Pension pay advice slip
The government proposals will give defined contribution schemes more flexibility to invest in illiquid assets by allowing trustees to smooth performance fees over a five-year period © Rosemary Roberts/Alamy
Ministers are “pandering” to asset managers with reforms that will help the UK economy recover from Covid-19 but increase charges for millions of workplace pension savers, according to a former regulator.
The government wants to loosen a 0.75 per cent cap on annual management charges to enable defined contribution pension schemes to invest more widely in so-called illiquid asset classes, typically private equity and venture capital firms, in a bid to stimulate the economy.
These asset classes in turn invest in unlisted businesses such as innovative British companies. Unlike managers of stocks and shares, they often charge hefty performance fees.
But Andrew Warwick-Thompson, formerly the Pensions Regulator’s executive director for regulatory policy, told the Financial Times that the government should put pressure on managers to change their fee structures rather than relax the fee cap.
DC schemes, which manage tens of billions of pounds of members’ retirement cash, have up until now shied away from investing in these asset classes because doing so could put schemes at risk of breaching the 0.75 per cent charge cap.
The government proposals will give DC schemes, which do not guarantee pension income, more flexibility to invest in illiquid assets by allowing trustees to smooth performance fees over a five-year period, reducing the risk of breaching the charge cap in any one year.
Warwick-Thompson, one of the most prominent people to speak out against the proposals, said it was wrong to relax charge limits, and so protections for scheme members.
“Asset managers should be changing their fees structure to fit the charge cap, and not the other way around,” said Warwick-Thompson, who was responsible for the formulation of regulatory and governance policies for UK pension schemes in the private and public sectors from 2013-17.
“The government is pandering to the asset management industry.”
Warwick-Thompson, who is now a professional trustee with Capital Cranfield, a firm that provides trustee services to pension schemes, said it was “not necessary to change the charge cap in a way that will see members paying more”.
Warwick-Thompson’s intervention comes as big UK pension schemes express reservations about the government push to get them investing in assets to boost the nation’s recovery.
“We’re supportive of the principle of incorporating illiquid assets in pension funds given the potential to help with the economic recovery and in building a greener economy,” said Tim Orton, managing director for investment solutions at Aegon, a provider which manages about £6bn in workplace pension funds.
“However, there are practical considerations which make this challenging. It’s customers’ savings that are being invested so we’d need to ensure that any additional costs were compensated for with additional returns and that we could explain the benefits of the investments to customers.”
The Department for Work and Pensions, which is consulting on changes to the workplace pension charge cap, said fund managers and pension schemes needed to work together to find solutions that delivered access to such opportunities at an affordable price and appropriate risk to members. 
“We do not seek to direct investment in any way,” the DWP said.
“We know many defined contribution schemes are looking to access a more diverse portfolio of assets, including illiquid assets, and our policy is that trustees of these schemes should be at liberty to consider what investments are best for their members.”
The Investment Association, which represents asset managers, said fee competition was “fierce” in the DC pension market.
“This is a market of professional buyers who do not want to see their members pay high fees for the sake of it. They will invest at a given fee level and structure only if they see it as adding value to members,” it said.
The consultation is now closed and the government is considering the responses. Ministers are hoping to introduce the new rules by October.
 

Get alerts on UK politics & policy when a new story is published
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2021. All rights reserved.

Promoted Content

Comment guidelines
Please keep comments respectful. By commenting, you agree to abide by our community guidelines and these terms and conditions. We encourage you to report inappropriate comments.

I struggle to see what benefit I gain from my pensions manager. Every year when I receive the report the value of my pension pot has increased by less than the contributions as the managers fees are higher than the returns.

Personally I’d almost rather my employer and I just put the monthly contributions into a tracker fund that I couldn’t access until retirement.
I find it curious that there are lots of comments of outrage over allowing the nations “widows and orphans” to invest in PE. Where are these voices when there is any discussion on VCTs. 

As for investing in PE for DC schemes, listed investment trusts of fund of funds ought to be allowed. Mind you, given the cash flows from professional investors in an out of such trusts, it suggests they’ve yet to fully understand what they’re investing in. 
Am I missing something? Widows and orphans money to be invested in hedge funds! just no, 
So the idea is to encourage dumb money to pile into illiquid assets at inflated valuations, "managed" by firms whose sole competitive advantages are the abilities to borrow money made cheap by central bankers and to game a tax system that could be changed by parliament, and to price-gouge investors for the privilege?

