Teesside Pension Board Minutes

Teesside Pension Board Minutes

Date:
Monday 1 February 2016
Time:
2:00 p.m.
Place:
Spencer Room, Town Hall, Middlesbrough
 

Attendance Details

Present:
Councillor N J Walker (Chair); Mr C Monson (Vice-Chair); Mrs J Cook
Officers:
P Campbell - Head of Investments and Treasury Management, B Carr - Governance Officer, G Hall - Scheme Co-ordinator and P Slocombe -Chief Finance Officer.
Apologies for absence:
Mr G Clyburn, Mr G Whitehouse, Councillor B Woodhouse
Declarations of interest:
Name of Member Type of Interest Item/Nature of Interest
Mrs J Cook Non-Pecuniary Member of Teesside Pension Fund
Mr C Monson Non-Pecuniary Member of Teesside Pension Fund
Item Number Item/Resolution
PUBLIC
15/18 MINUTES - TEESSIDE PENSION BOARD - 26 OCTOBER 2015

The minutes of the Teesside Pension Board held on 26 October 2015 were taken as read and approved as a correct record.

15/19 MINUTES - TEESSIDE PENSION FUND AND INVESTMENT PANEL - 16 SEPTEMBER 2015

The Chief Finance Officer submitted a copy of the minutes of the Teesside Pension Fund and Investment Panel held on 16 September 2015 for information.

 

AGREED that the minutes of the Teesside Pension Fund and Investment Panel held on 16 September 2015 be noted.

15/20 REFORM OF LGPS INVESTMENTS

The Chief Finance Officer submitted a report, the purpose of which was to update Members of the Board with information with regard to the reform of the LGPS investments and the latest consultation and pooling criteria required.

 

The Board was advised that on 25 November 2015, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had published the following:-

  •  Investment Reform Criteria and Guidance (Summary attached as Appendix A to the report); and
  • A consultation - Revoking and replacing the Local Government Pension Scheme (Management and Investment of Funds) Regulations 2009 (Summary attached at Appendix B) and the new draft Regulations 2016.

It was highlighted that required investment reform criteria and strategic asset allocation decisions would remain with individual funds but that the management of assets (i.e. buying and selling of shares, bonds etc and the construction of the asset portfolio for each asset class) would be managed by the new collective investment pools.

 

The DCLG had proposed that there would be six individual pools, each with a minimum size of £25 billion. The consultation had been split into two parts and the detailed proposals were contained within the report. 

 

The Board was advised that a formal timetable in respect of the consultation and pooling arrangements had not yet been announced; however the anticipated timeline was included at paragraph 5 of the report.

 

It was highlighted that the Teesside Pension Fund's illiquid assets were the Fund's direct property portfolio which consisted of 25 properties. The DCLG had recognised that the sale of these properties would incur stamp duty, and as a consequence the sale would be cost detrimental. The Fund's other illiquid assets included a small number of infrastructure and real estate limited partnerships. It was however not clear at the present time whether these could be managed by the pool on behalf of the other individual Funds on a segregated basis or by each individual Fund.

 

The Board was advised that in making a decision with regard to which pool the Teesside Pension Fund would join, Members would need to ensure that the governance arrangements were appropriate and that the pool would provide value for money and be cost effective. The pool would also need to demonstrate that they intended to invest in infrastructure.  

 

The reform of LGPS investments and the latest consultation and pooling criteria required had been considered by the Teesside Pension Fund and Investment Panel at the meeting held on 9 December 2015. The Panel had agreed to note the report and requested that a Special meeting of the Panel be scheduled for early February 2016 before the response to the consultation was required, in order to agree a proposed response.

 

The Panel had also determined that Members should decide whether to progress options on collaborating with other LGPS Funds in putting together pooling arrangements, and for those options to be considered at the Special meeting of the Panel to be held in February 2016. The Panel had agreed both of the above recommendations however one of the Members had recommended that the Fund's employers, particularly the local authorities, be consulted with regard to the response to the consultation/pooling arrangements.      

 

The Board was advised that the proposals for pooling arrangements needed to be submitted to the DCLG by 19 February 2016. The Teesside Pension Fund and Investment Panel meeting scheduled for 9 February 2016 would consider the different pools put forward and decide which of the pools would be most appropriate for the Teesside Pension Fund to join.

