The Pensions Pod S6:E4 – Policy Pulse: Adequacy, Investment mandation and the Advice Gap

Paul Waters (00:34)

Hello, very well, thank you and thanks ever so much for having me on the show.

Chris Brown (00:38)

It’s a pleasure to have you on. Paul, just for our listeners, could you introduce yourself a bit and tell us a bit about the work you do?

Paul Waters (00:44)

Absolutely yes, my name is Paul Waters. I’m a Partner at Hymans Robertson. I’m in our DC consulting practice. My job title is Head of DC Markets and that means my role is to take a sort of longer-term view looking at five year plus on the future needs of our clients and DC savers, and try and influence the change to make sure that we get there in a better place than we are today. My day job tends to be consulting with either employers, looking at delivering better pensions for their people.

But also with providers helping them develop new retirement propositions. I’ve been doing a bit of work on CDC recently as well. So, that’s me.

Chris Brown (01:21)

Brilliant. So, very well placed then for this episode where we’re going to be doing some stargazing and looking at the future of policy. And joining us is Hercules Phillips, who is a Solicitor in our team. Hercules, hello.

Hercules Phillips (01:36)

Hi Chris, I’m a Solicitor in the Pensions team. My work mainly involves advising trustees and employers of trust-based schemes on a full range of advice for them, as well as advising providers of contract-based schemes on issues falling between the kind of pension law and financial services law. And I recently completed a secondment at FSCS for about a year.

Chris Brown (02:06)

Yeah, brilliant. So, great to get your insights on this episode too. Okay, so without further ado, we’re going to talk about pensions policy.

So, on this week’s episode, we’re going to be looking at a variety of different policy areas. We’re going to be looking at retirement adequacy. We’re going to be looking at investment and mandation and also touching on employee engagement and advice and then also looking at some areas in the DB DC crossover space. So, lots to cover. So Paul, let’s talk about adequacy first. The Pensions Commission on the 21st of July, so the start of summer, it was announced that the Pensions Commission was being revived. So, can you tell us about what that is and where we are with retirement adequacy, please?

Paul Waters (02:55)

Yeah, absolutely. So, I’m sure there’s a range of ages of your listeners, but some of the ones who are my age or older will remember the original Pension Commission, Adair Turner back in early 2000s, which had Baroness Jeannie Drake on it, which looked at adequacy and was the foundation really for auto enrolment. And if you looked at that, one of the things that they said was 8% was the start of what was needed. They never said 8% is the answer, 8% contribution solves everything. And that’s kind of why AE has been fabulous and led to so many more people saving into pensions for the first time, it wasn’t the final answer and it clearly isn’t the final answer. So we do have an adequacy challenge in the UK.

There’s been some really good analysis published by the DWP, first of all in the summer and then actually a week or so ago. And just to take a little bit of time to take us through that, I think we all understand that there is an adequacy challenge in the UK and people need to be saving more. But just to bring that to life with some of the statistics that they’ve published. The original Pension Commission had a target replacement rate model of determining whether someone was on track for retirement or not. Looking at that model, the DWP have said 43% of working age people are not going to get there. That’s about 15 million people.

Chris Brown (04:22)

And the IFS have got similar stats as well. I think I’ve seen one that says 40% of private sector DC savers won’t get to that target replacement rate.

Paul Waters (04:33)

Okay, yeah, that sounds about right. And if we bring it to a more modern sort of target, so the PLSA, Pension UK now, their moderate standard of living of £32,000 a year, they would say three out of four people are not saving enough.

So one of the things we did, so the report that actually came out last week from the DWP looked at the levels of savings. And the thing that was stark, which really struck me, so we’ve just done some modelling around this, so through that period, DC contributions have been on average 8%. They fell a little bit, well, the median fell when we introduced auto enrolment, because, Chris, remind me what it started at a low base, didn’t it?

Chris Brown (05:14)

It did. Was it 1% and 2% with the original rates, I think?

Paul Waters (05:19)

So, when we brought in a load of new employers at the foundational rates, the median fell down but broadly if we say DC has been 8%. If you look at DB, so in 2005 when the DWP stats started for the report they released last week, DB was getting 20%. More recently, over the last couple of years, it’s been 25%. When we ran the numbers, if we took a 25-year-old on average earnings of £35,000 a year, if they had just 20% going into DC, so the lower amount than DB, they’d have a pension of just over £30,000 a year from DC. At state pension, they’d be retiring on plus £40,000 a year.

