It’s funny how you never seem to bump into a trustee in the pub (except perhaps during post-conference ‘de-briefings’) or hear of a trustee position being oversubscribed.
I know trustees exist; I hear about, write about and try to speak to them as much as possible for my job, and I’m sure some trustee board positions are fiercely fought over, but within my personal circle I couldn’t name a single trustee.
Maybe they are a modest bunch and don’t like to brag about it, or perhaps just shy, who knows? Usually I would suggest this lack of trustee presence in my personal life could have something to do with the fact that as a lay trustee you don’t get paid for your troubles and so not many people are willing to do it. You give up your time to sit in investment committee meetings and essentially decide the fortune of scheme members and often billions of pounds under management, all the while with minimal financial knowledge and under the burden of fiduciary duty. Understandably, that may not float everyone’s boat, particularly without any financial reward.
But these days an increasing weight of fiduciary responsibility is coming from external forces which could be just as, if not more, off-putting as the lack of financial reward. Aside from funding levels, asset allocation and meeting liabilities, there is ever-evolving regulation and legislation to keep on top of.
Research by the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) published earlier this week found the majority of its pension fund members are finding it increasingly difficult to keep on top of this regulatory change. It found that 81% of respondents believe the volume of change expected by the sector in the next 12 months will adversely affect the level of service they are able to provide.
The NAPF survey found most of its members agreed or strongly agreed the abolition of contracting out (85.2%), auto-enrolment (61.7%) and pensions tax relief administration (76.7%) were a concern. That’s not to mention the influx of Solvency II, the central clearing of derivatives (EMIR) and others.
As NAPF chief executive Joanne Segars termed it, the industry is facing a “capacity crunch” adding the stack of change threatens the body’s members’ ability to continue to deliver “business as usual”.
Previous governments were often accused of a piecemeal approach to regulation and legislation, a charge you certainly can’t wave at the current pensions minister, Steve Webb, who has to be applauded for the ambition he has brought to UK pensions. But while regulation and legislation are both entirely necessary for the development and improvement of our industry, it is only to be welcomed if it is not rushed.
Attempting to do so much in such a short period of time risks not doing it very well. If trustees and others providers are too time constrained to be able to carry out their role efficiently and without adequate due diligence then it is only scheme members who stand to lose out at the end of the day.
Comments