Dirty tricks of some workplace pension schemes

Posted on March 14, 2026 by henry tapper

In a recent blog, I pointed to a report that Jonathan Stapleton brings to life with quotes from those working for the personal pensions on the wrong end of the transfer delays (who represent their customers as well).

There is a strong inertia in DC pensions that is created by those who hold the bulk of the money either in legacy personal and section 226 pensions (FCA regulated)  or by occupational pensions governed by trustees but controlled by administrators who are neither regulated by TPR or FCA.

The argument is simple, rather than adopt the kind of technology that allows money to move from one bank account to another, the holders of DC money have adopted “sludge practices” that leave consumers unable to get what they consider VFM. What is worse is that the VFM Framework will do little to help the consumer.

Here are takes  from Jonathan Stapleton’s article which goes into the remedies put forward from those quoted (the actual report is here)

It warned that, as the government prepares for the launch of the pensions dashboards, any increased visibility without a modern transfer system would only lead to mass consumer frustration.

And it said savers were currently “confined” by a 180-day statutory limit on transfers – a limit it said seemed “out of touch” with the rest of modern finance, where a bank account can be switched in seven days and a cash ISA transferred in fifteen.

The report also cited how so-called legacy providers use what it called “sludge practices” – such as requiring signatures on paper forms – to delay transfers. It said even more concerning was the “outright misuse” of anti-scam legislation, where it said firms trigger “amber flags” for schemes provided by prominent providers regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

The coalition of providers .. called on the government to adopt a series of reforms to the system.

Not every digital savvy provider has been a part of this report (I can think of Collegia and Penfold who are missing) but those who make it on the list are to be commended. Here are those who have put time and money into making this report which I urge you to read.

In particular, they called on the government to cut the transfer deadline to 30 working days and for the introduction of a “digital-first” presumption that makes manual paperwork the exception rather than the rule.

The report also recommended universal “due-diligence checklist” to ensure transparency over the reasons for blocking transfers, alongside a long-term pensions tax roadmap to avoid the speculation that precedes every Budget.

The call for action follows a consultation by the FCA, Adapting our requirements for a changing pensions market (CP25/39), which closed on 12 February.

Moneybox director of personal finance Brian Byrnes said:

“For too long, legacy providers have lagged in adopting innovations that improve saver engagement and outcomes. The FCA must look beyond headline statistics and examine why pension transfers so often stall. There are cases where providers flag ‘overseas investments’ while offering the same global tracker funds themselves, raising questions about whether these flags are being used to frustrate legitimate transfers and retain customer funds.”

PensionBee UK chief business officer Lisa Picardo added:

“Individuals carry the risk if their retirement savings fall short, so they should have real choice over how and where their money is invested. They must also be free to move providers easily, yet the transfer process still isn’t fit for purpose.”

People need pensions to be properly marketed – like this (anonymised)

AJ Bell director of public policy Tom Selby agreed:

“Government, regulators, and the pensions industry need to work together to tear down any existing barriers to support the government’s retail investing drive and turn Brits from savers into a nation of investors. Driving down transfers times across the market is essential, as is aligning the regulatory approach for retail and workplace pensions so we can deliver better outcomes for investors and support the UK’s retail investment ambitions.”

Hargreaves Lansdown Head of Retirement Analysis Helen Morrissey added:

“The pensions market is changing and personal pensions have a growing role to play, helping people take control of their savings, and understanding how to build for the retirement they want. Regulation should support this end with transfers taking days not weeks. The current pension transfer system is woefully out of step with wider financial services.”

Freetrade chief executive Viktor Nebehaj added:

“The current pension transfer system is not fit for purpose. At a time when consumers can switch bank accounts in days, it is unacceptable that pension transfers still have a six month deadline. Outdated, manual processes restrict choice, frustrate savers and risk undermining the benefits digital pension platforms can deliver. We need urgent reform to make pension transfers faster, simpler and fit for modern consumers.”

 

Posted in pensions | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Personal Pension providers opening doors for the unloved consumer

Posted on March 14, 2026 by henry tapper

I’ve been talking a lot about collective pensions to the point that you may think I’m disinterested in”pots” arising from DC pension saving. This is not the case.

This blog is about an excellent report produced by this group of DC consolidators that do it using  personal pensions. Here the investment can be done yourself (SIPP) or left to fund managers as simple personal pensions. Here is the list- delivered alphabetically.

congratulations to them for working together

Transfers are not restricted to “pots”. In years to come you’ll be able to transfer to CDC  as you can today with a  public  sector pension (including LGPS) ; with pension schemes you can swap DC pots for inflation linked pension.

