Swedes show little faith in pensions agency
TT/The Local · 1 Nov 2010, 15:43
Published: 01 Nov 2010 15:43 GMT+01:00
- Pension gaps continue to grow: report (03 Apr 10)
- Pension fund favours banks not savers (22 Mar 09)
- Sweden's Sharia pension fund outperforms market (05 Dec 08)
However, 16 percent of investors are dissatisfied with their savings, while two-thirds have no opinion on the outcome of their funds under the Premium Pension Authority (Premiepensionsmyndigheten, PPM), a Sifo survey carried out for online broker Avanza has revealed.
Separately, the majority of respondents don't expect the system will end up providing them with any meaningful retirement savings, the survey revealed.
The survey was based on interviews with 1,217 people from October 25th to 27th.
PPM was created as a part of a move to privatise pensions in Sweden, but doubts linger regarding how well the pension savings of investors were managed. PPM was closed on January 1st when it was taken over by the new Swedish Pensions Agency (Pensionsmyndigheten).
PPM's main tasks were deciding on premiums, responsibility for pension premium accounts, recording and implementing all purchases and sales of mutual funds that pension savers requested and managing the money that pension savers chose to transfer to traditional insurance at retirement.
It also administered the surviving relatives included in the system, provided information to retirement savers and informed about premium pension in particular and the pension scheme in general.
At the same time, newspaper Dagens Industri wrote on Monday that many of PPM's fund administrators have produced a yield of about five percent on investments this year, significantly lower than the returns on the Stockholm Stock Exchange, which has gone up 14 percent so far in 2010.
The returns were not the only source of dissatisfaction for the authority. Last year, the Swedish Consumer Agency (Konsumentverket) and Swedish Consumers' Banking & Finance Bureau (Konsumenternas Bank- & finansbyrå) received hundreds of complaints about various PPM administrators.
Criticism revolved around high fees, exorbitant terms of contract and unsound telemarketing.