Thursday 24 October 2013

In (Modest) Praise of Pensions

We don’t always get it right. And it’s in our psyche to be critical of ourselves; disparaging even. But, actually, we’ve not done such a bad job with pensions.

We have a State system that works, that despite the recent changes, meets the needs of the poorer in society, and gives the rest of us a ‘not too bad result’ for our time in the workplace.

And we have an occupational pension system that is the envy of many. The Italians have had governments fall because of attempted pension reform. The French are in trouble- surely it is only a matter of time before their system collapses with the emphasis on PAYG and such low retirement ages? And the Greeks… Well, the Greeks.

We’ve made mistakes for sure. The day the accountants beat the actuaries at their own game and insisted on present market values. That was, to my mind, the death knell for Defined Benefits. But our Defined Contribution system works well if the employer is willing to put in a decent amount.

And the new Auto-Enrolment legislation is working. Lots more people in pension plans. A greater awareness of pensions. Less stress on the State as a result. I know… it’s only a start, not enough going in, etc, etc. But don’t be so hard on yourself! It’s a success!

Not only that, we have the longest standing Pensions Minister in history- and he actually understands his brief!

I do wish we would be more careful with the headlines we feed to the press (especially to the Express and Mail!) If we can get into the habit of presenting challenges in a more positive way, we may get a more positive slant on the problems we face in pensions.

Since Samuel Pepys had to pay a pension to his predecessor as Clerk of the Navy Board, we’ve done alright. Not great. Not fantastically. But just about alright.

Wednesday 16 October 2013

Achieving


Bill Gates said ‘I'm a great believer that any tool that enhances communication has profound effects in terms of how people can learn from each other, and how they can achieve the kind of freedoms that they're interested in.’

That’s what happened this week on Mallowstreet. It started with a post from John Reeve, bemoaning the latest negative pension headlines in the Daily Mail. The online discussion then began to involve others, including the person that had fed the headline to the Daily Mail, Ros Altmann.

And yesterday, the discussion went live. A live streamed debate, an additional tool ‘that enhances communication’, with John and Ros among the guests.

Some great comments too. Weaknesses in the pension system rightly identified. An acceptance by Ros (I think) that although she may be right with her comments, she may need to be more careful with what she feeds to the papers.

And a decision to take it further into some kind of live debate.

There is power in clear communication. When we communicate well, it brings understanding and takes the debate forward. And maybe, just maybe, it will lead to action and an achieving of ‘the kind of freedoms we are interested in’.

Well done Mallowstreet.

Friday 11 October 2013

A Saturate of Actuaries

Professional Pensions reckons that with less defined benefit plans, we will have an industry saturated with actuaries. I always wondered what the plural of an actuary was – a ‘saturate of actuaries’ does it for me!

Seriously though, I’m not sure there will be any ‘saturate’. Actuaries are bright people- they will find other things to do rather than hang around 'in a position where they are not needed', to quote Richard Butcher in the article.

And Richard surely has a lot to say! Quoted in no less than FOUR different articles in the same 10th October edition of the magazine. Lazy journalism of course. Quote the person that reaches out to you rather than seeking views from others in the industry. And accepting the view of consultants rather than some of those at the sharp end. Having said that, at least Professional Pensions are creating some decent news coverage- some magazines seem to have given up looking for new stories and just keep repeating the same old arguments in seemingly new articles.