Additional Voluntary Contributions: Restoring the value add
Additional Voluntary Contributions (AVCs) allow members of Defined Benefit (DB) pension schemes to save extra money alongside their regular pension.
The Challenge for Pension Trustees
However, for pension trustees, AVCs can be a source of frustration. While an individual member's AVC pot may be significant to them, the total AVCs usually represent a small portion of the overall pension fund. Consequently, they often receive little attention at trustee meetings, and when they do, it is usually due to issues such as member complaints, underperforming investments, or complications during scheme buy-outs.
We have compiled a selection of our recent experiences into case studies to show how we can assist you with the challenges you may be encountering.
Case Study 1: Poor service for AVC members of a large trust-based scheme
Case Study 2: Delays at retirement for members of a small trust-based scheme
Consolidating AVC assets can be costly, making it an impractical solution for some clients. In this case, a trustee of a smaller scheme faced numerous complaints from members about significant delays in accessing their AVC funds at retirement. The slow processing times caused frustration to members eager to access their savings, and the trustee was concerned about potential complaints to the Pensions Ombudsman.
We advised the client to communicate transparently with AVC members about the delays, encouraging them to plan for retirement early and consider moving their AVC account if they wanted to avoid potential issues. This proactive communication helped ease frustrations and prepared members for possible delays, reassuring the trustee that they had taken reasonable steps to support their members without incurring disproportionate costs.
Case Study 3: Poorly performing investments
A client received a complaint from a member whose AVCs had been invested in a low-return deposit fund for many years. The Pensions Ombudsman ruled in favour of the member, leading to a compensation payment of £140,000 for all affected members. The investigation itself cost £35,000. In response, the trustee requested a comprehensive review of all AVC investments, which revealed several issues, including the discovery of members who had left their AVCs behind after taking their main scheme benefits (known as “orphan members”).
We recommended consolidating all AVCs with one provider and began conducting annual reviews while regularly communicating with AVC members about their investments and options. This case demonstrates that while ongoing governance of AVCs incurs costs, it is far less expensive than fines and compensation payments, and it significantly enhances member experiences.
Case Study 4: Buyout
Scheme buyouts can be complex, but if AVCs are considered at an early stage (i.e. 2 years prior to buy-out), they need not complicate the process. In this instance, a DB scheme had 88 AVC members with assets totalling £1.5 million, spread across six providers. We developed a strategy to facilitate the transfer of assets while managing the complexities of orphan members and multiple AVC providers.
Our actions included:
- Creating a dedicated section of the provider’s master trust for AVC members with DB entitlements, streamlining asset management.
- Transferring 12 orphan AVC members to a separate section of the master trust to manage their assets independently.
- Designating a cash target date fund as the default investment strategy for AVC members, balancing growth and risk as they approached retirement.
- Offering members with with-profit funds an uplift upon relinquishing their guarantees, ensuring fair value for their contributions.
- Scheduling AVC transfers to coincide with the buyout for a seamless transition.
- Opting not to require member consent for assignment, simplifying the process and reducing administrative burdens.
The implementation of this AVC buy-out solution was successful, resulting in a smooth transition and satisfied members.
What does this mean?
- Director