View more on these topics

Time to consider solutions to annuity problem


Annuity providers have found themselves at the centre of a political storm as society wrestles with fundamental questions about the behaviours driven by modern day capitalism.

How much profit is “acceptable”? Are the short-term interests of shareholders favoured over the long-term interests of customers? And what, if anything, should the Government do about it?

On the first point, profitability is difficult to measure in insurance contracts because it is based on an actuary’s best guess of life expectancy – which could be wrong. So when an insurer turns a pension pot into an income for life, it must price in the “risk” that people will live a lot longer than expected.

As one actuary at a major insurer said to me recently: “One man’s profit is another man’s risk premium.”

The key issue here is not, in my view, the behaviour of pension providers. The majority are shareholder-owned behemoths whose sole purpose is to pay a dividend to those shareholders – that is the nature of the UK market.

One of the main benefits of this profit-driven model – in theory at least – is innovation. And the annuity market has not been without innovation, evidenced by the stock market listings of enhanced annuity specialists Just Retirement and Partnership this year.

But some are now beginning to question whether the benefits of capitalism in the annuity market outweigh the costs.

If that is indeed the case – and the evidence is far from clear – the Government has two obvious options to improve the market. The first is to tackle the problems on the demand-side by promoting the open market option (surely there is room in the Money Advice Service’s £77.5m budget for a TV campaign?) and the importance of seeking independent advice.

Policymakers could also investigate the role of defaults here, and ask whether behavioural nudges can be hard-wired into the system to guide people through the annuity buying process.

The second more radical option is to look at supply-side reforms. The Department for Work and Pensions has dipped its toe in this area by proposing an easing of regulations that prevent collective defined contribution schemes being set up in the UK.

In a CDC scheme the annuity is provided from the funds of existing members, rather than being bought from an insurance company. In theory, this would benefit scheme members through a reduction in costs and the ability to invest in risk-seeking assets for longer.

There remains an active debate about how much more money savers in a CDC scheme would receive in retirement, however, with Aviva head of policy John Lawson challenging claims by the RSA that people in collective schemes could see a 39 per cent uplift in their retirement income (you can read John’s arguments here).

Furthermore, a shift to CDC would be a long-term project and require the collective buy-in of employers.

Another option vaguely flagged in the Financial Services Consumer Panel’s report into the annuities market would be to create a state-funded body, similar to Nest, to provide a benchmark for good quality annuity provision.

However, Nest was formed because the private sector could not guarantee it would serve the entire auto-enrolment market. The same cannot be said of annuities, where the arguments centre on the amount insurers are pocketing in profit rather than their willingness to serve the market.

This option would also require massive upfront and ongoing costs that would have to be picked up by the taxpayer, without any guarantee of a meaningful return on their investment. Furthermore, creating a lumbering state-run annuity provider to keep the private sector in check doesn’t feel like a progressive solution to the problem.

The reality is there are no easy answers here. The role of the insurance industry in providing pensions is deeply embedded in UK financial services, so a structural overhaul is likely to be messy, complicated and drawn out.

The current annuity debate is healthy and necessary, but at some point politicians and the industry will need to consider whether any of the proposed “solutions” will materially improve outcomes for people approaching retirement.

Tom Selby is deputy head of news at Money Marketing – follow him on Twitter here



Linda Smith: Clarifying trail commission on legacy business

There has been misunderstanding in the advisory sector over the suggestion that trail commission is being banned for all investment business. This is not the case. It may have been prompted by the rumoured position on the payment of trail by some providers or by the FCA’s consultation in September which proposed amending the rules […]


James Hay parent IFG Group in takeover talks

James Hay parent IFG Group is in takeover talks after receiving an approach from an unidentified buyer.  In a stock exchange announcement today, IFG confirmed the approach and said it may or may not lead to an offer to buy the entire company. IFG says shareholders should note the approach is ”highly conditional and preliminary […]


FCA cuts fees for consumer credit licences

The FCA has revised charges for consumer credit licences which sees the minimum charge for full authorisation fall from £1,000 to £600. The regulator previously published its consultation into consumer credit licences in November which stated application fees would be divided into four categories: straightforward cases costing up to £1,000, moderately complex cases up to […]


Savers handed drawdown boost as GAD rate hits 3.25%

Savers in drawdown have been handed a boost after the Government confirmed the rate used to calculate the maximum annual income someone can take in retirement will increase from 3 per cent to 3.25 per cent. The increase, in effect from January, means the GAD rate has risen from 2.25 per cent to 3.25 per […]

Cricket - thumbnail

England vs Australia: pensions

Well, the cricket season is here, and England and Australia are stepping up to the wicket. Although we compete with each other in the sporting world, when it comes to pensions, Australia’s pension programme is held up as a model for our auto-enrolment initiative. Auto-enrolment was introduced because people weren’t saving enough into their pensions, and it is still early days but signs are positive. However, in Australia, saving into a pension is compulsory, and in fact employers are the ones who have to pay in. Employees in Australia can make additional contributions into their pensions, but they don’t have to. Should the onus be on the employer or employee to save? Well in the UK we think it’s both, but to get ‘adequate’ savings for retirement it’s the employee who has to pay more in.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. The process should be one of “no income paid until the pensioner confirms that they have looked around and are happy they have got themselves the best annuity for their circumstances”. You will always get those who do not do anything and trying to legislate for this small number is just ludicrous. The vast majority, I am sure, will happily shop around if they know the wont be able to take anything until this action is taken, or go to an adviser to do the job for them. Word will soon travel fast that Joe Bloggs was able to get £xxx a year as a result of a few phone calls.

  2. Is there any evidence to show that the profit levels generated from an annuity today is greater than what was being earned in say the 80’s? Annuities have only become bad ideas for all because we are in a continued period of low interest rates (which obviously have benefits elsewhere in our selective capitalist world). If interest rates rose to 80’s levels, with a corresponding increase in annuity rates, then would we still be having this argument?

    It is hard to argue that given the average pension pot is around £25k that an annuity is not the right route for that client. The fact that the current rates are low is a sympton not just of insurance company profits (I would be interested to see if margins have increased significantly over the last 30 years) but of wider economic issues, most of which will benefit the annuity holder i.e. low inflation.

    Furthermore, who is going to give full advice to a client with £25k and earning commission at say 1%. Non-advised annuity desks, appropriately built to ensure a clear consumer experience, are essential in being able to deliver the service in the same way that execution-only platforms are an increasing way for people to invest their £1,000 into an ISA.

    has anyone ever been mis-sold an annuity? has anyone ever been mis-sold income drawdown?

  3. I struggle to see how buying from one provider can be better than shopping the market for a soultion that best meets the client’s needs.

    Surely the answer is to encourage a competitive, transparent, innovative market place with sensibly regulated advice and strong TCF values.

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