Today- the second day of spring – the big debate on small pension pots ; Cannon Street – City of London

The Big Red Button – Join the Debate

Overview

Solving the Challenge that is Small Pension Pots. Your input on this important debate is essential to drive a market-led solution.

The Big Red Button – Small Pots Roundtable

You could have joined your workplace industry peers, specialists and regulators to see if we can hit “The Big Red Button”. If you read to the end and you’re desperate to come, there’s a chance I can help!

Agenda below.

Category: Business, Startups

Speakers

Event Chair – Andy Cheseldine

 

Samantha Seaton

 

Kevin Wesbroom

 

Gail Izat

 

Helen Dean CBE

 

Chris Curry

I think this may be sold out, I haven’t been asked to post the link again but I hope you had the foresight to hit the red button.

Small pots aren’t the most important part of pension reform but they have their own section of the Pension Schemes Bill and let’s hope that the Bill turns Act and the Act turns into Action.

I’m going to this event this afternoon because I’ve had a peripheral connection with the subject as a blogger since it first became obvious that small part were a pain for ordinary people and a pain for pension providers. I think it predated the advent of pension freedoms, announced in 2014.

But for many people, the alternative to having their small pots is to lose contact with their pots and it’s estimated that there are £30bn of lost pots floating about. They should of course appear on the Pensions Dashboard but the Dashboard does not give people a way to staple small pots to bigger pots to get one pot defaulting to a pension (the proposal for people who don’t take decisions about pensions).

Today should really focus on the people who don’t hire advisers and don’t much about pensions other than they are mysterious money that will get paid to them at some point.

Richard Smith has sent me this as his contribution (he can’t be with us this pm)

chat with Richard Smith!

I know Sam Seaton and it’s for her that I advertised the red button a couple of weeks ago. My company, AgeWage, did some testing on the idea that she has to get small pots to come together and my colleague Aron Maus, who understands the technology (I don’t) will be about this afternoon.

Meanwhile the speaking line up looks like an august group of mature pension people who like me have yearned for a solution to this problem,

The idea now is for people to stop squabbling and get behind Sam, the latest of many who have pushed for a solution. Hats off too to Maurice Titley and Kim Gubler and the evergreen Andy Cheseldine who probably has more experience of this not happening than anyone. That is not a criticism, Andy’s kept the flame alive.

If after all that, you find yourself in the City of London at 2pm today and with yourself free, you might like to contact me and I’ll see what can be done to accommodate you.

Henry@agewage.com 07785 377768.

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

Is salary sacrifice improving pensions or starving our national insurance?

The story that the pensions industry is trying to sell

A different perspective

“… it effectively added 29% more investment for the member’s contribution.”

It’s only going to be true if the employee and employer both use their NI saving to improve the member’s pension. I don’t know where this is true for any DB scheme; typically they both keep the savings. So the member just gains the relevant percentage of the sacrificed pay (8% or 2%) as an increase in take-home pay.

And is only true for some DC schemes. Does anyone have the figures, but my guess is that it’s only a minority of employers that pay their share of the saving into the member’s pension “pot”?

    • 2023 research for HMRC

      You can read the Government research here
      Qualitative research not intended to be statistically representative of the wider population.

      Employers not offering salary sacrifice for pensions were asked why they did not offer it. Some said it was because of the additional administration required, some felt that the size of the business meant it was not worth it, and some did not know enough about it to offer it.

      Most employers that did offer it said, as you suspected Bryn, that they did not use the NI savings from the salary sacrifice arrangement to directly fund their workplace pensions, or to improve the generosity of the employer pension contributions.

      HMRC didn’t publish a summary of its research – based on data collected in summer 2023 and dated January 2024 – until May 2025.

      Salary sacrifice cost as NI relief increased markedly from £2.8 billion in forgone contributions in tax year 2016 to 2017, rising to £5.8 billion in tax year 2023 to 2024. Were no changes made, it was expected that this would nearly triple from 2016/17 to £8 billion by tax year 2030/31.

      * While 56% of users (approx. 4.3 million) are expected to be unaffected, around 3.3 million employees (44%) who sacrifice more than £2,000 will be impacted.
      * The proportion of organisations using salary sacrifice for pensions rose to 83% in 2025, up from 77% in 2023.
      * Following the 2024 Autumn Budget increases in NI, 43% of employers made changes to their benefits packages by introducing or adjusting salary sacrifice schemes.
      * While overall usage is high, adoption varies by employer size, mainly companies with 250+ employees using them, compared to smaller firms using them less.
      * 63% of employers expect to retain the NIC savings rather than pass them on to employee pensions.

      You can download this document here

The question is one of balance. We have to balance the cost of the health service , of the state pension and of benefits like pensions credit. It’s what funds a lot of what elderly people need a lot, but younger people maybe undervalue as they are healthy and working rather than relying on pension and benefits.

We have many people in the world of funded pensions and especially funded workplace DC pensions who have a particular interest in salary sacrifice as it encourages the pension savings to be paid into staff’s savings pots which will pay out in later years. For many of the well off, the state is not relied on for healthcare or for state pensions or benefits and consequently national insurance is money largely down the drain.

But national insurance is what keeps those on lower wages getting a great health service and a greater state pension and benefits where there is too little.

So let’s think twice before moaning that pensions are losing the wealthy an unneeded perk

Posted in pensions | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Managing Risk in the Round – In Defence of the Church of England Pension Scheme- Dan Hedley

A summary

 Dan Hedley, Policy Director of New Capital Consensus

The Church of England’s clergy pension fund is being painted as a gambler in a casino by John Ralfe in the FT, “doubling or quitting” by running a growth‑oriented portfolio rather than matching its liabilities with long‑dated bonds. That caricature misunderstands both the nature of the Church as an institution and the economics of open long‑term defined benefit saving.

The Church of England Funded Pensions Scheme (CEFPS) is not a closed legacy scheme where the pensions need to be paid, but there are no more contributions coming in. If it were, there’d be some sense in considering sensible de-risking. But this scheme is very much alive and kicking. Its time horizons are immense. It is the liability side of a 500‑year‑old social institution that intends to be around in another 500. For such an entity, the central question is not “how can we ensure that our assets and liabilities align with precision every day of the week?” , but “how do we maximise sustainable real returns over decades while managing risk in the round?” 

Enthronement-Archbishop-Canterbury-Justin-Welby-Canterbury-Cathedral-England-2013

The church’s sensible approach not only protects the institution’s assets and its current and future pensioners’ security, but also nurtures the economy that its congregations and clergy live in and will retire in, with the lifeblood fuel for growth. This aligns with Scripture in promoting social cohesion and community prosperity. “Let us not become weary in doing good,” writes Paul, “for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up” (Galatians 6:9). That is a farming metaphor, not a gilt repo metaphor.

A farmer who refuses to plant because the weather might turn is not prudent; he is failing his vocation. Likewise, a Church that refuses to invest in productive, often illiquid assets because their market value moves around is failing to use its time horizon well. Three points follow.

First, risk is not the same thing as slavishly tracking mark‑to‑market volatility. The true risk to clergy is the long‑run erosion of the scheme’s ability to pay inflation‑linked pensions, which depends on real returns from the underlying economy.

Owning equities, infrastructure and private loans that finance real activity is a rational way to earn that premium over gilts in an ecclesiastical scheme with no end in sight and a long established backer that is not going to disappear any time soon.

Second, full bond‑matching at today’s yields crystallises a large opportunity cost. “Locking in the surplus” is also locking in lower expected returns. Seeing losing huge amounts of value in assets as a win, just because notional liabilities have also fallen is a distortion of reality – losing value is always a real loss to the Church, to its clergy and to its congregation. With losses will always come a higher likelihood that future generations of parishioners must contribute more, or benefits must be cut again, If liabilities can fall, they can also rise again, bringing pain that could be avoided by retaining and building real value. Relying on matched assets like bonds and gilts  shifts risk forward in time and onto people who cannot currently vote at General Synod.

Introduction-Pension-Jar-filled-with-coins-with-a-sign-saying-Pension-plan

Third, a duration‑aware, diversified, growth‑oriented strategy is not the same as recklessness. It can and should include robust stress testing, prudent use of leverage, liquidity buffers, and a clear plan to run risk down if the scheme subsequently matures. But to insist that every scheme must look like a closed corporate DB plan in managed run‑off is to ignore the particular vocation and horizon of the Church.