If you did the same thing going into collective DC, which I know is a separate topic, where you might get sort of 20%, 30% more outcomes or better outcomes. Same person could get over £50,000 a year in retirement, £60,000 with state pension. The DB DC difference is about saving rates.

Chris Brown (06:29)

Okay, so this is interesting. So, I want to ask you about this because, so the IFS, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, did this report in July, I referenced the stat from it a moment ago. And that had a conclusion that although upping savings rates would obviously be helpful, for a lot of savers, particularly the low earners, actually increasing contributions by a large amount doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll be better off. So, it’s not necessarily the case that having a higher retirement income at the cost of lower take-home pay today is better for low earners. And sort of their suggestion was that increased contributions are targeted at sort of middle-income earners. So, what you’re saying there is that higher contribution rates will improve retirement outcomes, but how does that fit with the IFS’s view that it’s not necessarily the case that savings should increase and I think Torsten Bell has ruled out pension increases to pension contributions during this parliament as well.

Paul Waters (07:35)

Yeah, absolutely. So, there’s a lot to unpick there. So it’s definitely true, the research the IFS did, showed, and actually those numbers I referred to a minute ago, highlight this a little bit as well. There are people on low incomes who need those savings or cannot afford to save more today, because eventually they would be forgoing kind of consumption and basic needs today for a higher pension when they retire, which is more than the money they’ve got at the moment. So that obviously doesn’t make sense.

One of the things that we suggested and is the Pension Commission has a fairly broad range. We’ll come on to that in a moment to talk about the terms of reference, but it’s wider than just pensions. It looks at wider savings as well. You know, the problem is the DWP’s analysis showed that there’s a gender and income inequality problem as well as an adequacy problem.

If you think about the way many match DC pension contributions to design, those people who can afford to save the most get the most from their employer. And so how do you solve that in a world in which low income people rightly shouldn’t be saving even more into pension? One of the things that we’ve looked at, at Hymans, would be a version of the sidecar savings which NEST have done, which say, if you were able to get the full amount of match contribution from your employer, but you had access to that in a savings fund, therefore, if you needed it for shorter term needs, it might be a way which is more equitable that everyone’s got access to the same, but it addresses your point, Chris, of, well the IFS’s point, around those lower income part of the population who it’s just that it doesn’t make sense to say, yes, we’ve solved your pension retirement adequacy thing, because that’s not the biggest problem they’ve got.

Chris Brown (09:30)

Yeah, exactly. I mean, there’s all sorts of questions when you look at wider fiscal policy. Could you use pension savings as collateral for a deposit on a house, for example, which is possible in some of the jurisdictions? And that’s really interesting. So Paul, I might just come to you now, if you could explain a bit about the terms of reference of the Commission, that would be really helpful. But then I want to talk about investment and mandations. So, the Commission as you were saying, is wider than just pure pension savings, isn’t it?

Paul Waters (10:02)

It is, yes. They’ve got a big job on their hands. I was reminding myself who’s leading the Commission earlier. So, it’s Baroness Jeannie Drake, the Labour peer who had a couple of decades in pensions, a real pension stalwart, and was part of the original Pension Commission. It’s Sir Ian Cheshire, who’s got a really strong business background. He’s been chair and CEO of some very large corporate companies. And then Professor Nick Pearce, who brings the sort of public policy view, is a researcher and part of Bath University, I think.

And so their remit is to assess the long-term future of the UK pension system, focusing on adequacy, fairness, and sustainability through to 2027, and beyond, just reading from the remit. But what they’re going to look at specifically is how do you improve retirement outcomes and picking up on some of these most at-risk groups we talked about as well. And then finally, the way they’re going to do that, they’re going to look at the role of private pensions. They’re going to look at wider savings. They’re going to look at the state pension. And they’re going to consider the challenges of an aging population as well. And they’re expected to report back with their final report in 2027. So they’ve got a massive amount of work to do, but it’s going be so exciting.

Chris Brown (11:16)

Yeah and perhaps we’ll just finish talking about the Commission there with that point which is they’re not actually reporting for what another, well, well over a year which is, yes they’ve got a massive amount of work to do but interesting that, you know, conclusions won’t be drawn for another a year and a bit.

Paul Waters (11:35)

That’s right, yeah exactly. And we know how long it took to implement the recommendations from the original Commission from a Stargate point of view, change is coming, change might not happen quickly.