But right now it is the retail personal pensions who are doing the heavy lifting for everybody else and having to do so because many of those providers not on this list are the cause of the trouble.

Here is the executive summary of the report…

If this is not important to the pensions industry, I do not understand . I have just returned from three days when pensions were discussed. Personal pensions were not discussed at any time, by anyone on the dance floor of its auditoriums.

Here is  the finishing paragraph of the executive summary. It is of course a two way transfer

The Pension Commission is looking into the fate of those mentioned above who have no occupational pension or even workplace saving for a pension. Those people include the self-employed and those who have left work for whatever reason (including health) who must make the best of what they’ve saved. They are being badly treated and here is the report for you to read here or download here

 

 

 

Posted in pensions | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Mandating – Government seizing “Henry VIII powers”?

Posted on March 13, 2026 by henry tapper

I think we will see the last days of the debate over the Pension Schemes Bill as some of the maddest pensions have seen this century.

I had supported Baroness Altmann’s view that schemes that don’t invest more of our money into the UK should lose their tax relief (tax relief was granted so that pensions helped tax-payers in among other things growing our economy through investment).

But now the good Baroness seems to have swung through 180% and joined those who are calling for the scrapping of the mandation clause allowing Governments to enforce investment as it sees fit.

At the recent Pensions UK Conference, I suggested that Tom McPhail, who seems to share the views of Ros Altmann, be made into a Shadow Pensions Minister by being made a peer! Ros Altmann is a former Pensions Minister who now sits in the House of Lords.

The proposal is an amendment from the Conservatives to scrap mandation and is as likely to find favour with a Labour Government as the changes proposed to the limits on salary sacrifice

This is the argument for them doing so – set in the Daily Mail

ROS ALTMANN: Government is seizing ‘Henry VIII’ powers to dictate how pension savers’ money is invested

The Government wants unlimited powers to put workers’ pension funds into high-risk investments in private equity, private credit and maybe even ministers’ ‘pet projects’.

The ‘Henry VIII clause’ of the Pension Schemes Bill currently going through the House of Lords contains astonishing provisions.

They would enable Ministers to issue diktats to pension schemes that they must invest in whatever projects or assets – and in whatever quantities – the Government decides.

These dangerous proposals need to be amended to protect ordinary workers’ pensions – Government does not know best how to invest.

Ros Altmann: House of Lords will try to remove mandation power altogether, or water it down to just Mansion House Accord limits

Ros Altmann: House of Lords will try to remove mandation power altogether, or water it down to just Mansion House Accord limits

The policy known as ‘mandation‘ is supposedly based on the Mansion House Accord, but could turn what is meant to be a voluntary agreement into compulsory directions.

Most major auto-enrolment pension providers have agreed with the Government that they will invest at least 10 per cent of their workplace ‘default‘ funds in high-risk private or unlisted assets by 2030 with half, at least 5 per cent of the funds, in the UK.

These assets include private equity, private credit, AIM shares, Acquis shares, venture capital and interests in land.

Ordinary workers’ pensions will be affected

The vast majority of staff’s pension savings are in the ‘default’ funds that would be affected, since most people do not opt to actively move their money into other investment funds within their schemes.

So, this could potentially affect many people’s eventual retirement pots.

Ministers insist clause 40 of the Pension Schemes Bill, which would enshrine into law the kind of sweeping might the monarch Henry VIII would have wielded, merely involves ‘backstop‘ powers.

They say the powers will only be used to force schemes to invest as Government dictates if they don’t do it themselves, so we don’t need to worry about the Henry VIII clause.

But that is precisely the worry. Once the measure is in primary legislation, the Government could use it as it wishes and any assurances about not intending to use it may prove worthless.

Meanwhile, the pension providers’ investment intentions are dependent on the Government itself complying with several requirements.

The voluntary investment commitments in the Mansion House Accord depend on Government fulfilling certain obligations, such as ensuring pension funds have a good pipeline of investible projects.

It must also move the emphasis in ‘value for money’ rules away from lower costs to better value – because cheap does not necessarily mean good – and encourage larger-scale pension funds with more capacity to invest in higher-risk projects.

In practice, however, even if the Government does not deliver on its own commitments, the new legislation could just force the funds to invest in any assets it tells them to.

