Words on wealth: understanding the challenges of retirement fund benefit disbursement
Explore the challenges surrounding delays in retirement fund benefit disbursement and the recent regulatory changes aimed at streamlining the process.
Martin Hesse
I believe there should be increased efforts by regulators and the financial services industry to reduce delays by retirement funds and their administrators in disbursing benefits to members or transferring benefits to another fund. The longer a fund sits on money that should be disbursed or transferred, the longer it receives the administration fees on that money.
In terms of the Pension Funds Act and the rules of the fund, a retirement fund has to finalise a payout to a member or effect a transfer of benefits 'within a reasonable time' of receiving instruction from the member.
If the member has died, the process is more involved, because the fund needs to consider dependants not necessarily named on the beneficiary form when distributing the benefit, which would typically be part retirement savings and part group life insurance payout. In death-benefit cases, the time limit is a year.
Individual payouts on resignation are typically done within about three months, but the files of the Pension Funds Adjudicator are full of cases where payouts have taken inordinately longer than that.
The introduction of the two-pot system last year and the subsequent deluge of savings-pot withdrawal applications forced many funds to streamline their processes for cash withdrawals. Over time, it will only be savings-pot withdrawals that funds will have to contend with, as withdrawals of vested benefits on resignation will eventually fall away.
However, it is when individuals want to voluntarily transfer savings from one fund or one provider to another that unwarranted delays persist, in my view. Transfers are governed by Section 14 of the Pension Funds Act, which requires approval from the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA), among other things.
You would think that transferring savings in a preservation fund or retirement annuity (RA) from one provider to another could be accomplished within a week or two. But no. It can take six months or longer, according to financial advisers I have spoken to.
Draft notice
So it was with some optimism that I read of the FSCA's recent decision, via a draft notice, to exempt retail RA and preservation fund transfers from the requirements of Section 14(1) of the Act. The notice is open to input from the retirement industry until June 5.
The problem with the legislation is that it applies equally to full-scale transfers of the collective assets of one occupational fund to another or the amalgamation of such funds as it does to an individual in a retail RA or preservation fund transferring his or her savings to a similar fund offered by another provider.
Section 14(1) ensures that collective transfers or amalgamations are correctly, carried out under the watchful eye of the registrar to ensure that actuarial valuations are correct, the funds are in a sound financial state, and that the rights of all members of the relevant funds regarding their retirement benefits are respected.
The FSCA notice states that, pursuant to section 14(9) of the Pension Funds Act (which gives the FSCA the power to exempt a transaction from the provisions of section 14), the FSCA exempts retail fund transactions involving amalgamations or transfers from the requirements of section 14(1) of the Act insofar as the transactions relate to:
Transfers between retirement annuity funds;
Transfers between preservation funds; or
Transfers from a preservation fund to a retirement annuity fund.
The notice says the exemption is subject to the following conditions, among others:
Retail funds keep proper records of all such transactions;
The assets and liabilities are transferred within 180 days of the effective date of transfer; and
Any assets transferred must be increased or decreased with the fund return from the effective date until the date of final settlement.
Although the notice provides for 180 days for the transfer to be effected, I am hoping that, with fewer hurdles to clear, providers will process transfers more expeditiously. Let's wait and see.
Financial advice
You are likely to undertake this type of transfer on advice from a financial adviser, in which case it is worthwhile to consider the following points by Momentum in a trustee newsletter:
The most important question to ask is: will I be better off in retirement after moving my money? 'The promise of better returns shouldn't be the only consideration – the only thing you should be focusing on is your investment goal and if you're on track to achieve that goal,' Momentum says.
You will not be taxed on the transfer, although there could be costs, and in some instances, penalties or cancellation fees, involved. All costs must be disclosed to you by the adviser.
No initial financial adviser fee is allowed to be charged on transfer. However, the adviser may charge an ongoing annual advice fee on the investment, depending on your fee agreement.
