**Title: Unlocking Cost Savings in the Pension Industry: An In-depth Analysis**
**Introduction:**
The pension industry is a crucial sector that plays a significant role in securing people’s financial future. However, recent research has shed light on an issue that has long remained hidden: the lack of price competition among institutional investors. While wealth managers offer fee discounts to key clients like pension schemes, the details of these arrangements have traditionally been closely guarded secrets. This opacity has led to wide variations in fees paid by pension schemes, even for identical or similar funds. The persistence of high fees has raised questions regarding the efficacy of the market and whether pension schemes are truly getting the best possible deals.
**Exploring the Problem:**
ClearGlass Analytics, a leading consultancy firm, has conducted a comprehensive analysis of costs and benefits based on 35,000 investment portfolios. Their research reveals that UK pension schemes could potentially save around £2 billion in fees paid to asset managers without compromising returns. This astounding figure not only highlights the inefficiency of the current system but also underscores the urgent need for industry-wide reform.
**The Impact of Market Opacity:**
One of the primary factors contributing to the widespread discrepancies in fees is the lack of transparency in the market. With asset managers and retirement plans striking unique, individual deals, it becomes challenging for schemes to compare and negotiate better terms. The secretive culture surrounding these agreements has perpetuated an unfair advantage for certain investors, impeding healthy market competition.
**Implications for Pension Schemes:**
The alarming findings from ClearGlass Analytics’ research potentially suggest that only a quarter of investors are truly receiving good value for their money in terms of fees and returns. This realization raises concerns about the pension schemes’ ability to secure the best deals for their beneficiaries. Moreover, the data indicates that the gap between the best and worst fees can reach significant percentages across various fund categories, including actively managed global equity funds, active emerging markets funds, and multi-asset target absolute return funds. Even passive index funds and strategies exhibit substantial disparities in fees, further exacerbating the financial burden on pension schemes.
**The New Regulatory Landscape:**
In an effort to rectify these issues, new regulations known as consumer tariffs were introduced in the UK earlier this month. These regulations require asset managers to demonstrate that they offer good value for money to their customers. The Financial Conduct Authority, the regulatory body overseeing the pension industry, has warned asset managers against justifying fees solely based on a comparison with peer funds, emphasizing the need for meaningful compliance. However, the effectiveness of these regulations remains to be seen, as fundamental flaws in the market structure still persist.
**Bringing Clarity to the Market:**
Chris Sier, CEO of ClearGlass Analytics, has been a vocal critic of the current system, asserting that competition alone does not effectively drive down prices. He highlights the long-standing practice of secret deals between fund managers and retirement plans and emphasizes the need for greater transparency to ensure fair pricing and better outcomes for investors. Sier’s advocacy for change reflects the urgent need for collaboration within the industry to address the prevailing issues.
**Negotiating Fee Discounts:**
While the research paints a concerning picture, asset managers and smaller pension funds may still negotiate fee discounts. Initiating transparent discussions and actively seeking competitive deals are key steps that pension schemes should undertake to maximize savings. Although some asset managers may be less inclined to offer discounts, exploring negotiation possibilities can lead to substantial cost savings that can benefit beneficiaries in the long run.
**Industry Response and Counterarguments:**
The Investment Association, the trade body representing the UK wealth management industry, acknowledges the existence of variations in fees. However, they argue that different investors often choose certain strategies because they align with their specific needs, justifying the differing costs. While this perspective provides some context, it is crucial to ensure that investors are receiving transparent and fair pricing that truly reflects the value of the services provided.
**Looking Ahead:**
Considering the growing scrutiny on fee structures within the pension industry, it is evident that reform is necessary. The complexities of pricing, coupled with asymmetrical information and competition, have created an environment that disadvantages pension schemes and ultimately hinders the financial well-being of retirees. To foster better outcomes for investors and improve the overall efficiency of the market, collaboration and transparency must become the pillars of the pension industry.
**Summary:**
Recent research from ClearGlass Analytics reveals that UK pension schemes could save approximately £2 billion in fees by addressing the lack of price competition among institutional investors. The industry’s opacity, driven by secret deals between asset managers and retirement plans, has resulted in wide variations in fees paid by pension schemes. These discrepancies raise concerns about whether schemes are obtaining the best possible deals for their beneficiaries. New regulations requiring asset managers to demonstrate good value for money have been introduced, but their effectiveness remains uncertain. Given this landscape, increased transparency and negotiation efforts are crucial to unlocking cost savings and improving outcomes for pension schemes and their members.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
Receive free updates on the pension industry
We will send you a myFT Collection Daily e-mail with the list of the latest news pension sector news every morning.
According to research suggesting that price competition among institutional investors fails to reduce costs, UK pension schemes could save around £2bn in fees paid to asset managers without sacrificing returns.
Wealth managers often offer fee discounts to key clients such as pension schemes to win their own business, but the details of these deals have historically been a closely guarded secret.
According to ClearGlass Analytics, a consultancy that has built a database of costs and benefits based on 35,000 investment portfolios, market opacity has led to wide variations in the fees paid by pension schemes even when they buy identical or very similar funds. According to data from ClearGlass, the highest fees amounted to more than £2 billion a year paid by system administrators.
The findings may raise questions as to whether pension schemes are getting the best deals and whether the market is functioning properly. These came after new rules were introduced in the UK earlier this month, known as consumer tariffs, which require asset managers to demonstrate that they offer good value for money to customers.
“Competition doesn’t work,” he said Chris Sier, CEO of ClearGlass. “Nearly every deal between a fund manager and a retirement plan is different. Each program has its ‘special’ price and the code of silence of ‘don’t tell anyone else about the deal you have or anything’ has been around forever.
ClearGlass estimated that only a quarter of investors got good value for their money when they compared their fees to both ongoing charges and five-year average net returns.
ClearGlass found that the gap between the best and worst trades was 0.71 percentage points in annual fees for actively managed global equity funds. This rose to 0.91 percentage points for active emerging markets and up to 1.16 percentage points for multi-asset target absolute return funds.
Fees for passive index funds and strategies also had large discrepancies which could affect the overall costs paid by a pension scheme.
ClearGlass identified a manager managing a passive equity fund that had a 0.17 percentage point gap in ongoing charges between the best and worst deal in one of the most fee-competitive industries.
The Investment Association, the trade body representing the UK wealth management industry, said there was clear evidence that institutional investors were looking for deals that best suited their needs.
“Some strategies may be more expensive than similar-looking rivals, but an investor may have chosen this option because it best suits their needs,” said an IA spokesperson.
Fee discounts are easier to negotiate for newly launched funds and if an investor wants to make a significant commitment, according to Peter Sleep, who oversees several multi-manager strategies at 7IM, a UK wealth management firm.
“Some asset managers and small pension funds may not have the power to obtain a fee discount. But you have to ask and bargain because there are deals to be done,” she said.
The Financial Conduct Authority warned asset managers this month that “justifying fees solely on the basis of a comparison with peer funds did not equate to meaningful compliance” with the new rules.
Data on fund factsheets suggests that fees have declined over the past three years. But variations in the actual fees paid by large investors could complicate asset managers’ claims that they are offering value for money to all of their clients.
Given that asset managers offer different rates to different clients”, so to speak [all customers] receiving the same value for money would be misleading,” Sier said.
—————————————————-