A couple of weeks back , Kim Gubler pointed out that a perfectly good system for measuring the value people get for their pension money exists. It is offered by AgeWage that allows people can see how their pension money has grown against how they could have done against the average (benchmark) and against other things that matter – inflation being the main one.

People will not get this  information from the Government’s proposals from VFM and having said this for the past five years (and operated the AgeWage VFM reports for the last 7 years), I’m not going to waste more of my time telling the Government that this VFM system is a waste of time.

Thanks to Claire Altman this week for telling the VFM podcast what is even more pertinent, VFM is what people want from pension saving and that is the amount of pension they will get.

But here is Robert Ellison saying it for me! He’s talking in Professional Pensions and this is just one section of a long essay this week! Read here.

Welcome to Emma Douglas

Emma Douglas is being appointed the new chair of The Pensions Regulator (TPR). She will be a safe pair of hands, but she is being immediately faced with the prospect of being forced to sip from a slightly poisoned chalice.

TPR, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Financial Conduct Authority have issued a consultation (not another one says Brenda from Bristol) on value for money (VfM).

VfM is motherhood and apple pie; why would any of us object to doing it, and we do it subconsciously every day anyway, especially those of us buy our biscuits from Aldi rather than Fortnums.

The document – The value for Money Framework: response to consultation, further consultation and discussion paper – is around 212 pages long and is a masterpiece of dross.

TPR’s problem is Terry Smith. Terry Smith’s Fundsmith has had a few ropey years recently (see: Patrick Brusnahan, Terry Smith gives three reasons behind Fundsmith Equity’s ‘challenging’ year, Investment Week, 9 January 2026), but, if we had held it since inception, it would still have proven good value for money for members but probably would have failed the TPR and FCA VfM tests.

How on earth should pension fund trustees measure the value for money of Smith’s very sensible decisions, which presently have been affected by a bubble in seven or so stocks?

The VfM document is a flagship of absurdity, but Emma Douglas may have to burn some political capital to get it ditched – as it needs to be, even if only to meet the government’s productivity aspirations. Hopefully her board will be supportive.

Thanks Robin

Actually what we need to do is to move to where the Government said it would be by now and start measuring what they called “Decumulation”.

Decumulation is of course a long and silly word for the payment of a pension which is what the Pension Schemes Bill wants to be the default for the ordinary person. Of course extraordinary people who opt out of pensions for “freedom” will not worry about decumulation but the rest of us will really be measuring the value for money on “pensions” will eventually be the amount of pension they get for their money.

Claire Altman wants “pension” to be measured by using the annuity (that’s her job – to manage them). The amount of “pension” you’ll see on the pension dashboard will be the estimated retirement income you get from an annuity purchased by your pot.

The Government has told us that we can expect to get (up to ) 60% more value from a CDC pension than the annuity from our pot. Where’s the VFM?

But of course you didn’t need me to tell you that. Robin Ellison had already told you that.