“The LTA – so you think you know it all?” – Pension PlayPen Today

Rosalind comments “very much looking forward to this next week .. talking to people who also think the definition of a good time is wading through the Finance Bill….”

Register at http://www.pensionplaypen.com

Posted in pensions | Leave a comment

Will British Steel lessons fuel retirement income review reforms?

Stephen Lowe of Just clearly thinks that the redress project that is going ahead for British Steelworkers ill-advised to leave their pension scheme has focused minds at the FCA on the need for  income in retirement.

Citywire reports  Lowe as saying that

 the industry will feel the ‘legacy’ of the British Steel Pension Scheme misselling by advisers for years to come, and the lessons learned from the ongoing scandal will play a large part in the FCA’s retirement income advice review findings.

I am sure Stephen is right. There is in an elision of thinking between TPR and the FCA that is most evident in their joint interest in measuring Value for Money but is likely to re-emerge when the DWP launches its latest consultation on “decumulation” this summer. The FCA’s Retirement Income Advice Review is just one strand in the web. But it is a “thematic review” which means it will be ongoing and important.

This review is a piece of discovery work to explore how financial adviser firms are delivering retirement income advice and assess the quality of outcomes consumers are getting. It is due to report at the end of 2023.

There’s no surprise in this, we are currently in what I have called pension’s Strait of Hormuz, where hundreds of thousands of savers find themselves in a choke point – able to access their pension pots but  with precious little assistance. Of course help is at hand from Pension Wise, MaPS and from the managers and trustees of the pension pots they can draw from, but most people recognise what they really need is a hand at their tiller, the hand of advice.

Those who have by luck or judgement saved sufficient for their pots to pay for the advice needed, can employ advisers to manage their financial affairs so that income meets outflows and the money lasts as long as they do.

Those who can’t afford an adviser could cash in their chips and buy an annuity – possibly from Stephen Lowe’s employer – Just.

But the steelworkers of Port Talbot , Scunthorpe and Motherwell – who have lost their pension promise from the British Steel Pension Scheme will , unless a better plan is suggested, not get the redress of returning to the new BSPS or even the PPF. Instead they will either receive cash compensation or a top-up to their personal pension.

If the FCA are thinking about redress, perhaps they ought to think outside the box, surely there is a better way to compensate people for their loss of pension.

And surely the 700,000 savers who navigate pension’s Strait of Hormuz, do not need to be quite so much in peril as they have been recently.

 

 

Posted in pensions | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Benefits will be restored at USS but will common sense?

UCU members in their tens of thousands have voted overwhelmingly to move forward with pension proposals agreed with employers which will pave the way for the restoration of benefits. When we launched our pensions dispute, university vice chancellors doubted us, and government ministers criticised us. We were told it was impossible to win back a stolen pension but today UCU members have proven that it can be done, and we have taken a giant step towards a historic victory that will change lives.

So Jo Grady, the UCU CEO announced the end of a long running industrial dispute over the pension promise from Britain’s largest funded pension scheme.


Benefits

Anyone arriving fresh to the scene will find it hard to believe that a 35% cut in deferred pay could have been put forward by employers of university teachers and research staff. That within two years, that pay cut has been reversed and the future promise restored is hardly less credible. Most incredible of all, anyone fresh to the USS but familiar with their own UK pension , will know that pension schemes had a hard time of it in 2022.

Those closer to the coalface, namely the staff impacted by the cuts had to call upon other academics to reveal just what was happening to their pensions. Last summer, analysis from Cambridge, Edinburgh and Sussex universities, and the Helsinki Institute of Physics showed that younger workers could have lost up to £200,000 under benefits changes introduced in April. This is why Jo Grady referred to  “stolen pensions“.


Trust

A promise of future benefits is a promise. It should not be conditional on the desire or ability of those making the promise to meet it, that should be taken as a given when the promise was made. That in this case, the promise was made by UK universities, organizations with rich histories and immense endowed wealth, makes it less likely for a teacher or researcher to doubt it.

Rather than taking the long view , the employers took the view of the executive and trustees of USS who took a very short view on the funding of future pensions. They chose to trust a valuation of scheme assets and liabilities in 2021 that had been carried out at the height of the pandemic uncertainty in March 2020. This valuation revealed a £14bn deficit. Two years later and less than three years after the previous valuation point , the head of the UK’s Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) said the latest report on USS’ cost – which shows a £5.0bn   surplus – allows “cautious optimism” regarding the upcoming triennial valuation.

