TPR's powers should not be retrospective

Over half (55%) of respondents said The Pensions Regulator's (TPR's) powers should not be applicable to events or actions occurring before their powers came into existence.

Of these, many respondents either said "absolutely not" or "definitely not." One pundit argued it is very dangerous to give retroactive application of powers with significant controls and oversight on how they would be applied.

Meanwhile, another pointed out: "[It is a] key principle of law not to retrospectively criminalise."

Over a third (35%) answered yes. However, one said as long as "the remedy applied is realistic."

Another said: "But only if the event was improper in itself, and it was only the lack of regulatory power which prevented action.

"If the event was proper by the standards of the time, current standards shouldn't be used to make judgements in relation to the past."

One in 10 were unsure if TPR's powers should be applicable to events or actions occurring before their powers came into existence, with one respondent saying retrospective legislation is a "slippery slope."

Over a third (36%) of respondents agreed the maximum rate that average total defined contribution (DC) contributions could rise to is between 13% and 15%.

Of these, one pundit said: "This is the minimum needed to provide a retirement pot that will provide an adequate retirement."

Total minimum contributions currently rest at 2%, but will rise to 5% in April, and 8% in 2019.

Over a fifth (22%) of respondents said the maximum rate that average total DC contributions should rise to should be between 9% and 12%, but some said this is still unlikely to be enough.

Just over one fifth were unsure, and one respondent said average rates are irrelevant. "The issue should be getting savings started as early as possible and making sure people believe in saving."

Some 15% agreed the maximum rate that total contributions should rise to should be above 16%. Of these pundits, six people agreed contributions should rise to 20%, and four people said they should rise to 18%.

Some 40% of respondents agreed trustees are too slow to act in removing investment managers if their performance is not consistent with scheme investment objectives.

Of these pundits, one argued investment consultants often hold trustee boards back from sacking managers when chemistry and performance go sour.

Another pointed out: "[It] can be difficult if a sponsoring employer is unresponsive and trustees only come together four times a year."

Exactly one third of respondents were unsure. Of these, one said: "It depends on the status of the scheme - but pensions are a long-term investment."

Another said some schemes will be too slow; some schemes will not be too slow.

Over a quarter (27%) did not think trustees are too slow to act in removing investment managers if their performance is not consistent with scheme objectives. One said: "If they are, it is because they are badly advised - and they can't really make such decisions without formal advice."

Some argued that as pension funds are long-term investments, they should not be made on short-term outlook.

A third were undecided.

Some four out of 10 respondents were unsure if the government's response to the Taylor review of gig economy practices will lead to improved pension savings for gig economy staff. Some pundits said they hope it will, while some said it is "too early to tell."

One respondent further argued: "Some but not all gig economy staff will benefit."

Over a third (35%) answered no, with one saying: "Fundamentally, the UK economy is structured in favour of capital over labour so there's no chance of this happening."

Another argued it already looks like any actions will be a seriously watered down version of what has been in the headlines.

Exactly one quarter of respondents agreed the government's response to the Taylor review of gig economy practices will lead to improved pension savings for gig economy staff.

Of those who answered yes, one said: "If gig workers get same status as employed, then I'd expect them to benefit from auto enrolment."

The majority (61%) of commentators in this PP peer question said investment strategies are becoming too complex for the average member-nominated trustee (MNT) to understand without having significant and expensive actuarial and legal advice.

Of those who answered yes, one respondent said: "But they should get actuarial and legal advice. It also does not matter if one MNT does not understand if the trustee board as a whole does."

Another argued MNTs are leading to concentrations in assets that are likely to increase costs and risks in the long term.

One quarter of respondents answered no, with one saying: "If the strategy is too complex then it is likely to be fraught with unknown risk. However, anyone seeking expensive actuarial or legal advice re strategies is usually on a hiding to nothing."

Just 14% were undecided.

One commented: "The overall strategies are easy enough to follow; the implementation may require qualified advice but wouldn't the MNTs get this?"

 To see the full Buzz results, click here.

• Tweet  
• Facebook  
• LinkedIn  
• Send to  

• Topics
• Industry
• Buzz
• TPR
• contributions
• defined contribution
• Trustees
• investment
• gig economy
• pensions
• Pensions Buzz