How will auto enrolment affect accountants?

How will auto enrolment affect accountants?

Didn't find your answer?

I’m working on an article about auto enrolment and how it will affect the profession when small businesses start to stage.

Has anyone got any thoughts on how well they think they’ve been informed about auto enrolment?

We’re keen to understand how aware accountants are and what perceptions are on how it will affect clients.

How aware of auto enrolment are you and your clients?

How do you think it will affect your practice?

Replies (45)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By Robert Lovell
06th Mar 2014 13:33

Comment from Adrian Kidd via Google+

Kidd said on Google+

"It could and should encourage engagement with advisers like myself (unless the accountancy practice has an advisory arm). This is a huge piece of legislation and I am seeing plenty of ostrich planning with heads firmly in the sand. Providers are going to become more stretched also and I fully expect lead times into staging dates to increase. There will be plenty of schemes also that may not be fit for purpose and I can see fines galore for business throughout the UK, in particular firms with 100 or less staff."

Thanks (0)
avatar
By taxhound
06th Mar 2014 13:47

more red tape and costs for my clients.  If RTI is anything to go by, it will be a nightmare for accountants dealing with payroll too.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By JoeOBrien1983
06th Mar 2014 14:34

As an adviser myself, who has been helping clients stage since February last year, I can confirm that it's not just Accountancy firms that have their heads in the sand.

Most clients, if not all of them, have under estimated the complexity of the legislation.

Bigger clients tend to already have a pension scheme and as such turn to their Financial Adviser or Pension Provider for guidance. The smaller clients that we are now arriving at (250 employees and less) often don't have a pension scheme in place and as a result, the first person they will turn to will be their Accountant.

Even some IFAs are scared to get involved as a result of not having larger clients where they have learnt the problems and developed solutions. Many Wealth firms have very little interaction with corporate clients, only dealing with individuals, they are again unwilling to get involved.

The advisers that have experience are faced with other issues. Who's going to set up a pension scheme for low paid, low contributing pension schemes? In the last 20 years in the region of 200,000 pension schemes have been set up in the UK. In the next couple of years we will require 1.35 million. At times 135,000 schemes a month.

I have yet to meet an accountant who a) understands all the issues b) understands how to solve them or c) cares enough to try to understand.

My comments are meant in the nicest possible way. Accountants don't see it as their problem. Their clients will more than likely disagree. Especially if the Accountant does their payroll. 

Thanks (0)
RLI
By lionofludesch
06th Mar 2014 14:40

Choosing

The problem with being given a free hand in choosing a scheme is that the client doesn't really have a financial interest in it.   It's of no consequence to him if it doesn't provide a good return for his employees.  By the time they collect, they won't be his employees any more.  He'll just choose the route of least resistance.

Thanks (1)
By johngroganjga
06th Mar 2014 14:46

Presumably we are talking about accountants as advisers to their clients rather than accountants as employers.

This is nothing to do with accountants (unless of course they are running the client's payroll). 

There is nothing accountants can earn from this and little they can usefully help clients with, except perhaps for introducing them to, and helping them to select, someone who can.

Some clients will want to be handheld more than others. 

Thanks (2)
avatar
By JoeOBrien1983
06th Mar 2014 14:46

The DWP have made it clear that scheme governance will be an important focus going forward.

Until now, governance has only really been an issue for Final Salary schemes. Now, with Automatic Enrolment the government is keen for DC pension to have the same regulations and obligations place upon them. After all, every employer will need to have one.

The DWP have stated the following. This will be the next focus from the government that employer will need to make sure they abide by;

§  The Scheme default should be designed with the membership profile in mind

§  The default should be appropriately and competitively charged

§  The asset allocation and investment strategy should take into consideration the membership profile

§  The investment strategy should cover a range of different assets and strike the correct balance between risk and reward

§  Clear and concise communication of the default must be provided to members

§  Full documented governance must be carried out

§  The default must be regularly reviewed

 

 

Thanks (0)
By ccassociates
06th Mar 2014 15:00

Quit payroll

What auto enrolment means for me is that I will not be doing payroll anymore. Operating payroll is no longer an add on for an accountant it has become a profession of its own. Far too often we would operate PAYE for the one man LTD CO at little or no cost, but RTI now means I could be liable to  fines for late submissions and the concept of Auto Enrollment is something I have no desire to learn.

If I continue offering payroll services clients will expect me to know all about it and more than that drive it for them and guess what they will complain about any charges I add because of this.

In 20 years time will this become the next big earner for the ambulance chasers. "Did your employer provide you with the opportunity to pay into a pension?? If not sign here and sue him"

Do these employers realise what is about to fall on their heads?

Thanks (0)
Euan's picture
By Euan MacLennan
06th Mar 2014 15:05

I agree with John

... in general, except that I don't agree with him or Taxhound that it will be a problem for those accountants who run payrolls.  It is just a case of setting up the contributions for those employees who remain auto-enrolled in whatever scheme the client adopts.  Apart from giving clients a "heads up" and perhaps, telling them what their staging date is, I envisage no greater involvement.

Incidentally, I think the terminology is one reason why very few people are getting excited about it.  What does "auto-enrolment" convey?  "Compulsory pensions for employees" would have earned attention.  And what is a "staging date"?  Why not call it a compulsory "start date"?

Thanks (3)
Replying to johnjenkins:
avatar
By JoeOBrien1983
06th Mar 2014 15:18

I disagree entirely

Euan MacLennan wrote:

It is just a case of setting up the contributions for those employees who remain auto-enrolled in whatever scheme the client adopts.  Apart from giving clients a "heads up" and perhaps, telling them what their staging date is, I envisage no greater involvement.

This is the same comments the payroll providers used to roll out, roughly two years ago. Then the penny dropped. This isn't just pensions, its payroll and any payroll provider that can't do it won't be in the industry for long. 

The fact is it isn't just a case of typing in contributions. They will be expecting you to assess, potentially be able to send communications or at least highlight what ones need to go to who, arrange refunds within 30 days, re assess in 3 years time. Assess all employees every pay reference period to make sure if they change category they get the right communication and are enrolled into a qualifying scheme (i.e. turn 22, turn 75, salary goes below/above £9,440 or £5,668 etc). They will be expecting you to produce data in a format that the pension provider can use to arrange pension contributions to be paid.

If you can't do any of that, somebody else will. I can guarantee it. 

Thanks (3)
Replying to lionofludesch:
Euan's picture
By Euan MacLennan
06th Mar 2014 15:34

Yes, but ...

JoeOBrien1983 wrote:

Euan MacLennan wrote:

It is just a case of setting up the contributions for those employees who remain auto-enrolled in whatever scheme the client adopts.  Apart from giving clients a "heads up" and perhaps, telling them what their staging date is, I envisage no greater involvement.

This is the same comments the payroll providers used to roll out, roughly two years ago. Then the penny dropped. This isn't just pensions, its payroll and any payroll provider that can't do it won't be in the industry for long. 

The fact is it isn't just a case of typing in contributions. They will be expecting you to assess, potentially be able to send communications or at least highlight what ones need to go to who, arrange refunds within 30 days, re assess in 3 years time. Assess all employees every pay reference period to make sure if they change category they get the right communication and are enrolled into a qualifying scheme (i.e. turn 22, turn 75, salary goes below/above £9,440 or £5,668 etc). They will be expecting you to produce data in a format that the pension provider can use to arrange pension contributions to be paid.

If you can't do any of that, somebody else will. I can guarantee it. 

I don't run the payrolls for clients using paper deductions sheets and Tables A to D.  I use payroll software and I expect that the software will handle these matters.  To paraphrase your punchline, if my software can't do any of that, someone else's will, in which case I might have to change software.

Thanks (8)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
avatar
By JoeOBrien1983
06th Mar 2014 15:47

Easy peasy...

Euan MacLennan wrote:

JoeOBrien1983 wrote:

Euan MacLennan wrote:

It is just a case of setting up the contributions for those employees who remain auto-enrolled in whatever scheme the client adopts.  Apart from giving clients a "heads up" and perhaps, telling them what their staging date is, I envisage no greater involvement.

This is the same comments the payroll providers used to roll out, roughly two years ago. Then the penny dropped. This isn't just pensions, its payroll and any payroll provider that can't do it won't be in the industry for long. 