These could be projects that pension trustees would not wish to back on purely economic or financial grounds, but as this is written into law they may be unable to refuse.

Manion House Accord: Major pension firms have agreed to invest in high-risk private or unlisted assets - but the deal struck with the Government is voluntary at present

Manion House Accord: Major pension firms have agreed to invest in high-risk private or unlisted assets – but the deal struck with the Government is voluntary at present

Can this power grab be stopped?

There has been significant Parliamentary and industry pushback against the Pension Schemes Bill’s extensive Henry VIII powers.

House of Lords will try to amend it to either remove this mandation power altogether, or water it down to just Mansion House Accord limits

If we don’t succeed, the Bill will give Ministers unlimited powers. They could set the amount or type of assets pension funds have to buy, thereby shifting pension fund investment focus away from higher returns towards a political agenda.

Pensions UK, the Association of British Insurers and other industry bodies are all concerned about the broad wording of the provision, which could go far beyond the supposedly intended scope.

Ideally this clause should be removed entirely. At the very least it should be heavily restricted with proper safeguards against ministerial overreach.

Pension Schemes Bill would enshrine into law the kind of sweeping might the monarch Henry VIII would have wielded, says Ros Altmann

Pension Schemes Bill would enshrine into law the kind of sweeping might the monarch Henry VIII would have wielded, says Ros Altmann

Government has already made a serious investment blunder

The Government has already shown it cannot be trusted with the power to dictate investment decisions.

It is proposing to prevent pension firms from using investment trusts and REITs – real estate investment trusts, which invest in property – to fulfil the obligations to invest at least 10 per cent in high-risk, illiquid assets under the Mansion House Accord.

Ministers have specifically stated, without any coherent justification, that pension funds can only use either unlisted Long-Term Asset Funds -which are ‘open-ended’ structures, that issue new shares and allow inflows and outflows far more suited to liquid assets – or direct investments in the relevant assets.

Investment trusts or REITs are banned even if they hold the desired private assets of exactly the type which the Government wants pension funds to support.

That is despite them being far more suited to investing in illiquid assets because they are ‘closed-ended’, meaning they have a fixed number of shares that can be easily bought or sold without the fund manager having to change the portfolio of assets.

Closed-ended listed investment companies have built up long-standing experience in managing such assets, and offer pension funds which do not have such expertise the opportunity of investing in ready-made, expertly managed diversified portfolios.

Specifically excluding the use of these more fitting closed-ended listed companies reveals that Government is unqualified to decide which assets pension funds must invest in.

 How do I stop my pension being used to promote economic growth – I think Rachel Reeves is ignoring the risks

article image

Risks of these dangerous new powers

The new ‘mandation’ powers the Government is giving itself could create asset bubbles and put pension savings at risk.

A prime concern is that forcing pension funds to invest in potentially underperforming assets – such as HS2-type projects or possibly overvalued private equity and private credit – could mean lower returns and lower pensions in future for millions of workers.

Pension funds could be forced to invest into a limited pool of UK projects, which could drive up asset prices, creating market bubbles and exacerbating risk.

Excluding the option of using investment trusts would restrict the investment options even further, making market distortions worse.

All this could further damage members’ pension prospects.

Here is the current state of play in the Upper House (the Lords)

 

Posted in pensions | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Productivity green shoots boosted by financial services;-Thomas Aubrey

Posted on March 13, 2026 by henry tapper

Productivity green shoots boosted by financial services

The latest data suggest the UK’s labour productivity may finally be emerging from a lengthy period of stagnation thanks to a pick-up in financial services. Thomas Aubrey highlights the potential of the Insurance sector to drive productivity growth further by taking advantage of cyber security and AI insurance opportunities.
Green shoots

After a long period of stagnation, between Q3 2024 to Q3 2025 UK labour productivity grew by 1%. This modest growth is welcome. But the improvement might be larger as this figure is debated due to the fall in responses to the Labour Force Survey (LFS); the denominator of this labour productivity measure. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) now provides an additional productivity metric using the number of employees derived from HMRC PAYE data. This measure suggests labour productivity grew at 3% instead.

There are, however, uncertainties around both figures. While the HMRC PAYE data is more accurate for the number of employees, it doesn’t provide data on self-employed or hours worked – both of which continue to be collected via the LFS.

The challenge for productivity analysts is that only the LFS dataset enables productivity to be assessed from a bottom-up perspective which provides an insight into what is happening across sectors. And the LFS sectoral data reveals some important shifts that have taken place since 2019.