The Church of England often talks of “intergenerational justice”. In investment terms, that means using its uniquely long time horizon for the benefit of both today’s and tomorrow’s clergy, rather than outsourcing prudence to the gilt market. Sowing for a future harvest may look untidy on a funding update, but it is a far more faithful response to the responsibilities the Church carries.

Posted in pensions | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Why “up to 60% more pension” should be a focus of the debate on CDC.

It is funny what captures the imagination of the pension brother (and to a degree sister) hood. The Pensions Bill has become an argument about mandation of investments and whether Government can have power to implement it to increase funding of pensions in Britain.

When it comes to the CDC UMES legislation , which went through in October, the argument is about the use of the “60%” figure here. This is from a DWP press release to launch a consultation on CDC just for retirement.

The DWP make it clear that the 60% increase in pensions from using CDC rather than DC

  1. Is for a whole of life approach (not a dump of a DC pot into a CDC fund to pay a pension at retirement)
  2. That it “could” be – but is not guaranteed
  3. That the improvement in returns from CDC could be “up to” 60%.

Actually 60% is not the highest estimate of increased pensions from CDC. This is from the PPI’s November exhaustive 84 page study (included below). Here is a claim of 75% increase

Figures in the Executive Summary

The headline figure of a 75% risk-adjusted improvement of collective drawdown over DC + full annuitisation given in the Executive Summary was computed using the PPI economic model and the optimised strategies. We explain the precise meaning of this figure in Chapter 4 in the section on “Risk-adjusted comparison of schemes” which summarises the main quantitative results of this report.

Other studies from actuarial consultancies have also concluded that more than 60% might come out of a CDC pension than a DC + full annuitisation. The Government, if pressed, could say that it has used an estimate somewhere in the middle.


But estimates of increase will never be enough.

This headline from the Daily Express is now 7 years old , and is based on DWP figures used by Amber Rudd (remember her?).  Again the caveat is in the “could” and this version has an increase in retirement income of 7%.

More recently, MPs and Peers of the Realms were given details of the pros and cons of CDC in this document.

This document is downloadable here and is a useful explanation of both the advantages and disadvantages of having a CDC pension.

What it doesn’t do is dispute that the lifetime advantage of CDC as a pension or the numbers from actuarial consultancies and the PPI that suggest it is “up to 60%”.

Of course there are other things to bear in mind. By colleague Chris Bunford writes in a co-authored article with me that

As CDC enthusiasts and people who are committed to finding a way for pensioners to enjoy a substantial annual income in retirement without making complex investment decisions, we are delighted that the pensions industry seems unified on the CDC performance debate.  Whether CDC schemes outperform standard DC by 20% or 60% is a matter of assumptions and perspective, but it’s generally agreed that

Through pooling of longevity risk, and adopting a higher return-seeking investment strategy, CDC can offer a higher expected income for life than alternative approaches.”  (John Southall L&G)

I don’t know what advantage I’ll get from CDC, it may not be 60% as I’m 64 and have been saving a pot since 1984, but if I was taking my pots in 42 years from now, I’d expect to get a lot more from CDC than from an annuity purchased by a DC pot! This is a whole life thing.

CDC is important because it gives all generations from mine to a kid coming into auto-enrolment in his or her early twenties, a chance of a decent pension. It’s what we’re in the business to deliver.  There will be people who will want drawdown or total freedom from pensions and they can opt-out. But I reckon that 90% of us are defaulters into whatever is offered us as the best pension option – at least from our pension! Whatever the improvement in pension, CDC offers us hope that it will be decent in years to come.

 

Here is that PPI monster published last November

Downloadable here

The one that lays it all out in analytical detail

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

A VFM podcast that eased my savaged brow.

I was, what I rarely am,” knackered ” last night. So I switched on Nico and Darren’s chat box podcast expecting to hear an outside voice but heard instead a rehearse of the previous conversation about the VFM consultation. The feedback from me was good last week and it’s good this week though I’m not sure that anybody (including the Pensions Minister) has got much energy left for performance measurement when there is so much left to do on the Pensions Bill. It now appears likely that we will not get an Act till the summer due to the protracted discussions in the Lords and amendments will be made that I wish we could focus on.

