View more on these topics

MM Leader: Valid concerns over pension charge cap

Wrong to dismiss worries as the greedy bleatings of those desperate to cling on to higher margins.

It would be wrong to dismiss concerns about a pension charge cap as the greedy bleatings of those desperate to cling on to higher margins.

The proposed cap of 0.75-1 per cent and, in particular, the suggestion all current schemes may need to be rewritten and stripped of commission could lead to a number of unintended consequences for employers and their staff.

Banning commission on all qualifying schemes and forcing them to be rewritten would be a very expensive exercise for employers already struggling with auto-enrolment costs.

The reduction in costs to employees is unlikely to be significant. ABI research suggests average pre-RDR GPP charges of 0.77 per cent and many are much lower than this.

The real problem is the charges and exit penalties levied on older schemes, which is being addressed through the ABI past business review demanded by the Office of Fair Trading.

Forcing schemes to be rebroked with commission stripped out may lead to employees paying a similar AMC but insurers keeping the commission which previously paid for advice.

Employers could be forced to reduce employee contributions to make up for the extra advice and arrangement costs required.  

The Government admits a charge cap could mean less provider choice. A resource-sapping rebroking exercise will lead to more providers pulling back from offering new schemes.

Competition has already led to average AMCs on new schemes falling to 0.5 per cent. The Government’s big concern is that although competition is working for larger schemes, it may not for smaller schemes and a line in the sand needs to be drawn. It is also worried built-in commission acts as a disincentive for advisers to review schemes.

These legitimate concerns could be addressed through regular five yearly scheme reviews, an idea floated by Royal London chief executive Phil Loney in this issue and worthy of further investigation.

Charges can significantly cut into future pension incomes and the Government must be alive to this threat. All investment costs, including dealing costs should be disclosed to investors. We do not, however, believe such costs should be included in any cap as this would hit savers by removing important investment flexibility.

But after the OFT rejected calls for a charge cap and with market competition driving down charges far lower than its proposed ceiling, the Government must tread with care to ensure its reforms do not harm the people it is trying to protect. 



ABI launches ‘wide-ranging’ retirement policy review

The Association of British Insurers has launched a “wide-ranging” review into the UK retirement system and suggests “radical reform” is needed to help savers. The ABI says the review will aim to tackle a “chronic under saving culture” in the UK and will focus on people’s financial needs in and concerns about retirement, how effectively the […]


Nest begins emerging market fund search

Nest has issued a tender for two emerging market investment funds as the Government-backed scheme looks to boost members’ pension pots. Nest is looking to procure a global emerging market equity index-tracking fund and an alternative index global emerging market fund. Nest says the two funds will be used as “building blocks” for the scheme’s […]


Pica launches pensions adviser directory

The Pensions Income Choice Association has launched a free directory of retirement advisers and brokers as part of an effort to encourage savers to shop around. The new ‘Pick-A’ directory, which opened to registration from advisers this week, is designed to provide a “shop window” for regulated retirement specialists to promote their services to savers […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. There isn’t anything worng per se with higher charges. it’s what one receives in return for them that matters.

    For example, Friends’ Provident used to charge a 6% bid offer spread on its Stewardship Fund, against a market 5%. The Stewardship Funds performance more than made up for the higher charge, as it paid for more research and a better investment team.

    If I thought an investment was right for a client and I knew exaclty what were the charges and what the client was buying with them, I’d be happy to justify it.

Leave a comment


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