Why most pension savers lose

Neil Faulkner
by Lovemoney Staff Neil Faulkner on 20 April 2012  |  Comments 10 comments

These are the mistakes pension and share ISA savers make that turn tax-advantageous products into under-performers.

Why most pension savers lose

When investing for retirement – and this applies to share ISAs as well as pensions – the people who focus on keeping costs down beat the majority of investors who focus more on timing the market or trying to seek higher performance.

You've got to watch the costs

The two 'C's are probably the biggest cause of disappointing pensions (dodgy sales tactics aside). The first of them is costs.

Paying 1% extra in costs each year can give you a big hurdle to overcome, as that seemingly small amount can take an extra third of your gains over 30 years.

You pay annual charges and other annual expenses to funds you're invested in. Some savers pay an up front amount on each of their monthly or lump-sum contributions on top. Make sure you aren't one of them.

Then there are hidden costs from trading. Fund managers use your investment pot – not their annual charges – to pay the costs of buying and selling shares for you. Many funds turn over their portfolios with alarming frequency. The costs of doing so to the investor are usually very well disguised.

On top of that, some investors seek to make up for these costs by paying even more costs. They hire one, two or three layers of management above the fund managers themselves through “fund of funds”, wealth managers and more.

Crowd surfing

Many of those who don't go down the route of multiple extra layers of advice and management – and even some of those who do – suffer from other problems.

With no one to keep your head level, investors tend to lose an extra couple of percentage points per year, on average, by following the crowd (our second 'C'), following the news, and trying to pick funds at the right time.

The extra costs of buying and selling in this way has been estimated to be 2% per year for private investors.

Why costs are so important

Each extra percentage point in costs can easily destroy 25%-35% of your real gains, making it extremely difficult for professionals and amateurs alike to make up the difference. Most can't.

Let's say that your share funds grow at the long-term average of 5.2% per year (according to Credit Suisse's Investment Yearbook/Sourcebook) and the cheapest way to invest costs around 1% per year including dealing costs. So the best you should expect is a 4.2% annual gain:

  • With those 1% costs, a £10,000 investment turns into a pot of £33,000 after 30 years, using today's prices. For the maths bods, this might be a bit lower than some of you expect, but that's because the costs will also eat into the inflationary gains, shaving off a bit extra.
  • For those people who pay 2% in costs – just one percentage point extra – either because they trade their portfolio of shares or funds once or more per year, or because they pay higher costs to managers, their gains will on average decline by a staggering 35%. As a result their total pots including initial investment will have reduced to just £25,000.
  • If you pay another 1% in costs – so a total of 3% – you have paid more than 60% of your gains to middlemen and managers, leaving you with a total pot of £19,000. After 30 years of investing you haven't even doubled your initial investment.

Bin the two 'C's

Most investors have, in all probability, been paying at least 3% per year due to fund charges, expenses, hidden costs, the costs of changing their investments, as well as other costs I haven't had space to mention.

The shocking results of the two 'C's mean that some unlucky investors will do no better than if they had chosen the most boring, lowest-risk savings products imaginable, such as risk-free, inflation-linked savings products, such as National Savings & Investments savings certificates, or inflation-beating Cash ISAs. So you took big risks for the potential rewards of investing, but paid far too high costs for it. For a round up of the best Cash ISAs, check out The best Cash ISAs for the new tax year 2012/13.

Share investing at a low cost is probably the lowest risk way to be fairly confident of ending up with a larger pot of money in the end than if you keep your money in savings, bonds or other assets. Those other assets struggle to beat inflation in the long run, whereas shares are the champion at it – most of the time.

Investing regular amounts for a long time in the cheapest funds, called index trackers, is likely to give you better returns than more than 75% of other funds, and do better than an even higher number of private investors who pick stocks and other investments for themselves.

For more on these cheaper funds, read New top pension for retirement savers and Two simple ways to invest better in shares.

More on pensions and investing:

Structured products are still best avoided

Bonds smash shares

Why peer-to-peer lending is a better way to fund your retirement

Treasury Select Committee: pensioners deserve compensation!

The UK's best Stocks and Shares ISAs

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (10)

  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 308
    Iamcoldsteve said

    Do you actually know of any pension fund, managed or not!, that charges 3%?

    I think it is fairly obvious that these sorts or charges are way too high to get any meaningful gain for your pension or ISA.

    Report on 20 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • jericlin
    Love rating 0
    jericlin said

    What I would like to know, is now that I have a very small pot still with Aviva, what is the best course of action, cash it in ( On Triviality) & pay tax and put it in an ISA, ? Buy an Annuity ? What else ?

    I am 68 on State pension + differed enhancement, working no more than 77 hours a week on Zero Hours contract

    Report on 20 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Neil Faulkner
    Love rating 32
    Neil Faulkner said

    Hi Iamcoldsteve

    I wanted to add some more information that talks about your point in more detail, but there's no space and it gets rather technical.

    Most funds probably cost something like 2-3%, with investors' decisions to switch - and time it badly, easily pushing it over 3%. Another costs I also didn't have space for in my article was the potential cost for wrapping your investments up in ashare ISA or pension. that "wrapper", in addition to the funds themselves, can cost extra. Moving wrappers (e.g. swapping to another pension provider) also adds to your overall costs.

