Workers' Capital Conference 2015 (Day 2)

This is a little late. I have posted here and linked here on the first day of this global annual conference for trade union pension trustees and organisers that took place earlier this month.

(On my https://twitter.com/grayee account I tweeted on the presentations and speeches which I have now used to write this post).

The day was started by a welcome speech from Toni Heerts (FNV) Committee Workers Capital Chair & Co-Chair Paddy Crumlin (ITF). 

The 1st plenary was on "Embedding pro-labour practises & policies for responsible investment". Willem Noordman from the Dutch Pension Federation recognised that engineering unions would have a different view of arms production than others but all unions have plenty in common. There is a real dilemma that if we disinvest from a company because we don't like their practises that we lose all influence over them.

Tom Croft, from the USA Steel Valley Authority in Pittsburgh pointed out that the "S" in "ESG" principles (Environmental, Social and Governance) is too often forgotten.

Pension trustee and national officer, John Neil, from Unite spoke about the Trade Union Shareholders Organisation (TUSO) in the UK. Trade union staff pension funds in the TUC, UNISON, Unite and the ITF combine collectively to make sure that all the shares they own are voted in the interests of "pro-labour" at company AGMs (such as the rogue UK company "Sports Direct" the following day)

A number of international speakers mentioned TUSO at the conference and that they hoped that something similar would be set up in their countries.

I asked the question is there evidence collated of "pro-labour" companies that have proved to be long term good investments that we can show our trustee Boards? Tom Croft responded that in the USA there are certain Private Equity companies that have humanely restructured firms & saved jobs.

Next Janet Williamson from the TUC chaired a panel on 2022 World Cup construction deaths in Qatar.  Gemma Swart from the ITUC spoke about the modern day slave camps in Qatar and that investor pressure over reputational risk can bring about change since the whole country is essentially a family business.

Roel Nieuwenkamp from OECD pointed out that they have introduced binding guidelines on contractors including supply chains with a grievance procedure. "Soft law with hard consequences". He used an example of a complaint by a NGO against Formula1 over human rights in Bahrain and there could be a similar one against Fifa over Qatar.

Hugues Letourneau  from CWC on their human/labour rights campaign in Qatar points out that there has been 279 Indian migrants deaths so far. They are putting pressure on UK and French construction firms via "investor letters".

Cllr Richard Greening from LAPFF  spoke about their engagement with companies exposed in media working in Qatar at AGMs & face-to-face meetings.

(after this session I had to go to a work meeting and missed the debate on infrastructure investment which I understand was pretty heated at times. Some delegates believed that such investment was being misused to privatise public services)

I came back to hear Nick Robins from UNPRI enquiry on the "Design of a Sustainable Financial System".  He believed that there was evidence of a "quiet revolution" in Green investment despite agreeing the Governor of the Bank of England that there was a "tragedy of horizons".

Then 'Labour Standards in Sustainability Rating: How well they incorporated?' Chaired by Elizabeth Umla.

John Jarrett from "FTSE for good" index explained how they did their ESG research and how core Labour standards from all companies are assessed including the supply chain.  Antti Savilaakso from MSCI admitted they have a somewhat similar method to FTSE. They have 130 analysis serving 900 clients. Their key issue is to decide whether bad company behaviour is a one off or structural?

Keeran Gwilliam-Beeharee from Vigeo said they do things differently. They start with the four core ILO standards. Governance issues are the best reported but Labour issues have a low coverage and there is decreasing information on it.

Mario Enrique Sanchez Richter, CCOO trade union economist spoke about his report on the sustainability of rating agencies and how well do they measure? His conclusion was that they do not measure very well.

Final speaker was  Brian Daley from ACTU who stated bluntly that he had not seen any evidence that Labour/Social ratings were actually used by fund managers or advisers to make buy or sell decisions.

In the Q&A Keeran responded to a question on why Labour issues are not being covered by saying that Governance issues such as corruption are seen as more important and lack of investor pressure.

I asked the panel whether rating agencies could give evidence of Companies with good Labour ratings having better long term performance? If they did this would this increase demand for such ratings? John replied that he was not aware of such evidence and agreed that Green and governance issues tended to "crowd out" Labour issues. Brian responded that we should be asking these questions and this should be at the heart of what trustees do.

The closing session was first a video from Liz Shuler, AFL-CIO & CWC co-chair on building an economy & retirement future that we can be proud of. Then final remarks from ITUC General Secretary Sharon Burrow, who said we want rights over our capital but we also want sustainability. While we respect workers in the carbon industry there will be no jobs in a dead planet.

"It's from workers and it should go back to workers"

Check out this post below by UNISON's head of bargaining and Campaigns in Scotland, Dave Watson, on the first day of the Workers Capital Conference which took place yesterday.

Also this YouTube video above by the ITF.

"Workers of the world unite to save your pensions!

Workers pensions across the world are facing similar challenges and we need to learn and act together.

I was at the 2015 Workers Capital Conference today, meeting with union pension negotiators and trustees from across the world. There is great best practice that we need to learn from, but also recognise that funds are invested internationally. We are investing in each other's communities and economies. Pension funds own half of the assets in the world and we should act collectively.

The first session looked at the role of trustees and shareholder activism.

The Californian teachers pension fund had some good advice for union pension trustees. They distilled these into seven effective ways of working.

• No place for fear. Don't be intimidated by the experts and hand over your fiduciary duty to the 'money people'.
• Stay curious. Be inquisitive and don't be afraid to ask questions.
• Be unwaveringly ethical. Remain true to those you represent. Without this funds are vulnerable to manipulation.
• Think objectively. Not enough to know what to do, be ready and willing to share views.
• Work hard. Read the materials, understand best practice. But recognise there is never enough time to do everything.
• Keep focused. Money managers are skilled at distracting trustees.
• Listen first. Speak less and listen more. Intervene at the right moment, don't just follow the money managers.

The Dutch pension fund ABP talked about shareholder activism. Examples included tackling poor labour conditions for textile workers in Bangladesh and Burma. Lack of safety standards and resolving the 'leukaemia dispute' at Samsung. Anti-union practices at Walmart. The latter resulted in four years of work before divesting. Their strategy involves intense dialogue, asking key questions and site visits. Sanctions included voted against directors remuneration and finally divestment, but only when all else fails. All of this is much more robust than the sort of ESG engagement advisors in Scotland pursue.

The U.S. Bakers union have a similar strategy through their capital stewardship programme. Part of their organising department because they see this work as building the union. Companies with good governance perform better, particularly those who treat their workforce fairly. They work with other funds collaboratively to target specific issues and sectors, particularly retail companies. An example of their engagement was the retail firm GAP, promoting a living wage and a good jobs strategy.

While there were different views on priorities, there were some common issues. Infrastructure investment to boost the economy (but not PPP), climate change and workers rights are probably the three main ones and there was support for some broad common goals. Pension funds are long term investors and there was an interesting debate about the pace of change funds should expect from the companies they invest in. Fiduciary duty shouldn't be a barrier to achieving common union goals.

The second session looked at pension fund management and transaction costs. The best approach is the Dutch model who have a level of understanding and transparency that we should aim for. Scottish funds have very little grasp of the true transaction costs of their equity investments. The Dutch now have legislation regulating this approach and this includes an asset management contract that is reducing costs.

Unsurprisingly, commercial asset managers in the UK resist this approach - even those who can do it in The Netherlands, because they have to! There is no good reason for telling us what something costs - if they can't tell you don't buy their services!

We probably only know about one third of the real costs. They are much higher than we think, probably three times higher at least. This matters when pension funds are under financial pressure. When resources are tight we should look closely at costs. It is also a fiduciary duty on trustees to know the true costs of their scheme, so they save contributions, not pay for profits.

Cutting costs is best done by bringing services in house. The top performing LGPS schemes in the UK are largely delivered by in house teams, cutting out the rent seekers. Active fund management is an illusion to fool us into trading that makes huge profits for the asset managers and hedge funds. It was interesting to hear that even New York public pension funds are coming to the same conclusion about active fund management.

The lessons for Scotland are that we should introduce systems that make real costs transparent, bring services in house, and largely get out of active fund management. Another lesson is that size matters and we should pool assets.

