Connect with us

Business

a false dawn for pensions

Published

on

This week was a landmark for UK pensions, with the launch of a new collective pension arrangement offering the potential of better retirement outcomes for millions of people.

On Monday, Royal Mail became the UK’s first employer to offer a collective defined contribution (CDC) pension to staff — six years after it was originally announced. 

The government also published plans to boost the take-up of CDC by allowing multiple employers to join a single plan, in contrast to Royal Mail’s single employer plan.

CDC seems to offer a higher and less risky pension than individual DC, as well as boosting investment in UK private assets. But can it really do what it says on the tin?

Advertisement

Private sector defined benefit (DB) pensions, guaranteed by an employer, are all but extinct, replaced by defined contribution (DC), with people saving into individual pots and taking their own investment and longevity risk.

CDC sets an annual “target pension”, based on the value of assets from employee and employer contributions, plus investment returns. Target pensions are not guaranteed, but can move up or down each year — including for pensions already being paid — depending on asset values.

To fund its ambitious growth plans, the government is trying to push pensions into UK “productive assets”, and it hopes CDC is another pool of money to be invested in infrastructure, start-ups and private equity.

In 2023 major pension providers signed the Mansion House Compact to allocate 5 per cent of assets in the DC “default” funds to private assets, and the government hopes about £50bn will be invested by 2030.

By how much CDC could increase this target depends on CDC take-up, and the allocation to private assets.

Since Royal Mail’s announcement six years ago, no other companies have signed up to CDC, and no pension provider has said it will set-up a multi-employer CDC.

Suppose 10 per cent of DC assets move into CDC, and that CDC holds 10 per cent in private assets, double the Mansion House DC target. Overall DC and CDC private assets would only increase to 5.5 per cent, barely moving the dial versus DC alone.

Advertisement

But CDC fans claim it can hold a much higher chunk of higher-risk assets than DC, because of “intergenerational risk sharing”, when members of different ages pool investment risk and longevity.

This claim gets to the heart of the CDC fallacy. For any asset allocation, CDC investment risk is exactly the same as DC.

Intergenerational risk-sharing is a myth, because legislation prohibits “buffers” to “smooth” outcomes. CDC plans are not allowed to hold assets in a buffer, to be released when returns are worse than expected, or added to when returns are better than expected, as with discredited “with-profits” policies.

If CDC assets fall by, say, 20 per cent, target pensions also fall by 20 per cent for all members — an 80-year-old pensioner, or a 30-year-old employee.

Advertisement

This is exactly the same as a DC saver with their own pot. If assets fall by 20 per cent, their “target pension” falls by the same amount.

Identical contributions and identical asset allocation produce identical CDC and DC returns, but, of course, CDC comes with higher management costs. The government should not expect CDC to hold any more private assets than DC.

CDC also imposes the same asset allocation on all members, regardless of their age or risk preference. DC gives everyone the flexibility to choose their own level of investment risk, which may change as they approach retirement. 

What about Royal Mail’s CDC? It has 6 per cent member and 13.5 per cent employer contributions, giving an inflation-linked target pension of 1/80th of salary, plus 3/80ths cash, from age 67. Over 40 years, members could earn a target pension of half average salary, plus a cash lump sum of three-times pension. 

Advertisement

But this looks unexciting — at today’s inflation-adjusted long-term gilt rates it’s an average return of only gilts plus 1 per cent. A DC saver could achieve the same “target pension” by holding low risk-gilts and corporate bonds, with just a smattering of higher-risk equities.

CDC was really only ever attractive to the few private sector companies still offering DB, not the overwhelming majority with DC. But now the annual cost of DB pension promises has been slashed, thanks to much higher long-term interest rates, these companies have no incentive to close their DB pensions and make the leap into the CDC-unknown.

Although there are no “magic beans” in Royal Mail’s CDC, what sets it apart from “normal” DC is the generous 13.5 per cent employer contribution, higher than most blue-chip companies, and much higher than the 3 per cent legal minimum. 

And total contributions of almost 20 per cent of salary are enough for Royal Mail staff to build-up a decent DC pension pot, and a decent pension.

Advertisement

We shouldn’t fall for the false promise of better retirement outcomes by shifting to complex, opaque and costly CDC pensions. The only real way to improve pensions is with simple, transparent and cheap DC pots, and higher contributions.

