Capita workplace pension - huge loss

Rich1976

FatFred66 said:

Personally I think that the whole pension industry has misled us. We've all assumed that our investments 'carefully selected' by 'professionals' would be looked after in the long term and moved around as appropriate.

In reality, unless (generally) we've taken an active role beyond our reasonably-expected capabilities, our hard-earned money has been left to languish in bad funds and/or sold on to companies we've never heard of, to be left to languish in bad funds, subject to the whims of some !!!!!! we'd never give the time of day to.

Nobody ever told me I need to keep a keen eye on what's happening and learn about investments. I assumed that my knowledgeable IFAs and the knowledgeable people running my 'managed' pension funds would be doing something to maximise my pension.

If somebody had mentioned that these people/companies had no actual interest in maximising my retirement pot and were more interested in their own comfortable outcomes I might have taken more interest before I hit my fifties.

Your comment about nobody told you that you had to learn and understand investments is spot on.

from what I understand, the vast majority of the UK population have absolutely zero interest in pensions or investments. Many struggle to get through the month or even have anything to save for a rainy day let alone take an interest in how to invest their pension.

since I started my first job in 1996, I have worked for various employers and not a single one offered any advice or guidance about their pension schemes. The employee was enrolled, contributions deducted off each wage slip and the pension company would send details of how to register the account online . At no point was there any meaningful guidance on how to pick a fund, or what funds are suitable.

these days there is too much choice and too many opinions. In my current employer’s pension scheme there are over 300 to select . Yes the fact sheets are online but how many people are going to spend their evening reading all that when really there is no guarantee they will choose the best fund for them .

so most people stick with the default fund which tends to be a lifestyle.

but now we are told on here and on certain YouTube channels not to use lifestyle funds. 

We are told to use global trackers but then are told they have the potential to go down 50%. Who the hell has the stomach for that!

Then we are told to use multi asset funds, so most people seem to go with Lifestrategy but are then told they are not very good or not as good as others.

then there are certain articles which say your equity element needs to be a percentage of your age deducted from 100. So as I’m 47 that means I should have 53% in shares and the rest in bonds. But then we are told that is out of date way of looking at things and the average person needs to have a fair chunk in equities to last through retirement .

I have to say I feel really sorry for the other person who created this post because they have done what they thought was the right thing , only to find it potentially wasn’t and now their retirement is potentially suffering as a result. And I’m sure there will be thousands of other people in exactly the same position who have done what they thought was the right thing and save for retirement only for the financial markets to work against them at the worst possible time.

so where does that leave the average person? How is anyone supposed to know what to do or what funds are best

Pat38493

Rich1976 said:

FatFred66 said:

Personally I think that the whole pension industry has misled us. We've all assumed that our investments 'carefully selected' by 'professionals' would be looked after in the long term and moved around as appropriate.

In reality, unless (generally) we've taken an active role beyond our reasonably-expected capabilities, our hard-earned money has been left to languish in bad funds and/or sold on to companies we've never heard of, to be left to languish in bad funds, subject to the whims of some !!!!!! we'd never give the time of day to.

Nobody ever told me I need to keep a keen eye on what's happening and learn about investments. I assumed that my knowledgeable IFAs and the knowledgeable people running my 'managed' pension funds would be doing something to maximise my pension.

If somebody had mentioned that these people/companies had no actual interest in maximising my retirement pot and were more interested in their own comfortable outcomes I might have taken more interest before I hit my fifties.

Your comment about nobody told you that you had to learn and understand investments is spot on.

from what I understand, the vast majority of the UK population have absolutely zero interest in pensions or investments. Many struggle to get through the month or even have anything to save for a rainy day let alone take an interest in how to invest their pension.

since I started my first job in 1996, I have worked for various employers and not a single one offered any advice or guidance about their pension schemes. The employee was enrolled, contributions deducted off each wage slip and the pension company would send details of how to register the account online . At no point was there any meaningful guidance on how to pick a fund, or what funds are suitable.

these days there is too much choice and too many opinions. In my current employer’s pension scheme there are over 300 to select . Yes the fact sheets are online but how many people are going to spend their evening reading all that when really there is no guarantee they will choose the best fund for them .

so most people stick with the default fund which tends to be a lifestyle.

but now we are told on here and on certain YouTube channels not to use lifestyle funds. 

We are told to use global trackers but then are told they have the potential to go down 50%. Who the hell has the stomach for that!

Then we are told to use multi asset funds, so most people seem to go with Lifestrategy but are then told they are not very good or not as good as others.

then there are certain articles which say your equity element needs to be a percentage of your age deducted from 100. So as I’m 47 that means I should have 53% in shares and the rest in bonds. But then we are told that is out of date way of looking at things and the average person needs to have a fair chunk in equities to last through retirement .

I have to say I feel really sorry for the other person who created this post because they have done what they thought was the right thing , only to find it potentially wasn’t and now their retirement is potentially suffering as a result. And I’m sure there will be thousands of other people in exactly the same position who have done what they thought was the right thing and save for retirement only for the financial markets to work against them at the worst possible time.

so where does that leave the average person? How is anyone supposed to know what to do or what funds are best

I agree with some of what you are saying here - the UK has moved towards a pension system which sets up an expectation that people will take some kind of active interest in how it's invested, and I tend to agree that there is a particular problem with lifestyling being often the default option with no attempt to educate people on the implications.

However my impression from the OPs post is that they didn't necessarily "do what was the right thing" - they effectively did nothing i.e. left the investments as they were without switching off lifestyle.  The OP implies that they were at least vaguely aware that they should do something about their pension 18 months ago, but stopped pushing it when encountering what were presumably admin steps. 

Beyond that, there is a lot of what psychologists call "hindsight bias" around the bond and gilt and interest rate changes of the last couple of yours - there are always plenty of people who pop up and say "it was obvious this was going to happen so why didn't they do something about it".  The problem is, if it was obvious, why didn't that person themselves see it coming - for sure it was obvious that interest rates would go back up and some point, but nobody knew exactly when.

All that said - I do agree that not enough is done in this country to educate people on these topics, but there is also sometimes a bit of a "lead a horse to water" about it - if as you say most people have zero interest in pensions and finance, and refuse to look into it, then either we have the wrong system, or they have brought it on themselves.

Cus

Linton said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

artyboy said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

Linton said:

thriftytracey said:

My Royal London drawdown pension has lost £3500 in three weeks.  I've already reduced drawdown to 50% of what I used to draw.  

It's all very depressing.  A few months ago it was just about staying the same value despite drawdown.  

£3500 down out of how much?  £3500 out of £50K is possibly of some concern.  £3500 out of £500K is just noise.

How much are you withdrawing?  50% could be a major hit ;eaving you in poverty, and possibly an over-reaction.  On the opther hand it could be marginal compared with your other income.

Are you invested in appropriate funds for the level of drawdown? 

If people are drawing down from Gilts they are selling at a low point and so crystalizing their losses. So in drawdown it's good to have asset classes separated out so you can choose where to draw income. Multi-asset funds aren't ideal for drawdown as you can't choose the asset class you are selling. 

I'd love to know if that was actually true though, versus gilts just having been corrected down to more realistic levels, after their abnormal growth over the last 15ish years...

There have been a couple of threads recently on this subject, and at the risk of an over simplified summary, it seemed as though no one was suggesting there would be a major bounce back from this point, more a case of 'normal returns, normal volatility'.

in which case, it's not like selling is necessarily a bad thing if you find yourself in a situation where you held bonds you never really wanted in the first place...

The low is relative to the last decade. If people bought into Gilts/bonds at higher prices and are now selling they are making a loss so doing exactly what your shouldn't. If they have the time to sit on their bond funds they should recover or they could take advantage of today's interest rates and buy an annuity.

This equity argument does not apply to bonds.  WIth equity the expectation is that after a significant fall the market will recover in the short to medium term to its "fair price" thanks to a change in sentiment.  This is not the case for safe bonds.  Bond prices are mathematically tied into interest rates. They are always at the fair price.  The falls we have seen in the past year or so are the unwinding of 40 years of steadily decreasing interet rates falling to unprecedently low values.  

 The price of a bond bought more than a small number of years ago will only recover if interest rates freturn to near to zero.  This may well not happen in your lifetime. 

In terms of overall return, all bonds are erquivalent.   The price you paid for the bond is irrelevent. An old bond on which you made a large loss is no more likely to make a strong recovery than a new one you buy today.  There is no advantage in keeping them for the future.

