|
Drain on
resources
1st May 2008
I
have received a statement from my personal pension
provider that seems to show that my fund at retirement
will be worth less than it is today, even if it grows at
5 per cent a year. Can this possibly be right?
I
gather that you have what I would describe as an
"old" type of pension plan.
Before
the introduction of stakeholder pensions in 2001, most
personal pensions had a number of charges that were
applied to the contributions paid and the value of the
plan.
These
charges might typically include a monthly policy fee of
a couple of pounds which might increase each year in
line with price or salary inflation. Each contribution
paid into the plan might also be subject to some kind of
initial charge, for example, a bid/offer spread with
units purchased at one price, known as the offer price,
but valued at a lower price, known as the bid price, to
calculate the value of the plan. The bid/offer spread
might usually be 5 per cent.
The
first couple of years of contributions or any
contribution increase might also be subject to something
called a capital unit charge in the form of an
additional management charge - additional because each
of your selected investment funds might also have an
annual management charge of between 0.5 and 1.5 per cent
depending on the nature of the investment funds, as
passive or tracker funds sometimes have lower charges
than active or managed funds. Capital units might impose
an additional annual management charge of, say, 3.5 per
cent a year.
Each
contribution paid might have a further charge deducted
where the amount allocated to investment units was less
than 100 per cent. Conversely, where the allocation rate
was greater than 100 per cent, this would have the
effect of reducing the charges levied against the
contributions.
Retiring
before the selected benefit age on your plan or
transferring away from the plan might also result in a
further charge, effectively bringing forward the future
management charges that would have been paid had you
kept your plan with the provider.
I
have come across examples like the one you describe
where the plan has been made paid-up, in other words,
contributions have ceased to be paid. The illustration
that you have received seems to demonstrate that the
future charges that will be taken from your plan are
greater than 5 per cent each year. In the most extreme
of circumstances, it is even possible that the future
charges might completely erode the value of your plan.
You
may find that you are between a rock and a hard place in
that if you transfer out to a lower-charged plan,
possibly a stakeholder plan, the transfer value will be
lower than the current value of the plan. It is,
however, pretty much a no-brainer in that a lower
transfer value today is better than possibly no value at
all in future.
Quite
where products of this type fit with the FSA's principle
of treating customers fairly is difficult to say. As you
purchased the plan some years ago and the charging
structure was set within the policy documentation, the
provider could argue that it is doing nothing wrong.
Most reasonable people might argue that such a product
is a real and tangible barrier to allowing you to
change, which seems to contradict at least one of the
TCF outcomes required by the FSA.
You
should definitely consider transferring from your
highly-charged plan into a lower-cost product.
Strangely,
your current provider may well provide a better plan for
you, not just in terms of lower future charges but also
in terms of wider investment choice. You may wonder why
your provider has not already advised you to do this. I
guess it is rather like being attracted to a deposit
account offering a competitive interest rate which over
time ceases to be competitive.
In
an environment of TCF, the FSA really should be
insisting that product providers identify where such a
change might be beneficial to a policyholder.
This
article was first published by Money Marketing.
You
are here: home
> news
& resources
>
financial planning articles
> drain on resources
|