A lot of these issues appear complex to the average union trustee. But the value of today's conference is the sharing of information and developing common approaches. There are few more important issues than our member's pensions and there is much to do".

View from the Coalface - The role of trade unionists as pension trustees

This picture is from the panel seminar last week at the "Workplace Pension 2015" conference in Birmingham.

I was with Bill Trythall, who is a fellow AMNT union appointed trustee on the massive USS Pension scheme. The chair was Louise Farrand from "Engaged Investor".

We took a number of questions from the chair and members of the audience on amongst other things - time limits for trustees on schemes; do trade unions help bring diversity and how can we tell if our pension board is any good?

My response (and since I was obviously not making notes I won't report on what Bill said) was "Yes", we should have time limits on trustees serving on a board. It is wrong that people like me have been on boards for 20 years. We need new blood and realistic succession plans. But so should all our professional advisors be similarly time limited to 5-10 years maximum. 

I think that trade unions do help drive the diversity agenda, since not only is equality and fairness a reason for our existence, we know that if a company does not recruit, for example, any women to its board, then it is is ignoring the potential talent pool from half the population. That is a bad business decision and ignorant companies who do so will suffer in the long term. 

This has nothing to do with political correctness but a well founded belief that companies who don't discriminate, do not  cause harm to its workers, destroy the environment, employ child labour or bribe public officials will in the long run be far more successful businesses to invest in than does that do.

My response to how we can tell if we are doing a good job or not as pension trustees will be to see firstly how we perform according to our benchmark, when compared to our peers and at our triennial valuations. But also we should see how open and transparent we are with our members and other stakeholders, do we seriously challenge our advisors, how realistic are our assumptions about future performance and liabilities, do we really drill down on all our fees and transaction costs and do we take our responsibilities as owners of capital seriously?

We ran out of time at the end but I think that Bill and I enjoyed the seminar and hopefully those who watched and participated did so likewise.

Democratise our savings - Why we need a Magna Carta for Pensions

Many thanks to Henry Tapper for the plug on his website "Pension Playpen - Restoring Confidence in Pension".

Henry talks sense and reflects a fairly widespread unease amongst member nominated trustees at least, that "professional" or corporate trustees should not be paid to "represent" the interests of ordinary policyholders on insurance companies "Independent Governance Committees" (IGC).

 I have met a number of excellent individuals, who are professional trustees or advisers and they can often play a vital role in supporting some trustee boards. Some others I am less with impressed with and I am forced to remember the old but wise adage "He who pays the piper calls the tune" is as true for the financial services industry as any other.

 I am always unhappy that they are called "trustees" which I think muddies the water. They are not trustees. They are professional advisers. As said before, there is nothing necessary wrong with that. Yet to be very clear they have no fiduciary duty to policyholders but to only to themselves, their partners or shareholders and not to beneficiaries. That is why it is absolutely crucial that policyholders should represent policyholders on an IGC.

Yes, there will be resource issues regarding elections and the occasional maverick will be elected but so what? To paraphrase we all know that democracy is the worst form of Governance - except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

We must restore faith in pensions and the financial services industry. IGCs are an historic opportunity to democratise our savings and protect policyholders from the constant drip, drip, drip of fraud, corruption and consumer rips offs.

Protect policyholders and protect insurance companies’ integrity and reputation at the same time. In that typically horrible but descriptive Americanism it is “win, win” for all.

UPDATE: also check out Nigel Stanley at the TUC website Touchstone

The Life & Times of MNTS - London Wednesday 26 November 10-5.30pm

Hello,
 

You are invited to the following event:

The Life & Times of MNTs

Event to be held at the following time, date and location:

Wednesday, 26 November 2014 from 10:00 to 17:30 (GMT) Sacker & Partners LLP 20 Gresham St EC2V 7JE London United Kingdom View Map

