Have you turned your back on your pension?

By Bengt Saelensminde May 30, 2012

Bengt Saelensminde

Share with
friends:

Comments (26) Print this article

Scottish Widows has just released the results of this year’s pension survey. The survey aims to find out how much people are tucking away for old age. And this year it makes for grim reading.

The figures show that ‘adequate’ pension contributions have fallen – down 8% over the last few years and a whopping 5% this year alone.

Now bearing in mind we’re all told that we’re supposed to be saving more, not less, this looks ominous. And put together with the fact that the survey also reveals expectations of what people will get from their pensions are rising, then clearly something’s amiss.

Today I want to give some of my observations as to what’s going on. I have to be careful: I’m not giving advice on how you should save for your pension, but I do think there are good reasons why investors are paring back their contributions.

Investors have become wary of the stock market

Financial markets are all about perception, and economics is all about incentives. If we look at the two together, then I think we’ll see why contributions are slipping.

First, perception.

Perception is everything in the markets.  If investors think the market may fall, then they don’t put money in. In fact, fear is likely to drive a primitive selling instinct.

Let’s take a look at the FTSE 100 over the last 25 years or so. I’ll show you what I mean.

FTSE 100: 1985 to date

FTSE 100 performance

Source: Yahoo Finance

I’ve split the chart into five-year periods so we can make sense of it. As you can see, for anyone in the markets back in 1985 (and I’d just started), things were 'Great, Great, Great' – three five year blocks that, on the whole, served investors very well indeed.

The perception was that the markets go up, up and away – peaking just as the millennium approached.

And so began the next era of not-so-great results. Today, investors are much more familiar with the recent couple of five-year blocks that I’ve dubbed ‘Oops’ periods.

Perceptions have turned. A one-off dotcom bust can be excused, but a sub-prime rout, followed by what looks like a banking crisis (now brewing in Europe) just looks careless.

Risks are up and perceived returns down. And there’s nothing like uncertainty to drive away investors.

Fewer parents now preach “Put your money in stocks – and save up a good pension”. I suspect many parents now say: “Put your money in bricks and mortar.”

Perceptions may have changed. And that’s one explanation for declining contributions. But it’s not as worrying as the hard economics of it all – remember, the incentives?


Special report

An exclusive report from The Right Side
"Bankrupt Britain?"


Incentives are disappearing

Until recently investors just handed over their cash and waited for the returns to come in. But now that they’re not seeing those returns, they are starting to look a lot closer at the whole business. And one vice in particular is standing out: fees.

Suddenly investors are appalled at how much money is being skimmed off by the fund management industry. And they are right to be: the ‘odd percent’ fees here or there really rack up over the years.

But there’s something even more pernicious eating away at the incentive to save, and that is the return on government bonds.

The way a private pension (money purchase) works is a bit like this: you pay your money in and the funds are invested in the markets. When the time comes to cash in (drawdown), you buy an insurance policy that pays you an income until you die (an annuity).

But anyone with their eye on the ball realises that these annuities pay naff all. I mean, to get an index linked £3,000 a year, (ie where the income goes up with inflation) a 65 year-old will need to put in about £100,000. I’ll let you work out yourself how much that means you’ll need to retire!

Many people are probably thinking: “Crikey, I can do better than that outside the pensions system”.

And the reason annuity rates are so low is down to the mega-low returns on government bonds. Until that changes, investors will be put off by pensions.

Now, the other great incentive for pensions has always been the tax break.

But then again for most people, these breaks are fading. Let me show you why it can be right to delay paying into a pension.

If you’re not in the higher rate tax band (£34,371) - and most people aren’t - you’ll only get 20% relief on what you pay in. That’s certainly not as enticing as an immediate 40% or more for the higher-rate payers.

And once tucked away the likelihood is you won’t be reacquainted with this cash for a long, long time. And even when you are, you’ll get taxed as you drawdown your income anyway. Who knows, by that time you may even get taxed more as the money comes out than you got in relief on the way in.

