We all know that contribution levels are critical to the outcomes from defined contribution pensions and the length of time we invest is another of the big factors. But what else matters?

Ah costs I hear and hence the frenzied focus on costs and transparency and previously our focus was the charge cap. But why do we shy away from the biggy – the elephant in the room – performance, or better: net performance?

But, say the ostriches – every scheme has a different member profile with different risk tolerances. And in any case, it’s unwise to compare performance over short periods of time.

However, if I ask a group of DC scheme members what’s most important to them I wonder how many will say quality of governance or transparency of transaction costs? To most net performance is their prime goal within suitable controls.

So let’s start talking net performance before the national newspapers start publishing comparative data. How can they? Well it can clearly start with a focus on master trust default funds and the experience of a typical 30, 40 and 50 year old having invested at x per cent of average earnings for the last three years in the default fund.

But won’t such data cause repercussions? Won’t comparisons encourage best practice? Won’t it encourage innovation in investment options? Won’t some members be asking why their scheme has not done as well as others? Won’t some members want to switch to other providers? That might even be pension freedoms?

Share Story: