Payday loan pension scandal? Disinvest or engage?

I have been very critical about the Social Housing Pension Scheme (SHPS) on their decision to raise contributions to the scheme for what I think are "artificial" deficits.

Yet I think that industry magazine "Inside Housing" has got the wrong end of the stick about its front page story on Friday "Revealed - Pay Day Loan Pension Scandal".

The "Scandal" is that the £2.6 billion SHPS invests less than 1% of its money in rip off Pay Day loan providers as does the Cheshire Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS)

My view on this are similar to the post I made about the similar pickle the Church of England Pension fund found itself in last month.

Pay Day lenders have "despicable business model based on ripping off its vulnerable customer base but hey, "welcome to capitalism", this is what happens when you get poor corporate governance of a company coupled with wholly inadequate state regulation.....engagement by responsible investors with the companies they own is key".

Pension Scheme trustees have a fiduciary duty to run funds in the interests of beneficiaries.  They have an obligation to take advice from their professional advisers on where they should invest beneficiaries money.

To ignore this advice there is very slippery legal and practical slope if you decide to call for disinvestment on "ethical grounds". If you are a Muslim then you would probably want to call for disinvestment in all companies that lend money for interest (its all "usury"). So no investment in any banks or insurance companies then? If you are a vegetarian or vegan you would be unhappy in any investment in companies that take part in the production and sale of meat. So no investment in supermarkets or shopping centres?

Teetotallers would object to companies that sell alcohol, animal rights activists would object to investments in pharmaceuticals and environmentalists would not want their money in oil companies or mines. I can go on and on - but I think you get the picture.

What all pension trustees should be doing is making sure that they and their fund managers engage with all the companies that they own to try and ensure that they are socially responsible.  SHPS should be working with other pension funds to firstly in private, try and change pay day loan business models. If (and when) this fails then they should instructing their fund managers to vote out the company Board and Executive team at the next AGM.

Now, I am currently unclear whether SHPS do any engagement? I am not sure either about the quote in "Inside Housing" from Cheshire LGPS that  they do "not operate a socially responsible investment policy". Since it is clear from their statement of Investment Principles that they do (if appropriate) - and they are members of the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF), who are very well known for their active engagement with companies on a whole range of socially responsible investment issues.

I think that the key development in pension fund governance in recent years is the rising (not total) acceptance that you will in the long run get better returns from investing in well managed and responsible companies and that trustees have a duty as owners to try and ensure the companies they invest in act in this way.

The real "scandal" of Pay Days loans is the failure of successful governments (including Labour) to properly regulate the sector. Hopefully the next government will sort this out. In the meantime the SHPS, the Pensions Trust, the LGPS and all the Pension funds in the Community and Voluntary sector ought to be working together to bring about meaningful change in the companies they own.

How we pay for the City (& expensive Red Wine)

I recommend that if you have a funded Pension that you listen to this excellent Radio 4 programme "How You Pay for the City".  

Former fund manager David Pitt- Watson pointed out that excessive charges in the UK compared to  Holland means that the average comparable dutch pension will be 50% more than you would get in the UK.

While the incomparable Mr Colin Meech, UNISON National Officer for Capital Stewardship, thinks that the Local Government Pension Scheme is just being ripped off. He recounted how a colleague who became a fiduciary trustee on a large scheme was shocked to find that the trustee board spent more time being wined (at £100 per bottle!) and dined by fund managers than they spent supervising the scheme. I have heard the same story from that colleague.

It is not just excessive fees by fund managers but also "churn" (excessive buying and selling of stock); stock lending (they lend out your share certificates for a fee), "Custody Banks" (if something is too good to be true...) and "transitional management" (there is a completely shocking story how the Royal Mail Pension fund was cheated and how a judge was told that an untruth was not a lie)

By coincidence we heard similar arguments at the AMNT Summer Conference from Michael Johnson that I posted upon yesterday.

Why you should join your Pension Scheme

This post is based upon a speech I made at the Newham UNISON Local Government Branch AGM held at East Ham Town Hall last month. I was there as the London Regional Finance Convenor and had been asked to speak on why members should join the Local Government Pension Scheme.

