View more on these topics

Steve Webb: DB transfer shouldn’t be all-or-nothing

steve-webb-700x450 Opinion

A hot topic in my recent discussions with advisers has been the growing number of people interested in transferring their defined benefit pension rights into a defined contribution scheme. With many schemes offering eye-watering transfer values, this is likely to be an area of increasing interest. However, many advisers, for understandable reasons, are reluctant to get too involved. How can we get to a situation where access to high quality, well-informed advice means the “right” people transfer and the “wrong” people do not?

At first glance, encouraging DB to DC transfers feels like it could be a win-win-win for DB schemes, scheme members and the Government. For the scheme it offers a chance to derisk and thereby reduce the volatility of the DB deficit figure on the balance sheet of the sponsoring employer.

For the scheme member transfer values have never been higher. Take, for example, a client of an adviser I met recently, whose transfer value had increased by more than the value of the average house in the UK over the last year.

For workers in certain situations – such as those who fear their sponsoring employer will go bust, those in poorer health who might prefer cash now or those who want to pass on part of the value of their pension rights to the next generation – a transfer out could be very attractive.

And for the Government, if people exchange an income for life for a lump sum and then draw down more rapidly than they would otherwise have done, there is a potential boost to upfront tax revenues, just as with the original freedom and choice reforms.

So with all these potential upsides, what is there to worry about? Well, the first concern is that individuals may be seduced by the huge cash sums being offered into giving up something very valuable: a guaranteed income for life, with a measure of protection against inflation and a pension for a surviving spouse. If savers are blinded by the lump sum on offer, they may be tempted to transfer out only to live to regret it.

The obvious antidote to this would be a ready supply of high quality impartial advice. But here the situation is problematic. Some advisers simply refuse to take on this work for fear of subsequent litigation or the problems of having to deal with insistent clients. Those advisers who are willing to do work in this area find their professional indemnity insurance costs can rise and live in fear of retrospective challenge – both from savers that transfer and later conclude they should not have done so and from those who do not transfer (having taken advice) and later decide they would have done better if they had. Advisers could be forgiven for thinking they will be damned either way.

“If savers are blinded by the lump sum on offer, they may be tempted to transfer out only to live to regret it.”

One halfway house that would reduce the risks all round but provide for greater flexibility than the current situation would be if partial DB transfers were more readily available. DB schemes might well object to the increased administrative cost of allowing partial transfers or perhaps providing a “menu” where scheme members can choose how much of their DB rights they want to transfer out. However, if such transfers were much less of an all-or-nothing choice then take-up might be much greater, to the benefit of the scheme. In this case, members could retain a guaranteed index-linked income as a floor for their retirement saving but could also enjoy the greater freedom and choice to turn income into capital, which DC savers already enjoy.

Ideally, there would be a regulatory regime that provides a safe environment in which advisers can service this market. But the current process, with its focus on “critical yields”, was designed very much with the world of the annuity in mind. Given many people who have built up large cash-equivalent transfer values have no intention of buying an annuity and are more likely to go for a mixture of drawdown and withdrawing cash, this seems to be the wrong benchmark for comparison. Although there is a lot in the FCA’s in-tray, the regulatory framework for advising on DB to DC transfers needs to be refreshed as a matter of urgency.

Steve Webb is director of policy at Royal London

Recommended

Steve-Webb-pensions-minister-700.jpg
1

Webb: Partial DB transfers would reduce risks for advisers

Partial defined benefit transfers would reduce the risks involved for advisers and encourage greater consumer take-up, Royal London policy director Steve Webb has said. In a column for Money Marketing this week, Webb says more customers are becoming interested in DB to defined contribution transfers because of “eye-watering” transfer values, but advisers remain concerned about insistent […]

Steve-Webb-in-2014-700.jpg
16

Steve Webb: Why we must stick with the triple lock policy

By how much should the state pension be increased every year?   Attached to this seemingly innocent question is a multi-billion-pound price tag and a great deal of political controversy. Given the tendency of older people to turn out and vote, the politics of generous annual increases to the state pension seem pretty clear. But if […]

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. I guess Steve, this is a prime example of how “politicians” come up with idea’s that sound great in practice, but are wholly and totally unworkable in the real world.

    The only way to provide good advice in such an area, is to provide “advisers” with certainty that they won’t be judged at a later point with the benefits of hindsight and will only ever be judged on the basis of the situation and information available WHEN the advice was given.

    But that would require the FCA and FOS’s remits to be changed massively, as well as a massive sea change in the attitudes of virtually everyone who works for those organisations.

  2. Steve, great article and couldn’t have worded it any better.

    Whilst a partial DB transfer may be good in theory, I believe it will do little to encourage greater supple of advice. Most individuals who are looking to transfer from DB to DC schemes are seeking full transfers rather than partial amounts. So you will still have the situation with ‘insistent clients’.

    I think the biggest issue is the compensation culture within the financial services that’s out of control. Claims Management Companies (CMCs) should not be legally allowed to actively promote/cold call for compensation claims as this often leads to fraudulent claims being put forward as there’s really nothing to lose.

    It doesn’t help matters when the FOS tends to side with the customer more often than not and the customer is assumed to have no responsibility for their own actions.

    The other big issue with high risk business like DB pension transfers is that once you transact even just one case, it’s a ticking time bomb waiting to blow up. In the meantime, the cost of PI will be higher and potentially uninsurable/excluded in the future if PI insurers move out of this market. It’s only a matter of time when we’ll all be receiving those nuisance phone calls or text messages saying “have you been missold a DB pension transfer? You could be entitled to compensation, no win no fee”.

    A lack of a longstop also means an adviser has a lifetime of liability. This is another serious issue that has often been swept under the carpet by the FCA.

    These factors and the current regulatory framework make it unappealing for advisers to transact in this area.

Leave a comment