Warning NEST competitors are bad news for savers

Savers DO need NEST competitors!

Although I understand the point being made in the article, this downside is small compared to the far more fundamental problems that will result if NEST is the only solution, or one amongst only a few weaker alternatives. Two reasons: firstly - of course meaningful competition will be essential to drive the best solution to arise for savers, even if there are to be scheme casualties along the way. This is especially true given NEST's privileged position and quasi-public sector cushion endangering efficiency, accountability etc. Secondly, as anyone out there now talking to employers knows first hand, there is significant suspicion amongst HR Directors and CFOs up and down the country about NEST because it is a Government creation; "Anything built by Government will be a failure, and I'm not putting ANY of my staff into that!" This means that private sector alternatives, preferably from providers with a genuine track record of running similar schemes well and at the necessary low cost levels, are ESSENTIAL if as many employers as possible are to embrace auto enrolment in a positive way with the resultant better take up that will result. It may be unfair to the NEST team that large sections of their potential audience won't even look at them because of unrelated flops like the Child Protection Agency, the GDP-sized waste of money that was the NHS IT project, or even today's news about how substandard NHS delivery of good outcomes for certain patients is. But perception is reality for many, and the retirement prospects of millions of people cannot be bet on the success of the Communications team at NEST, sheepdog adverts or otherwise. Martin Campbell

Posted by: Martin Campbell