So facing the need to pay off debt, raise a house deposit, or maybe even start a family, the disincentive to lock away cash is clear - even from a tax perspective.

Given the way the tax system works, every year more and more workers are caught in the higher-rate tax band.  And arguably that’s when you should start pumping cash into a pension.

Before hitting the 40% rate, it may make sense to pay down debt and put any left-overs into an Isa. When you reach the higher rate, you switch the Isa into a pension and claim tax relief on it.

Buy-to-letters may get tripped up

Incentives for saving into a pension are eroding (especially for the young). Meanwhile, the perception of what financial markets can deliver is evaporating.

Frankly, it’s little wonder that young and old are turning their backs on pensions and the finance industry. Incidentally, the survey says that pension commitments are disappearing across the board – young and old, rich or poor.

Today, investors have more faith in bricks & mortar. Now, property has its own issues, namely leverage (high mortgages). And though I can see where savers are coming from, I suspect that many have over-committed. Putting say £50k into a buy-to-let may be fine... but it’s the £200k loan that may prove problematic at some point.

Though I’m a big fan of tangible asset investing, I have to say the fact that so many investors are moving away from financial investments is starting to bring out the contrarian investor in me. That doesn’t mean I’m piling all-in on stocks. But I do see a point in the next few years where stocks will look extremely cheap, and housing expensive.

What do you think? Leave a comment below.

• This article is taken from the free investment email The Right side. Sign up to The Right Side here.

Important Information
Your capital is at risk when you invest in shares - you can lose some or all of your money, so never risk more than you can afford to lose. Always seek personal advice if you are unsure about the suitability of any investment. Past performance and forecasts are not reliable indicators of future results. Commissions, fees and other charges can reduce returns from investments. Profits from share dealing are a form of income and subject to taxation. Tax treatment depends on individual circumstances and may be subject to change in the future. Please note that there will be no follow up to recommendations in The Right Side.

Managing Editor: Frank Hemsley. The Right Side is an unregulated product issued by Fleet Street Publications Ltd.

Fleet Street Publications Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. FSA No 115234. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/home.do

Comments (26)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. martin

    (30 May 2012, 03:17PM)  Complain about this comment

    Right but (i) everyone wants instant gratification so (i) if they have any money it will go on baubles and (ii) young people are brought up by parents who have only known the good times when even a good eductaion was not essential to them or (so they thought) their kids. And (iii) as everybody is being ripped off by governments, businesses, councils, banks etc. there can be little faith in putting your money into someone elses long term care.

    It all adds up to the same thing as your article

  • 2. Tony

    (30 May 2012, 03:21PM)  Complain about this comment

    I was very disappointed with the annuity rates on offer for my £100K's sworth of pension, but what is really annoying is the fact that whether you live 1 year or 20 years into your retirement there is no death benefit. Fortunately I was able to put my pension pot into a QROPS scheme by moving abroad. It works like a normal investment and you don't get robbed of your £100K. Of course you could lose the whole lot in a badly managed fund, but you have a certain amount of control over the investments as well.

  • 3. Chris

    (30 May 2012, 03:30PM)  Complain about this comment

    As well as poor investment performance and low interest rates there is the perception that all your assets will be used to fund your care whereas if you do not have any then the state pays - God help us!!!

  • 4. DN

    (30 May 2012, 03:46PM)  Complain about this comment

    There are other factors in play which are even more important.

    1. Taxation of dividends within pension funds was a direct breach of the terms on which the pension system was set up in the Thatcher era.
    2. The demographics of the baby-boom era when there were more people paying into pensions than drawing from them, has reversed.
    3. Anyone paying into a pension fund is locking their money into a Government-devised scheme from which they can only extract benefits according to rules devised by politicians or investment managers which can be changed at any time.
    4. The fixed costs of the pension funds have not shrunk in proportion to pension returns.

    When you add in poor performance, heavy management fees , and the diabolical cost of annuities, most people would prefer to retain control of their money. The old era where people unthinkingly and automatically piled as much as they could into pension funds without thinking too deeply about the pitfalls, is over.

  • 5. Mary lamb

    (30 May 2012, 04:11PM)  Complain about this comment

    The whole world of pensions and finance is full of confusion marketing.
    My husband has sace up for 20 years, and the fund values are no different than what he could of earned if he had put the money under the mattress including the tax brakes. He has been conned by fsa advisors, he signed a document which he thought was giving the advisor an opportunity to give him advice on how well the fund was doing when in fact he was giving him permission to take over the fund so that he could receive the trail commission, another advisor tried to do the same thing. The goverment tax you on the income, so you are giving the tax break money back to them, every takes a cut of your money, fund managers, annuity providers, sipp cost etc people on low incomes who put money into pensions put themselves into the poverty trap if their pension in today's market is lessthan£100k they cannot claim any benefits and end up worst of than if they had just spent their.



  • 6. sajrc

    (30 May 2012, 04:23PM)  Complain about this comment

    Private pensions have always been lucrative for the provider I would never advise buying into them.Buy to let is better but there is hassle from tenants.Why not buy a freehold business and put a manager in to run it.Profits will pay off mortgage and provide a decent pension plus asset.Do not buy Leasehold.

  • 7. Jon Dale

    (30 May 2012, 04:52PM)  Complain about this comment

    It would be a great help if you would choose an alternative method of representing the apostrophe in your e-mail messages so that the text doesn't always appear like this:

    That doesn’t mean I’m piling all-in on stocks.

  • 8. Robert

    (30 May 2012, 05:50PM)  Complain about this comment

    Just do the maths on the demographics. The # of working age people per pensioner is now down to a mere 5:1 in the UK, and by the time I am supposed to retire it'll be 3:1, barring a level of immigration that puts the UK below sea level.

    There simply isn't the productivity in any asset class to allow me a comfortable retirement from returns on investments at that point. Never mind the taxation/inflation that will have accompanied the State's attempts to pay its existing obligations before it gives up. So I've decided to semi-retire now, and am sorting out a post-collapse life somewhere warmer.

    re: property, I think BTL returns are going to fall as the economy fails to pick up, but house prices will continue to absorb inflation as housing is essential and in artificially short supply.

  • 9. Mike Caple

    (30 May 2012, 08:36PM)  Complain about this comment

    Maybe we should all avoid the pension schemes and make our own provision (eg property downsizing) so HMG don't have a clue what is going on. Perhaps they will then start to be panicked by the huge social liability apparently building up and reconsider savers/investors as worthy members of society who deserve to be looked after with a good return.

  • 10. John

    (31 May 2012, 07:04AM)  Complain about this comment

    I think Bengt is absolutely right that people are mistrustful of the whole savings industry and the banks. I am - I think it's a rip off. I write as someone who has had (or has) life policies, a private pension, ISAs and a SIPP. I have traded stocks full time, in my time. I am approaching 65, and am so thankful I have something much better than anything the government or savings industry offers. A money making website that grows its profits annually.

  • 11. Andy

    (31 May 2012, 09:28AM)  Complain about this comment

    Bricks and mortar is the usually quoted alternative to pensions or ISAs. There is another of course and that is being your own boss. That way you have much more control over your destiny and finances. The tax breaks on offer are greater than any concoction dreamed up by the financial services industry. Yes there is risk so it has to be mitigated just like anyother investment decision. I would argue that if anyone has the savvy and drive to invest in finance then they already have many of the skills of self employment. As any value investor I see recession as opportunity.

  • 12. Tony,Walllsend

    (31 May 2012, 12:52PM)  Complain about this comment

    If you had a sum of 150k to 300k are living in rented accomodation, and about to retire, ask your self what would you do, buy a house to live in, buy an annuity, or invest the money your self, answer that question, and you might work out whether or not saving for a pension annuity is for you.

  • 13. Pay for yourself, but pensions are a ripp off

    (31 May 2012, 01:39PM)  Complain about this comment

    People now realise that if they don't save for their own retirement, the Government will step in. things need to change to make people resposible for their own future, those who don't bother to save, should be left to struggle, as they did n't give it much thought when they were jetting off on holiday every five minutes

  • 14. Ian

    (31 May 2012, 01:52PM)  Complain about this comment

    I am currently paying into a work pension, (prudential is provider), I pay 4% of my wage and in return my work put in 6% , surely I would be mad to stop pumping money into this, it would be like turning down a pay rise would n't it ??

  • 15. Mark Wallace

    (31 May 2012, 02:07PM)  Complain about this comment

    I am interested to know more regarding MARY LAMB's comments regarding her Husbands advisor?
    (He has been conned by fsa advisors, he signed a document which he thought was giving the advisor an opportunity to give him advice on how well the fund was doing when in fact he was giving him permission to take over the fund so that he could receive the trail commission, another advisor tried to do the same thing).
    You see i am in exactly the same situation, with a second advisor asking me to complete this form? If i do not complete it, does that mean the previous advisor, is STILL achieving the TRAIL COMMISSION? any advise welcome?

  • 16. Ned Ludd

    (31 May 2012, 02:18PM)  Complain about this comment

    I'm not saving into a pension and it has nothing to do with annuity rates or with stock market performance.

    It's to do with first of all the great big elephant in the room, which is that the government has already moved the age at which you can take benefits from 50 to 55, and there is nothing to stop a future government from doing so again. And secondly to do with the fact that a pension is inflexible by its nature.

    I am putting my money into a stock market ISA, and into VCTs to the full extent that will save me tax (while building tax-free income and potentially tax-free capital gains). That means if I need to take the money out, I can; equally, I can retire and live on the income from the equities without having to buy an annuity. At current rates of yield, and current annuity rates, having that choice means that I'm quids in.

  • 17. Boris MacDonut

    (31 May 2012, 02:56PM)  Complain about this comment

    #8 Robert. Bit of double counting there. UK has 49 million adults of which 12 million are pensioners. So it is already 3 to 1. The prediction for 30 years time is 58 million adults of whom 16 million are pensioners, so 2.6 to one. Granted a worsening of 12% but not the 40% you indicate. Partly due to redefining pension age.
    Bengt.The chart from 2005 to 2010 shows a rise from 4900 to 5500.....why the Ooops? Still today we find the same level as in early 1997, before even Phony Tony had usurped the throne.

  • 18. Kawasakifreak

    (31 May 2012, 03:57PM)  Complain about this comment

    Most people feel they are doing what they can to save for retirement despite growing fear & distrust towards the whole finance industry.
    The above highlights the gulf between public perception & reality
    re. retirement provision.
    It's already Govt cannot afford to pay for us all in old age - this will only worsen in the forseeable future. The elderly are a huge net cost to the govt - particularly the 'baby boom' generation who are predicted to consume 20% more govt resources on average than they contribute over a lifetime.
    Without a structured program of public education concerning money then those who choose not to take responsibility for their lives will be left to face the consequences. The money just won't be there.

  • 19. Toeknee

    (31 May 2012, 04:17PM)  Complain about this comment

    Great article. There is a solution if only the Gov was not so self obsessed with its own self interest, it after all the biggest borrower of us all. Instead of NEST they could offer a pension saving fund guaranteed to grow at a fixed rate of interest, that would also offer a fixed rate annuity at the end. So upfront you would know what you would get for what you saved. It could be simple self funding and much more generous than any thing offered by the financial services industry.

  • 20. bengt

    (01 June 2012, 12:50AM)  Complain about this comment

    Thanks for all your comments...

