• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • LATIF
  • Conferences
  • Dashboard
  • Edit My Profile
  • Log In
  • Logout
  • Register
  • Edit this post

Room 151

  • 151 BRIEF

    What's New?

  • Slough welcomes commitment that Office for Local Government ‘will not be a burden’

    June 30, 2022

  • Homes England agrees strategic partnership with two authorities

    June 29, 2022

  • Soaring inflation and pay pressures to add £3.6bn to council budgets

    June 28, 2022

  • Underfunded social care reforms could ‘exacerbate workforce pressures’

    June 27, 2022

  • Nottingham City Council leader labels proposed intervention as ‘disappointing’

    June 27, 2022

  • Government preparing to intervene in Nottingham City Council

    June 23, 2022

  • Treasury
  • Technical
  • Funding
  • Resources
  • LGPS
  • Development
  • 151 News
  • Blogs
    • David Green
    • Agent 151
    • Dan Bates
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Sheen
    • James Bevan
    • Steve Bishop
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • David Crum
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O’Donnell
    • Jackie Shute
  • Interviews
  • Briefs

Pensions committees – are they really working?

0
  • by David Crum
  • in David Crum · LGPS
  • — 27 Sep, 2012

A busy few weeks has seen me struggle to find some time for blogging but I’ve now managed to set aside an hour or so to put fingers to keyboard to write another entry. I thought I’d return to a topic close to my heart that I mentioned (albeit briefly) in a previous blog – that of pensions committee meetings. Some of you who know me well know that I harp on about this, but I do so for some very good reason.

Firstly, I should state that I’m a big believer and supporter of the ‘lay person’ model of fund governance that is the standard for the LGPS. Committees comprised of non-experts are an effective brake on what the experts might otherwise get up to, and should (in theory) result in the jargon laden world of investments being, well, less jargony – as investment professionals who work with non-experts have to focus on explaining strategies, products, performance and approaches to an audience of lay people. If they’re any good, they should be able to do this, or at least know someone who can!

I also believe that elected members’ work on other committees – planning, licencing, financial, for example – is also relevant for the governance of pension funds. If nothing else, it seems to give members the ability to sense when not everything being presented is quite as it seems. All good so far.

What’s my point of this blog on pensions committees? Well, for the most part, I don’t think they work very well.

Setting this slightly inflammatory statement aside for the moment, I’d ask you to think: what’s the purpose of a pensions committee and what are its main functions?

Might I suggest the following as the main investment functions or responsibilities (non-investment matters are not my area of specialty, so I’ll leave them alone for the moment):

  • Setting and reviewing investment strategy relative to the fund’s liabilities, considering a wide range of asset classes and investment management styles
  • Monitoring investment strategy on an on-going basis, making adjustments where necessary
  • Overseeing the appointment/monitoring/review of investment managers, custodians and consultants
  • Ensuring all members on the committee are suitably trained and supported
  • Ensuring there are sufficient internal resources to manage the fund

Clearly, there’s more to the job than this, but for a short blog I thought a short list would be ok.

If the above is a reasonable starting point of the key responsibilities, how many pensions committees can currently say these responsibilities are being successfully completed?

In my time in the LGPS, I’ve attended quite a few pensions committee meetings, and most do not tick off the items on the above list. Why not?

Is it because of one (or more) of the following:

1)      A ‘this is how we do it’ influence – how many committees have gone back to basics and considered afresh what exactly their remit should look like? Or is it simply a case of ‘we’ve always done it this way’? In some places, formats of meetings have not changed for many years – which is fine if they are delivering the key objectives. But how many committees have clearly set out their key objectives, and how they can be effectively measured?

2)      Turnover of members – an unfortunate consequence of democracy! Many good intentions are thwarted with the regular turnover of pension committee members, following local elections. This has an obvious impact on collective knowledge and decision making, and places a heavy training requirement on those responsible for the administration of the fund.

3)      It’s all about the managers – by far the biggest problem I have with the current ‘typical’ approach is that too much of the precious governance budget is spent on investment managers. And not even on carrying out on-going monitoring of all of the most important aspects of the investment management firms that administering authorities employ – but time spent on simple quarterly updates of performance. Hours are spent every year discussing the merits, or otherwise, of individual stocks – not good at all.

For years now I’ve tried (pretty unsuccessfully I must say) to ask various committees to consider doing things differently, to spend some time reflecting on what they are trying to achieve via the pensions committee structure, and considering whether things could be done better. Here’s what I’ve suggested, and continue to suggest when asked:

1)      Back to basics – spend an hour just asking some questions about the purpose of the committee, what its key objectives are, and how success or failure will be judged. Essentially, the blank piece of paper test – so simple, and so effective.