The fact is it isn't just a case of typing in contributions. They will be expecting you to assess, potentially be able to send communications or at least highlight what ones need to go to who, arrange refunds within 30 days, re assess in 3 years time. Assess all employees every pay reference period to make sure if they change category they get the right communication and are enrolled into a qualifying scheme (i.e. turn 22, turn 75, salary goes below/above £9,440 or £5,668 etc). They will be expecting you to produce data in a format that the pension provider can use to arrange pension contributions to be paid.

If you can't do any of that, somebody else will. I can guarantee it. 

I don't run the payrolls for clients using paper deductions sheets and Tables A to D.  I use payroll software and I expect that the software will handle these matters.  To paraphrase your punchline, if my software can't do any of that, someone else's will, in which case I might have to change software.

Good luck. You'll need it.

I have nothing to gain from trying to open your eyes. But if you continue to think it's as easy as this, your in for a fright. And you'll lose clients to people who took it seriously.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By justsotax
06th Mar 2014 15:33

@joe...

given the supposedly ever decreasing number of providers due to the complexity...I fear your statement that 'somebody else will (do the payroll..I presume), I can guarantee it'....holds little water.  And even if it does its quite clear that the majority of accountants will be passing the business to a payroll bureau.  Since beginning in practice payroll has been a loss leader....so I don't think there will be too many sad to see it go.  You said it yourself....the complexity involved is at a stupid level....so why get involved...clearly some providers have decided to avoid it....

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Kazmc
06th Mar 2014 15:45

We had a....

We have just this morning had a meeting about AE and the impact it will have on our practice.

Currently run payrolls for 350 clients.

The impact is going to be such that extra staff will have to be employed.

At the moment we are looking at offering a 'full' service to clients which will include everything, categorising workers, communications, management of scheme etc.

We have no idea at this stage how many different pension companies we will have to be dealing with and how many middleware systems will need to be in place.

For us it will be a huge undertaking.

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Ruddles:
avatar
By JoeOBrien1983
06th Mar 2014 15:51

Middleware

Kazmc wrote:

We have just this morning had a meeting about AE and the impact it will have on our practice.

Currently run payrolls for 350 clients.

The impact is going to be such that extra staff will have to be employed.

At the moment we are looking at offering a 'full' service to clients which will include everything, categorising workers, communications, management of scheme etc.

We have no idea at this stage how many different pension companies we will have to be dealing with and how many middleware systems will need to be in place.

For us it will be a huge undertaking.

Middleware is expensive and not required. Some Employee Benefit firms try to sell them, but they're a waste of money.

pm if you would like more details.

Thanks (0)
By stratty
06th Mar 2014 15:47

Auto Enrolment

I am currently working on processes for some payrolls that are affected by auto enrolment and the payroll software (providing it is setup correctly) handles all assessments, auto enrolment in the scheme (where relevant) and reporting for the pension scheme provider, who then in turn send communication for each of the three type of worker, eligible jobholder, non eligible jobholder and entitled workers.

If you have robust processes in place it is simple enough to operate and certainly not something you should be fearful of.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By JoeOBrien1983
06th Mar 2014 15:55

Stratty

What payroll provider?

Thanks (0)
By stratty
06th Mar 2014 16:02

Payroll

We currently use Star Payroll.

I am sure that other mainstream providers, Sage, Moneysoft etc will have similar functionality.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
30th Mar 2014 11:22

Any accountant ...

... who runs payroll and thinks auto-enrolment is just a couple of new tabs on the software is living incloud cuckoo land, sorry Euan.

In theory that is correct, in practice unless an accountant vigourously manages client expectations it is going to cause major rifts between accountant and client.

The payroll side is easy, to a degree, but with employees doing the opt out hokey cokey round Christmas and summer holidays to predict a couple of areas it will be a nightmare ensuring who is in and who is out is properly managed, let alone dealing with starters and leavers.

Then there is the admin trail, making sure opter outers are opted back in, hey are supplied all the necessary paperwork etc.

I amwith Adrian Kidd, team up with an IFA and let them do the pension side, because sure as eggs is eggs your clients are going to expect you to do it for hem, so be pre-emptive, get all your clients staging dates, write to them and tell them, ask them what they want to do, give them the option talk to my guy now, or find your own.

If you do not do this you could and probably will find major rifts with many of your clients appearing from nowhere.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By JoeOBrien1983
06th Mar 2014 16:43

Stratty

Star are one of the better ones. I was at one of their events this week actually.

Sage have one, it's not great. MoneySoft are working on one for an April update, the templates are only for Master Trusts i.e. NEST etc plus nobody has actually seen it yet, so nobody knows what it can actually do.

Having the right software is a good step in the right direction. But it is only Step 1.

Thanks (0)
By ccassociates
06th Mar 2014 16:50

As I said earlier

The best way to deal with this is to stop doing it and give it to someone who knows what they are doing. I have no desire to spend my time explaining the minutiae of the system to a client who doesn't want to be involved, will expect me to find him the cheapest way to do it and will probably tell his employees to ring me with their queries.

This government has no idea what they are doing unless of course it is their intention to promote the black economy so that they have more poor souls to fine.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By justsotax
06th Mar 2014 16:50

Whats the big fuss...

just outsource the payroll.....

Thanks (0)
Replying to Galaxian:
avatar
By User deleted
06th Mar 2014 16:57

Ok ...

justsotax wrote:

just outsource the payroll.....

... payroll for my clients outsourced - who they gonna call, Ghostbusters? I will still be their prime contact.

It is not the payroll side that is the problem, it is the queries and admin, so you either suck it up and make sure you can cover that, or your tell them you can't do their payroll and hope they find a bureau and not another accountancy firm that DOES offer a one-stop shop and risk losing more than just the payroll income!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Ruddles:
avatar
By JoeOBrien1983
06th Mar 2014 16:58

Agreed

Old Greying Accountant wrote:

It is not the payroll side that is the problem, it is the queries and admin, so you either suck it up and make sure you can cover that, or your tell them you can't do their payroll and hope they find a bureau and not another accountancy firm that DOES offer a one-stop shop and risk losing more than just the payroll income!

My point exactly. Completely agree.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By justsotax
06th Mar 2014 17:00

well you can always

point them in a direction of a payroll bureau you have links with....its not that hard!?  Perhaps a client would appreciate dealing with a payroll specialist who you have referred them to rather than using an accountancy firm that is jack of all trades...

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
06th Mar 2014 17:05

And afterall @joe

seems to be of the view that very few firms are prepared for this....so presumably trying to find the utopia of a one-stop shop will be like trying to find a needle in a hay stack.  Then again I think it was the 2020 group or someone else who suggested ion the late 90s that by 2010 or abouts firms could not rely on compliance work as it would be down the pan....it appears not!?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By JoeOBrien1983
06th Mar 2014 17:12

Payroll Bureau

In an ideal world, sure. You refer them to a payroll bureau and you keep the client for everything else.

But Payroll Bureaus can't offer advice. They can't advise a scheme, they can't make the scheme qualifying, they can't advise what category of certification to use or if QE, they can't advise a default fund, they can't advise employees when they ask, they cant do anything other than pay them, maybe send communications and possibly send data back to the employer to send to the pension provider.

What if a client goes to an Accountancy firm who has taken it seriously and has an IFA who will work with them on Automatic Enrolment. He does the advice, they do the payroll and the other work. He doesn't want any of the other work the accountant does because he's an adviser, not an accountant.

Of course, you could just change your payroll software but that's just Step 1.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
06th Mar 2014 17:17

...i am struggling a bit....

you said it was the accountants responsibility...but actually you need to work alongside an IFA....so which is it....will you as an accountant be giving investment advice...am guessing not...so the planning seems to be get an IFA on board...you really are in the business for looking for problems rather than solutions.... 

Thanks (0)
Replying to neil9327:
avatar
By JoeOBrien1983
06th Mar 2014 17:39

I can tell you're struggling.

justsotax wrote:

you said it was the accountants responsibility...but actually you need to work alongside an IFA....so which is it....will you as an accountant be giving investment advice...am guessing not...so the planning seems to be get an IFA on board...you really are in the business for looking for problems rather than solutions.... 

