"IFAs will often find it relatively easy to meet the FCA’s requirement to benchmark against a master trust and make a convincing case in support of their preferred investment option."
But many of these workplace pensions were designed for automatic enrolment and regular contributions by active members rather than large transfers in from Defined Benefit (DB) pension schemes by members approaching retirement.
New analysis from consultants LCP based on a survey of master trusts shows that, as a result, this new FCA requirement may not provide the consumer protection that is intended.
In the current DB transfer market, most transfers are to self-invested personal pensions (SIPPs), personal pensions or to retirement products such as drawdown accounts. Relatively few transfers are to master trusts or to the existing workplace pension of the transferring member.
The FCA has expressed concern that some of the products currently commonly used for transfers come with multiple tiers of charges and may represent poor value. In order to put pressure on advisers to justify these charges, and to drive them down, the FCA will now require advisers to benchmark the proposed investment product with transferring into the clients’ workplace pension, which may offer a lower cost, particularly master trusts by virtue of their scale.
However LCP says there are two reasons why this benchmarking may not achieve the desired goal.
Firstly, it says the FCA increasingly expects DB transfers to be suitable only for those approaching retirement, some of whom will not be members of a workplace pension scheme; an adviser can therefore explain that this comparator is not relevant to this particular client.
Even where the transferring member is a member of a master trust, LCP’s survey suggests that the limited options offered by master trusts may mean that it would still not be a suitable destination for a large DB transfer.
LCP surveyed 13 master trusts, including the largest providers in the market, and asked a series of questions about their approach to DB transfers.
The largest master trust by membership, NEST, said that it did not accept DB transfers at all. Others generally said that they did accept transfers in, provided that the transferring member already had a policy with the master trust.
The survey also found that some schemes would not necessarily offer lower charges, even if a large sum was transferred in; by contrast, an individual investor may be able to secure lower charges in an investment product where they were investing a relatively large sum.
Several schemes talked about plans to ‘upgrade’ retirement offers or to review their post-retirement options, perhaps in recognition that this had not so far been a priority in the design of master trusts. For example, even relatively basic features like offering a monthly income in drawdown were not offered by all.
One of the largest master trusts said it did not currently have any ‘at retirement’ options other than transferring to another provider or cashing out under ‘small pot’ rules.
Additionally, not all trusts allowed members to deduct ongoing advice costs from their pension fund.
Philp Audaer, principal at LCP, said: “Master trusts were generally designed to be a mass-market workplace pension solution for companies wishing to comply with automatic enrolment legislation, as opposed to receiving large transfers in which reflect the value of years of past service in a Defined Benefit occupational pension.
"The focus of most master trusts has been on the accumulation phase, with particular emphasis on the structure of the default fund which covers the vast majority of members. By contrast, someone transferring in a large DB pension may be looking for a wider range of investments and more tailored post-retirement options. Although the market is developing, relatively few master trusts currently offer this degree of equivalence. As a result, IFAs will often find it relatively easy to meet the FCA’s requirement to benchmark against a master trust and make a convincing case in support of their preferred investment option. This benchmarking is therefore unlikely to provide the degree of consumer protection envisaged by the FCA.”