You can turn to the Pension Funds Adjudicator if your retirement fund is taking an unreasonably long time to transfer or pay out your savings. Go to www.pfa.co.za.
* Hesse is the former editor of Personal Finance.
PERSONAL FINANCE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
3 hours ago
- The Citizen
Sassa grant payments delayed due to undisclosed income
THE South African Social Security Agency (Sassa), in collaboration with registered Credit Bureaus, has identified 210 000 social grant beneficiaries who appear to be receiving income that was not disclosed to the agency. As a result, this month's grant payments will be delayed for some of the affected beneficiaries. Sassa said according to the Social Assistance Act and its regulations, beneficiaries are legally required to fully disclose all sources of income during their initial application. Also read: Metro police enforce zero-tolerance policy on illegal truck parking Beneficiaries are also obligated to inform Sassa of any changes to their financial circumstances after their application has been approved. Spokesperson for Sassa Paseka Letsatsi said failure to comply with these requirements constitutes a violation of the Act and may result in corrective action. 'As part of this initiative, social grant payments for the affected beneficiaries will be delayed in the June 2025 payment cycle. These individuals are required to present themselves at their nearest Sassa local offices for a grant review within 30 days from this notice date, in line with Regulation 30 of the Social Assistance Act. Beneficiaries who fail to comply with this process risk having their grants suspended. Continued non-compliance may lead to the permanent lapsing of their grants,' said Letsatsi. Letsatsi said the initiative is aimed at ensuring that beneficiaries confirm any changes in their financial circumstances and update their personal details. 'It also seeks to address potential inclusion errors in the current social security system. A beneficiary may have qualified for a grant at the time of application, but improved material conditions over time may render them ineligible,' said Letsatsi. Also read: How to apply for an ID For further details on the Sassa social grant fraud cases, click here. Sassa has encouraged all beneficiaries to disclose any alternative sources of income and to report any additional bank accounts not previously declared. Those beneficiaries still using the green bar-coded ID book are urged to replace it with the smart ID card, due to the increased risk of fraud associated with the older ID format. 'Sassa reiterates its zero-tolerance stance on fraud, and should there be evidence of any officials colluding with beneficiaries to defraud the system, immediate disciplinary and legal action will be taken to safeguard the integrity of the Agency and prevent financial losses,' Letsatsi added. For more information on grant reviews, clients are urged to contact the Sassa toll-free customer care line on 0800 60 1011 or GrantEnquiries@ For more Southlands Sun news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. You can also check out our videos on our YouTube channel or follow us on TikTok. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter and get news delivered straight to your inbox. At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
Mail & Guardian
a day ago
- Mail & Guardian
Buy now, panic later: A legal deep dive into South Africa's payment revolution
New legislation seeks to close regulatory gaps to protect consumers and promote a competitive digital finance system. Photo: Nadine Hutton/Bloomberg via Getty Images) Buy now, pay later (BNPL) payment options have strutted onto South Africa's financial runway with the swagger of innovation, offering interest-free instalments, bypassing traditional credit checks and boasting sleek user interfaces that make old-school lay-bys look prehistoric. For consumers, it feels like a dream: swipe today, split it tomorrow. For platforms, it's fintech gold. But beneath the surface of this frictionless façade lies a regulatory grey zone thick with risk, ambiguity and potential litigation. Is BNPL empowering consumers or quietly indebting them? And when the legal hammer finally drops, who's left holding the bill? BNPL services allow consumers to make purchases immediately and pay for them in installments over a set period, usually without interest if payments are made on time. However, as BNPL use increases, so do concerns around consumer debt, regulatory arbitrage and financial exclusion. The central question in South Africa is whether BNPL products fall within the ambit of the National Credit Act (NCA) or the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act (FAIS Act). The National Credit Regulator is responsible for compliance with the NCA, while the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) is responsible for compliance with the FAIS Act. The South African BNLP landscape The consumer credit environment in South Africa