Your Basket
Your Basket
There are no funds in your basket. To add funds to your basket use the Green Plus Icon wherever you see it next to a fund.
Fund name
Aberdeen American Growth  
Fidelity American  
Schroder UK Mid 250  
M&G Recovery  
Jupiter Merlin UK Growth  
Close Basket Open basket

Login

Login

Register

It's look like you're leaving us

What would you like us to do with the funds you've selected

Show me all my options Forget them Save them
Customise this table
 

Dampier: Guaranteed pension plan "complete nonsense"

The industry expert says the Government’s proposal to underwrite all auto-enrolment schemes doesn’t add up.

By Thomas McMahon, Reporter, FE Trustnet Follow
Monday July 09, 2012


The Government’s plan to give private pension-holders income guarantees when they retire is complete nonsense and proves it doesn’t understand the investment industry, according to Mark Dampier (pictured), head of research at Hargreaves Lansdown. 

ALT_TAGA fall in the FTSE 100 of 15 per cent since the start of the financial crisis and a substantial rise in inflation have eroded many UK residents' pension pots, and pensions minister Steve Webb said the Government wants to use a consultation paper due this autumn to address this issue. 

Insurance companies would provide policies that guarantee savers receive at least the value of their contributions under plans to be discussed between the Government, the insurance companies and pension providers.

"They should kill it now – it’s complete nonsense," said Dampier. "Guaranteeing investments doesn’t work. They have tried it with investment trusts for many years, it’s a non-starter." 

"If you could have a guaranteed investment – you are telling me you can give me a return better than cash? It sounds like Bernie Madoff to me." 

"We have a government that doesn’t understand investment in any way – you’d have to quadruple contributions to make it work but people don’t even contribute enough now." 

From October large businesses will have to automatically enrol employees in company pensions, in a scheme that the Government is using to address UK residents' unwillingness to save for their retirement. 

Dampier believes that the proposals to guarantee pension pots are designed to prevent people from leaving these schemes early.

"I understand why they’re doing it," he said. "They have done it on the basis that people will run away after a few years if they see their pot has gone down. But the real problem is people don’t understand investment." 

"For the first few years of paying into a savings plan you want the investment to be poor so you buy more and then make better returns in the future." 

"They are trying to have their cake and eat it."

He adds that the auto-enrolment scheme will be scuppered by pandering to a lack of education on the subject. 

"We have a massive problem in this country in that people know nothing about investment," he explained. 

"In order to avoid people getting scared and leaving, the contribution level on the auto-enrolment scheme is pathetically tiny and the investment profile will be low risk at the start, which is the opposite of what you want." 

"In any case, what is considered low risk right now? Is it government bonds? Who knows?"

"The one thing people should do to reduce their risk is when people get near the end of their savings they should consider diversifying to try to reduce the risk on their investments, but the real problem is people don’t contribute." 

"The only way to do it is to put an extra 1 per cent on management fees, so you might as well be in cash anyway," he added. 

Campaigners have been arguing for financial literacy to become a core skill taught in schools, as high levels of personal debt and low savings in comparison to other countries have come under fire.

Dampier said: "Why can’t you do an O-level in personal financial planning? You can do a degree in it but why can’t you get any sort of qualification at school?" 

He says, however, that one simpler reform would help.

"If we want people to pay more attention we should stop using the word ‘pension’, it just bores them and they stop listening. I always talk about a monthly savings plan, because that’s what it is," he finished. 



 
Add your comment
Step 1: Tell us what you think...
 

Step 2: Prove you're not a robot...
You don't have to do this every time you submit a comment.

Login or register free and you won't see it again.
Enter the words above:
Step 3: Submit your comment...
Submit
 
Gini Jul 13th, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Removing excessive charges by the Financial services and restoring the money stolen by Gordon Brown would be a good start! I suggest a split of the contributions into Trackers, 2-5 year fixed interest accounts, and property. At about 5 years from retirement a decision to reorganise the pots of investment according to performance to date should help prevent loss of contributions.

Reply
William Wells Jul 13th, 2012 at 11:46 AM

I agree with Mark Dampier stating the obvious that any attempt to build in guarantees will be ill-conceived - unless it is to be underpinned by future generations of tax payers (in which case, nothing will have changed). I totally dispute that 'with profits' can provide even a partial answer - 'with profits' was always a scam invented by insurance companies to enrich themselves.

The answer is for government to properly fund a decent State pension for everyone - something they will not be able to do whilst they are building aircraft carriers without airplanes, spending £billions on the Olympics, pouring £billions into so-called overseas aid, paying housing benefit and providing education and healthcare for millions of economic migrants,continuing to allow the lazy and feckless to claim unemployment benefits (build State-owned factories to employ these people) and turning a blind eye to the likes of Branson, Blair and countless civil servants who are using so-called legal schemes to avoid paying tax.

Reply
Doctor Doom Jul 10th, 2012 at 07:24 PM

People might have more faith in pensions and be willing to contribute towards them if the government stopped meddling so much in them. Gordon Brown saw private pensions as a cash cow and raided them when he got the chance. What is there to stop any future government going back on these Guaranteed pensions and doing what Gordon Brown did, raiding them to the tune of £billions ? Maybe they should Guarantee to leave investors pensions alone and stop the tax take on dividends.

