orangeblock

Cutting costs sparks a new debate in retirement reform

10 September 2013 | Talked About Features | Featured Story | Jonathan Faurie

The South African financial services industry is going through some significant changes with the Financial Services Board (FSB) and government implementing laws which they hope will bring South Africa on par with international market. These changes will a

And it seems as if the retirement sector will be the sector which will be the biggest benefactor of this change. There are on-going discussions between government, the FSB and industry stakeholders on the best way to reform the industry. While there are many challenges which need to be addressed, a major driver of this change will be costs and the fact that government wants to decrease these costs in order to offer the best retirement cover to the greatest portion of the population.

However, David Gluckman, Head of Future Positioning and Research at Sanlam Employee Benefits says that this needs to be managed properly and it should not be treasury’s sole focus as it is not the only factor which will influence industry change.

Costs are a major consideration

It seems as if the cost issue is seen as a burning one with National Treasury. It released five discussion papers over the past two years in which it pointed out that change needs to occur. One of the main concerns is that the costs levied by financial institutions are out of line with international counterparts.

“The country cost comparison that Treasury makes is not a fair comparison,” says Gluckman. “We agree that charges in the sector can reduce from current levels, but changes must be made incrementally in a constructive and sustainable manner.”

Product suppliers are defending their practices arguing that charges are a function of the costs incurred when providing fund management and administration services. They add that high costs are in part due to structural inefficiencies in the local market.

“We can show clear examples where the industry has tried to improve things over the past decade,” says Gluckman. “The number of retirement funds is down from around 13 000 to just 3 000 today and there have been significant improvements in savings product design.” He says the growth of umbrella funds and the growing popularity of passive investment strategies must logically bring down charges over time.

Is the public getting full value?

Despite these ongoing discussions, regulators are still worried that the public is not getting value for its retirement savings inputs. “Our proposed reforms are heavily based on individuals,” says David McCarthy, Retirement Policy Specialist: Tax and Financial Sector Policy at Treasury. He adds that individuals are at the heart of the industry and he is concerned that the maxim of putting customers first is not always applied in practice.

However, product suppliers feel that the goals of retirement reform are best achieved under competitive forces in a free market. McCarthy disagrees with this. “Regulation is needed to ensure that there are limits to the extent to which complex products can be designed, it is a fundamental ingredient in a free market.”

Financial journalist and editor Bruce Cameron has been outspoken against high and unfair charges in the financial services sector and has reaffirmed the need to resolve this issue. He is worried that product suppliers will react to reforms by hiding costs in other ways.

Future outlook

Gluckman says that while the focus on costs is important, attention needs to be paid to other pressing matters.

“The focus should be on increasing South Africans' very low savings levels, on encouraging increased preservation and on eliminating structural inefficiencies. A key structural inefficiency highlighted in the National Treasury papers is the very low levels of preservation upon exit from pension and provident funds. New preservation rules, in whatever form, will have a huge impact in decreasing charges over time.”

Editor’s Thoughts:
Cutting costs is a major consideration which National Treasury needs to take seriously if it wants to reform the industry. But it needs to be clever in the way it goes about this. There is a definite need to bring South Africa in line with international markets, provided that local challenges are overcome and contained before this alignment happens.

There also needs to be engagement with product providers where Treasury can give them assurances that any reform will not negatively affect them. Please comment below, interact with us on Twitter at @fanews_online or email me your thoughts[email protected].