Chris Brown (11:49)

Exactly that. That’s the summary I’ve written on my notes in front of me as well. So yeah, we’re aligned on that Paul. Okay, fine. Well, look, that’s really interesting. We’re going to be doing a whistle stop tour through different policy areas here. So now I’d like to talk about investment and mandation. So, listeners will be familiar with the Mansion House Accord, which was a development from the Mansion House Compact.

The Mansion House Accord was announced on the 13th of May earlier this year. It’s got 17 signatories, or it did when it was announced, and it’s a voluntary expression of intent for there to be a minimum of 10% allocations, private market investments across all main DC default funds by 2030. So 17 people have signed up, voluntarily committed, to doing that and to have of 5% to UK private markets. So, that’s the Mansion House Accord.

And then we have had the Pension Schemes Bill, which has the backstop power relating to investment and mandations. So Hercules, I might bring you in here, please, if that’s okay. There’s no doubt the government’s growth agenda is driving pensions policy. What does the Bill actually say?

Hercules Phillips (13:12)

Yes, so there’s a condition in the bill for a master trust to be authorised as an auto enrolment scheme. And the condition is that there’s specified asset allocations in the scheme’s default fund. So this only applies to master trusts and GPPs used for auto enrolment and only to their default arrangements.

But this is what the room and mill have been expecting and has been characterised as a kind of mandation power to specify minimum levels of investment in particular asset classes for DC schemes default funds.

Chris Brown (13:56)

Yeah, absolutely. And in the bill, there’s no substantive asset allocation. There’s no amount, an allocation amount in the bill itself yet, but rather, as you say, there’s this permissive power for the government to make regulations to introduce that.

Hercules Phillips (14:12)

Yeah, it does set out the qualifying assets that may be included in that. So it sets out that that would be private equity, private debt, venture capital or interest in land. And that fits with the government’s agenda, which is trying to get more productive assets, including in private markets and infrastructure.

Chris Brown (14:34)

Yeah, okay. Now, we’re going to come, and Paul, I’m going to bring you in a minute if that’s okay, because obviously there’s a lot of different factors and risks at play here with a policy agenda where the government is mandating how schemes must invest their assets. But Hercules, the government would say, look, in the bill, there’s a number of protections, so trustees and providers don’t need to be worried about if the government were to use this coming power to mandate an investment allocation. What protections are those?

Hercules Phillips (15:11)

Yes, so the first one is that there’s a sunset provision in the bill, which means that if the power hasn’t been exercised before the end of 2035, the whole of the relevant section, which is 28C, would expire. And we understand that Pensions UK are lobbying to reduce the duration of that to bring that 2035 so that’s aligned with the end of parliament. Another mechanism, or another protection rather, is there’s a mechanism or regulations providing for exemptions.

So, the mechanism allows for an exemption for any asset allocation requirement, and that exemption must provide that the relevant authority can only grant the exemption if it’s of view that meeting the asset allocation requirement would cause material financial detriment to the scheme or members of the scheme.

Chris Brown (16:11)

So that’s quite interesting and we’ll come on to trustee fiduciary duties in a minute, but there’s a mechanism, the details of which are to be ironed out, for applying for an exemption, but that exemption will need to be approved by a third party. So, trustees of a trust-based DC scheme can’t just decide that a mandation doesn’t apply to them. They would have to apply for exemption and have that approved. And then there’s steps from the Secretary of State as well, aren’t there, that they must do before any regs are introduced?

Hercules Phillips (16:43)

Before any regulations are introduced, the Secretary of State will need to publish and prepare a report into how the financial interests of members are or would be affected by the regulations. What effect they’re expected to have on economic growth in the UK and any other appropriate matters, and then later there’s also a requirement that after a five year period of any regulations being made, another report would need to be published and laid before Parliament that again considers the impact on members’ financial interests and the effect that the regulations have had on UK economic growth.

Chris Brown (17:32)

Yes. So, Paul, big policy change there if the government does use this power, proposed power. There’s been a lot of opposition to it in the industry. I think the government, so here’s an extract from the Pension Investment Review final report. It says “the government does not anticipate exercising the power unless it considers the industry has not delivered change on its own”.

So, that’s all right then. That’s where we are with the Bill. Could you tell us a bit about the latest and what’s your views on, it’s a very interventionist policy this, isn’t it?

