orangeblock

Retirement funds cringe at Government plans

09 July 2013 | Retirement | General | Jonathan Faurie

While this is the time for the South African government to prove that it is ready to move forward with Nelson Mandela’s legacy and to implement laws which are in the best interest of the people, it seems that they are content with passing laws which cause

Reports in the industry show that government is revisiting a law, similar to those which were passed under the apartheid regime whereby it could force pension funds to invest in state owned entities such as Eskom, the SABC, SAA and Transnet. And should the law be passed, the financial security of retirement fund members could be negatively affected.

Retirees and the Mechanics

It is important to note that this law has not been passed yet. Windall Bekker, partner at Rezco Investment Company, told the FAnews if it is passed, the government could force fund managers to assign a certain portion of retirement assets that they manage to be invested in prescribed assets as designated by the heads state.

He adds that that this will have a big impact on retirement fund members saving up for their retirement.

“When a person typically saves up for retirement there are three factors which determine the strength of their financial security at retirements. The first is the member and employer contributions to the retirement fund. In order to get to a level where the pay-out would be as sufficient (as if no reliance on family members and the state is needed) then most retirement fund members generally need to contribute more towards the fund then is currently the case, and under current economic conditions not many South Africans can afford to do that. The second determining factor is the retirement age. Current retirement age in South Africa is 63, and if policy holders can’t afford to increase their contribution they will have to work longer. However many companies are not keen to extend employees retirement age unless they have special skill sets,” says Bekker.

Risky Business

The third factor is the investment return that the retirement fund members obtain over the lifetime of working. Retirement fund members want the greatest returns for the least amount of risk.

“If government passes this law, and retirement fund members find themselves in a position where they can’t meet the mitigation criteria’s for the first two determining factors (higher contributions and later retirement age) then they could be forced to take on more risk in their investments to compensate for the performance drag of the prescribed assets that they will have to invest in.” says Bekker.

Effects on the Market

We have already painted a pretty graphic picture of the mitigation measures that policy holders will have to undertake in order to secure the secure retirement they want. But there are other factors which need to be taken into account.

A similar plan of prescription of parastatal retirement assets was implemented in the 1980s, and it failed miserably.

“We expect the same result now if this prescribed investing is implemented. The perception of the state not honouring its citizen’s property rights will have significant effect on the country’s economy. We should expect further downgrades from the rating agencies on the back of such a policy and International investors will be reluctant to invest in South Africa because of government interference in the market system,” says Bekker.

This also means that prudent investors will be cognisant of the state’s prescription on how to invest their money and will seek better investment alternatives free of state interference. This could potentially result in more money being invested offshore putting further strain on the exchange rate.

Encouraging Poverty

When the ANC came into power in 1994, one of the promises that they made was that they would do their best to decrease poverty in the country. Yet, 19 years on the dependency ratio is increasing every year.

South Africa has one of the highest dependency ratios in the world. Current statistics estimate that this stands at close to eight dependents to every bread winner. If the government is making it difficult for its citizens to retire comfortably, they will have to depend on the good graces of family members. Thus increasing the country’s dependency ratio and widening the poverty gap.

Editor’s Thoughts
We have to face a few realities, South Africa is by no means a country full of very rich people and the average person on the street cannot afford to increase their contribution or take on more risk. They may be able to work past retirement age, however this will depend on the nature of the industry in which they work and the viewpoint of their employer. This means that the final scenario of increased dependency ratio’s seems very likely. What are your views? Do you feel government is doing enough to avoid this scenario? And if government passes the law, will advisers be compelled to tell investors that a portion of their investment will be property of the state? Please comment below, interact with us on Twitter at @fanews_online or email me your thoughts[email protected].

Comments

Added by Bradley Wilson, 19 Jul 2017
Gooday on reading your article I found the following " Current retirement age in South Africa is 63," please can you verify this statement from the SA Goverment legislation, I am currently embroiled in a dispute that there is no written number in the DOL wording
Report Abuse
Added by Regulator, 24 Jul 2013
@ Zarrick - The matter has not been swept under the carpet yet. It is in fact at an advanced stage of being fully investigated. A few people have lost their jobs (and lives it is suspected) as a result of being to nosy or having to much information. But the public eye caught this one and will not let it go until the answers are out in the open. It is a pity that Africa has to battle this level of corruption on top of all the other obstacles it faces. I am however confident that the younger generation that does not have the glove of the "liberation struggle" to steal with, will start to make a positive change towards good governance soon.
Report Abuse
Added by Irene, 10 Jul 2013
Who is to blame for this fiasco? The Financial Sector (advisors, consultants, administrators & managers) has been ripping off members of Retirement Funds for YEARS, forcing Government to intervene. This gives Government the opportunity now to "nationalise" retirement money by stealth and the Sector is suddenly concerned about the members? Does anybody really believe that Government (and their cronies) will keep their sticky fingers off these funds? Ordinary folk had the false belief that the 13-15% contributions - not insignificant when one still has to live as well - with some investment returns should suffice for a reasonable retirement, not realising that most of these contributions would be whittled away by these parasites. Motto of the story: Don't rely on anybody and rather invest your money yourself with as little as possible fees involved.
Report Abuse
Added by Gerhard, 09 Jul 2013
This is nothing new. Government tried taxing retirement funds, but realised that it wasn't beneficial. They think about "forcing" assets managers to invest in state owned enterprises, under the banner of Social Responsible Investments.... There is little wrong with it, but at the end of the day, the investor is only concerned about returns.
Report Abuse
Added by Guy, 09 Jul 2013
The only reason why the government wishes to amend the laws is so that they can get their grubby little paws on the funds that are "lying around" to fund their "social projects" (ie, their personal pockets). I have heard that the government approached the life companies asking for the release of trillions of rands from the pension funds for social development. The life industry said NO because these funds are held in trust and may not be put at risk. This really upset the government because they REALLY NEED this money (ie for the holidays and to help their friend get truly rich - ETOLLING as a prime example). The reason SANRAL is having a nervous breakdown over the stalling of the tolling system is because State Pensions was used to fund this little baby. Can you now imagine placing your trust in the government and saying , yes, go ahead we really trust you with our pension money!!!! This my friends is truly the beginning of the end.
Report Abuse
Added by Andre Kruger, 09 Jul 2013
I agree with Guy, grubby little hands....they are experts in moving the responsibility they have to the public sector. There is no justification for this legislation, whatsoever.They have proven over and over that they cannot work with funds other than into their own and friend's pockets. The government is at least three times bigger than previously and 10 times less effective. They are probably planning a salary increase for the traditional leaders and themselves. Sorry for being negative, but can you blame me....politics stinks !!!
Report Abuse
Added by Thomas, 09 Jul 2013
Let us look at this in perspective.. For years now we have been forced to comply with all the FAIS legislation which at the end boil down to the fact that the client must be fully informed and be treated fairly and honestly. It is also widely understood that client must be presented with choices so that they can make a informed decision. If a percentage of funds are invested in Govt /state owned businesses/enterprises the first question that comes to mind is who will fit the boot if these funds do not perform..will this effectively mean the end of FAIS regulations as we do not have choices?.We as advisors will do any and all investments without accepting any responsibility for advice given!.The state owned enterprises mentioned are primarily there (according to me) to serve the state and are not there to turn huge profits as a first priority or am I totally wrong?.They should break even with some to spare but not necessarily be the most profitable?. I have noted a while ago that some of my clients in the Hair salon industry has been forced to participate in a so called industry group scheme without having any choice in the matter. They were never informed about this..zero planning were done and pension +other group benefits simply implemented. Same has happened to clients in other industries lately. Is this the end??.Does this mean that someone somewhere has decided to split the whole private industry into different segments and are now forcing private businesses to belong to central schemes without any choice?.The FIA cannot answer this and neither can the FSB? Before long we will be mindless ,choice less and salaried.
Report Abuse
Added by Gavin, 09 Jul 2013
Guy is 100% correct - I've been saying this from the time the RA commissions were slashed. Govt wants to control pension fund monies, a mind boggling amount. It seems to me that the incumbents are not capable of appreciating future consequences of interfering in market forces. Either that or they don't care - live for today seems to be their motto. Probably a combination of the two. It seems crazy to me that the livelihoods of most financial advisers is being put at risk. It is a well known fact that the vast majority of retirees are not adequaely funded - yet the very people, us the advisers, who are urging, cajoling and begging the public to set aside for the future, are to be sidelined. We are heading for a nation of poor old folk of all races who will also then drag down their children who will increasingly have to support their parents. Not a pleasant prospect and as usual it will be the very poor, mainly black folk, who will suffer the most. Yet they still put their crosses on ballot papers next to the ANC. We need a change of direction in this country and fast.
Report Abuse
Added by CYNIC, 09 Jul 2013
The FSB/National Treasury has campaigned to reduce investment costs but has primarily focused on the intermediary and not the product provider. Their goal is most laudable and intermediary abuse where it occurs must continue to be addressed. That said, the FSB underwhelms when it comes to addressing the prime cause of diminution of retiree capital; namely the various and often hidden costs of the product providers. If the FSB is serious about their laudable objectives, they should be first in line campaigning against this proposal--but like so many others-I have lost faith in the FSB to achieve its laudable objectives; as it seems to have morphed into a product provider and Fiscus lapdog
Report Abuse
Added by Zarrick, 09 Jul 2013
It's amazing. The SA government k*kistocracy are following the same route that the Namibian government followed. Their Regulation forced pension funds to invest in Government approved projects etc. More than N$640 Million was stolen by Sam Nujoma and 5 of his minister cronies. Yes stolen!!! There was an investigation into this!!! This was conveniently swept under the mat and the report never saw the light of day. This is the beginning of the end! If you boil a frog little by little it will not notice. Something feel relevant about that phrase when referenced to what the gov is doing to it's citizen?. Time to wake up! I am rather going to reserve my comments, as I cannot speak well of the parasitic ruling entity! Australia or Canada...mmm
Report Abuse
Added by Dirk, 09 Jul 2013
Guy, you are so right - We (as financial planners) and as to the fact that I invest in a r/a for retirement for myself, will then only have to invest in other investment sources for our clients and ourselves, where our incapable, shortsighted government sharks can't lay there hands upon. So sorry for those people belonging to compulsory pension and/or provident funds. Long and short, the already stumbling retirement sector will diminish only much faster. Wonder if they will then eventually slaughter the cow that provided the milk all along? (they are actually already busy doing it.)
Report Abuse

Comment on this Post

Name*

Email Address*

Comment*

Retirement funds cringe at Government plans
quick poll
Question

If you had to hazard a guess, when do you reckon the COFI Bill will be signed into law?

Answer