    So, going back to the fund costs/expenses alone, my article is about all the costs including hidden ones - not just the management charges. Annual management charges (AMCs) are typically between 1% to 1.5%. On top of that are other expenses, which, when added to the AMC, pushes a typical so-called "total expense ratio" (TER) to between 1.5% and 2%.

    On top of that are dealing costs, the amount of which the fund doesn't admit to you, but they are instead hidden in the performance of the fund (i.e. they reduce the figures showing how well your fund performed rather than tell you how much they cost you).

    A typical fund will buy and sell shares (or other investments) at a phenomenal rate (which is not a good thing), typically turning over the whole portfolio in 9-15 months, depending on whose figures you use. (The FT reckons every 9 months. I think it was Anthony Bolton who estimated 15. Others estimate in between.)

    The costs of buying and selling adds perhaps 1% extra to your costs, even if that cost is very well hidden. There are other costs hidden in the performance too, but the others should, hopefully, not have too much impact.

    But add them altogether and you have roughly your 3%. If you pay unusually high annual management fees, pay "initial fees" (yet another possible fee that you should avoid at all costs) on each of your contributions, and if your fund buys and sells shares at a faster rate, then your chances of getting anything out of your investment could become fairly grim.

    By the way, you can get a rough idea how frenetically your fund trades shares by digging around in the figures for the "portfolio turnover rate". Ideally you want it to be beneath 50%, but most are around 100%. Some are 900%, which is absolutely revolting. The chances of the fund manager making up for the costs of buying and selling at that speed over the long run, and giving you inflation beating returns, are probably nil.

    Neil (the author)

    Report on 20 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 140
    MK22 said

    Interestingly, Neil, my daily e-mail from Professional Pensions magazine included an article that started "High frequency trading of pension fund investments is reducing the value of scheme members’ pensions, the Railways Pension Trustee Company chief executive says." (http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/2169298/frequency-trading-hitting-scheme-funds-railways-pension-chief).

    Report on 20 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MikeGG1
    Love rating 879
    MikeGG1 said

    With All-Share Trackers you get virtually no "churning" of investments, With FTSE 100, 250 or 350 Trackers you get "churning" of those shares which drop in and out of the Index every 3 months as the constituents of the Index changes. The 250 is the worst of those because it has "churning" at the top and bottom, whereas the others only have "churning" at the bottom of the Index.

    However, It is advisable to gradually switch investments to a safer class over the last 5 years before crystalising your investments by taking the Tax-free lump sum or buying a pension, otherwise known as "Lifestyling". That is insurance against a market crash shortly before crystalisation.

    Mike

    Report on 20 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MikeGG1
    Love rating 879
    MikeGG1 said

    Roofspace

    Gordon brown was by far the worst offender. He raid all pension schemes several times and single-handedly has killed off Final Salary schemes, apart from the MP's Scheme.

    Mike

    Report on 20 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • richlidd
    Love rating 0
    richlidd said

    Trying to keep costs low is just stating the obvious. In the real world though, costs have little bearing on how much your investments return because it's primarily down to what you pick and when. My best performing fund charges a little over 1%, my second best charges 0.25% (ftse 250 tracker) and my 3rd best 1.69%. 6 months ago my best performing fund was my worst performing fund but it's gone up 20% since then - and I almost sold out! Fund selection and timing is what provides the best return and it's very difficult to get either right no matter how experienced you are. Let's face it, anything other than cash deposits are a gamble in an attempt to beat the best savings rates.

    Report on 21 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • peter48
    Love rating 4
    peter48 said

    MikeGG1 respectfully is incorrect. Final Salary schemes in the private sector i.e. big companies have reduced these to help their costs/profits. Nothing to do with our previous PM. Moreover it is the current Tory-led government that has began to remove Final Salary schemes for public service employees , switched their pensions to CPI rather than RPI, and considerably extended retirement ages upwards for everyone.

    Moreover their Quantitative Easing (QE) has reduced the returns from Gilts etc. therefore affecting upcoming pensioners about to draw their Annuities. To add insult to injury pensioners in the next year or so will no longer have a higher tax allowance. This all happening as tax for the wealthy is reduced and corporate tax for big companies is reduced and tax avoidance/tax evasion in the UK is many, many billions.

    Report on 21 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Neil Faulkner
    Love rating 32
    Neil Faulkner said

    I have to completely disagree with everything you said, richlidd, except that timing is very difficult (and therefore best not done by more than 99% of us). Costs are key: that is not only easy to demonstrate but it has been done so by many reports and analyses over the years.

    Neil (the author)

    Report on 21 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • AlanThomas
    Love rating 24
    AlanThomas said

    Good article Neil,

    I or we have made comments concerning private pension plans in the past (I have 3 'bob tail nags') just received my yearly statement fom Equitable Life...poor performance again! anyhow within the annual statements are details of there terms on transfering funds to another scheme, less the normal 10% exit charge/fee...interestingly if my plan was with the 'with profits scheme (which it is not)

    Equitable Life would pay the client 12.5% in addition to fund there value..?...If most peaple cashed in, what happens to Equitable Life?

    Report on 22 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Provider & account name AER/Gross Interest paid Apply
now

Aldermore
1 Year Fixed Rate Account

1.85% /
1.85%
On Maturity Apply

Derbyshire BS
Derbyshire NetSaver Issue 11

1.70% /
1.70%
Yearly Apply

Nationwide BS
MySave Online Plus

1.70% /
1.69%
Monthly Apply
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV3