Name something that takes a long time to dry after it gets wet. Clothes is not an answer,be more specific. Name something you might see in a High School shop class. Tools is not an answer,be more specific. But there is no evidence that he did. If I am learning about how managers are employed, I can be expected to be pulled up and corrected by good people like Al and Matthew, I learn from being corrected and I hope that those who read my blogs learn from my mistakes too. What is a bad thing is that many investors are being mucked about and losing considerable amounts of money to the short-sellers because of the collapse in confidence in Neil Woodford and for that — I have to hold those who employed him partially responsible.
If we award managers mandates as long-term investors and sack them when the going gets tough, there have to be good reasons and so far we have not seen those good reasons from SJP. As a result, the return for SJP clients has been The FCA clearly want to look deeper into this and they are right to do so. We need to have confidence not just in the managers, but in those who employ them.
What is clear from learning about SJP , is that it is they, not their advisers or their clients — who call the shots. If Woodford only managed to his mandate, the buck stops with the FCA,. There are many other versions of this argument — it used to be done with packets of fags and NEST are trying it with their sidecar. Even if they do, the last thing youngsters would admire in a baby boomer was his or her pension.
There are literally hundreds of tweets on my timeline arguing about cappuccino pensions. What a waste of time — when that time could be spent on getting a better futures. Spending on a better future begs the question — spending on what? By a strange coincidence, I am doing three presentations today , which will all incorporate this message. In all three talks I plan to focus on spending not saving and on making use of assets like pension pots and houses and work income to spend on a better future. We live on borrowed time, our lease of life expires not when we choose but when we are chosen.
Many young people are renting and have no plan to buy, they own less and less, subscribe to more and more. Ownership is not even an aspiration for many millennials. For younger people, the future seems out of their hands and they are determined to take control. We see this in their determination to reduce emissions and decelerate global warming.
And if we ask people about their savings , they want to know where their money is invested and to take control of investment decisions. Once more — watch this video. Our time would be better spent showing people how their savings are invested and giving them the chance to make positive decisions on how their money is spent. I mean by spent — invested, but people need to understand what is happening to their money after it leaves their bank account, their payslip — even their bricks and mortar. Giving people a clear picture of what happens to their money is critical to keeping their interest.
Instead of issuing people with annual statements full of financial jargon and compliance warnings, we could be reporting on how money has been spent. The only fund manager I have known who does this is Terry Smith — and look how successful Fundsmith is. And of course, when we have turned savers into spenders and spenders into stewards, we have changed the nature of saving for the better. This blog challenges the conventional view of pensions as wealth and replaces it with a view of pensions as a way of paying the rent. This is the new reality for many youngsters.
We should stop confusing the need to pay the rent with ownership, stop suggesting that we can dive into our pension savings to put down deposits on houses. We need pensions to pay the rent — not to amass housing equity,. We need to stop thinking of pensions as a means of becoming wealthy and start thinking about our responsibility to each other not to become a burden in later age.
Investing in our retirements should be a deeply satisfying — socially responsible behaviour. Appealing to the responsible instincts of young people is much more likely to win their hearts than appealing to their greed. We need instead to get people using the collective power of our pension pots to do good things. This starts one person at a time. I hope to meet some of you during the day! The greatest current threat to motor manufacturers is that people no longer want to drive. The second biggest threat is that people no longer want to own a car.
The value of owning a record collection, of philately , of wine cellars — all seem to have dropped. People who I talk to who are under 35 no longer value themselves in terms of what they own. I suspect that we are returning to a different set of values that may be rather less materialistic and dare I say it more spiritual. I suspect that houses are also way down on value. Owning property is certainly not a priority for my son who was bullied into getting a driving licence but who has never used it — other than as identification.
Will the equity on which so many of us rely for financial security prove illusory? A house is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it and as we age, there is a very real chance that ownership rates amongst older people will fall. The lack of income arising from pensions will inevitably place greater reliance on equity release and the lifetime mortgages which pass property from self ownership to the ownership of lenders.
There is only one way for millennials and that is to take control. Historically that has been through securing ownership of cars, houses and possessions. Instead of owning, millennials are investing heavily in themselves. They are taking jobs that are interesting and rewarding in themselves, not just a means to get a mortgage.
They are buying into training and taking an inordinate interest in their personal finances. The motor industry is first to feel the wave of change. The shift towards car- leasing or in the most extreme — Zip car — is illustrative of a new way of dealing with ownership — that moves from the balance sheet to profit and loss.