 

The Fund's Statement of Investment Principles would be replaced by an Investment Strategy Statement. In response to a query, it was confirmed that the Investment Strategy Statement would not be widely different to the Fund's SIP except that the new Statement would stipulate what levels of investment should be made in respect of the different asset classes, and not rely on the levels in the out-going Regulations. It was highlighted that at the moment, the Teesside Pension Fund had a strategy in terms of what the Fund would invest in and the levels of investment in each asset class but once it was part of a larger pool, the pool would determine the investment principles.

 

When determining which pool the Fund might join it was important to look at how the pool was governed. If the TPF joined a pool with Funds that were much larger and the number of seats on the Board was determined by the level of investment that each Fund made then it could mean that TPF would have little influence over decisions with regard to investments if it only had one seat on the Board.   

 

The perceived benefits of joining a pool included the facility to access infrastructure and private equity which was currently unavailable to the Fund at the present time because of the cost involved. As part of a large pool, the Fund could engage in collective bargaining and better diversification. The role of the Board could involve overseeing the Fund Investment Strategy and ensuring that it was being implemented properly.       

 

The Board was advised that a transaction and valuation report was currently received from the TPF in house team on a quarterly basis and there was concern that this might not happen once the Fund was pooled. There was also concern with regard to what would happen if a decision was made to manage the Fund externally. There could be a loss of local expertise, security for existing staff and continuity in terms of the operation of the Fund.   

 

The Board requested that they receive an update on the decision of the TPFIP with regard to the pooling arrangements. It was also suggested that the Board receive training on how the new system of pooled Funds would operate. It was highlighted that the TPFIP was responsible for the making the decision with regard to the eventual pooling arrangements for TPF, however it was the responsibility of the Board to ensure that the process leading up to that decision had been followed correctly.

 

AGREED as follows:-

 

1. That the report be noted.
2. That the Board be advised of the outcome of the decision with regard to pooling arrangements.
3. That the Board receive further guidance on how the new pooling arrangements would operate once the final decision was made with regard to which pool the TPF would join.

15/21 MIFIR/MIFID II

The Chief Finance Officer submitted a report, the purpose of which was to inform the Pension Board with regard to the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulations (MiFIR) and Directive II (MiFID II) and its impact on the Teesside Pension Fund.

 

The key measures implemented through the directive included best execution and order handling practices, categorisation of clients, investment research, conflicts of interest, outsourcing, transaction reporting, pre- and post-trade transparency and regulation of trade-related market infrastructure. The introduction of the Directive had resulted in lower trading costs per transaction, reduced bid-ask spreads and faster trading times as envisioned by the European Commission.

 

The introduction of MiFID had improved competition and made it more efficient for traders but not necessarily for the end investor. MiFID II which was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 12 June 2014 repealed Directive 2004/39/EC, and MiFIR. The new rules would be applicable from January 2017. MiFIR/MiFID II was split into two pieces of legislation: a Directive which allowed member states some flexibility in transposing to local law and the Regulations which were binding on and had direct effect in all member states.

 

The new Regulations/Directive impacted on the Fund in three ways:   

  • Client Classification - stricter provisions for public sector entities;
  • Inducements - restrictions on provision of free of charge research to clients; and
  • Recording of Communications - records retention increased to 5 years.

In terms of Client Classification, previously some discretion was left with the broker/regulated financial institution and client to decide on the most appropriate client classification. This allowed the Fund as a professional client, to trade fully without restrictions and without regulation.

 

Under MiFID II, clients could be classed as Per Se Professional (which meant that the client had to have experience but did not need to be regulated), Eligible Counterparty or Retail Clients. It was highlighted that all Pension Funds managed and operated as part of a local authority would be classified as Retail Clients. A Pension Fund operated as a separate legal entity, but owned by a Local Authority could be classified as a Per Se Professional or an Eligible Counterparty.

 

Local Authorities could still be allowed to Opt Up to Elective Professional, however this would be at the discretion of Individual Member States (including which criteria would need to be met in order to Opt Up). It was highlighted that Elective Professionals would be prevented from Opting Up to Elective Eligible Counterparty.

