Industry view – Pensions Policy Institute
Daniela Silcock is head of policy research at the Pensions Policy Institute (PPI).
HOW EASY WILL IT BE TO COMPLY WITH NEW INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS?
The government and regulator intend to implement a pensions Value for Money (VFM) framework, designed to ensure that members receive better financial out- comes. Investment is part of it; requiring providers to disclose asset allocation and investment performance metrics. While there has been a mixed reception from industry on the methodology under- lying the reporting of investment perfor- mance, there is general support for the aims of the VFM framework, to shift focus from cost to value. But how easy will moves towards the disclosure of investment performance be for DC schemes considering the complications involving data and scheme size? Data issues have plagued the pensions industry, with pushes towards greater transparency underlying a general dissat- isfaction with the data schemes’ produce. The VFM framework requires schemes to provide comparable investment metrics to highlight poorly and positively per- forming schemes. However, it is worth
delving into the infrastructure within and surrounding schemes to understand how likely it is that valuable data will be forth- coming in a speedy manner. Pension scheme management and report- ing of data is personalised and schemes are not required to produce consistent data that can be easily compared. As a result, the government and the regulator will, over time, set stricter rules about how data must be reported. While stricter regulations on data will assist compari- sons, they will also require schemes to in- vest in changing their internal processes. Looking at other developments occurring alongside the VFM framework – the pen- sions dashboard and automatic consolida- tors for small pots – it appears that more uniform data reporting will be increasing- ly necessary for schemes to allow partici- pation in national arrangements. This leads me to ask whether a process of re- quiring increasing levels of uniform data over time, which will require periodic ad- justment, is the most practical approach. Alternatively, a larger exercise undertaken jointly by industry and government aimed at developing uniform data collection and reporting standards could ease the path for schemes to participate wholly in VFM framework reporting. This approach may appear unattractive to the government and regulators as it will require time and resource and could delay the implementa- tion of some ongoing projects. However, Australia adopted this approach and as a result can easily and cheaply transfer pots and compare scheme performance. Alongside potential issues around data, some schemes may be concerned about appearing unfavourably on a comparison
of asset allocation and returns. The UK DC market is a mix of schemes, with some still growing, as automatic enrol- ment was only introduced in 2012. This means that there are schemes which are growing in membership and assets under management that will be in a better posi- tion to undertake more complex and resource-intensive investments in a few years. These schemes may compare unfa- vourably to their larger peers, though within a few years they may have similar offerings. Those reviewing the data may not have a sufficient understanding to take the impact of policies on previous scheme performance into account. Underlying the production of compara- tive data are questions about the end user. Employers choose schemes on behalf of their employees, which means that most pension scheme members have little choice about which scheme they are in. Therefore, the beneficiary of scheme behaviour, the member, is unlikely to ben- efit from the provision of comparisons, unless their employer uses them and chooses, or changes, their scheme as a re- sult. Within automatic enrolment so far, scheme
choice for many, especially
smaller employers, has been based on ease and cost. It may require a further step, involving education with employers and/or employees about how to use and act on comparisons.
The VFM framework is a positive step in ensuring schemes focus on value and is likely to form an infrastructure which will help schemes provide better outcomes. But questions lie in how best to help schemes bridge the gap between where they are and where they would like to be.
Publisher portfolio Verlag Smithfield Offices 5 St. Johns Lane London
EC1M 4BH
+44 (0)20 7250 4700
london@portfolio-verlag.com
Editor Mark Dunne
m.dunne@portfolio-institutional.co.uk
Deputy editor Andrew Holt
a.holt@portfolio-institutional.co.uk
Head of sales Clarissa Huber
c.huber@
portfolio-institutional.co.uk
Head of roundtables Mary Brocklebank
m.brocklebank@
portfolio-institutional.co.uk
CRM manager and business development Silvia Silvestri
s.silvestri@
portfolio-institutional.co.uk
Marketing executive Sabrina Corriga
s.corriga@
portfolio-institutional.co.uk
10 | portfolio institutional | September 2023 | Issue 126
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
