View more on these topics

Lawson: 10 reasons why the NAPF’s code will not work

Today, the National Association of Pension Funds published draft proposals for an industry code of conduct for pension charges. Here, Standard Life head of pensions policy John Lawson (pictured) explains why he thinks the code will not work in practice – and what policymakers and the industry can do to make charges more transparent.

10 reasons why the NAPF charges code and guides will not work

1. Advisers already negotiate keen charges on behalf of their employer clients – there is no need for employers to bother with the task of understanding and negotiating charges.

2. The employers whom the code is aimed at have no choice of scheme and therefore have no need to compare charges. By definition, if an employer does not have an adviser (and therefore needs the NAPF code to inform them about comparing charges) it is probably because they are commercially unattractive (unwilling to or unable to pay the necessary fees).

These employers will also find it difficult to access a private sector scheme without an adviser, because most private sector providers only deal via intermediaries, not direct with employers. So these employers will only have a choice of one provider – Nest. Therefore, no charge comparison is necessary.

3. The code relies on advisers and providers/administrators/fund managers/trustees collaborating to produce a single document – which one of these parties will take ownership? Are these parties seriously going to share market sensitive cost information to allow a joint charges document to be produced?

4.  Cost. This document is another layer of cost in the scheme tender process – with charges in this market already highly competitive, none of the market participants will want to incur extra costs.

5. Adoption of the code is voluntary. It will be routinely ignored as a result.

6. Even if every industry body (ABI, NAPF, IMA, SPC, IFP, AIFA, PFS, PASA, ICAS, ICAEW, AMPS) made this code mandatory for members, not all market participants are members of these trade associations.

7. The output is meaningless to the employer anyway. The comparison is for a median earning individual paying in 8 per cent of band earnings. There are no UK schemes that exactly fit this model, therefore the illustration is misleading, because your members are all different from this one and even your average member is different.

8. There is no common currency to allow charges to be compared. Some schemes may be employer consultancy fees plus member AMC, others may be employer consultancy and admin fees with the member only paying for fund management and other models may load all costs onto the member via charges to pay for commission or consultancy charges.

How is it possible to find a single comparator for these? FSA new business illustrations use reduction in yield but calculating the RIY in this situation would be extremely challenging.

9. More accurate charge disclosure documents (Key Features Documents and Key Features Illustration) already exist, these accurately display charge data on a comparable basis (RIY) for each individual member. These are mandatory for contract based schemes but some providers produce these documents for trust based scheme.

10. Business to business advice is not a regulated activity and employee benefit consultancies do not treat it as such. They are unlikely to want to formally disclose their fees and charges alongside service providers’ fees and charges on a single disclosure document.

If the NAPF proposals don’t work, how do we make charges more transparent?

– One positive from the NAPF draft guide is that charges for services are clearly set out in a graphic, user-friendly format, even if the numbers are virtually meaningless.

– KFIs and SMPIs are not particularly user friendly. However, charges info in KFI is much more accurate and relevant than info in NAPF guide.

– DWP and FSA are already planning to harmonise SMPI and KFI.

– The DWP/FSA project should be widened to consider all charges – such as those within the TER but not in the AMC and perhaps those outwith the TER (mainly brokerage and stamp duty). Should these be included or not?

– The output from this single illustration must be user-friendly and have:

a) Common charge comparison

b) Ideally projected values in today’s money.

c) Ideally a range of outcomes and the likelihood of these outcomes actually happening (e.g. stochastic projections)

– Industry bodies should lobby Government to take this forward.

– It should be mandatory for all trust based pension schemes, including unbundled schemes, to show charges and illustrations on the basis agreed between FSA/DWP and the industry.

Recommended

1

7IM to offer advisers banking and lending functions

Seven Investment Management is enabling advisers to take deposits and offer clients loans through its platform. 7IM chief executive Tom Sheridan says the new functionality aims to give “topend” advisers the ability to compete with private banks. He says: “We think deposits are of great importance and will help top-end advisers compete with private banks. […]

Carmignac: Greece has effectively left eurozone

Greece has effectively already left the euro, says Edouard Carmignac, chairman and chief investment officer of Carmignac Gestion. Addressing delegates at the Morningstar Investment Conference, Carmignac warned the “patchwork agreement” that will come as a result of Greece’s departure and France’s rejection of austerity measures will create additional problems ahead. He explains: “We have a […]

5

Which? hits back at CMC trade body

Which? has hit back at the trade body for claims management firms after it said the consumer group should be “ashamed of itself” for writing a joint letter with the British Bankers’ Association to the Ministry of Justice calling for tighter regulation of CMCs. The letter, sent to Justice Secretary Ken Clark earlier this week, […]

Brave new world

Gregor Watt reports on the market turmoil from the Greek deadlock after the country’s general election but says fund managers are looking ahead of the crisis and see a glittering chance for intrepid investors

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. TERENCE P.O'HALLORAN 16th May 2012 at 1:50 pm

    Beware socilists at work. The NAPF , ABI and FSA is awash with individuals fit for no other purpose than rules for the social good.

    Like the rules that they produce they are an unnecessary expense and want removing rather than proliferating.

    John Lawson may know more than his youthful appearance gives credit for.

  2. The massive bureaucracy which now controls all aspects of financial services is largely devoid of experience or common sense. It’s all about rules and forms and procedures. If there were a few more practitioners or John Lawson’s helping to deliver policy the industry might be issued with the odd sensible regulation !

Leave a comment