Buy-in to buyout and member experience

The roundtable, chaired by PP editor Jonathan Stapleton and held in association with Pension Insurance Corporation (PIC), examined two of the most active themes in the pension risk transfer market – the often complex journey schemes take from buy-in to buyout, and the member experience both during that transition and after buyout.

With bulk annuity pricing highly competitive and a growing number of schemes now coming to market in surplus, the panel discussed why so many trustees are focusing on how, rather than whether, to buyout. They explored the importance of getting data right early, from benefit specifications and data audits to GMP equalisation and rectification, and the challenge of keeping sponsors, advisers, administrators and insurers aligned on realistic timelines.

The discussion then turned to member experience, including what best-in-class service looks like, the balance between digital and telephone channels, support for vulnerable members, and the wellbeing and other add-on services some insurers now offer.

The panel also considered where insurers are innovating, from taking on data cleansing to the use of artificial intelligence, before closing with lessons from PIC's recent buyout of the Rolls-Royce scheme.

To set the scene, why is the journey from buy-in to buyout and member experience particularly important topics for trustees to focus on today?

Louise Nash (PIC): The key theme of the last 12 months in particular is that, when schemes are coming to market, well over half of those we are in discussion with are now in surplus. These discussions are very different to how they were a couple of years ago – when trustees have a surplus and more buying power, there are two things they ask about the most.

First, what are their members really going to experience when they eventually move into the buyout space? That can cover a number of areas, including the day-to-day core service. We are increasingly seeing other add-ons being offered in the market by some insurers, and we are very interested to hear this group's views on those developments.

The other thing is, while trustees are often sold on the idea of where they want to get to and the member experience when they arrive, how do they go through that quite challenging project to get there? How do you navigate that journey, with all the different people involved in the process? It can be hundreds, frankly, in some of these projects. How do you keep all those stakeholders aligned? What is really important, and what can you do in that period to make sure things go right and, crucially, that there is no adverse impact on members?

Many of you have been very involved in transitions from buy-ins to buyouts. What has your experience been, what challenges have you faced, and how did you address them?

Maria Keen (Independent Governance Group): Bulk annuity pricing has become really competitive – something that is not, in my view, going to change any time soon. Schemes that might have been putting off considering their endgame strategy are suddenly looking at it more seriously and often find the price looks really good, and that they might be able to transact with some surplus left.

The problem is that sometimes they have not taken the time in advance to ready themselves for a transaction and to think about the steps, the planning and everything that needs to be involved to get from A to B.

It is for us to educate them through the process and to be clear on all the due diligence and the risks associated with the transaction, because price is just one aspect – there is so much more to think about than the headline price. We try to bring our sponsors and everyone together in a collaborative way, to think about the process in the round rather than the affordability piece in isolation.

Darren Masters (Capital Cranfield): There is also the risk between getting a good price but then having a prolonged period between buy-in and buyout if you are not anywhere near ready enough. That delay erodes the price differential, because of the costs involved in dealing with your data, your investments and so on.

If we have not thought about those broader issues of how we get from buy-in to buyout as part of the process, we could end up sitting here in four or five years' time with an upset sponsor, continued costs and unresolved issues. That lovely price we got five years ago is just pie in the sky.

Judith Fish (Dalriada Trustees): If someone is promising a very short period from buy-in to buyout, I would be concerned about whether the right processes are in place. Preparation is critical. I had a sponsor ask me, 'Can we buy out tomorrow?' The answer was no. Although the trustees had been doing the right preparatory work, the sponsor had not yet made a decision either way, and there were still matters to tie up before buyout could proceed.

It becomes even more complicated where there is more than one insurer and multiple buy-in policies that need to be converted to buyout at the same time.

In addition, capacity has been an issue for some administrators; some have managed that better than others. Data services from providers can be very helpful, because trustees may not want to wait for the time it would take the administrator to complete that work. Insurers are also looking at ways to help with some of the heavy lifting.

Ultimately, project management is key: aligning everyone so they understand the deadlines and their responsibilities.