John Ralfe is an independent pensions consultant. X: @johnralfe1

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Travel

New travel rules delayed AGAIN for Brits heading to Europe following major airline warning

Published

on

Biometric checks will replace the need for passport stamps

THE long-delayed European Entry/Exit System that was set to come into force next month has been quietly postponed.

At the end of August, the EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson confirmed the new Entry/Exit System (EES) would come into force on November 10, 2024.

Biometric checks will replace the need for passport stamps

2

Biometric checks will replace the need for passport stampsCredit: AFP

However, one month before the new rules were set to be introduced they were quietly delayed.

Advertisement

According to Reuters, Ylva Johansson made the following statement following a meeting of European ministers: “November 10 is no longer on the table”.

Following the announcement, Johansson told the BBC: “It’s clear that we’re not going to be ready for the 10 November.

“We will be going for a phased approach, step by step.”

A phased introduction of the new EES is now being discussed by officials who will meet in the coming weeks to hash out details.

Advertisement

A report from the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which was published on October 10, 2024, reads: “To ensure a smooth transition, the Commission outlined plans to roll out the EES in a phased manner. The details of this approach will be established in the coming weeks.”

The news comes days after easyJet boss revealed UK travellers could risk being stuck on planes after arriving at European airports once enhanced border checks are introduced.

In an interview at the annual convention of travel trade organisation Abta in Costa Navarino, Greece, Mr Lundgren said it is possible EES will cause airport terminals to be congested with arriving passengers waiting to be processed, leaving no room for additional travellers.

“In the worst case you actually can’t disembark, you hold people on the plane,” Mr Lundgren warned.

Advertisement

He said: “We have to think about what can actually happen.”

What you need to know about the new airport 100ml liquid rule

Mr Lundgren predicted “there will be some disruption” from EES as “it is a new procedure”.

Earlier this year, France, Germany and The Netherlands wrote to Ylva Johansson saying they wouldn’t be ready by the November deadline.

It is not yet known when EES will come into force.

Advertisement

However, a source told the Independent: “It will almost certainly be well into 2025 before there is any chance of it having a significant effect on British travellers.”

When the border checks do come into force, it’s feared that EES could cause huge delays at the border due to the extra checks needed.

The new system will replace the need to wet stamp passports but other checks will be required.

November 10 is no longer on the table

Passports will need to be scanned and passengers will need to have their fingerprints scanned and photos taken.

Advertisement

Delays are expected at the UK-France borders where queues could reach 14 hours at some ferry ports.

Tim Reardon, head of EU exit for the Dover Harbour Board previously warned last year: “There is no way of doing a biometric control without getting everyone out of the vehicle.

“That’s the one thing on our site which cannot happen because you’re in the middle of live traffic.”

And Neil Baker, Kent County Council’s cabinet member for roads said it could cause a “serious mess”.

Advertisement

He told fellow cabinet members on January 4: “I don’t think we can downplay how big of an impact it could well have on Kent and over an extended period.”

Holidaymakers have previously been warned to travel with “extra supplies” such as food, water and nappies in case of the huge queues when the checks are introduced in November.

The Sun’s Head of Travel explains what the EES means for you

The Sun’s Head of Travel Lisa Minot has explained everything you need to know about the upcoming EES.

JUST one month before the start of the EU’s new Entry Exit System, the entire launch has been delayed yet again.

Advertisement

Originally due to roll out in 2021, we are now told it will happen in phases with absolutely no specific timeline. 

Many millions of pounds has been spent by the likes of Eurostar and Eurotunnel plus the Port of Dover in preparing for the imminent launch. Airports across Europe have had to invest heavily in new equipment and re-configure passport halls.

Now yet again, new processing areas will be moth-balled. It will be a source of huge frustration to the travel industry as a whole.

Talking to easyJet chief executive Johan Lundgren this week, he was adamant the system should never be launched until a pre-registration system was up and running.

Advertisement

 An app is being developed to capture the data required by the Entry Exit System – facial biometrics and fingerprints – so it will take less time at busy borders with confined space.

But the European Commission had already confirmed this would not be ready for the proposed November launch.

And the easyJet CEO is right – without the means of allowing people to provide their information in advance, anyone connected with the new system could see that the time it would take to collect all the details would cause major delays.

While UK travellers will no doubt be relieved the system won’t launch until later in 2025, the chaos caused by the continual delays does nothing to engender confidence.

Advertisement

Other European governments have expressed their concerns too – Slovenia said it would take “four times longer” to process passengers, while Austrian authorities said it would be at least “double compared to the current situation”.

EES was meant to be introduced back in 2022.

The new border checks were then rescheduled for May 2023 and then late 2023, before the latest deadline was set.

Sun Online Travel have contacted the EU Home Affairs Commission for comment.

Advertisement

The new ETIAS system is also to be introduced, although this isn’t until next year.

ETIAS, a visa-waiver, will require all Brits to pay €7 when visiting Europe, and will last three years.

An official start date in 2025 is yet to be revealed

The new Entry/Exit System has been delayed again

2

Advertisement
The new Entry/Exit System has been delayed againCredit: PA

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The Telegraph enters stealth mode

Published

on

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Stuff continues to happen in the process to buy Britain’s Daily Telegraph, with the leading candidate to buy the newspaper, New York Sun publisher Dovid Efune, the type of person who tweets thing like “Blessed be the Israeli Air Force pilots”.

As MainFT’s Dan Thomas reported earlier this week:

Advertisement

Staff [think Efune is] likely to be a much more outspoken — and potentially divisive — owner than the media-shy Barclay family.

God forbid the Telegraph should become outspoken—

—ah.

Realistically, there’s a decent chance that Efune’s overture fizzles out, and other interested parties might return at the prospect of a lower price. For now, as one person close to the discussions told us, Efune “is in exclusive talks to begin exclusive talks”.

Here’s how that goes, from mainFT again:

During the period of exclusivity, Efune will be under pressure to reveal more about his plans for the title. He is in talks with US funds including Oaktree Capital Management to back his offer, according to people with knowledge of the discussions, while LionTree, which typically invests in such deals with its own funds, is advising him.

We would assume the discussions involved will also include the title revealing more about itself.

Advertisement

As we reported in early August last year, Telegraph Media Group — facing stalling paying subscriber numbers — made a bolt-on acquisition of The Chelsea Magazine Company, in an apparent bid to pump its total subscription count to 1mn.

Just days later, the Telegraph announced that target had been reached, ahead of the end-of-2023 deadline, and in time for since-defenestrated chief executive officer Nick Hugh to presumably collect a nice performance-linked bonus. (A parallel target to reached 10mn registrants appears to have been quietly ditched at some point.)

Much of the achievement was down to CMC readers — who were suddenly included in a Telegraph-branded growth KPI — and free users, both of which are worth far less per head than a digital Tel reader, and far far less than a print one:

Here’s the chart we made back then, updated to include the latest available figures:

Mushy. And made mushier still by weird sentences in the methodology such as this, about how CMC subscriptions are counted:

A subscriber can hold more than one subscription; e.g. if a subscriber has a subscription to two different publications, they will count as two.

Hugh’s replacement Anna Jones obviously has a tough job — effectively managing a paper that is in stasis until it has a new owner.

But one apparent business shift under her has been a move away from transparency. The Hugh era was marked by an admirable willingness to share these figures — albeit one that wavered towards the end, as reporting of subscriber numbers shifted from monthly to quarterly.

Post Jones? Not a peep. The company hasn’t published new numbers since January 18th, despite our polite prodding.

A spokesperson said the numbers are “currently linked with the ongoing sales process of TMG”. We have repeatedly asked, to no avail, whether the publication scheme will return.

Advertisement

We did get one useful nugget though. They told us:

As we look ahead, we continue to invest in our audiences and evolve our products, specifically across audio and the app, to best serve our dedicated subscribers and secure continued growth through 2024 and beyond. Our aim is to reach more paying readers than any other time in our history, with a medium term goal of reaching 2 million subscriptions.

Two million? Presumably, such goals have very little prospect of surviving the takeover, but — depending on what “medium term” means — presumably scenes at 111 Buckingham Palace road are something like this:

Further reading:
How the Telegraph made its million

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Money

Shopper outrage as major fashion brands including Debenhams and Warehouse start charging surprise fee

Published

on

Shopper outrage as major fashion brands including Debenhams and Warehouse start charging surprise fee

A HOST of fashion labels have changed their returns policy so customers subscribing to their premium service must pay for returns.

Debenhams, Dorothy Perkins, Oasis, Coast and Warehouse – which are all part of the same group and share the same “Unlimited” delivery service – used to offer members free returns, but since June charge £1.99 per order.

