Dangerous Retirement Predicament: Potential £100,000 Loss and Essential Actions to Prevent It
Streamlined Savings Strategy, Hidden Pitfalls
Are you consolidating your pensions to manage retirement planning more efficiently? You might be in for an unexpected shock, according to a recent study.
Every year, around 1.5 million transfers are made by workers seeking to manage their pensions in one place. The reasons are clear – it's easier to oversee retirement goals and reduce the risk of losing pots. However, a lack of clarity on fees associated with these consolidated plans could leave savers with a smaller nest egg by retirement, potentially even forcing them to work longer.
The pension switching trap revealed by researchers Ignition House and The People's Pension exposes that many savers are unaware of the impact of consolidation on their fees. In interviews with 20 savers, it was found that many do consolidate their pensions without fully understanding how it affects their fees.
Pension fees are notoriously difficult to understand and compare between providers. The main fee is an annual management charge for running the scheme and investing your money. This could be a flat fee or a percentage of your pot size. Other fees to watch out for include inactivity fees and exit or transfer fees (though the latter are no longer allowed for new plans).
Despite awareness of fees, many savers assume that any charge under 1 percent is negligible. In reality, even a half-percentage point difference can have a significant impact on a retirement fund.
For example, if you transfer a £50,000 pension pot at age 30 to a provider charging 0.9 percent, you would have a £643,158 nest egg by retirement under the given assumptions. But if charges were 0.4 percent, your pension would grow to £769,475, amounting to a difference of £126,317 by retirement.
Patrick Heath-Lay, chief executive of The People’s Pension, stresses the importance of better support and clearer information when making these critical decisions.
Unfortunately, some savers may be unaware of the difference between a flat-rate fee and a percentage-based fee and may assume that a single fee is always cheaper than separate charges.
One such example is David Dunn from Dorset, who thought the single charge would be cheaper when he consolidated two workplace pensions. The father-of-two had two pension pots from the same engineering company, one left with the old provider as the company's pension provider changed in 2016. If his newer pot charged the higher fee, thousands would be wiped from his nest egg by the time he retires.
The research found that while many had positive transfer experiences, information on fees was often hidden, with customers needing to navigate up to 18 clicks on a provider’s website before finding information about charges.
** Related Articles**
- Previous
- 1
- Next
- State pension top-ups backlog is 'six to eight months' and rising I turned 66 and my state pension boost was still missing: people claim more than 55,000 a day missed out
** Share this article**
** HOW THIS IS MONEY CAN HELP**
Our pick of the best Sipps: How to choose the right investment platform for your pension
But be wary of consolidating into high-fee products as they could erode your returns over the long term.
- Despite the convenience of consolidating multiple pensions into one plan, a lack of clarity on fees associated with these schemes could potentially force savers to work longer due to a smaller retirement nest egg.
- Researchers have found that many savers unknowingly pay higher fees when consolidating their pensions, as they often overlook the impact of consolidation on their fees.
- When making critical decisions about pension consolidation, it is crucial for savers to understand the difference between a flat-rate fee and a percentage-based fee, as one might not always be cheaper than separate charges.
- It is important for personal-finance management to consider the average impact of even small percentage differences in pension fees over the long term, as these differences can significantly affect the growth of a retirement fund.
