From now until the middle of next month, anyone who is interested can send their comments on a draft code of disclosure to the MPFA for consideration. Specifically the MPFA has identified weaknesses in the way information on fees and charges and their impact on returns is presented to scheme members. It has also highlighted the inconsistent way in which performance is calculated, making it almost impossible to compare different MPF schemes.

'The proposals include the use of simplified language, improving the consistency of presentation and language, a standardised fee table for all registered MPF schemes, an on-going cost illustration that shows the cost over defined time horizons and fund expense ratios which show the total level of expenses incurred by a fund,' an MPFA spokesman says.

On the face of it, more information, presented in a uniform way at a standardised cost, seems like a no-brainer as far as the individual investor is concerned. However, not all investors' needs are identical, and compelling MPF providers to all provide the same information in the same way could end up not pleasing anyone.

Some providers bombard their scheme members with paper while others only summon the energy to send out an annual benefit statement. Moreover, communicating with scheme members costs money, and some people prefer to be charged fewer fees for a no-frills service.

However, at the moment it is difficult for members to even know how much they are being charged and for what. Language is part of the problem.

In November last year when the Consumer Council examined the communication by MPF providers to scheme members, it found more than 100 different fee terms were used in the 44 MPF schemes.

Of the wide range of items for which there are fees, one of the most important is the administration fee, which is charged as a percentage of contributions, typically around the 1 per cent mark, regardless of the fund type or performance.

While fees are only one factor to consider when assessing a fund, they are important.

'As MPF members have had to get used to lower return expectations, the impact of fees as a proportion of gross returns achieved has become more significant,' says Michael Button, principal consultant at Watson Wyatt Hong Kong.

For employees, the ability to compare MPF providers has scarcely been necessary so far. It is the employer who chooses which scheme the company will use, but when you change to a new employer you do have a choice about what to do with your accrued benefits.

'When you change jobs, your accrued balance can be left behind, taken to your new employer's scheme or given to another provider,' says Mr Button. 'People must have switched over the last few years, but the amounts will have been small. But over the next five to 10 years those amounts will grow and that's probably where this sort of information will be more important,' he adds.

In the meantime, take a look at the correspondence from your MPF provider and see if it tells you how much it is knocking off in fees. If you are unhappy with what you see, or at least with how it is presented, now is your chance to tell the MPFA.

Jane Parry is a financial journalist based in Hong Kong