 

The Board was advised that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as the UK's financial regulator would determine the final Opt Up criteria. The FCA was currently considering three options:

  • Option 1 - Meet 2 out of 3 criteria;
  • Option 2 - Either make all 3 criteria under Option 1 mandatory or increase the minimum size of portfolio to EUR 10 million;
  • Option 3 Require Local Authorities to meet 2 out of the 3 current large undertakings criteria.

Details of the criteria in respect of each of the options were included within the report. A copy of a Briefing paper produced by the Local Government Association (LGA) regarding MiFID II was attached at Appendix A to the report. It was highlighted that the briefing paper was more applicable to externally managed Funds; however it included details of the next steps that the LGA were looking to take.    

 

In terms of Inducements, it was highlighted that the TPF currently paid a commission to brokers for each trade and in return, received an execution of the trade. Some of those brokers provided investment research from Analysts and Commentators and consequently, the Fund did not make a direct payment for the research as the fee was included with the commission rate for each trade.

 

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) had been looking into how firms used dealing commission i.e. the charges paid when investment managers executed trades and acquired external research on their behalf. ESMA had subsequently proposed that investment manager's payments for research should be separated from execution arrangements. Brokers providing both execution and research services to investment managers were required to identify a separate fee for the execution service, with research charges charged for separately and not influenced by levels of payment received for execution. Any surplus would either have to be rebated or offset against future budgets.

 

Currently all FCA regulated financial institutions were required to record all telephone conversations and electronic communications however as the TPF was not regulated there was no system in place to do this, particularly in relation to those associated with trading orders. The introduction of MiFID II reinforced the need for effective recording of all communication and lengthened the period of retention of such records to five years.

 

The TPF Manager's had approached the Fund's Custodian (BNP Paribas Securities Services) and the Fund's Property Manager (CBRE) to arrange to discuss their criteria under MiFID II to Opt up to Eligible Professional Classification. The TPF also intended to seek advice from The Council's Commissioning Team regarding the options for paying for research and how it would fit in with the Council's Procurement Policy. They also intended to carry out research with regard to the requirement to record all communications and discuss the options with the Council's Information and Communication Technology Team.

 

ORDERED as follows:

 

1. That the report be noted and that the introduction of MiFIR/MiFID II on the Risk Register as a risk to the effective management of the Fund's financial assets be agreed.

 

2. That news flow be continued to be monitored and that the Members of the TPFIP and TPB be kept informed of any further developments.

15/22 LEGAL ADVICE AVAILABLE ON FIDUCIARY DUTY

The Chief Finance Officer submitted a report detailing the legal advice available on ethical investments.

 

The report was submitted, following a review of the Teesside Pension Fund and Investment Panel (TPFIP) minutes held on 17 June 2015 by the Board and a subsequent request from Members to view the legal advice available in relation to ethical investments and Panel Members' fiduciary duties.  

 

As part of the Local Government Pension Scheme (Management and Investment of Funds) (Amendment) Regulations 1999, the Fund was required to prepare, publish and maintain a Statement of Investment Principles (SIP). The SIP was required to include a statement with regard to the extent that social, environmental or ethical considerations were taken into account (if at all), in the selection, retention and realisation of investments.

The report contained an extract from the Fund's SIP which outlined the Fund's current position in respect of ethical investments. The Panel was advised that there were three practical ways of implementing an ethical, environmental and socially responsible investment policy which included negative screening; positive screening and active engagement. An explanation of each of the different processes was included within the report.

 

A definition of Fiduciary Duty was provided within the report. The Panel was advised that Trustees must also exercise their investment powers for a proper purpose, i.e. the purpose for which the Scheme was established. In the case of the Fund, this was ultimately to pay future pensions to members and in doing so to obtain sufficient returns to meet the Fund's actuarially calculated liabilities and achieve full funding. Extracts of notable legal cases which included Cowan v Scargill (1984), Martin v City of Edinburgh District Council (1988) and Harries v Church Commissioners (1992) were included within the report.

Extracts from the following regulations outlining the requirements of fiduciary duties relating to the Pension Fund were included within the report:- 

  • The Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/3378);
  • The Local Government Pension Scheme (Management and Investment of Funds) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/3093) in relation to social, environmental and ethical considerations within Statement of Investment Principles.

Reference was made to Law Commission Report 350 which was as a result of a project carried out by the Law Commission to consider how the law of fiduciary duties applied to investment intermediaries. The project was commissioned as a result of the Kay Review, published in 2012, which set out ten principles for the UK equity market. Principle 5 was that 'all participants in the equity investment chain should observe fiduciary standards in their relationships with their clients and customers'.

