View more on these topics

Nick Bamford: The loose ends from rushed pension reforms

Nick Bamford MM 700

I wonder what goes through a politician’s mind when he makes a big policy announcement? When the Chancellor announced “the end of annuities” in March last year, I seriously doubt he had thought through the full ramifications of pensions freedom and choice. It was, let’s face it, a bit of a vote grabber.

His big message, however, was that we trust people with their pension pots. They have been prudent in building their retirement funds, so they will be prudent in spending them. And then he lost his nerve. As much as we trust them, they might need “advice”.

Indeed, what about those people who are members of defined benefit schemes or have a guaranteed annuity rate included in their pension pots? What if they go for freedom and choice and then later, having exhausted their pension pot, realise they gave up a lifetime of income?

Better make sure they do not come back and complain to us. Let’s introduce not just a guidance guarantee but also insist that these “safeguarded benefits” owners take advice. That way, we will have someone else to blame.

Readers with a long memory (well, actually, not that long) will remember the pensions misselling scandal of the 1980s: people being transferred out of DB schemes into money purchase pots and then having to be compensated when it was determined they would have been better off staying where they were. After the event, the regulator introduced some much tighter rules and guidance around advice in this area.

One of the positives was that the adviser was required to produce, deliver and explain a transfer value analysis report to the client ahead of any action. Included within that reporting was the critical yield calculation.

Have you looked at these lately? Leaving aside the fact these reports are based on a whole raft of prescribed assumptions that may or may not happen in practice, the critical yield is still annuity based. I understand that some time later this year the FCA may consult on the subject of the transfer value analysis. But should that not have been done and dusted by now?

Evidence seems to suggest advisers are experiencing a high enquiry rate by DB scheme members: some wanting advice and others looking for a “rubber stamping” service. Freedom and choice is a popular option. Combined with the changes to pension pot death benefits, many DB owners are being encouraged to consider the alternatives. They are, of course, then required to seek advice.

If we really trust people to make good decisions with their pension pots should they really be compelled to pay for advice if they do not want to? And if they are required to do so, is it right we are making up the rules and guidance for advisers on the hoof?

Surely the politicians who introduced these changes must have thought about all the ramifications before they did so? Or perhaps I just expect more from them than they are actually capable of.

Nick Bamford is executive director at Informed Choice



Advisers warned on death benefit options

Advisers must take action to ensure the beneficiaries of deceased clients are not locked out of the pension freedoms, experts say. Money Marketing previously revealed how some of the largest pension providers do not allow beneficiaries to access savings passed on to them using flexi-access drawdown. Some older contracts only allow beneficiaries to take pensions […]


Treasury offloads Pension Wise to DWP

Government-backed guidance service Pension Wise is to move from the Treasury to the Department for Work and Pensions. Economic secretary to the Treasury Harriett Baldwin told the DWP select committee today the DWP would be taking responsibility for the new service during this financial year. She said: “We have decided to make a machinery of […]


Nic Cicutti: FCA needs to point the way on drawdown

Those of a younger generation might not remember this, but there was a time when for many people the most popular form of long distance travel used to be hitchhiking. Nowadays many people worry about being picked up by, or giving lifts to strangers. But 30 or 40 years ago, if you were skint, did […]


Sunday Times takes SJP to task over charges

The Sunday Times has attempted to shine a light on the charging structure of St James’s Place after readers voiced concerns that its advice charges were not transparent. The newspaper featured a story last month looking at indicative costs for advice among the largest firms. At the time SJP told The Sunday Times the newspaper […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. The insistence that only advisers with an obsolete pension qualification can advise on what is in effect another vesting option for DB members is foolish.

  2. ‘Surely the politicians who introduced these changes must have thought about all the ramifications before they did so?’

    Nick, I realise this was a rhetorical question but…Your darn tooting they have.

    Taking the announcement in respect of Annuities as an example, the Chancellor has access to the intellectual might of the Treasury and doubtless DWP (this is a pension issue after all) civil service as well as the research department at Central Office (for that all important political perspective) and all will most likely have prepared very detailed background papers in advance of his announcement. I may well be wrong but I’ve a hunch that in some indirect way he or his advisers may also have access to some of the data collected via regulators too. He also receives regular input from a variety of Think Tanks and academics, political outliers and lobbyists, so pretty much all angles should be covered – if you care to listen. Finally, when proposing any major change a Minister will expect to be challenged so part of his prep The Chancellor will have been briefed on every conceivable downside or criticism and indeed how to rebut them.

    Its amazing then isn’t it that todays politicians have been able still to cultivate the shield of ‘unintended consequences’ to mask both their resolve and direction, at the same time moving the ‘Overton Window’ of publically acceptable policy ever further, nudge by nudge.

Leave a comment