Paul Waters (18:09)

It is. Yeah, it’s a controversial one. I’ve certainly heard Torsten Bell echo the summary you just gave there in that well, there’s not a problem, everyone, because you all said you wanted to do this. So we’re not going to need to use this power, are we? Why are you worried? It is a controversial one. And I’m not surprised there’s been a lot of opposition to it. If we go back to the policy itself, the principle, I think most pension schemes and colleagues in the industry I’ve talked to, behind certainly the idea that let’s take you’re 30 years old, you can afford to lock that money up in a way that most other investments aren’t. You do not need the liquidity for a guaranteed 25 years, possibly 30, 40 years.

So you should be able to benefit from that liquidity premium, which is part of the investment rationale for doing it. The idea that it has to be in the UK is obviously one which starts to get a little bit more challenging when you’ve got a global market to invest in and where might you get the best returns from. One of the other arguments that has been made is that naturally we all live and work in the UK and the majority of us expect to retire in the UK. Therefore, if through the power of our pension investments, we can make the UK more prosperous, a better place to live, it benefits us all because we’re a better place to retire into. That’s all well and good, but you definitely need to get the best returns from your own pension pot as well sort of thing.

What we’re seeing is that overall, there is a move towards these sorts of investments. Obviously, the large providers are doing it and they’re looking to make these allocations and it’s high on the agenda of many of our own trust pension schemes looking at their own investment strategy. The challenge is that we’re starting to see, and maybe more foresee, is just the availability of those high-quality assets at a price which is sensible.

Chris Brown (20:13)

There has to be a pipeline of available investment opportunities, don’t they? And actually, if there isn’t, then you’ve got that limited pool of assets. You’re concentrating, will costs for those go up and then the value come down if there’s only a limited pool?

Paul Waters (20:29)

That would certainly worry me and I should say I’m not an investment professional myself, my colleagues are leading the advice on this, but that sort of thing would worry me from a pure economics principle. So that’s an interesting one. Clearly you’ve got a little bit of herding and sort of the long-term, well, the other thing is the long-term nature of this. You might be investing in a new offshore wind farm development. It’s gonna take decades for returns on that to really play out.

So who knows what the landscape will look like in five to 10 years and what the reality of this drive will be. Clearly the government’s got high hopes and the industry is generally supportive, but the idea of mandation is one which doesn’t sit well with lots of people, I think.

Chris Brown (21:13)

That’s right. Okay, and interesting for trustees of DC schemes considering this, because how does a new duty to invest in line with mandation from the government sit with your fiduciary duties as a trustee? And I suppose one point worth making here is that there is a fair bit of comfort in the existing law, which says essentially, you know, under current law, investment decisions are very difficult to challenge, provided that trustees comply with, you know, the requirements under the investment regulations and take, proper advice on the investment. I think if we do get mandation, then certainly an exemption to give trustees protection from challenges if they are following mandation would be very, very helpful for, for trustees, I think.

Okay, so I think that takes us then to another policy area. All of this aimed at increasing outcomes for members and that’s around employee engagement and advice. And now this is an area where the regulator and the FCA are working together. And on the 30th of June, the FCA published a consultation paper on targeted support, which is planned for 2026.

So, Paul, can you tell our listeners just what is targeted support?

Paul Waters (22:43)

Yeah, absolutely. So, targeted support is the latest attempt from the FCA to solve the advice gap in a way that people are prepared to create sort of products and solutions for. They’ve tried many times in the past by giving guidance and relaxing the rules, but it hasn’t really worked. So, targeted support is their new approach for this. And what it says is that if

as a pension provider, financial services organisation you can look at a group of customers who have similar attributes and find a way and give them guidance of a way that would put them in a better position around their savings or investments. Then you can apply to the FCA to explain how you plan to do this and get permission to do it.

And maybe I can give a couple of examples to help make it clearer to people. Some of the examples the FCA have given are people who are under saving for retirement. So the pension provider has got lots of data on them and can see that right now they’re not saving enough. Or another example would be people who have lots of money in cash but have shown to have a reasonable degree of investment risk appetite, which is inconsistent with that. And the third one, which was a very straightforward one they gave, is that people are in retirement and they’re drawing down their income and they’re drawing down at a rate which is obviously unsustainable.

