In The Tribune Business of Monday, November 26, 2007 Mr. Gibson rightfully laments that only 26% of the private workforce participate in a pension plan of any kind.

He also correctly raises concerns again that the National Insurance Board pension scheme “is not sustainable with its current configuration”.

He then makes the point that “It’s really disgraceful when you have such a large percentage of assets – 16 per cent of GDP – and no regulator.” And this is where this not so humble bloggers support starts to wane because it seems to me there is no need for yet another government bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, it gets worse by adding that pension fund administrators and investment managers “should be licensed and qualified to do the job they are doing”.

It’s a natural tendency for business to attempt to restrict competition by using government power. And while that might not be the intention in this case, it’s the unintended consequences of legislation like this. I would suggest that this licensing should be no more than registration to help prevent fraud. But as Dr. Milton Friedman noted in Capitalism and Freedom “It is, of course, dubious that one should go very far to protect in advance against fraud because of the interference with voluntary contracts involved in doing so.” So caution is advised in proceeding down this road.

Consideration must be given to legal arrangements such as Trust Deeds where people outside the pension industry legitimately manage pension funds with the full agreement of the participants. And there might be other ideas that work quite well outside the traditional pension market.

To restrict competition in the pension field will give us the same result as lack of competition in any other industry or profession.

At the end of the day, choice is important for the consumer, not government mandates that limit such choice.