    There's obviously a lot of anti-pension feeling out there.

    Boris, the idea of the chart was to show periods of optimism, and periods of pessism for stocks - not absolute returns.

    Point is, many investors now feel that the stock market isn't a one-way bet. The last ten years have shown that in spades.

    I didn't touch on the demographics side of things... that's another story, for another day. But I agree, the situation looks pretty dire.

    Looks like society will have to down-grade its ambitions!
    bengt

  • 21. Rob

    (01 June 2012, 04:53PM)  Complain about this comment

    My perceptions among many laymen is that as far as integrity is concerned the second hand car salesmen have swapped places with financial advisors. It's exactly what can be expected after the number of scandals over recent years. The authorities are always a sleep at the switch or at least that's how it's past off to avoid any legal liability. Another name and acronym for the regulatory body should do the trick though... then everything will be fine!

  • 22. Daisy

    (01 June 2012, 11:06PM)  Complain about this comment

    Trail Commission. Is there any way of ending this commission if the pension is suspended and you have not had any contact or advice from the origional advisor for over 12 years? (Contributions being paid by employer of time, ended when firm closed).

  • 23. Ellen

    (07 June 2012, 08:36AM)  Complain about this comment

    Since the financial crisis of 2008, the collusion between governments and central banks to manipulate economies to meet their own requirements at the expense of their populations has become obvious to even the most disinterested bystander. "QE for the rich, austerity for the rest policies. ZIRP and inflation eating away at debt and savings.

    So there has to be a deep mistrust of the very people who are entrusted with the economy to take care of the citizens interests. To have your money in a place where you can control it yourself in the current climate of monetary manipulations, even if tax incentives are lost, makes more sense.

  • 24. redcarpdog

    (12 June 2012, 12:28AM)  Complain about this comment

    Excellent article Bengt! and the comments are just as good..I would not recommend a private pension /annuity to anyone today. better off with ISA's..more flexible and at least if they under perform you know it's down to your own misfortune/bad judgement etc..

  • 25. Walter

    (16 June 2012, 03:09PM)  Complain about this comment

    Very good article. I'm also pro ISA and sceptical of traditional pensions for several reasons. 1) During the downturn in 2008/9, my pension fund also got hammered massively, despite supposedly beind managed to be "low risk" This opened my eyes to oft mentioned fact that big funds and 95% of money managers tend to track the broader market or in fact underperform the market (not least due to fees and costs.) There are exceptions but this seems more down to chance than skill -- picking a fund or money manager based on past performance provides no guarantee of future outperformance. 2) It became clear to me that it's precisely due to the size and setup of most funds that they can't help but track the market and as a consequence as an individual (relatively small by comparison) investor you actually have massive advantages compared to most funds and fund managers and consequently the idea of outperforming them is actually rather realistic. (continued in next post)

  • 26. Walter

    (16 June 2012, 03:09PM)  Complain about this comment

    (continued from previous post) Even if you'll accept the broad market performance it's better to take matters in your own hands and invest in a tracker ETF - at least you'll save all the management fees etc and maintain direct control and you'll still therefore be as good as 95% of money managers out there on average. In my view most people should educate themselves and take more responsibility for their money. Reading "The long and the short of it: Finance and Investment for normally intelligent people who are not in the industry" by John Kay is a very good start. Remember, "No one cares more about your money than you do."

Leave a comment

This will be the name displayed with your comment.

This helps us verify comments are genuine. It will not be displayed anywhere on the site and is stored confidentially.

Please keep your comment within 1,000 characters and relevant to the main topic. We encourage healthy debate, but we don't allow insults or bad language. Anything off topic or unpleasant, we'll remove. Enjoy the conversation! Thank you.

captcha To prevent spam-related comments please enter the characters shown in the 'Captcha' box to the left.

By leaving a comment you accept our terms and conditions.


>