Top

How Safe Is Your Pension?


Updated on 17 February 2009 | 23 Comments

Savings are protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, but what about pensions, insurance policies and investments? What happens if your provider collapses? Jane Baker finds out.

There's been a lot of talk about the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) lately. That's hardly surprising given the troubles facing the UK banking system.

Of course, savers want to know how safe their money is if their bank collapsed. The FSCS protects savings up to a maximum of £35,000 if the bank in question goes bust. (Find out more about how the FSCS protects savings here.)

But the scheme doesn't stop there. If you're beginning to wonder how other financial products are protected, you'll be glad to know compensation can also be given for insurance policies and investments  too.

In all cases, the following three things must apply before the FSCS can step in:

  • You must have suffered financial loss.
  • The firm in question must be authorised by the Financial Services Authority (FSA).
  • The firm must be in default which means it's unable, or likely to be unable, to pay claims against.

If the firm is still trading, claims for compensation should be directed to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

With these things in mind, let's look at each product in turn and the protection the FSCS could provide. We'll kick-off with long-term insurance and pensions.

Long-term insurance and pensions

This covers products such as pensions, annuities, endowments and life insurance.

If an insurer were to go into default, the maximum protection the FSCS could provide is 100% of the first £2,000 plus 90% of the remainder of the claim. There is no upper limit on the amount of compensation that could be paid.

Here's an example of how a claim for compensation under the FSCS could work in practice. Remember each claim will be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Let's say you have been making contributions for a pensions policy, but your provider has gone bust. You, of course, would want to make a claim for financial loss. If the pension provider is unable to meet your claim because it has insufficient assets -- and you can't be compensated by any other means -- then you can turn to the FSCS for help.

What will the FSCS do?

First of all, the FSCS would try to arrange for the pension you had with the failed provider to continue in one of two ways:

1. This could be achieved by transferring your pension to another provider, or

2. By substituting your original pension with one offered by an alternative provider.

Whichever route is used, the FSCS will ensure you receive at least 90% of your pension pot. The pot's value would be determined by a court.

Alternatively, the scheme could instead provide funds to return the contributions you have made for your pension where appropriate.

General insurance

This includes compulsory insurances such as motor insurance and non-compulsory insurances such as home insurance.

Compulsory insurances are protected if full so you would be entitled to 100% of your claim. For non-compulsory insurances, the maximum compensation is 100% of the £2,000, plus 90% of the remainder.

The FSCS would take the same action as it does for long-term insurance policies and pensions. You also have a right to claim compensation for financial loss against an insurance broker which has stopped trading or `disappeared'.

General insurance advice

This only applies where general insurance policies have been arranged by an adviser firm on or after 14 January 2005. The compensation limits are the same as general insurance.

Here are a couple of examples when there may grounds to claim:

  • If the firm had not yet placed cover with an insurer before its date of default, you could be entitled to a return of your premiums or payment of a claim if one was outstanding at the time.
  • If the firm places insufficient cover for you, or fails to tell you about a relevant exclusion which causes the insurer to reject your claim.

Investments

This includes products such as stocks & shares, unit trusts and futures & options. The maximum compensation under the FSCS is £48,000 per person, where 100% of the first £30,000 is protected and 90% of the next £20,000. 

The FSCS states that, for your investment claim to be successful, it must meet all of the following criteria:

  • You must have lost money as a result of receiving bad advice to buy an investment, poor investment management or misrepresentation.
  • The advice to buy an investment must have been given to you on or after 28 August 1988.
  • The firm that advised you must have been authorised by an appropriate regulator at the time.
  • The firm you have made a claim against has insufficient assets to pay you compensation.

So, to sum up, you are only protected if you made the investment in the last 20 years following advice from an authorised investment advisor.

In practice, the compensation the FSCS would pay aims to put you back in the same financial position had you not invested. The scheme may also add a `rate of return' to your compensation award. This takes account of the interest -- or some other rate of return -- which you have lost the opportunity to earn on your money over the period of investment.

That covers most of the FSCS's remit. You can see the scheme is pretty wide-reaching and protects far more than just your savings. But it's important to know your rights and the limitations on compensation.