Michele Hirons-Wood (Capital Cranfield): One of the things I see, which I think can cause problems, is that the preparation for the transaction can be very different. Some advisers will use the valuation data and only focus on matters where it is material to the transaction pricing. This is often not highlighting the reality of the administration dataset.  Personally, I do not want to use the valuation data as this is a dataset developed for a different purpose.  I want to use the administrator's dataset to understand any areas of risk. Trustees can then take an informed view on speed of transaction vs buy in to buyout timescales and risk to the true up premium. I am not sure all trustees approach it in that way and sometimes there can be frustrations at the overall length of the process, particularly if it is negatively impacting member experience or issues are brought to light during the detailed due diligence undertaken by the insurer during the data cleanse period. These data cleanse issues might not materially affect the price, but if they are not considered at the very beginning, it can create problems further along in the process, increasing the buy in to buyout window at best.

The best example I have is being told, 'We have done the hard work. We have done a full-scheme buy-in. We just need to do GMP equalisation. It is only an 18-month project'. Unfortunately, the reality was quite different. We had to do a range of benefit modifications and augmentations for several small cohorts of members with uninsurable benefits promises that were not material to the pricing. Meanwhile, the years and months are ticking by and the data is constantly moving further from the pricing data. It becomes difficult for all stakeholders.

Often sponsors and trustees are exercised by how long the data cleanse period can be between buy in to buyout, particularly if it is negatively impacting member experience. I think it is important for trustees to ensure that sufficient due diligence is undertaken in advance of the transaction (not just a data gap analysis), so that issues are known and the implications fully considered, in the context of both the transaction and the circumstances of the scheme.

Judith Fish: Some employee benefits consultants (EBCs) are pressing schemes to move quickly to buy-in. However, data audits can reveal material differences between the benefits currently being paid and the benefits actually due under the rules. That can have a material impact on price.

Maria Keen: It is not until you lift the bonnet and look through that benefit specification that you see things that have not been done right and realise the scope of rectification work to do. That will impact price, and often those rectifications need to be done before you move to buy-in or buyout. It is so key to lift the bonnet in advance and understand what is going on, so you can be clear on the timelines.

David, what has your experience been of going from buy-in to buyout?

David Griffiths (Vidett): Even in my three-year experience of doing this work, I have noticed a lot of change. When I started getting involved, it was all about competitive pricing; that was the be-all and end-all. Now it is much more about operational excellence – from your in-house administrator, from the consultants and advisers you are using, and from the insurer. We talk a lot about project management, but from a trustee perspective, it is a programme of change to co-ordinate through to wind-up.

All the data work needed before a buyout is important to that, but there may be all sorts of other things going on too – other rectifications, dashboards and actuarial valuations. What we try to do as much as possible is understand who all the stakeholders are, and what their roles and responsibilities are, up front. That is the great fun of being in pensions: every pension scheme is different. There will be schemes where a particular approach works well, and a similar scheme where you might quite legitimately take a very different approach.

Louisa, does your experience chime with others on the buy-in to buyout transition?

Louisa Harrold (Zedra): Yes, but if I could pick up on one or two things. I absolutely agree about having the conversation around data and really, truly understanding the data before you go to insurers if you want an effective process. Some schemes do not do that enough.

I was also going to pick up on the point about being ready. We all know schemes need to be ready, and you need to start the work early, before you approach the insurers. As Judith said, you are doing it on the trustee side anyway, but the conversations with sponsors can sometimes be trickier. Sometimes I find the sponsor may take some time to be fully committed to a buy-in process, and then, once they have decided to support a buy-in, they often wish to move very quickly and do not appreciate the data side of things. Having that ‘slow down, it is going to take time, we need to do this properly' conversation is a real education piece, and can be extremely challenging.

Judith Fish: I sometimes find sponsors are receiving guidance that suggests a shorter timeframe may be achievable than our experience would indicate. In one scheme, we knew the data was poor and had been working on rectification for three years. The sponsor then came to us and said, 'We need to do a buy-in before the year-end.' We had done a lot of rectification work, but we still knew the data was poor, and the corporate adviser was saying, ‘Yes, we can do it. We can get it done.'

Maria Keen: As trustees, even for schemes not thinking about that journey yet, if we can it's worth engaging around the table with our sponsors and corporates early, gently teeing everybody up and saying, 'Once we get there, this is the expectation'. It then makes that conversation with the sponsor a little easier to have.

Alan, what is your experience of the transition from buy-in to buyout, and how do you get everyone, sponsors, trustees, administrators and insurers, on the same page?

