There are currently 86 local authority pension funds in UK, and the majority are extremely risk averse.
These funds collectively manage around £500BN in assets which are sitting in diversified, low-risk portfolios and doing very little to benefit the UK economy as a whole.
At the moment only 5% of these funds are invested in the UK, with 40% going abroad, which isn't great for economic growth.
Megafunds
Rachel Reeves has proposed merging these 86 smaller local authority pension schemes into eight “megafunds.”
The main immediate advantage to this is that it will improve administrative efficiency: there is a lot less duplication of resources with 8 companies compared to 86, after all.
Part of her plan is that larger funds will look around for larger projects to invest in, some of which will be into UK infrastructure, tying in with Britain's Green growth vision.
The figure mooted by Rachel Reeves for investment is £80 billion which means that she's expecting these new megafunds to invest 4 times as much in the UK as they currently do.
The problem...
All of this sounds great but Reeve's has promised there is going to be no mandate for these funds to invest in the UK economy.
To do so would be a bit draconian in a free-market systems where those funds are effectively managing private money, OK the government is paying a lot into those funds, but they are still people's pensions, to be paid out when they are no longer public sector workers.
And without a mandate, I simply cannot see why megafunds are more likely to invest in the UK than they are now...?
And worse case scenario is that larger funds may actually overlook some smaller investment opportunities in the UK.
Also, if the government gets involved in public sector pension reforms I can imagine BTC investments will be firmly out!
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
Thanks for posting this - it's something I hadn't heard about.
Call me suspicious, but Chancellors from Gordon Brown onwards have regarded private pensions as a pot of money that should belong to the government not pensioners.
This move looks like a cash grab; moving the funds away from local authorities (which are mostly financially incompetent) to (equally incompetent) central government control means that local authorities lose control of their own money. The Chancellor will be able to tap into them any time she pleases. Particularly if it can be justified as investing in "green" projects irrespective of return on investment.
There are a couple of other factors to consider. First is that the size of funds is a damning indictment of how much we pay in Council Tax is actually used to fund pensions rather than delivering services. Second is how much of the pension funds go to overpaid senior executives rather than the ordinary lower level staff who do the actual work ?
I know what you mean, it's not necessarily going to be great for the future pensioners, socialising pensions, I mean we've got the state pension already, that's enough I think.
Is CT used to fund pensions, I don't think it's supposed to be....? Certainly way too much goes on wages, councils are very inefficient, way too many of them anyway.
Pensions are part of the payroll, which is a big part of what Council Tax covers. So whether it's the lowliest social worker or the chief executive, and whether it's pension contributions paid by employees or employer, it's the local taxpayer who pays.
As for councils, I've seen up close how they work. It's an unhealthy mix of amateur elected councillors (who are generally retired or otherwise unable to work) and professional salaried staff who have no democratic accountability and are entirely driven by policies delivered from central government.
I attended a planning meeting recently, and the contrast between elected and unelected members of the committee was shocking. The unelected professional staff had no interest in the wishes of the local citizens, only in ticking boxes to apply government policy. Councils should most certainly not get involved in owning properties other than social housing !
Glad to read (somehow) that not only Germany has problems with that topic.
Oh I imagine it's Europe wide!
and a lot more opportunity for things to go wrong. Can't even think about the confusion during a transition. Thank goodness, except for £10.35 a month, I am outside that mess.
£10.85 a month..?
My teeny tiny pension from when I worked for Lambeth Council for three months in 1987. In fairness, I got a lump sum, too. I was able to transfer out all my other local government pensions.
So it's worth £10.85 now...?
10.85 per month forever.
I spend it on HIVE.
Best use for a pension ever!
😁
I think this is akin to rounding up the heard before slaughter time. I am a tad cynical but I do feel this is a step along the road to the pension funds being misused/raided/taxed whatever means is employed to get hands on a nice lump of cash.
These "bigger projects" may be interesting too, public/private finance projects ?
It seems like a legit way of funding big investment projects as long as it all works out! but it's no magic pill, lots of uncertainty!
It is shown as one of the biggest breakthroughs in this regard in the last 10 years. I can say that it is the best work that Rachel Reeves has planned in five months. I hope it will be beneficial for both the state and the retirees.
I'm not necessarily against it but time will tell as to the results!