View more on these topics

Labour charge cap plans ‘could see providers abandon small pots market’

Labour proposals to cap “rip-off” drawdown charges could force providers to pull out of the market for small pots, experts warn.

Labour leader Ed Miliband last week confirmed his party would investigate a potential cap on drawdown charges, promising to launch a consultation process immediately.

The Opposition has yet to outline the details of its plans and experts say firm plans are unlikely to arrive ahead of the May general election.

Cicero chief corporate counsel Iain Anderson says: “Labour has been having very active dialogue with the sector to make sure its plans are practical and can work. And they’re going to be continuing that dialogue right the way up to the election.”

However, Talbot & Muir head of technical support Claire Trott says while a cap based on a percentage of a saver’s pot might be attractive to those with smaller funds, it may also result in providers refusing to serve this market.

She says: “You could end up with the larger pots cross-subsidising the smaller pots.

“And if there was a charge cap brought in, I can see providers saying they won’t deal with pots that are too small.

“People assume that for pensions the bigger the pot the more complicated it is but for drawdown, that isn’t the case. It’s a function that we do, and we charge a flat fee because that’s fairer.

“If you let the market mature a bit more, then you are going to have those fees being capped at a reasonable level because people will shop around.”

AJ Bell marketing director Billy Mackay says a charge cap would be a “minefield of compromise and complexity”.

He says: “Labour has a track record of making a hash of these things. If you start in the wrong place you inevitably end up in the wrong place, and to me a drawdown charge cap is starting in the wrong place.

“That market is as competitive as it has ever been and price pressure is working because everyone is fighting over the pension freedoms.

“Charge caps will be an absolute minefield of compromise and complexity.”

Labour’s charge cap plans were unveiled after a Which? report warned a typical pension pot of £36,000 with drawdown of £2,000 a year could be worth £10,300 more with a cap of 0.5 per cent, rather than charges of 2.75 per cent.

Similarly, the consumer body found a 0.75 per cent cap would mean £8,800 more for a saver.

Government older workers’ champion Ros Altmann says: “We have seen in the pension savings market that competition forces do not drive down prices sufficiently across the market. 

“There is much customer inertia and misunderstanding, so that some companies may behave well, but others could charge extortionate costs to their customers. 

“We have a cap on the accumulation phase to protect consumers and a cap on decumulation options should also be considered – although this might be higher than for the accumulation funds because of the requirements to offer withdrawals.”

TUC policy officer Tim Sharp concedes a charge cap “doesn’t solve every problem”.

He says: “We have always had the problem about how well the market serves smaller savers.

“So a charge cap deals with one problem in rip-off charges but we need to consider other options as well to operate alongside it.

“Longer term, what we would ideally have is a pension systems based on not-for-profit schemes run by trustees with a fiduciary responsibility to act on behalf of their members.”

Adviser view

Alistair-Cunningham-MM-Peach-700.jpg

Alistair Cunningham, director, Wingate Financial Planning

If you are moving into a brave new world where pensions are more like bank accounts, then a cap which can be opted out of when an individual gets advice or does more esoteric things with their funds seems quite reasonable.

But if we are accepting that freedom is a good thing then maybe we also have to accept it will allow people to harm themselves.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. If providers, like Talbot Muir, can charge a flat fee because it’s fairer, why can’t investment fund managers?

  2. So one day we have a self appointed expert telling us to charge flat fees. We need £1,000 a case, so on a £36,000 pot that’ a “rip-off” charge of 2.77%. On a £200,000 case it would be 0.5%. So, should we charge 0.5% ad valorem? That would mean a fee of £180 for drawdown advice on a £36,000 pot, which we would simply turn away.

    Could the idiots get together in a room and decide what is the right way to do this. Fed up with hearing stupid statements like “rip off charges” and “hard working families”.

    Muppets the lot of them.

  3. What needs to be clearer is to what the ‘cap’ applies – bearing in mind there where there’s a work around people will find a way.

    If the cap is for provider costs, then fine – but if it’s a %age cap then I’d fear for providers operating in a market as they’ll find themselves making losses – something no one should be expected to do (nor cross subsidise).

    If the cap is for funds – that’s equally fine – but what if someone wants a fund which is more expensive? Are then banned from investing in it?

    Finally, if the cap also includes advice then what does it have to do with the Government what consumers pay for their advice?

    In reality, it’s a soundbite and as Steve Webb put so well on Radio 5 last Friday evening, in a competitive market, arrangements which are competitive should succeed (though IMHO that relies on independence and impartiality of advice).

    Steve Webb seems to talk a lot of sense, whereas there seem to be amny others with their own agenda who don’t.

  4. “Smithy0364” A flat fee is without doubt fairer, however, what it would mean is that for small pots the cost of the flat fee could very well exceed the benefit of the service.

    For larger pots the flat fee would likely reduce the costs, therefore the wealthier win and the less affluent are compromised. Surely that goes against Labours redistribution of wealth mantra in the first place?

    Percentage charges redistribute wealth by cross subsidy. Unfortunatlely politicians are more interested in soundbites than substance.

    Rip off charges forced the home service firms out of the market. How many older people built their wealth through maturing policies from the likes of Brittanic, Pearl, Wesleyan, Refuge etc.

    % charging works and should be left alone unless we wish the less affluent to be further disadvantaged.

  5. Its like watching a plane crash in slow motion.

    Labour and RDR has resulted in their mass voters no longer able to get advice.

    Carry on Ed, not long your doing a great job, the small pots will not be a problem as they will not get advice and move on to non regulated providers and their money will be stolen.

    Final point, HOW much are you being paid to come up with these ideas?

Leave a comment

Close

Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com