NAPF Chairman: 'UK's Private Sector Pensions Are Flawed and Inefficient'

In his inaugural speech, Mark Hyde Harrison, the new Chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF), noted that defined contribution (DC) pensions in the UK are inefficient and wasteful.

(October 24, 2011) — The new National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) chairman Mark Hyde Harrison has asserted that the pension system in the UK’s private sector is ‘significantly flawed’ and will leave too many savers with measly retirement pots.

In his inaugural speech, the new chairman of the UK’s leading pensions body warned that the structure of ‘defined contribution’ (DC) pensions in the UK are inefficient and wasteful. “The current system is a mess, and what’s really worrying is that over the coming years millions of people will be brought into it,” he said in his speech. “We need a radical rethink of the way we ‘do’ pensions in the UK. If we don’t, then too many people will save into a pension only to find themselves shortchanged in their retirement.”

Hyde Harrison added: “We must move from today’s significantly flawed structure to a world of large, efficient, well-run and low cost pensions which are run in the interests of savers.”

In the UK, DC pensions have largely replaced final salary, or defined-benefit (DB), pensions in the private sector. According to the NAPF, their importance is set to balloon ahead of new government rules that will force all workers to automatically enroll into the system.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

As outlined in a release by NAPF, Hyde Harrison noted four major flaws with the current DC system in the UK:

1. DC pensions are too small scale, and too numerous. This creates massive inefficiencies and leads to higher costs, weak governance and poor administration.

2. Information about costs and charges is far too opaque. If the pensions industry was more upfront about them then charges could be driven down.

3. Savers’ interests are overlooked because employers and pension providers are not really batting for them, which can impact investment returns and the governance of a pension.

4. The average worker has too many ‘pots’ and finds it overly bureaucratic and difficult to pool them together. This can leave unwatched pensions languishing in low performing funds, or being eroded by high charges.

Looking ahead, Hyde Harrison asserted that the future of DC pensions would be strengthened by converting schemes into Super Trusts, or pensions that run immensely larger in scale. “They would allow, for example, a small employer to join an existing pension structure with 1,000s of other members, rather than setting up its own small-scale scheme,” NAPF stated in a release.

Hyde Harrison’s statements about the flawed nature of private sector pensions in the UK follow a new report on the other side of the Atlantic, which asserted that built-in economic efficiencies enable New York City public pensions to do more with less dollars. The report issued by New York City Comptroller John Liu showed that the city’s public pension plans are more cost-effective for employees compared to the private sector, with efficiencies derived from investment expertise and leverage as institutional investors.

The study showed that New York City’s pensions provide retirement income at roughly 40% lower cost than individual accounts, paying equal retirement benefits as those used in the private sector but at a significantly lower cost while enabling the city’s pensions to “do more with less dollars.”

“Defined benefit plans have enormous economic efficiencies over defined contribution plans,” said the report — titled A Better Bang for New York City’s Buck — by the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) and issued by Liu.

The report by the Washington, DC-based non-profit organization demonstrated that DB savings are derived from three sources:

1) Superior investment returns: The pooled nature of assets in a DB plan results in higher investment returns, partly based on the lower fees that stem from economies of scale, but also because the assets are professionally — not individually — managed.

2) Better management of longevity risk: New York City’s DB plans save between 10% and 13% compared to a typical DC plan.

3) Portfolio diversification: The ability to maintain portfolio diversity in the city’s DB plans saves from 4% to 5%.



To contact the <em>aiCIO</em> editor of this story: Paula Vasan at <a href='mailto:pvasan@assetinternational.com'>pvasan@assetinternational.com</a>; 646-308-2742

Court Dismisses Pension Lawsuit Against Highland Capital

Highland Capital Management, a Dallas-based investment adviser with approximately $24 billion in assets under management, has announced that a lawsuit from the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System has been dismissed.

(October 24, 2011) — A lawsuit brought against Highland Capital Management by the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System has been dismissed by a Delaware court.

“No compensation in any form has passed directly or indirectly from any of the defendants to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorneys in connection with the dismissal of this lawsuit, and no promise to give any such compensation has been made,” according to a statement released by the Dallas-based investment adviser, which manages about $24 billion. “In a past statement, Highland stated that the lawsuit was meritless and would be dismissed. The firm also stated that this action was an attempt to create financial leverage for one party’s benefit at the expense of all other investors in the Highland Crusader Fund and to derail an investor-led mediation process. That effort failed, as the investor-led process produced a plan of distribution which was approved by approximately 86% of investors.”

The $1.9 billion Houston Municipal Employees Pension System sued hedge fund operator Highland Capital Management in May, along with JPMorgan Chase, over the shut Highland CrusaderFund, which was set up to invest in distressed corporate debt. The suit, filed in Delaware Chancery court, alleged that Highland, the largest hedge fund manager in Texas, and the Crusader Fund failed to guard investors while it collapsed, freezing investor withdrawals while protecting its own hedge fund network.

The Crusader Fund “was harmed by virtue of being stuck with poor quality assets that it would not have had if the partnership had been managed in the best interests of the partnership and its limited partners,” lawyers for the pension plan said in the complaint filed in Delaware Chancery Court.

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

In a release following the dismissal of the suit, the firm stated: “Highland is pleased to put this matter behind it and continues to work in the best interest of all investors and execute the approved distribution plan for Highland Crusader Fund.”

The case number is 6510-CS in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.



To contact the <em>aiCIO</em> editor of this story: Paula Vasan at <a href='mailto:pvasan@assetinternational.com'>pvasan@assetinternational.com</a>; 646-308-2742

«