Between Q3 2019 and Q3 2024 private sector labour productivity shrank by -1.8%, but it grew between Q3 2024 and Q3 2025 by 0.2% (Table 1). Moreover, just over half of the private sector contributed positively to productivity growth over the last year, whereas only just over a third contributed positively between 2019 – 2024.

While this shift is positive, it is important to note that most of the 1% headline growth in the most recent period was due to the public sector “Between Effect” caused by an increase in its labour share. However, the public sector will most likely begin to generate a negative “Between Effect” as the civil service is expected to cut headcount by 8%, with people likely moving to lower value-added services roles. In any case, the policy focus must remain on driving private sector productivity growth.

Productivity grows when firms are able to increase value added per hour by creating a competitive advantage in the way labour and capital of all kinds are deployed, and by increasing the labour share in higher value-added activities. While it is positive that the majority of private sector industries are now contributing to growth (in green), it remains a concern that both Mining & Quarrying and Manufacturing (both of which are high value-added) continue to contribute negatively (in red). The data also suggests that government attempts to revitalise Manufacturing through its industrial strategy have so far had a limited impact.

Table 1: Sectoral productivity disaggregation Q3 2024 – Q3 2025[1]

The high value Financial Services sector contributed most to recent productivity growth due to its increase in labour share. Between Q3 2024 and Q3 2025 exports of Financial Services grew by 7% with the Insurance sector growing at 8% indicating a strong demand for these services (Chart 1). Conversely, goods exports decreased by 5% over this period.

Chart 1: UK Exports of Insurance and Financial (banking) services 2016-2025 (current prices)

Source: ONS

By far the largest export destination for traditional insurance services is the US – accounting for 42% of exports followed by the EU at just 16% and Canada & Australia at 14%. In 2016 when the UK was part of the EU, exports to Europe accounted for just 15% of exports, highlighting the fact that there was no single market in financial services for UK firms to exploit. Each member state typically has its own regulator, rules and product requirements.

The digital transformation of the global economy is, however, unlocking new opportunities for the UK insurance sector. For example, the market to insure cyber risk is estimated to be worth $50bn by 2030 which is largely dominated by US firms. The UK has an underdeveloped cyber insurance market despite the fact that the UK faces more cyberattacks than any European nation which is a significant opportunity.

Further opportunities for the UK insurance sector are being created by firms seeking insurance for their AI products and services including autonomous vehicles, robotics, AI‑Driven Healthcare and Diagnostics ad well as for Generative AI. But to achieve a growing market share will require the sector to clearly understand the risks involved and levy an appropriate premium that is both attractive for firms while managing future liabilities.

The challenge for the insurance sector though is that there isn’t a history of loss data upon which to develop new models, and hence the industry will have to develop new approaches to pricing this risk. This includes managing systemic risk in the event that a widely used AI model such as a large language model fails, which in turn forces thousands of companies to fail and potentially the insurance company too.

Each frontier sector that is contained within the IS-8 has the potential to drive growth. Indeed, the government’s Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness strategy references the need “to make the UK the location of choice for insurance and reinsurance” with a focus on regulation. But if the UK insurance sector is to scale up and become a global leader in AI and cyber insurance, it is the insurance sector itself that will need to draft a plan to grow not the government.

Although the green shoots of a productivity recovery are beginning to emerge, it is too early to tell whether UK firms have indeed found new forms of competitive advantage to compete in global markets. The UK insurance sector certainly has the deep expertise and skill to scale up in new markets such as cyber security risk and AI should the sector decide to come together and formulate a coherent growth plan.

[1] The sectoral disaggregation uses GEAD (Generalized Exactly Additive Decomposition) based on Tang & Wang (2004). The ‘within’ effect is productivity growth in activities within the sector whereas the ‘between’ effect measures the change in relative size of sectors taking into account the reallocation of labour between sectors and changes in real output prices. e = estimated as ONS does not publish these values.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Bennett Institute for Public Policy.

Posted in pensions | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Pensions UK Conference’s stimulating final morning

Posted on March 13, 2026 by henry tapper

The final day of the Conference was an exhausted one , the plenary hall was largely empty for some excellent sessions and many seemed (the observation of Rory Sutherland) to have gone home early frightened of travel. Certainly my late afternoon journey back to London was full of people getting around using other routes than the West Coast.

