capaDATA
  • PERFORMANCE
    • Younger saver, 30 years to retirement – 5-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
    • Younger saver, 30 years to retirement – 3-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
    • Younger saver, 30 years to retirement – 1-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
    • Older saver, 5 years to retirement – 5-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
    • Older saver, 5 years to retirement – 3-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
    • Older saver, 5 years to retirement – 1-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
  • RISK/RETURN
    • Risk/Return – Younger saver, 30 years from retirement, 5-year annualised
    • Risk/Return – Younger saver, 30 years from retirement, 3-year annualised
    • Risk/Return – Younger saver, 30 years from retirement, 1-year annualised
    • Risk/Return – Older saver, 5 years from retirement, 5-year annualised
    • Risk/Return – Older saver, 5 years from retirement, 3-year annualised
    • Risk/Return – Older saver, 5 years from retirement, 1-year annualised
  • PROVIDERS
    • Aegon Master Trust
    • Aon Master Trust
    • Atlas Master Trust
    • Aviva Master Trust
    • The Bluesky Pension Scheme
    • Ensign Retirement Plan
    • Fidelity Master Trust
    • Legal & General Investment Management – WorkSave Pension Mastertrust
    • LifeSight (Willis Towers Watson)
    • Mercer Master Trust
    • National Employment Savings Trust (NEST)
    • Now: Pensions
    • The People’s Pension
    • Salvus Master Trust
    • Scottish Widows Master Trust
    • Smart Pension
    • Standard Life DC Master Trust
    • SuperTrust UK Master Trust
    • TPT Retirement Solutions
    • Welplan Pensions
  • Research
    • ADVISERS
      • Pension provider selection factors
      • Switching
      • Diversification
      • Illiquids
      • ESG
      • Green
      • Digital
      • Consolidation
    • PROVIDERS
      • Master Trusts by number of members
      • Master Trust defaults by assets and number of employers
      • Member charges
      • Employer charges
      • Master trust investment advisers
      • Equity exposure
      • Derisking
      • Asset managers used
  • NEWS
  • MORE
    • About
    • Advertise
    • Contact us
    • Privacy policy
    • Content syndication
    • Terms & Conditions
CAPA
No Result
View All Result

Row as Sier challenges CACEIS over charge figures

10 June 2020
Row as Sier challenges CACEIS over charge figures
Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedIn

Transparency campaigner and Former FCA Institutional Working Group chair Dr Chris Sier has attacked figures from governance services provider CACEIS that suggest the average overall total cost of ownership (TCO) for UK pension schemes stands at 70bps.

Sier, who is chairman of ClearGlass, which also providers charge analysis services, says a more accurate figure, based  data set of 200+ schemes is an average 59bps TCO, with a wide range around that. He argues presenting a single figure without a range around it can be misleading, adding that size of fund, structure, whether the scheme is DB or DC,and whether there are segregated or pooled mandates, will also all be factors in a scheme’s TCO. He also says stock lending has been omitted from the CACEIS calculations, and questions why CACEIS has not disclosed the number of schemes within its research.

CACEIS says its data reflects UK cost transparency clients across DC and DB, although predominantly DB, with average pension fund size of £7.85bn. Its data set includes data from 202 asset managers across 1,714 funds. This includes schemes with both segregated and pooled mandates. But it declined a request from Corporate Adviser for the number of schemes within the sample ‘on client confidentiality grounds’.

Sier also questioned CACEIS’s decision to reference the fact that the average figure in its research is below the 0.75 per cent DC charge cap, when the majority of its the data is DB.

CACEIS says: “The DC charge cap has been a relative benchmark that the industry has kept in mind from a cost perspective. Referencing the DC cap (there is nothing similar for DB) is an imperfect way of assessing where costs lie as it’s where the DWP thinks it should be.”

Sier says: “Regardless of the sample size, quoting the [TCO] numbers as general and applicable to all funds is irresponsible, as the average size of the scheme in the sample is super large. There are less than 100 DB funds of £7.85bn or more in the UK out of a total of almost 5,500.

“The data is in no way comparable between DB and the DC charge cap, as the DC charge cap does not include transaction costs. Further, DB schemes, especially those at large size, use high allocations of segregated mandates and illiquid asset classes. DC funds use almost entirely pooled fund structures and no illiquids. This further compounds the inappropriate comparison.

“Imagine a DB fund with less that £100m AUM – the vast majority of schemes in the UK – and an average cost, from my data, of asset management of 54bps, of which you have only collected a fraction in the past, the Direct costs, 37bps. You’d think, ‘wahay, job done – we are so much lower than the implied 58bps cost of asset management indicated by the Caceis data.”

The post Row as Sier challenges CACEIS over charge figures appeared first on Corporate Adviser.

TweetShareShare
Previous Post

Conservative peer pushes to make dashboard mandatory

Next Post

L&G enhances group CIC product

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy

Category

  • By Provider
  • News
  • Not for search
  • Provider page archive
  • Uncategorized
  • video
CAPA data

© 2019 Definite Article Media Limited. Design by Bedazzled Media Limited.

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact us
  • Privacy policy
  • Syndication

Follow us

No Result
View All Result
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact us
  • Privacy policy
  • Syndication

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.AcceptReject Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Non-necessary

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.

SAVE & ACCEPT