Our investigation into how insurers may be flouting rules designed to help you get the best pension deal has created a bit of a storm since we published it a fortnight ago.
We've had demands from some firms desperate to know what dirt we have on their business tactics.
Trade body the Association of British Insurers (ABI), which drew up a new code of conduct for the industry earlier this year, has launched a full-scale investigation and promised to take to task those firms it finds are failing.
But we've also had encouraging calls from some pension companies to say thank you for raising the issue. 'We knew these tricks were going on, and it's vital they are stopped,' they have told us.
Today we reveal industry statistics that show how the ABI's code, which was supposed to boost the number of retirees shopping around for the highest pension income, has had little or no effect.
The leaked figures we have seen cover the first four months after the code was introduced in March. They show how precisely the same proportions of savers stuck with their existing insurer, and took an enhanced deal for the sick, as they did before the rules were introduced.
Particularly striking is that when people shop around, roughly half are taking an enhanced deal. But when they stay with their insurer only 6 per cent get one.
One argument for this could be that if you are ill then you are more likely to look elsewhere — and we acknowledge that is possible. But because of the disparity in the figures taking enhanced deals, does that mean every single sick person retiring is shopping around? Of course not.
And what the figures don't tell us is how many of the savers who stayed with their insurer actually got the best deal. Based on our research, published in July, the answer is likely to be not many.
The ABI's response to our story today is depressingly predictable. It said that there would not be a sharp rise in the number of people shopping around until September — six months after the code was introduced.
Let's hope that proves correct — and we look forward to publishing those figures. But its statement ignores the fact that many of the ABI's members implemented the recommendations well ahead of the March 1 deadline.
You would have expected some impact in the time that has already passed — there has been none. Also, it said that just because someone had stuck with their existing insurer it would be wrong for us to assume that the saver wasn't getting the best deal possible.
For example, someone could have a guaranteed annuity rate much higher than those on offer in the market today. It's a valid argument, but only acceptable if every single person who stuck with their existing provider had made some effort to shop around to confirm they were getting the best deal.
On any given day there is only one best deal for every retiree — the gulf between the top and bottom rate on standard deals can be as much as 15 per cent. So each of the 47,251 people who stuck with their existing insurer between April and July would by chance have had to have been with the insurer that offered the leading deal of that day.
I find that about as likely as me scoring the winning goal in this season's FA Cup final. The denial and the deception has to stop. The ABI needs to snap out of this dream world where its code of conduct is rigorous and effective. Because the cold, hard reality is that its rules are a cosy arrangement designed to look respectable without disrupting the profits of its more disgraceful members.
It's really quite infuriating as an investor that I have to struggle to find out what stocks a fund manager holds.
Investment funds in the UK are only obliged to publish all their holdings twice a year in their report and accounts. That takes some serious searching, though.
Realistically, most savers will look on fund factsheets and these only show the top ten stocks. It could mean that there are 20 or 30 shares that you never know about. And if the fund manager suddenly feels like the market has changed the day after his stock choices are published, well, you may not know for another six months.
For almost a decade, funds in the U.S. have had to print their holdings four times a year. This gives investors the chance to keep tabs on how their savings are doing.
I can understand why fund managers don't want their rivals to track what they are doing. But we are in an age of transparency, with a growing army of investors prepared to go it alone.
If fund managers are going to keep demanding sky-high fees, then investors should have the chance to hold them accountable for their investment decisions.