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

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

IOL News

5 hours ago

• IOL News

Prudential Authority imposes hefty sanctions on three major banks for FIC Act breaches

The Prudential Authority (PA) is mandated to supervise and enforce compliance by accountable institutions with the provisions of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001 (FIC Act) and with any order, determination or directive made in terms thereof. Image: Supplied The Prudential Authority (PA) has unleashed a wave of administrative sanctions on three prominent international banks operating within South Africa following notable breaches of the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) Act. This decisive move underscores the authority's commitment to enforcing compliance within the financial sector, as mandated by the South African Reserve Bank (Sarb). In a recent statement, the PA said it imposed administrative sanctions on Citibank N.A. South Africa Branch (Citibank) as a result of its non-compliance with certain provisions of the FIC followed an inspection conducted on Citibank in 2022 in terms of section 45B of the FIC Act. "The administrative sanctions imposed on Citibank consist of a caution not to repeat the conduct which led to the non-compliance as well as a financial penalty totalling R6 million, which is fully and conditionally suspended for a period of 12 months as from 5 March 2025," said the PA. "These administrative sanctions stem from Citibank's failure to comply with section 42 of the FIC Act, in that it failed to implement its Risk Management and Compliance Programme in relation to the assessed advance payment transactions." The PA said Citibank cooperated and has undertaken the necessary remedial action to address the identified compliance deficiencies and control weaknesses. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad Loading Building on this trend of accountability, HBZ Bank has also found itself in the hot seat, facing a total penalty of R9m due to its own lapses uncovered during a 2022 inspection. The sanctions against HBZ include three cautions, two reprimands, and a financial penalty — R1.5m of which is conditionally suspended for 24 months, commencing on 5 March 2025. Specifically, HBZ was found to have neglected its customer due diligence (CDD) obligations under the FIC Act, failing to perform adequate checks on 18 medium-risk and 5 high-risk client files. The regulator also imposed a caution not to repeat the conduct which led to the non-compliance as well as a reprimand after HBZ failed to comply with sections 22 and 23 of the FIC Act, in that it failed to keep records in relation to one of its high-risk trade finance active and terminated client relationships. Furthermore, the bank received additional reprimands related to insufficient record-keeping practices concerning high-risk client relationships and the absence of a documented rationale for the inherent risk rating of trade finance transactions. The third institution caught in this compliance crackdown is the Bank of Taiwan, South Africa Branch (BOTSA). The PA's inspections revealed deficiencies in the bank's management of its RMCP Introduction Manual. The PA said BOTSA failed to secure necessary approvals from its Executive Committee prior to implementing material changes to this vital document. Moreover, the bank did not effectively manage the annual reviews of its RMCP and neglected required due diligence measures on assessed correspondent banking relationships, as stated in its governance policy. It also implemented its RMCP and undertake the requisite due diligence measures in relation to two of its assessed correspondent banking relationships in respect of Vostro accounts; and provide evidence that its Screening of Customers and Transactions Manual had been reviewed and approved after 2020. "The PA confirms that BOTSA cooperated with the PA and that the bank has undertaken thenecessary remedial action to address the identified compliance deficiencies and control weaknesses," said the PA. BUSINESS REPORT

eNCA

8 hours ago

• eNCA

The Devi Show Pure Hearts Funeral Catering

Pure Hearts Funeral Catering promises to provide a compassionate and professional service at affordable prices, ensuring families are supported during their most difficult times. For just a few hundred Rands per month, you and your numerous nominated beneficiaries are also assured a smooth service, catering for large numbers of mourners with elegant décor bringing added class and dignity to heart-breaking goodbyes. All well and good, except, on the ground, this doesn't always seem to be the experience many policy holders have benefitted from. Instead of fresh meat and vegetables, clients recount horror stories of late arrivals without the promised basics of gas stoves, tents, tables and chairs. Add rotten vegetables, teams disappearing off site before the catering even begins and unpaid staff and you have a recipe for disappointment and anger. But that's not all. Turns out that the FSCA (Financial Sector Conduct Authority) has published an enforceable undertaking following years of continuous irregularities at the hands of management – meaning that the business hasn't been following the rules.

