View more on these topics

Standard Life: How we decided our auto-enrol charging structure


It is often said that if you ask three professionals a question you get three different answers. Well, the automatic enrolment market is no different.

The industry is engulfed in dealing with the three key spikes of 2014, with around 30,000 SME employers staging in April, May or July. After that it will be the turn of hundreds of thousands of smaller companies and eventually micro-employers. Capacity in the industry is being tested, as advisers and providers prepare to help these employers through to compliance. At the same time, the Department for Work and Pensions has announced a charge cap of 0.75 per cent will be in place for auto-enrolment schemes from April 2015. So how is the industry responding?

Some pension providers may simply decide not to play in the smaller end of the market, offering terms only to larger employers where economies of scale keep costs below the charge cap. For those who remain open to the smallest firms – more specifically companies with fewer than 50 employees – three main approaches are emerging:

Low-cost, minimum compliance, member charge only

Some providers are offering a single, fund-based charge for members which is well within the charge cap. But this approach does not give the provider much to work with. If average contributions start at £25 per month in a scheme of 30 members, the total charges revenue in the first full year would likely be around £50 for a 0.5 per cent fund charge. This will build over time, but not rapidly. To make this low-cost model work, providers may choose to cut back on investment options, engagement material and employer support.

Multiple charges for members

The DWP’s recent paper allowed for different combinations of member charges and it is likely more providers will use this option. Similar to the charging structures most prevalent in the 1990s, this model lets providers match the timing of their revenue with their costs and so arguably provide keener terms overall than for a single charge product. This is, of course, Nest’s approach where a 0.3 per cent fund charge is accompanied by a 1.8 per cent contribution deduction. Some other providers apply a per member fee in addition to a fund charge.

The advantage of this design is it enables providers to offer more upfront services. But the downside is the impact of charges on some members can be much greater than on others. For example, those investing in a scheme for a short time will feel the impact of a 1.8 per cent contribution charge much more than the benefit of a low fund charge. Those with small pots could see their funds depleted by member fees.

Shared cost between member and employer

This is the route we have chosen for the smallest schemes – those with fewer than 50 employees, mainly staging after summer 2015. It is an option that is becoming increasingly common in the market. The employer meets some of the scheme cost – either with an upfront fee or a smaller ongoing amount – in conjunction with a fund charge paid by the member.

While this introduces some additional cost to the employer, we believe it enables a higher quality proposition to be offered at a relatively low member charge. Using this model, providers can offer innovative investment and comprehensive engagement options, which are crucial in delivering good member outcomes.  And it enables a more inclusive auto-enrolment proposition with better employer support, for example avoiding additional costs associated with middleware. An employee who happens to work for a small business can receive the same high quality pension as one who works for a FTSE 100 employer, without the scheme running costs being a barrier. It also avoids potential disparity between different members in the scheme.

Whatever the charging structure, it is important to weigh up a scheme’s value for money for what best suits the employer’s needs.

Alan Ritchie is head of SME proposition at Standard Life


Loney-Phil-Royal London-2013

Royal London adds £318m in with-profits bonuses in 2013

Royal London added £318m to the value of its with-profits policies in 2013 through annual bonuses. The life office’s with-profits bonus statement, published this morning, shows a further £81m in value was allocated through a mutual dividend. Royal London says assets in its Long Term Fund delivered a return of 10.6 per cent in 2013, […]


Number of FCA senior fines drops 40% since 2010

The number of fines imposed by the FCA on senior executives for misconduct or breach of rules has dropped by 40 per cent since 2010. Figures obtained by law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain under the Freedom of Information Act show 18 fines were handed down to individuals in senior management positions in 2013, down from […]


Chris Gilchrist: The FCA will struggle to kill off the zombies

In my last column I said that old-style regular premium contracts with initial charging could be better value than lower-cost contracts with an up-front adviser fee. This is so counter-intuitive that younger advisers may need some history to make sense of it. The bulk of ‘zombie’ contracts were written in the 1980s when the typical […]


Will we see more adviser fines diverted to the FSCS?

The FCA ban on two advisers last week over unsuitable Sipp advice marked an interesting turning point, in that it was the first case of its kind where the £490,100 fine was paid to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. In final notices published last week, the FCA banned 1 Stop Financial Services partners Andrew Rees […]


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. goodness gracious 23rd April 2014 at 1:53 pm

    Alan, it is becoming more common for employers to buy software from their payroll software provider, often at about an additional £15.00 per month for SMEs and micro employers. Att they then do is to pay the AE compliant product provider. Whilst I can see some suppliers cutting back their free software offer and larger helpdesks to keep within 0.75% default, you can charge more for other self selected investments, so your monthly employer fee seems a bit steep in comparison, especially as your defaults and other offers do not particularly differentiate yourselves from the other insurers in the market. In fact, with charges capped, the choice must be between employer costs, most other things being equal.
    the sums that will be paid into AE schemes over the next 20 years will be staggering, eclipsing all previous personal pension and endowment business put together. Can you afford to miss out if your offer is not competitive? Your brand is not largely recognised by the public anymore, only L&G, Aviva, Pru and Scottish Widows can rely on that, and the Pru is not in the market.

  2. Thanks for your comments. Regarding your specific point about differentiating our default fund option, we believe we are one of the few providers to offer active management, the benefits of global diversification and a risk-based approach as standard for our SME clients.

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