How we pay for the City (& expensive Red Wine)

I recommend that if you have a funded Pension that you listen to this excellent Radio 4 programme "How You Pay for the City".  

Former fund manager David Pitt- Watson pointed out that excessive charges in the UK compared to  Holland means that the average comparable dutch pension will be 50% more than you would get in the UK.

While the incomparable Mr Colin Meech, UNISON National Officer for Capital Stewardship, thinks that the Local Government Pension Scheme is just being ripped off. He recounted how a colleague who became a fiduciary trustee on a large scheme was shocked to find that the trustee board spent more time being wined (at £100 per bottle!) and dined by fund managers than they spent supervising the scheme. I have heard the same story from that colleague.

It is not just excessive fees by fund managers but also "churn" (excessive buying and selling of stock); stock lending (they lend out your share certificates for a fee), "Custody Banks" (if something is too good to be true...) and "transitional management" (there is a completely shocking story how the Royal Mail Pension fund was cheated and how a judge was told that an untruth was not a lie)

By coincidence we heard similar arguments at the AMNT Summer Conference from Michael Johnson that I posted upon yesterday.

AMNT Summer Newsletter 2013: The Minister, the Researcher, the Polemicist & Red Barry

 Dear Member’s and Friends

The AMNT year so Far

This is our latest email newsletter. 2013 has been an exciting year so far for the AMNT. Our membership has continued to grow. We have made significant contributions to government and regulatory policy on pensions and trusteeship. We have held successful and well attended open meetings and make our presence known by speaking in conferences and writing articles for the pension press.

We have been successful in our fund raising and have now employed an administrator, Kate Bendy, on a part time basis to support the AMNT objectives and our volunteer executive committee.

Pension Minister Steve Webb speaks at AMNT Summer Conference

Picture of our Joint Chair, Janice Turner, with Pension Minister Steve Webb MP, who was the keynote speaker and took part in a Q&A at our Summer Conference, “Where Now The Pension Promise?” on June 26th hosted by Towers Watson.

As well as the minister there was presentation on different pension schemes by members of the AMNT (USS, LGPS & HSBC).

Ewan McGaughey, a researcher from the London School of Economics, described the AMNT as “unique” and “the most important development in Pension Governance in 50 years”! While the ever so quiet and retiring Michael Johnson, research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS), gave a well received “Trustees: take no prisoners” speech on “Charging in Pensions”.

All the speeches are now on the AMNT website here

There was also a showing of the new AMNT DC and Auto-enrolment video kindly developed with Barings Asset Manager.

The Anonymous Trustee Question?

Each newsletter we are planning to allow a MNT to post a question on a current issue – if you have an answer for this question then do so on the AMNT LinkedIn site or email mail@amnt.org

“The Final Salary scheme of which I am a Member Trustee has gathered up people from various prior schemes and has endeavoured to match the pension terms that each member had before. So, we have several different ages from which the member may retire without actuarial reduction, many well before their 65th birthday. Trustee consent is required for these early retirements.

This is inevitably quite a large cost to the scheme. We have recently had an actuarial valuation and the sponsoring employer wants the trustees to agree never to consent to these requests for early retirement on these terms, so that this cost may be omitted from the valuation. The trustees have never refused a request for early retirement in the past and indeed have formerly been directed by the sponsoring employer not to do so”.

Has this happened to other pension schemes? What did you do?

Encourage your fellow Member Nominated Trustees (or representatives) to Join the AMNT

Even in this social media world of Facebook, twitter and blogs, by far the best way to recruit someone is still by word of mouth, one to one. So if your fellow MNTs in your scheme are not yet members of the AMNT, please point out the benefits and ask them to join! Check out our revamped website here

Driving down investment charges

An AMNT member wants to do something about investment charges and to see whether we can't drive down charges - or at least reach acceptable standards - for our investments. The concept is that perhaps we may be able to guide members as to what a reasonable charge rate might be for certain asset class investments and not only that but perhaps have more confidence in using more challenging forms of contract - risk reward and so forth.

This is a big subject and it would be very helpful if we could identify a set of AMNT members willing to share some knowledge regarding their experiences on costs and contracts. If you are interested and can help please email mail@amnt.org

£179m of Equitable Life payments owed

The Equitable Life Payment Scheme is asking company pension fund trustees and administrators for their help to make payments of £179 million to their members. Members of the pension scheme that you act for may lose out if you do not take action. 547,000 scheme members are due a payment of 22.4% of their relative financial loss suffered as a result of UK Government maladministration in the regulation of Equitable Life.

As Equitable Life did not hold the addresses for nearly 500,000 company pension scheme members, the Scheme is asking trustees, administrators or authorised representatives of pension schemes that invested in Equitable Life between 1992 and 2000 to share their members’ addresses.

The Payment Scheme has made good progress with most company pension schemes and has received data sharing agreements covering over 400,000 of their members who are due payments of £115 million. This represents 73% of the 547,000 members who are due a payment.

The Payment Scheme is now urging the remaining company pension schemes to return data sharing agreements as soon as possible. Once this is completed, they can provide members’ addresses so the Payment Scheme can write directly to their members to start the payment process.

A list of the company pension schemes that the Payment Scheme has been unable to trace is on the Scheme’s website. Individual members of these schemes can call the Payment Scheme’s policy checker service on 0300 0200 150 to check whether their policies are eligible and find out the next steps to take.

Pension Trustees Circle Seminar

This will take place on Sunday-Monday 29-30 September at The Majestic Hotel, Harrogate. There are currently 2 Pension Trustees Circle (PTC) events in the South East – this will be the first meeting in Northern England. The PTC is for chairs of pension schemes or experienced trustees in pension funds with a minimum of £100m and it is free to attend. In addition, to celebrate the inaugural PTC North meeting and encourage attendance, the organisers are providing free accommodation for approved trustees. if you would like to apply for a place please contact Liz Doughty – liz@spsconferences.com

PMI Qualification in Trusteeship

The AMNT have been researching the possibility of organising training and the exam for the PMI certificate in trusteeship.

We would like to hear from any of our members that would be interested in the training and sitting the exam. If we have enough interest then we will explore setting up the training and the exam. To register your interest please email mail@amnt.org

Dates for the diary – Thursday 26^th September 2013!

Next AMNT open meeting scheduled to be held at Pensions Corporation, London on Thursday September 26th. Further details to follow. We are also planning an event to take place in the House of Commons in November.

Defined Benefit Defence Pack

The latest version of the pack is being updated and we hope to be able to announce a re-launch date soon. In the meanwhile if any AMNT members need advice or support on proposed closures please email DB Working Group Chair, John Gray, (in confidence) at mail@amnt.org

Finally....

Picture (bottom right) of our other Vice Chair of the AMNT, “Red” Barry Parr, on front cover of July 2013 “Pensions Insight” magazine (Shome mishtake, shurely? Ed)

Editor: AMNT Executive member John Gray

NAPF Local Government Conference 2013

On 21st May I attend the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) Local Government Conference. The keynote speaker was the Minister for Local Authorities, Brandon Lewis MP.

Now I know many people think pensions is boring but there are 4.6 million people in the UK who are members of a Council pension scheme. Collectively they are all worth around £150 billion and if combined would be the 5th biggest fund in the world. 

The minister announced a "root & branch review" of Council pension schemes (LGPS) including possible merger of the current 99 separate funds. He said "things will change but nothing ruled in or out" at this stage.

In the Q&A I asked him what is the main driver for merger-  is it to save money or is it to save the economy through infrastructure investment?  He suggested that the LGPS is bigger than the Canadian public pensions schemes but does not have their scale and efficiencies (answer - main driver is to save money - but I am not convinced this is the reason)

Next we had "Implementing the LGPS 2014: from here to go-live".  First was Chris Megainey, a senior civil servant from the Communities and Local Government department (who was described as the"new Terry Crossley"). His big news was that the new governance arrangements for the LGPS would not be in place before 2015. Rodney Barton from West Yorks Pensions scheme spoke about the huge threat to schemes from the complex career average administration arrangements.

Brian Strutton from the GMB reported on the LGPS Workstream 2 "governance & cost structure" and the problems of trying to convince the HM Treasury that there is a difference between a funded and unfunded public sector pensions scheme (NB £150 billion of assets methinks!). There appears to be some sort of classic "fudge" agreed with different valuations being allowed.