Seriously?
Great news for the FCA who often seem solely focused on costs (for good reasons) and recently determined that a pension transfer should be made to a workplace pension because of the low costs. 
Guess the regulator missed the memo on this one…. costs only matter in long term savings when you have transparency on returns…. IRRs are much more important. 
 In reply to ECA
Not true at all. All the academic evidence is that for retail investors and low-sophistication pension funds, cost is the primary influence in long-term returns. 
 In reply to andother
Apologies, I was joking…there are so many issues with PE, I wouldn’t even know where to start….  nobody with any ESG screen or overlay could ever consider PE and the issues with survivorship bias in the published returns are well documented. 
Andrew is right. The only thing that is fierce about the IA is the way it defends the status quo. 

Defend the citizen saver, government, not rentier capitalism. 
If PE was properly taxed, this wouldn’t even be a discussion issue. 

Fees are already to high and the promise of many of these returns are too often illusory. 
There is a challenge of how to fit illiquid strategies into a DC scheme which has daily liquidity. Investment trusts can help but often aren't supported by DC platforms.

More broadly, it worries me that any DC investor is free to select their investments daily. Retirement, especially in a low interest rate environment, is complex. Most people are woefully un-informed on how much they should be saving (auto enrolment is too low) and I fear many will have nasty shocks later in life (noting this isn't just a UK problem).
Not having renewed my subscription to the FT on-line -  I shall go back to the print version which has the advantage too of not enabling me to waste my time commenting - this is my last comment so i'll keep it brief.

A gamut of damage has been done in recent years to pension plans by so called investment managers that dabble / gamble with other people's money in illquid  stocks and such like. 

Long-term growth is hard to come by partly the pricing is over-priced to begin with and because the traditional candidates are in decline thanks to disrupters.  Nowadays, the polarisation is between very few winners and the rest. 

Cash on deposit is rarely seen as a positive investment, but at the end of the day cash is king.
 In reply to Shrewd1
Good point. There is also the issue of opaque charging structures 
 In reply to Shrewd1
Cash is however losing buying power rapidly,  making holding it long term high risk. It is a trap 
 In reply to Shrewd1
Well-informed and sensible comments are one of the reasons I subscribe on-line. Coming from a no-financial profession -albeit one which looks after people’s money (architect) - one learns much from these comments. Sorry you are leaving. 
It is sad that many articles have comments which so quickly degenerate into yah-boo responses.
On one hand, individuals should be free to invest as they think best. On the other, allowing retail investors into high-fee PE funds sounds like it can't possibly end well for anyone but PE fund managers. Or possibly current government ministers with expensive taste in wallpaper and an eye towards post-ministerial life... 
Around 90% of investment managers do worse than the market over 15 years and pension investment is very long term. Unsurprising that the Tories who receive big donations from hedge fund managers should encourage this change.
 In reply to Frank 123
Agreed. I think it’s more than 90% do worse, in fact. I’ll try to dig out the studies on this. 
Were DC schemes clamouring to have the 0.75% cap raised so that they could invest in private equity and venture capital? I’d be curious to know if it was so. Is the government casting around to see how to loosen up rules so as to get more money moving into the kind of businesses that probably donate to the Tory Party? Hmmm.  Let me think. 
'Ministers are “pandering” to asset managers ...'
Actually ministers are pandering to PE houses. 
 In reply to Jaws
I doubt the large PE houses care very much about this. The successful ones have don’t have a problem raising assets from large institutional investors. 
The real issue is how small investors can access these type of investments. For a pension plan with a long term horizon investments of this type can provide decent returns net of fees. 
The focus on fees is not helpful as long as they are disclosed.
I think PE isn’t just about it’s fee but also it’s super high risk nature. Keeping the fee cap to ‘force’ asset manager to keep super high risk assets at a low level to dilute both the fees and risk seem a right thing to do!
PE at 2+20 or a Vanguard S&P500 tracker at 0.1% or less over 30 years .......let me think about that for 0.15ms. 
(Edited)
 In reply to Le Gun
I’d be long PE. Why would you miss out on the illiquidity premium and cheap leverage when you have a 30-year investment horizon? It’s an absolute scandal that I can’t invest in PE in my DC pension. 
99% of companies are private. You are limiting your universe to the largest and oldest businesses if you focus solely on the large cap listed market. 
(Edited)
 In reply to Tyranus
Hi Tyranus,

The data on the PE premium is mixed to say the least (I'm sure you are aware of the major studies on the subject) but for me the very deliberate lack of transparency on returns that makes it very difficult to assess clearly points to the truth.  Look at what they do, not what they say. If there was independently verifiable data I would be more open to it. There is not. For a reason. 

