BBC4 Programme on pensions

slowpoke_rodriguez

One Sunday evening, a couple of years ago, I think, there was a programme on Radio 4 about pensions, and how the public sector is paying over the odds for their fund management. Maybe Peter Day, maybe not, but one of those programmes Auntie does so well.
Can anyone suggest which programme series this might have been?
I'm stumped.
Ta.

sandsy

Was it not Panorama on BBC1 - some details here:

http://www.international-adviser.com/news/1000904/bbc-investigates-pension-charges

FatherAbraham

slowpoke_rodriguez wrote: »

One Sunday evening, a couple of years ago, I think, there was a programme on Radio 4 about pensions, and how the public sector is paying over the odds for their fund management. Maybe Peter Day, maybe not, but one of those programmes Auntie does so well.
Can anyone suggest which programme series this might have been?
I'm stumped.
Ta.

Surely any overpayment for fund management (note that many public-sector pension schemes are not even funded in the first place, so there are no funds to manage) pales into insignificance, compared to the massive overpayment the public sector is making to its staff, once promised retirement bennies are taken into account?

Warmest regards,
FA

AlanP_2

FatherAbraham wrote: »

Surely any overpayment for fund management (note that many public-sector pension schemes are not even funded in the first place, so there are no funds to manage) pales into insignificance, compared to the massive overpayment the public sector is making to its staff, once promised retirement bennies are taken into account?

Warmest regards,
FA

That's a philosophical / political point of view, overpaying for Fund Management is a practical consideration in terms of "managing" the costs of what is legally, in place .

The LGPS is a funded scheme and has investments and so there are fund management costs. If they can be reduced then there is a benefit to not just the LGPS members but wider society surely as the contributions each participating organisation pays would be reduced.

kidmugsy

This sounds like an everyday story of local government incompetence. Hands up everyone who is astonished.

FatherAbraham

AlanP wrote: »

The LGPS is a funded scheme and has investments and so there are fund management costs. If they can be reduced then there is a benefit to not just the LGPS members but wider society surely as the contributions each participating organisation pays would be reduced.

What possible benefits to the members of LGPS are there if fund management costs are reduced? LGPS members have defined benefits, and therefore no material interest whatsoever in the costs of providing those benefits.

AlanP wrote: »

That's a philosophical / political point of view, overpaying for Fund Management is a practical consideration in terms of "managing" the costs of what is legally, in place.

I assure you, overpaying for labour is as much a practical consideration as overpaying for investment-management services.

However, the impact of overpaying for labour dwarfs the cost of overpaying for fund management by several orders of magnitude.

Warmest regards,
FA

BLB53

Possibly this?
A Pensions PatchworkIn Canada, everything is big - including powerful pension funds such as the Ontario Teachers fund which owns half of Birmingham airport and other large projects around the world. It's all a far cry from the British pension scene, where a hundred local government pension funds each run their own affairs separately and pay costly fees to City firms for investment advice. Many of them still have financial deficits. Taxpayers have been forced to pick up bills to pay off those shortfalls and already hard-pressed local services have been stretched further. Lesley Curwen investigates how these individual funds are run and asks whether we should have larger funds with cheaper costs - like Canada does. And she asks whether more councils should be using pension money to invest in housing and infrastructure as a way to boost their local economies?

westv

I've never been a believer in the "I don't have it so no neither should you" school of thought.

Andy_L

FatherAbraham wrote: »

What possible benefits to the members of LGPS are there if fund management costs are reduced? LGPS members have defined benefits, and therefore no material interest whatsoever in the costs of providing those benefits.

If the new version of the LGPS is like the other public sector schemes it will have a cap on employers contributions beyond which employees contributions go up. Thus they have a potential interest in keeping the costs down to avoid that happening

System

Hi

To cover some of points mentioned....

AFAIK the LGPS is now grouping up and several Admin authorities are pooling the costs of management, meaning a lower cost to all.

#################
Not that it matters, but most of what follows is true...

I sat in on a 'discussion' with some fund managers a few years ago, private sector. One had agreed to pay a 'bonus' if the fund manager outperformed the index. They did, and claimed their bonus.
The index was at about -5% (minus 5) and the fund managers only lost about 3% of the fund. So they outperformed by more than 1.5%, earned their bonus from a fund that now had less money then when the year started, and they were not happy bunnies.

Another had quite a lot (700 million plus if I remember accurately) in giltish form and they were returning zilch, the sale of this asset would have cost the pension fund tens of millions.
So they just sat there waiting for an upturn.
##################

The infrastructure point, is that Central Government told the LGPS to invest in infrastructure to get the economy moving, even if it was a bad move. It would have been, but some LGPS money is now going into infrastructure, as it suits the funds and not to suit Westminster.

##########

The LGPS have 3 revenue streams, EE (EmployeE), ER (EmployeR) and IR (Investment Return).

The IR is an offset to reduce to ER rates, EG: 18.9% reduced to 17.2%, which benefits EE's et al by a lower council tax, and YES there are still funds not recovered from the thatcher poll tax years of the 80's.

#########

Of course when you criticise the LGPS you are also criticising the Private sector, as that is where the funds are invested, with the exception of the haggling ability of the pensions boards who are likely 'lay persons', elected councillors who are fast tracked by the likes of Hymans Robertson, Mercer, Barnett Waddingham and other actuaries.

+++++++++++

Yes I do feel the need to defend my pension provider.

AlanP_2

FatherAbraham wrote: »

What possible benefits to the members of LGPS are there if fund management costs are reduced? LGPS members have defined benefits, and therefore no material interest whatsoever in the costs of providing those benefits.



I assure you, overpaying for labour is as much a practical consideration as overpaying for investment-management services.

However, the impact of overpaying for labour dwarfs the cost of overpaying for fund management by several orders of magnitude.

Warmest regards,
FA

Sorry, by members I meant the organisations not the individual employees - bad choice of phrase.

Not sure how you made the transition to "paying for labour" but I guess you are talking about the "value" of the whole package.

For myself, even if I assume my LGPS is worth 40% of my salary, I am being paid less for my labour now than I was in the private sector 8/9 years ago but the location and the fact that I don't have to work away from home makes that worthwhile for me.

If you really believe that ALL local council staff are overpaid for their labour pleas explain why we can't recruit Home Care Workers on £8.39 per hour plus benefits e.g. pension?