View more on these topics

Andrew Tully: Poor pensions decisions shouldn’t be inevitable

Andrew Tully White background 700

Recent figures from HM Revenue & Customs show more than £6bn has been withdrawn from pensions during the 15 months from the introduction of pension freedoms to July 2016.

The average withdrawals are relatively low and, as we have not seen the Lamborghini effect that was suggested in the run-up to pension freedoms, many commentators are suggesting this is a positive outcome. To me, that seems a remarkably low barrier and we should be looking beyond the headline figures to see if people are getting decent outcomes.

Pension freedoms were always going to drive cash withdrawals from pensions. On the one hand, it can be argued it is simply an inevitable consequence of pension freedoms and people should be able to do what they choose. On the other hand, do we – both the industry and the Government – have a duty to make sure people understand the consequences of their actions?

One obvious concern is people may be withdrawing unsustainable amounts from their pension. Association of British Insurers  figures show nearly one in 10 drawdown customers are taking withdrawals of more than 4 per cent a year, with one in 25 taking more than 10 per cent a year. These higher withdrawals are unlikely to be sustainable over the longer term. Some of these people may have other sources of income and capital, so are knowingly running down this pot. But others will be unwittingly doing so.

However, those choosing to blow their funds may well be the least of our worries. The opposite end of the spectrum – the recklessly conservative – are a larger concern. A shocking statistic from Citizens Advice research is 29 per cent of consumers are taking money out of their pension to put into a bank account. I understand people can find pensions confusing and bank accounts are relatively simple and familiar. But this is very unlikely to be a good financial move.

“Do we have a duty to make sure people understand the consequences of their actions?”

First there is an immediate tax hit, so a smaller amount will be available to invest in the bank account than was in the pension. And, given where interest rates are, the capital is very likely to be reducing further, in real terms, with many bank accounts paying a fraction of 1 per cent interest.

Leaving a larger sum in the tax-efficient pension wrapper with a cautious investment strategy is likely to be a much better approach. The pension option also means the money stays in an inheritance tax-friendly vehicle. While that may be less of an issue to those with lower wealth, the research shows the bank account option is taken by an even higher percentage of people with pensions worth £100,000 or more – where IHT may well be more of an issue.

The research also shows one in eight had an unexpected outcome affecting tax or welfare payments as a result of withdrawals from their pension. While some of these would be a result of emergency tax codes being imposed and so will be rectified over time, others are likely to have suffered more fundamental financial consequences.

Overall, the evidence suggests not enough people are getting access to good quality guidance. We all need to  show the financial benefit people can get by choosing to take advice – and the Government needs to play a key role. For those who do not want to take advice, we need to push, pull and cajole more into the guidance framework.

There is a huge amount to be done to make pension freedoms the success we all want them to be. Giving people more control and flexibility is great but we need to help them use these powers wisely.

Giving choice means some people will make poor decisions. But that does not mean we should accept the inevitability of that or stop striving to help more people achieve the best outcome for them and their family.

Andrew Tully is pensions technical director at Retirement Advantage

Recommended

1

Lifting the veil on the benefits of pensions

Andy Haldane is fast becoming another Martin Wheatley. What I mean is, someone in a position of power who, to paraphrase the former FCA chief exec, speaks first and thinks later. For those who missed the furore, the Bank of England chief economist has exercised advisers and the wider pensions industry for saying property is […]

24

Nic Cicutti: The pensions boycott is well founded

Two friends and their kids came to stay with us this bank holiday weekend. Amid the laughter, good food and even better wine, my friends let drop that they have several tens of thousands of pounds’ worth of modern art lying under their bed. Why under the bed, I asked? Is art not something that […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 2 comments at the moment, we would lover to hear your opinion too.

  1. I think more worrying is the fact that people are so spooked by the FS industry that they are NOT spending their capital and dying with it intact. These people are ‘going without’ when they don’t have to. The 4% rule is baloney ….where is the rule that strikes the right balance between income and capital?

  2. People in many cases don’t engage with pensions even when in other aspects of their life they exhibit real insight. I recently met a very bright member of the IT community whose 30 + year career (from an IT/Career Progression/Pay point of view) could not have been better. From a financial advice point of view he had ended up with 8 pension providers all in default funds (of which not one of the underlying funds exhibited the level of risk we agreed he was comfortable with) with widely varying levels of charges (from modest to horrendous). The capital value was pushing on to £1m. He had not taken financial advice mainly due to him being an employee over his life and this not being offered through the employer (he had never seen the need to seek it out as he hadn’t realised it’s importance). Now approaching retirement he realised that he needed help to structure his funds correctly and assess how much he could safely take from the fund. With the funds involved not only did he realise the need for advice he had the wherewithal to afford it.

    The problem is acute with those with lower levels of retirement assets. Not only are their asset levels in many cases too low to provide a comprehensive assessment service over the pension’s lifetime (or even at all in the case of the lowest funds), more importantly they either do not perceive the need for advice or feel any advice cost regardless of how modest is too much (I was once contacted by a potential client asking for advice on transferring an occupational scheme to a SIPP he owned. I quoted our cost and explained that this would be for our advice which may indeed be to not transfer. His opinion was that it should cost “a couple of hundred quid” at most and for that surely we should recommend the transfer as it was what he wanted to do).

    Hopefully increasing Apps and Internet use will fill some of the gaps but may also provide the perception that it is just easy to choose the right funds or arrange your own pensions under all circumstances and advice is never needed. As I once saw on a cup “I’m sorry that you think your Google search is equivalent to my numerous qualifications and 20 years experience of financial advice” because of course you will only find it isn’t a number of years later.

Leave a comment