As for leverage. That's very easy. I have run mine 20%+ geared at 1.5% or less ( latest is 1.35% for 5 years just fixed) for 15 years now with an interest only mortgage. Not an option open to all but with property values rising strongly over that period it is open to more than a few. 

One last point, early stage VC type money, if that is to what you allude , is very different from PE which is stuffed to the gunnels with old school businesses. The points I make relate to PE not VC  and I have even less knowledge of private debt funds through again reliable public data is notable by its absence, a sure sign of the truth of the situation. 

If you have any compelling data on why I should think otherwise please drop a note here. I have plenty of non-wrapper money to invest and I'm very open to paying fees if there's a demonstrated chance of better returns though you are back to the same reason trackers make so much sense. How would I pick a winner in advance from the rapidly increasing universe of PE companies out there when individual reversion to the mean is such a well established fact? 

And if you want more gearing you can always buy a UK investment trust like SMT.

Thanks 
 In reply to Le Gun
The data is there if you can access Pitchbook, Preqin, and other private equity sources. On an equivalent basis, the median buyout fund has outperformed the S&P 500 on every vintage year since 2000. Net of fees too. 
The problem isn’t poor returns, it’s accessing the PE managers. It’s near impossible to do as a retail investor and, even if you’re HNW or UHNW, how do you do due diligence on the investment? The industry is tilted towards institutional investors and they reap all the gains, whilst retail folks like you complain that fees are too high!!!
Read More of this Conversation >
 In reply to Tyranus
S&P500 has returned 18.5x your money un-geared over the last 30 years. 20% gearing would what, increase that by 50%. Vs PE? Most don't even last half that long. 
Why can't PE move their fees down to 0.75% What is so tricky about that? 
 In reply to Raptor_Fund
Because there are lots of investors VERY happy to pay the 2 and 20. At the moment most quality managers don’t even have enough capacity for their favoured clients at that fee level. Why would they give it to a DC scheme that wants to pay them 75bps?
 In reply to Tyranus
The article suggests they do want the business. 

Buffett offered the industry a bet that these funds couldn't beat a tracker over 10 years. He won the bet easily. But it was notable that only one manager stepped up and took the bet. 
(Edited)
 In reply to David22
They don’t, and I’d know. There’s a good reason why no UK DC fund currently invests in private equity. 
PS - you’re conflating the hedge fund industry, which Buffet bet on, with PE. Very different markets!
Read More of this Conversation >
The problem is that few in officialdom understand markets and asset management. You cannot have a cap that covers index funds and private equity. The officials need to engage and think it through
 In reply to Diogenes
The real problem is that few in asset management understand the markets. Index funds are the better option.
 In reply to Diogenes
They thought it through. The 0.75% cap was what they thought of. 
Ministers are “pandering” to asset managers with reforms that will help the UK economy recover from Covid-19 but increase charges for millions of workplace pension savers
Is anyone surprised? More than one minister is also an asset manager because the ministerial code is not even a piece of paper.
(Edited)
 In reply to Sebastian
The professions that motivate every young upper class British are

A) Asset Manager 

B) Banker

C) Chartered Professional Accountant

D) Lawyer

 Everything else, the British upper class doesn’t care
 In reply to Balthier
Interesting you draw the distinction  from a Chartered Amateur Accountant.  Smart. 
 In reply to Balthier
Oops - C) should be Chartered Accountant.  Your terms is Canadian.
(Edited)
 In reply to Balthier
"Asset Manager" moniqer is so broad that its basically totally meaningless.
 In reply to Balthier
I have a suspicion you don't understand the term "British upper class". These beasts are very few and far between and are mostly focused on preserving their family's holding of land.  I suspect you're referring to the upper-middle classes (eg. David Cameron).