Defined profit pensions, the place an employer ensures a pension for all times, are nearly extinct within the personal sector. Defined contribution schemes, the place individuals draw a pension from their particular person pot and take their very own funding and longevity danger, are actually normal.
Some individuals declare “collective defined contribution” (CDC) pensions are a center method between outlined profit (DB) and particular person outlined contribution (DC) schemes. CDC units an annual “target pension”, primarily based on member and employer contributions. Target pensions, together with pensions in fee, transfer up or down every year, in keeping with the worth of belongings.
Guy Opperman, pensions minister, is definitely a fan, saying just lately that CDC may “transform the UK pensions landscape and deliver better retirement outcomes for millions of pension savers”. The authorities has additionally simply printed a session on how multiemployer CDC may work. Is Opperman proper?
So far, solely Royal Mail has mentioned it should begin CDC for its 140,000 employees — a part of a deal agreed in 2018 to see off threatened strikes — and it has lobbied exhausting for brand spanking new laws.
Royal Mail’s CDC scheme can have employer and worker contributions of 15.2 per cent of wage, which it says produces a goal pension of 1/eightieth of wage, from age 67, with annual will increase of inflation plus 1 per cent.
Over 40 years a member may anticipate a goal pension of half common wage, 50 per cent greater than a person DC saver may anticipate, for a similar contributions and funding returns. It appears like collective DC is a transparent winner. What’s to not like?
But Royal Mail’s CDC forecast is far greater than particular person DC as a result of its asset allocation is far riskier — an astonishing 100 per cent equities — than a typical particular person DC.
“Higher risk equals higher expected return” is true, however isn’t very useful in fascinated by higher retirement outcomes.
Fans say CDC captures anticipated long-term fairness returns, with decrease danger than particular person DC, due to “intergenerational risk-sharing”, however explanations of how this works are notoriously imprecise.
Take a person DC saver with a £100,000 pot, 100 per cent in equities. If the worth of the pot falls by 20 per cent, then the forecast pension, together with inflation will increase, additionally falls by 20 per cent.
What a couple of CDC scheme with 10,000 members and £500mn of belongings, 100 per cent equities? If belongings fall by 20 per cent, then forecast pensions, together with inflation will increase, fall by 20 per cent — identical to particular person DC.
Although the ten,000 members have totally different retirement dates, this doesn’t clean outcomes. If belongings fall by 20 per cent in a 12 months then the worth of the goal pension, together with annual will increase, for a 90-year-old, 80-year-old or 70-year-old pensioner, all fall by 20 per cent.
The worth of the goal pension, together with annual will increase, for the 60-, 50- or 40-year-old not but retired, additionally goes down 20 per cent, though they are going to retire on totally different dates.
Expected returns and danger are equivalent whether or not equities are held in a person or collective DC. And the precise annual return, no matter it’s, means the identical change to forecast particular person DC or collective DC pensions. For any equivalent stage of contributions and funding danger, collective and particular person DC outcomes are equivalent.
If a person DC saver needs a better anticipated return, they will merely maintain extra equities. If they’re proud of the danger of 100 per cent equities, their forecast pension might be equivalent to Royal Mail CDC.
Individual DC has the killer benefit that every saver can select their very own asset allocation, to swimsuit their private danger preferences, which most likely modifications as they become old. But CDC asset allocation is equivalent for all members, no matter age or danger desire, so might be “suboptimal” for nearly all of them. Some will favor extra funding danger, some much less.
Communicating pension data is essential in getting individuals to make higher choices about how a lot to save lots of, after they can afford to cease working, and the way a lot they are going to get in retirement.
By definition, each particular person and collective DC pensions are DC, so member communications ought to embody precisely the identical data.
Annual particular person DC statements are required to indicate the opening worth, contributions, and shutting worth. Collective DC statements ought to be the identical: the opening money switch worth — how a lot the member can withdraw to maneuver to a different pension — contributions, and shutting money switch worth. How the worth of DC belongings has modified — particular person and collective — have to be crystal clear.
Individual DC statements additionally forecast the scale of annuity, or assured pension, which may very well be purchased at retirement, and collective DC statements ought to present this too.
Individual DC statements aren’t required to forecast the inflation-adjusted pension if a saver chooses to not purchase an annuity however strikes into drawdown. This ought to be required for each particular person and collective DC.
This could all appear uncontroversial, however the CDC communication necessities, set out by the federal government and pensions regulator, are weak, and can create a smokescreen.
DC pensions — whether or not particular person or collective — can solely be paid from contributions and funding returns. If contributions and asset allocation are equivalent, then “retirement outcomes” for particular person and collective DC should even be equivalent.
Unfortunately, specializing in shiny new CDC schemes diverts public coverage vitality from the much less glamorous job of bettering how particular person DC pensions work.
John Ralfe is an unbiased pension guide. Twitter: @johnralfe1