My question to panel was while it is important to get the details right, LGPS 2014 and auto enrolment means there is a massive opportunity to increase membership into the scheme but this will need local and national campaigns. (answer from Chris that there is no national money available so will have to be local).

I then went to the "All Change: Employer security & the new LGPS" workshop. Schemes face grave problems if admitted body employers go bust without adequate security and also these employers face often massive termination debts when the last employee retires. I asked the question that to avoid these debts should employers apply to open schemes to new entrants? Especially since the LGPS 2014 has radically changed due to cost sharing? (answer from panel that some employers have indeed done this just to avoid existing debt. But this is a cynical response? Well, cynical or not it makes sense to me!)

Back to the main conference room for "The 2013 Valuation: Health Check Results" to hear Ronnie Robertson from Hymans Robertson. The 2013 valuation is likely to be the 3rd "bad" funding vaulation outcome in a row. Employers such as housing associations will find it "very scary".  He quotes Michael Johnson who describes underfunded pension schemes as being in a "death spiral".  The interest on deficits & less assets means the fund eats itself.  My question was is the real problem the way we measure liability? investments are up but liabilities are much, much higher. Gilt yields are at a 200 year low? Yet it drives the entire investment philosophy? (answer was yes but no but)

Next workshop was "Responsible Investment: what it means for the LGPS?" NAPF used this to launch a new report on RI here.  Dr. Craig Mackenzie from Scottish Widows pointed out how much things had changed since in past there use to be argument about whether RI was even legal for pensions to consider. My question is there hard data available that can show pension committees that RI not about hugging trees but delivers superior returns? (answer: Yes, lots of it)

The last business item of the day was to be a bun fight debate on LGPS merger. However it turned out to be a bit of a let down.  Edmund Truell from London Pension Fund Authority (for merger - and general world domination) and Nicola Mark from Norfolk Pension Fund (against merger) were too polite and reasonable for a great debate.

Edmund argued that in London alone they could save £120-200 million per year from merger and unless we do so we are essentially all doomed. Nicola counted that all new local government ministers firstly ask why can't we merge the LGPS? -  then they ask "how can we get our hands on this money". She pointed out that if there is a 1% change in the Norfolk £2.5 billion scheme investments there is a £25 million difference. If there is a 1% change interest rates its impact is £480 million

My question to both was if pension funds are supposed to act in the interests of beneficiaries and with LGPS 2014 there will be risk sharing with employees, what consultation have you done with beneficiaries on whether merger is a good thing or not? (from the rather wafflery answers clearly neither have done any such consultation. Which I knew already since I have members of my trade union branch in both schemes. So why do they think they can speak on their behalf?)

The guest speaker at the dinner event was former adviser to prime minister Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell. Who gave a typically entertaining and provocative speech. For once I did not ask any questions.

I missed the next day's session since I had to go to a Pension Trustee meeting.

Pension Minister Steve Webb MP to address AMNT 26 June 2013

Association of Member Nominated Trustees

Pensions Minister Steve Webb MP will be the keynote speaker at our first AMNT Summer Conference which will take place on June 26th 2013, at Towers Watson, 21, Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LL. Some details are still to be finalised, but currently, the day looks like this:

We will begin with registration from 0930, and the main conference starts at 1000.
Steve Webb has agreed to start us off with a keynote speech.

Then Co-Chair Barry Parr will go through the results of our Member Survey.
Bill Trythall (Committee Member) will then talk on "The Universities Superannuation Scheme".

After coffee, Ewan McGaughey will talk on "MNTs in Corporate Governance", then another Member will talk on "A Smaller DC Scheme".

Lunch and networking will be followed by our hosts Towers Watson talking on Current Pension Issues, then John Gray (Committee Member) will present on "London Borough/Local Government Schemes".

Following this, Michael Johnson will speak on "Charging in Pensions".

After a tea break, our Friends will leave us, and we will go into Round Table Debates on Current Pensions Issues with one of our Sponsors leading each table.

A final feedback session will be followed by a closing summary, which is due to finish at 1700.

After the meeting has closed, there will be the usual networking opportunity with drinks provided by our hosts Towers Watson

There are limited places available for this event, so please let us know as soon as possible if you are able to attend. Click on one of the below links and let us know by email, including whether you have any dietary requirements and if you plan to attend for the drinks reception.