And the providers I speak to, many of them are quite excited about this because they tell me they end up in situations and conversations with people who need help and they are not able to answer some relatively simple sort of questions and guidance for them because at the moment it might be classed as advice. And so for example, right now they could say, someone says, how much do you think I need to save for retirement, they could only say more than you are probably, go and have a look at a modeler. Under this new approach, they would be able to say, well, for people like you, and they need to say, by people like you, we mean we think you’re between the ages of 30 and 35, you need this, and help the customer identify, yes, that is me. You’re saving 5%. If you save 8%, you’ll be on track for the moderate standard of living in retirement, and be much more helpful without it being sort of, we need to know everything about your personal circumstances, your partner, are you going to inherit, et cetera, which is what would happen in an advice conversation.

Chris Brown (25:32)

In an advice situation and that’s a key distinction, isn’t it? So it is not individual advice, but it is a suggestion of actions to consumers who share, as you say, particular characteristics. And I think the FCA has been quite clear that there will be a trade-off in terms of outcomes for some people. Because it’s not advice, there will be risks with targeted support as opposed to somebody going off to go and get their own individual advice, but it improves outcomes for consumers as a whole and is therefore good for savers in the industry.

Paul Waters (26:09)

Which seems a really good step in the right direction, doesn’t it? Because right now everything is avoiding any harm. And that really does put handcuffs on you when you could say, in general, this will be much better for the majority of people. And sure, we’re not saying it’s perfect for everyone. And the FCA acknowledging that, and you’re right, they’ve really put that as part of their sort of consultation papers, haven’t they? Will hopefully give people the confidence to actually implement it, which maybe has been a problem in the past.

Chris Brown (26:37)

Yeah, exactly. And speaking of confidence, Hercules, this targeted support is aimed at people regulated by the FCA, but is also relevant to trustees of trust-based schemes. And what do you think at the moment, trustees have, rightly because of the potential for criminal sanctions, have certainly erred on the side of caution about not really providing too much information to members so that they don’t run the risk of carrying out the regulated activity of advising without authorisation. What’s relevant for trustees as they’re considering how targeted support will apply to them?

Hercules Phillips (27:17)

Yeah, well the FCA have tried to support trustees by saying that support that relates solely to in-scheme, occupational pension or scheme investments will generally not involve trustees carrying out regulated activities without being authorised. But I think trustees will remain cautious here. The FCA have also suggested partnering with FCA-authorised firms to offer this targeted support.

And I guess when doing so, the key considerations are how you’re going to define those consumer segments and make up those suggestions. That’s presumably if an authorised firm is going to be doing that, that’s going to involve a lot of member data going across to them. So there’ll have to be data protection agreements.

Chris Brown (28:13)

This is if trustees partner with an FCA-authorised firm in order to be able to provide the targeted support, you’re saying that trustees will need to make sure they review their contractual provisions with that third party advisor?

Hercules Phillips (28:28)

Yeah, and there might also need to be consideration of potential liability, who’s responsible for the losses that members may suffer if they’ve acted on that targeted support.

That’s generally not been something that the trustees have had to get involved with. So they’ll need to think carefully about what protections are in place.

Chris Brown (28:52)

Yeah, Paul, thanks Hercules, I think you’re right. Paul, so there’ll be a lot for all providers to need to think through, but specific considerations for trustees there. Anything you’d add to what Hercules is saying?

Paul Waters (29:05)

I guess only that probably one of the biggest areas of challenge we see is the sort of at retirement position and so that’s already going to be very important for trustees given the Pension Bill with guided retirement defaults potentially coming in as well. So, I think all of these things come together a little bit. You can maybe throw dashboards in and that all of a sudden people are gonna have access to the data.

So, the trustees are gonna have to think about everything in the round and you can be positive and say you can combine some of these to create some really good solutions, but also some quite difficult decisions for trustees and trade-offs to make, I think, which they’ve probably not had to do in such a way before.

Chris Brown (29:48)

And dashboards, really interesting. We will need to do another podcast on those. And in fact, we spoke with your colleague and Head of DC consulting, Kathryn Fleming, on decumulation on a podcast, which will have been published by the time this one goes live. So yeah, really, really interesting areas. Look, the Chief Executive of the FCA in a speech said, it’s no exaggeration to say that he wants the advice guidance boundary review to trigger an advice revolution. So, we’ll be really interested to see how this advice gap gets filled. Look, this is a monster podcast for us, but I do want to continue because I want to talk, Paul, about some things you’re seeing in the sort of crossover space between DB and DC, because there’s interesting things relating to particular benefits when trustees of defined benefit schemes are buying out.

