View more on these topics

Inside Edge – Steve Bee

It now seems to be an accepted fact that our pension legislation needs to be simplified if it is to be of any earthly use to anyone. Everyone these days seems to think we have over-egged it a tad on the complexity pedal.

I suppose I should say this simplification bandwagon is very welcome, even if it has been a long time coming. I do not think it is too late in the day but I would have preferred to have seen steps being taken 15 years ago before it got to this stage. Still…

Just because we are now finally all in agreement that our pension environment needs to be simplified, it does not necessarily follow that we will end up with a simpler system. If past performance is anything to go by, I would not be surprised to see another attempt to simplify things with yet further layers of complexity. This has, after all, been the preferred method of approach for the last five years or so.

Indeed, it is only two years ago that the Revenue issued a press release stating that plans for a radical simplification of pensions were about to be announced, something that at the time seemed too good to be true and unfortunately was.

Criticism, I know, is easy. It is much harder to make positive suggestions. The question begging to be answered is: What would a simple system look like and how would we get there from where we are now? That is two questions really, I know, and the how do we get there bit is the really hard one. But even the first part is difficult to answer because we have no first-hand experience in the UK of simple to understand pension legislation or products.

For what it is worth, and for the record, I do have a vision of what a simpler system could look like and, more important, how we could get there from here. I do not have the time or space to go through all of it here today, just a part. It is perhaps best to deal with it in manageable chunks anyway and the easiest one to start with is individual pensions.

Today, we have many different forms of individual pensions and they all fulfil much the same function. We have two separate legislative environments for personal pensions, also retirement annuity contracts , additional voluntary contribution schemes, free-standing additional voluntary contribution schemes, stakeholder (both chapter IV app-roved and chapter 1 scheme approved with chapter IV benefits) as well as non-concurrency and partial-concurrency rules applying.

Sadly, with Einstein&#39s death we lost any real chance of ever fully understanding how these various exotic forms of pension interact with each other and other state and occupational regimes.

I have had a good idea, though. Why don&#39t we just have one individual pension option in the UK from now on and, (and this is the clever bit) insist that all holders of all existing individual arrangements switch to the new scheme asap? We could even call the new individual pension a stakeholder pension or something suitably inspiring. The insistence that people switch would answer the difficult how do we get from here to there? question.

But why would people switch? I will tell you why. No one would lose out and many would gain. Too good to be true? I don&#39t think so. The new individual pension would simply have to provide all the best features of the existing individual arrangements and have all of the restrictive and unpopular bits missing.

So, we would have full concurrency, the possibility of higher tax-free cash that currently only retirement annuities have, no earnings cap, no benefit limits, tax-free cash on AVCs and FSAVCs, etc. Is that radical or what? It could even make pensions popular again.

Steve Bee is head of pensions strategy at Scottish Life

Recommended

Torquil Clark says change is 15 year backward step

IFA Torquil Clark has hit out at the end of polarisation claiming it may lead to misselling on the tied side and condemning the move as a 15-year step back in time. But the IFA has welcomed the FSA move to give more clarification on fees at the outset of a transaction.Torquil Clark investment strategist […]

Providers will snap up IFAs predicts LIA

Providers will be on the warpath trying to snap up IFA distribution as a result of today&#39s FSA&#39s announcement about the future of polarisation predicts the LIA.LIA director of public affairs John Ellis says there will be lots of money on the table as providers attempt to convince IFAs to become multi-tied.Ellis says: “I expect […]

Genesis Home Loans 2-year fixed

Genesis Home Loans, fixed mortgageFixed term: two yearsFixed rate: 4.99%Minimum loan: £40,000Maximum loan: £250,000Income multiples: 3.25 + 1, 2.75 x jointArrangement fee: £325Redemption fee: 6 months interest at SVR until 3/3/05Conditions: no MIG, maximum LTV 102% first time buyersIntroducer&#39s fee: refer to packagerTel: 01832 275 044

FSA U-turn axes polarisation

The FSA has admitted to a policy U-turn which will see polarisation ditched in favour of a new system of tiered advice including multi-ties, gap filling and limits on how IFAs are remunerated.FSA head of conduct of business David Severn, who is heading the review, has admitted that the regulator changed its mind since its […]

Sticking to valuation discipline when investing in China

Journalist Alexis Xydias discusses the opportunities – and potential pitfalls – of investing in China with Artemis fund manager Peter Saacke. With Peter holding significant positions in China in the Artemis funds he manages, journalist Alexis Xydias quizzes Peter on the risks of investing in Chinese stocks – including over-valuations, margin trading and financial reporting issues. Click here for video

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

    Leave a comment