Email mail@amnt.org if you wish to send the whole or part of the day at the meeting.

(if you are a member nominated Trustee or representative then join and apply to attend)

"Pensions will not exist by 2050"

It seems that the Daily Telegraph has a silly season in December as well as August (some would argue it actually lasts 12 months).

Michael Johnson, a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies is quoted here as warning that private pensions will soon cease to exist since young people see having immediate access to money more important than long term retirement plans.

I need to check with Michael that he has not been misquoted since the Telegraph has been writing some complete hysterical drivel about pensions lately. The reasoning is also a bit odd and Michael is usually pretty "bang on" about private pensions (not public sector pensions).

Young people have always wanted ready access to their money and been reluctant to save for your retirement. That is why you and your employer need incentives to join a pension and (like taxes) for it to be made compulsory. 

Also young (and older) people are not being completely stupid about not saving for their pensions. This is because for many the pension they are currently offered or have access to is just completely rubbish. They are being ripped off for a hugely expensive product that offers them no certainty in retirement.

While I think everyone should save for their pensions I can understand why so many make the understandable (and even rational?) choice not to save.

Auto-enrolment and universal pensions will make a difference. But unless people have the confidence to invest in a product that gives them some sort of guarantee of financial security in their old age then I think many won't bother. This future burden on the taxpayer should be the key issue for the Telegraph.

 I suspect that Michael is being polemic in order to bring attention to a real serious problem.

Yet his reported solution is wrong. Saving in a short term ISA is not the answer but an affordable and sustainable defined benefit scheme for the private sector is.  It is also going to have to be compulsory (at some stage).

Unless we sort this out I suspect we will soon be seeing future articles glamorising the workhouse for pensioners.

Council Pensions, Mergers & the Infrastructure Cacophony

This morning I was surprised to hear Sir Merrick Cockell, Chair of the Local Government Association (and Leader of Kensington and Chelsea) say on the Today radio programme that he (personally) supports the merger of the £150 billion Local Authority Pension Scheme (LGPS) into 5 or so funds only. There are currently 101 different and separate LGPS funds.

He was being interviewed about a report from The Future Homes Commission  about the need for investment in residential property. He argued that to invest in such infrastructure you need massive scale. There are claims that this merger and investment could result in 300,000 more homes being built every year.

His comments are likely to be more than a little controversial in our sedate world of Council pensions. I am reminded of the bun fight in City Hall here between "merger-ists" and "merger deniers" and the epic battle earlier this month here between the "Wandsworth" Council bulldog and "Gentleman Jim" LPFA.

One side argues that if the schemes merge they will be big enough to invest in such infrastructure funds that will not only provide homes, a much needed boost to the economy but also increase returns and slash costs. The other says "rubbish", bigger doesn't mean better and small is often beautiful (and more democratic and responsive).

By coincidence on Wednesday evening I went to the Parliamentary launch of the report by the Smith Institute "local authority pension funds: investing for growth".  It makes a number of recommendations but broadly supports the idea of a "clearing house" and "pooled" LGPS funds to invest in social housing and infrastructure. Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF) Chair Ian Greenwood made it clear at the meeting that the forum was "neutral" with regard to merger of its funds.

In the Q&A I made the point that the report itself didn't appear to address any significant beneficiary concerns and a major reason why pension funds can't already invest in social housing is that property fund managers don't want anything to do with "plebs" and only want to invest in shiny new shopping centres and warehouses. Comrade Michael Johnson threw his usual hand grenade into the proceedings by stating that the LGPS is an Empire run in the interests of the Empire rather than its beneficiaries.

Following this mornings report UNISON has quite rightly reminded everyone that the absolute legal duty of pension schemes is to act in the interests of its beneficiaries (not to make property developers rich).  While I am pretty sure that this does not mean that UNISON is necessarily opposed to such investment, those who propose it need to be damn sure that these investments benefit our members.

Out of the hundreds of organisations that are cited as contributing to the Future Homes report there appears to be no input whatsoever from those whose money it is being proposed should be put at risk?

Check my twitter account @grayee for more details on the "epic battle" (10 October) and Smith report (24 October).