Its not about whose responsible, its about who has the business sense to try make an opportunity of Automatic Enrolment, instead of just burying your head in the sand. Its an accountants responsibility to take the legislation seriously and put in place processes for dealing with their clients when they come to discuss Automatic Enrolment. My comment on an IFA was a 'what if' scenario. I'm not here to tell you how to run your business, that's your job. I'm just highlighting the need for it to be taken more seriously. 

If you don't somebody else will. Why on earth would anyone, as a business, risk losing clients because they didn't take one of the biggest changes to employers in years seriously.

It makes no difference to me what you do. I just happen to be quite passionate about this and want to help people, me sitting here writing you a message is no benefit to me

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
06th Mar 2014 17:50

You need to work with an IFA ...

... if you leave it to the client to find their own the independant IFA will probably have links with their own accountant.

Just because there are few adequate one-stop shops won't stop competeitors promising more than they can deliver to steal your business!

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Jekyll and Hyde
06th Mar 2014 17:58

Just another headache to deal with in a specific calender cycle

I heard horror stories when self assessment was introduced, same with the online filing of PAYE, same with the new CIS system and the same with RTI, but most firms are still alive and thriving. Yes there were some firms that pipped others to the post, but then again I remember working in a large firm in 2000 - 2001 where the partners frowned upon the practice of setting up Ltd companies and paying low salaries and the remainder in dividends. Other firms took the early option and incorporated and the rest of us followed suit. 

It generates headaches in any given year (this case 3) and takes us all away from the important work of advising our clients on profit related issues.

Yes, it is going to be a minefield, and one that some will walk away from, others will grapple with and some will get burnt.

The way I see it (and I have now watched 2 webinars on Auto-enrolment, read a lot of material and spoken to several different IFA's, who are equally concerned about submitting the reports) is that if this auto-enrollment is so complex and so difficult to manage and for software providers to actually build systems around, both for us and the various departments and pension companies, then it will simply fail or the implementation will be slowed down or delayed. And before I hear that it won't, I heard the same with the CIS system and if I recall it correctly it was delayed 2 years in a row!?!.

Euan is correct, the software providers will get there with the payroll systems and it will be like RTI in respect to the payroll processing. Has everyone actually got to grips fully with CIS,VAT, TAX, RTI, etc. Are you all experts at them all? This will be another specialism. 

My guess is that people will say yes, but I feel the answer is that we all know we work in complex times and whenever we feel we are out of our depths we consult with specialist advisors. Why is it going to be any different with the new pension scheme. There will no doubt be court cases on the rules in the future, just like all of the tax systems we work in, and I guess there will be companies that fall foul of the rules, just like they do with tax. Our letters of engagement will cover these aspects and after 5 years of the implementation, either the government will change the rules or we will all be used to working within this system. Oh and I guess that our prices will all go up a little for the hassle factor.

Thanks (0)
Morph
By kevinringer
07th Mar 2014 13:17

AE is a monster compared to RTI
RTI meant we had to cleanse our data and file on time – but the filing process using Moneysoft is easy. Not so with AE. There will not be any RTI button to enable direct upload to the pension provider. At best we will have the ability to produce a CSV, log into the pension provider’s portal and upload it. At worst we may have to re-key the data straight into the pension provider’s portal. If we don’t want the hassle we can outsource AE. But that won’t remove the problems completely. If the pension handler calculates the contributions we will still need to put them in our software. And will the employer always remember to tell the pension handler about changes in salary, starters, leavers? No. So who will? Us? We could get out of it all by issuing letters of engagement making it clear that we are not dealing with it. But is this helping the client? I expect outsourcers won’t be interested in smaller employers and the client won’t have the ability to handle the work so it will end up with us. So we might as well grasp it from the beginning and recognise it is going to take a lot of extra time. And charge accordingly.

Thanks (0)
Replying to frankfx:
avatar
By Kazmc
07th Mar 2014 14:14

No AE Function...

[quote=kevinringer. There will not be any RTI button to enable direct upload to the pension provider. At best we will have the ability to produce a CSV, log into the pension provider’s portal and upload it. .[/quote]

Is there no AE function being built into Moneysoft do you know?

We are with sage at the moment and they will have an AE add-on available, is that not the case with Moneysoft?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Gone Sailing
07th Mar 2014 14:06

Dumbo

Just awoken to the pleasant aroma of coffee, and have just realised there is an elephant in my office, which I hadn't spotted due to the sand my eyes.