Attend Event

At our next event kindly hosted by Sackers we will look at the story of MNT's - how and why it all began. To see the agenda please click on the green ATTEND EVENT button. We hope you can make it! Wed 26th November The Life & Times of MNTs 10.00 - 10.30 10.30 – 12.30 ---------------- 12.30 – 1.30 1.30 - 1.40 1.40 – 2.20 2.20 – 2.45 2.45 - 3.05 3.05 – 3.30 3.30 – 4.00 4.00 - 4.40 4.40 – 5.00 5.00 – 5.10 5.10 – 5.15 5.15 + Training Registration / Coffee & Tea Training session  – Member Disputes Frequently encountered member disputes: an interactive discussion forum with case studies designed to share advice and practical tips -------------------------------------------------------------- Lunch / Networking Members’ Meeting Welcome / Introductions The Maxwell Affair and the Establishment of MNTs What really happened and could it ever happen again? Independent Governance Committees (IGCs) What are they, why are they needed and do they have any powers? Member representation in Public Sector pensions Tea & Coffee / Networking IORP II – What is it and what does it mean for MNTs? What (additional) roles should MNTs play in the future – if any? Feedback sessions Parish Notices Wrap up and Close Drinks & nibbles / networking

Gregg McClymont MP at NAPF Conference 2014

Labour Shadow Pension Minister Gregg McClymont spoke (with a smile) about the previous speaker Bob Geldof being his "warm up act" this year. 

Gregg has now been coming to the NAPF Conference as Shadow minister for the last 4 years.

He has four key points.

1. There has been successful pension changes and measures which have been delivered with consensus.
2. We all need to deliver on pension promises
3. The Government is currently in the wrong place
4. It may have made decisive policy but not with the necessary checks and balances

His thoughts on these points

1. The new universal flat rate state pension and the successful launch of two million people into auto enrolment  was achieved by consensus.
2. The Government under pressure from the Labour Party and the NAPF have introduced a charge cap and the "disclosure" of transaction costs.

3. Where the Government is in a wrong place, is in the governance of pensions schemes. Where there are not independent trustees, workers are unlikely to see value for money in workplace pensions. Pensions of all types including contract schemes should be governed by independent trustees with an obligation to act in their best interests.

4. Soon many workers will be able to take out all their pensions in a lump sum (after paying a possible massive tax) but what will the guidance look like to stop people being ripped off and the likely take up by individuals is just not known.

Labour priorities are for value for money and to get this we also need to promote the scale of pension funds.  Larger pension schemes are more likely to delivery value for money.

In the Q&A I asked Greg would he agree that independent trusteeship of all pension schemes is also about re-establishing trust in the industry after decades of financial scandals.  People would save more if they were more confident that their money was being looked after by genuine beneficiaries trustees who will be acting on their behalf and making sure they are not being ripped off .

Greg thought that greater trusteeship would help establish checks and balances which is especially important since millions of people have been auto enrolled by the state and there is even a greater  responsibility to make sure the money is looked after properly.

Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) Governance Regulations 2014

(These are my personal comments I sent on 15th August to the Department Communities and Local Government consultation on their proposed LGPS draft regulations on governance. These regulations are due to be in force by October 2014. For what it is worth - I think they are a complete dogs dinner. Read why.)

"I have been an observer then member nominated representative on a London Local Government Pension fund since 1996 (and contributor since 1993). Lately I have also been an admitted body representative on that fund. I have also been an elected Councillor member of another London pension committee since 2010 and an employer nominated trustee on a private sector open defined benefit scheme.

I am responding as an individual and these comments are in my personal capacity only.

I must admit to being surprised at the statement next to the "impact assessment" that these regulations have no impact on business nor the voluntary sector.  As someone who also works in the voluntary sector I think that for organisations who are admitted bodies of the LGPS (including private employers) that the possible impact of these regulations is significant.  Especially on deficits and employer contributions. I understand that up to 25% of LGPS members do not work directly for local authorities.

I must confess to being very disappointed with the draft regulations. Instead of adopting the proven private sector pension trustee model of employers and employee representatives being jointly responsible and working in partnership to run their schemes, we are going to have overlapping and confusing 2-tier governance arrangements.

The proposed draft regulations themselves are contradictory and conflicting.  The overriding purpose of pension boards was supposed to be about making sure that the local government pension scheme as a whole is transparent, run efficiently and gives value for money. Unless the scheme nationally contains costs and maximises a responsible return then good funds will be brought down by the badly managed funds.

Employers will only pay a maximum of 13% contributions for future service and if nationally this cost ceiling is breached then this means that employee contributions will have to rise or benefits reduced. Which will then result in employees leaving the scheme and put its long term future at risk.

The huge cost of meeting existing liabilities must be kept to a minimum as local authorities face further cuts to budgets.

While not being too restrictive the regulations must ensure that the pension boards meet at regular times, are accountable, have sufficient resources to do their job and most importantly must have the legal powers to make sure that the funds are run properly.

I understand that there are potential legal challenges to the whole governance structure due to a failure of the government to implement European directives on pension funds?  If this happens this whole process could prove to be a waste of time and money.

I do not understand why there can't be one governance board with 50/50 employer and employee representation as was originally intended? There are far too many barriers to the Secretary of State approving joint committees.  Even if s/he does then the inherent contradictions of holding a "decision making" and "assist" (or even scrutiny) meeting at the same time are likely to prove insurmountable.

Nor can I understand why councillors cannot be members of the board as employer representatives? What is the conflict?

Who indeed can be "employer representatives" on a pension board? Since if council officers are to be the employer representatives there is a possible further conflict since I understand that officers cannot be members of council committees? Has there been legal advice on this point?

The requirement that members of the board have relevant experience and capacity is unnecessary and counter productive.  Why should public sector pension schemes be treated differently that private sector? In the private sector all trustees have up to 6 months to gain relevant skills and knowledge. You do not need to be a financial expert or professional to be effective on a pension board. There is too much "herding" in the LGPS. In fact it is an advantage to have non professionals who will challenge the status quo and ask difficult questions.

I think that as a matter of principle we should be supporting equality duties being part of our remit and I do not think that this will be a too onerous a commitment.

While it is an improvement on the existing ad hoc system I think that the proposed structure and regulations is frankly a mess. While there is a time tabling issue due to enacted legislation the national pension board ought to be reviewing the whole issue of governance as a matter of urgency.

The recent legal advice that found there is no statutory under pinning of the LGPS if a fund was to fail is yet another powerful reason to make sure that all funds are run efficiently and  are well managed.

John Gray

Class Action and Pensions funds

Last week I attended a presentation by US Law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on "Class Action".

In the US it is possible for British Pension funds to take part in "no win no fee" civil legal action in the Courts if they have suffered loss due to fraud.

So if a Pension fund invested in a company quoted on the US stock exchange and due to fraud they suffered a loss (the share price crashes) then they can sue that company without paying any costs or damages if they lose.  The lawyers take all the risk and of course they share in the rewards.

This law firm has so far claimed back for shareholders $80 billion. They recovered $7.2 Billion from the Enron debacle alone .

They openly admit that they like to act on behalf of Pension funds since it makes them more credible with the Courts (e.g. pensioners, widows and orphans) than retail clients.

More has been paid out by companies in compensation by companies than in fines by Courts or Regulators. Large compensation payments also tend to improve overall Corporate governance since it is those companies who act in an irresponsible manner who pay out the most. They have also pursued the ill gotten gains of crooked senior executives and made them pay personal compensation.

There has been problems in the past about corruption due to the huge amounts of money involved (see my post from 2008 here).  We also tend to be terribly British about "going to law" and have a well founded cultural fear of UK justice such as Jarndyce v Jarndyce.

Yet I cannot really see a downside to exploring this option for any pension fund. Obviously trustees should take advice from their advisers about who they use and how much of a success fee is claimed but since they do not face any financial risk - what do they have to lose? If your fund has suffered loss due to financial fraud then you have a clear duty as a trustee to seek compensation.

(the painting above is not something you would see in any US "no win no fee" legal literature but is based on the iconic photograph of the Red Army planting the Soviet flag on the roof of the Nazi German Reichstag in Berlin 1945. Now that is what I call "Class Action")

Focus on Member Nominated Representation in the LGPS

This is the article I posted on the Pension Social Media site Mallowstreet for a feature they did on trustees. I have been short listed for the annual Mallowstreet Awards for 2013 as "Most Influential Trustee" (2nd year running) and "Top Blogger". 

"I've been a member nominated representative on the Tower Hamlets Local Government Pension Scheme since 1996 (there are no Trustees in the LGPS). I was nominated by my trade union UNISON and have been there ever since. In fact all the original Councillors, Council officers, professional advisers and fund managers have all left apart from me. I am also the admitted body representative.  