Reply
philip dodd Jul 10th, 2012 at 02:27 PM

While the fact that "for the first few years of paying into a savings plan you want the investment to be poor" is logical to the cognoscenti, it may not be a particularly helpful statement for mass market investors. Certainly, culture and education have to change, but is Mr Dampier suggesting that we put budget deficits on hold for a decade or two whilst we re-shape mindsets? Savings gap mitigation has to begin as a matter of urgency in the UK, irrespective of knowledge gaps. Accordingly, we must deal with the material that is available and adapt the message as educational improvements are made. Self-serving exhortations are at best unhelpful and it may appear arrogant for HL to suggest that the counsel it keeps is better than the government`s (for all its faults). It is agreed that more exposure to equities should be evident with NEST`s proposition, but doubtless such fine-tuning can take place once the momentum has been established. Surely the important issue here is to inculcate a savings culture, rather than to seek an extension of the "asymmetric information" situation which has characterised the financial services sector for too long.
It`s easy to snipe, but realistically this market segment is largely not in a position to pay for financial advice from next year anyway.
# Harry - is it possible you may be mixing and matching annual and recurring charges to come up with an over-stated TER which serves your argument here?
http://www.money-guidance.co.uk

Reply
Wilf Sequeira Jul 10th, 2012 at 10:41 AM

You don't need to be an expert to conclude that this idea is absolute 'bonkers'

Reply
Peter Neale Jul 09th, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Dampier says: "If you could have a guaranteed investment – you are telling me you can give me a return better than cash?" The implication therefore is that HL cannot give a better return than cash either - so the logical conclusion is: why bother investing in anything other than cash at all?

Reply
Dr Bill McCormack Jul 10th, 2012 at 09:17 AM

I think what he was saying is that you cannot guarantee any investment to outperform cash. It's the "you capital is at risk" phrase.

Surely you understand that?

HL main business is not managing portfolios anyway.

Reply
Chris Armstrong Jul 09th, 2012 at 09:10 PM

Mr Dampier is being over simplistic. Pound cost averaging (the insurance saleman's phrase for what he is talking about) was, I believe, invented by salesmen of the Dover Plan, just about the biggest selling scandal of the 60's. People want to see their investment go down? Not if they're due to retire in say 10 years time. And if they have a longer time horizon, they'd have done better - if the market falls - to have waited and invested later! No, Mr Dampier, you are talking no more sense than you say the Government are. The only thing on which I do agree with you is that the cost of the guarantee is likely to be beyond the (willing) reach of many.

Reply
JGW 225 Jul 09th, 2012 at 06:18 PM

I agree very much. Tax relief already provides a substantial buffer against downwards movement. Will the contributors surrender part of their gains also?

Reply
Stan Ford Jul 09th, 2012 at 05:18 PM

Of all the delusions this is the caps the lot. For a government minister to promote this idea is indicative of complete detachment from reality. The better thing to do would be to canel the theft that Brown initiated taking tax off dividends. If the SFO rank lying about Libor as a crime how about theft? Will they bring Gordon to book for undermining the pension funds?

Reply
Dr Bill McCormack Jul 10th, 2012 at 09:19 AM

...and wll they jail Osbourne for continuing it.

Reply
Glen McKeown Jul 09th, 2012 at 05:08 PM

I wonder why Mark Dampier is so adamant in his opinions.
For well over 100 years we had a product that fit this bill, called a With Profits policy. People lost confidence in it when it failed to match the performance of the new breed of unitised funds in the mid 1980s, and Actuaries panicked at the loss of business and made promises that could never be met. Take away that period of panic and greed and I suspect that With Profits would still be a viable commodity for the cautious. So there is a partial model at least for a fund underpin.
It is however prudent to consider what could be "guaranteed", namely the fund or the income.
Accepting that any guarantee costs money, it should not be beyond the whit of government or the investment industry to create a fund underpin at realistic cost. Whether it can be run in a manner that it fair to current and future generations is as problematic as the With Profit concept, but even that can be considered to be a cost of the concept.
I have less confidence that a practical solution can be found for underpinning an income level, other than running a defined benefit scheme for the whole country. The Basic State Pension is a little like that, but then it has never been a funded concept. One possibility would be to use part of the additional cost to shoot doctors, thus stopping the increase in longevity. This may not be socially acceptable - especially by doctors!
Just because we haven't made a success of an underpinned fund in the recent past does not mean that it is not possible nor that it shouldn't be investigated. Even a partial success could have a material effect on the saving habits of the British people. And perhaps we could even export the concept abroad, using those profuts to underpin the fund further.

Reply
jazzyrussell Jul 09th, 2012 at 04:26 PM

if we have learned anything in the past few years it is surely that nothing is 'guaranteed' especially when it cones to pensions

Reply
Ark Welder Jul 09th, 2012 at 04:24 PM

Can anyone name an investment trust that has ever tried to guarantee a return? Does he mean guaranteed investment bonds, or is he thinking about ZDPs? If so, then a specific type of share that is issued just by some companies rather than 'investment trusts' in general - and the sensibly managed ones have delivered what they set out to do too.

Reply
l smith Jul 09th, 2012 at 03:21 PM

Dampier is happy making a small fortune from trail commission charges which his organisation receives and never details.
He is one who should not be calling the kettle black.

Reply
 

Next page»

Back to top of page

 

Follow FE Trustnet

Video Headlines

More Videos

Why you should ignore the "slowdown" in emerging markets

GMT 12:30 | 04-Jun-2013

Why income investors cannot afford to ignore emerging markets

GMT 17:00 | 01-Jun-2013

 
Poll

Would you invest in a fund managed by someone who is nearing retirement age?

Yes

No

Vote

 
 
  • Stay connected with FE trustnet
  • Authorised and Regulated by the
    Financial Conduct Authority
  • © Trustnet Limited 2013. All Rights Reserved.
  • Please read our Terms of Use / Disclaimer
    and Privacy and Cookie Policy.
  • Data supplied in conjunction with Thomson Financial Limited,
    London Stock Exchange Plc, StructuredRetailProducts.com
    and ManorPark.com