Conclusion - the software will handle it after a few teething troubles, but the scary part is the admin, telephone calls, client dependence, HMG's computers, missing and untimely data, transient work force, confused and disinterested employees, "sorry, I'm not allowed to answer that question", x 100.

 

 

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By JoeOBrien1983
07th Mar 2014 14:26

Moneysoft

have an update in April. I haven't seen it yet.

And Kevin Ringer is correct. He will be able to assess and populate a spreadsheet. And this will only be for Master trusts i.e. NEST

That's Step 1.

Gone Sailing wrote:

the software will handle it after a few teething troubles, but the scary part is the admin, telephone calls, client dependence, HMG's computers, missing and untimely data, transient work force, confused and disinterested employees, "sorry, I'm not allowed to answer that question", x 100.

This is the main area people should be concerned about. 

Thanks (1)
By jonsa
07th Mar 2014 14:40

I am with you Jekyll & Hyde

I could not have said it better.  RTI was meant to be the biggest change since PAYE started in 19whenever.  Now we are used to it and there is not much extra in the way of procedures.  So we have another biggest change.  We will get used to it and the software will help.  Take note of it and yes there will be some extra work, but we will manage or outsource it with the help of our friendly IFA.

Thanks (0)
By ChrisScullard
07th Mar 2014 15:01

Why is this not being see as an opportunity?

In time software will be developed that can handle all of the day to day tasks, it will be developed to be able to communicate with most pension providers (in the same way that Clearbooks, Xero FreeAgent etc can communicate with your bank).  If the current popular software isn't developed in this way it will be by someone else.  And if it isn't I will find someone to write the package!!

All that is left is to understand the process and schematics fully, advise and invoice.

I don't know about anybody else on here but I sell my time and expertise to small business owners on matters I understand that they don't.  Is this not an extension of this?

Before anyone suggests how can I possibly become an expert in this field, I can't.  But then again I'm not an expert in every piece of VAT legislation but I'm perfectly capable of advising on the most common VAT situations, preparing returns, etc and have the backup of expert advice available when I need it.  I see no reason why this should be any different.

Thanks (0)
By Steve Holloway
07th Mar 2014 15:23

My wife has just completed the staging for her employer ...

and I have follwed closely the ups and downs of a well resourced HR department. My observations are:

Its not about the payroll provider ... they have a professional outsourced operation and they have had to be coached through every aspect of this. All they are interested in are relevant reference numbers, eligible employees and contribution rates. This is a big outfit and I suspect most of us who do outsource will have done so to much smaller and less prepared outfits.

Its not about the pension provider .... they will get involved in providing a full solution but at a huge cost.

Its not about an IFA ... they understand the rules (in detail!) but have no appreciation of how to communicate that to the end client. They are also not resourced to do this for x million new schemes.

It is about ....us!! We are the first port of call to our clients for anything like this.It is NOTHING like RTI. AE is encapsulated in a 100 page guidance book which includes many technical phrases that we will not have come across before. It is not intuitive and NONE of our clients will understand it.

However, on a positive note .. we are clever professionals and we are use to reading technical briefings. Once understood and done once it will be relatively easy to help every other client ... at an additional cost. This is an opportunity and I for one intend to enjoy it!

 

Thanks (2)
avatar
By pauljohnston
07th Mar 2014 15:49

"The additional cost"

This is the scary bit.  For smaller businesses this from whats written above could be much larger than the payroll charge.  Many accountants charge around £40 per month for a 3-5 payroll.  HOw much more for Auto-Enrolment. Can some one give me an idea say for  5 employees perhaps using what JoeO'Brien info above.  Thank you

Thanks (0)
Euan's picture
By Euan MacLennan
09th Mar 2014 19:32

Small employers

Most of us deal with OMBs (whether they be Owner Managed Businesses or One Man Businesses) and it is they who will account for the vast majority of the new pension schemes which will be required.  Who do you think is going to be able to provide this number of schemes for just a few employees?  It is not going to be tailor-made schemes - for just a few employees, there is no money in it for them.  Instead, it will be bog standard schemes offered on a mass market basis by half a dozen of the big insurance companies and they will all be much the same.  You will not need an IFA to advise on the relative merits of a vast number of schemes - the client will just have to pick one and whichever one he chooses will be no worse than the others.

