政府宣傳銷售失策 公共年金應恒常化

<轉載自2018年8月16日 明報 社評>

政府公共年金首度認購反應較預期冷淡，有代理銀行職員更違反銷售協議，向查詢公共年金長者推銷其他產品。公共年金用意在於對冲「長壽風險」，確保長者每月有穩定回報，為退休保障提供多一個選擇，是相當不錯的新產品，尤其適合積蓄有限不善投資的長者，然而由於與部分人的利益或政策主張有所牴觸，惹來不少質疑聲音，部分更有誤導成分；當局推銷不得其法，依賴銀行促銷，猶如與虎謀皮。政府面對坊間一些似是而非的「反宣傳」，不能抱着「有麝自然香」心態，必須加強宣傳教育，改善公共年金銷售安排，為公共年金計劃恒常化鋪平道路。

坊間充斥誤解「反宣傳」 年金並非有麝自然香

公共年金屬於保險產品，專供65歲或以上港人申請，可以最低5萬、最高100萬元一次過繳費投保，回報率約4厘。受保人可終身每月獲發年金，累積金額為保費的105%，例如65歲長者投保100萬，每月可獲發5300至5800元。本港人口老化，20年後長者將佔總人口三成，政府放棄全民退休保障，需要有其他方式協助市民安老。長者生活津貼主要針對低下階層；對於略有儲蓄、過着小康生活的長者，公共年金可以幫補每月生活費，直至終老。政府建議，長生津資產審查不會將公共年金投保額計算在內，意味中下層長者可以一邊購買公共年金，一邊申請長生津。

過去政府奉行積極不干預政策，強調小政府大市場，現在政府推出公共年金，插足商業活動，是管理哲學一次重要變化。政府希望透過公共年金，協助長者「自製長糧」，把儲蓄乃至強積金等資產，轉化為穩定的每月退休收入。公共年金的設計，實際是讓市民對冲長壽風險，投保者愈長壽，回報亦愈高，加上公共年金「後台」是政府和外匯基金，風險近乎零；相比之下，市面私營年金派款年期一般只有20年，鮮有「終身出糧」。

港人平均壽命愈來愈長，公共年金理應是不錯選擇，然而公共年金「首度出師」表現未算理想，認購額只有49.4億元，僅及100億元發行上限的一半。雖然香港年金公司強調，100億元只是風險管理的銷售上限，並非銷售目標，然而公共年金未能打響頭炮，難免影響公眾觀感，甚至誤以為它是不好的產品，失去問津興趣。這對於公共年金計劃恒常化，將非常不利。

公共年金反應平平，政府宣傳不足，固然要負上頗大責任，坊間種種誤解乃至「反宣傳」，顯然亦令不少長者裹足不前，例如不時有人聲稱，買年金不如買股票，通脹會蠶食年金提供的固定收入，相比之下，買藍籌股既有股息又有機會升值跑贏通脹。誠然，部分投資經驗豐富的長者，會覺得年金回報太低，然而股票價格可升亦可跌，一旦遇上金融風暴，投資者隨時損失慘重。只比較股票和公共年金的回報，不考慮兩者風險差異，忽略長者承受風險能力較低，本身便大有問題，至於通脹蠶食年金之說，也是言其一不言其二，皆因市面除了iBond，根本沒有金融產品保證能對冲通脹風險。

公眾誤解層出不窮，部分源於市民並未了解公共年金特性，亦不掌握長壽「風險」。此外，政府管治威信不足，不少人總是懷疑政府「用心不良」，亦導致「公共年金搵笨」等讕言偏見不脛而走。部分民間團體不滿政府拒推全民退保，自然也傾向將公共年金視作「次貨」。當局依賴銀行作為銷售渠道，更是一大敗筆。

依賴銀行促銷不智 政府應改銷售渠道

政府涉足市場推出年金產品，本意是為了市民，然而難免會對銀行一些投資產品構成競爭，可是當局竟然還找銀行幫忙推銷公共年金，實在很難想像銀行會熱心相助。有別於銷售其他私營年金或保險產品，銀行前線職員銷售公共年金，不會有佣金直接「落袋」。雖然香港年金公司有向協助銷售的銀行提供佣金，然而金額甚低。政府金錢誘因不足，變相要銀行和職員「捱義氣」，結果自然衍生不少弊端，輕則冷淡對待長者查詢，重則違反銷售協議變相「撬客」，一邊誤導長者貶低公共年金，一邊勸誘他們改購其他金融產品。公共年金銷情未符預期，與此不無關係。

當然，理論上政府可以提供更多誘因，鼓勵銀行幫手促銷，然而這會分薄長者年金收入，弊大於利。當局應考慮改變銷售渠道，由年金公司或政府統一收表，減少銀行處理手續。雖然有關安排意味年金公司可能要增設銷售點，方便長者查詢認購，增加行政成本，然而總勝過向銀行提供更多佣金。只要銷售點設在便民地方，相信長者也不用太過舟車勞頓。對於不善投資的長者，公共年金是不錯選擇，投放多少金額，則要視乎個人積蓄多寡，以及短、中、長期資金需要。公共年金計劃恒常化，政府有必要加強宣傳教育，講解公共年金的優點，協助長者善用有限積蓄，明智選擇。

Government's failure to publicise annuity scheme

THE public's response to the public annuity scheme introduced by the government has been more tepid than anticipated. In violation of the sales agreement, some bank workers promoting the scheme on behalf of the government have even tried to sell their own products to elderly people who enquired about the public scheme. A public annuity is intended to be a hedge against "longevity risk". It provides elderly people with a retirement protection alternative that guarantees a stable monthly income. It is not bad as a new product. However, since it comes into conflict with the interests of or policies advocated by some people, it has met with quite a bit of scepticism, some of which is actually misleading. In the face of some specious "counter publicity", the government should step up its publicity and education campaign. To pave the way for the public annuity scheme's becoming a permanent programme, its sales arrangements should also be improved.