Kids no longer want a balance sheet weighed down by personal possessions which they see as liabilities as much as assets. We must recognise it is not the valuation of an asset that is most important to a young person but its utility under ownership. If you start valuing your money by what it is doing , then your interest is in the investment itself — what it does — not what other people will pay for it. There seem to me to be two competing views of pensions. Those who see pensions as part of wealth are owners. Those who see pensions as a means of doing things, are renters.
We do not of course own ourselves freehold, our lives are on leases which expire when we do. Younger people do not even take for granted ownership of the planet which they see as under existential threat, they may possess a blighted planet when their parents are gone. This sense of possession rather than ownership could mean a reversion to a view of a pension as something that does something rather than as a balance sheet item. But that is likely to change over generations.
The question for pension providers today is how to ride both horses in mid-stream. Is Trinity College better off out…..
Laura E Simms
The Pension Play Pen meets as it has met the first business Monday of the month for the past 10 years. We will this week be downstairs at the back not upstairs in the Counting House and we will be meeting at 12pm, eating at My argument was that some of the best retirement income ideas and one of our best brokers are unknown. I appreciate that fixed term annuities carry certain risks which are advertised in the link to the MAS guide which you can follow here.
If anyone thinks that annuity rates will go down , they can lock into lifetime annuities today. They would do well to use the open market option offered by Retirement Line and to make sure they get any enhancements available to them. Research from Aon and from Tilney BestInvest suggests that annuities remain the best way for many people to turn their pension pot into a pension income.
My blog is a series of adverts. Some of these earn me money AgeWage, First Actuarial some lose me money Pension PlayPen and the remainder are advertised out of my conviction. People want conviction. If along the way, my conviction gets in the way of your business model then so be it. We are unlikely to work together! If my blog did not have the courage of my conviction, no one would read it. I will continue to promote ideas and businesses that I support and Retirement Line is a business I support.
I may well speak with them about my pension pot if I cannot see a way to exchanging it for a CDC pension. If you feel I have been disingenuous, as Brian Gannon did, then you can say so in the comments on my blog. At the moment, advisers can make a good living out of it with relatively little challenge. It is not a particularly competitive market and the FCA knows it. CDC and Annuities have the potential to challenge advised drawdown and the margins it is paying fund managers, platform providers and advisors.
Retirement Line tell me they refer many inquiries on to advisers for help on drawdown , equity release and other advised products.
I have been impressed by the way academics , through their unions, took on university employers and the received wisdom of the pension industry and refused to let their defined benefit scheme close to future accrual. Congratulations to Jo Grady. As her twitter header reminds us, the USS dispute has asked fundamental questions not just about pensions but about affordability and groupthink..
Pension Schemes do not have to behave as if they were insurance companies, unlike insurance companies , they can call upon a sponsor — in the case of USS a sponsor with a history going back years. One of the sadnesses of the University dispute over pensions was that it broke the mutual bonds between trustees, employers and members. Since the dispute we learn that one of the Trustees — Professor Hutton — had to whistleblow to get information from the scheme which she feels would have allowed her to push back against the reckless conservatism of scheme funding.
Now we learn that one employer, Trinity College Cambridge, is seeking to break from USS because it feels too tied by the obligations of mutuality. This too is very sad. The capacity for risk, that is inherent in our university system, depends on established institutions such as Trinity, enabling new risk-takers to come through. If we lose the solidarity of the pension consensus, we lose much else besides.
This may work for the PPF — where there is no economic interest in disconnected employer paying levies — but it does not work for the USS, where the bond between employer and staff is to a high degree — through the pension scheme.
Sam Marsh and Jane Hutton
The principal of deferred pay assumes just that — ongoing employer contributions to USS. Indeed there is much to be gained by reintroducing the concept of risk-sharing into pensions — rather than dumping all risk on individuals. Universities are able to pursue greater outreach by their entrepreneurial activities — including funding many start-ups that are going on to drive our long-term economic growth. Whether in science, the arts , engineering or economics, we rely on our academics to drive progressive thinking — to be a force for good and to encourage risk-taking.
Without risk taking, the great experiments on which our society is built, would not have happened. We need to pay our thought leaders to lead and we do not have to make them the CIOs of their self-invested personal pensions. University academics are no more ready to manage their later life finances than postmen. They are built for better things. They undoubtedly could run their own pensions but choose not to. They realise they are better off together. There are some who argue that their business is their pension, they are taking a great risk relying on their entrepreneurial activities to fund their later life.