The final report of the Law Commission recommended that the Government should review the following two aspects of the Local Government Pension Scheme (Management and Investment of Funds) (Amendment) Regulations 2009:

1. Whether the Regulations should transpose article 18(1) of the IORP Directive - (Article 18 states that a fund has a 'fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of its members', however this requirement has not been transposed into law for LGPS funds). A full definition of Article 18 (1) was provided within the report.

2. Those aspects of Regulation 9 which require investment managers to be appointed on a short term basis and reviewed at least every three months. (This recommendation was a criticism of funds that reviewed the performance of investment managers quarterly and as part of the performance review, considered re-appointment).

The other part of the report which was relative to LGPS funds was in relation to pension trustees' duties when setting an investment strategy. The conclusion of the Law Commission was that trustees must always take account of financial factors when making investments, securing the best realistic return over the long term. Trustees could take into account other non-financial factors but only if the following two tests were met:-

1. Trustees should have good reason to think that scheme members would share their concerns; and
2. The decision does not involve a risk of significant financial detriment to the fund.

 

The LGA had sought further clarification on the nature of the duties which fell upon the administering authorities of funds established for the purpose of LGPS from Queens Counsel.

 

The advice received was that investment decisions must be directed towards achieving a wide variety of suitable investments, and to what was best for the financial position of the fund. The choice of investments could be influenced by the wider social, ethical or environmental considerations as long as that did not risk material financial detriment to the fund. The administering authority may not prefer its own particular interests to those of other scheme employers, and should not seek to impose its particular views where those views would not be widely shared by scheme employers and members (nor may scheme employers impose their views upon the administering authority).    

 

Reference was made to the Draft Investment Regulations 2016 and consultation, in particular paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 in relation to Non-Financial factors:


3.7 The Secretary of State has made clear that using pensions and procurement policies to pursue boycotts, divestments and sanctions against foreign nations and the UK defence industry are inappropriate, other than where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the Government. The Secretary of State has said, "Divisive policies undermine good community relations, and harm the economic security of families by pushing up council tax. We need to challenge and prevent the politics of division."


3.8 The Local Government Pension Scheme (Management and Investment of Funds) Regulations 2009 already require administering authorities to publish and follow a statement of investment principles, which must comply with guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The draft replacement Regulations include provision for administering authorities to publish their policies on the extent to which environmental, social and corporate governance matters are taken into account in the selection, retention and realisation of investments. Guidance on how these policies should reflect foreign policy and related issues will be published ahead of the new Regulations coming into force. This will make clear to authorities that in formulating these policies their predominant concern should be the pursuit of a financial return on their investments, including over the longer term, and that, reflecting the position set out in the paragraph above, they should not pursue policies which run contrary to UK foreign policy."

 

The Board was advised that the Teesside Pension Fund was an active member of the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF) which provided a customised, cost effective vehicle for local authority pension funds to improve both their effectiveness as responsible investors and their compliance with the Myners Principle 5 - responsible ownership.

 

In response to a query with regard to whether the Fund could make a decision to divest of its investments in tobacco, the Board was advised that the returns realised from its investment in tobacco were very good. If the value of the Fund's investment in the tobacco industry reduced or underperformed and there were better alternatives to invest in, the Fund would consider whether to stop investing in the product but Fund Managers would always have to consider their fiduciary duty.  

 

The new Investment Regulations 2016 were due to come into effect on 1 April 2016 with a transition period of six months for the LGPS funds to produce and approve their Investment Strategy Statements. The guidance referred to the need to produce an environmental, social and corporate governance policy which reflected foreign policy and complied with the predominant concern that a financial return on investments should be provided before the end of the transition period.

 

ORDERED that the report and its contents be noted.  

15/23 TEESSIDE PENSION FUND AND INVESTMENT PANEL - MEMBER TRAINING

The Chief Finance Officer submitted a report in response to a request from the Board to provide an assessment of training provided and/or available to Members of the Teesside Pension Fund and Investment Panel.

