Client feedback


​Their pragmatic approach helps with quick and easy decision making. Another approach might have made things more difficult.
Mark Assinder,
Bouygues
I wanted to look at the effectiveness of our trustee board, so Gillian, our PSGS scheme secretary, provided their trustee self-assessment tool to help me gather thoughts and opinions from others on the board. The tool was extremely easy to use and asked all the right questions to help me collect the information I needed as Trustee Chair. It is a great example of the way PSGS shares knowledge with their clients and makes dealing with key governance issues easy. As well as enabling me to meet one of the Regulator’s 21st century trusteeship requirements, using the tool has flagged trustee training needs and ways we could improve trustee meetings further.
Claire Silvester,
Vector Aerospace
Claire offers a very approachable, professional and balanced service, recognising her obligations to the Scheme but providing an awareness of the Employer's perspective. We value Claire's wider industry knowledge and the experience she brings.
Always willing to get involved and move things forward.
Steve Sampson ,
LGC
Highly informative. Having leading professionals deliver the TKU course really adds value.
Jonathan Williams ,
Bangor University
​I would recommend them to anyone - I have dealt with a number of other independent trustee firms and would rate PSGS as the best. We are very happy with Mark and the service we get.
Julia Morton,
Camellia plc

21st century trusteeship and governance

Topic:

Legal & governance

Date published:

Monday, 8 August 2016

HR Trustees would like to make clear our support for the focus on ensuring that the industry is served by trustees that best represent the interests of members. The environment for schemes is becoming increasingly complex and funding levels and sponsor finances mean that there are often no easy answers to the questions facing trustees today.

We append responses to the 13 questions posed here. We suggest that a distinction is created between underperforming schemes who have the resources to improve governance, processes and investment strategies and those who lack quality in these areas due to severe sponsor wherewithal shortfalls. In the former case, we broadly agree with TPR’s approach to create additional structure but not additional regulatory burdens upon them. In the latter case, it must be worth exploring mechanisms such as consolidation or routes to ease the paths to compromises that relieve the pressures on both sponsors and member outcomes.

 

 

Back to opinions

 

Hot topics


PSGS & 20-20 Trustees merge to form Vidett
Hot Topic

Punter Southall Governance Services (PSGS) & 20-20 Trustees (20-20) have today announced they...

Read more »


Don’t be surprised that your gilt funds are being treated like an emerging market
Image of Hot Topic author Sophia Harrison, Client Director

You may have seen or heard about the article in the Financial Times about how Insight...

Read more »


More opinions »


Call: 0118 207 2900

online enquiry