Paul Waters (30:50)

That’s right, yeah. And we’ve seen a dramatic increase in the need to support trustees and pension schemes around this. So, with DB schemes coming to buy-out, many of these have got ABC arrangements attached to them. And in order to make the buy-out work, then you need to do something with the ABC arrangement. And now clearly there’s a broad range of stuff out there, but a lot of the ABC arrangements we see are, by nature, very old. These things were put in place a long time ago. There’s all sorts of complications around the complicated underpins, there’s data issues. And so, on our clients, they’re needing to take a lot of legal advice and support around how do you resolve these. Sometimes for small numbers of members, yet it could prevent an entire DB by-out going ahead.

Super complicated, little bit of consulting advice from the DC side, but it’s been a real hot topic for some of the lawyers, I think, so I’m sure you have views on that.

Chris Brown (31:51)

It’s something we’re seeing too, whether DC funds could be used towards tax free pension commencement lump sum and how to protect that option, is really important. Look, frankly, what’s an insurer willing to do? Is the insurer that you’re approaching for your DB majority of your benefits buy-in willing to take on DC assets as well as part of that? Could you assign DC benefits, and if you do then to what extent do you need member consent? There’s lots to think through and yeah we’re seeing it as a hot topic area.

Paul Waters (32:25)

That’s good. Yeah, we’re grateful for the legal profession to be able to resolve some of those questions because they’re pretty thorny. And then the last thing we were going to say about the sort of connection with DB is almost the opposite. It’s DB schemes who are running on with a surplus, using that to fund the employer DC contributions for those hybrids. So, that’s been something we’ve seen more of. And maybe just one unusual thing to finish with, and this topic, which we saw a while ago with one of our clients was that they managed to move the, in a hybrid scheme, move the DC assets to a master trust, yet retain the link such that DB surplus could continue to fund the employer contributions.

Chris Brown (33:12)

That’s really interesting.

Paul Waters (33:14)

Yeah, yeah, a bit of a neat one. It took a lot of thought and effort on everyone’s side, the legal advisors, the client, the provider, but I, well, it’s clearly possible it’s happened and that might be a way forward for some other clients in these sorts of situations.

Chris Brown (33:31)

Well, you’ve whetted my appetite for another episode at some point on innovative use of DB surplus. That’s something that we’re considering with a number of clients. And certainly if you look on our website, you can see some of the examples of the things we’re looking at there. That sounds really interesting, Paul. I’d be interested to hear more about that master trust solution.

I’m conscious of time. Paul, Hercules, perhaps I could ask you both in one sentence, is there a thought you could leave our listeners with, please? Paul, if I come to you first.

Paul Waters (34:04)

Right, I’m going to leave you with a very sort of aspirational big picture. I think that right now we’ve got a once in a generation opportunity to improve pension outcomes for millions of people. The Labour government, the focus on the Pension Commission, the Bill everything that’s coming through. So as an industry, let’s not waste it because this is massive.

Chris Brown (34:23)

Yeah, really good thought. And it might take time for things to be implemented, but we have to grab the bull by the horns and use that opportunity. Fantastic. Thank you. And Hercules?

Hercules Phillips (34:35)

My thought would build on Paul’s thoughts. I think there are opportunities with investment mandation. There’s an opportunity for the industry to get together some well-signposted investment opportunities for those pension schemes that have already openly signalled they’re ready and willing to invest and to prepare for any mandation that does come.

Chris Brown (35:01)

Yeah, thank you very much. I mean, all schemes should be thinking about their asset allocations and investment strategies in light of government policy. Absolutely. Okay, well, it’s been great to speak to you both.

Paul Waters (35:14)

Thanks very much. It’s been a pleasure to be on the Pod and appreciate you inviting me.

Hercules Phillips (35:20)

Thanks, Chris.

Chris Brown (35:23)

Well, that was a great conversation on the Burges Salmon Pensions Pod. Lots covered in that episode. If you would like to know more about our Pensions and Lifetime Savings team and how our experts can work with you, then you can contact myself, Chris Brown, or Hercules, or any of our team via our website. And as we say every episode, all of our previous episodes are available on Apple, Spotify, our website or wherever you listen to your podcasts. So don’t forget to subscribe and thanks for listening.