I assume this is your attempt at simplyfying bonds, as of course not all bonds are equal, why does a German gov bond cost more relative to an Italian gov bond where both use the ECB rate? Or market guessing long term interest rate expectations and prices and yields changing at different amounts across the yield curve even when interest rates don't move.

Rich1976

Pat38493 said:

Rich1976 said:

FatFred66 said:

Personally I think that the whole pension industry has misled us. We've all assumed that our investments 'carefully selected' by 'professionals' would be looked after in the long term and moved around as appropriate.

In reality, unless (generally) we've taken an active role beyond our reasonably-expected capabilities, our hard-earned money has been left to languish in bad funds and/or sold on to companies we've never heard of, to be left to languish in bad funds, subject to the whims of some !!!!!! we'd never give the time of day to.

Nobody ever told me I need to keep a keen eye on what's happening and learn about investments. I assumed that my knowledgeable IFAs and the knowledgeable people running my 'managed' pension funds would be doing something to maximise my pension.

If somebody had mentioned that these people/companies had no actual interest in maximising my retirement pot and were more interested in their own comfortable outcomes I might have taken more interest before I hit my fifties.

Your comment about nobody told you that you had to learn and understand investments is spot on.

from what I understand, the vast majority of the UK population have absolutely zero interest in pensions or investments. Many struggle to get through the month or even have anything to save for a rainy day let alone take an interest in how to invest their pension.

since I started my first job in 1996, I have worked for various employers and not a single one offered any advice or guidance about their pension schemes. The employee was enrolled, contributions deducted off each wage slip and the pension company would send details of how to register the account online . At no point was there any meaningful guidance on how to pick a fund, or what funds are suitable.

these days there is too much choice and too many opinions. In my current employer’s pension scheme there are over 300 to select . Yes the fact sheets are online but how many people are going to spend their evening reading all that when really there is no guarantee they will choose the best fund for them .

so most people stick with the default fund which tends to be a lifestyle.

but now we are told on here and on certain YouTube channels not to use lifestyle funds. 

We are told to use global trackers but then are told they have the potential to go down 50%. Who the hell has the stomach for that!

Then we are told to use multi asset funds, so most people seem to go with Lifestrategy but are then told they are not very good or not as good as others.

then there are certain articles which say your equity element needs to be a percentage of your age deducted from 100. So as I’m 47 that means I should have 53% in shares and the rest in bonds. But then we are told that is out of date way of looking at things and the average person needs to have a fair chunk in equities to last through retirement .

I have to say I feel really sorry for the other person who created this post because they have done what they thought was the right thing , only to find it potentially wasn’t and now their retirement is potentially suffering as a result. And I’m sure there will be thousands of other people in exactly the same position who have done what they thought was the right thing and save for retirement only for the financial markets to work against them at the worst possible time.

so where does that leave the average person? How is anyone supposed to know what to do or what funds are best

I agree with some of what you are saying here - the UK has moved towards a pension system which sets up an expectation that people will take some kind of active interest in how it's invested, and I tend to agree that there is a particular problem with lifestyling being often the default option with no attempt to educate people on the implications.

However my impression from the OPs post is that they didn't necessarily "do what was the right thing" - they effectively did nothing i.e. left the investments as they were without switching off lifestyle.  The OP implies that they were at least vaguely aware that they should do something about their pension 18 months ago, but stopped pushing it when encountering what were presumably admin steps. 

Beyond that, there is a lot of what psychologists call "hindsight bias" around the bond and gilt and interest rate changes of the last couple of yours - there are always plenty of people who pop up and say "it was obvious this was going to happen so why didn't they do something about it".  The problem is, if it was obvious, why didn't that person themselves see it coming - for sure it was obvious that interest rates would go back up and some point, but nobody knew exactly when.

All that said - I do agree that not enough is done in this country to educate people on these topics, but there is also sometimes a bit of a "lead a horse to water" about it - if as you say most people have zero interest in pensions and finance, and refuse to look into it, then either we have the wrong system, or they have brought it on themselves.

True and I don’t disagree at all.

I just think there is too much information, too much choice and too many different opinions so if someone did take an interest , which I agree everyone should then they can be bamboozled with information overload and do nothing as a result.

And also how many people realistically listen to all the financial news and even then, understand the implications of staying in bonds instead of getting out of them. I know for sure I couldn’t even begin to explain it.

Bostonerimus1

Linton said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

artyboy said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

Linton said:

thriftytracey said:

My Royal London drawdown pension has lost £3500 in three weeks.  I've already reduced drawdown to 50% of what I used to draw.  

It's all very depressing.  A few months ago it was just about staying the same value despite drawdown.  

£3500 down out of how much?  £3500 out of £50K is possibly of some concern.  £3500 out of £500K is just noise.

How much are you withdrawing?  50% could be a major hit ;eaving you in poverty, and possibly an over-reaction.  On the opther hand it could be marginal compared with your other income.

Are you invested in appropriate funds for the level of drawdown? 

If people are drawing down from Gilts they are selling at a low point and so crystalizing their losses. So in drawdown it's good to have asset classes separated out so you can choose where to draw income. Multi-asset funds aren't ideal for drawdown as you can't choose the asset class you are selling. 

I'd love to know if that was actually true though, versus gilts just having been corrected down to more realistic levels, after their abnormal growth over the last 15ish years...

There have been a couple of threads recently on this subject, and at the risk of an over simplified summary, it seemed as though no one was suggesting there would be a major bounce back from this point, more a case of 'normal returns, normal volatility'.

in which case, it's not like selling is necessarily a bad thing if you find yourself in a situation where you held bonds you never really wanted in the first place...

The low is relative to the last decade. If people bought into Gilts/bonds at higher prices and are now selling they are making a loss so doing exactly what your shouldn't. If they have the time to sit on their bond funds they should recover or they could take advantage of today's interest rates and buy an annuity.

This equity argument does not apply to bonds.  WIth equity the expectation is that after a significant fall the market will recover in the short to medium term to its "fair price" thanks to a change in sentiment.  This is not the case for safe bonds.  Bond prices are mathematically tied into interest rates. They are always at the fair price.  The falls we have seen in the past year or so are the unwinding of 40 years of steadily decreasing interet rates falling to unprecedently low values.  

 The price of a bond bought more than a small number of years ago will only recover if interest rates freturn to near to zero.  This may well not happen in your lifetime. 

In terms of overall return, all bonds are erquivalent.   The price you paid for the bond is irrelevent. An old bond on which you made a large loss is no more likely to make a strong recovery than a new one you buy today.  There is no advantage in keeping them for the future.

I had bond funds in my mind when making my comment. NAV is going to fluctuate with interest rates, but you'll also be earning more interest on newer bonds. I've never seen NAV gain as a reason to own bond funds - its the income that you want whether it is distributed or reinvested and I've always kept my bind fund average duration less than 10 years.

Pat38493

Rich1976 said:

Pat38493 said:

Rich1976 said:

FatFred66 said:

Personally I think that the whole pension industry has misled us. We've all assumed that our investments 'carefully selected' by 'professionals' would be looked after in the long term and moved around as appropriate.

In reality, unless (generally) we've taken an active role beyond our reasonably-expected capabilities, our hard-earned money has been left to languish in bad funds and/or sold on to companies we've never heard of, to be left to languish in bad funds, subject to the whims of some !!!!!! we'd never give the time of day to.

Nobody ever told me I need to keep a keen eye on what's happening and learn about investments. I assumed that my knowledgeable IFAs and the knowledgeable people running my 'managed' pension funds would be doing something to maximise my pension.

If somebody had mentioned that these people/companies had no actual interest in maximising my retirement pot and were more interested in their own comfortable outcomes I might have taken more interest before I hit my fifties.

Your comment about nobody told you that you had to learn and understand investments is spot on.

from what I understand, the vast majority of the UK population have absolutely zero interest in pensions or investments. Many struggle to get through the month or even have anything to save for a rainy day let alone take an interest in how to invest their pension.

since I started my first job in 1996, I have worked for various employers and not a single one offered any advice or guidance about their pension schemes. The employee was enrolled, contributions deducted off each wage slip and the pension company would send details of how to register the account online . At no point was there any meaningful guidance on how to pick a fund, or what funds are suitable.

these days there is too much choice and too many opinions. In my current employer’s pension scheme there are over 300 to select . Yes the fact sheets are online but how many people are going to spend their evening reading all that when really there is no guarantee they will choose the best fund for them .

so most people stick with the default fund which tends to be a lifestyle.

but now we are told on here and on certain YouTube channels not to use lifestyle funds. 

We are told to use global trackers but then are told they have the potential to go down 50%. Who the hell has the stomach for that!

Then we are told to use multi asset funds, so most people seem to go with Lifestrategy but are then told they are not very good or not as good as others.

then there are certain articles which say your equity element needs to be a percentage of your age deducted from 100. So as I’m 47 that means I should have 53% in shares and the rest in bonds. But then we are told that is out of date way of looking at things and the average person needs to have a fair chunk in equities to last through retirement .

I have to say I feel really sorry for the other person who created this post because they have done what they thought was the right thing , only to find it potentially wasn’t and now their retirement is potentially suffering as a result. And I’m sure there will be thousands of other people in exactly the same position who have done what they thought was the right thing and save for retirement only for the financial markets to work against them at the worst possible time.

so where does that leave the average person? How is anyone supposed to know what to do or what funds are best

I agree with some of what you are saying here - the UK has moved towards a pension system which sets up an expectation that people will take some kind of active interest in how it's invested, and I tend to agree that there is a particular problem with lifestyling being often the default option with no attempt to educate people on the implications.

However my impression from the OPs post is that they didn't necessarily "do what was the right thing" - they effectively did nothing i.e. left the investments as they were without switching off lifestyle.  The OP implies that they were at least vaguely aware that they should do something about their pension 18 months ago, but stopped pushing it when encountering what were presumably admin steps. 

Beyond that, there is a lot of what psychologists call "hindsight bias" around the bond and gilt and interest rate changes of the last couple of yours - there are always plenty of people who pop up and say "it was obvious this was going to happen so why didn't they do something about it".  The problem is, if it was obvious, why didn't that person themselves see it coming - for sure it was obvious that interest rates would go back up and some point, but nobody knew exactly when.

All that said - I do agree that not enough is done in this country to educate people on these topics, but there is also sometimes a bit of a "lead a horse to water" about it - if as you say most people have zero interest in pensions and finance, and refuse to look into it, then either we have the wrong system, or they have brought it on themselves.

True and I don’t disagree at all.

I just think there is too much information, too much choice and too many different opinions so if someone did take an interest , which I agree everyone should then they can be bamboozled with information overload and do nothing as a result.

And also how many people realistically listen to all the financial news and even then, understand the implications of staying in bonds instead of getting out of them. I know for sure I couldn’t even begin to explain it.

LOL - I've seen it stated by some financial experts that the worst thing you can do is listen to the financial media news as it is not their agenda to encourage you to make sensible decisions.  Their agenda is to highlight whatever terrible extremes might happen.

Linton

Cus said:

Linton said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

artyboy said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

Linton said:

thriftytracey said:

My Royal London drawdown pension has lost £3500 in three weeks.  I've already reduced drawdown to 50% of what I used to draw.  

It's all very depressing.  A few months ago it was just about staying the same value despite drawdown.  

£3500 down out of how much?  £3500 out of £50K is possibly of some concern.  £3500 out of £500K is just noise.

How much are you withdrawing?  50% could be a major hit ;eaving you in poverty, and possibly an over-reaction.  On the opther hand it could be marginal compared with your other income.

Are you invested in appropriate funds for the level of drawdown? 

If people are drawing down from Gilts they are selling at a low point and so crystalizing their losses. So in drawdown it's good to have asset classes separated out so you can choose where to draw income. Multi-asset funds aren't ideal for drawdown as you can't choose the asset class you are selling. 

I'd love to know if that was actually true though, versus gilts just having been corrected down to more realistic levels, after their abnormal growth over the last 15ish years...

There have been a couple of threads recently on this subject, and at the risk of an over simplified summary, it seemed as though no one was suggesting there would be a major bounce back from this point, more a case of 'normal returns, normal volatility'.

in which case, it's not like selling is necessarily a bad thing if you find yourself in a situation where you held bonds you never really wanted in the first place...

The low is relative to the last decade. If people bought into Gilts/bonds at higher prices and are now selling they are making a loss so doing exactly what your shouldn't. If they have the time to sit on their bond funds they should recover or they could take advantage of today's interest rates and buy an annuity.

This equity argument does not apply to bonds.  WIth equity the expectation is that after a significant fall the market will recover in the short to medium term to its "fair price" thanks to a change in sentiment.  This is not the case for safe bonds.  Bond prices are mathematically tied into interest rates. They are always at the fair price.  The falls we have seen in the past year or so are the unwinding of 40 years of steadily decreasing interet rates falling to unprecedently low values.  

