View more on these topics

Danby Bloch: Where are all the centralised retirement propositions?

A shockingly low amount of advice firms follow an agreed approach to investing for and in retirement

It is time there was a grown-up conversation about investing to generate post-retirement income. The pension freedoms have utterly changed the retirement planning scene and many advisers have simply not yet caught up with the implications and changed their practices accordingly.

One of the more startling facts to come out of last week’s Platforum 2017 conference was the revelation that some 60 per cent of advisers do not have a centralised retirement proposition, that is, an agreed approach to investing in retirement.

Just over half the firms with at least £100m in assets under advice do have a centralised retirement proposition but, frankly, you might have thought the proportion would be nearer 100 per cent.

Far more firms have developed more general centralised investment propositions but these tend to lack the special focus needed on the planning requirements of people using their pensions and other assets for income.

The emphasis here is on clients who need to generate regular amounts from both dividends or interest, as well as by digging into capital on a regular basis.

There are some lucky clients who do not need to draw on their pension to provide them with an income after they stop work. In their case, the freedoms have transmuted such funds from a tax-efficient retirement plan into an inheritance tax mitigation arrangement of almost unparalleled attractions. Their pensions are free of IHT when they are passed down the generations but are nevertheless available to draw on if they ever need cash.

The pension scheme for such clients is the ultimate reservation of benefit – something the IHT legislation strives mightily to ban for almost every other category of asset, with the exception of qualifying business assets which are mostly riskier and often much less liquid.

Spendable flow 

The best most people can achieve in terms of IHT planning with their pension is to draw on their other, potentially subject to IHT, assets first before drawing on the pension later, in case they die before.

With this in mind, most people need an investment plan for drawdown that will provide a regular, steady and predictable source of spendable flow.

Some of their expenditure will be core outgoings they cannot defer or avoid, such as food, services, council tax and so on. Some of it will be more or less discretionary, such as holidays, travel, entertainment and eating out. And some might be very flexible; gifts to the family, perhaps.

The discretionary or flexible expenditure could be reined in or dropped altogether if needs be. Each client will have their own spending patterns and priorities, which planners must understand and monitor on an ongoing basis.

When people accumulate assets, they can afford to take more risks, and the longer they have before they need to start drawing on the money, the more risks they can afford to take. But once someone has stopped work, their attitude and ability to cope with possible losses will change radically.

Clients and their advisers need to recognise this and adjust the planning accordingly.

The enemies of dependable retirement income from investments are well-known, they are just not sufficiently acknowledged. Top of the pile is sequence risk: the danger that early major investment losses drastically drag down the potential for growth and income in a portfolio because the client is drawing on capital at a very low valuation.

Then there is the related risk of reverse pound-cost averaging (or pound-cost ravaging), where the client cashes in more of their units or shares when their values are low than when they are high on a regular basis.

And then there is cost – the costs of investing and the costs of advice. If clients are aiming to draw a relatively modest 4 per cent net of their investment portfolio each year, total costs of investing and advice will represent half this amount, which could turn out to be one of the highest regular costs the client is incurring.

That may be an unfair way to look at such costs but it is how many clients will consider it, especially once Mifid ll kicks in next year and total costs will have to be disclosed even more clearly.

So advisers need to develop a clear and reassuring approach to investing for retirement income. One that demonstrates seriously good value for money. In later articles, I will look at the different approaches that can be taken and consider their various advantages and drawbacks. Every adviser firm with clients in drawdown should have an agreed coherent centralised retirement proposition.

Danby Bloch is chairman of Helm Godfrey and consultant at Platforum



Graham Bentley: The many problems with asset allocation models

Former FCA technical specialist turned consultant Rory Percival’s recent survey of risk profiling tools has stirred up yet more controversy regarding the suitability of asset allocation models within a risk assessment framework. I have had a number of approaches from model portfolio managers asking for help with asset allocation modelling, in particular the process of […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. MiFID II does not apply to pensions…… Doh!
    I agree with everything here. Planning is about the blend of pensions and investment income but the idea that one is separate from the other is asinine – something our regulator ignores because it is convenient to so do. But I guess because there are so many centralised investment propositions (masquerading as financial planning advice) the FCA regulate to the majority and make life hard for the rest of us.

  2. “Many advisers have simply not yet caught up with……”
    Stats please, proof please.

    Who is this bloke to pontificate about what an IFA does or doesn’t do with Clients and how they advise, communicate and help clients. Has he ever taken anybody from ‘cradle to grave’ successfully?

  3. All of this stuff is what any decent adviser already does – and has done – for a very long time. For the vast majority, the decumulation phase of retirement planning is obviously an entirely different animal to the accumulation phase – especially so since the advent of pension freedoms. With regard to CIP’s – something the FCA has pursued rather fanatically (and, one has to say, with some merit), one has to be careful that one’s CIP is not blinkered; retirement can have a myriad of variants including, but limited to health and potential LTC issues, as well as all the economic ones. Whilst understanding the purpose of CIP’s, quite why they should be seen as a panacea for everything escapes me.

    Sam: would not collectives held subsequently in a SIPP / SSAS wrapper attract the new MiFID II disclosures?

Leave a comment