Global economics for pensions need to follow long-term trends (says Faisal Islam)

The paucity of delegates was a shame as there were several sessions of intellectual vigour. We had a final morning mercifully free of advertisements that allowed those who attended to exercise their brains.

Early on , Faisal Islam of the BBC gave us his view of world economics , focussing on China. The long-term economic trends may be obscured this month by the Iranian war but I sat with Tom McPhail who observed that Faisal was better when off script and talking with John Chilman. We too must put aside the present crisis in taking the long view of pensions.

Investing regionally needs people on the spot

There followed a session on delivering regional investment through local people in Wales, Scotland  and Centrally in England. This worked when it focussed on the needs of local economies and Sally Bridgeland particularly brought out how pension funds can help in Wales through the Bank of Wales. Richard Lockhead would have been better if he had been less abrasive to everyone who wasn’t Scottish in the Hall. Richard Law-Deeks spoke for the Central Pool of the LGPS.  One question that came up throughout was that if pensions get so big that they cannot invest in small ventures (for lack of time), then regions will lose out to the big projects and to overseas.

I was struck by the importance of the Bank of Wales and the need for local sources of finance into which funds can dip. Let it not just be LGPS m USS and Railpen that does so, let us hope that the large mastertrusts and the CDC schemes, will have the energy to go local.

I am glad I made it to to a session of default pathways for DC master trusts.

The difficulty of offering people the freedom of drawdown from pots was in evidence in this session, I had to admit to being quite befuddled by solutions presented by Jenny Holt of Standard Life and Peter Smith of TPT. Finding ways of bending default solutions to the needs of individuals seems to misunderstand that the default pension saver is after a pension.

Janette Weir spoke of her firm (Ignition House’s) experience of what people do when left to their own devices and she used the work she does each year with the FCA. Her frustration was palpable in the hall, we fealt it!

The difficulty that the providers have is to justify the need for flexibility in default pathways when most people who follow the default solution do not want to take decisions or communicate their needs so they can be defaulted into an appropriate fund.

I hate to repeat myself, but those who don’t know what they want by way of financial planning are anticipating their pension plan to pay a pension.

Behaviour finishes us off

The morning and the conference finished off with two quite different speeches from behaviouralist.  Margaret Heffernan talked without slides for 50 minutes about how to invest through  successful leadership. This was a very well paced and beautifully delivered session on how we can get good decisions out of leaders by investing in getting structures they can operate in. I hope that there is a video made available as this was intellectually a class apart.

That is not to denigrate what followed, which was the wonderful Rory Sutherland who was so full of fun, ideas and emotional intelligence that we could have been listening to him and missed our trains and planes some time in mid-afternoon.

He explained what we all know, that we must make pensions emotionally attractive, not just for forty years ahead but for today. Marketing pensions to large numbers of people requires a skill set which Sutherland shared with us and which I will do my best to learn from in converting saving for wealth to saving for pensions. It cannot be done with brain cells alone, we need to understand what makes ordinary people react positively to ideas.

Rory Sutherland finished us off by putting a smile on our faces. Thanks Pensions UK for a good last day, I at least was there throughout and happy to report a stimulating final morning.

Posted in pensions | Tagged | Leave a comment

Oliver Morley speaks at our coffee morning (coincidental to Ostermann’s departure)

Posted on March 12, 2026 by henry tapper

In an eventful week when his successor at the PPF resigned unexpectedly , here is the past CEO of PPF (but one) as the latest CEO of MaPS. I watched the event from a northbound train and am looking forward to it again, this time once I get home from Edinburgh

For those who love mysteries of the Boardroom ,

 

Here is the headline that announced her departure (and the story), followed by her explanation (partial)

Here’s a galley of departed CEOs

Posted in pensions | Leave a comment

A day when CDC was dragged into PUK’s hall!

Posted on March 12, 2026 by henry tapper

I make no defence for being in Edinburgh to right an unintentional bias in the conference agenda that neglects the arrival of CDC as a new force in Pensions UK.

We have £1.2tr in funded DB  pensions  and future liabilities of rather more than that.  My friends tell me there needs to be growth in our legacy pension assets to pay the bills but that is being taken of, 75% of our 4,500 DB funds are in surplus and the PPF is in surplus to around £16bn. I am all for an improvement in education of DB trustees who need to move from “endgame” thinking, to run on thinking (where appropriate).

But I do not think that pensions ends with the closure of DB to future accrual. It has not found a replacement for DC in the past 20 years, not until now. But since October 22nd 2025 there is a generally available way for companies large and small to work together to deliver pensions to staff through CDC.

