Client feedback

“Colin has provided invaluable support to me in my role as Chair Trustee.”

“These days, Boards need real expertise on tap (with excellent back-up) to cope with a constantly evolving and more regulated environment. PSGS is geared to delivering that.”

Ray Pygott,

Partner at KPMG LLP

“Many organisations and people provide the services that clients need. In my opinion, the differentiator is in the way those services are provided and to that extent, Kathy embodies the qualities that I have come to value from PSITL. Kathy is organised but not fussy; diligent but not dogmatic; persistent without being pushy and compliant in a pragmatic way. Whilst she takes ownership and drives issues forward, Kathy is a team player who uses her and her colleagues experience to provide services to her trustee client whilst working closely with those like me representing the sponsoring employer. She works collaboratively with advisers but constructively challenges the scope of services, fees and service standards whenever necessary and makes sure that member needs are always taken into account. I enjoy working with her and trust that she will deliver what is required by the trustee and the members they represent in a manner satisfactory to the sponsoring employer. ”

Stuart Barker,

Internal Pensions Consultant, RSPCA

“Appointing Kevin as KBC professional trustee was one of the best decisions the bank took. He complements the other two trustees and also appreciates the position of the employer too. The experience a professional trustee adds is invaluable and they can share their knowledge and market practice within the KBC plan. Kevin manages the budget in consultation with the bank, fully debriefs all parties and maintains a constant dialogue with myself (as HR Manager) and trustees. Since we have worked together for a number of years, Kevin also appreciates some of the limitations we face ie budgets, and always comes up with a proactive approach and solution. His input is particularly valued by the bank trustee who is an actuary in our pensions department in Belgium Head Office. ”

Sharron King,

KBC Bank

“Back in the day there was a large trustee board, with several independents (from the financial world) and the ex-Chairman of the company was offered the role as Chair of Trustees as a sweetener when he stepped down. Unionised company then divided - broad range of active members. They needed some expertise, consistency and leadership during this time. Wanted a serious/professional to lead and guide the trustees. ”

Dave Benstead ,

Diodes Zetex

“PSGS was chosen because of their knowledge of the subject and awareness of our particular schemes.”

George Batho ,

Trustee, Lansing Linde

Are trustees wearing rose tinted glasses?

Topic:

Legal & governance

Date published:

Wednesday, 21 June 2017

Author:

Gillian Graham

I must admit that I found a few of the results of our recent de-risking survey to be somewhat surprising. I’m worried pension trustees are wearing rose-tinted spectacles if 78% of them think their scheme data is clean. From my experience across the industry, this is (unfortunately) highly unlikely!

What is clean data?!

I fear pension scheme trustees are now used to seeing data scores of around 90 – 100% which are simply recording the presence of 11 ‘common data’ items like name, address and date of birth. When it comes to more complex pension scheme data, like that needed for an insurer to take over paying benefits on a pension buyout or annuity purchase, we know that there are lots of hidden nasties.

The pension scheme administrator is usually able to sort out any problems on an individual level when they put a member’s benefits into payment. They wouldn’t, however, be able to provide information in bulk quickly if it isn’t stored in the required format. This means a buy-out opportunity could be missed.

This is why the Pensions Regulator (tPR) has decided pension schemes must also report on the state of their ‘conditional data’ on the next Scheme Return. It is important pension trustees really do start to get to grips with this issue.

Those pesky gremlins

I was also quite surprised, but also pleased, to discover as many as 64% of pension schemes had a checked and agreed benefit specification. This would suggest automated calculations are now more prevalent.

On reflection, that perhaps shouldn’t be so surprising. Most schemes are now closed and the key benefit specifications needed now are for the retirement of deferred members and annual pension increases. Nevertheless, we have found a few gremlins almost always come to light when pension trustees decide to move scheme administrator. There often seem to be errors in the previous scheme administrator’s interpretation of the rules.

Similar gremlins are usually found as part of the due diligence work done prior to buy in or buy out, or running ‘member options’ liability exercises So, even if you are not planning to change administrator or look to an insured pension solution in the immediate future, it makes sense to have a thorough review of your benefit specifications. Making sure the administrator, actuary and scheme lawyer are all on the same page with the scheme benefits could prove invaluable later down the line.