There are many aspects of the USS’ management that have been called into question. The management of the USS asset base explored by Con Keating in a recent article published here which concluded “It is absolutely clear that this USS model is not in any way fit for the purpose stated”. Likewise, the dismissal of whistleblower Jane Hutton in 2019 who correctly predicted what was to come. Add to this the high cost base of the USS executive and its capacity to antagonize its membership and you get a perception  of a poorly run pension scheme that did not exhibit  economies of scale so much as  economies of competence.

But none of these things is so relevant as the observation that in less than three years, over a period of poor economic performance and great social turmoil, the funding of USS notionally  increased by nearly £20bn. This really stretches credibility and suggests that until the scheme’s valuation methodology is righted, the capacity of future valuations to reopen the same disputes remains.

Not all actuaries accept this state of affairs. Mike Harrison reminds us that a casualty of the strikes has been the promise of education  young people have paid for, that has been only partially delivered. For a generation of students, there is no restitution.


Common sense

The University and College Union has every right to be proud of itself for standing up for common sense and its members future pensions and UUK , bruised as it may be, should now accept that it fought its staff  with arguments based on faulty assumptions.

But those assumptions were provided them by the USS, a pension scheme established under trust for the benefits of its members. It does not make common sense that it has been in dispute with those it has a fiduciary duty to.

The trust of the members in the management and trustees of its pension scheme has been damaged and needs to be repaired. There must now be an acceptance from the USS executive that their needs to be a material change in the management not just of the scheme assets, but of stakeholder relations.

The USS must be run in future with common sense. It must ditch its blind adherence to financial economics and remind itself that  – like the staff and institutions it serves, it isn’t closing any time soon.

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

Royal Mail strike averted – CDC gets a welcome break.

Only a week after the Pensions Regulator finally authorised Royal Mail’s Collective Pension Plan as Britain’s first CDC scheme, a strike that had threatened the future of the Plan’s sponsor has been averted.

The news will come as a relief to everyone who holds the Royal Mail dear, including the CWU’s principal negotiator of the CDC solution Terry Pullinger. Terry has I understand been ill, may this news speed your recovery.

According to the BBC website ,a joint statement said:

“After almost a year of talks, Royal Mail and the Communication Workers’ Union (CWU) are pleased to announce they have reached a negotiators’ agreement in principle.

“The proposed agreement will now be considered by the executive of the union before being voted on by the union’s membership.

CWU general secretary Dave Ward and deputy general secretary Andy Furey said: “On the basis that the negotiators’ agreement is endorsed by the postal executive, we will put in place a full communications plan to engage members.

“Thank you for your support and patience. It has got us to this point.”

Worryingly, earlier this month, Royal Mail said that a return to industrial action could result in the postal service going into administration. It said the strikes have cost the company £200m in lost business and in covering striking staff.

The continued prosperity of Royal Mail is important to the Royal Mail CDC and – as it is 1/1 on the CDC list, to CDC as a concept. It is usual for ideas to breed , for their to be a mate. We hope that one comes along as the Royal Mail CPP looks an endangered species without a mate.

What this tells me is that anyone who wants to see CDC prosper as a concept must get behind it now. It is heartening to see First Actuarial celebrating the authorisation, Hilary Salt , Derek Benstead and the company were prime movers, advising the CWU. WTW advised Royal Mail, both have stated that they have clients looking to follow Royal Mail, now is the time for those employers to seek authorisation – if they want their own scheme.

If they want to participate in a multi-employer scheme, they will have to wait for the CDC regs and code 2.0, which we hope will shortly emerge following the closure of the recent DWP consultation.

Meanwhile , organisations such as the RSA, which hosts a working group looking at practical applications of CDC style pension thinking, should look to developments in the States and Canada around open-ended modern tontines to help savers solve the tricky issue of turning pots to pension. Adrian Boulding, David Pitt-Watson and Hari Mann have a powerful force for good in this group.

 

 

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

How patient is patient capital?

We’re told pension funds  have long investment horizons so you’d expect those that invest in infrastructure to buy and hold investments to provide income for current and future generations of pensioners. This is what is called “patient capital” and it’s why Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson called for a pensions big bang to bounce Britain back after the pandemic.

But it appears that it doesn’t always work like that, not when you have asset managers in the way.

In an opinion piece in Sunday’s FT, Brett Christophers explains  that the majority of infrastructure funds are “closed end” meaning that assets have to be sold within a certain number of years because such funds wind-up on closure.

On the one hand, infrastructure assets, such as real estate, are differentiated from other assets in which the private sector invests precisely by their long-term nature. But on the other hand, the preponderance of closed-end funds encourages short-termism and disincentivises capital spending. Why invest for a future you will not see or profit from?

Open-ended funds are apparently behaving no better.

The managers of open-end funds are no less incentivised by performance fees than the managers of closed-end funds. And to the extent that fund performance is driven by rapid asset disposals — which research indicates is clearly the case — the former will be no less focused on sale than the latter.

Christopher concludes

So much for investing in infrastructure for the long term.

This is not a question that a consumer can answer, it is not one for employers buying into workplace pensions, this is a question for trustees and their advisers who have responsibility for the investment of other people (our) money.


The impact of bad management

Lady Lucy moored in the Hurley Mill Pond

You will notice that around my boat are what appear to be soap suds, these are the tell tale signs of unclean water. This  picture was taken in 2017.

At that time , the water in the River Thames was under the private management of Macqurie, an Australian infrastructure investor into whose funds pension schemes invest.

Under Macquarie’s control from 2006, Thames Water was repeatedly attacked for underinvesting and for the resultant water and sewage leaks. In 2018, Ofwat, the UK industry regulator, lost patience and fined it a record £120mn.

But Macquarie had no need to worry. Having sold its final shares in Thames the previous year, it, as one commentator put it, “had gone, leaving others to take its hit”.

If we think that holding infrastructure , like the sewage system around the Thames – has a positive impact, we have to have ways to ensure that firms like Macquarie act as stewards ,not speculators.

Posted in pensions | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Sun Money solves the Retirement Riddle

Pilot your Pot with Harriet

Every time Harriet Meyer runs a pension story in the Sun, my heart leaps. She has the knack of using snappy headlines and clear language to make the complex plain.

Harriet modestly tells us on Linked-in this was

“a challenging piece to write given just a page and a huge topic – hopefully it’ll help some people start their retirement planning!”

The idea here is that you can weigh up your retirement options and navigate the pension maze by shopping around for the best income options. Harriet stays away from phrases like “investment pathway” and sticks to the two income options we currently have “annuity” and “drawdown”. These words , like “pension” are anchors to the article.

It’s true, you can save a lot of money when you come to swap your pot for pension by getting the best annuity rate on the market. Even though there is no pension aisle in the Money Supermarket, you can get an “open market” option.

Pension Expert, Nico Aspinall, told listeners of his pension podcast that even with a pot as big as £10,000, you’d be unlikely to be able to shop around. Well I’ve got news for you, Mr. Institutional, Retirement Line, the retail annuity specialist can give you open market options for as little as £2,000! So anyone who wants a guaranteed income purchased by their pot, can get the best rate, with Retirement Line’s help.

Harriet’s right too about “drawdown dilemmas”, you are responsible for your money not running out and right now it’s best to do your drawdown with the help of an independent financial adviser. If you can’t find an independent adviser who will help you, then help may be on its way as the pension industry finally gets round to providing other ways to turn your pots to pensions.

Finally, Harriet looks at the state pension and has some guidance for people who haven’t “maxxed out” their state pension entitlement. There’ll always be opportunities to buy back years of pension entitlement you’ve missed, but you have till July 31st to plug gaps between the 2006 and 2016 tax years.

Pensions – income and the dashboard.

I’m doing a talk with Richard Smith on Wednesday at Ernst and Young fat a CIPP Public Sector Event. Richard is going to be explaining how Public Sector Schemes will need to interact with the dashboard and I’ll be doing a much simpler talk about what people want from dashboards. Simpler doesn’t mean easier and so I’m pleased to have Harriet’s help at hand.

Sure -people want to know how much cash they’ll get out of their pensions. But they aren’t so dumb as to know that most of their needs in retirement are about having enough income to have a happy retirement and having the means to meet the needs of declining health, as they get older.

Pensions are the income we need to be able to stop work or wind down. The final point Harriet makes is that like Mike Facherty in the article, we can all look for ways to supplement our retirement income with work we want to do.

 


FYI

Details of the CIPP Public Sector Dashboard Event

  • Richard Smith will introduce the policy background: i.e. most working age people in the UK don’t know what pensions they’ve got (although that might be a smaller proportion of public sector employees)
  • Overview of the core of “Find and View” pensions dashboards concept, i.e. multiple dashboards which all show the same information within banking apps, pension providers’ websites, and elsewhere.
  • Key tool: PLSA 2-minute explainer video and introducing the topic of personal data matching by schemes, including and possible matches, and maybe referencing PensionFusion and LCP matching research
  • Debate: Where do we think dashboard users will go with their queries after using a dashboard? Their schemes? (e.g. LGPS Funds, NHSPS, TPS, etc.) Or their employers? What about deferred members?

 

  • Henry Tapper on what we think dashboards will mean for consumers
    What do we think users of dashboards might want to do next after using a dashboard?
  • Debate: Post-view services – what matters to different segments of the working age population? And how can those varying needs be serviced?

 

  • Q&A: Open forum + we’re particularly interested in hearing what this audience would welcome hearing more about as the dashboards programme progresses.

 

Posted in pensions | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

We aren’t all taking SeLFIES yet!

Is there an argument for the State to issue a new kind of pension bond to compete with annuities

Arun Muralidhar believes there is and he has evidence that such bonds are popular, in Brazil.

This blog asks whether now is the time to consider the creation and use of such bonds.


SeLFIES

If you want to read about “SeLFIES” , I have a blog given over to how they work

But in summary they are a way for people to pre-fund a retirement income by buying bonds that release an income later in life. You are giving the Government your money for the time being and they’ll give you it back as you need it later in life.

The problem with such a Government bond is that is singularly lacking in popular appeal.

Given a choice, most wealthy people would rather have an investment driven product with inflation protection delivered through exposure to real assets than a Retirement Security Bond secured by the Government.

While most people who are not wealthy are keener to have cash than income as their source of security.

So this looks like a product that would require Government intervention and a Government that wants more pension investment to go to it, rather than the private sector.

I’m not sure the Government wants that either!


Relentless enthusiasm gets you everywhere!

Credit to Arun, he is persistent.  His idea pops up all over social media and I seem to have become his maven.

This post by Ros Altmann contains an interesting discussion with Steve Groves (both of this parish) on entitlements to the state pension and focusses on intergenerational fairness.

I am a little embarrassed to be referenced in the conversation as a supporter of these SeLFIES as I am not clear I am!

If I had a way to turn back time, I would have supported the use of SERPS as a means of providing a state funded second pension to those who do not have a private retirement income. I would have supported a carer’s pension based on the  notional income carers should have got for taking work from the health service and social security.

I have a great deal of sympathy for friends like Andy Young and Bryn Davies whose life has been devoted to the prevention of poverty in retirement through the establishment and maintenance of PAYG tax- payer funded pensions.

And I support the purchasing of gilts to ensure retirement income to those in funded pension schemes. This despite the appalling consequences arising from herding into leveraged gilt purchasing through LDI. I remain a fan of the gilt.

But I stop short of endorsing the use of what are akin to deferred annuity bonds in Nest and other workplace pensions. We are engaged in re-creating a second pillar pension that is independent of the state. We are trying to break away from gilt-dependency.

What I see as needed is the capacity within these schemes to absorb pension savings – either through payroll contributions or transfer of other pots, to provide the service described

  1. Steady income
  2. Safety (I can’t lose it all)

  3. Lifetime income (assurance of having income for life)

  4. Control and access (to my money)

  5. Reversibility (not locked into a product)

  6. A high investment return

The product that the DCIIA is describing is either whole of life or decumulation – only CDC. That product is currently requiring investment management and this may include the purchase of SeLFIES, but we must establish the infrastructure first.

Posted in pensions | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

They shoot pension schemes, don’t they?

 

 Jane Fonda and Michael Sarrazin compete in a dance marathon in the film ‘They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?’, 1969. 

I blundered upon this article last night as I was considering what had just happened at Aintree. I reference yesterday’s Grand National as the 39 runners and riders were all tipped by someone to a point that I bet on the favorite, that turned out to be a winning strategy. The favorite had won twice at Cheltenham and its trainer had won another Grand National recently. It should be noted that the first winner of the Grand National was called Lottery, picking winners seems that way, but markets are formed and favorites created and favorites are more likely to win than other horses. Past performance is a starting point.

