Royal London pension specialist Helen Morrissey weighed into the debate to mention the mutual insurer’s own research into why women do not invest.
“When asked if they considered themselves investors, many women said no despite having a pension,” she points out, adding: “We have much to do to boost understanding. While the research was aimed at women, the same could be said for men too.”
For me, that is the key point. As an industry we should be working to improve understanding, for people of all gender. If that means using gimmicks to get people engaged with the importance of saving for later life, then I am all for it.
My tongue-in-cheek suggestion to improve men’s engagement is to rebrand retirement savings schemes as ‘Pension Mach5 GTX – engineered for men, by men’, stealing from the beauty industry’s rather facile way of trying to persuade males to use cosmetics.
Frankly, anything that gets people thinking about and understanding why pensions are so important should be applauded.
Retirement for women
The separate issues facing women – that they are set to reach retirement with a fraction of the pensions wealth carried by men – is a different problem that obviously will not be solved by rebranding the word pension.
But making the issue something that is easier to understand will help everyone and could be an important first step in giving women more incentive to take whatever actions they can to reduce the future pensions gap they face.
Ms Currie says: “While it may not be possible to completely do away with the age-old terminology, our research identified a significant barrier for women in the way investment and pensions are talked about.”
Breaking down the barriers is crucial in helping everyone get to grips with the reality of their future financial situation and the opportunities that are open to them.
It is a longstanding problem and I would be glad to hear of possible solutions from anyone. It will not be easy to deal with the problem, but it is essential to try.
Simon Read is a freelance journalist