While insufficient publicisation by the government is a major cause of the lukewarm response to the public annuity scheme, misunderstandings and "counter publicity" that circulate in society have obviously also contributed to the hesitation of many elderly people. For example, one often hears of people saying that it is better to buy stocks than to subscribe to the scheme because inflation will eat away the fixed income provided by the scheme. If one buys a blue chip instead, not only will one receive dividends, but the value of the stock may also outstrip inflation. It is true that elderly people who are veteran investors may find the returns of the annuity scheme too low, but stock prices fluctuate. Investors often suffer huge losses during financial turmoil. Those who claim that inflation eats away the annuity have failed to mention the full picture either. Except for iBond, there is no financial product that guarantees a hedge against inflation.

Moreover, because of the government's lack of authority, many people are always suspicious that the government has "bad intentions". This has led to the spread of the defamatory and biased argument that "the public annuity is a rip-off". Some non-government organisations are unhappy that the government has refused to introduce a universal retirement protection scheme. They of course tend to consider the public annuity scheme as "inferior". Finally, one major flaw of the scheme is the reliance on banks as its marketing channels.

The government had the wellbeing of citizens in mind when it launched the public annuity scheme in the market. However, as the scheme inevitably competes with banks' own investment products, it is hard to imagine that these banks will help market the new product enthusiastically. This probably explains why the volume of sales has fallen short of expectations. The government can, in theory, provide more incentives for the banks to get them to help promote sales, but this will dilute the income elderly people receive from the annuity. This will do more harm than good. The government should instead consider changing the marketing channels. To let banks handle less applications, HKMC Annuity or the government can become the only channel to receive applications. So long as the sales outlets are located at places which are easily accessible, elderly people may not be too weary of travelling to and from the outlets. For elderly people who have no experience in investing activities, the public annuity scheme is not a bad choice. As to how much money one should put in, it depends on how many savings one has and one's short-, mid- and long-term need for money. If the public annuity scheme is to become a permanent programme, the government must strengthen its publicity and education campaign and explain its advantages to elderly people to help them put their savings to good use and make a wise choice.

政府宣傳銷售失策 公共年金應恒常化

政府公共年金首度認購反應較預期冷淡，有代理銀行職員更違反銷售協議，向查詢公共年金長者推銷其他產品。公共年金用意在於對冲「長壽風險」，確保長者每月有穩定回報，為退休保障提供多一個選擇，是相當不錯的新產品，然而由於與部分人的利益或政策主張有所牴觸，惹來不少質疑聲音，部分更有誤導成分。政府面對坊間一些似是而非的「反宣傳」，必須加強宣傳教育，改善公共年金銷售安排，為公共年金計劃恒常化鋪平道路。

公共年金反應平平，政府宣傳不足，固然要負上頗大責任，坊間種種誤解乃至「反宣傳」，顯然亦令不少長者裹足不前，例如不時有人聲稱，買年金不如買股票，通脹會蠶食年金提供的固定收入，相比之下，買藍籌股既有股息又有機會升值跑贏通脹。誠然，部分投資經驗豐富的長者，會覺得年金回報太低，然而股票價格可升亦可跌，一旦遇上金融風暴，投資者隨時損失慘重。至於通脹蠶食年金之說，也是言其一不言其二，皆因市面除了iBond，根本沒有金融產品保證能對冲通脹風險。

此外，政府管治威信不足，不少人總是懷疑政府「用心不良」，亦導致「公共年金搵笨」等讕言偏見不脛而走。部分民間團體不滿政府拒推全民退保，自然也傾向將公共年金視作「次貨」。當局依賴銀行作為銷售渠道，更是一大敗筆。

政府涉足市場推出年金產品，本意是為了市民，然而難免會對銀行一些投資產品構成競爭，實在很難想像銀行會熱心相助。公共年金銷情未符預期，與此不無關係。當然，理論上政府可以提供更多誘因，鼓勵銀行幫手促銷，然而這會分薄長者年金收入，弊大於利。當局應考慮改變銷售渠道，由年金公司或政府統一收表，減少銀行處理手續。只要銷售點設在便民地方，相信長者也不用太過舟車勞頓。對於不善投資的長者，公共年金是不錯選擇，投放多少金額，則要視乎個人積蓄多寡，以及短、中、長期資金需要。公共年金計劃恒常化，政府有必要加強宣傳教育，講解公共年金的優點，協助長者善用有限積蓄，明智選擇。