NOW OPEN: the MSE Forum 'Ask An Expert' event. This time we'd like your questions on TRAVEL & HOLIDAY DEALS. Post by Wed and deals expert MSE Oli will answer as many as he can.
MSE News: Pensions should offer insurance, minister says

2.4K Posts
"Workers should be able to protect their pensions by insuring savings against stock market falls, a minister suggests..."
0
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Replies
Can't find the report I was thinking of, but here's one which is similar...
http://www.thersa.org/about-us/media/press-releases/going-dutch-how-to-double-the-value-of-british-pensions
That report was later shown to be very flawed. It was basically comparing apples with oranges.
Solution: Tag the cost of an insurance premium onto pension funds so that they have less capacity to not be crap.
Try harder.
They are also fielding the idea that pensioners pay NI contributions on top of everything else :mad:
Not Buying it 2015!
people would be encouraged to take out the insurance. But the premiums would wipe out much of the gains that the pension fund would have made, leaving people worse off.
If it breaks, well it wasn't working right anyway.
Better financial investigation is a more sensible approach.
This insurance approach will be of value for those who don't understand how investments work and who don't want to learn or accept it. Shame that it'll make them poorer than they could otherwise be.
The insurance approach could also be useful in the years prior to retirement for those who plan to buy an annuity, if they can transfer into a protected set of funds gradually in the years prior to an annuity purchase.
So it's potentially a nice niche product for some groups for some of the time, even though it'd make most sensible people poorer for most of the time if they used it long term.
I have no faith in the industry to innovate for the benefit of their customers. I only contribute to my pension as it is final salary, I would not bother if this was not the case.
Guaranteed returns on your investment, where have I heard that one before. Some idiot is going to put it under FSA supervision, so the government will have to pay compensation when it goes bad.
Print more money to pay the compensation, gov?
I'll have to buy some of them special paper first, couldn't lend us a hundred thousand first, could you?
1. Derivatives products like those that have been backed by banks which failed, causing them not to pay out.
2. Exploiting the fact that most people will not draw on their pots at the same time, so that the total payout is low compared to the total amount invested, so allowing some risk-based investments like shares and corporate bonds to be used.
3. Putting the money into cash or near-cash, which makes it an unsuitable investment option for long term retirement income planning.
The second perhaps combined with a little of the first seems most likely. If it's the first, look for clauses that fully expose people to losses if a stock market index drops by more than 50%. That's the sort of drop where the protection would be really needed and where the payout to provide it in extremely unlikely drops of 80%+ could become very substantial.