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
    • Webinars
    • Podcasts
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • December 2013
12

Mercer backs 'comply or explain' approach to DC pension charges

Open-access content Tuesday 17th December 2013 — updated 5.13pm, Wednesday 29th April 2020

Mercer has backed a ‘comply or explain’ approach to annual management charges, warning that fee caps risk putting more innovative products out of reach.

Responding to the Department for Work and Pensions consultation on capping, Mercer said 'comply or explain' offered greater flexibility and meant schemes could access products that increase certainty and improve outcomes for members.

Reducing volatility was 'crucial' because people want to know what income they are likely to be able to retire on, said Brian Henderson, Mercer's leader for defined contribution and savings.

'Solely focusing on an [annual management charge] cap will potentially undermine schemes' ability to provide some degree of certainty to members,' he said.

He cited diversified growth funds (DGFs), which have been used to gain access to broader active asset allocation, alternative investments as well as active management and allocation. These funds tend to be more expensive than passive arrangements, but do contribute to increased certainty, Henderson said.

He went on: 'Placing a cap on charges might push products like these out of reach of schemes to the detriment of savers. In recent periods of market turmoil, DGFs have been successful in preserving members' assets. They are less volatile than equities. They may lag during bull markets but they are often much less affected by bear markets than equities.

'Longer term they should also improve the chances of avoiding poorer outcomes at retirement.  Sometimes, it is simply worth paying for this sort of quality. We are urging the DWP to retain some flexibility and focus on value for money, not just cost.'

The DWP also consulted on whether the disclosure of charges was a positive step for the industry. Henderson said 'there should be full and complete disclosure of all charges to trustees, employers and governance committees'. But he added that Mercer questioned the logic of extending such detailed disclosure to scheme members in default funds.

'If members become focused solely on cost and sideline other factors like value for money, then it could lead to greater levels of opt-out,' he warned.

As a compromise, the government could consider the provision of simple, visually creative and succinct information - similar to energy ratings on electrical appliances. 'This would give consumers a clear guide but ensure that costs are not the only factor that is taken into account when making a purchase,' said Henderson.

Mercer also raised concerns over the timings proposed in the DWP consultation. According to the DWP, the cap would first be imposed on employers staging from April 2014 and be extended to cover all pension schemes by April 2015.

'The DC market is already stretched to capacity dealing with auto-enrolment and with legacy schemes following the Office for Fair Trading review,' Henderson said.  

'If providers are asked to re-price thousands of DC plans, there is a risk that auto-enrolment will not be properly implemented and existing arrangements will be put at risk.' As such, Mercer said it would favour a longer and more phased transitional period.


This article appeared in our December 2013 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in:
12
Topics:
Pensions

You might also like...

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

Latest Jobs

Senior Underwriting Risk Manager

London (Central)
£85K-£95K + Benefits
Reference
124386

Reserving Manager (Contract)

London (Central)
£1200 - £1400 per day
Reference
124385

Life Actuary - Contract - IFRS 17 Financial Impact

England, London / England, Bristol / North Yorkshire, England
£900 - £1150 per day
Reference
124384
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

© 2022 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