2)      Elected member training – to carry out effective training, you need to know where you’re starting from, so an assessment of current knowledge seems a good place to being. This should be followed up with a tailored training plan, which helps Elected Members – newly appointed or otherwise – get to grips with the nature of pension fund investments, regardless of the level of their existing investment knowledge.

3)      Monitor managers properly – preferably via a sub-committee/panel, but if the main committee insists on doing this, then more thought needs to go in to what the managers are asked to cover in their presentations to committee, how long they are given to present, and what the committee want to ask the managers on a regular basis.

4)      More time on strategy – this is the one thing that has the most impact on whether the fund will be successful or not (i.e. closing deficits/improved funding level, and ultimately paying pensions). Surely strategy deserves a whole day to itself on an annual basis? Many elected members do not like, for example, hedge funds. But how many of these same elected members have spent a reasonable amount of time considering them as a possible addition to their fund’s investment strategy? And what about medium term changes to investment strategy? How are they dealt with?

Valuation results in England and Wales will be due next year – probably towards the end of 2013. Focus will then switch to formal reviews of investment strategy. There’s a golden opportunity between now and then for funds to undertake a root and branch review of their governance arrangements, so that they’re in great shape to deal with what may well be one of the most challenging strategy reviews they have faced.

Let’s not miss this opportunity to show the LGPS as a beacon of great governance in challenging financial times.

David Crum spent 11 years working in the LGPS for the Lothian and Strathclyde Pension Funds, and 5 years as an investment consultant with Aon Hewitt. He is now the founding Director of 330 Consulting Limited

Share

You may also like...

  • SCAPE plan: How to reset a discount rate 19th Jul, 2021
  • 2022 LGPS valuations: difficult discussions in uncertain times 20th May, 2022
  • LGPS investing: how impact funds can contribute to net-zero ambitions 15th Feb, 2022
  • LGPS governance, Cagney and Lacey style 18th May, 2022

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • 151 BRIEFS – WHAT’s NEW?

    • Homes England agrees strategic partnership with two authorities
    • Soaring inflation and pay pressures to add £3.6bn to council budgets
    • Underfunded social care reforms could ‘exacerbate workforce pressures’
    • Nottingham City Council leader labels proposed intervention as ‘disappointing’
    • Government preparing to intervene in Nottingham City Council
  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    Valuations & Risk
    LGPS Women

  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    LGPS Women
    Valuations & Risk
  • Latest tweets

    Room151 6 hours ago

    Hillier confirmed as keynote speaker for LATIF/FDs’ Summit: Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, has been confirmed as a keynote speaker for Room151’s combined Local Authority Treasurers Investment Forum (LATIF) and FDs Summit. The… dlvr.it/ST70F7 pic.twitter.com/hxV676Iley

    Room151 6 hours ago

    Councils’ funding at risk due to ‘undercounting’ in census data: Population estimates in London and Manchester may have been significantly underestimated in the 2021 census potentially threatening government funding for frontline services in these… dlvr.it/ST707J pic.twitter.com/VncIyaXa01

    Room151 2 days ago

    Gove at LGA: councils to receive two-year financial settlement: Michael Gove has announced that councils will receive a two-year financial settlement from next year to provide authorities with “financial certainty” and allow them to plan ahead. The… dlvr.it/ST0kSV pic.twitter.com/wxL3UM4sGO

    Room151 2 days ago

    LGPS valuations: the digital journey: Rob Bilton explains how technology is helping to deliver one of the most complex data exercises in the world of public sector pensions. The 2022 valuations for LGPS funds in[...] dlvr.it/ST0kMq pic.twitter.com/VxjSPC2Uvo

    Room151 6 days ago

    Conrad Hall: ‘more sophisticated’ regulation needed for local government: The chair of the CIPFA/LASAAC Code Board has questioned the sophistication of financial regulation in local government and the continuing focus of the Department for Levelling Up,… dlvr.it/SSnPBV pic.twitter.com/G5d7JCWF8c

    Room151 1 week ago

    Slough Council approves plans to restructure finance department: Slough Borough Council has approved plans to restructure its finance department to enhance capacity and capability and to address a “significant weakness” in the function. The local… dlvr.it/SSf8DG pic.twitter.com/l5lmyHmkBg

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Previous story Economic and market briefing: the UK in focus
  • Next story New Homes Bonus generates £63m for councils

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares