Should I switch my work pension to a Sipp run by a financial adviser? STEVE WEBB replies

Daily Mail​

26-05-2025

I currently have a company pension scheme which is operated by a large pension firm, with my funds all in a tracker.
A financial firm I work with has suggested it would be advantageous for me to move my pension funds into a Sipp with them.
Apart from the fact it's actively managed and has greater diversification of holdings, I wanted to see if you were able to provide any impartial advice or perspective on the differences between the two options, and the pros and cons?
Steve Webb replies: There are two separate questions for you to consider here.
The first is whether you are better off saving via a workplace pension, or with a self-invested personal pension (Sipp) on a platform run by an advice firm.
The second is whether, in general, you are likely to do better with investments which 'passively' follow market movements, or ones which are 'actively' managed, reflecting the judgments of fund managers.
Workplace pension schemes versus Sipps
In terms of the choice between a workplace pension and a Sipp, it is highly unlikely that you would do better to opt out of your workplace pension entirely.
Your employer is required by law to pay in to your workplace pension and it is likely to be a good idea to make the most of any employer contribution.
A second advantage of a workplace pension is that it is likely to be relatively low cost.
Whilst cost is not the only consideration, you are likely to pay significantly lower charges overall with a workplace pension, particularly if you work for a big firm.
There is a charge cap of 0.75 per cent on the main funds used in workplace pensions, and the average cost actually paid is typically closer to around 0.4 per cent.
It is however possible that you are paying more than this if you have chosen to move your investments out of the 'default' fund choice.
When it comes to a Sipp, hosted by a financial advice firm, there are multiple layers of charges to think about.
First there are the charges on each underlying fund in your new portfolio. If these are 'actively manged' then you are likely to be paying more than in your workplace pension.
In addition, your employer will have negotiated a competitive charge on behalf of all their employees for the workplace pension, whereas as an individual 'retail' investor you don't necessarily have the same buying power.
Second, there may be a charge simply for having assets on the platform as well as potential charges for transactions.
Third, you may also be paying advice charges. Financial advice can, of course, be good value, but you need to make sure you are clear what you would be paying and what service you would be getting for your money each year.
It is also worth checking if the adviser is 'independent', meaning the firm will look at the whole market when recommending financial products to clients, or 'restricted', meaning they would only recommend those from certain providers.
You will also want to consider the adviser's contractual terms, including how long you might be committed to staying with it and paying its annual ongoing charges, and any exit charges or rules in case you wish to move your fund elsewhere in future.
Active versus passive funds
You have sent me details of your proposed investment portfolio, and I see it includes some low-cost tracker funds with charges as low as 0.12 per cent as well as some actively managed funds charging up to eight times as much.
The overall average charge comes out at 0.73 per cent, which is significantly more than most people are paying for a workplace pension.
A workplace pension is managed on your behalf and all of the costs of doing this are included in the simple annual management charge, whereas with a Sipp run by an adviser you are paying extra for this service.
On the other hand, the workplace pension is trying to cater for the needs of potentially millions of members whereas your adviser can tailor your investments for your particular needs and preferences. You may think it worth paying more for this.
Turning to the debate about active versus passive investing, the obvious attraction of a passive fund such as an index 'tracker' is that it is likely to be very cheap.
Managers of a tracker do not need to have particular insights about different asset classes or different markets, they simply have to make sure that the fund performance broadly matches the index which is being tracked.
In addition, transaction activity is likely to be much lower in a passive tracker fund than in an actively managed fund, again reducing the overall cost.
If you simply want to invest in the main UK stock market, or the US or global stock markets, then an 'active' manager is unlikely to add much value net of additional costs.
Information about the biggest companies is readily available and so the potential for an expert fund manager to outperform the market on a consistent basis is limited.
But there is research evidence that suggests that active managers have the potential to add more value in more specialist markets.
One downside of simply investing passively in 'tracker' funds is that when you look at the companies which make up the index you may find them heavily concentrated in particular sectors.
For example, the US stock market is heavily dominated by the so-called 'Magnificent Seven' technology stocks.
As it happens, these stocks have done very well in recent years, but it is not inevitable that this will always be the case.
By relying heavily on index trackers, your investments are unlikely to be well diversified and are likely to suffer greater volatility than a more broadly-based portfolio.
One way to overcome this is to include trackers as part of a wider and more diverse set of investments, and I see that this is the approach taken in your proposed portfolio.
Alongside low cost trackers, your investments would be globally diversified and includes investments in 'emerging markets', as well as specific funds for China and Japan.
If your fund managers have specialist expertise in these areas then it's possible that they can add value and justify the extra cost.
You should be able to look at fact sheets for different funds which will tell you how they have performed compared with relevant benchmarks.
But you should be aware that just because a fund has outperformed an index in the past it doesn't automatically follow that it will always do so.
Ultimately, this is a very individual decision. You clearly should think very carefully about opting out of your current workplace pension with its associated employer contribution and low cost investments.
But if you think that your goals would be better met by something more tailored, albeit more expensive, then you could consider putting additional contributions into a Sipp and also potentially consolidate other pensions from other jobs into the Sipp.
Your adviser will be able to recommend whether this is the right strategy for you.
Ask Steve Webb a pension question
Former pensions minister Steve Webb is This Is Money's agony uncle.
He is ready to answer your questions, whether you are still saving, in the process of stopping work, or juggling your finances in retirement.
Steve left the Department for Work and Pensions after the May 2015 election. He is now a partner at actuary and consulting firm Lane Clark & Peacock.
If you would like to ask Steve a question about pensions, please email him at [e-mail].
Steve will do his best to reply to your message in a forthcoming column, but he won't be able to answer everyone or correspond privately with readers. Nothing in his replies constitutes regulated financial advice. Published questions are sometimes edited for brevity or other reasons.
Please include a daytime contact number with your message - this will be kept confidential and not used for marketing purposes.
If Steve is unable to answer your question, you can also contact MoneyHelper, a Government-backed organisation which gives free assistance on pensions to the public. It can be found here and its number is 0800 011 3797.