UK - Describing the Pension Protection Fund as an "insurance" is dangerous and will lead to misconceptions, Hewitt Bacon & Woodrow warns.
Its latest Analysis report says that while the PPF has been widely described – including by the government – as an insurance fund, people must be aware it does not offer a “cast-iron guarantee” they will receive their final salary benefits.
The report says: “This is dangerous because it implies benefits are fully guaranteed, and that in the event of a scheme going bust, the ‘insured’ benefits will be paid out.
“However, the PPF is actually being established on the basis that benefits can be cut back if it cannot afford to pay out the full amount.
“Although it is understandable that politicians and laymen are not as concerned as actuaries by what they see as a rather technical distinction between insurance funds and pensions funds, the public must be told honestly that the PPF is not a cast-iron guarantee.”
This week's top stories included Legal & General acquiring MyFutureNow to provide a dashboard service to customers, while also agreeing a hybrid buy-in with a Hitachi scheme.
NEST has signed up to the government-backed Star Initiative, taking all of its 8 million members' pension pots with it.
It is perhaps inherently difficult to find an agreed definition of value for money, but some methodologies could act as a stopgap, argues Jonathan Stapleton.