Topic: Consolidation

In an industry full of buzz words, there’s one which crops up more often than most – consolidation.

In reality, pensions have been consolidating over the last decade, an evolution largely driven by The Pensions Regulator (TPR), Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

Originally their focus centred on the legal duties of defined contribution (DC) pension schemes and boosting retirement savings. Although this remains paramount, there’s also been a notable shift towards driving up the quality of workplace pensions for better outcomes for members. This, of course, should be the reason for being for all master trusts.

Master trust authorisation process complete

Last year we saw the end of the first phase of this culture shift towards better governance in pensions – master trust authorisation. When the authorisation process came to an end in the early autumn, 38 master trusts successfully gained authorisation, reduced from 93. That said, many master trusts decided not to apply in the first place.

Since that highly rigorous process ended last autumn, the question ‘what next’ has loomed large over the sector. In reality, the next steps we take aren’t a great secret as we all expect tighter regulations as the drive towards further market consolidation, led by TPR and the DWP, continues to unfold.

Why do regulators encourage consolidation?

The focus of the regulator will most likely be directed at challenging smaller single-employer DC trusts that lack resource and access to specialist support and are unable to meet the required standards of governance or proposition development.

Much of this change in the pensions landscape has been brought about by the advent of auto-enrolment, with larger DC pension schemes growing substantially in membership and assets under management, making them significantly bigger than many smaller DC pension schemes.

As a result, in the last decade there has been a clear drop in the number of small DC schemes registered. Statistics from TPR revealed that the number of pension schemes with 12 or more members has more than halved between 2009 and 2017, falling from 4,570 to 2,180.

Smaller schemes face significant challenges

How much further this figure continues to reduce remains to be seen. We know that the requirements of time, resource and cost can present major issues for some smaller DC pension schemes looking to meet the increasingly burdensome regulatory requirements. According to a TPR report last year, larger DC pension schemes were able to meet 84% of the regulator’s key governance requirements in contrast to both micro and small DC pension schemes, who only met 15% of them.

There are numerous conversations already taking place between trustees, sponsors and advisers of these smaller schemes and their counterparts at master trusts about if and how consolidation can be achieved in the best interests of members.

We must also remember that it isn’t just the smaller outfits that will consolidate. In the 1990s, there were 25 active group pension providers but now this is a much more streamlined 7.

Quietly evolving towards consolidation

In terms of pensions governance, we are certainly in a better place than we were 10 years ago, but there’s still a long way to go before we can honestly say there’s complete fairness in the market. There will be no Big Bang but a quiet, methodical evolution over the next decade.

After all, nobody expected consolidation to happen overnight.

Read more

Find out more about what to consider on our webpage about consolidation of trust-based occupational pensions.

Forget year-round sunshine and shrimps on the barbie. It’s the Australian pensions system that many in our industry have looked to with envy.

For the last 25 years, under the compulsory superannuation model, employers ‘Down Under’ have been forced to pay a significant contribution into a “super”, or retirement fund, for their workers. It now holds huge assets and is the largest defined contribution system in the world per capita.

In the UK, pensions savings have extended to millions more people in the last few years thanks to auto-enrolment, but as a nation we’re still a way behind Australia. As we move towards potential consolidation of master trusts as a result of The Pension Regulator’s (TPR) authorisation process and many single employer trusts are looking to move to a select group of larger master trusts, it’s worth asking what we can learn from Australia’s extra years of experience.

Watershed moment – big is beautiful

Master trust authorisation is at a critical point. Applications have been submitted to The Pensions Regulator and industry predictions suggest the result will be a small number of big players managing workplace pension schemes in the future.

The ultimate aim is for auto-enrolment to evolve into a more stable and effective system of retirement saving. So although we’re taking a different approach we’re heading in a similar “big is beautiful” direction to the multi-trillion dollar Australian pensions system where AUS $2 trillion of assets are managed by around 225 funds.

Play catch-up but don’t play with fire

We’re still a few steps behind so it’s a good opportunity to take stock. One thing is clear to me – we must learn useful lessons from Australia and avoid pitfalls. My colleague Gregg McClymont has previously analysed the issues and lessons around various scandals which hit the industry. Read his thoughts here.

I agree that the shocking headlines about greed and misconduct by banks and other commercial providers should serve as both a warning and an opportunity. At the heart of this is the question over proprietary/for-profit compared with not-for-profit – something I discussed with colleagues and financial advisers at a recent event we, The People’s Pension, organised.

To profit or not-for-profit?

In Australia, the numbers stack up in favour of not-for-profit funds which make up the top 10 performing pension funds across short and long time periods. Even before official enquiries were launched into banking and superannuation, people could see the long-term financial benefits of not-for-profit – or profit-for-member as they are often referred to in Australia.

The “profit-for-member” terminology resonates well for me, coming from an organisation which has a firm commitment to putting people ahead of profit. The People’s Pension has no shareholders to answer to so we can genuinely ensure that any profits are ploughed back into improving value and service for our customers. Our Charitable Trust also gives back to society and individuals as part of our mission. I’m proud of all this from a moral standpoint but I also believe it’s a good approach for the industry – and retirement planning – in the UK as a whole.

Where does this leave us?

At The People’s Pension we’re fortunate (as are our 4m members) as one of the largest master trust workplace pensions in the UK that we can provide stability and experience in the pensions landscape. We should build on the consolidation process of master trust authorisation and champion the value we can offer people through a long-term, “profit-for-member” approach to pensions.

Anyone focusing on chasing short-term returns or making bad decisions in the interests of sponsors rather than members should take heed of the Australian lessons. If we can all do that, then hopefully big really will be beautiful for British pensioners.

Glenn Dobson is a former National Development Team Manager at B&CE, provider of The People’s Pension. He has been replaced by Phil Taylor.