They are entitled to take that risk — but I am not with them. I use my endeavours as a businessman to create for myself an income for life and I know that when I have achieved what I want to do with AgeWage, I will be able to move on to a different kind of living — I will call it retirement. Whether I ever get to the point where I fully retire- I doubt — when my father gave up work — he gave up the ghost and I may be like him. I am also grateful for the work and pay I get from First Actuarial including their pension contributions.
To a great degree, the USS are not just struggling for academic staff but for us all. We want to be free — free of financial worries in retirement — for most of us that means having a properly funded pension. Jo Grady and others are holding the red-line for their scheme and raising the bar for the rest of us,. For most of us , the idea that we are buying into a platform when we save into a pension is counter intuitive.
I remember at Port Talbot, watching the eyes of steel men glaze over as advisers talked to them of the merits of the various platforms they were being offered — platforms mean different things to different people but if you work in a steelworks — it has a particular meaning which does not translate into money matters. Clive Waller has been dubbed Mr Platform as John Moret is called Mr Sipp , both get their names from understanding early in their gestation, that the Self invested personal pension and the platforms they provide, could radically redefine the retail financial services market.
Now a few other entrepreneurs have followed and there are rival platforms to Transact — Novia, Nucleus, Cofunds, AJ Bell and a few insurers who have bought into the technology. Platforms are immensely powerful making their founding entrepreneurs every rich. Add to that list a Kiwi — Adrian Durham — who brought FNZ to these shores and you get a reasonably complete picture of the platforms that IFAs use to make a living and build embedded value in their businesses. Platforms may not have changed the world but they have changed the dynamics of the funds industry.
Mobius won the award, a company that most people have never heard of.
- Review of Ukrainian Politics in 2007.
- How to Dress For your Shape - Petite Body Type.
- Millionaire Playpen by Laura E Simms | .
- More titles to consider.
- Come Home: A Call Back to Faith?
- EL CRECIMIENTO DE LA IGLESIA (Spanish Edition)?
- SLUT WIFE SEX (Five Hardcore Slutty Wife Erotica Stories).
Mobius is allowing institutional advisors to offer vertically integrated products to their clients and to benefit from those products precisely as the retail platforms did. The difference is that rather than being a pure funds platform, Mobius is an insurance platform and the funds it offers come wrapped reinsured by Mobius and have to obey the permitted links rules pertaining to insurance companies. These rules prevent the insurer offering inappropriate investments to its policyholders.
Permitted links are currently under review by the FCA. The issues are to do with illiquidity, particularly the illiquidity of property and other forms of infrastructure investment. Institutional platforms like Mobius have not been able to be as racy as their retail cousins because they use reinsurance wrappers which require them to abide by permitted links regulations.
Meanwhile the non- insured institutional platforms offered by custodian banks, have failed to pick up on the prevailing trend toward vertical integration and have missed the boat. Allowing advisers to shove rubbish into your SIPP and on to your platform is a risky business.
This has led to many funds and vertically integrated funds of funds appearing on reputable platforms , going belly up and leaving the platform, the SIPP and the adviser with a lot of explaining to do. Typically the adviser walks away and either sets up abroad or phoenixes into another entity in the UK leaving the SIPP manager and the platform holding the baby. It is extremely difficult to recover the money that is lost from a fund failure and often the cost of recovery wipes out any gain to the investor from the recovery process.
Permitted links may have saved insurance platforms from the agonies that retail SIPPs and platforms are waking up to. In different ways , these two organisations have redefined the way that retail platforms can operate successfully. To follow the conceit, their boat had pretty exclusive passenger lists and their crews make sure that those who are onboard are well vetted. Both models are highly popular, both companies have high levels of confidence among their customers, but their boats depend on exclusivity.
I sense when talking to regulators , that they would like to see the kind of model that works for Hargreaves, SJP and for the wealth managers who use platforms responsibly, available to everyone. We are beginning to see mass market products emerging. Surprisingly — the workplace pensions have yet to realise their position as mass market pension providers and are failing to build the level of trust and engagement that the Pension Bee-keepers are creating with their SIPP- holders. The large insurers are generally caught between offering a direct service or relying on advisers.
Some — such as Royal London, have decided to work with advisers exclusively, others -such as Quilter — are looking to follow the route pioneered by Allied Dunbar and now operated by SJP, the adviser platform. Retail pension products remain anything but pension providers. I remain obdurately of the opinion that the boat for all is a boat that treats everyone as one and offers benefits collectively through some form or other of CDC.
