{"id":323,"date":"2013-11-08T17:35:10","date_gmt":"2013-11-08T16:35:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/weknow0.co.uk\/?p=323"},"modified":"2025-12-11T11:06:37","modified_gmt":"2025-12-11T11:06:37","slug":"papers-and-pensions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/weknow0.co.uk\/?p=323","title":{"rendered":"Papers and Pensions"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/momentumpublishing.co.uk\/weknow0.co.uk\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/11\/mobile-pics-Nov-2013-010.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-325 alignright\" alt=\"mobile pics Nov 2013 010\" src=\"http:\/\/momentumpublishing.co.uk\/weknow0.co.uk\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/11\/mobile-pics-Nov-2013-010.jpg\" width=\"264\" height=\"180\" srcset=\"https:\/\/weknow0.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/11\/mobile-pics-Nov-2013-010.jpg 988w, https:\/\/weknow0.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/11\/mobile-pics-Nov-2013-010-300x205.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 264px) 100vw, 264px\" \/><\/a>Now that the Great and Good of the actuarial profession and pensions industry have launched their joint <a title=\"DA consultation\" href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/uploads\/system\/uploads\/attachment_data\/file\/255541\/reshaping-workplace-pensions-for-future-generations.pdf\">consultation<\/a> with the DWP on defined ambition (DA) options, it is interesting to look at the initial response in the print media.<\/p>\n<p>The first thing to note is how little of it there is. The <em>Daily Mail<\/em>, <em>Daily Express<\/em> and <em>Daily Telegraph<\/em> have it on the front page. The <em>Financial Times<\/em>, <em>Guardian<\/em> and <em>Times<\/em> do not. Nor do the red tops. All three headlines sit alongside photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge.<\/p>\n<p>And the response varies. The <em>Express<\/em> have written what looks like a positive piece (\u201cBigger Better Pensions For All\u201d) until you discover it has decided to present the launch of the consultation as an \u201cindustry shake-up\u201d which will \u201cspell the end of annuities\u201d. I was a little puzzled about this at first, as the consultation is not really about annuities at all, until I realised that Steve Webb had made a <a title=\"Webb comment on annuity review\" href=\"http:\/\/www.theactuary.com\/news\/2013\/11\/webb-signals-annuities-market-review\/\">speech<\/a> the previous day and mentioned the FCA review of annuities. This clearly fed into the default <em>Express<\/em> editorial line better than the actual topic of the consultation. This became clearer on page 4, with the headline \u201c&#8217;Poor value&#8217; annuity payouts are axed in pensions shake-up\u201d next to a big picture of a smiling Ros Altmann. There appears to be only one story possible in the <em>Express<\/em> on pensions, whatever the actual news event.<\/p>\n<p>The <em>Mail<\/em> does at least focus on things that are in the consultation, concentrating on the proposals to allow final salary pensions to drop some currently guaranteed elements of benefits such as indexation and spouses\u2019 pensions. \u201cThe Death Knell for Widows\u2019 Pensions\u201d is their headline, but the article beneath is fairly balanced on flexible defined benefit (DB), quoting both those highlighting the reductions to benefits the proposal would allow on the one hand, and the danger that all the remaining horses would bolt from the DB stable if changes were not made on the other.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the <em>Telegraph<\/em>. \u201cPensions face new blow from ministers\u201d is their headline. The article is similarly balanced, and is the only one to make the important point that benefits already accrued would be unaffected.<\/p>\n<p>The coverage of the alternatives put up for consultation is patchy. Strangely the <em>Express<\/em> does best here, despite its desperation to make it a story about the death of the annuity, it does mention in passing collective defined contribution (DC) and guaranteed DC. Otherwise the focus is exclusively on flexible DB in both the <em>Mail<\/em> and <em>Telegraph<\/em>, and what members currently accruing non-flexible DB might lose as a result. The comparison with public sector pensions is made several times, with the <em>Telegraph<\/em> pointing out that the recent settlement on public sector pensions, which would not be removing the requirement to provide indexation and spouses\u2019 pensions, was promised by ministers to be the last for 25 years.<\/p>\n<p>So what kind of start does this represent for engaging the UK public in the debate on the future on pension provision? Mixed, I think. There will clearly be much more scrutiny on any legislative easing to current benefit guarantees than there will be to any addition of guarantees on pensions which currently have none. Perhaps this is to be expected. I do worry that cash balance may get squashed out as an option between the two camps of flexible DB and guaranteed DC \u2013 it is barely mentioned in the consultation, and can work well when coupled with a strong commitment to employee education like Morrisons have <a title=\"Defining ambitions\" href=\"http:\/\/www.napf.co.uk\/PolicyandResearch\/DocumentLibrary\/0266_Defining_Ambition_Views_from_the_industry_on_achieving_risk_sharing.aspx\">attempted<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>But these are early days and the first thing everybody needs to do is respond to the consultation. Most pensions actuaries and many others will have strong views on many elements of it. So don\u2019t leave it to your firm to do it on your behalf. The deadline is 19 December.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Now that the Great and Good of the actuarial profession and pensions industry have launched their joint consultation with the DWP on defined ambition (DA) options, it is interesting to look at the initial response in the print media. The first thing to note is how little of it there is. The Daily Mail, Daily [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,6,25,11,13,14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-323","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-actuarial","category-defined-ambition","category-education","category-pensions","category-regulation","category-risk"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/weknow0.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/323","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/weknow0.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/weknow0.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weknow0.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weknow0.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=323"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/weknow0.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/323\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2794,"href":"https:\/\/weknow0.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/323\/revisions\/2794"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/weknow0.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=323"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weknow0.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=323"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weknow0.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=323"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}