The next pensions scandal

Neil Faulkner
by Lovemoney Staff Neil Faulkner on 16 July 2012  |  Comments 17 comments

Pension returns could easily be over-estimated by a quarter.

The next pensions scandal

Sadly we've seen a whole raft of pension scandals in recent years, from mis-selling to tax changes to income drawdown. Perhaps you'll recognise some of them in 20 reasons pensions go wrong

I fear the next pensions scandal could be about projections - the guidance given to savers about how big their pension might be when they retire. If it isn't the next scandal, then there's a good chance it'll be the one after.

Pension providers have to make projections according to standardised figures and adjust these based on estimates of their own costs. Pension holders can usually expect an update once per year. 

Unfortunately, these projections don't take into account all the costs that you'll face. This could lead to the projections overstating customers' final pension pots by a quarter or more. 

What are the standard projection rates?

Pension providers are obliged to show projections at the rates set by the Financial Services Authority every few years. 

For the past few years, the regulator has required that lowest projection be 5% gains per year, with , 7% and 9% being the mid and top projections, all including inflation.

Now, the FSA is in the process of reducing its projections. It's considering changing them to 2%, 5% and 8%. This still won't solve many of the problems with projections.

What's wrong with pension projections?

Aside from how confusing they are, there are some serious problems with the illustrations that pension providers give their customers. 

Hidden costs of investing

The first is that, when the basic projections are modified to take costs into account, a large percentage of the costs are excluded. There are hidden costs, such as an investment fund's costs when the manager buys and sells shares. 

I've seen different estimates over the years, but these hidden costs are probably between 0.8% and 1.4% per year for an average fund. That sounds low, but these extra costs could easily wipe out a quarter of your gains over decades of investing for retirement. 

Simply put, if you end up with a £75,000 pot, you probably missed out on another £25,000 by paying costs that you weren't even aware of. 

Hidden costs of inflation

The cost of inflation also isn't properly accounted for. Although the projections have to include some standard measure of inflation and its effects, they don't explain that you'll pay higher costs because of inflation too. 

In a double-whammy, the more inflation you have to fight, the more costs and expenses you'll pay to the investment funds. This further eats into your real gains in the long run. 

Pension income lottery

Your projection will also usually have a stab at telling you what retirement income you can expect, based on the same projected pension gains. 

Your final income is impossible to predict with any reliability, because in the end we don't know when we will retire or how long we'll be expected to live at the time, both of which are just two of the major factors that have a massive impact on the income you'll be offered for your pension pot. 

What happens when this latest scandal breaks?

Unfortunately, I doubt we'll be able to sue anyone or claim our money back like everyone's doing with the payment protection insurance scandal. 

All of the pension providers will point the finger at the FSA and its rules on projections and personal illustrations, and the FSA will be long gone by then – since the regulator is once again getting a makeover, which mostly appears to involve changing its name again. 

The regulator, whatever it's called at the time, will probably shrug its shoulders. 

The best thing we can do is try to make our own estimates of return and constantly keep track of our progress, while keeping our investing costs as low as possible: 

Make your own estimates: How much you need to save for retirement

Keep your costs down: Two simple ways to invest better in shares

Costs are important: Why most pension savers lose

Investing is still worth it, despite costs: How to get higher investment returns with lower risk

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (17)

  • culluding-fool
    Love rating 49
    culluding-fool said

    "Pension returnds"? Does one have a cold? ;)

    Report on 18 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • AlanThomas
    Love rating 24
    AlanThomas said

    Good article Neil, perhaps a cover of the one in the Daily Express last week, 'poor performance of managed pensions over the last 5 years'...some large providers have acheived 1.4% returns over this period???. Peaple buy things that work PENSION PROVIDERS ARE YOUR READING THIS!

    Report on 18 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • dc1957
    Love rating 4
    dc1957 said

    I agree, pensions scandal will affect everyone and will be worse than the next credit crunch for the man in the street. I have just been moved from DB to stakeholder scheme 1 year ago. Pension co. sent me a projected pension (for 6 years time, im 54 retiring at 60) for the new scheme, £2880pa promised. My co is paying extra contributions for 3 years. No account taken for that or for cash taken or flat/escalating pensions. Just a pie in the sky calculation. I checked the Pension website 2 months later plus further £2k contributions, my projected pension was £2440pa. 15% swing in 2 months. What a joke. Under DB schemes we had trustees to look after employees. Under all other schemes, nothing, you are alone. The Co. washes its hands after paying contributions. My Co. has paid late twice this year, even the Co. did not know of it, a disgrace. I contacted, Co. and I am in discussions for improvement, but that is only with the goodwill of the Co. It is not obliged to do so. I Contacted Pension Co. (Pru), 2 months later it has answered 2 out of 6 questions, pathetic. I contacted Pension Advisory and Pension Regulator, not even an acknowledgement! My next option is to whistleblow, but that is drastic and personally dangerous and a last resort. Any advice from anyone how to proceed? The danger is, under DB schemes, with proffesionals running the schemes (75% fund managers fail to beat markets) they still ran at losses, hence all the closures. So some smart Alec deems it will be better to put all the investment decisions into the hands of cleaners, chefs, mechanics, Doctors, Lawyers - all who do not understand the markets - because if the Proffesionals cannot beat the markets how can people qualified in their own fields possibly be expected to do so? They mainly leave funds in underperforming scheme "default" funds not realising the impact this will have on their future. An absolute disgrace and I cannot see others challenging this and I do not know how to shout any louder. Any advice welcomed

    Report on 18 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • marram
    Love rating 46
    marram said

    It seems to me that with idiots and sharks around trying to make money out of every tom, dick and harry the best thing we can do is put the money under the mattress - then we only have one thing to contend with - inflation - at least the bed isn't on the make!