The Citizen

2 days ago

• The Citizen

Buy now, panic later? Why payment system might be too good to be true

Is 'buy now, pay later' empowering consumers, or quietly indebting them? 'Buy now, pay later' 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 is fintech gold. But beneath the surface of this frictionless façade lies a regulatory grey zone thick with risk, ambiguity and potential litigation, Lerato Lamola and Anél De Meyer, partners at Webber Wentzel, warn. 'Buy now, pay later' services allow consumers to buy things immediately and pay for them in instalments over a set period, usually without interest if payments are made on time. However, as usage of the 'buy now, pay later' option increases, concerns around consumer debt, regulatory arbitrage and financial exclusion also grow. Lamola and De Meyer say the central question in South Africa is whether 'buy now, pay later' products fall within the jurisdiction of the National Credit Act or the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act (FAIS Act). ALSO READ: Credit and the law: Here are the rights you must know about How credit is regulated in SA The National Credit Regulator (NCR) is responsible for enforcing compliance with the National Credit Act, while the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) is responsible for compliance with the FAIS Act. The consumer credit environment in South Africa is governed by the National Credit Act, which regulates all credit providers and mandates affordability assessments along with other consumer protection mechanisms. 'Buy now, pay later' providers often argue that they are not credit providers, as their terms and conditions do not constitute a credit agreement, Lamola and De Meyer say. 'They say this is because they charge no interest and operate within a very short payment cycle of four to six weeks. As a result, many 'buy now, pay later' firms claim exemption from the obligations they would have under the National Credit Act.' ALSO READ: Buy now, pay later a convenient way to buy if you qualify Buy now, pay later falls into regulatory void According to the Intergovernmental Fintech Working Group (IFWG), 'buy now, pay later' options currently fall into a regulatory void. The NCR has taken limited action against providers, while the FSCA must still issue clear guidance. Therefore, Lamola and De Meyer say, consumers face reduced transparency, while there are no guaranteed recourse mechanisms and inconsistent contract terms. The legal classification of 'buy now, pay later' determines the scope of regulatory obligations, Lamola and De Meyer say. 'If buy now, pay later is credit, the National Credit Act mandates affordability checks, registration with the NCR and extensive disclosures. 'However, most buy now, pay later operators avoid these obligations by structuring their offerings as payment solutions or deferred billing.' They point out that the FAIS Act regulates financial advice and intermediary services. 'Buy now, pay later 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 resolution.' ALSO READ: Buy now, pay later good news for small businesses Do consumers know enough about it? In addition, they say, South Africans are often unaware of potential late fees, the implications of missed payments, or the lack of legal recourse, especially when providers collapse or change terms unilaterally. Lamola and De Meyer point out that while legal classification remains unresolved, enforcement action against 'buy now, pay later' 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.' They warn that this lack of supervisory clarity raises risks of selective compliance, where only larger players seek legal advice or act pre-emptively, while smaller or offshore providers bypass South African oversight altogether. 'In addition, without designated supervisory frameworks, enforcement becomes reactive, often occurring only after consumers are harmed.' ALSO READ: Beware: debt is often no more than a click away COFI Bill could address 'buy now, pay later' regulatory gaps However, they say the Conduct of Financial Institutions Bill (COFI 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 coordinated oversight, possibly through inter-agency memoranda of understanding or joint supervisory task teams. 'Without this, regulatory gaps become systemic vulnerabilities.' Lamola and De Meyer say South Africa's current dual-regulator model is ill-equipped for the digital fragmentation of modern finance. 'The lack of a clear buy now, pay later regulatory framework stands in contrast with jurisdictions where regulators have already expanded definitions of credit to include buy now, pay later explicitly. 'We hope that the COFI Bill will reconcile its institutional gaps and avoid regulatory arbitrage by expanding statutory definitions and enforcing consistency.' They say it is unclear whether a platform offering 'buy now, pay later' options at checkout could be deemed to be providing or facilitating credit under the National Credit Act. 'Retailers and marketplaces must consider whether they are indirectly exposing themselves to liability or reputational risk, especially if their partners engage in misleading conduct, impose unlawful fees, or collapse without notice.' ALSO READ: How to build a strong credit score to unlock financial freedom Verification and affordability assessments important De Meyer and Lamola say one major challenge for effective 'buy now, pay later' regulation in South Africa lies in consumer verification and affordability assessments. 'Without a robust credit history or consistent income documentation, many consumers who use these services remain invisible to traditional risk models. 'This opens the door to over-indebtedness, particularly among the underbanked. Future Buy Now Pay Later regulation must therefore account for the reality of fragmented digital footprints and low formal credit participation. 'Buy now, pay later 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.' NOW READ: Why you should use credit responsibly