Last week, more than a decade after the words "pension charge rip-off" first surfaced in the press, a regulator stirred.
Back then, horror stories emerged of people paying into personal pension plans for 10 years and seeing any returns swallowed up in commissions and charges.
That prompted a new breed of stakeholder pensions with a maximum charge of 1% (of the fund, per year), and a steady fall in the "average" cost of saving into a pension.
But for a large swathe of pension savers in personal or workplace plans, charges have remained opaque and damaging.
Now the Office for Fair Trading (OFT), after consulting with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Pensions Regulator, is at last cracking the whip on pensions at work. But will an industry not known for its transparency and customer care really fall in line?
Pensions Minister Steve Webb has hinted that a new charge cap of 1% is the endgame. While it is not proposing a cap, the OFT records that around 186,000 pension plans have an annual management charge (AMC) above 1%, with some as high as 2.3%. The OFT adds that several whistleblowing insurers had "indicated to us that an AMC of above 1% is higher than an individual may expect to pay if they bought a personal pension product and is therefore arguably difficult to justify".
The OFT said people in plans set up before 2001, when stakeholder pensions arrived, are paying on average 30% more than people in post-2001 plans. Workers who have changed jobs, stopped paying into a scheme and are therefore deferred members, are typically paying a stunning 50% more than continuing members. Webb is targeting this unfairness, calling it a "deferred member penalty". The insurers call it an "active member discount", and £13 billion worth of schemes use them.
Members of some £30bn worth of schemes - one-quarter of the total - are stuck in older, higher-charging schemes through lack of effective competition.
The OFT said: "While competition on charges appears to be applying downward pressure to the AMCs on newer schemes … the lack of comparability of the AMC and the lack of visibility of other charges, costs and expenses levied from a member's pension pot may be preventing competition on overall charges working optimally."
The wake-up has been prompted by auto-enrolment into workplace pensions, which will next month reach all firms employing at least 1000 people and will cover all but the tiniest enterprises by 2018. That in turn has spawned National Employment Savings Trust (Nest), a quango providing a default pension option, funded by a loan from the Government which has to be paid back.
Pensions campaigner Dr Ros Altmann has warned: "A charge cap of 1% would expose just how expensive Nest is. This Government-sponsored scheme charges more than double the 1% cap for many workers, as Nest takes 1.8% out of every worker's contribution and there is then an ongoing annual charge of 0.3%."
According to Nest and the OFT, the "effective" cost of the default scheme is 0.5%. But insurer Aviva calculates that over the first 10 years the real cost is 0.67%, falling to an effective 0.5% (over all contributions) only after 18 years. Legal & General has already given a guarantee that its workplace plans will cost no more than 0.5%. L&G has also backed the move against active member discounts, though Aviva has defended them.
Webb has already moved to ban "consultancy charging", where advisers draw their commissions from members' contributions. But that has heightened concerns that advice on savings options will not be available to most people at work.
Tom McPhail, pensions expert at Hargreaves Lansdown, said "member engagement" is the missing link in current reforms. "A pension scheme which does not encourage good levels of contributions, investment choices and good decision-making when it comes to drawing a retirement income is unlikely to deliver a good pension, irrespective of the charges."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article