View more on these topics

Stephen Lowe: We cannot ignore prospect pensioners will run out of money

Lowe-Steve-700.jpgRecent research has found retired people generally under-spend their financial assets rather than using them up as they age. This was quickly seized upon as justification for pension freedom. But are we not jumping the gun a bit?

The report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies looked at retired people over a 12-year period to 2014-15. It found the majority of financial wealth they held was not used to fund consumption in retirement and therefore was likely to be passed on as inheritance. In effect, people tended to draw on their liquid financial wealth quite conservatively.

That sounds like good news. So why should we be cautious about what it says on pension freedom?

Retirees not recklessly spending pension wealth

The most obvious reason is that the period examined pre-dates the pension reforms of 2015. The figures tell us what people did when retirement choices were focused on delivering guaranteed income for life. We cannot be sure that will continue given tomorrow’s retirees face a dramatically different world.

The report highlighted an interesting point that those with higher levels of financial wealth (this does not include property or pensions) drew down that wealth more quickly than average, while those with higher levels of income drew it down more slowly.

That seems to suggest extra income acts as an insulator or insurance policy against having to tap into savings and investments. If the past does prove to be a guide to the future, those choosing to access ad hoc lump sums rather than divert them towards generating higher incomes could end up with less financial wealth to pass on to the next generation.

Do retirement savers need national targets?

The IFS itself recognised these are very early days and suggested now individuals have more options on how to spend accumulated resources it will be vital their situation is monitored carefully to ensure they are coping with such responsibility.

Not without problems

Rather than looking to our own past, a better guide might be to consider the experience in Australia, where the over-55s have had flexibility to access pension cash for many years. Such freedom has not been without problems, prompting proposals on compelling trustees to put formal retirement income strategies in place for members.

Their experience is that some do take the cash too quickly: around a quarter empty their pots before age 70. But even the ones exercising prudence do not necessarily fare much better. Australia has among the world’s longest life expectancies and even those taking the minimum amounts to continue qualifying for tax exemptions still risk depleting their fund over a lifetime.

Gregg McClymont: What Australia’s pension scandals can teach us

With optimising withdrawal strategies a matter of luck as much as judgement, the Australian government is set to insist on trustees offering at least one “flagship” Comprehensive Income Product for Retirement. This is designed to provide an efficient, broadly constant income, longevity risk management and some access to capital. The “flagship” denotes a plan trustees can champion as having features suitable for most members or a particular cohort.

Just as important will be the requirement on trustees to provide pathways – such as guidance, advice and tools – to help their members understand and make choices about the retirement income products on offer.

Members will still have the freedom to select another product or take personal financial advice and trustees will not have to offer it if they know it is not suitable – for example, for someone with a life-threatening or terminal illness.

Issues still abound

Just compare the activity in Australia to our fingers-crossed approach in the UK, where we do not even capture the right data to properly understand what is developing.

None of the issues we faced under our old pension rules, such as lack of engagement and shopping around, have been solved by freedom and choice. Even relatively modest steps, such as calls for auto-enrolment into pensions guidance unless people actively opt out, were not approved by the government, instead passed over to the FCA to resolve.

Australia is clearly taking major steps to get on top of its problems before they spiral out of control. Can we say the same over here?

Stephen Lowe is group communications director at Just Group

Recommended

Robo firms’ assets and customer numbers creep up

Robo firms saw their assets under advice grow by more than 80 per cent in the 12 months to the end of the second quarter as customer numbers also boosted. Analysis from consultancy Boring Money on the DIY investment market shows robo advisers saw AUA increase to £2.6bn from £1.4bn 12 months ago. Users of […]

Will a new benchmark set the standard for ethical investing?

A new benchmarking initiative is due to launch later this month attempting to boost trust in ethical investing. Many still see the ethical investing label as too vague or complex. But attempts to remedy this have led to what seem like endless rating and data gathering projects to make things simpler and more transparent. Arguably, […]

Flora Maudsley-Barton

Profile: Parsonage Financial Services boss on not letting gender be a barrier to success

Parsonage Financial Services managing director Flora Maudsley-Barton says gender is as much a problem or an advantage as you choose it to be Grouping people together based on shared characteristics is how we make sense of the world, rightly or wrongly. We talk about “the adviser community” as if all the individuals doing this particular job are one homogenous group and we do […]

1

Why drawdown should be an advised option

By Nigel Orange, Technical Manager, Canada Life Drawdown is an incredibly complex – and important – part of a retirement strategy. That being the case, should the FCA apply the same rules to drawdown as they currently do for DB transfers and pension benefits that have guarantees attached? Essentially, whenever the pension transfer or drawdown […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. No.

    Is the answer to your question.

    Why?

    Because we can’t ever do anything properly here, anymore. Rotting in a sea of antiquated IT infrastructure and a civil service that doesn’t know the difference between a spanner and a banana.

  2. “Their experience is that some do take the cash too quickly: around a quarter empty their pots before age 70.”

    Sorry Stephen, this is cherry picking to support a misleading article. This either means 75% of the Australians do it just fine, or there’s a series of problems in the 75% that you have not researched.

    So the overall tenor of your article is an unjustifiable assertion that DIY pensions are bad.

    Well I disagree strongly.

    • Thanks for your comment, Chris. We have been following the debate in Australia closely and written about it in MM before (search ‘Lessons from down under on pension freedoms’). There are other numbers we could have used. For example, on average one-third of superannuation assets are withdrawn before an individual reaches Age Pension age (65). And yes, of the 75% who don’t deplete funds by age 70, many still do so prematurely. Yet perhaps the bigger problem is those who try to mitigate the real risk of running out of money early by hoarding, having to save more than necessary while working then living more frugally later than they need to (and still running out in some cases). The Australian government is aware of these “pension freedom” problems and now taking steps to tackle them. DIY pensions aren’t bad, but in our view many people living poorer lives is bad.

  3. This bit I agree with as it is what I seem to experience with clients “those with higher levels of financial wealth (this does not include property xxxxxx) drew down that wealth more quickly than average, while those with higher levels of income drew it down more slowly.

    There is a lot to be said in my opinion for using a mixture of ensuring a client has a secure level of income to meet essential spend and flexible income for discretionary spend and passing on welath later in life when not spent. A Maslow style hierachy of needs pyrmaid adjusted to the real world helps clients better understand that and frees up their minds to look at secure income and flexible incoem as not being a binary choice but a choice as to how to balance and weight against the needs in their pyramid.

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