View more on these topics

Just: Govt was wrong to water down default pension guidance

Lowe-Steve-700.jpgIt’s been said that the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. It’s a phrase that came to mind when reading the government’s proposed amendment to the Financial Guidance and Claims bill.

Currently pension providers must signpost those wanting to access pension cash towards pension guidance (or advice) and “encourage” them to take it. Under the new proposal they would have to “recommend” they take it. That’s quite a subtle difference and definitely more of a tweak than a revolution.

The feeble wording is a surprise because the Government appeared to have accepted the urgent need to boost take-up of pension guidance and appeared to be formulating a stronger nudge.

Last Monday while debating the Financial Guidance and Claims bill, pension and financial inclusion minister Guy Opperman said: “We support the need for default guidance for people wishing to take advantage of pensions freedoms.” He went on to add: “…there is merit in providing for people to receive a further nudge, and that this is the right direction of travel.”

Unfortunately the direction of travel, after hours of Parliamentary time in both the Commons and Lords, seems to have brought us back to where we started.

Let’s remind ourselves of the basic problem. The nudge concept comes from behavioural economics and the recognition that people are not rational beings. We know over-eating, drinking alcohol and gambling are bad for us, but that doesn’t stop us. That extends to financial decisions too, where a host of behavioural biases leads to poor decision-making.

In this environment, giving people extra choices doesn’t help. Pension savers now have more freedom to access their money, but not necessarily more insight into their own lack of knowledge or greater understanding of how best to use those options. It is only within the right framework and with thoughtful nudges and incentives that we can help people make more rational decisions.

A guidance “default” should expect you to take part unless you make an active decision to opt out. The idea of defaults is to harness inertia and direct it towards a positive outcome while still allowing complete freedom of choice. As with auto-enrolment into pensions, the structure of a default system should be underpinned by an ambition to create new social norms with the ultimate goal of benefiting the individual, government and society.

Govt backs down on default guidance plan for pension freedoms

So what has happened to the Government’s ambition? The proposed amendment doesn’t appear strong enough to make any significant difference in terms of driving up the numbers accessing pension guidance. If anything, it reinforces the status quo.

For all the hype, pension freedom doesn’t guarantee anybody more money in retirement or higher standards of living. Some people will be making decisions that they will later regret, whether that is being scammed into transfers, paying too much tax on withdrawals, emptying pension pots too quickly or hoarding and living poorer lives as a result.

Some will argue that any intervention by government or regulator in how people use their own money is paternalistic and undermines the pension freedom agenda. In reality, default guidance is its best defence.

Stephen Lowe is group communications director at Just Group

Recommended

Andrew Tully: Are advisers ready to prove annuity advice?

Advisers’ processes must change when new rules come into force from March March will see the introduction of the FCA’s annuity comparison requirements, following its policy statement PS17/12 last year. Few people will argue with the aim of helping people get the best deal at retirement. However, there are a number of significant flaws around […]

16

Fool’s gold: How Mifid II has revealed the true cost of funds

Mifid II reveals true cost of ‘cheap’ funds Investors may have been paying a third more in transaction costs than previously thought as new European regulation sheds a fresh light on the lack of transparency in fund fees. Advisers and platforms are quizzing fund groups on the nature of their transaction cost calculations as many […]

Capital-Stock-Bonds-Shares-Certificate-Portfolio-700x450.jpg
1

Royal London calls for review of capital gains change as savers could take hit

The Government may have underestimated the impact of a change in corporation tax rules on individual savers, according to Royal London. The November Budget wound down the ‘indexation allowance’ for capital gains from 2018, aligning the treatment of companies with individuals, but meaning that investment growth in line with inflation would now be subject to […]

It’s too soon to write Apple off

By Ali Unwin, Chief Technology Officer & Fund Manager at Neptune Earnings season is noisy in the technology sector and a good quarter does not make a good investment. Numbers that come in marginally ahead or behind ‘market expectations’ are extrapolated to produce narratives showing the rise or fall of companies. Our job as technology […]

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. In the article it says :- ” That extends to financial decisions too, where a host of behavioural biases leads to poor decision-making.”
    Could this be the problem with the DWP and the frozen pension problem whereby the government have over decades continued to discriminate against some pensioners because they live in a country that has no reciprocal agreement about pensions – but being as that requirement is a lie and therefore unnecessary they continue to deny these pensioners and commit fraud as a result – but cover their back by now making it legal to commit fraud ?
    No wonder that these pensioners get no justice !

Leave a comment