shock and horror - not

falls off chair, why am I not surprised, it is falling apart already, 2% and it will reduce over the years, don't think so! Call me a synic if you wish, look at history, what a mess again.

Posted by: Fraser Brydon

Until we know how these are charged it is difficult to evaluate

A 2% charge does I suppose make it more of an econimically viable product but if it does have very little fund choice and I suspect these may be trackers etc. then how will this stack up against a Stakeholder pension particularly in the early years? Will it make sense to do a Stakeholder in the early years when there may be lower charges and then tranfer to a Nest (if this is allowed) when it may have lower charges (though less fund choice) than a Stakeholder? It does seem to me this this is just another added complication in funding for ones retirement and why we cannot simply use existing stakeholder and other pensions etc. does seem a little odd to me. I am all for compulsory pension savings though don't see why it has to be so onerous and with no choice in the matter when we already have so many pension schemes around. There is also the added cost and complication and I suspect many existing employers pension schemes may cease as employers see Nest as a cheaper alternative which can cost them less in employer contributions. All in all this seems to be an over complicated method and pruduct to achieve a relatively simple objective.

Posted by: Michael Fallas

NEST to cost 2%

No wonder stakeholder ends in 2012 as otherwise no NEST scheme would get off the ground due to RU64!!Let's get the election called as soon as possible to restore some sanity to financial services!!

Posted by: Duncan Jones

And How Much Were TATA Paid?

Well no sorprises there then, how much were TATA paid in advance so that Labour got their cronies to make the money from it? Was it £25 Million over 10 years? I can't be bothered to check everything about this government and what they are involved with is corrupt!

Posted by: GC

here we go again.

Once again the government gets involved in something it does not understand. 1. Charging 2% on initial contributions. Yet they have a go at financial services industry about their costs. 2. Shortfall in income against expenditure. Not viable in the long term. How many years will this shortfall last and how will it be recouped. 3.The Government will make a loan to nest to cover initial losses. How do they know how much this will cost when they do not know the shortfalls. Another open ended cheque book from the government to support one of their fanciful ideas. Stakeholder was a typical costly exercise which did not really work otherwise we would not need NEST. Who gets the top jobs monitoring NEST more jobs for the boys with god plated benefits

Posted by: terryarch

What a joke

The GPPs and Gstakeholders I help the employers I deal with will be betetr for theri staff than Nest for about the first 8 years. This IS a complete farce. I cannot believe there has not been corruption involved with the NEST contract and if there has not been, then it is totally incompetent.....

Posted by: Phil Castle

Lining the Nest with a bid-offer spread

How ironic: apparently, old fashioned pension charges were unfair terms imposed on unsuspecting consumers, by commission hungry salesmen; consumers who, incidentally, received advice on their choice of provider, fund, affordability, level of expected pension etc, etc, etc Now the solution to all pension woes, to be imposed by our government, who seem intent on micro-managing our lives, is to have a bid-offer spread which goes to the provider with no requirement for advice within this cost. Hurrah for the government, championing the rights of us all against the brooding menace of private enterprise

Posted by: ifaian

Bend it lIke Broon

This has got to be corruption, cock up and rank hypocrisy! Think Stakeholder & Child Trust Fund (also small premiums) which the govt cappped at 1.5% Stakeholder pensions... "Management charges in each year must not amount to more than 1.5% of the total value of the fund and are taken from the fund". Government is unable to do itself what it claimed was possible by the private sector who also had to jump through the usual regulatory hoops unlike NEST, as well as impose the type of upfront initial charge it claims is so unfair on consumers. I think RDR prohibits some upfront charges does it not?

Posted by: PI1010

Why A Loan?

The only way to get someone to manage NEST is to lend them £25m!! No organistation can see it's going to be a success so a "Loan" is required. Absolutely shocking. Advisers have to fund themselves to give advice and paid ever decreasing amounts. Perhaps the government should give us loans? RDR,NEST etc. total shambles too many politicians, pen pushers and jobsworths get rid of the lot I say.

Posted by: S Simonds