is governed by the NCA, which regulates all credit providers and mandates affordability assessments along with other consumer protection mechanisms. BNPL providers often argue that they are not credit providers, as their terms and conditions do not constitute a credit agreement. This is because they charge no interest and operate within a very short payment cycle (for example 4 to 6 weeks). As a result, many BNPL firms claim exemption from NCA obligations. According to the Intergovernmental Fintech Working Group, BNPL falls into a regulatory void. The NCR has taken limited action against providers, while the FSCA has yet to issue clear guidance. Consumers thus face reduced transparency, no guaranteed recourse mechanisms and inconsistent contract terms. BNPL's legal classification determines the scope of regulatory obligations. If BNPL is credit, then the NCA mandates affordability checks, registration with the NCR and extensive disclosures (among other things). However, most BNPL operators avoid these obligations by structuring their offerings as payment solutions or deferred billing. The FAIS Act regulates financial advice and intermediary services. BNPL providers rarely claim to offer financial advice and, as such, FAIS oversight is generally not invoked. This ambiguity causes a jurisdictional conflict between the NCR and FSCA, with little hope of resolution. Moreover, South African consumers are often unaware of potential late fees, the implications of missed payments and the lack of legal recourse, especially when providers collapse or change terms unilaterally. While legal classification remains unresolved, enforcement action against BNPL providers in South Africa has been minimal. In practice, the NCR's enforcement has focused largely on traditional credit providers, while the FSCA's mandate remains unclear in the absence of explicit statutory triggers. This lack of supervisory clarity raises risks of selective compliance, where only larger players seek legal advice or act preemptively, while smaller or offshore providers bypass South African oversight altogether. Moreover, without designated supervisory frameworks, enforcement becomes reactive, often occurring only after consumer harm has materialised. The Conduct of Financial Institutions Bill is envisaged to address these regulatory gaps. A modern regulatory regime must therefore address, not only classification and jurisdiction, but also enforcement mechanisms, investigative powers and co-ordinated oversight, possibly through inter-agency memoranda of understanding or joint supervisory task teams. Without this, regulatory gaps become systemic vulnerabilities. Global BNLP landscape UK: The Financial Conduct Authority will regulate BNPL under new legislation taking effect in 2026. Providers will be required to conduct affordability checks, obtain authorisation, and ensure clear disclosures. Consumers will be granted section 75 protections under the Consumer Credit Act. Australia: The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has introduced legislation bringing BNPL under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. From mid-2025, providers must hold a credit licence, conduct responsible lending assessments and comply with disclosure obligations. These requirements are tailored to balance innovation with consumer protection. US: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has classified BNPL loans accessed via digital accounts as 'credit cards', triggering protections under Regulation Z. Dispute resolution, refunds and chargeback rights are now part of BNPL transactions, although industry litigation may reverse this. These models demonstrate that proactive regulation, coupled with flexibility, is essential for managing BNPL risks. Comparative legal analysis of South Africa South Africa's current dual-regulator model (the NCR and FSCA) is ill-equipped for the digital fragmentation of modern finance. The lack of a clear BNPL regulatory framework stands in contrast with jurisdictions where regulators have already expanded definitions of credit to include BNPL explicitly. Key takeaways include: The UK's reliance on disclosure and licensing. Australia's focus on credit licenses and suitability assessments. The US approach of function-over-form classification (if it behaves like a credit card, it is regulated like one). The hope is that the Conduct of Financial Institutions Bill will reconcile institutional gaps and avoid regulatory arbitrage by expanding statutory definitions and enforcing consistency. Fintech partnerships and platform liability BNPL services are frequently integrated directly into online retail platforms via application programming interface partnerships. This embedded finance model raises questions of liability, especially when the BNPL provider operates outside the regulatory net. In South Africa, it is unclear whether a platform offering BNPL at checkout could be deemed to be providing or facilitating credit under the NCA. Retailers