The article is about the choices that people saving for their retirement in Australia continue to have, the choices are diminishing because schemes are merging with other schemes. This is happening voluntarily, and – as the article states – at the insistence of the Australian Government.

 

ASIC has called out the trustees of four industry super funds for poor communications of the fund’s failure of the Your Future, Your Super (YFYS) performance test for the second consecutive time. 

In a press statement on Wednesday, ASIC called out Australian Catholic Superannuation, BT Funds Management, Energy Industries Superannuation and Equity Trustees Superannuation for inconsistent and unclear communications to members about failing the test or merging with another fund. Australian Catholic Super signed an agreement to merge with UniSuper, which it completed last year

“Trustees that fail the performance test need to get the balance right in their communications – they need to be transparent and factual about the performance of the failed product,” ASIC commissioner Danielle Press said. 

The regulator found some trustees took a reactive approach to performance test communications or significant events such as mergers and did not have cohesive communications strategies in place. 

ASIC is the FCA to APRA’s TPR – together ASIC and APRA establish who is getting value for their money when investing in Australian “Super” retirement funds.

There are failing workplace pension schemes in the UK and no one is calling them out because we worry about litigation and because “past performance is not necessarily a guide to the future”. We hang on to myths such as “institutional pensions will always provide better outcomes than retail pensions“.

So a workplace pension that has delivered 0% growth on member contributions over 5 years can continue to be marketed to employers as a product fit for their staff.

The Sidney Pollack film (and previous book) , “They shoot horses don’t they?” posed the question whether it is kinder to put an animal out of its misery early or allow it to die a prolonged death (for the dancefloor think pension scheme management). The Australian Government clearly considers it is kinder to put schemes to sleep than to keep them alive.

The UK Government is also considering a “performance test” for workplace pensions (our Super). It is talking of following Australia in forcing schemes that fail such a test to cease marketing themselves to new employers and ultimately to wind up.

Posted in pensions | Tagged , | Leave a comment

CETV madness

 

I wrote yesterday about confusion about what a defined benefit promise is today. This surrounds the concept of the “DB pot”, a concept that is utter fiction. There is no DB pot.

A defined benefit scheme, whether final salary, career average or even cash balance is just one big pot sufficient to pay out promises made to participants (members) and topped up when needs be by a sponsor, typically an employer, occasionally the PPF. This is also the same for Royal Mail’s CDC scheme.

The cost of meeting the promise is measured by actuaries by taking guesses on the performance of the assets in the scheme and the likely amounts needing to be paid out in retirement (the liabilities). If you add all the promises to members together and discount them by an assumed rate of growth on the assets, you get to a valuation of the scheme’s assets and liabilities and this gives rise to a surplus or a deficit (scheme’s are rarely in equilibrium).

Since 1988, trustees of these schemes have had to provide members with  their individual valuations as “cash-equivalent transfer values” or CETVs. These are what have given people the idea of a “DB pot”.

But the CETV is nothing like a pension pot you have in a DC pension. Though DB schemes need to keep some cash in their fund to pay CETVs on demand, they do not organize the administration of the pension scheme around them.  The idea is that a CETV is paid only in exceptional circumstances rather than as an alternative to a pension. However, during the last decade, CETVs became very popular to a point where for many people they were more valuable than the pension promise itself.

This was never the intention of those who set the rules (the DWP) , enforced the rules (TPR) or managed the scheme (trustees and their administrators). The popularity of CETVs was a result of the bizarre way that CETVs are calculated, using a method that raised the transfer value every time that the gilt rate fell and raised it again every time that life expectancy rose. Though gilt yields have fallen and life expectancy has fallen recently, for most of this century life expectancy has been rising and gilt yields have been as low as they can go. This has meant CETVs have been HUGE.

Since inflation and interest rates started rising in late 2021, CETVs have been falling. For example, a man working for Scottish Power told Money Marketing that his CETV had fallen by £600,000 from £1.4m to £800,000. But this does not mean his pension has fallen. The £800,000 figure is what an actuary reckons is needed to pay his pension now that interest rates have risen. It’s the same pension as before (it’s actually nominally bigger because  it’s had some cost of living rises added in).

The trouble is, the member has stopped thinking of his pension as a pension and become obsessed with something that doesn’t exist – his DB pot.

