• The post you are reporting:
   
  This report is utter and total bunkum.
  
  This is about a cut in projection rates and is nothing to do with what real actual returns can and/or are expected.
  
  Simply because projection rates are cut it does not mean that investments will follow. This is why three rates of return are quoted on illustrations. There has always been a wide gulf between projections and what really happens and it is not all 'one way traffic'.
  
  I think the cut in projection rates is wrong headed as this will further undercut attempts to get people saving. The big problem we have is that people are just not investing enough into a pension (or in other ways). The naive think people might put more in if they are projected to get lower returns but it works the other way around when they ask 'why bother'. There is a balance to strike and this move takes that balance too far in the wrong direction. Too many people in ivory towers making rules.
  
  A separate matter are the actual investment rates of return being achieved. Here clearly the markets and the economic climate comes into play. However, good asset allocations and fund selection backed by good advice can get people's money working for them.
  
  One reason for a cut in projection rates may well be the government NEST scheme. This has a very limited investment strategy based on low risk. This may be right and proper for those getting close to retirement age but is wrong for those who are younger and is likely to lock them into very poor returns.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason