View more on these topics

Alan Higham: FCA must tackle annuity commission disclosure

Alan-Higham-MM-Peach.jpg

The FCA is shortly to publish its findings from a year-long study of the annuity market. This follows a previous year-long study to identify the problems consumers face when securing their retirement income from their pension savings.

Many consumer champions have long called for the regulator to intervene in the market to force providers to reform their sales practices. But what form of intervention would actually work given the huge inertia and complexity involved?

As always, these issues become more visceral with personal experience and so it was with helping my Dad put his pension into payment recently. 

Now, he is with one of the better companies in this area but they made an error in failing to disclose the commission they pay on setting up an internal annuity.

Making an error is not unique to this company and while it’s not great, even if the relevant detail had been in there, it would have likely been two paragraphs tucked away in 80 pages. It may as well not be there for all the notice anyone would take of it. Even in the pensions industry, people do not know how commission works on annuity sales.

If you are advised on an annuity, the IFA must agree an explicit fee with the customer. If there is no advice, then commission can be paid (and is) but it must be disclosed (but no explicit agreement is required). Few people know that commission is still paid even if you buy direct from your own pension company.

The FCA should make two immediate changes to empower and inform customers.

1. Instead of disclosing commission at the end of the process, firms should disclose the existence of commission in the form of a voucher to pay for expert help at retirement.  The voucher could be used with any broker or financial adviser but would have no monetary value otherwise.

2. Whilst brokers and internal annuity sales teams can still be paid by the new voucher commission system, they should be required to obtain explicit consent to charge from the customer, just like advisers do.

This would immediately create a level playing field between advice and non-advice as well as empowering the consumer to seek expert help by making it clear that there is financial support to do this.

The voucher’s value would be set at the standard level of commission normally paid. There would be no extra costs involved to the consumer as it is just using the commission charges that were going to be paid anyway.

It could, along with good guidance from newspaper articles, TPAS, Citizens’ Advice and other consumer-focussed bodies, change the way people engage with their pensions at retirement.

Alan Higham is retirement director at Fidelity Worldwide Investment

Recommended

Tom-Selby-MM-Peach-700.jpg
15

Outflanked: Osborne has stolen the election…and Ed Balls just stood and watched

‘OUTplayed. OUTclassed. OUTthought. OUT?’ I was reminded of the famous ‘Daily Mirror’ headline accompanying England’s 3-2 reverse against Portugal in Euro 2000 as Chancellor George Osborne once again effortlessly outwitted his Labour counterpart Ed Balls. Osborne’s pre-election pincer movement has focused on two key voter groups – homeowners (and those who aspire to own a […]

Brian-Tora-MM-Peach-700x450.jpg

Brian Tora: ‘Tis the season to be cautious

The recovery in markets has continued despite the absence of any strikingly good news on either the economic or geopolitical front. Having struck an intraday low of below 6100, the FTSE 100 has clambered back above 6,600. The US market has done even better. Was all the turmoil of the late summer meaningless? Are we […]

HM-Treasury-500x320.jpg

AS 2014: Treasury reveals £730m cost of pensions death tax cut

The Treasury is set to lose £50m in 2015/16 and £730m by 2019/20 as result of changes to the pensions “death tax”, Government documents reveal. But an expected increase in transfers from defined benefit to defined contribution schemes will see Treasury coffers grow by £95m next year and a total of £1.15bn in five years’ […]

Out of context - Chris Hannant

Out of context

“It’s like finding cheese in the fruit and veg section – you wouldn’t expect it to be there” Apfa director general Chris Hannant finds unusual ways to explain European regulation “Can you pass me over to the ego that is Paul Thomas” Mitchell Moneypenny managing director Nicola Mitchell requests an audience with self-proclaimed mortgage god […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

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

  1. While I agree with Alan in principle (as I’m sure most would), in the present climate I think the regulator needs to be very wary about any measures that could potentially discourage people from engaging with regulated firms and products.

    While the intended result would be to level the playing field and encourage wider take-up of advice, the unintended consequence could be greater disengagement overall.

    Personally I’d prefer more robust rules on disclosure for both providers and brokers, zero tolerance with firms flaunting the rules, and the subject covered by the Guidance Guarantee and any supporting guides.

    To me, shopping around is the key issue to address first and foremost. The wastage from lack of shopping around is far greater overall than the negative impact of commission. While you can argue that reforming commssion on non-advised sales will encourage shopping around, this is far from a given.

  2. It ain’t rocket science. Just ban commission on everything – including annuities. Advisers will then have no choice BUT to be transparent and in the case of annuities what can be simpler than CAR? The payment can still be taken from the product. In this case the KFD should show the reduction in annuity payment as a result. QED or not?

Leave a comment