    I heard a share dealer once saying that dealing in stocks and shares is no different from betting on the horses, except the horses are more reliable if you know form, whereas the stock market is volatile and unpredictable because it is affected by so many variables including that totally unquantifiable risk, 'confidence'.

    I am still convinced that putting one's future in the hands of wheelers and dealers is not very clever. Saving is useful to give you a 'nest-egg' but let's face it, it is again too variable and useless as a source of income, especially at a time when you need a steady and reliable income.

    Maybe the buy-to-let is a good idea, if you can go down that route. I am not speaking personally as my life circumstances have always precluded saving since I was a single mum with an early-widowed mother to support and care for. Paying into the state pension was all I could ever afford - every other penny had to keep my son and my mother, with minimal state help..

    Report on 18 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • grelly
    Love rating 27
    grelly said

    Completely agree. Projected growth rates have always been hopelessly optimistic. Even 2%, 5%, and 8% are misleading. -2%, 0% and +2% is much nearer the truth.

    Report on 18 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • enrico bettonagli
    Love rating 4
    enrico bettonagli said

    One wonders what is the best thing to do however. My husband had a company pension scheme and the company went bankrupt leaving a hole in the pension fund so for a few months we were not sure if we would even get a pension - then we were told that yes but as the scheme was under the protection scheme for pensions it means that we will never get the pension we paid in for nor will it rise with inflation. 36 wasted years!

    Report on 18 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • RichardSowler
    Love rating 17
    RichardSowler said

    Good article. However, another current pension scandal rarely gets a mention, and that is the Guernsey ex-QROPS (Qualifying Recognised Overseas pension Schemes). In early April HMRC "delisted" some 300 Guernsey schemes and has so far not provided any clarification as to what that means for their beneficiaries. The worst case could be a deemed unauthorised payment, resulting in an income tax levy on the funds of 55% - yes, rather more than even the worst normal income tax rate. The government should move fast to reassure participants in these ex-QROPS that their arrangements are grandfathered, but shows no sign of doing so.

    Report on 18 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • meldrewreborn
    Love rating 45
    meldrewreborn said

    However badly a company pension performs with the employers contribution counted in it'll still be a good investment for the individual. People though should really think in terms of saving for retirement. A pension is one way of doing that. Like all investing the key is not to stick all your eggs in one basket but to spread your saving around. Use ISAs (both cash and stocks and shares), property (so long as you are really prepared to downsize when you're older) as well as a pension. Then you're unlikely to be completely wiped out when something goes wrong.

    Report on 18 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • IFA
    Love rating 9
    IFA said

    Whilst the "standard" growth rates are 5%, 7% & 9% there is also the confusing stipulation by the FSA to revise the rate downwards, if the funds invested in are unlikely to meet these growth rates. So i.e. if someone is invested in cash or fixed interest, then the provider should be using a lower growth rate.

    Whilst this may be useful for policyholders, as it may in theory give a more realistic growth potential - it is quite annoying for Advisers, who use the projected rates to compare pension policies. Most of my clients are in a portfolio of 6-10 funds in various asset classes, so any projections may have a number of different growth rates.

    Regarding the "hidden costs" on funds, the investment expenses - the majority of these costs are Stamp Duty fees that the government imposes when anyone buys shares and the PTM levy. I'm not denying that these costs aren't taken into account in projections - I imagine that this is because they change very frequently - and therefore could be deemed "hidden", but I challenge Neil that they are imposed on the average fund.

    I've just been through one of the pension providers list of funds and these extra costs only relate to the externally managed funds and not all of them either. From my experience, investors are, unfortunately, typically invested in Managed funds from the provider that the pension is with and therefore I would say that these extra costs are not imposed on the average fund, that the vast majority of pension savers have. The extra costs range from 0.02% to 1.13% with this particular provider who has 130 funds. The vast majority are under 0.20%, with only 2 funds going above 1%

    Unfortunately, articles like these and the atrocious comments by Mr Milliband last week, give over the impression that everyone invested in a pension has extra charges that they don't know about - this simply is not the case. And unfortunately, it has the effect of turning people off saving for their retirement (whatever the method/product etc...) which will lead to more reliance on the State - not something the country can afford.

    However, I do feel that the industry should make investors more aware of these charges - they are readily available on their websites, but consumers should be told about them in more detail.

