Why most Company Personal Pensions schemes are so rubbish

If you want to know why Defined Contributions (DC) Pension Schemes are usually so rubbish compared to Defined Benefit (DB) then this Office for National Statistics (ONS) chart will give you a clue.

Not only are all non trust based UK DC schemes lacking in governance they all have uncertain outcomes,  are often expensive and most will simply not deliver for their  members.

Many of whom will have to work until they drop or retire into and then die in poverty.

While Defined Benefits schemes are nearly always better for employees than any alternatives, the main reason they are so is employer contribution levels. Average DB employer contribution is 14.2% (not at all an unrealistic level in my view) while in a DC it is an inadequate 6.6%.

I would guess that under auto-enrolment (a good thing but employer contribution only has to be 3%) will bring the average DC contribution level even further down. The current rock bottom annuity rates are making things even worse.

An old rule of thumb in pensions is that you need to be putting in at least 15-20% of your wages (employee and employer contributions combined) for 40 years to aim for a pension of 50% and a lump sum.

"Ambitious Enough? The future of workplace pensions"

On Tuesday morning there was a TUC seminar on workplace pensions Chaired by Assistant General Secretary, Kay Carberry. Keynote speaker was Minister for Pensions, Steve Webb MP.

In his speech he promoted his vision of "Defined Ambition" pensions.  He thinks that Defined Benefit (DB) schemes are finished outside the public sector but wants something better than Defined Contribution (DC). Problem with DB is cost to employer and volatility, while problem with DC is uncertainty and protection against inflation.  He wants something that is not as good as before (DB) but better than the minimum (DC).

He suggested that employers may pay an insurance company (as a company perk) to protect the value of a DC scheme so that on retirement you would get at least your contributions back. He also said that what employers want with pensions is a level playing field and they don't want to pay more than competitors.

My question to him was that are we just trying to reinvent the wheel? If workers need certainty and inflation protection then the answer can only be DB. A reformed DB, where you look for example at employer caps in contribution (I forgot to mention smoothing). In Japan nearly 100% of pension provision is still DB, while in South Korea which has amongst the worlds longest life expectancy they are still opening new DB schemes. If companies want a level playing field then introduce compulsion.

He replied that he did not know why DB was still so prevalent in Japan. He thought it may be related to inflation? He also said it would be inconceivable to get political consensus in the UK  to agree to DB pension compulsion in the UK.

Which I would agree with. It will be impossible to get consensus from right wing Tories. That is why the next Labour Government with a decent Parliamentary majority should just do it, because it is the right (or rather left)  thing to do.

You can check out my twitter comments on the rest of the seminar here 5 February 2013.  There were some really fascinating contributions from other panel members: Doug Taylor from "Which?"; Professor Orla Gough from Westminster Business School and Craig Berry from the TUC.

I had another chance at a question towards the end of the seminar, where I asked the panel that there is a lot of interest currently in "Predistribution" and the concept of a living wage, since the taxpayer should not be spending money subsiding bad employers who pay poverty wages. So should we in the pensions world be also talking about a "living pension" and not allowing bad employers who don't provide one to subsidised by taxpayers as well?

Not sure if I got a full response from Panel. Craig Betty was supportive but  DWP civil servant, Mike le Brun, who took Steve Webb's place on the panel said that individuals will have to take more responsibility for their own pensions. In DB they were passive but in DC they must be active.

Which would seem to contradict his Minister comments about the problem with DC being that individual workers cannot understand the uncertainty and the inflation risk.

If the best brains in the Treasury and the City of London cannot accurately predict return and risk then what chance does Joe Public have with their DC pensions?

another busy day for pensions...but is it a good day for future pensioners?

The government today published its white paper on a new "flat rate" state pension for 2017 currently valued at £144 per week. While this is an improvement on the current £107 per week it is expected that in the long term (2060) most pensioners will lose out.

UNISON reminds everyone that £144 is still below the poverty line and Labour Shadow Pension Minister, Gregg McClymont, points out that there will 16 million pensioners in 2017 who will not benefit from the changes and many "Strivers" will be paying extra in National Insurance Contributions.

What has struck me the most about this proposal is the claims that this increase in basic pension will take many people out of means tested benefits so that they will have the incentive to save for their futures under the new pension auto enrolment regulations.

I'm not too sure. Firstly, many low paid are being excluded from auto enrolment. You will have to earn more than £8,105 per year.

Also contributions from employees (3%) and employers (4%) are also just far too low to build up a decent pension and keep the low paid out of dependency upon means tested benefits. In high rent areas if you retire then you are still likely to be on housing benefit and the disincentive to save continues.

But the biggest issue I think is that defined contribution schemes are just plain inadequate. Even relatively good and inexpensive ones like NEST.

Now maths is not my strongest point and this is very much a back of a fag packet calculation. But I have used the NEST pension calculation website to estimate what a male 22 year old on National Minimum Wage (£6.19 per hour 40 hours a week, £12,875 per year) would get if he retired aged 68 after 46 years of defined contribution contributions.

