10% if starting at 20, 15% at 30, etc. - still applicable?

dunstonh

Ah, I was talking about stories like this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...new-rules.html (of which I've read many).

You have misinterpreted what it has said and a lot of the media have overplayed what is a routine thing that has been done. That article in particular is a total disgrace. The headline doesnt reflect anything that is happening and its just made up.

Periodically, the regulator reviews the example projection rates used on all types of investments (all tax wrappers, not just pensions). It then decides whether the example rates should change or not. This was just a routine review of rates and the FSA decided the example rates should be lower than they currently are. Indeed, the proposed rates are actually probably too low but the view is to be better safe than sorry (I say too low because the last 10 years have been a very bad investment decade. Yet the most common investment fund type used over that period has matched the current mid projection rate and would have outperformed the proposed mid projection rate).

You need to be aware that the media loves to scaremonger and frequently gets the facts wrong and when it comes to pensions, the reporting seems to to get even worse. They love to scaremonger about pensions.

How else could you turn a story about the regulator doing a routine review about example projection rates and deciding to use lower rates on examples into "Pension pots to plunge under new rules"