Anyway, enough of me complaining that there is no outside voice. It is comforting to hear that Darren’s Company is doing its bit for his local team in Tonbridge.  If Nico wants to return to the part of Somerset he went to school in, he can watch a Yeovil home game and find out what life is like outside the premiership. If he wants to know who is the most expensive team to watch in Britain, he can read this article

Darren and Nico should get down with LCP and study where there’s VFM in premier league prices!

But back to the podcast. Much of it is devoted to the Reform UK proposals to close LGPS as a DB scheme for new joiners and manage the £500bn (it is nearly that not £300bn) as a single pool of money.

Of course in doing that the LGPS could spend a lot less money than it does but it is already going some of the way by kicking out the investment advisers as part of its shift from 8 to 6 pools.

While the trend of the podcast is down, the 69 minutes spent this week is still 9 minutes longer than promised. Using as a benchmark, the average of February , this was short, but against an absolute target of an hour, it missed again!

This episode saw however a split between Nico and Darren over CDC. Nico remains a DC hardliner, Darren is showing signs of cracking in the face of obvious advantages of getting more pensions for contributions (VFM). I suspect that there are matters at play here that I have no knowledge of.

For reasons of the playful banter between the boys, this episode was worth listening to, it allowed me to disregard a headache that I get from the quantity of work that there is in getting organised to get a CDC proposal to TPR in just five months! The banter is often thought provoking , if only infuriating! But let that be, it gives me an inside view into the industry, which I will have to encounter in just 10 days time in Edinburgh!

At the end of the week beginning 9th March I now have several meeting stacked up on the Friday and then it will be time to hear what Darren and Nico made of the Pensions UK investment conference. I will do ,  as I usually do , slumped in front of my premier league football game on Saturday night!

Is SKY VFM – I doubt that compared with a Tonbridge Angels or Yeovil Town live match it is , but compared with London clubs prices, I suspect it is the only way forward!

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

Fat cats smart at losing National Insurance breaks; while ignoring ways to improve pensions by up to 60%

It amazes me that firms that are billionaires with pockets lined with our money are turning down the opportunity to convert to CDC but moan that national insurance breaks will be reduced.

Has it not occurred to the moaners that the National Insurance not being paid by the smarties is not going to pay for health care, education and transport?

The CDC product available for these big firms could convert pots to pensions and provide up to 60% more in pension, but pensions are not what the billionaires are after. The wealthy in this country want tax-breaks left right and center.

Is the only way we can think of pensions as a series of tax and NI bungs for the well off? How about improving the lot for everyone by making sure we all get a fair deal from our saving. I’m disappointed that Guy Opperman and Steve Webb are teaming up with the DC schemes to moan rather than promoting CDC which they both introduced with legislation in 2015 and 2020.

Here’s an extended moan featured in the Times. You can find it via this link.

You won’t hear a word in this article about the possibility that savings can be converted into pensions with  up to 60% more pension for the pound. That’s not on the fat cat’s agenda.


 

Britain’s biggest pension firms, wealth managers and two of its longest-serving pensions ministers are urging the chancellor to reverse her salary sacrifice raid in a win for The Times’s Smarter with Money campaign.

Rachel Reeves announced in November she would cap the amount a worker can pay into their pension tax-free at £2,000 a year. After that, contributions will incur national insurance. The move, which will come into effect in April 2029, is expected to raise £4.7 billion for the Treasury in its first year.

The Times is campaigning for this to be reversed as it risks undermining savers’ confidence in their pensions. We now have the backing of two former pensions ministers, Guy Opperman and Sir Steve Webb, as well as the Association of British Insurers, which represents 300 member companies that manage a combined £1.4 trillion.

Other major pension companies and wealth managers Standard Life, Fidelity International, Hargreaves Lansdown, Netwealth, Shackleton, St James’s Place, Rathbones and Quilter have also pledged their support.

Opperman, the former Conservative MP who was pensions minister between June 2017 and September 2022, said:

“The change to salary sacrifice is an ill-thought-through policy done primarily to satisfy the Office for Budget Responsibility. It will obviously impact saving, and there will be a negative long-term effect on people’s savings and pensions.”