This heroic advance is being ignored by Pensions UK and it was ignored again yesterday. I had to raise the question of the availability of CDC to those in the room and the million + employers not in the room with staff who would benefit from a pension not a pot.

My questions to Torsten Bell during his talk were whether he was promoting UMES to employers for use from 2027 and whether in following years, Retirement CDC would follow. The answers were positive on both accounts and while Retirement CDC is principally of interest to master trusts to promote, I have no hesitation when asked in saying Pensions Mutual has been set up with the FCA to offer employers control  of their CDC scheme within collectively.

As I left the room following Torsten Bell’s speech, a message appeared on my phone asking me if I could explain CDC to a group of union pension officers. A meeting room was found and so was the only union officer in the building (Glyn Jenkins) , Terry Pullinger came to his computer and we had an hour discussing what CDC could mean. The message to unions is very simple – better pensions for their members at no extra cost to them or their employers. A Mutual to run the CDC and trustees reflecting the views of members, their representatives and their employers.

I do not suppose that the opportunity was quite so well planned by Torsten Bell as I am making it sound, but his enthusiasm to get CDC done is what has given us the courage to promote CDC for progressive employers who see truth in the statement that CDC offers up to 60% more in pension than DC.

I know that such progressive employers do exist and there are several at this conference who are determined to get CDC in and not wait for the partial solution that is Retirement CDC, a solution when you get to retirement and not available for a few years.

Willis Towers Watson gave an effective and sensible explanation of how Retirement CDC will work as an extension of their DC workplace – LifeSight – is big enough to offer CDC without having to recruit new employers. I see it as a defensive mood to ensure they keep members within the fold while Pensions Mutual aggressively sets after those in DC who are set to get no pension (only a pot and retirement guidance).

I don’t think that UMES whole of life CDC needs compete with Retirement CDC when operated by WTW but there are not many Master Trusts who have the capacity to deliver as explained. It is an elite product for the elite employers able to access LifeSight.

For the Union pension officers, what is needed is something that they can take to employers as a non controversial improvement in their members later life pay. CDC on its own will not solve the problem of pension adequacy but it will be a start and if followed by increases in contributions and ambition by employers, there will be hope for the future.

I last saw that hope in the early years of this century when DB accrual was at its height and people still looked forward to retirement as a time when they could relax in financial comfort. Those millions were those in DB plans (public and private) and today the numbers coming through with that same comfort is massively reduced.

Yesterday I wanted to bring the ambition that we once had back into the Conference and I hope I did. I hope this blog nudges us a little further towards that comfort. I hope that in conjunction with the DWP and TPR, we will see UMES CDC delivered this year and Retirement CDC two years later.

Pensions UK has underestimated the importance of CDC to unions, employers and savers  It  should recognise that pensions did not stop when private DB stopped , it is returning with CDC to offer people better pensions.

Posted in pensions | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Can and should pensions do society good? PUK day two

Posted on March 12, 2026 by henry tapper

Torsten Bell on how we can protect the UK from warfare

The second day of the Pensions UK Conference made the coming and going to Edinburgh worthwhile. Two important speeches from politicians , some relevant discussions on pensions to come and a Gove v Lucas debate on the importance of Environment, Society and Governance in our investment.

In yesterday’s blog I hinted that we had not been served up memorable speaking , nor lively discussions let alone a debate, Wednesday was quite different and made it worth not just the travel but the loss of Cheltenham’s racing (who won?).

I would also reckon this the most sober Conference I’ve been to. It’s been mentioned that the Exhibition is a place of meaningful conversation, if there is delight it’s in smoothies not whiskies.

That said , I spent the main part of the afternoon locked in a room with John Hamilton and Glyn Jenkins discussing the import of CDC to pensioners along with 20 or so union pension officials around the country who entered the Conference via the internet.

I will write separately about my take from Torsten Bell’s speech, but it was delayed to hear the wrapping up of Michael Gove and Caroline Lucas, Lucas argued that Environmental Strategies have a future while Gove said that their import was now fully absorbed in investment thinking and we could shut up about them. There was a post before and after the debate and the numbers remained consistent. There are two delegates voting that ESG is maintained to every one who who voted for scrapping it. This did not alter with the debate suggesting people have firm views.

