People should not use their pension to buy a house, says industry

The 133 participants also answered questions on methods to reduce the gender pensions gap, minimum contributions under auto-enrolment, and asset manager disclosures.

See the results in full.

A large majority (62%) of this week's 133 Pensions Buzz respondents did not agree with housing secretary James Brokenshire that people should be able to use their pension to purchase a house. One respondent said: "Absolute madness. Auto-enrolment has increased awareness of the importance of saving for pensions. Why undo all of this hard work?

"[The] government should be building more affordable housing, not allowing people to raid their pensions. At what point will they actually start saving for retirement?"

Another called this idea "crazy", and added: "Do they want more people on benefits when they retire?"

A further respondent pointed out that housing is an illiquid asset which is not suited to retirement.

However, almost a third (30%) disagreed. One said the security of a house to live in is more important than a larger pension. Some said it should be subject to limitations. One said it should be "subject to a maximum withdrawal amount and only covering employee contributions".

Nearly one in 10 were unsure, with one questioning how this would work for a defined benefit scheme.

Some 60% of respondents did not think new mums should be given a £2,000 pension top-up to help close the gender pensions gap. One said: "A law should be passed to require all new mums to return to work and to be ambitious for [a] promotion. That's the only way the gender gap will be closed."

Another noted: "[It would be] better to focus on other aspects of work and life that lead to gender financial inequality. Any extra finance should be targeted at areas of real financial need (lower earners and carers) not just a baby bonus."

A further respondent said if mums are to be given any money the priority should be income over pensions.

However, 28% disagreed. One said: "This would go some way to plug the gap. But let's be clear that it is not the full answer, however. More needs to be done to ensure women do not lose out on pensions."

Some 12% were unsure.

Half of respondents did not think total minimum contributions should be increased to 12% for middle earners but remain at 8% for lower earners. One suggested it should be 10% for everybody. Another said: "If middle earners want to contribute more, they can do.  Don't force them to increase to a 12% limit."

A further respondent said contributions should be from the first pound earned and the same rate for everyone, while another said: "Keep things simple, and lower earners may need 12%, more. Employers will have to take the strain for this ultimately."

Just over a third disagreed. One said: "This could work as the state pension is proportionately a bigger percentage of lower earners pension entitlement and middle earners can find ways of affording the 12% if it is a shared increase with employers."

Another said that contributions should be 12% for all, while a further respondent noted tax relief at a higher rate should be taken away.

Some 16% were unsure, with one saying they have not seen the rationale, and another noting it could be self-defeating.

Almost three quarters (73%) of respondents said asset managers should disclose engagement policies for investee companies to improve stewardship, transparency and stakeholder relationships. One said it is all about transparency, but another said this should only be done on a voluntary basis.

Another said: "[They] should, and many do as part of best practice." A further respondent said: "The fact that this question needs to be asked demonstrates how bad the situation is."

One commentator that answered yes noted: "But I doubt many investors would actually look at this. The information should be available though."

Some 18% were unsure, with one commenting: "Sounds like a lot of box ticking - too questionable a benefit for anyone."

Just under one in 10 answered no, with one saying: "Who on earth would be interested? And why stop there? Let's make all commercial contracts public documents. I bet Tesco and Amazon would love that..."

Some 42% of respondents said the pension scheme(s), or scheme(s) they work with have amended their statement of investment principles to comply with the ESG disclosure regulations coming into force in October this year.

One said: "[We] are doing this now ahead of the deadline [as it] feels like the right thing to include. However, it's basic and needs to evolve over time. Another said: "Both - some are at the consultation with company stage."

A further respondent said it was done in their scheme(s) time rather than playing catch up and another said: "Some have, and some are going to soon."

Some 30% have not amended their statement of investment principles yet, although all commentators either said they will be, or are in the process of doing so. One said their scheme(s) has taken member feedback. Another said: "considered and aware, but not made the amendment yet."

Over a quarter (28%) were unsure, with one saying the drafting is in hand for approval and another noting that it needs to be checked first.

• Tweet  
• Facebook  
• LinkedIn  
• Send to  

• Topics
• Defined Benefit
• Pensions Buzz
• James Brokenshire
• environmental, social and corporate governance
• disclosure
• Auto-enrolment
• AE
• gender pension gap