He would receive a pension worth only £1,990 per year (£38 per week) and a lump sum of £22,600. (This is for a pension guaranteed for 10 years after retirement, with spouse pension and pension rises in line with inflation). These figures are subject to stock market performance, annuity rates and not guaranteed.

If he was in a traditional defined benefit 1/80th scheme he would get at least £6,437 per year (£123 per week) and a lump sum of £38,625. He would also get life insurance and ill-health cover. He and his employer would of course have to pay more but the pension would be guaranteed.

Question: So how will you attract the low paid to save for 46 years when they can only expect (fingers crossed) to get a pension worth £38 per week?
Answer: You can't. They are not stupid, they won't do it. Get rid of low pay. Turn a minimum wage into a living wage and auto enrol all workers into a decent defined benefit scheme. Job done. 

Bond Bubble Burst

This could be yet another disaster for ordinary savers thanks to our dysfunctional financial services industry.

This morning I read a newsletter from a respected firm of pension solicitors highlighting 10 key issues for 2013.

Number 8 was to beware of a possible "bond bubble". The concern is that bond prices (government loans called gilts or other traded loans to companies) are so over priced that soon there will be a "crash". Gilt yields (due to high prices) are currently at a 200 year low.

If this happens then the value of personal pensions for many people approaching retirement who will tend to have most of their money invested in bonds will be devastating.

It's complicated because a fall in gilt prices should mean an improvement in annuity rates (the amount of money you will actually get each year if you retire on a personal pension) and will also help out defined benefit schemes. But there is no doubt that if you are in a standard "lifestyle" personal pension plan (which most people in "normal" times should be in) then in the 5 years before your retirement most of your money will be moved away from long term savings in equities and into bonds and cash. A predicted 40% crash in bonds would be a disaster.

As always, wealthy or financially sophisticated investors will avoid the risk. Joe Public will not. This is another reason why individual defined contribution (or defined ambition) schemes are not the answer to the pension problem in this country.

With individual defined contribution schemes (personal pensions in all their shapes and sizes) ordinary individual savers have to take all the risk over their pension fund asset allocation and investment strategy. That is not their job. That is not what they are good at in life. Their funds are usually far too small to be able to afford the expert and ongoing advice needed.

While most trust based collective defined contribution schemes can afford this advice and will hopefully will put in place measures to protect members I cannot see how they will be able to fully protect those about to retire if bond prices collapse. The "market" is not the answer to everything.

The answer is of course decent modern defined benefits schemes for all.

Some good news on housing workers pensions! But...

This is a rather rare title for a post on pensions! However, well done to Housing Association Plymouth Community Homes who have decided to keep their 60th Defined Benefit scheme with the Social Housing Pension Scheme (SHPS) open and absorb the extra costs imposed by the SHPS.

There are still some changes which UNISON members are unhappy about such as move from RPI to CPI and the charging of pension contributions while on maternity leave.  But PCH obviously care about their workforce and take their duties as a responsible employer seriously.

They do not want their employees to retire and die in poverty. Unlike some it would seem who not only want to close their Defined benefit (DB) scheme but replace it with a pittance of a Defined Contribution (DC) scheme. In a recent report by a leading Actuary, in a DC scheme you would need to invest 22.9% of your pay to get 53% of final salary pension (twice as much as a DB scheme!).

Yet some employers are proposing to pay only the new national legal minimum of 3%. This will mean as mentioned above that their staff will not only die in relative poverty in their old age but the taxpayer will also have to subsidise their pensions to keep them out of absolute poverty.

SHPS and its parent organisation, the Pension Trust, tries to justify increases in contributions by pointing to a supposed rise in "liabilities" (the future expected costs of giving members pensions) yet even the Pension Minster, Steve Webb MP, recognises that the way we calculate pension costs is practically meaningless and is destroying perfectly good pensions schemes.  He has committed to change.

Employers need to get a grip and challenge the assumptions being made and the contributions they or their employees are being expected to make. I am not at all convinced that this contribution rate increase requirement by the SHPS is at all necessary and I hope they seriously take this up with them.

I am dismayed that SHPS are not engaging with UNISON's proposals about practical alternatives to contribution rises. The Local Government Pension Scheme is very similar to many SHPF schemes but has been able to avoid increases in contributions for most of its members by working in a partnership with the trade unions and employers. This has brought about radical but thoughtful and intelligent change.

There was no consultation with the trade unions whatsoever by the SHPS before they decided what they wanted to do and no interest shown in any real partnership working.

One of the irony of ironies is that a major reason why some SHPS employers want to close their scheme to existing members is because they have closed it to new members joining. Quite rightly pensions contributions have to be increased if a fund is closed. SHPS have to charge more (I think 3%) since in any closed scheme the investment returns will be lower and the costs higher. This is just madness. Why condemn your staff to a miserable old age for nothing? Cut costs and re-open those schemes to new blood.

Closing your DB scheme does not make it any better, it does not get rid of any deficit (real or otherwise) it just makes it worse. Increase contributions on your staff by too much and they will just walk away from it, the scheme will then fail and the employer will be left to carry the can.

UNISON has recently published an excellent guide on the proposed changes to SHPS and later this week we are holding a national training event in London on it.