Here we have the whole problem we have got ourselves into with DB pensions , encapsulated into CETV madness. The CETV can be created in a variety of ways. There is a section of TPR guidance that explains the discretion available to trustees and their actuaries in doing this. The basic rule is that CETVs should follow the method of valuations used by the Scheme as a whole. For more than a quarter of a century Schemes have been using very conservative ways of valuing scheme liabilities which has meant that members have had very secure pensions. This conservatism is referred to as “prudence”.

But prudence has some unintended consequences. one of those is that it requires employers to plough corporate money into pensions (as opposed to paying people more or investing in R and D) and it means that CETVs get higher and higher. The most extreme consequence of high pots was the debacle that followed the British Steel Pension Scheme changing the way it calculated CETVs in early 2017. This coincided with a major restructuring of the Scheme that made steelworkers choose whether they wanted their pension paid by the lifeboat Pension Protection Fund or by a new iteration of the BSPS scheme.

We all know what happened next.


What goes up, must come down.

People who did not take the high transfer values on offer till 2022 are now feeling they missed out. There will be many former members of pension schemes who took their CETVs and are now sitting on large DC pots as a result. But they have no private pension anymore.

Organizing the mass migration of DB members out of DB schemes and into private pensions was what many IFAs did for much of this century. They were encouraged to do it by sponsors who enhanced CETVs to get members to take them and these employers were encouraged to do this by their corporate advisers who could see advantages to the corporate balance sheet of paying off scheme members. All of this went on, under the eyes or the Pension Regulator who considered such activities “scheme de-risking”.  There was complicity throughout , advisers could be paid through a quasi-commission arrangement called contingent charging (no win no fee) and it wasn’t till the BSPS fiasco , that the FCA got involved.

Suddenly, in late 2017 and 2018, the FCA sprung into action , determining that over half the steelworkers who were taking CETVs were badly advised and belatedly trying to put a stop to what had already become a flood of applications. The consequences of this abrupt intervention are still being felt today, 1400 steelworkers , still to receive compensation, are set to receive between £50m and £70m compensation, many IFAs are now out of business and more facing ruin. The problem is not confined to BSPS, mini-BSPS problems are alive with many other DB schemes.

This ongoing fiasco is down to CETV madness, where a cash alternative to a pension promise was seen as more attractive than the prospect of a wage to life.

What went up , has now come down. The CETV bubble has burst , but it should never have been inflated in the first place.


The fiction of the DB pot

Robert Cochrane made the point on a recent podcast that people get pots but don’t get pensions. It is not intuitive that it costs over £100,000 to pay a £5,000 pa pension.

Offering a CETV looks to a member like the pension scheme has got a DB pot sitting on a shelf – like a life insurance pay-out.

But there is no pot, no shelf and the value of the pot is only guaranteed for a few weeks. The next value could be higher or lower and many schemes do not allow people to get more than one valuation a year.

More sophisticated schemes offer online valuations which can change every day. Members can quickly become obsessed with CETVs – which goes unnoticed when CETVs are going up but can lead to mental health issues, when they go down. The member who saw his CETV fall by £600,000 claims he can no longer work but has been forced into early retirement out of worry. Ironically, the retirement income he will get will (as mentioned above) be the same as he had when his “DB pot” was £600,000 higher.

If you are in an unfunded DB pension (not NHS, teachers and other public sector schemes), then you don’t get a CETV, this provides sanity. Here a pension is always a pension, never a pot.

The use of the word “madness” is grounded in reality. The promotion of CETVs, the exploitation of people’s bias towards cash in hand  and the failure to apply common sense in the valuation process, has led to over 100,000 DB pensions becoming DC pots. The long term outcome of this will be ongoing grief  from those whose DC pots go wrong and ongoing grief for people complaining they’re stuck with a pension they’d rather not have.

 


Which of course is CETV madness.

 

 

Posted in pensions | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Update “Client slams Mercer after losing £600k value on pension pot” – Update

*Update* This article refers to the original version of an article in Money Marketing. This was updated on 17th/18th April and no longer contains the financial loss mentioned in this article. Thanks to Katey Pigden who came off maternity to promptly deal with this


There will be many readers , including a lot of people who know very little about pensions, who will read this headline in Money Marketing and assume that something has gone seriously wrong,

A pensioner has expressed frustration with scheme administrator Mercer after he lost £600,000 off the value of his pension pot.