When speaking about pensions the 1st point you must make is explain that the reason for having a pension is actually quite simple – it is about preventing poverty in old age. Poverty at any time in your life can be a pretty miserable experience but at least if you are young then you have time to better yourself but if you are poor and elderly then it is far more difficult if not impossible.

I am able to point out that one of the most depressing things I see as a Housing officer is visiting pensioners in winter, who live in one room freezing in front of an electric fire. Who buy second hand clothes and live on out of date food, ashamed that they cannot afford to go on holiday or treat their Grandchildren.

2nd Point: Pensions are expensive. There is an old rule of thumb in the pension world that to retire on half pay and get a lump sum, you need to have the equivalent of 15% of your pay put into a pension for 40 years.

That is why it is so important that you start your pension as soon as possible and if you have the chance to join a decent employer scheme then go for it.

The 3rd Point: is to explain that company pensions are part of your pay and your terms and conditions. If you don’t join the LGPS you are losing the at least 12% of your total pay. Even in the private sector good employers will put at least 10% of your pay into your scheme. This could amount to hundreds of pounds per month, thousands of pounds per year. If you don’t join then this money is gone forever and there is nothing you can do to get it back. Not only that but you also get substantial tax relief on your pension contributions, with the government in effect paying 20 to 40% of your subs. So if you don’t join the pension not only are you cheating yourself out of thousands of pounds of pay but you helping the government save money by volunteering to pay more tax than you need to pay.

4th Point is you cannot reply on the state for your old age. The new Government Universal pension is going to be around the existing pension credit level (poverty line) of £144 per week. While some commentators think that a non means tested state pension at this level is too much and unsustainable, most of us would think that £144 per week (£7,488 per year) is no where near enough to live on. At age 65 the average male will live another 18 years and the average female 20.6 years. Living on the poverty line for the last 1/3 of your life is not going to be anyone’s lifestyle choice.

Some people say that their house or business will be their pension. I don’t think that they realise just how expensive it is to replace your income in retirement. If you want an extra £100 per week pension annuity (£5000 per year) with some protection against inflation you would need a lump sum of at least £150,000.

5th point: Finally with a good defined benefit pension such as the LGPS your pension is guaranteed, it increases in line with inflation, you are protected against ill health and disability and it will pay out for 10 years after your retirement (regardless of how long you actually live).

While there are good defined contribution pensions (where employers pay at least 10% of salary and provide ill health insurance) they are not guaranteed, can be very expensive to run and don’t automatically protect your partner or against inflation. If you have the opportunity to join a company DC that has employer contributions (or are auto enrolled into one) then you should normally do so. The only exceptions may be if you are on very low pay or near retirement and are likely to be dependent on housing and council tax benefits you may need further advice.

What we should be thinking about is setting up a new defined benefit scheme for the private sector based on the new look LGPS. The idea that there is no future for defined benefit schemes in the private and voluntary sector is simply rubbish.

I am more than willing to come to trade union or local Labour Party meetings to talk about pensions.
(hat tip LPFA for picture)

"UCATT Members Vote to Accept Local Government Pension Offer"

Ucatt members (Union of Construction, Allied Trades & Technicians) have also voted overwhelmingly to accept the new local government pensions scheme by 79%.

They join GMB members who voted 95% in favour, UNISON 90% in favour and Unite 84% in favour.

Seems pretty clear result. Now we need to be encouraging people to join the new scheme and using it as a model for schemes in the private sector.  Hat tip Unionreps e-newsletter.

GMB vote 95% in favour of LGPS: Further Misery for Miserablists

GMB member's of the Local Government Pension Scheme have voted by 95% in a secret postal ballot to support the new look scheme.

"Brian Strutton, GMB Public Services National Secretary, said “GMB members have spoken loud and clear.  The new LGPS 2014 proposals represent a fair and balanced outcome which means the pension scheme will remain affordable and sustainable; GMB members have recognised this as shown by the overwhelming vote in favour".

The UNISON ballot is ongoing. The ballot helpline close's tomorrow and the vote ends on 24th August.  Of course the UNISON miserablists are being even more miserable than usual at the GMB result. Does the GMB have miserablists or is it just an affliction that UNISON suffers from?