and marketplaces must consider whether they are indirectly exposing themselves to liability or reputational risk, especially if their BNPL partners engage in misleading conduct, impose unlawful fees or collapse without notice. Globally, regulators are beginning to scrutinise not just BNPL providers, but also the platforms and merchants who offer such services. The UK's Financial Conduct Authority, for example, has signalled that contractual and operational accountability may extend beyond the primary credit provider. South African platforms should pre-emptively assess their BNPL partnerships through the lens of operational risk, consumer protection and reputational resilience. Digital identity and affordability in a credit-light economy One major challenge for effective BNPL regulation in South Africa lies in consumer verification and affordability assessments. Without a robust credit history or consistent income documentation, many consumers who use BNPL services remain invisible to traditional risk models. This opens the door to over-indebtedness, particularly among the underbanked. Future BNPL regulation must therefore account for the reality of fragmented digital footprints and low formal credit participation. There is room for innovation — open banking frameworks, mobile payment data and transactional analytics could support dynamic affordability models. However, this would require legal certainty around data access, privacy and proportional use of financial profiling. BNPL operators who proactively invest in these tools, backed by transparent disclosures and consent practices, will probably be best positioned when regulation catches up. BNPL has redefined consumer finance by promising simplicity and speed but the country risks repeating mistakes seen in unregulated microcredit booms if it fails to address its regulatory gaps. Global trends show that regulation can evolve in tandem with technology. By embracing reform and cross-sector collaboration, South Africa can lead in creating a safe, competitive digital finance ecosystem. Lerato Lamola & Anél de Meyer are partners at Webber Wentzel.
IOL News
3 days ago
- IOL News
Expropriation Act: How many expropriating authorities are empowered by the Act?
The Expropriation Act is written so broadly that every form of property in South Africa is now subject to expropriation below market value. From homes to farms to businesses to savings to pensions, all forms of property are, in terms of the Act, vulnerable to expropriation, says Makone Maja, IRR Strategic Engagements Manager. The Institute of Race Relations (IRR) will this week write to the Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure, Dean Macpherson, requesting clarity on a crucial matter related to the Expropriation Act, for which the Minister is responsible. The Act grants sweeping powers to expropriating authorities to expropriate any form of property below market value. It offers weak and contradictory measures to property owners to protect their rights through the courts. Yet, just how many authorities in South Africa are granted expropriating powers by the Act is unclear; by IRR calculations, the number could exceed 400. Says Makone Maja, IRR Strategic Engagements Manager: 'The Expropriation Act is an unpopular piece of legislation. IRR opinion polling in March and April this year found that 68% of registered voters oppose the Act. It's easy to understand why. The Act is written so broadly that every form of property in South Africa is now subject to expropriation below market value. From homes to farms to businesses to savings to pensions, all forms of property are, in terms of the Act, vulnerable to expropriation. And yet there seems to be no clarity from the government on the exact number of entities the law empowers to confiscate property on astonishingly flimsy grounds.' As illustrated in the IRR's flagship Blueprint for Growth series, property rights are a vital means of economic participation and empowerment only if they are secure. Weaken the certainty with which people can own what's lawfully theirs and the knock-on consequences range from undermining food security to wiping out pensions and savings. Says Maja: 'It is the height of policy recklessness for this door of vast state power to be opened to an unknown number of expropriating authorities. If the number of these authorities is unknown, how can South Africans have any trust that the sweeping expropriating powers granted by the Act won't be abused? 'We have all heard the horror stories of extortion by state officials – from kickback mafias to corruption. We are a country familiar with the disgusting abuse of state power. The Expropriation Act empowers a vast expropriation network at all levels of the state. The IRR has thus far tallied at least 426 such authorities, yet the number might rise to close to a thousand. This is a terrifying prospect. The Minister has a duty to provide urgent clarity on this matter.' The Institute of Race Relations Johannesburg