More: A Stronger Safety-Net For Savers

Most Recent


Comments



  • 15 October 2008

    Interesting article but I agree that it does not answer some of the real questions investors may have in this respect and I'd expect a more detailed article from the Fool.[br/][br/]It looks like ishares ETFs are OK if you read this article: http://www.fleetstreetinvest.co.uk/shares/market-outlook/exchange-traded-funds-etfs-09345.html[br/]As the underlying securities are held by the fund and these are ringfences: no counterparty risk.[br/]But not all other ETFs as indicated in the article. For example the Deutsche dbxtrackers buy a basket of securities and swap out these returns with a counterparty. The results is better replication of the index and even an enhanced return. Also this counterparty risk is limited to 10% of the fund by UCITs regulations. However, the basket of securities may be nothing resembling the underlying index and these securities seem to be cabable of being lent out. Imagine buying a healthcare ETF only to find out the underlying securities were financial stocks and most of these had been lent to Lehmans.[br/]The Deutsche tracker actually sounds very interesting and I was attracted to it until recent events.[br/]http://www.dbxtrackers.co.uk/pdf/EN//brochure/etfbrochure.pdf[br/]Interesting when it comes to the risk factors, these do not seem very clear. The comment is: the assets of the sub-fund, the underlying and the derivative techniques for linking them can include elements of employing debt capital (or borrowing), through which losses can potentially be enlarged and lossed can be incurred, which exceed the borrowed or invested amount[br/]Perhaps it should read: if you don't understand it don't invest in it![br/][br/]I rely only on the information available and my own limited understanding of this so please correct any inaccuracies.[br/]As always, DYOR, but having said that these are exactly the point you'd expect the Fool to be focusing on !

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

  • 01 October 2008

    I'd like to request a follow-up to this article as I, like many others who posted above, have really only one concern, and I think it's about ring-fencing rather than the terms of the FSCS. [br/][br/]I have a lot of money invested in collective investment schemes of one sort or another - mine are all either OEICs or ETFs although others may be interested in the position of ITs and perhaps AUTs if there are any left out there. [br/][br/]The big question is "Am I exposed to the financial viability of the fund management company or not?"[br/][br/]The units/shares are all held within either an ISA or a SIPP, and the units themselves are ring-fenced so that they cannot be seen as the property of the ISA or SIPP manager. From this it is clear that I am not exposed to the viability of the ISA or SIPP manager.[br/][br/]But what about the company running the investment fund (the "unit manager")?[br/][br/]OK - if the fund's investment manager makes an awful investment decision and the unit price plummets, that's my hit for backing his judgement (and I didn't take advice, so I cannot claim against an adviser).[br/][br/]But if the fund management company running the OEIC or ETF goes bust or incurs some extraordinary liability unrelated to the operation of the scheme/fund, are the assets of the scheme/fund protected from being used to meet such other debts of the fund management company?[br/][br/]I would like to think that the assets of such schemes/funds must be ring-fenced. If they are not and the FSCS does not apply (which my reading of the article says it doesn't), then I - along with lots of others - am totally exposed if Fidelity, L&G or Deutsche Bank catches a cold on some hare-brained scheme that has nothing to do with my boring old index trackers.

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

  • 30 September 2008

    'Ring-fencing' and 'guarantees' are of no value without trust, and assets. Both are becoming toxic. So - as the Equitable Life shows - I'm planning for at least one of my financial havens failing completely. (Just don't know which one yet!)[br/][br/]My family holds no single investment - bank, pension, Sipp, equity, property - which if it collapses 100%, would threaten my well-being. (If you're already in that position, diversify whatever the cost). [br/][br/]Simply put - the financial road ahead is rocky, the winds of change are whirling around our ears, the hedges full of desparate thieves and greedy vagabonds - so don't keep all the eggs in the one basket!

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

Do you want to comment on this article? You need to be signed in for this feature

Copyright © lovemoney.com All rights reserved.

 

loveMONEY.com Financial Services Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) with Firm Reference Number (FRN): 479153.

loveMONEY.com is a company registered in England & Wales (Company Number: 7406028) with its registered address at First Floor Ridgeland House, 15 Carfax, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1DY, United Kingdom. loveMONEY.com Limited operates under the trading name of loveMONEY.com Financial Services Limited. We operate as a credit broker for consumer credit and do not lend directly. Our company maintains relationships with various affiliates and lenders, which we may promote within our editorial content in emails and on featured partner pages through affiliate links. Please note, that we may receive commission payments from some of the product and service providers featured on our website. In line with Consumer Duty regulations, we assess our partners to ensure they offer fair value, are transparent, and cater to the needs of all customers, including vulnerable groups. We continuously review our practices to ensure compliance with these standards. While we make every effort to ensure the accuracy and currency of our editorial content, users should independently verify information with their chosen product or service provider. This can be done by reviewing the product landing page information and the terms and conditions associated with the product. If you are uncertain whether a product is suitable, we strongly recommend seeking advice from a regulated independent financial advisor before applying for the products.