: “This is not a political football game!”

Of the respondents who were unsure, one stated it would “depend on the general economic situation, which is rather turbulent at the moment”.

Another said: “As long as it isn’t going to create illiquid investments at times when individuals are looking to draw their pensions.”

Thanks to Professional Pensions and its Martin Richmond. This survey tells me what I most feared, that there is currently no leadership on what we need to do but only uncertainty.

It is critical that we have leadership emerging from the work being done on Pensions and Investments and we need clarity on what to do in the Pension Bill/Act.

As I have said in recent blogs, the anger of the public about failure from the current Government to get things done is now clear.

The general public are looking for leadership and not seeing it from traditional sources. It is up to Government to reassert leadership.

Surprisingly, pensions has one of the few Labour politicians who one can see as a future prime minister. I think it possible that what will come out of the mess that this Professional Pensions Poll tells us we are in , is a clear way forward.

Right now is however a mess!