It was up to me to poke the bear who lurked asleep but who sprang to life towards the end. American fund managers do not talk so much about ESG and I suggested this was out of sensitivity to President Trump’s views. I did not use the word woke , nor did the Chair, Gregg McClymont who was clearly not going to let the discussion descend to using terms like “woke” to characterise Caroline Lucas’ position.

But soon after my interjection there was another questioning whether any strategy or product based around ESG could withstand the arrival of Reform I (and I suspect others) realised that the only political force not represented in the room was that of Richard Dice and the populism of Nigel Farage.

How far Gove is from Reform was illustrated by an example of how Government can influence good governance and social good. When Housing Minister he claimed to have met with Railpen about owning residential freeholds. He mentioned this in the context of Grenfell and the social ill that tower block brought on its community. This blog has noted in the context of freeing leaseholders from freeholder’s ground rent, that Railpen got rid of its freeholds. To me this is an argument that Government can  be an instrument of governance in pensions. I congratulate Gove for being an agent of good and we need to promote good deeds of pension schemes whether they come from withing the trust boards or are brought to its attention.

My rather bland position is that our ESG thinking has not dragged our pensions back. I am in a fossil free pension fund which suffered with the spike in oil prices of late and will benefit from the gradual movement to energy from cleaner sources. We find rises in  fuel prices depress equities and war is behind both. If that doesn’t tell us about the vulnerability of pensions to bad behaviour- what does.

With that I will finish. It’s where Torsten Bell started.and I think it plays to both Lucas and Gove who both appealed to our better natures. Bell did too as I will come on to in another blog.

Om a less positive note we had a rant from shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions where we had to listen to 45 minutes of venom that the Government might have the power in future to mandate investment strategies on pensions that did not invest in accord with the wishes of tax- payers and the people they elect (Government).

The morning debates were  rather better than the final session of the day which saw debate deteriorate into the kind of Westminster politics that has no place in the Pensions UK conference.

Posted in pensions | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The need for more money for PENSIONERS in the UK

Posted on March 11, 2026 by henry tapper

We are guests of Pensions UK and I sometimes forget that it’s pensioners in the UK that we are looking after. I went to my friend Enid’s funeral last Tuesday. She was 98 and she lived off her pension happily till the day she died. The money that came out of that pension was created by investment when she stopped looking after her children  (in 1980).

The DC system of saving takes us half the way but not the whole way. Enid would not have survived happily into her 98th year had she not had the financial support of a pension.

This is very important to remember when we consider the inefficiency of DC pension saving which does not invest money in growth assets but encourages savers to take money in cash when they slow down or finish working. People do take their money (the FCA studies show they do so in huge numbers) because there is no pension to be paid to them.

Now we are in a position to pay people pensions from the money they save through the whole of their lives and in doing so , we can keep their money invested in growth assets from the days when they star (let’s say their early twenties) to the day they did (think of Enid). This is where the extra pension comes from.

By being part of collective schemes, people like my son (in his twenties) to those like me (at retirement age) and those like Enid and my Mum (close to being centurions) can have confidence that they will get decent pensions.

I asked yesterday in a session, how we will we judge the Value for Money of a CDC scheme. The answer will in time be by comparison to the pension paid by a retirement income paid as a default by a DC scheme using drawdown or buying annuities Here growth is made but retained by the insurer and financial adviser and the scheme. Necessarily this way of doing is inefficient to the pensioner who gets up to 60% less than they would get under CDC.

You may think that 60% figure is wrong, but it is endorsed by several companies and by the PPI and by my Pensions Mutual numbers.

Which is why I am at the Pensions UK Conference to ask the question why are we not looking at getting the money not into Pensions UK but into the Pensioners in the UK.

We really have spent too long paying people too little in retirement when we could pay them more and why we have avoided paying them the full value that their money earns is quite beyond me.

Today we will have Torsten Bell talking to us about pensions and then WTW talking about CDC. I won’t some straight talking about VFM and CDC and why the Pensioners in the UK aren’t getting the value that Pensions UK should be arguing for.

I know why people don’t get the full value of their pensions and I know they should . I will not be quiet about that! We need a way to get the growth that invested money makes, into the hands of those  owed up to 60% more pension.

 

Posted in pensions | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Pensions UK – Pensions struggle to break free of their past!

Posted on March 11, 2026 by henry tapper

People’s Pensions ads on Princes Street, they were speakers at three of the sessions I went to yesterday. A big Conference for them

The journey to Scotland has been hard for many coming from the West. The fire by Glasgow station meant for many cancellations and for those using trains (perhaps for ecological reasons) few escaped delays. I was one of the few travelling in a standard coach with Nico Aspinall a few seats away. It may take longer in the train but it did not stop meetings and attending a Pension PlayPen coffee morning with Oliver Morley.

