bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Jake Van Der Kamp

There were good reasons for giving employers the right to choose Mandatory Provident Schemes for their employees when the MPF system was set up in 2000.
This arrangement was administratively simpler and more cost-efficient, and facilitated the efficient launch of the system back then
Chang Yan-chee, MPF
Letter to the editor,
July 27
Let us consider what has always been the simplest and most cost-efficient way of setting up the MPF.
What we would do is establish a central government registry that would keep all the records and act as supervisor. We would then vet the fund managers who wish to participate in the scheme and give each employee beneficiary the choice of his or her fund manager from the approved list.
Each beneficiary could then carry his or her MPF account from one employer to another and never notice a change in the regular statements. The fund manager would just collect from one employer instead of another, the government supervisory agency would take note and for each worker there would remain only one MPF account throughout his or her career.
If the beneficiary then believes his or her fund manager is incompetent or charges too high a fee, he or she could notify the supervisory agency to transfer the account to a different fund manager.
MPF hits record high returns due to stock market rallies
It is simple and it combines the best of what the public sector does with the best of what the private sector does. The public sector would maintain and supervise the paperwork, its big strength, and the private sector would make the investment choices, which is what it specialises in doing.
But now consider what actually happens. The employer, not the employee, has the choice of fund manager and all the records are kept with that fund manager. Thus when the employee takes a new job he or she must set up a new account, leaving the one with the previous employer moribund.
Ludicrous as it seems, and truly is, you will have as many MPF accounts when you retire as you have had employers during your working career, each account carrying its own mountain of paperwork, however tiny the amount invested, and over each of which you must keep track.
And if you happen to think that your fund manager for any of these accounts is a thieving fool (some will certainly be), there is nothing you can do about it. You had no say in the choice. It was made by your employers although they never had, do not have, and never will have anything at stake in it.
And do these MPF people now wish to tell me that this is the simpler and more cost efficient way of doing things?
How does one say “Give me a break” in language that a bureaucrat can understand?
I shall accept that it facilitated the launch of the system in 1999, facilitated for the government that is. Rather than shoulder the task of creating one administrative system, it ducked the job by making each participating fund manager create a separate one.
And they call this simple and cost efficient?
But the fund managers did not mind. They rubbed their hands at the prospect. They knew that employers would not stop them from taking the easy, lazy route on MPF investments and, of more importance, would not balk at high fees.
At this rate we will have to wait until the next century until anything real is done about the fund manager rip-off
So it turned out. The average administrative fee is still 1.56 per cent a year, not including brokerage and other costs. This is almost 10 times what is charged by big international mutual funds that have marketing and redemption costs to cover, which MPF managers do not.
The government’s MPF people know it. As their latest apologist conceded in his letter to the editor, “But the fee level ... is still high and the MPF Authority is keenly aware of it.”
As an excuse for doing little about this he then cited the Default Investment Strategy a fancy name for a sticking plaster solution for a symptom of the underlying failings of the system.
At this rate we will have to wait until the next century until anything real is done about the fund manager rip-off. Our bureaucrats, who have their own pension system, see no urgency at all.
Here then is the message to them: Let’s do it over again, let’s do it right this time and let’s do it now.


The tale of murkiness that is the Lok Ma Chau Loop

China refusal to apologise for CCTV blackface skit all wrong

Plug Hong Kong Disney’s bottomless cash sinkhole forever and ever, and use its magic land for homes

China’s got a trade problem that can’t be solved by Belt and Road

Jake's View

Time for Hong Kong to start over with a simpler, cost efficient MPF

Virgin Airline cabin crew in Hong Kong affected by layoffs protest against the MPF offset mechanism in December 2015. The average administrative fee is still 1.56 per cent a year, not including brokerage and other costs. Photo: Edward Wong

Business

Opinion

Banking & Finance

Money

Markets & Investing

Investment Products

Expresses the views, ideas and conclusions of the author. (Eg. Enough of Crazy Rich Asians, think of crazy poor Hongkongers.)


Column