I think that the trust based pension structures — the master-trusts — are ideally suited to using the technology of platforms to deliver a simple one size fits all collective pension which still allows people the option to opt out into the flexibilities of SIPP platforms. Indeed — the ongoing dynamic for pensions may be between a choice between the simplicity of a wage for life and the complexity of the DIY SIPP.
We need platforms, tax wrappers, advisers and regulators that recognise that customers need the choice not just of SIPPs but of not having to take any choice at all.
- Initial - Histoire du XXe siècle tome 3 : De 1973 à nos jours, éd. 2005 (French Edition).
- Official Updates!
- Reward Yourself?
- Defeat Divorce In Your Marriage (Kats Recipes For Life Book 4).
CDC offers that other choice,. If you want to invest in Dolphin Trust , you can still do so by following the link behind the advertisement above. I know who these salesmen are, some are in my Pension Play Pen linked in group and one or two are actually connected to me on linked in. They are integrated into the financial advisory community but they are not regulated.
The problem is there are no recent accounts. Explaining how secure Dolphin is to investors. It includes at minute 6 a detailed explanation of the exit strategy. Angie has been campaigning about the risks of investing in Dolphin now German Property Group for some time. The board of directors have published the below report and are investigating how this fund came to be mostly invested in one asset: Dolphin property development loans.
Dalriada stated a year ago that Dolphin was not a suitable investment for a pension scheme and yet the investment manager of Trafalgar has invested most of the fund in Dolphin. The unlicensed adviser to the victims was also the investment manager of the Trafalgar fund. The advisory firm, Global Partners Limited — which then changed its name to The Pension Reporter — was an agent of a firm called Joseph Oliver and was not licensed to give pension or investment advice.
It seems that certain vulnerable people are condemned to suffer scams such as Dolphin because no-one is prepared to shut down firms like Dolphin and stop the salesmen selling this rubbish from doing so. Dolphin Trust is not new news, but the You and Yours expose makes doing something about the sales ecosystem that still exists in the UK , that much more possible.
Andrew is now at Fortuna Wealth Management having left Active behind him. Darren Reynolds has not been heard of since trying to explain the charges on the pension solution he sold to those transferring out of BSPS. I will say it again, as Baroness Altmann said on You and Yours. That means just about everyone mentioned in this blog though I exclude Ros, Angie and the presenters of You and yours! The Facebook page that members of the new BSPS use to talk with each other , post her article to clarify the position for pensioners and deferred members of the scheme.
As ever, it is Stefan Zait who provides the information. Such articles keep the lead generators stay away from these sites. With the jobs come pensions , not the defined benefit accrual of yesteryear but a healthy contribution into a Legal and General workplace pension that covers the staff in the Teeside and Scunthorpe plants. It is a good plan with very low charges and a high contribution rate relative to auto-enrolment minima. It is in the nature of modern pension policy that the minimum viable product is set at the bare bones auto-enrolment rate.
The business of private equity firms such as Greybull is to reduce costs, part of the attraction of British Steel to them was that it came without the long-tail pension liabilities that stayed with Tata. The sorrow is that even with their pension-lite staff liabilities Greybull has not been able to turn British Steel into a viable business. As with Monarch Airlines , Comet and Ryland Snooker Halls all funded by Greybull Capital the debt that has been pumped into British Steel has been created by the Greybull management and it looks very likely that that debt will be the first credit in line , if British Steel crashes.
There is currently protection for defined benefit promises through the PPF, but there is no protection to employees for the loss of future defined contributions into workplace pensions. The implied contract between employer and staff to meet pension contributions lasts only as long as the employer chooses to fund both salary and pension. While the funds which have been built up to date are safe, the future pensions that they buy are now under threat as the jobs that fund the pensions are axed.
It would seem that at British Steel, the future of the British Steel workplace pension is so small a matter as to not be mentioned in any article I have read on the impending closure. But the workplace pension does matter, it comes with the job and the funding of the workplace pension reflects the importance historically that pensions played to steel workers. If you are a British Steel worker, you will probably not be thinking about your workplace pension right now. But your rights to future contributions into your workplace pension are under threat and those rights are part of your remuneration package.