 The price of a bond bought more than a small number of years ago will only recover if interest rates freturn to near to zero.  This may well not happen in your lifetime. 

In terms of overall return, all bonds are erquivalent.   The price you paid for the bond is irrelevent. An old bond on which you made a large loss is no more likely to make a strong recovery than a new one you buy today.  There is no advantage in keeping them for the future.

I assume this is your attempt at simplyfying bonds, as of course not all bonds are equal, why does a German gov bond cost more relative to an Italian gov bond where both use the ECB rate? Or market guessing long term interest rate expectations and prices and yields changing at different amounts across the yield curve even when interest rates don't move.

I am talking about gilts, yes and simplifying to make the point that selling a gilt for which you paid what is now seen as a high price does not represent crystallising a loss in the same way as may be seen with equity funds.

QrizB

Rich1976 said:

There is too much information, too much choice and too many different opinions so if someone did take an interest , which I agree everyone should then they can be bamboozled with information overload and do nothing as a result.

I'm not going to claim my experience is typical, but my employer's DC scheme came with an informative booklet. It presented four tiers of investment options.

1. Default lifestyle. Starts you at 100% equities in your 20s, tapering through 60% in your 50s and down to (IIRC) 40% at your chosen retirement date.

2. A choice of lifestyle schemes; active or passive, and intended for annuity purchase, drawdown or taking-it-all-as-cash.

3. A choice from the provider's individual funds.

4. A choice from the provider's funds, third-party funds or individual equities.

Depending on your level of knowledge, you can choose how much you want to delve into the nuts-and-bolts of your investments.

Personally I'm mainly using the third option, although I did buy £5k of individual FTSE shares (mostly to prove I could).

Pat38493

QrizB said:

Rich1976 said:

There is too much information, too much choice and too many different opinions so if someone did take an interest , which I agree everyone should then they can be bamboozled with information overload and do nothing as a result.

I'm not going to claim my experience is typical, but my employer's DC scheme came with an informative booklet. It presented four tiers of investment options.

1. Default lifestyle. Starts you at 100% equities in your 20s, tapering through 60% in your 50s and down to (IIRC) 40% at your chosen retirement date.

2. A choice of lifestyle schemes; active or passive, and intended for annuity purchase, drawdown or taking-it-all-as-cash.

3. A choice from the provider's individual funds.

4. A choice from the provider's funds, third-party funds or individual equities.

Depending on your level of knowledge, you can choose how much you want to delve into the nuts-and-bolts of your investments.

Personally I'm mainly using the third option, although I did buy £5k of individual FTSE shares (mostly to prove I could).

I suspect a lot of this stuff is mandatory and any decent employer, is going to have procedures in place that the person is physically given that leaflet or information upon joining, and in some cases will have to sign a form that they received it.

Unfortunately in life there are many people who will throw such leaflets in the bin or put them at the back of a cupboard and forget about them, and then claim later that they were not given any information - not necessarily malevolently but they may just have completely forgotten.  It's hard to distinguish between that and anyone who genuinely hasn't been given information so I guess a lot of companies have checklists and policies about this.

Rich1976

QrizB said:

Rich1976 said:

There is too much information, too much choice and too many different opinions so if someone did take an interest , which I agree everyone should then they can be bamboozled with information overload and do nothing as a result.

I'm not going to claim my experience is typical, but my employer's DC scheme came with an informative booklet. It presented four tiers of investment options.

1. Default lifestyle. Starts you at 100% equities in your 20s, tapering through 60% in your 50s and down to (IIRC) 40% at your chosen retirement date.

2. A choice of lifestyle schemes; active or passive, and intended for annuity purchase, drawdown or taking-it-all-as-cash.

3. A choice from the provider's individual funds.

4. A choice from the provider's funds, third-party funds or individual equities.

Depending on your level of knowledge, you can choose how much you want to delve into the nuts-and-bolts of your investments.

Personally I'm mainly using the third option, although I did buy £5k of individual FTSE shares (mostly to prove I could).

Yes there’s always been a booklet sent by the pension company. Detailing the lifestyle fund which everyone has been enrolled into and how it works and then several pages of various fund names and their charges.
for those that know nothing about investments , all of those funds may well have been written in Chinese and so most people would stay in the default scheme.
there has never been any guidance from any of the employers I have worked at and because they have all paid the bare minimum they are allowed to indicates the scheme is just there because they have to provide one.