It’s highly unusual for me to get involved in the employee benefits debate from the benefits industry, rather than sponsoring employer, perspective. Yet on occasion I do see the necessity to do so, and two different issues presented themselves to me in the last week which has led me to follow exactly that line of thinking.
Both issues arose from the Government’s response to the Freedom of Pensions announcements last Monday, and specifically the much discussed Guidance Guarantee. Each may be of passing interest to employers as well, as the outcomes might shape what assistance the industry is willing and able to offer employers in this space.
The first issue was one that concerns me more than a little. The Guidance Guarantee proposals included a suggestion that criticism of same may not be an option for the industry. I’m not sure this is either sensible to consumers, or fair to the benefits industry, so I wrote the following article for the Mindful Money website:
MM guidance rules and free speech
The second topic was about the funding required to provide the Guidance Guarantee. It is suggested that a large percentage of this cost will be levied against regulated advisers, but the justification for doing so seem rather thin when you look at the detail. My thoughts here were published by Corporate Adviser Magazine:
CA Should advisers have to pay for the GG?
Best regards
Steve
Recent Comments