Mike Ambery from Standard Life — part of the UK’s largest pensions company, Phoenix Group, which has £295 billion in assets under administration — said:

“Retirement savings levels in the UK are a way off where they need to be and employers and workplace pensions are central to addressing this challenge.

“Capping salary sacrifice will create an invidious choice, either millions of employees will have to stump up more to maintain their pension contributions or employers will need to step in and offset the cost. We need to be increasing levels of pension saving, not making it more expensive.”

Salary sacrifice allows workers to give up part of their gross salary in exchange for benefits, notably pension contributions. The money comes out of pay before it is subject to income tax or national insurance. Employees can pay up to £60,000 a year into their pension scheme this way. The Treasury estimates 3.3 million people sacrifice more than £2,000 per year.

Reeves’s changes mean a worker who earns £52,000 a year and makes 10 per cent employee contributions into their pension using salary sacrifice will pay an extra £256 a year in national insurance, according to calculations by the consultancy, LCP.

The government is in the middle of a review into pension saving and there are worries that millions could be on track for poverty in retirement. In July, the pensions commission reported “stark findings” that 45 per cent of adults were saving nothing for retirement.

Liz Kendall, then the work and pensions secretary, said the commission would aim

“to tackle the barriers that stop too many saving”.

Mark FitzPatrick, the chief executive of St James’s Place, Britain’s largest wealth manager with £220 billion under management, said:

“Any change affecting pensions needs real caution, because it risks unsettling confidence in one of the most effective and established long‑term savings vehicles. Millions already face uncertain or insufficient income in retirement, and tightening the rules around salary sacrifice risks making pension saving feel more complicated and less appealing at a time when simplicity matters most.

“We would welcome a rethink on salary sacrifice, recognising that the government ultimately has a difficult fiscal balancing act to manage.”

Sir Steve Webb, the former Liberal Democrat MP and the pensions minister between May 2010 and May 2015, said:

“Employers will not simply swallow this multibillion-pound tax rise. Instead, they will squeeze pay rises and the generosity of workplace pensions, and this will affect everyone in a workplace that uses salary sacrifice.”

The OBR, the government fiscal watchdog, said that all 7.7 million pension savers who use salary sacrifice, even if they do not pay in more than £2,000, could be affected by the policy depending on how businesses responded to the cap.

Polling by the ABI and by the Reward and Employee Benefits Association has also suggested that the changes could lead to more savers paying less into their pension, and employers that make higher pension contributions than they have to would consider reducing them.

A spokesman for the Treasury said:

“Salary sacrifice costs were set to treble to £8 billion as high earners piled in huge bonuses without paying a penny in tax — a taxpayer‑funded perk largely benefiting the better off.

“Our fair reforms protect 95 per cent of workers earning under £30,000 who use salary sacrifice and simply bring salary sacrifice above £2,000 into line with other pension contributions — with only those making the very largest pension contributions affected.”


Forget about losing an NI break in a couple of years; CDC’s a lifetime payrise.

and it doesn’t need to rely on national insurance breaks to do so!

Posted in pensions | 12 Comments

Can actuaries use AI and abandon conscience?

There’s a wonderful article in the FT today about whether AI should have a conscience.  It concludes

The shift to agentic AI — bots that don’t just assist but actually execute tasks and exert judgment — will raise the stakes. As AI gets more humanlike, and its role within the company gets more senior, how it responds to complex challenges and conflicts will matter more.

When is it better to ignore a command?

When could pursuing a short-term goal lead to longer-term problems?

When is it OK to tell the boss to “shove it”?

For better or worse, it’s really no different to what companies seek in their employees.

For less critical and more process-driven jobs, employers seek workers who follow rules. At senior levels, where an individual’s actions can affect the value of the whole firm, good judgment in unusual situations becomes valuable, and commands higher pay.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my actuary friend Chris last night , while walking over the Thames to Waterloo. We had been discussing with another actuary friend Derek our wish to automate CDC’s pricing to a point that no judgement was required and technology managed fairness between all. You can read Chris’ thoughts in the Prof Pens/blog article here

What we’d concluded in an hour of rigorous debate is that you cannot automate fairness as well as you can use the judgement of smart people. This is why you need to have an actuary challenging the decisions of the other actuary and why you cannot just leave it to technology to find fairness.

