• Home
  • Admin/Tech
  • Benefits
  • Buzz
  • DB
  • DC
  • Diversity
  • Investment
  • Law & regulation
  • Risk reduction
  • Events
  • Whitepapers
  • Spotlights
  • Digital Edition
  • PPTV
  • Newsletters
  • Sign in
  •  
      • Newsletters
      • Account details
      • Contact support
      • Sign out
     
    •  

      You are currently accessing ProfessionalPensions via your Enterprise account.

      If you already have an account please use the link below to sign in.

      If you have any problems with your access or would like to request an individual access account please contact our customer service team.

      Phone: +44 (0) 1858 438800

      Email: [email protected]

      • Sign in
  • Follow us
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
    • Newsletters
    • YouTube
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • Events
    • Upcoming events
      event logo
      Investment Conference

      This two part Investment Conference will bring you the latest updates from economists, asset managers and pension consultants. We will be taking a look at the outlook for the 2021 economy, alternatives, cashflow strategies and global equity markets to name a few, assessing how they fared through the volatility and what we can expect for the year ahead.

      • Date: 20 Jan 2021
      • Digital Conference
      event logo
      Webinar: Using passion for ESG to unleash member engagement

      This webinar will look at how pension schemes can harness their members’ interest in ESG to engage them more broadly with their pensions. In particular, it will look at exclusive research showing how members are reacting to ESG; their propensity to act versus their actual behaviour; and the expectations they have of providers in this regard.

      • Date: 26 Jan 2021
      • Webinar
      event logo
      Webinar: What to put on your GMP Equalisation project roadmap for 2021

      This webinar will bring together views from actuaries, lawyers, administrators, trustees and data experts to look at the pragmatic, collaborative solutions that are open to schemes to solve the GMP equalisation challenges in 2021. It will assess the individual challenges schemes face with equalisations and provide some practical options that are available to resolve these issues.

      • Date: 02 Feb 2021
      • Webinar
      event logo
      Webinar: Will the world return to normal in 2021?

      In this webinar, PP editor Jonathan Stapleton will be joined by BMO’s chief economist Steven Bell and director of fiduciary management, Christy Jesudasan, alongside PTL trustee director Melanie Cusack and Isio’s head of fiduciary management oversight Paula Champion to discuss the significant impact of these themes on the pensions sector.

      • Date: 04 Feb 2021
      • Webinar
      View all events
      Follow our Professional Pension Events

      Sign up to receive email alerts about our events

      Sign up

  • Whitepapers
    • How DC schemes can gain exposure to different asset classes in a low-return environment

      So far, DC plans have largely been focused on the onset of auto-enrolment and changes to the regulatory framework - be it the ‘charge cap,' ‘pension freedoms' or consultations around ‘value for money', says Annabel Tonry, Executive Director at J.P. Morgan Asset Management (JPMAM).

      Download
      Pension freedoms three years on

      In 2015 George Osborne, then the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, decided that those age over 55 could take much more of their pension in cash. This has since opened up a range of possibilities for DC scheme members in the world of pensions.

      Download
      Find whitepapers
      Search by title or subject area
      View all whitepapers
  • Spotlights
  • Digital Edition
Professional Pensions
Professional Pensions
  • Home
  • Admin/Tech
  • Benefits
  • Buzz
  • DB
  • DC
  • Diversity
  • Investment
  • Law & regulation
  • Risk reduction
 
    • Newsletters
    • Account details
    • Contact support
    • Sign out
 
  •  

    You are currently accessing ProfessionalPensions via your Enterprise account.

    If you already have an account please use the link below to sign in.

    If you have any problems with your access or would like to request an individual access account please contact our customer service team.

    Phone: +44 (0) 1858 438800

    Email: [email protected]

    • Sign in
  • Admin / Technology

PP Administration Survey: The results

This year’s survey reveals what schemes are looking for in administration systems and third-party administrators and highlights the key providers.

PP Administration Survey: The results
  • Jonathan Stapleton
  • 30 March 2016
  • Tweet  
  • Facebook  
  • LinkedIn  
  • Send to  
0 Comments

This year's survey reveals what schemes are looking for in administration systems and third-party administrators and highlights the key providers.

At a Glance
  • There were 192 respondents
  • Around 70% of schemes outsourced administration and 30% used in-house arrangements

This survey gathered data from respondents in both the public and private sector; and across a range of different scheme types.

The majority of respondents are responsible for defined benefit (DB ) schemes, with the next greatest proportion managing defined contribution (DC) schemes. Other scheme types such as hybrid and career average schemes make up the remainder of the schemes.

Related articles

  • Is mediation set to become the new normal for pension disputes?
  • Navigating covenant and ESG in 2021 - what does the environment look like?
  • Pension scheme cyber risk - the key challenges and who is responsible
  • Managing operational and costs considerations is key to overall success

Some 64% of responses came from DB schemes and 19% came from DC schemes - a three percentage point increase on the proportion of DC respondents in the 2015 survey.

Over the past three years the split between pension schemes holding their administration in-house versus outsourced has shown little change, with a roughly 2:1 split in favour of outsourced solutions. In this year's survey 69% of respondents outsourced administration for their main scheme while 31% kept it in-house.

We received responses across a whole spectrum of schemes in terms of assets under management. Almost one-third (27%) of those who responded to this year's survey ran assets of more than £1bn; a further 12% of schemes were worth somewhere between £500m and £1bn; and 23% of schemes were worth between £100m and £500m.

Smaller schemes also responded to the survey with 16% of respondents having assets of less than £25m. A further 12% of responses came from schemes worth between £25m-50m and 10% came from schemes worth between £50m-100m.

In-house schemes
According to our research just under one-third (31%) of schemes choose to keep their scheme administration in-house. Two-thirds of these (66%) were DB schemes while over half of all represented funds (52%) were valued at £500m and above, and 37% valued at over £1bn.

So what are the reasons behind the decision to keep scheme administration in-house? There are many it would seem. Quality of service continues to be the most common driver by some margin, motivating nearly seven-tenths (69%) of the sample. Some 67% cite level of expertise and cost control as a reason and 60% say flexibility is a key motivator.

However, while many schemes wish to keep their administration in-house they often need to outsource some aspects of it to ensure it works as well as it should. Some 19% of schemes who have in-house administration have chosen to outsource some elements of it. Popular areas include actuarial support, AVCs, DC arrangements and communication.

Assessing how well administration systems work is important and the results of this year's survey shows there are many ways schemes are employing to do this. Almost two-thirds (64%) of schemes managed in-house said they assessed the efficacy of their administration through an annual review.

The next most popular method was end-to-end process items - 48% of scheme participants chose this option. Complaint levels were also a popular way to judge performance with 46% of scheme participants choosing this option, while 37% of those who answered the question said they gauged the efficacy of their administration by the number of compliments they received.

Some 15% of survey participants said they had no process in place to measure the efficacy of their administration system.

Rating software providers
We then went on to ask those who kept scheme administration largely in-house to let us know how important certain features are when it comes to evaluating administration systems. Seven attributes were chosen, with participants asked to rate them on a scale of one to five, with one being not important at all and five being essential. An average of these scores was then produced to put together a ranking of the most important features of administration systems.

Perhaps not surprisingly, data accuracy remained the most important feature when it came to assessing administration systems, scoring an average of 4.90 out of five. This was followed by reliability, which scored 4.72 and good customer service with 4.45. Technical support (4.48) and value for money (4.33) also scored highly.

We also asked survey participants which software providers they rated most highly. Equiniti's Compendia ranked most highly with an overall satisfaction score of 3.88 followed by AquilaHeywood's Altair system (3.80) and Civica's Universal Pensions Management (UPM) with a score of 3.66.

Outsourced administration
We then moved on to those schemes that chose to mainly outsource their scheme administration. The majority of such outsourced schemes run defined benefit schemes (63%). According to the survey, 45% of outsourced schemes are valued at £250m and over.

We went on to ask their reasons for outsourcing their administration. Two or three key reasons came up, with technical expertise being most popular (76%) followed by insufficient internal resource (72%). Providing a better service to members was also important and cited by 56% of respondents.

Of those respondents whose schemes outsource their pension administration, around a third (42%) continue to administer some part of it in-house. Member communications was the most popular element to keep in-house and was cited by 60% of those who answered the question. Other important elements to keep in-house include finance (43%), accounting (36%) and legal (20%).

Survey participants were then asked to rate important factors in assessing the efficacy of third-party administrator systems. Again, as with in-house systems, participants were asked to rate a number of important factors on a scale of one to five, with one being not at all important and five being essential. Data accuracy continued to be seen as the most important factor scoring an average of 4.88 out of five. This was followed by reliability (4.69), good customer service (4.52) and technical support (4.28).

These weightings were then used to produce a rank list of all third-party administrators analysed in the survey.

We then went on to ask survey participants which third-party administrators (TPAs) they currently use or had experience of working with. Capita Employee Benefits led responses, being used currently by 20 respondents and having been used by 33 respondents. Other TPAs with high response rates include Mercer (20 and 44 respectively); Towers Watson (16 and 34); and Punter Southall (14 and 20).

In terms of satisfaction scores among TPAs, Punter Southall came out top with an overall score of 4.09. They were closely followed by Barnett Waddingham (3.98) and Hymans Robertson (3.65).

Cost of administration
Administration costs have been a hot topic in recent years. We asked our survey participants to tell us whether they felt their administration costs had risen or fallen over the past 12 months. Well over four in ten (45%) said their administration costs had risen over the past year while just 11% said they had decreased. However, costs remained unchanged for 44% of those who answered the question.

New legislation was cited by several participants when asked why their administration costs have increased over the past 12 months. Other reasons cited by respondents included additional fees for items not included in standard fees, annual increases and increased member activity.

Those who had seen their administration costs remain the same or even decreased often said it was because they had either opted for a fixed fee agreement; had either negotiated a reduction in fees from their current provider; or had switched to a new TPA.

Finally we asked survey participants to tell us what factors would have the biggest impact on the pensions industry over the coming five years. Perhaps not surprisingly the key factors were overwhelmingly linked to legislation - and both the pension flexibilities and future changes to tax relief were popular with respondents.

Whether schemes choose to keep their administration in-house or outsource it to a third party, it is clear there will be busy times ahead. Complying with pension flexibilities, the annual allowance taper and a raft of other government legislation will take up a huge amount of time and resource, and administration providers and systems will need to be robust if they are to cope.

Data accuracy, reliability and good customer service will continue to be important factors for schemes when it comes to choosing administration systems and providers and they expect this to be delivered in a cost-effective manner. The results of this year's survey show schemes are willing to change their providers if they don't get the service they require and are willing to drive a hard bargain when it comes to price.

To read the full report as well as getting a full run down of what schemes think of the different providers and systems in the market contact Liam Barrett on 020 7316 9277.

Professional Pensions Administration Survey Methodology
This report details the findings from the 2015/2016 Professional Pensions Administration Study, designed to track industry attitudes towards both in-house and outsourced pension scheme administration.

The study was conducted by Incisive Research on behalf of Professional Pensions. The overall aim of this research was to measure the different experiences of schemes using in-house and outsourced administration functions.

Interviews were conducted among a representative sample of 192 pension professionals in the UK. All interviews were carried out online using a Computer-Aided Web Interviewing (CAWI) process via the Incisive Research Survey.

Overall, some 42% describe their occupation as a pension scheme administrator or manager; 31% were trustees. The remainder of respondents' occupations included financial director and consultants.

Where possible we have tried to compare this year's results with the previous surveys to get a sense of any emerging trends and themes.

Further reading

Transparency and audit: how to slay the pensions Jabberwock
  • Defined Contribution
  • 13 February 2015
Are we entering the era of the master trust?
  • Defined Contribution
  • 29 January 2015
Pension master trusts: The list of providers
  • Defined Contribution
  • 17 December 2019
Master trusts call for overhaul of TPR general levy
  • Defined Contribution
  • 16 September 2014
  • Tweet  
  • Facebook  
  • LinkedIn  
  • Send to  
  • Topics
  • Admin / Technology
  • pension administration
  • Punter Southall
  • Barnett Waddingham
  • Capita
  • Mercer
  • Willis Towers Watson
  • Hymans Robertson
  • AquilaHeywood
  • Communication

More on Admin / Technology

LGPS funds see increase in claims over historic transfers

Around two-thirds (77%) of Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) funds have received a claim relating to historic transfers over the past 12 months, according to Eversheds.

  • Admin / Technology
  • 12 January 2021
Webb: Everybody wants certainty and wants to know what they're going to have to provide and when
DWP urged to give pension funds a stronger steer on dashboard data

Schemes need more certainty over the data they will have to provide for dashboards, as the minister is expected to take a heavier stance in 2021, experts say.

  • Admin / Technology
  • 07 January 2021
The paper outlines who is responsible for managing the cyber risks faced by pension schemes
Pension scheme cyber risk - the key challenges and who is responsible

The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries' Patrick Kelliher and Vanessa Jaeger look at the key cyber risks faced by pension schemes, who is responsible for managing these risks, and how these risks may be managed.

  • Admin / Technology
  • 05 January 2021
Partner Insight: What is the cost of getting future-fit when it comes to pension technology?

The UK pensions sector is in dire need of a technology revolution – and there are plenty of forces at play to push and pull the industry into the 21st century.

  • Admin / Technology
  • 05 January 2021
2021 outlook: What's next for technology?

After a year that took everyone by surprise, experts tell Professional Pensions what could be on the horizon for technology in 2021.

  • Admin / Technology
  • 23 December 2020
blog comments powered by Disqus
Back to Top

Most read

Trustees will need to be corporate finance experts under new TPR powers
Trustees will need to be corporate finance experts under new TPR powers
LGPS to become negative cashflow 'by 2024'
LGPS to become negative cashflow 'by 2024'
Pension Schemes Bill set for final debate next week
Pension Schemes Bill set for final debate next week
Opperman: New TPR powers will not be backdated
Opperman: New TPR powers will not be backdated
Aegon commits to net-zero default funds by 2050
Aegon commits to net-zero default funds by 2050
Trustpilot

 

  • Contact Us
  • Marketing solutions
  • About Incisive Media
  • Terms and conditions
  • Policies
  • Careers
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Newsletters
  • YouTube

© Incisive Business Media (IP) Limited, Published by Incisive Business Media Limited, New London House, 172 Drury Lane, London WC2B 5QR, registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 09177174 & 09178013

Digital publisher of the year
Digital publisher of the year 2010, 2013, 2016 & 2017
Loading