While the eyes of the world have been on the defined benefits within BSPS, you have been building up a personal pension with Legal and General which supplements your state pensions and any DB rights you have. I wrote at the beginning of last year that both Tata and Greybull have under-promoted their workplace pensions and you can see why. They did not want these workplace pensions connected in any way with BSPS transfers. Where was the protection for staff interests from the employers? Why did the plan providers stand back and where were the Regulators?
Who was protecting your BSPS pension then and who is protecting your workplace pension now? You deserve protection and so do your pension contributions. But a pension is a pension and who is fighting for you and your workplace pension? This is good news. The pressure on the FCA to ban contingent charging for pension advice must continue. Because it opens the door on wider issues which I will explore in this blog.
Field is urging the FCA to look at compromise solutions, I agree. There are people who need help on DB pensions who cannot afford that help and there may be ways to accomodate these special needs into a framework that stopped the use of contingent charging in the generality.
The FCA has confirmed to me that it has not analysed what adviser fee models were used where it found cases of unsuitable pension transfer advice. What is holding the FCA back? Take the lid off the contingent charge powder keg and any spark will ignite not just pension transfers but the wider issues arising from vertical integration.
There is a conflict of interest between the needs of wealth managers wealth to manage and the work of financial planners protection against living too long, dying too soon or losing an income. Since the big bucks are in wealth management, financial planners including those offering financial well-being in the workplace are becoming little more than lead generators for wealth managers. If every solution to the financial planning involves using an allied wealth management solution, it is not hard to see how financial advice gets distorted.
They also liberate the wealth stored in DB plans for the benefit of wealth managers. It is hardly surprising that the contingent charging model was created and deployed by Tideway, a wealth manager. For Tideway, DB transfers are the basis of the wealth management business. Much the same can be said of St James Place and Quilter. Take away contingent charging and the whole funds eco-system is starved of the oxygen of new business. The wealth management lobby is a powerful one.
The Treasury has to balance the books. The impact of pension transfers in the short term is to bring forward revenues for the Treasury at the expense of the long term financial futures of ordinary people who otherwise would have had a defined benefit pension scheme. The wealth management industry, including advisers, platform managers, fund managers, asset managers and the host of those who charge to the funds, is what the UK financial services industry is. It needs constant feeding and the best source of its nutrition is the trillions locked up in occupational pension schemes especially the DB ones.
If we are to break this cycle of conflicted lead generation , we will have to take on the demands of wealth management and create an effective lobby for collective pension provision. DB pension plans are an effective way of delivering a wage for life. They are unaffordable to some employers and so we need to look at other ways to deliver effective pension planning.
CDC is one other way. De-risking DB plans by promoting DB transfers — as happened in through the irresponsible behaviour not just of advisers, but of trustees, journalists and through the absence of action regulators — is not a good way to deliver pension outcomes.
Though transfers are less common today, it is not because of a change of sentiment among wealth managers, it is because the cost for their lead generators has risen due to PI premiums. Many Pension Transfer Specialists can no longer generate leads for their wealth managers because of the cost of Professional Indemnity Insurance. The FCA belatedly are looking into advisory practices and I would be very surprised if any of the 30 firms that they are investigating conducted transfers using upfront fees.
Sadly, for those who have paid for poor advice out of their funds, the findings of this review may prove too little too late. For those advisers who have not been caught up in the contagion of conflicts, there is little to feel good about. They will have to pay higher fees to fund compensation through FSCS and the reputation of their good work will be tarnished. Contingent charging should be banned and the murky world where wealth managers use financial planners as lead generators should be investigated. Above all we must promote the power of collective pension schemes to deliver good outcomes to ordinary people and stop pretending that liberating these pensions into wealth management solutions is the answer for ordinary people.
As I write, that gives readers a week to invest. John, as a private individual is responsible for nearly one third of the money we have raised in this round. He manages my pension and many billions of investments for people like me who invest in Legal and General Multi-Asset funds.
But I am under no illusion, turning a good idea into a minimum viable product that can influence people to take better pension decisions is a major undertaking in itself. The first thing to do is to build around us founders, a group of talented diverse people who share our entrepreneurial zeal.
Thanks to the success of the round, I have found several high calibre people who will be working at AgeWage. We have moved from camping out on the sofas of the 7th floor of WeWorks in Moorgate to our own office. That POC is simple, to demonstrate we can produce accurate scores from bulk data and to prove that those scores positively engage people with their pensions. There is much more beyond the MVP.