This is what appears to have happened. Mr Inglis has worked for 39 years for Scottish Power and is now 55. He applied for a transfer value for his pension rights in 2021 and was given a CETV of £1.4m in exchange for giving up his pension rights. He made the same request in 2022 and was told that the transfer value was £800,000. He has the same right to a pension, for him and his family – the same rights to tax-free-cash.

Mr Inglis is complaining that it is down to Mercer that he can now transfer £600,000 less. The only way that this could be argued would be if Mercer had blocked him from taking his transfer but this isn’t what happened, Mercer – we are told – took over the administration recently. Mr Inglis’ argument is that since taking over, Mercer made it hard for him to get online transfer values.

So Mr Inglis has lost no money, he has simply lost the right to a higher transfer value and his complaint against Mercer sounds like frustration with himself.

This is not however how the story is reported in Money Marketing

He (Mr Inglis)  said within a year of Mercer taking over the running of the scheme, the value of his pension pot has dropped to £800,000.

This is the story; the implication is that Mercer’s arrival has led to the fall in CETV. Mr Inglis more than implies – he states that Mercer lost him money.

I got a reply in November 2022 after dozens of emails had been ignored only to find to my horror that they had lost £600,000 off the value of my pension pot,” he told Money Marketing.

Worst of all, Money Marketing are prepared to endorse this nonsense with the headline

Client slams Mercer after losing £600k value on pension pot


The remainder of the article is a mixture of advisor anecdotes, trust pilot scores and comments left by savers suggesting that Mr Inglis’ complaint is part of a bigger picture  of Mercer’s poor customer service.


This reporting is simply scandalous

The public’s perception of defined benefit pensions like Scottish Powers is increasingly that they provide a pension pot rather than an income for life.

This perception is wrong. The transfer value is incidental to the pension and unlike the pension can go down as well as up.

Money Marketing do not even mention that Mr Inglis’ pension is intact and will have actually increased year on year as a result of statutory revaluation.

It leaves the explanation for the fall in value to Mercer and make no effort to explain that the fall in the CETV was nothing to do with Mercer.

Nor does the article mention that Mr Inglis could only have taken his CETV with the support  of a qualitied advisor.

Mr Inglis has lost nothing. He has never had a pension pot from Scottish Power and were he to speak with his trustees rather than Money Marketing, he would be told that he is in a well run defined benefit pension scheme that will give him a wage for the rest of his life.

What is most distressing about this story is that Mr Inglis appears to have lost his health as a result of worrying about something he need not have worried about.

The 55-year-old said his experience dealing with Mercer helped cause stress-induced ill health resulting in his early retirement in January 2023.

and Mr Inglis attributes this to Mercer

“I find Mercer’s unprofessionalism and lack of care and communication totally insulting. I’m at rock bottom over this. My dreams are all destroyed. How can Mercer get away with this?”.

This may make for a good story but it is also fodder for ambulance chasers. There are thousands of people like Mr Inglis who have lost nothing but the right to a bumper CETV all of whom may be encouraged to go after administrators, trustees and advisors for the opportunity cost afforded by the inflated CETVs of yesteryear.

Let us remember, even when at their peak – during the time of peak QE with gilt yields trending to zero, taking CETVs  was not generally considered a good idea.

Money Marketing may have given this story to a junior reporter but there is no excuse for the editor to have allowed it to be published. It’s good that the editorial team has reviewed and altered the article (thanks Katey).

Journalists have a part to play in preventing poor decision making and Mr Inglis has made some poor decisions about his pension situation. This has led in part to his losing his health and retiring at 55.

*Update* Money Marketing have been in contact, the editorial team will discuss the article on Monday (the next working day) in the light of this article.

Whether Mr Inglis has a genuine claim for poor communication is hard to tell. He has means to make that complaint but there appears little evidence for the contention that Mercer has lost him any pension.

One final thing – Mr Inglis- at 55 – is not yet a pensioner, he will be when he starts receiving his pension. He is in the fortunate situation of having a very valuable defined benefit pension that could pay him a decent wage for 40 years, a pension that could continue to dependents, a pension with inflation protection.

He should congratulate himself for working a lifetime with one company, and being in a  magnificent pension scheme most of that time. How many people 55 or older, would wish themselves with his options?

Posted in pensions | Tagged , , | 2 Comments