I won’t explain the final detail as we have put the three of us under NDA. But I can say that a very large part of our conversation was about doing what was and is right in the eyes of an unseen but felt force. It does not surprise me that Chris, Derek and I found ourselves talking about religion.

Agentic AI was a step too far for the two actuaries I was with. Did I sense they were considering AI devaluing their human judgement? I suspect that they are like any other senior decision makers , believing they still know best. And so long as we have churches, we will have places to celebrate the human conscience and the superhuman force that governs it.

 

 

Posted in pensions | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Pension investment into investment trusts should not be banned

This blog used to be rude about the ABI but they complained and I am very afraid of the ABI so I took the bit about them down.

Ros and Sharon are still right!

 

 

 

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

“Get rid of Rachel Reeves, or make her do Labour things”

The Labour is losing the plot, even those close to the City are laughing at her.

It has been sad to see Rachel Reeves sucking up to American private equity firms buying out our pensions with private credit it is now finding hard to get a market for.

We have seen this Government sucking up to a few wealth managers making money out of ground rents by letting them continue to charge what they want till 2028 and then allowing them to take £250 a year for forty years for doing nothing.


Lining the pockets of billionaires.

The wealth managers suggest they are supporting people’s pensions but to me and Harry Scoffin and most importantly Hannah Spencer they are lining the pockets of billionaires.

Whether it is Labour’s Angela Rayner or the Green’s Hannah Spencer (with adjacent constituencies) we are hearing a different left wing conversation with the public. It is the public Harry Scoffin will be having with those in parliament who turn up to listen to him next Tuesday and with him, arguing for the rights of ordinary people getting ripped off by ground rents, managing agents and Fleece holders.

I agree with Scoffin, Spencer and even the Spectator. Rachel Reeves has got to stop lining the billionaires pockets. We voted Labour in – we expect to see a Labour Chancellor.

Posted in pensions | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

“Not lining the pockets of billionaires” but “paying pensions people worked hard to save for”

There is a phrase that rings in my ears from the remarks of the Green Party, and especially the statements of Hannah. It refers to lining the pockets of billionaires at the expense of poor constituencies such as hers.

I had the chance to spend the second half of Friday afternoon discussing with two people (Derek Benstead and Chris Bunford) how we can do what Hannah asked us to do, make it possible for older people to live off their pension.

It is not hard to make money if you work in and around the City of London but it is much harder if you from Gorton and Denton , even as  a plumber and plasterer (Hannah Spencer is both – and an MP).

I am not young and working class and Derek and Chris are younger and more working class. Swap plumber for actuary but they share the same values and as we sat in the RSA, it became clear that we all want pensions to do what Hannah Spencer asked them to do, not line the pockets of the rich.

There are many millions of people relying on pensions that are not pensions but savings plans, which can do better (up to 60% better according to the DWP and our pension minister Torsten Bell). The little we can do is to turn pension provision back to a Mutual world where money is shared by all parties.

Derek Benstead goes to work through Gorton and Denton, his friend Hilary Salt was involved in the election and we discussed in our late afternoon meeting how we can make pensions fairer, how actuaries can do it, administrators can do it and how employers can be encouraged to help.

We all get together in Edinburgh for a jamboree in a couple of weeks. No doubt a lot of fine wine will be quaffed over discussions about how to make money out of other people’s pensions. But I suspect that over the next three and a half years of this Government’s tenure, the voices of young working people like Hannah Spencer will become louder.

At a speech on October 22nd 2025 and subsequently in a press release, our pensions minister promised a type of pension that could pay ordinary people up to 60% more than the DC pensions they have been put in so far since auto-enrolment began. In the past few weeks, Chris and I and several others have been working out how we can give up to 60% bigger pensions without crippling employers with pension increases.

If you would like to hear more about how this can be achieved through multi-employer CDC than stay tuned to this blog. I hope that we will be able to share some of what must for now stay with those employers who are under NDA, but shortly will be explained to all bosses and staff interested not in “lining the pockets of billionaires” but of paying pensions that older people can live off

 

Posted in pensions | Tagged , | 2 Comments