The change has outraged subscribers, who were taken by surprise when they found out about the fee

1

The change has outraged subscribers, who were taken by surprise when they found out about the fee

Unlimited membership, which costs £14.99 a year, gives customers access to next day deliveries for all the brands named above, plus Burton, Misspap and Wallis .

Advertisement

The change has outraged subscribers, who were taken by surprise when they found out about the fee.

One shopper who took to the Trustpilot site to comment on Dorothy Perkins’ service said: “Since when have you started charging Delivery Pass customers £1.99 to return items?

“If you have started to charge for returns then I certainly will not be renewing my pass with you.”

Another added: “Regular customer for many years now and on unlimited subscription.

Advertisement

“Had to return a size 12 dress more like a size 18 only to be told 1.99 for returns label. 

“Will not be buying again, waste of money.”

Another Warehouse Unlimited customer complained of being charged £1.99, even though this fee was not in place when he had subscribed.

Karen Millen – another brand owned by the Boohoo Group – has similarly changed its Premier service so that members, who pay £14.99 a year, must pay £2 per return.

Advertisement

However, according to the terms and conditions, those who purchased Premier unlimited delivery before June 3 will continue to receive free returns until their subscriptions end. 

Shopping discounts – How to make savings and find the best bargains

Any new Premier customers from June 3 will be charged £2 for returns.

But, for subscribers to Debenhams Unlimited and all of the brands under that label, the fee has come into effect immediately.

Sun Online revealed in September how members of Boohoo Premier – another premium delivery service operated by the Boohoo Group – were also told to pay £1.99 per return, but it has since reneged and made them free again.

Advertisement

Louise Deglise-Favre, retail analyst at GlobalData, said the introduction of returns fees was likely done to boost its profits, leaving some feeling cheated.

YOUR RETURN RIGHTS EXPLAINED

THE SUN’S Head of Consumer, Tara Evans, explains your return rights:

YOUR right to return items depends on where you purchased it and why you want to return it.

Advertisement

If you bought an item online then you are covered by the Consumer Contracts Regulations, which means you can cancel an item 14 days from when you receive it.

You then have a further 14 days to return the item, once you’ve notified the retailer that you want to return it.

If an item is faulty – regardless of how you bought it – you are legally able to return it and get a full refund within 30 days of receiving it.

Most retailers have their own returns policies, offering an exchange, refund or credit.

Advertisement

Shops don’t have to have these policies by law, but if they do have one then they should stick to it. 

She added: “The group has been experiencing major issues in the past couple of years, unable to compete with new competitors such as Shein in terms of agility and breadth of choice.

“Besides, the group bought the majority of the brands mentioned here during the height of its success throughout the pandemic.

“However, these brands were already experiencing difficulties and the boohoo Group likely has not been able to turn their favours around despite a change in branding and product offering.”

Advertisement

The Boohoo Group did not comment.

STORE RETURN CHARGES

PrettyLittleThing recently implemented a charge of £1.99 per item returned.

In February, River Island angered customers by introducing a £2 charge to return items ordered online.

The retailer also said it would ban some customer accounts if they made too many returns.

Advertisement

The charge is deducted from the total amount refunded after the customer has posted back the items.

And H&M brought in a £1.99 fee in September last year.

Before that Boohoo also began the practise in July 2022, but it continues to offer free returns for its “premier” customers.

In May 2022, fashion chain Zara introduced a fee for those looking to bring back parcels, it now charges £1.95 for the service.

Advertisement

Next gives customers 14 days to return their orders, but still charges £2.50 to take them back.

A host of retailers including Mountain Warehouse, THG and Moss Bros have also added a charge for shoppers to return items bought online.

Companies have started to charge for returns as the costs of shipping have risen.

The cost of processing is also higher.

Advertisement

Retailers with stores can make it easier for consumers to return goods for free as they can be dropped off in a store, which saves the shipping charges.

Which retailers don’t charge for returns?

DESPITE the trend towards charging, there are still lots of high street names that offer free returns.

Amazon says that it offers free returns for most items that are sent back within 30 days as long as they are unused and undamaged.

Advertisement

It adds that most of its sellers do the same. Often, a free returns label is included with your package.

It says that it will issue a refund for a product shipped by Amazon, within a maximum of 14 days and confirm it with an automated e-mail.

Argos offers free returns for most of the things that it sells. 

Apple says you can return purchases within 14 days for free. The product must be in its original condition with all of its parts, accessories, and packaging.