    I disagree with this view of keeping the investment costs as low as possible; there is no need to pay more than necessary when it comes to product charges and I reguarly make sure that clients are in the most cost effective product. But if you want decent returns and depending on your level of risk, then an actively managed fund could be the answer - the charges don't matter, it is the performance after charges that is all important.

    Report on 18 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MikeGG1
    Love rating 879
    MikeGG1 said

    The problem with hidden charges is that the more actively managed a fund is, the more these charges are because there is more churning of the investments. Most active funds don't match index funds after the charges have been taken into account.

    Even FTSE100 funds have some churning because every 3 months there is a revamp of the constituents of the index so those funds have to sell the shares of those companies leaving the index. These are at a depressed rate because they are all having to do it. Similarly they have to buy the new contituent members at an enhanced rate again because everyone is having to do so.

    I prefer the All-Share index because there is no need for churning.

    So far as annuity rates are concerned, they could estimate the necessary adjustment for future improvements in mortality because those improvements have been fairly steady.

    Mike

    Report on 24 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • OorWullie
    Love rating 38
    OorWullie said

    Let's consider devaluation. I retired almost 25 years ago on a reasonable pension but how reasonable? Well, I could afford to purchase a new car within a few months of saving; take a holiday with the good lady twice yearly; each of us could purchase whatever clothes we desired, have a night out or travel to wherever we wanted without counting our bawbees and at the end of each month we still had money in the bank.

    Today, we cannot afford to purchase another car nor, indeed, to run one and neither can we afford a holiday nor new clothes nor nights out nor even the maintenance of our house. Budgeting is imperative as every penny has become a prisoner. By the second week of each month we have spent almost all of our monthly income. In recent months, since the government applied its 'quantitive easing' programmes (devaluation of currency) we have not been able to clear our cash cards, something that was never previously a problem.

    This devaluation started with Margaret Thatcher's government in 1982 when it interfered with the pension's indexation linkage and has continued since and the policy still prevails. Interesting, even though my wife and I are almost in penury the government continues to tax us in a penal way. The late Robert Maxwell and Nick Neeson proved to us how vulnerable we all are regarding pensions and banks but who took notice?

    When in harness I paid the maximum of 17.5% into a pension fund to ensure that I retired on a reasonable pension with the then understanding that it would retain its value. Governments since have reneged on this promise so anyone paying into a pension then try to understand that its value 'will' decrease with each passing year under the present fiscal policies. The first decade of retirement should be okay but after this, watch the tumble.

    Report on 24 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • nickthecrip2
    Love rating 17
    nickthecrip2 said

    For many years, I have considered the pensions industry to be one of the biggest 'cons' of recent times. Laws & regulations change over the life of the pension so every investor is at the whims of the current government. You accept a set of policy agreements & conditions at the time of signing but these are changed almost before the ink is dry. The insurance company ALWAYS gets their cut & never seems to loose out. It always appears to be the investor, the one that needs the pension the most, at the time of taking it, that takes the loss & is at that time of life most unable to fight it. The whole system sickens me.

    Report on 25 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • vulcanite
    Love rating 31
    vulcanite said

    A major problem is the use of the word 'Regulator', the FSA is not, and never has been anything remotely deserving of that title, as indeed are most of the other so-called Regulators, since they are all gripped by the gonads by successive Governments who want to see their own self serving ideas promulgated.

    The only regulator for whom I have any respect at all, is the CAA, since it does have teeth to stop airlines doing things which would impact on safety, in spite of the fact that it makes itself rather unpopular fairly frquently by so doing, (not with me!)

    Report on 25 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • fenemore
    Love rating 205
    fenemore said

    We wouldn't be having this discussion if a certain Gordon Brown hadn't killed the golden goose that was the final-salary company pension schemes. Something for which he has singularly failed to apologise. His reckless removal of tax-credit relief on fund investments was the pivotal moment in history.

    By pure luck in the timing - I managed to retire at just the right moment, getting in under the wire before my company closed its scheme. Given the current projections for pensions, I count myself extremely fortunate to enjoy a pension most can only dream of.

    Not that I am gloating - far from it. My offspring are in their 30s and 40s - and there is little they can do to improve things. Maybe they should take a leaf out of the Chancellor's book - go into the back room and print it!

    Report on 27 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 142
    MK22 said

    Actually it wasn't Gordon Brown who killed off DB pensions, though he didn't help. DB schemes have been killed by the Tories original MFR and the accountants LUDICROUS way of valuing liabilities for the plc's balance sheet. Neither have anything to do with Gordon.

    Report on 28 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • yocoxy
    Love rating 132
    yocoxy said

    What was the Income drawdown scandal? I think I missed that one..

    Report on 03 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • bengilda
    Love rating 77
    bengilda said

    There certainly seem to be one set of guaranteed winners in the pension business - the fund managers who take their charges regardless, successful or otherwise. I advocate that when an investment is made there should be a small, very small, set entry charge for setting up the account. Thereafter all charges should be taken pro rata as a percentage from the annual fund profits and never debited in any way against the invested capital. Thus investments would be secured, good fund managers would have a nice income and bad fund managers would soon be looking for a more suited job.

    Report on 19 September 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 CGWEBLIV2