Alan Pickering (BESTrustees): A word used an awful lot in pensions is 'engagement', normally prefixed with 'employee'. Employer engagement is almost more important than employee engagement across the whole life cycle, particularly when you are thinking about risk transfer. You might have an employer who was ideologically opposed to risk transfer, and then, all of a sudden, things may change.

It is really important to get the employer and the trustees around the table at the outset and say, 'Before we spend any money, is this really, intellectually and practically, a runner? If it is, let us put a project team in place'. It should be a joint project team, the employer, the trustees and their advisers, and you should perhaps decide which of the advisers is the best project manager. It might be an employer adviser; it might be a trustee adviser. But who is going to be best to make sure all the participants play their part?

Particularly at the small-scheme end, there is an advantage in getting it right-ish quickly, rather than getting it perfect over a lengthy period, because during that transition the incumbents can lose interest. The administrator can lose interest; some EBCs will lose interest because they are going to lose a client; others will slow the process down because they are going to lose a client: 'Let us hang on to it as long as possible'. Have a project manager who can help shorten the period, and help with pragmatism and proportionality. If all else fails, tidy up the loose ends with some sort of indemnity, provided you can find somebody good for underwriting that indemnity, to avoid lots of toing and froing. 'Best and final offer, and let's get cracking' is often a much better deal for a smaller scheme, where fixed costs are a larger proportion of total costs, than for a big scheme.

Mike, do you agree?

Mike Weston (Pi Partnership): I have had the fortunate experience of watching a lot of this from the sidelines as many of the schemes I run are only just getting to technical provisions (TP) full funding – meaning a buy-in or buyout is not really on the table for these schemes. As such, I have been able to watch what is happening with other schemes and what has struck me is that there was an inevitable market wave of attractiveness to this, post the gilts crisis.

Post the funding uptick, there was an opportunity, and I could absolutely understand why sponsors might say, 'We never thought we would be able to do this; now we can, so get on with it'. It feels as though that is working through. There was a capacity crunch. In one of my experiences, there was an early scheme that had four and a half years between buy-in and buyout, and one of the things that always crops up is whether it was the scheme's fault or the insurer's fault. There is a clash and nobody is really willing to admit what the issue was.

That clarifies the things we have been talking about. In the programme I am running with the schemes I work on, we know we have to get our data right: for dashboards, for GMP, for multiple things. We will get our data right for all of these, knowing a buy-in or buyout is probably a little way down the horizon. We try to slot that data work in along with everything else, so we are not paying a premium to have it done in six months, but we know it supports everything longer-term.

Darren Masters: The data point goes back to the most basic thing: paying the pensions that are due in the first place.

Mike Weston: Absolutely. Where I am now is understanding the data and timing issues and being in the fortunate position of being able to sit down with fellow trustees and sponsors to explain and gently take them through the process. 'If you want to go now, that is fine; it is going to cost a lot of money to do all this, but that is fine. If you are happy not to go now, we can put a programme in place to get us to a point in however many years, and the market may have evolved by then'. Let us not over-promise and under-deliver; let us under-promise and over-deliver and make sure we know what the issues are.

Maria Keen: It is so important for trustee and sponsor to really think about the objectives before they start. What are we trying to get out of this? It is not just about price. It is about what is important for a sponsor and a member. Some schemes are small, family-owned; they live around the corner from some of their members, know them like family, and it feels very personal in terms of that choice: 'Where am I going to put my members, and what service are they going to have?' Sitting around the table and considering the objectives of the exercise, and what both parties want to get out of it, is critical.

Darren Masters: Picking up on a few points. As has been mentioned, project planning and project management are essential. But the bit lost in most of this is the accountability element. We have a fantastic project plan and we say, 'Let us stretch it out a bit'. Say it is two and a half years from buy-in to buyout, and that becomes three and a half or four years. Who is responsible? Who holds their hand up and says mea culpa? Who is actually driving that?

Resource continues to be an issue, particularly in administration, but if we have a proper project plan, good stakeholder management and accountability, we can start to manage the process better. Most of this is down to management. We are aware of most of these issues, the capacity constraints and the challenges, but whose feet are we holding to the fire on this?

David Griffiths: We can challenge ourselves as trustees to do more of that coordination because, at the end of the day, we're accountable if things go wrong – I take Alan's point about having a joint working group and a joint approach, but as trustees we should be very proactive in how we manage and coordinate this activity.

Mike Weston: Part of the problem is that we are essentially trapped. We do the first step, to buy-in and then you will use that same insurer for buyout.

Louise Nash: Yes. That is correct. When you pick a buy-in, you pick a partner, and that partner has to see you all the way through to your members being a policyholder of that insurer. It is a choice not just for the now; it is the journey all the way through.

Darren Masters: While the insurers may not change, we have seen changes of administrators and advisers during the buy-in to buyout period, that is for sure.

Judith Fish: That is one of the things trustees need to think about. Some administrators have dedicated teams and resource for post-buy-in work; others appear to have less capacity in that area. One decision for trustees is whether to change administrator. On one scheme where we knew we were heading towards buy-in, the first thing we did was move administrator, because we did not have sufficient confidence in the incumbent.

Maria Keen: Do not be scared to change your advisers before you get into the process, even legal advisers. Does your adviser have experience of dealing with each of the insurers? Have they seen the terms? Who is the best team to take you forward through this project? If you have the right team with the right experience, it will be a much smoother journey through to wind-up, if that is where you are going.

Judith Fish: You can have more than one legal adviser. One may have worked with the scheme for 20 years and be best placed to advise on the benefit specification, while another may have more experience of working with insurers on transaction documents.

Another point is the need to plan the buy-in to buyout phase with the insurer, so that, from a member experience perspective, trustees understand exactly how factors, guarantees and calculations will work. I have seen issues arise where that has not been made clear enough.

Louise Nash: That is one area where there has been a sea change in the last six months to a year. There has been a big move in the trustee admin market, where there are now many more schemes with portals and retirement-planning tools for members. A big part of what we are seeing in requests for proposal (RFPs) now is thinking about how the insurer can support that continuing to work in the buy-in period.

We are seeing more and more schemes request that our factors have a very similar structure to the scheme's existing factors, so they can be more easily loaded into existing systems. That is something we are very open to, up to a point. There are things we can do to help in the buy-in period, because we equally do not want your members' first experience of a buy-in to be a negative one. The keys to success are early engagement and clear requirements to allow a solution to be agreed that meets the specific circumstance of the scheme.

Michelle, looking at this from the administrator's point of view, what has your experience been, and does it align with what the trustees are seeing?

Michelle Esterkin (Brightwell): Yes. The transition for the deal we have just done with PIC started around last August or September, and at the time the administrator wanted to do GMPe but we said it would be easier for us to take it on completely unequalised.

Similarly, on the factors and other things the insurer might want to bring in over the buy-in period, from an administrative perspective, if you are trying to build your calculations, and you are getting datasets over and trying to tally everything up, it is much harder if things are moving.

Paul, what innovation are you seeing to ease the journey from buy-in to buyout, and what more can be done to support schemes?

Paul Robinson (PIC): On the idea of trying to move to buyout in a year or so, we get asked more and more whether we can guarantee that. We can guarantee a slot from an administrator but, as we all know, it always comes down to the data. We have to say that we can do it as long as the data is ready. Our transitions team get very hands-on with clients on that; they escort them through the whole thing. We are also open to solutions where PIC take on part of the data cleansing or potentially bring in another provider to do it.

We are getting more into artificial intelligence (AI) with data cleansing. That is going to become more important. I am sure everyone hears that in every meeting they go to, but we are certainly looking at where that can come in, how it can help, and how it can speed up the process with data cleansing, and certainly with scouring through rules and benefit specifications and bringing it together.

Alan, what do members really value, and how well does the industry understand what matters most to them?

Alan Pickering: It is very hard to ask a member who has not interacted with a pension scheme before what they expect. They should expect a personalised service that meets their needs. I often balk at this idea of vulnerable customers: when it comes to pensions, everybody is vulnerable. An Oxford University professor is probably more vulnerable to being ripped off than a bus driver, who knows fraud when it looks him in the face.

You should be treated as an individual, and treated differently at different stages of your journey. It is one thing to ask, 'Can I have a transfer quote?' and another to say, 'My husband has just died'. You need to be able to deal sensitively with each. I am a big believer in multichannel. Digital by default can become the norm, but it should not become a compulsion, so people should expect to be treated as individuals.

If it is going to take longer than the man or woman in the street might expect, then either tell them it is going to take a bit longer, or keep them informed if it is taking even longer, so they do not feel abandoned. As I mentioned at the outset, the other challenge for financial services companies, particularly a multiline business, is whether they want to cross-sell other products; and, if they are not a multiline business, whether they want to buy in other people's lines.

I have had mixed experiences with trustees. Some say, 'Let us go with them, because we might get cheap car insurance'. Others say, 'I am not going to go with them, because they will be bombarding me every week with special offers'. There is scope for providing genuine add-on services. Post-Covid, there has been much more awareness that we all need to do more on financial, physical and mental wellbeing.

If you can take some of the risks out of the periphery of your retirement journey, by partnering with people who can tell you what not to do, even if they cannot tell you what to do, that will increasingly be something trustees look for. Done properly, it can improve the member journey and the relationship between the member and the pension provider. If they do discuss pensions down the pub at night, a good experience might be the best advert you could ever have.

What does best-in-class member experience look like, in both the buy-in to buyout phase and the post-buyout phase?

Judith Fish: For the buy-in to buyout phase, the best outcome would be for members not to notice the transition at all. It should feel seamless, with the same service continuing. Given that pricing can be quite similar across insurers, trustees are increasingly looking at the additional support and services insurers can provide for members.

For example, one insurer has partnered with an organisation to help tackle loneliness among pensioners, which is a significant issue. Alongside financial health and the other additional services and, as Alan mentioned, there is a strong focus on making support more personalised. Insurers are making real progress in their post-buyout offering for members, and it is encouraging for trustees to see that innovation.

Michele Hirons-Wood: Post buyout administration should be easy, shouldn't it? Data and benefits are clean; members know what they are getting; it should be standardised. Theoretically, it should be a lot easier to administer policies than individual pension schemes, and you have the scale and underlying systems and processes to provide a much more streamlined service. So, in that context, what do people want? They want to get their pension. They want communication to be easy, and everything to be straightforward.

Yet, as people get older, they want to know other things like, dare I say, funeral options. Where is the natural place for them to go and look for that information? They will log on and look at their pension – I would be quite interested in knowing my pensioners could have access to this kind of relevant supplementary information more easily and readily when their minds turn to those decisions and I think insurers are very well placed to help.

Judith Fish: Master trusts, for example, often provide material on budgeting and financial wellbeing. It would be good to see insurers offer the same kind of support.

Michele Hirons-Wood: Exactly, and we are seeing that from some of them.

Maria Keen: We are starting to see insurers train their staff on bereavement, counselling, and how to help support people. If you have a population of older members, they might not all want to go online and use a model, so have an insurer that can serve all options and make sure members can still have someone they can pick up the phone to. Can they speak to the same person they spoke to the previous time? Can they still post their documents? Can they still use the traditional methods as well as the online facilities, if that is what they want? It is about catering for all and being cognisant of your membership as a whole and what they might welcome.

Mike Weston: Call me cynical, but once we have done the deal, the buyout has been signed and the scheme is wound up, we have no control over what the insurance companies do for their members. From my perspective, all these add-ons are great, but they might not be there; they might change going forward. The key is to get the basics absolutely right: member comms and bereavement, someone on the phone but online if you want. Ultimately, that is the heart of the choice.

Darren Masters: That is the point: you have no control over that. It is useful, to some extent, to know what you are going into, but you are buying into a regime, something that is portable, because the ownership can change.

Alan Pickering: Those of us around this table do have control. People like us do have control, because we are involved with lots of deals, and if the chosen insurer does not honour the promise it made, you can soon affect its reputation and say, 'That is what you said last time, but you did not do it'. I would not give up that easily and say, 'Our control ends once the deal is done'.

Louisa Harrold: Can I give an example of something different, that I came across recently? The point about members phoning up and being able to speak to someone is, for me, always key. The online tools are great, but ultimately most people, when they are putting their pension into payment, will want to speak to someone, so I always want to understand the telephone offering thoroughly.

One of the insurers I spoke to recently said they have a system where the member phones up and is directed to the person they spoke to last time. They always speak to the same person, so they can pick up the conversation they had before, they feel there is continuity and understanding, and they build up something of a relationship. I thought that was good, and I had not heard of it elsewhere. Of course, as a trustee, you can't have any guarantees that after buyout the same propositions and models are maintained, but nonetheless, if you have a choice, you want to find out these things and weigh them up. It all feeds into your decision on the insurer.

Matt Richards: Maria raised an interesting point about who wants to use digital and the journey people want. We did a deep dive with a group of trustees in July on our administration offering. They were asking what the portal looks like, exactly how it works, and whether people can retire online. We said, 'We can show you exactly how all of this works', but we surveyed our policyholders and 67% of them still want to be able to pick up the phone as a first preference. So, it is about making sure we can deliver a best-in-class service on the phone and online.

There are a couple of things I wanted to mention about vulnerability. One thing we do make sure of is the principle of 'right first time' and 'tell us once'. It is probably our most important feature and the cornerstone of what we build. If you flag that you have had a bereavement, you do not have to mention it again. If someone has indicated they are dyslexic and would rather have the paper a different colour, it will always be that colour unless they ask us again. You do not have to explain yourself. My father is very hard of hearing and hates phoning people, because he always has to start the conversation by 'coming out' as deaf; it is that we want to take away.

I love all the extra innovation that is coming, but the fundamentals, 'Can you tell us something once that is important to you, and not have to mention it again?' and 'Can you understand what we are telling you?', are key. We have worked really hard on our communications to make sure they help policyholders understand what they need to do and that they are accessible to real people who don't live and breathe pensions every day.

Paul Robinson: As we said earlier, everyone is a vulnerable customer in a different way. We do a lot of work to identify certain things, but it is about having things in plain English, making them enticing to read, and guiding you clearly as to the next steps in communications.

PIC's work with Rolls-Royce is a notable example of a large and complex transition that prioritised member outcomes and experience. Can you talk about that transaction and the lessons most transferable to other schemes?

Louise Nash: What was interesting about that deal was that we announced we were going to do this within a year, and actually achieved it within a year. The reason the scheme was able to do that is, frankly, nothing to do with PIC! The scheme had done a lot of the things we have talked about – they made a huge investment in member service, member experience and data, and made that a very high priority for years before we got our hands on it. They were in great shape by the time they came through to us.

Matt Richards: I have rarely been involved a project where the objectives were so clearly set and didn't change. The gold standard was 'members first', and that never shifted. Having all that preparation work all done and having everything so joined up between the sponsor and the trustees made a huge difference in making sure the member experience came through. Price still determined some of it but, setting that objective out so clearly was really important.

Paul Robinson: The Rolls-Royce trustees said from the start that the gold standard would be that the members only saw a change in the brand at the top of the letters – something I think we all delivered.

Louise Nash: The dream the trustees set out at the start was that they had made an investment in their portal and their in-house team; they were really proud of what they had done, and what they really wanted to achieve was to pass that team across and keep it going with the same kind of technology, which is where Michelle and her colleagues came in.

Michelle Esterkin: The Rolls Royce team happened to be based in Derby and our admin office is in Chesterfield, which is only 17 minutes away on the train. They were already using IntelliPen, which is our admin system, so it made the transition very easy. We have taken their workflows and their data came across easily. We have made some tweaks – obviously PIC has its requirements as an insurer – but the team have now all TUPE'd across and we have set up a new office, which happens to be right across the street from the Rolls-Royce office they were in before Covid.

Because the team was in-house, they know the members - they were sitting with them; they see them in the pub. They have been on IntelliPen for 20 years, I think they were the first clients and have been very pleased to see it come across. Things have been tweaked, but in general it is the same. The team want to be able to provide good member service, because that is what they have done.

Maria Keen: It is a good example. Collaboration just drives that great member experience, so it is a process of continuity for them, rather than wider disruption and uncertainty around change.

Louise Nash: Yes, and it is not just continuity. Hopefully we have been able to bring the best of what we can all offer.

It just shows what you can do in this industry, even with a large, complicated scheme. With a board that has done all the right things for several years and knew what they wanted, they were able to assess very clearly that this was achievable. It was not a headlong rush into a process; it was having an objective and sticking to it.

Matt Richards: It became a partnership quite quickly as well. One of the trustees said very early on that ‘once we have chosen you, it is one team', and that is exactly how we like to work.

What are your concluding comments, key takeaways and final remarks?