We want to help people take action to bring pensions together , to invest more responsibly and ultimately to turn pots to wages in older age. We will also be seeking every penny worth of grants available in the UK and still from Europe. We would rather not lean on our shareholders for further development, though a further round of funding will follow later in the year as we build our digital support service through phone and web apps. Next week, as part of our POC we will be opening our doors to investors who want their pots analysed for value for money.
If you would like to share your pension details with us, then we will issue data access requests to your providers so we can compare your investment value NAV with what you would have got if you had contributed to the AgeWage index. We will give you scores. I look forward to the next few months as a time to do rather than talk. For years I have heard my friends and colleagues moan about the lack of support for people as they save and spend their pension pots.
Thanks to our investors, big and small, AgeWage is in a position to work with Royal London and many other pension providers to improve engagement, decision making and ultimately the age wages of millions of people. If you are not yet an investor, here again is the link- if you are and you want to top up, the link is still open to you. So what do we think? Thank goodness there is still a place in the City where we can discuss serious issues in a relaxed and harmonious way!
These lunches happen the first business Monday of the month, May was odd in that the lunch fell on the 13th. Lunches are advertised on social media and they always happen in the partners room at the back of the Counting House pub in Cornhill. You can download the paper from this link , but to give you a flavour, here is how it starts. If DC is meant to be a retirement system, then it should provide income that supports participants throughout retirement.
However, retirement systems do not come into existence fully formed; they begin with fairly simple design features and evolve over time. In its earliest days, the DC system was a savings or accumulation system, primarily a supplement to the defined benefit system. Managing the payout phase was not a priority. Several decades on, the system has matured. The absence of this feature cannot be overlooked any longer. The paper comes to the same conclusion — that only through pooling can this be done. Oddly the paper does not discuss pooling longevity risk in the way collective DC does it.
Instead it discusses three ways to help individuals take the complex decisions needed to turn a pension pot into a wage in retirement. In summary, demand for lifetime income solutions has been anaemic in the past. It could be strengthened through a more explicit focus on longevity tail insurance, through thoughtful choice architecture, and through the application of new technologies. WTW do have a product that they have built that could deliver much of what is missing in DC and annuities could do the rest. If it has — it has kept it pretty quiet.
The fact is that most master trusts have been built around the needs of employers to stage auto-enrolment or to consolidate failing legacy DC plans on a B2B basis. Both solutions are placing advisers at the heart of the solution. The new fund platforms have given life to the wealth management industry and allowed consultants such as WTW to provide solutions for the workplace. But we have yet to see the emergence of a genuinely mass-market pot aggregator capable of giving us our money back in an orderly way.
KDL What's Next® Database
The implied outcome of a pension plan is — to most people- an income that lasts as long as you do. It will have to rely on annuitisation and individuals pressing buttons well into their senior years,. This is the risk of an investment pathway that implies it is sorting out the pension problem. It is only addressing one aspect — the choice architecture. There was meat in the Pension PlayPen pies but there was no meat in the debate, because despite our talking for nearly 90 minutes we were still no nearer answering the question we had posed ourselves.
My answer to the question is an emphatic no. More work required. The sun is shining and there is only the slightest of breeze. Coots are nest-building and swans glide past me hoping that I will feed them from the bread bin. The sound of water comes from below me and from Radio 3 which is this week celebrating along British rivers. I am thinking about football and the events which will unfurl today. Will Manchester City succumb to nerves and fluff their lines? Will Wolves spoil the scouse party?
But as people continue to follow and maybe read my blog, I have to assume that what troubles me — troubles them- I mean you! We have fin-tech — which covers a multitude of techs, including insure-tech, reg-tech and even prop-tech. I have often wondered why we find the idea of a pension dashboard so odd. After all, we were close to having combined pension forecasts 15 years ago and the idea of populating a few fields with data from different sources is not that advanced.
But the pensions dashboard remains a kind of technological nirvana, so near and yet so far. Which rather reduces your capacity to explain why something unpleasant is about to happen, like a realisation that all in the pensions garden is not rosy. We are nearly deleted if we give people the pension technology they require.
Pentech not only dis-intermediates, it also exposes whoppers. For instance it can show you that the data held on you is rubbish, This is very likely to be the case, because a lot of data is not static, we move house, change names and of course change jobs.
Pentech puts us back in touch with our data the pension finder service but what we discover is often corrupt, data may have been badly input or not input or it can occasionally go wrong. Pentech is — to those who see the word risk as bad news- bad news. It creates risks, risks of people finding out what is really going on , finding out that their data is dodgy, risks that people may decide to delete you from the management of their money.