There are 101 different LGPS. Collectively they are worth around £130 billion. It is an open defined benefit scheme.  The Tower Hamlets scheme is worth (June) £930 million and has 16,000 members (5,200 active).  There is an investment panel which reports to a Council committee.

The main challenge as a "trustee" is keeping up-to-date with the scheme paperwork and keeping your pension knowledge current. The best part of the role (not really a highlight) is holding your fund managers and advisers to account. Especially with regard to good Governance and other ESG issues. It is surprising how poorly prepared some managers are when they come to present to panel. Even in Beauty Parades you find prospective managers come to see us and they haven't even read our Statement of Investment Principles.

The LGPS is changing dramatically next year with a new set of benefits. Also there are going to be local pensions boards set up in partnership with the trade unions and the employer representatives (elected Councillors). There will be for the first time 50/50 representation on these boards.

I think all member nominated trustees or representatives need more support and independent training. UNISON is planning to offer training and advice to its representatives. The TUC Trustee Network and the Association of Member Nominated Trustees (AMNT) have been really supportive (as of course can be social media sites such as Mallowstreet!).

It can be very difficult as a lay trustee to feel confident enough to challenge your advisers and managers. You need the input of your peers".

AMNT at Pensions and Benefits Show (and pros & cons of fiduciary management)

This picture from the Pensions and Benefits show at the Excel Centre in London earlier this month.

The Association of Member Nominated Trustees (AMNT) had a stall during the 2 day event run by AMNT volunteers.

I only managed to pop in briefly during the Wednesday lunchtime to say hello.

Beforehand I went to a presentation on "Fiduciary Management" by MN.

They reported that in June 2007 the average DB pension fund was 124% funded! Now it is only 84%. The Fiduciary Management argument is that they can close this closing gap by pooling investment funds and cut costs and improve performance.

I think there is an argument that scale can achieve this but in the Q&A I questioned why they use the term fiduciary when actually they have no fiduciary duty to pension trustees? Their fiduciary duty is to their owners and shareholders. 

I think that this is a fundamental confusion. On a more positive point I did wonder whether this model could be considered as an option in the consultation currently taking place in the Local Government Pension Scheme? Individual LGPS could remain while they pool fund management?

Yes Google is evil..so are Amazon, Starbucks and all such tax thieves

I was at a pension trustee meeting a little while ago where I was criticised for bringing up our share holding in companies who don't pay their fair share in taxes. I was told that it was the duty of such companies to reduce their exposure to all taxes.

I disagreed and while I didn't express my true views that these companies are spongers who steal from the old and the sick. I did point out that we expect companies we invest in to be well managed, aware of risk and run with integrity.

There is a balancing act to be made by companies on minimising their taxes while recognising they have a duty to pay towards in public services and infrastructure they rely on to run their company in the UK.

The negative publicity and financial damage to the brand if they misbehave is also immense. 

If they get this balance wrong then the CEO and the Board are simply incompetent as well as immoral and not fit and proper people to run the company.

Association of Member Nominated Trustees (AMNT) Newsletter May 4th 2013

AMNT Summer Conference –
‘Where Now The Pension Promise?’ June 26th – at
21 Tothill Street, Westminster, SW1H 9LL

We wish to announce our first members’ conference which will be held as above at the premises of Towers Watson one of our sponsors. We hope that this conference will be a little different as we examine the latest in best practise and scheme evolution. It will include presentations from some AMNT Members about their schemes, information from our very own survey of members and thought provoking presentations from some external speakers.

There will also be some round table discussions where we will examine certain issues with our key sponsors. Our members are invited to attend the whole conference free of charge and our industry Friends will also be invited to attend the first parts of the event. There will be good opportunity to network in the breaks.

Mark your diaries now. Full details with agenda and registration details will be issued in a few days time. The outline time for the event is from 10am to 5.00pm.  We would still like to find one or two more interesting case studies from our members own experiences and schemes. If you have something that you think would be interesting for colleagues (and Friends) to hear about your scheme do please contact us now and we will do our best to find a presentation slot. Contact mail@amnt.org initially.

