Experts look to flexible auto-enrolment to boost advice engagement

Michael Klimes examines whether flexibility can take auto-enrolment to the next level

Business-People-Portfolio-Hire-Appointment-700x450.jpgMaking auto-enrolment more flexible is key to getting more advisers involved in workplace planning, experts are arguing, but fears remain over the impact of removing default funds.

Auto-enrolment is based on the idea that people are apathetic about pensions so employers and government must step into help them. If people are not going to decide where they invest savings, then the decisions others make for them gain greater weight.

Discussions about auto-enrolment tend to focus on the importance of default funds in determining retirement outcomes, given the limited choice over where a member can put their contributions once enrolled in a workplace scheme.

Currently a member can either opt out of their workplace scheme and lose valuable employer contributions, or ask for their money to be put into a different scheme entirely, but this is at the discretion of the employer.

Some are arguing such defaults stop people taking more active decisions like seeking advice.

Govt should consider ‘opt-down’ option for auto-enrolment

Hargreaves Lansdown senior pensions analyst Nathan Long says auto-enrolment reform could spark better access to IFAs and improve buy-in.

Long identifies three related problems with the current AE system: lack of member engagement; lackluster efforts by workplace pension providers to engage with members; and the conservative management of default funds.

He says: “A way to solve all the above is to allow members to choose where their contributions go and this would happen if members had to actively choose their provider.

“People in the 40 to 50 age bracket could really benefit from this and it would force workplace providers to up their investment proposition as they would have to compete for pension contributions.

“Financial advisers add value to people when there is a choice and could help members find better investments than what is offered in a default fund.”

Trades Union Congress policy officer Tim Sharp, however, argues there is no evidence choice works in pensions.

He says: “We know that people do not feel confident about being DIY investors. Also there is no evidence that if people get more engaged and choose their investments they will get good outcomes.

“For the vast majority of members it is good to be enrolled in well-run schemes and put in well-constructed default funds.”

Cervello Financial Planning director Chris Daems notes that while more choice would benefit advisers, he is skeptical that it would be good for members.

He says: “Making members take more choice will benefit advisers. However, I’d suggest that we should make legislative change not on what is right for the adviser but what is right for the client.

“There’s nothing to state that more member choice will drive up member engagement. In fact most social psychology studies point to the fact that limited choice means that options become more ‘selectable’ and too much complexity means more confusion.”

Auto-enrolment to include teenagers under new plans

AJ Bell senior analyst Tom Selby sees merit in flexibility but warns it has to be handled carefully.

He says: “The idea of introducing member choice into the AE framework is an interesting one which I expect to resurface this year. It’s certainly one I’d imagine a Conservative Government could potentially go for.”

However he adds: “If you are going to go down this route you need to ensure an extra burden is not placed on employers and members are not put in danger.

“Clearly the auto-enrolment space is wrapped in certain protections which would not exist if members chose to divert their contributions to, say, a Sipp.”

The debate between choice and paternalism will eventually be made redundant according to The People’s Pension director of policy and market engagement Darren Philp.

He foresees a happy marriage between free decisions and compulsion emerging in the long run.

He says: “I believe pensions will become more individualised. A few years ago we were talking about pot follows member but in the future I see pension follows member.

“Over time pensions will become a bit like a bank account which is something you can take with you from employer to employer. This model works in other countries like Australia which has compulsory savings and workplace schemes but members can choose different providers.”

Recommended

Government cautious on self-employed in AE review

The Government plans to conduct a number of “targeted interventions” next year to determine the best method to increase pension saving among the self-employed. Its review into auto-enrolment published yesterday says there is ‘no single or simple and straightforward mechanism’ to bring the self-employed into auto-enrolment. The Government notes there are nearly five million self-employed […]

Pensions-savings-retirement-piggy bank
1

Auto-enrolment to include teenagers under new plans

The Government will lower the age at which people will be auto-enrolled into a workplace pension from 22 to 18 as part of the 2017 review into auto-enrolment. The proposal, due to take effect from the mid-2020s, is part of a package of measures the government wants to introduce to improve the coverage of workplace […]

DWP-Department-Work-Pensions-700x450.jpg

Govt confirms auto-enrolment charge cap will stay

The 0.75 per cent charge cap on auto-enrolment pension schemes is working “broadly as intended” and will not be changed, the Government has confirmed. In a written statement today, pensions minister Guy Opperman, confirmed that following a review of the Government recent Pension Charges Survey, which took data relating to over 14m pension savers, there […]

Is three a crowd?

The pension versus Isa debate has raged on and off for years. Les Cameron, head of technical at Prudential, asks if three’s a crowd.   I think the debate was arguably settled by pensions freedom when the biggest downside of pensions – limited access and poor death benefits – was fundamentally changed. Total access, albeit with […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Allowing members to choose their Provider will rapidly turn to chaos, as an employer will suddenly have to deal with any number of providers. And as the amounts received will be for one employee, not one employer the quality of the scheme will plummet, as will provider profit margins, leading to products being pulled from the market.

    One of the reasons for the massive success of AE has been the total lack of any choice, input or decision on the part of the employee. Expecting them to choose a provider is a total non starter.

    If there is concern about Default funds, improve the criteria for them. Don’t allow a standard lifestyle strategy – get oversight at Provider level as to asset allocation, risk profile and duration to retirement age.

    AE isn’t broken, don’t try to fix it.

Leave a comment