 

The Board was advised that in December 2010, the Panel had made a decision not to adopt the CIPFA Pension Finance Knowledge and Skills Framework. The Panel did however adopt its own Trustee Self-Assessment Programme and as a consequence, self-assessment questionnaires were issued to Panel Members at that time but none of the questionnaires were returned. An overview of the content of the CIPFA Framework and the skills identified as the core technical requirements for Panel Members was included at 4.2 of the report.

 

In 2011, CIPFA published the CIPFA Code of Practice on Public Sector Pensions Finance Knowledge and Skills. On 14 December 2011 the TPFIP made a decision to adopt the above Code of Practice and the TPFIP had reported compliance with the six Myners Investment Principles since that date, in the TPF Annual Report and Accounts.     

 

A copy of the Introduction Pack given to members of the Panel which provided an overview of most of the key areas identified in the CIPFA Framework. It was highlighted that areas such as Accounting and Auditing Standards and Financial Services Procurement were not covered in the training pack. The Annual Report and Accounts and the External Audit Reports were approved by the Corporate Affairs and Audit Committee, and separate training was available to Members of that Committee.

 

Panel Members were also offered the opportunity to attend the LGPS "Trustee Training Fundamentals Course which was run by the Local Government Association (LGA). It was highlighted that the Fundamentals course covered all the key areas identified in the CIPFA Framework and three of the Panel had attended the 2015 course.

 

The Panel also employed two independent financial advisors and part of their remit was to educate the Panel with regard to financial products and markets, investment performance and risk management and any other matters of interest. Panel Members also had access to the staff employed by the in-house investment team and the Kier Group's Pension Administration Unit.

 

A Member queried whether any kind of self-assessment was carried out after Members had received the Pension Fund training to ensure that Members had taken on board the information received. It was suggested that Members of the Panel should undertake self-assessments to satisfy themselves and others that they had received adequate training. It was suggested that any training offered to the Members of the TPFIP should also be made available to the Union Representatives on the Panel.

 

The Chair advised that the training undertaken by the three Members that had attended the Fundamentals course would satisfy the training requirements.

 

ORDERED as follows:-

 

1. That the Board submit a report to the TPFIP recommending that in order for Members of the Panel to comply with the requirements of the Myners Principles, all TPFIP Members (not just Middlesbrough Councillors) be required to complete the Mandatory Introductory Training currently delivered to Members of the TPFIP before being allowed to vote at a meeting. It was also suggested that the training be offered on a voluntary basis to Trade Union Representatives attending the Panel.

 

2. That the Board recommend that all TPFIP Members complete a Self-Assessment Form following completion of the mandatory training, as previously agreed in 2010.

15/24 TEESSIDE PENSION BOARD - MEMBER TRAINING

The Chief Finance Officer submitted a report, the purpose of which was to follow up the training needs of the Members of the Teesside Pension Board and determine progress with completion of the Pension Regulator's self-assessment questionnaire; and to inform Members of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy (CIPFA) publication, "Local Pension Boards: A Technical Knowledge and Skills Framework" (CIPFA Pension Board Framework) which was published in July 2015.

 

The Board was advised that the starting point of identifying the Board's training needs was the completion of the Pension Regulators Public Service Toolkit. Following the completion of the Toolkit Board Members had been asked to look at the self-assessment questionnaire that had been circulated to identify any further areas of priority for training.

 

The CIPFA Pension Board Framework covered the following eight different areas of knowledge and skills identified as the core technical requirements for Board Members:-

  • Pension legislation;
  • Public sector pensions governance;
  • Pensions administration;
  • Pension accounting and auditing standards;  
  • Financial services procurement and relationship development;
  • Investment performance and risk management;
  • Financial markets and product knowledge; and
  • Actuarial methods, standards and practice.

The Deputy Chair indicated that in his view, further guidance was required with regard to points 6, 7 and 8 above. It was also highlighted that the Pension Regulators Public Service Toolkit did not contain any information with regard to the Myners Principles. The Chair requested that if training on the above areas was arranged, it would be preferable to have all of the Board Members trained in the same training session.

 

The Board was advised that the Pensions Regulator also provided training when required and Members could consider whether a presentation from the Pensions Regulator was required at a later date.  Consideration could also be given to receiving a presentation from the Actuary.

 

The CIPFA Code of Practice also required the LGPS Fund to report annually in the Annual Report on the following:-

  • How the knowledge and skills framework had been applied;
  • What assessments of training needs had been undertaken;
  • What training had been delivered against the identified training needs.

