By the time this column is published, I will have filed my last ever story as a pension journalist, bringing to an end ten rewarding years of reporting on this sector in the UK and abroad.
After being on the pensions beat for around half my career, it will quite frankly feel weird not to think and write about pensions anymore.
It has been a wrench to leave but I have now embarked on a fresh reporting challenge for the FT.
Given the length of my stint on pensions, Corporate Adviser has asked me to reflect on my time in pensions and provide some thoughts on where things could be better.
The first thing to say is that it hasn’t been boring! I was fortunate to step into the job at a time of massive upheaval to the pension system.
Notable events include the implementation of the new state pension system in 2016 and the full rollout of automatic enrolment which has been transformational not just for savers but for the pensions sector. To think when I started in 2014, Nest was managing around £100mn of assets compared with around £36bn today.
On the corporate side, I also witnessed the remarkable turnaround in the fortunes of defined benefit schemes with most now happily wrestling with surpluses rather than deficits. Who could have seen this in 2014?
Among the extraordinary moments, in news terms, was Liz Truss’ disastrous mini-budget of September 2022, which triggered a crisis in the gilt markets. I recall one unbelievable moment in the newsroom where the “collapse” of pension schemes was actually being discussed as the crisis unfolded.
By far, the “stand out” reporting moment had to be the 2014 Budget when George Osborne, then Chancellor, made the shock pension freedom announcement. This was a genuine “WTF” moment in the office, and right across the industry. The repercussions of this rushed reform will not likely be fully known for decades to come.
It was a riveting time to be a pension journalist, but there were also times when this job made me angry and tearful. One of those occasions was the British Steel Pension Scheme mis-selling scandal where thousands of steelworkers were wrongly advised to shift out of guaranteed pensions, into risky and unsuitable personal pensions.
I shall never forget the look of shock on the face of one BSPS member when he was told that he’d been hoodwinked out of his guaranteed pension by a rogue IFA, who was still registered on the FCA’s website. He was totally let down not only by individuals but a system that had enabled rogue actors to prey upon the financially vulnerable.
There have been other times when I have been riled by the behaviour of some sections of the industry which resulted in substantial detriment to savers. One clear case was annuity misselling, where household name providers were pushing unsuitable or lower-value annuity products onto unwitting customers. This was a shameful episode for the industry and I am yet to see full evidence of a market that can fully and wholly treat customers fairly.
I leave at a time of more momentous change and challenge for the industry and savers.
One of the biggest themes in coming years will be how far Labour will be prepared to go to unlock private pension cash to meet its political objectives.
The rise of so-called pension nationalism is taking place all over the world, with pension funds in countries such as Australia and Canada also under political pressure to support the home economy, and not just their members.
I believe this push is introducing a new level of risk to savers who are relying on not only pension managers but regulators, to ensure their interests are protected. Political pressure will undoubtedly put fiduciary duties under severe strain.
In an era where economic growth is a key priority, pension professionals must not forget that behind every retirement account is an individual trusting them to deliver a decent pension. Included in this sphere of trust are not only trustees but administrators, fund managers, regulators and policymakers.
The impact of a mediocre investment, weighed down by complex and expensive, opaque charges, might not be immediately apparent to an investor, but will be felt at retirement.
There are many good people in this industry who are prepared to challenge governments, systems or even narratives that expose savers to risk or detriment. But there could always be more voices.
My departing appeal to the industry, in a time where political pressures abound, is to find your voice and keep savers at the heart of what you do.
