Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
    • Moody's - Climate Risk Insurers series
    • Webinars
    • Podcasts
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • August 2012
08

Employees 'fail to see value in pensions'

Open-access content Thursday 9th August 2012 — updated 5.13pm, Wednesday 29th April 2020

Less than half of workers would opt for increased pension contributions over more immediate financial rewards from their employers, according to research published last week by Hymans Robertson.

2

The state of DC in 2012: why it needs to change and how report found that only 42% of employees surveyed would prefer their employer to offer them additional pension contributions of 10% a year.

More than one in five (21%) would rather receive contributions to a savings vehicle of 7.5% a year, 28% would rather receive a 5% pay rise every year and 9% would opt for share options in the company.

Hymans Robertson also found that only 16% of those surveyed said looking for a good pension scheme was a key factor when looking for a new job, while 27% said it made no difference. A further 18% said it was not very important.

From the employer viewpoint, only 19% of those surveyed said they viewed their defined contribution pension scheme as the most important aspect of the benefits package they offer employees. One-third (33%) of those questioned said they view their pension scheme as just one aspect of an overall benefits package

Lee Hollingworth, head of DC at Hymans Robertson, said: 'This is staggering. Consumer trust in the power of pension saving is now so low that the majority would happily opt for a less generous financial reward over a huge boost to their pension pot.
'DC pensions are clearly viewed with total apathy by most employees and employers alike. Under the old, final salary system, consumers had their hands held through retirement saving, ending up with a good pension pot. In the new world, that hand-holding has gone, while current contribution rates suggest at best a minimal chance of retiring on a good income.'

Mr Hollingworth said that, with the introduction of auto-enrolment imminent, it was 'critical' to get DC pensions right. 'Without action, we risk exacerbating a "DC Generation" that will be unable to afford to retire. This generation will be forced to work longer, blocking career development for younger employees and increasing bottom line costs for companies,' he said.

'The present system of guidelines and recommendations on how to build a good DC scheme isn't working. We are left with no choice - we need mandatory requirements, imposed by government, on company involvement in the running of DC schemes to overcome the problems faced,' he added.
In particular, Hymans Robertson called for companies to be required to undertake a regular review of their pension scheme objectives based on achieving the best outcomes for members on retirement.

Employers should also regularly review their default investment funds, putting in place a structure that delivers the best outcome for each type of member in their scheme. This could involve the use of several default funds, Hymans Robertson noted.

Members should also receive effective, targeted and regular communications from their employer that engage them in their pension pot and let them know how their savings are performing in line with achieving a target income.

And, the consultancy said, employers should also regularly review their choice of DC delivery vehicle, its administration and also the charges involved in investing members' savings.

This article appeared in our August 2012 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in
08
Topics
Pensions

You might also like...

Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Senior Catastrophe Analyst

London, England
£70000 - £100000 per annum
Reference
146055

Catastrophe Analyst

London, England
Up to £50000 per annum + + Bonus
Reference
146053

Principal Pricing Analyst

England, London
£60000 - £70000 per annum
Reference
146052
See all jobs »
 
 

Today's top reads

 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2023 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive Media Group Ltd, 71-75 Shelton Street, London WC2H 9JQ