When's Nest best? Auto-enrolment advice under the microscope
Ros’ interview on Citywire highlighting that advisers have big role to play in helping employers set up auto-enrolment (from 3 minutes in)
Charge cap should fit NEST too
The FT’s Financial Adviser magazine highlighted Ros’ views that a charge cap on auto-enrolment schemes should apply to NEST as well, with its 1.8% initial charge being replaced by an annual charge
NEST charges need overhaul
Article on Stock Market Wire website commenting on Ros’ calls for NEST charges to be overhauled, to get rid of the 1.8% initial charge
OFT inquiry on pension charges
Ros responds to the OFT report on pension charges, highlighting that the recommendations may well disappoint those who wanted action, but that NEST’s charging structure does not fit well with a cap
Auto-enrolment opt outs low, will rise in future though
Ros welcomes the DWP figures showing low opt out rates for auto enrolment so far, but discusses why these rates are likely to rise as smaller firms join the project in future.
Autoenrolment – so far so good
Ros wrote an article for CityAM discussing latest figures showing opt out rates from auto enrolment to be very low so far.
Pensions World article – NEST restrictions should be lifted before 2017
Pensions World Magazine published Ros’ views on the announcement that NEST restrictions would be lifted in 2017, explaining why it would be much better to remove them earlier.
NEST restrictions being lifted – good news, But not till 2017 – bad news
Ros welcomes the removal of NEST restrictions but explains why they should ideally be removed before 2017, to give NEST a fairer chance to compete and for taxpayers to receive quicker repayment of their loan.
Great news – Government will ban consultancy charging
Press Release welcoming the Governments decision to improve member protection in auto-enrolment pensions by banning consultancy charging and planning a cap on default fund fees.
Pensions World – failure of regulation could derail autoenrolment
Ros comments on the dangers for workers of the current regulatory gaps and calls for a better, simpler regulatory regime – just one for all pensions.