AGREED as follows:-

 

1. That further training be provided to the Board in relation to the following:-

 

 (a) Investment performance and risk management;
 (b) Financial markets and product knowledge; 
 (c) Actuarial methods, standards and practice: and

 (d) The Myners Principles.

 

 2. That the contact details of the Pensions Regulator be provided to the Governance Officer should the Board decide to receive a presentation at a later date.

15/25 STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS AND DISCRETIONS

The Chief Finance Officer submitted a report, the purpose of which was to provide an overview of the Employer and Administering Authority Statutory Obligations and Discretions under the LGPS.

The report set out the requirements for Scheme Employers within the LGPS with regards to setting a Statement of Policy on certain discretions in accordance with the following:-




  • regulation 60 of the LGPS regulations 2013;


  • paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2 to the LGPS (Transitional Provisions, Savings and Amendment) Regulations 2014;


  • regulation 66 of the LGPS (Administration) Regulations 2008 (in respect of leavers between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2014); and


  • regulation 106 of the LGPS Regulations 1997 (in respect of leavers between 1 April 1998 and 31 March 2008).


The requirement to produce and publish the above discretionary policies was a Statutory obligation on all employers within the Teesside Pension Fund.




  • Appendix 1 contained a list of Administrative Authority Discretions afforded by LGPS regulations;


  • Appendix 2 contained a copy of the Teesside Pension Fund Administering Authority Discretions Policy Statement;


  • Appendix 3 contained a copy of the LGPS Discretionary Policy Overview;


  • Appendix 4 contained a copy of the Discretionary Policy Template;


  • Appendix 5 contained an example document ( a Leaver form - Retirement) with wording on discretionary policy;


  • Appendix 6 contained a list of Fund Employers and information with regard to whether the discretionary policies had been submitted.


The Board was advised that a "traffic light system" had been included in respect of the discretionary policies template document. Any policy with a red triangle was of high importance and needed to be included, a yellow circle signified that consideration needed to be given to including it and a green box meant that the discretion was of low importance.

In terms of the submission of discretionary policies to the Administering Authority, the Board was advised that regular reminders were sent to those employers who had failed to send copies of the policies. The individual employers had a statutory obligation to produce the policies and it would be they employers who were statutorily liable if the documents were not produced.

In response to a query with regard to why the Policy Statement was relevant, the Board was advised that it was relevant to the employer as the employer had discretion to pay their employees. In response to a query from the Deputy Chair the Chief Finance Officer confirmed that the delegations under the discretionary policy were in relation to his role as Scheme Manager rather than his Council employee role.

In response to a query with regard to the timetable for the Actuarial Valuation, Members were advised that the data used for calculating the Fund's liabilities and the value of assets would be calculated up to 31 March 2016. The Actuarial report would be expected to be completed in September/October 2016 and the new rates would be applicable from 1 April 2017.

AGREED that the report be noted.

15/26 DATE OF NEXT MEETING

It was confirmed that the next meeting of the Teesside Pension Board was scheduled to take place on 26 April 2016 at 2.00pm in the Spencer Room, Town Hall, Middlesbrough.

15/27 ACTIONS ARISING FROM THE TEESSIDE PENSION BOARD HELD ON 1 FEBRUARY 2016

The following Actions were identified following the meeting of the Teesside Pension Board held on 1 February 2016.

 

REFORM OF LGPS INVESTMENTS - POOLING ARRANGEMENTS

 

That the Head of Investments and Treasury Management inform the Members of the Teesside Pension Board in relation to the outcome of the decision with regard to pooling arrangements.

 

TPFIP TRAINING

 

That the Teesside Pension Board submit a report to the TPFIP containing recommendations with regard to future training for Teesside Pension Fund and Investment Panel Members.


TPB TRAINING

 

That further training for the Board be arranged in respect of the following:-

 

(a) Investment performance and risk management;
(b) Financial markets and product knowledge;
(c) Actuarial methods, standards and practice: and

(d) The Myners Principles.

(e) That guidance be provided for the Board with regard to how the pooling arrangements might work.

 

That the contact details of the Pensions Regulator be provided to the Governance Officer should the Board decide to receive a presentation at a later date.

Powered by E-GENDA from Associated Knowledge Systems Ltd