Advertisement

Asda has a generous online returns policy, where most things can be returned within 30 days if you change your mind. You need to show proof of purchase.

M&S’ standard returns policy is 35 days for both online and in-store purchases, except sale items, which must be returned within 14 days.

Clothing or homeware items can only be returned at main clothing and home stores and outlet items can also only be returned to outlet stores.

ASOS says that returns in the UK are free and trackable, as long as you don’t fall foul of its “fair use policy” and you return things within 28 days.

Advertisement

It says that for the small group of customers who consistently take actions that make providing them with free returns unsustainable, it deducts and retains £3.95 from their refund to help cover the cost of getting the goods back.

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Japan atomic bomb survivors’ group

Published

on

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to Nihon Hidankyo, a Japanese organisation of atomic bomb survivors from the 1945 attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The grassroots group was awarded the prize on Friday by the Norwegian Nobel committee.

Advertisement

The committee said the award was “for its efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and for demonstrating through witness testimony that nuclear weapons must never be used again”.

The prize comes against the backdrop of rising nuclear rhetoric from figures including Russian president Vladimir Putin.

“The nuclear powers are modernising and upgrading their arsenals . . . and threats are being made to use nuclear weapons in ongoing warfare,” said Jørgen Watne Frydnes, the new chair of the Nobel committee.

“At this moment in human history, it is worth reminding ourselves what nuclear weapons are: the most destructive weapons the world has ever seen,” he added.

Advertisement

Frydnes warned that today’s nuclear weapons were far more destructive than those dropped by the US in 1945.

“They can kill millions and would impact the climate catastrophically. A nuclear war could destroy our civilisation,” he said.

There are 106,000 living survivors of the two atomic bombings, who are known as hibakusha in Japanese and now have an average age of almost 86.

Many experienced severe discrimination in the postwar years related to their radiation exposure, as did their children.

Advertisement

In 2016, Barack Obama became the first sitting US president to visit Hiroshima and participated in a ceremony where senior figures in Nihon Hidankyo featured prominently.

They included Mikiso Iwasa, a survivor of the Hiroshima bombing, a former chair of the organisation and one of the world’s foremost crusaders against nuclear weapons.

At the 70th anniversary of the bombing in 2015, Iwasa told the Financial Times that the greatest risk the world faced was forgetting what had taken place in Hiroshima.

“The fact that the world is still bristling with 15,000 nuclear weapons means that anyone in the world could become a hibakusha at any time,” he said.

Advertisement

Much of the focus before this year’s prize had centred on the Middle East after a year of conflict.

But the committee said it wanted to honour the remaining survivors of atomic bombs who “despite physical suffering and painful memories, have chosen to use their costly experience to cultivate hope and engagement for peace”.

“One day, the [survivors] will no longer be among us as witnesses to history,” Frydnes said. “But with a strong culture of remembrance and continued commitment, new generations in Japan are carrying forward the experience and the message of the witnesses.”

The winner of the prize receives SKr11mn ($1.1mn).

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Money

Former Cairn Homes CFO joins Bellway

Published

on

Former Cairn Homes CFO joins Bellway

Doherty will join Bellway on 2 December as CFO and will be appointed as a member of the board.

The post Former Cairn Homes CFO joins Bellway appeared first on Property Week.

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

should Google be broken up?

Published

on

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

As suggested by the fact that its very name has become shorthand for online search, Google’s dominance isn’t in question: if you look at market share, it has no real rivals. In the US, nearly 90 per cent of search queries flowed through Google in 2020, and on mobile that figure was 95 per cent — the next closest, Microsoft’s Bing, accounted for just 6 per cent.

On Tuesday, the US Department of Justice proposed various remedies to break down what a judge has ruled is the search giant’s illegal monopoly. This “high-level framework” offered solutions that ranged from softer approaches, such as Google limiting payments to smartphone makers in return for exclusivity on their devices, up to the most draconian option: forcibly breaking up the company.

Advertisement

A structural remedy could mean spinning off Google’s Chrome browser or Android operating system. But it’s unclear if even this would shake their dominance. We know that when European Android users select a search engine when they set up a new phone, nine out of 10 still use Google.

A hearing is set for April, and Amit Mehta, the judge who branded Google a “monopolist” at the conclusion of the trial in August, has said he will try to rule by August 2025.

So what do you think: should Google be broken up? Tell us your view by voting in our poll or commenting below the line.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 WordupNews.com