Most of the mechanics will be handled by the payroll software and I agree with Chris Scullard that "All that is left is to understand the process and schematics fully, advise and invoice".

@Paul - I have had a conversation with a guy at one of the payroll software providers.  He said that their estimate of the additional cost of dealing with compulsory employee pensions (and let us please stop using meaningless mumbo jumbo like Auto-enrolment) is £5 per employee per month.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By zebaa
09th Mar 2014 21:18

Complicated if you make it so...

...but it need not be complicated. I run a firm that uses moneysoft - it handles the pension contribution just fine. Pensions for staff were set up a long time ago, not least because I am one that will benefit, so I am speaking with experience, not just theory. When I see this type of scare mongering I have to wonder if it is just lack of understanding or something else. 

Now putting my other hat on (I'm a director of a ltd pension fund trustee) I know there are lots of schemes that will do as Euan has said & offer standard funds, mostly DC but if you look around some DB too. It depends on what you want, cheep or good, the two are rarely compatible.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
09th Mar 2014 23:39

Don't be complacent ...

... not necessarily meaning you, more for other readers - many pre-existing pension schemes may not be AE compliant and you will need to amend things otherwise you may be in default!

Thanks (0)
By Philip950
10th Mar 2014 13:59

A few thoughts from Mercia Group

I have spent a lot of time in the last 18 months considering how accountants can provide an AE service for their SME clients who do not, and will not, have a financial adviser. It has been a struggle to see a way ahead for accountants but there appears to be some glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. The three ‘new’ pension providers, NEST, NOW pensions and The People’s Pension  are going some way to addressing the needs of the SME market. In particular they are recognising the role that accountants have as a general business adviser to their clients.

My views of how accountants can help their clients (and, of course, help themselves) is:

http://goo.gl/hdFHgt

 

Thanks (0)
By Niall Ferguson
10th Mar 2014 16:27

Providers view

What a diverse debate!

Broadly everyone has to approach this from their own perspective of commercial viability.

The landscape has changed in the last few months, so companies using a payroll bureau staging beyond May have different expectations.

Our stance is that process is KING. How you help your clients select the most effective processes for them as well as yourselves are highly likely to be aligned, and as a private sector Master Trust that intends to support ALL employers, we don't have the legacy (of traditional insurers) or restrictions (like Nest) and have been built into the majority of major payroll software solutions - meaning easy passage of data.

NOW: have gone one major leap further, as we will provide dedicated microsites for payroll bureaux, to enable those that want to offer additional services around AE, a way to do so, yet maintain efficiencies....

 

[email protected] 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Siany
29th Mar 2014 17:05

Fees

As a matter of interest, if we as accountants become a delegate for NEST and manage the whole process for say a payroll with 15 employees, what would you say the charge should be to initially set up the scheme, do all the administration and of course, run the payroll?

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Paulsimonsmith
01st Apr 2014 06:23

Lost the plot
I have read with interest the above threads and to say that some have lost the plot is an understatement. I work as an IFA - if you think the compulsory pensions is only problem for practices offering payroll then you are delusional. Firms will look to you guys first to sort out this pensions mess so A) if you don't offer payroll then the employer will have to buy in the software or decide to go to another accountant who will pick up all the business. B)if you offer payroll but chose to ignore the status quo then the employer will buy in the software which will probably include payroll so why would they need you?

Please don't be under the impression that all firms can just feed into NEST without assessing the consequences. One example of this being that if you contribute to NEST you cannot transfer out at a later date, your stuck and their are only around 6 funds. How will your clients view you if you if the funds under perform and they are stuck with a more expensive, inflexible product? Or you can get it right from the start and use an IFA ! Also remember that their are only about 20k IFA's left after RDR and the last poll stated that only about 5k of us are going to activity engage in this area, shortly there will be 100k business per month staging and it can take 6 months to set up. Activity encourage your clients now, because you leave it too late then the costs will go up, some providers will pull out because they have taken the rich pickings of the larger companies and your gonna have to face the question from your client -"why didn't you tell me about this sooner?" In short own your Kudos!

Thanks (0)