It was a day when the position of CEO of PPF was in the news and Oliver Morley has along with Lawrence Churchill another voice outside the tent who once was ther.

The PPF representative I talked to in Edinburgh knew only a day and a bit before the public did of Michelle’s departure and of Richard Beavan’s interim promotion.

Compare this departure with the elegant transfer of Emma Douglas from Aviva Exec and Chair of Pensions UK  – to become Chair of TPR and you have quite a contrast.

So what of the Conference?

Emma did indeed commence proceedings and after her prolonged stay in position it was something of a victory lap for her.Her introduction spoke of a change in pensions but LCP had run a fringe event featuring their part in the transfer of Stagecoach’s Pension Scheme to sponsorship of Aberdeen leaving the bus company without liabilities for guaranteed pensions.

What followed in the opening afternoon was a number of panels. The first of these  discussed”Investment strategies in turbulent times” which brought together Dan Mikulskis , with Joe McDonnell and Mark Goswig.  Dan gave us  the private sector’s pension  future as master trusts while the latter represented  Border to Coast (an LGPS pool) and Railpen (a partially open DB master trust)

It set the tone of the afternoon. I hope that as the Conference moves on , we will see the future as less a bifurcation between a DB past and a DC future with the council tax payer guaranteeing LGPS in the middle!

I sense there has been a movement in the private sector, perhaps initiated by Royal Mail several years again but now taken up by unions and some progressive employers towards a middle way called CDC. That this might be occurring was not reflected in the opening panel nor in the two following panels I attended.

I had thought that a panel discussion between the FCA, TPR and Dan’s number two (Phil Butler) on measuring “value” might give us an opportunity to look at DC as a pension. Indeed Joey Patel kicked off saying that TPR has changed from thinking of DC’s outcome as a pot, to thinking of it as a pension. This gave hope that the VFM would move us on from the fiasco that the VFM Framework has become.

Unfortunately we did not follow Tom McPhail and my questions as to why VFM did not consider Value in terms of pensions people get (whether from DC or CDC). The audience, protected from the noise of the Exhibition behind them by wearing headphones, seemed mildly to think that people would find things improved by the Framework, but it has long ago been decided that VFM will be for Government first, large employers last and savers at the end of the long tail of distribution. I know all three of the panellists can do better than this if given the opportunity to speak their minds, but all seemed constrained by the constraints of their employment.

Two down and two  left to go. Having been collared by TPR for an interview,  I missed Aberdeen’s discussion on DC investment, another panel which included Aegon and Mercer.

But I got to see as a finale, a discussion of the value that pensions could get by partnering with ~Government using the British Business Bank and National Wealth, focused by the Office for Investment. Each department was represented by a man so we only had Mercer’s Tess Page to bring some variety in gender and in tone.

Sadly, the participants seemed to be stuck in a world of LGPS pools and what remains of open DB (Railways and USS got mentioned). I thought this a little sad and commented from the floor that this Conference has been billed as a seeing the future of pensions being quite different, as Joey of TPR – a future of pensions not pots and I thought this would give the bankers a chance to discuss the longer time horizons that pensions would return to as a result.

The idea of default retirement funds such as that announced by Nest and those proposed ty the DWP for UMES CDC did not get mentioned. It is hardly surprising that only a third of the £15bn that sits on the shelf of the Government bank has been drawn down. There seems little comprehension by bankers of who gets served by pensions (PS they haven’t all retired)!

So , as I left to find accommodation provided by my friend John Hamilton. I felt a little flat. This was a Conference that failed to kick off , at least as a debate. I can see that much fund is being had in the Exhibition hall by those selling their wares but this is a serious discussion of how we can (to use Torsten Bell’s phrase)  GET REAL.

Today we have two speeches – one by our Pension Minister, the other by the opposition’s Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions- Helen Whately.

In between we have a lot more panels , including WTW talking about Retirement CDC as the next big step. Oddly there is no one talking about whole of life (UMES) CDC which is here and will be launching next year.  This suggests to me an absence of discussion which makes no sense.

So expect to have me in fighting mood when you read tomorrow’s blog. Tuesday’s sessions  suggest that the new is struggling to break free from the past!

Posted in pensions | Leave a comment