Some people do it for you whatever their age. Follow Bob Dylan , follow Derek Scott! Both call the state of things.
So why do you want to read my blogs when you can read the fantastic Derek Scott rounding up the pension schemes bill. I don’t know if he writes with AI at his fingertips but I am quoting here his response to my blog Being poor in retirement is down to your behaviour – L&G can cure you. I’m not quite sure what the link is to his wonderful piece but I don’t care, there is so much in his post to like, I wish I had one more than one like at my disposal!
Derek Scott calls the state of reform from the Pension Schemes Bill (Derek’s words from his recent comment)
I listen and hear parts where the marketing gloss creeps in
• “Value for money” framing
• Sounds substantive, but still ill-defined in practice, after all
this time.
In reality, a regulatory captured mechanism to:
• push consolidation,
• weed out some poor schemes,
• justify higher-fee strategies? (e.g. private markets).
It does not guarantee better net outcomes for members.
Private markets/illiquids in DC defaults
• This is a big “industry” push—and the most questionable.
Claims:
• higher returns,
• better diversification,
• “DB-like” investing.
Issues:
• higher fees and complexity,
• valuation opacity,
• unclear net-of-fee returns at scale,
• governance burden shifted onto members who don’t choose this.
There’s no strong evidence yet that these investments will materially improve retirement outcomes for typical DC savers.
“We’re more innovative than other countries” is spin.
The UK is actually catching up on decumulation design; Australia and the US and others are ahead in different ways.
A UK “default retirement solution” could be useful—but it’s not inherently superior.
The 50% reduction in “shortfalls”
is the most marketing-heavy claim.
Likely driven by:
• modelling assumptions,
• selective cohorts (engaged users, 20% or less),
• behavioural prompts like “increase contributions slightly.”
It certainly doesn’t mean people are now on track for adequate retirement incomes in any absolute sense.
What’s missing (and matters most), the critical gap: none of this addresses the core structural problem of DC.
Contribution rates remain too low
• Auto-enrolment at ~8% total or less is insufficient.
• No amount of dashboards, apps, or private assets fixes under-investing.
• Investment risk, sequencing risk, longevity risk are still on the individual.
DB pooled and absorbed these risks; DC has always individualised them.
Outcomes remain highly unequal
• Broken work histories, low earnings, gig work → fragmented, small pots.
• The people who most need help are least likely to engage with apps or guidance journeys.
• No real risk pooling (yet)?
• CDC is mentioned, but still sounds niche and politically constrained.
• Without pooling, DC cannot replicate DB-like income stability.
Final thoughts
• Yes, these developments may marginally improve DC outcomes:
• slightly lower costs,
• slightly better investment design,
• fewer obviously bad retirement decisions.
But they do not fundamentally change the equation: Most DC “savers” will end up with smaller, more uncertain incomes than their DB predecessor “pensioners”.
Addendum on CDC from the Pension Plowman
I should add to Derek’s comment that the CDC legislation that allowed Royal Mail and now allows multi-employer CDC schemes, does not fall within the Pension Schemes Bill.