Comments

Added by Peter, 10 Sep 2013
What absolute horse sh!t. The retirement problem will never be solved, so long as stats SA underreports inflation, which they do deliberately, by adjusting the inflation basket every three years to adjust the numbers. I don't know what they think they're measuring anymore, but it's not inflation. And so long as inflation is under reported, peoples savings will never keep up with the cost of living, their salaries, won't increase enough to contribute more, to keep up with the cost of living. There's going to be a retirement crisis and it will have nothing to do with the costs of retirement products. It will be the cost of government lying to us about inflation so that they can reduce bond yields paid out to government bond holders. In the meantime, they will steal the livlihood of financial advisors using them as the scapegoat for ill-advised policies they created. And why nobody is talking about this is beyond me...
Report Abuse
Added by Garrick, 10 Sep 2013
Reduce my income further..... Brilliant idea when you realize that the state FIRSTLY grabs 14% of my gross income generated via VAT and then up to 40% via income tax. Looking forward to getting out of this industry before there is nothing left to 'share'.
Report Abuse
Added by JAKKIE, 10 Sep 2013
i agree with the writers above, The insurance companies ABOUT US .AND TO US,. Forgetting who made them rich. The goverment lies to the people of South Afrca. And the people of South Africa, have their heads in the sand. We agents and brokers are to blame for everything in the word. Get out while you can.There is much more attractive option availabel I wonder who will bring in new applications if all the agents and brokers have left the very unattractive game ?
Report Abuse
Added by Gavin, 10 Sep 2013
I endorse the above comments. What these cretins and Bruce Cameron are missing is the real reason why people are short when they retire and the costs are a lesser factor in the equation. After 30 years I can confidently claim that the 2 main reasons for insufficient retirement provision are 1. Starting too late and 2 Saving too little. Non- preservation at resignation/retrenchment is also an important component. The point is, even now, with lower costs, it is still a battle to get people, especially the young, to make a meaningful start to their retirement savings. Live for today seems to be the motto, with the latest electronic gadget, car or cellphone seemingly more important than looking to the future. Anybody who doubts that RAs are the most cost-efficient avenue to save for retirement need only read articles by prof Matthew Lester to get informed. As to the intermediary force, don't these financial theorists realize that it is the intermediary force that is bringing in the savings from a largely reluctant public. Decimate the force and savings will drop Kant en klaar.
Report Abuse
Added by Thomas, 10 Sep 2013
I suppose that at the end of the day we are all in the business..suppliers and clients to make money. Cost factors have become a serious issue in the retirement investment world and have implications for all parties concerned. The investment houses/insurance companies over the long term(no investment perform good over a short period) wants happy intermediaries and clients and so does the intermediaries. When clients are happy they will invest more and the more they invest the bigger the profits for the insurers/investment houses and intermediaries. For a start it is fact that it is impossible to compare the SA investment arena to the rest of the 1st world countries as we have a fraction of the money in circulation and of course a fraction of the net worth individuals and businesses that can invest. In the end it all comes down to "the more the investors/money the less the costs. The question is: Can intermediaries afford to provide advice of a high standard at minimal costs?.We all know that investment advice and especially retirement investment advice is probably one of the most critical aspects of fin planning and now it has become clear that the FSB an GOVT has decided in their infinite wisdom that for all practical reasons this should be done close to free!. So what they are saying is..yes earn some reasonable commission on a life policy sold but for God's sake if you earn anything on a retirement product we will get you!.Think about all the possible factors including laws ,rules and regulation, tax portfolio choices' and others to consider when advising a client to invest his whole lives savings and then ask the question: Is a low cost advised product that does not perform better then a rather expensive one that realize all a client's needs and expectations? ..Come on FSB..please explain this!.Please listen carefully: Excellent fin advisors though expensive or relatively expensive will always and forever be in demand because they deliver the goods. They may suggest fee remuneration rather than commission or whatever the arrangement may be ..transparent and all but they will be here to stay. Unfortunately the majority of retiring persons or people planning their retirement will be because of all these regulations and laws and interference in the normal process of things eventually be forced to talk to a salaried person which sitting behind a desk and seeing plenty people a day and which will be rendering mediocre advise with no real added incentive's note that I say this with all respect to any and all salaried persons. The insurance world has always been driven by remuneration(money) and as said before it is a circle that when good means more and more. We have all heard the expression about insurance been sold and not bought. I am trying to say that at the end the people/clients who probably need it the most will be the ones to suffer the most under these new proposed cost legislations. Maybe just maybe the FSB.Govt are trying to say: Stop, every retirement product must be bought form a salaried person working for a investment house/insurance company and there will be no question whatever about the motive of the seller meaning..how he invest, where he invest or what product he use to invest. This could in effect mean that all intermediary associated costs could to a very large extent be gone??.Question is..can this person (salaried)manage really manage all the portfolios an clients?.How good can he do this?.Who will appoint him? Will all the investment houses and insurance companies appoint him collectively so that he can render independent objective advise. If one company employee him he will he be forced to sell more of that company's products then others?.Is not the dependant fin advisor model more suited?. What about independent advise?. A step in the right direction may be to legislate all costs ..platform fees and admin charges for all suppliers so that there are no reason for anyone to rather sell the one or the other at cost of the client. The appropriateness of advise will then be the determining factor and not remuneration or costs. The true advisor will then reach a written agreement/remuneration deal depending on advise given. No one has to worry too much about which company has been used or what their respective costs are because they are all the same. Then things will become as they should be. The good honest advisors and the true excellent suppliers of products will remain because they will perform. Not because of legislation but because they are entitled to be there. Let true market laws take their course if playing fields are even.
Report Abuse
Added by Skylimit, 10 Sep 2013
Brokers have an interest in keeping their clients on the books.When a premium is not paid it is the Broker who chases up the client.Take the Broker away and all you will have are well meaning and informed clients who nevertheless leave their investments by the wayside.This is just one of the duties that Broker's perform for their clients.As an example, when a client is retrenched we arrange premium holidays and when he starts working again we are there to remind him to continue with his investment. I truly feel that the FSB and Treasury do not know what Brokers do for their clients on a daily basis.As it is I feel more like a Charity Service these days.Once they have an appreciation for what we do then they must come talk.Until then, get the Politicians in line first and LEAD BY EXAMPLE.
Report Abuse

Comment on this Post

Name*

Email Address*

Comment*

Cutting costs sparks a new debate in retirement reform
quick poll
Question

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

Answer