Workplace Pensions Event – Edgbaston – 8-9th May
Have you booked for this event through Engaged Investor or Pensions Insight? Both our co-chairs are on panels at the event:
Barry is part of the panel for ‘Driving DC to the next level’ 13:45 to 14:30 on Day 1
Janice is part of the Trustee Super Panel 15:45 to 16:30 at the end of Day 2
We hope to see many of you there.

Pension and Benefits Show – ExCel Centre – 12-13 June
The very best solutions to pension and employee benefit issues are only discovered when pensions management, benefits management, finance and HR work together. That’s why the NEW Pensions and Benefits Show, on the 12-13 June, will be the ‘must attend’ event of 2013.
Join over 1000 professionals in the Pensions, HR, Benefits and Finance industries, for 50+ conference sessions & workshops, 80+ exhibitors, unrivalled networking opportunities and FREE advice.

NEW FOR 2013 - Free advice and peer-to-peer networking in the P&B Clinic, one-on-one guidance, Partner Insight Lunches, Speed Connections, Ask an Expert Wall and the Boardroom Debate.
The AMNT will have a stand at this event and we invite as many as possible to come and visit us there. Entrance for Trustees is free of charge.
Go to www.pensionsandbenefitsshow.co.uk to find out more.

Are you based in the East Midlands?
Any of our members who are based in the East Midlands are invited to attend meetings of the NAPF East Midlands section. These meetings on topical pension matters are held about five times per year, at premises of members and usually on mid-week afternoons. That said, the very next meeting is a supper to be held at Leicester University on 13th June where the speaker is Phil Stone of the Richard III Society. For more info contact:
Tina.Lane@samworthbrothers.couk
Or Bob.Compton@arcbenefits.co.uk

Pensions Liberation
You are sure to have heard much about this in recent weeks but we didn’t realise it was quite so prevalent until one of our Committee members said that their scheme had 6 suspicious cases under review at the moment. So we have become keen to know how widespread this is and if your scheme has current issues with this we would like to hear more at mail@amnt.org
With this subject in mind our sponsor Sackers has issued a helpful brief:
http://www.sackers.com/documents/publications/alerts/alert_pension_liberation_what_trustees_need_to_know_18_april_2013.html
and there is also the material from the Regulator:
http://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/trustees/pension-liberation-fraud-trustees.aspx

Takeover Code
Are you aware of a new code coming into play from 20th May. Our Sponsor Towers Watson has issued a briefing note:
http://links.mkt304.com/servlet/MailView?ms=NDg4OTQzOQS2&r=NTE2NDkxMjUwOTQS1&j=MTUwNTgwNjM2S0&mt=1&rt=0

Small Pots / Short Service Refunds
And another hot topic. You might find the TW briefing note on this subject helpful also:
http://links.mkt304.com/servlet/MailView?ms=NDg5MDc2OAS2&r=NTE2ODIyNjY0NjUS1&j=MTUwNjE5MzgzS0&mt=1&rt=0

Want to Benchmark Your Scheme?
CEM Benchmarking, one of our Friends provides analyses for about 300 of the largest DB schemes around the world every year – looking in particular at investment costs and their reasonableness in relation to scheme size and asset mix. Last year they presented to an AMNT meeting and were well received.
They are now commencing the analysis of 2012 data and they invite our members to participate (not necessarily just large schemes). They produce two levels of report – a base level is provided free for all participants and a deeper study is provided for those paying a fee. Last year one or two AMNT members did follow up and their schemes made use of the service.
If you have an interest please contact directly:
John Simmonds at JohnS@cembenchmarking.com

Conference – Investment Issues for Maturing Pension Funds 9 July 2013 Le Meridien, Piccadilly
Our Friends SPS have offered us a small number of complimentary places to the above. After looking at the latest thinking on Liability Driven Investment Strategies and Identifying Liability Surrogates, the conference will move on to look at the wider de-risking alternatives including interest rate, longevity hedging and tail risk hedging before reviewing more definitive strategies such as buy-ins, buy-outs and other options.

Sponsors are: AXA Investment Managers, Capula Investment Management, Legal & General Investment Management, Rothesay Life and Russell Investments.

If you would like to attend please contact us initially at mail@amnt.org