Alan Pickering: In recent years, people have described retirement as a process, not an event, and I think later life, in the future, is going to have three phases. You are going to have the mix of work and retirement, pay and pension; then the active period, when you want to split your day between the allotment and the racecourse; then the really static period, when you want a room with a view over the sea at Scarborough.

It is a really exciting time for people like those around this table to plug into that evolving journey. It is not once and done; it is a continuing process.

David Griffiths: As Alan said, it is an exciting time for all of us in this market. As trustees we need to challenge ourselves about how we can step up, coordinate and work more closely with insurers and partners going forward. It is a great opportunity for insurers now to display further innovation, with a complete focus on the member.

Judith Fish: As trustees, we are in a fortunate position because many schemes are now approaching this from a position of surplus. That gives us more opportunity to take the time to choose the right partner for the buy-in to buyout journey. I think there will be increasing focus on member experience and on the journey between buy-in and buyout. We are learning as more transactions complete, and we are learning alongside the insurers.

Michele Hirons-Wood: There is one thing I would like to see develop further. We all talk about having the best team around us, but sometimes you must deal with the hand you are dealt. That is not always the best team and, for various reasons, you cannot always change it. When we talk about being in partnership, there is the ability to do things differently and possibly move the admin over to the insurer much earlier, because there can be problems between incumbent administrators, the insurer and possibly even a third party.

The ability to look at transitions through a different lens, even before the legals are concluded, might be a better way of making the buy-in to buyout process more streamlined. Insurers also all do this differently, so I would like to see a bit more flexibility, and continued innovation in this space, around how we can serve members better in the interim period. That should be a bigger part of our decision-making, especially when we have surpluses and can place more weight on non-financial factors. We are in exciting times, but please continue to innovate.

Darren Masters: The risk transfer market is clearly evolving and maturing. Pricing generally remains an important factor in a trustee's consideration, but the differentials are definitely narrowing. I did a deal recently where four insurers were within £100,000 of each other on a £22m deal. Member experience is therefore a factor among other non-pricing factors that are important for consideration. We are definitely seeing insurers innovating to smooth that process between buy-in and buyout, but also third-party advisers too. Ultimately, we are looking to provide a service to the individual that is fit for the future and it is definitely an exciting time for trustees, sponsors and, most importantly, scheme members.

Maria Keen: We talk a lot about the technical aspect, but the buyout journey feels so much more than that. It is about collaboration; it is about operations; and, on a real human level, it is a personal endeavour for all of us as well. We do have control and a say in what happens to our members, and, while we can only really do what we can, when we move them on we are setting members up with a partner that gives the best of what we need them to have at that point in time, and hopefully the insurers will go on and continue to innovate and deliver the best. But, yes, it feels personal.

Michelle Esterkin: From our perspective, we are not often in a position where we are speaking to trustees; we tend to speak to the insurers, so it is useful to hear what trustees are looking for in a buyout process. We think we do the admin basics well, and are a lot better than many other administrators, but the insurers are pushing everyone to catch up. How do you stay one ahead of the market? How do you be the one that trustees want to take on, because you can offer something more? It has been really interesting to hear everyone's views on that.

Louisa Harrold: Being able to work with insurers earlier would be ideal. That is tricky if you do not want to go exclusive early, and if you are not the biggest scheme, so it is about trying to find a way through that. However, that could really change things in terms of making the buy-in to buyout process smoother. Maybe it would not make it quicker overall every time, but at least there would be a thought through project plan prior to transaction that everyone can stand behind.

Mike Weston: I have two thoughts. First, being clear about objectives right up front is key. Secondly, this is not a panacea; it is not a silver bullet. You have to go into it with your eyes open about the potential challenges, even with the best-prepared schemes.

And to round us off, Louise, Paul and Matt, what are your final takeaways?

Louise Nash: For me, what has been really nice at this roundtable is that one of the most mentioned words has been 'partnership'. That is probably the right solution for this market, because we are all trying to do the same things. Yes, it is a competitive market, but it is the same people we are serving, both before and after buyout. It is the same objectives, and the same research we are doing about what good looks like and how things are changing. We can talk to each other and collaborate on what good looks like, and innovate to get people there. No one wants a tough buy-in to buyout period; everyone wants the best for members. As an industry, we need to keep talking and make sure we work together to create the best solutions all round.

Paul Robinson: It has been great to hear everyone's views. We are proud of how we are viewed in the market when it comes to customer service, but we always talk internally about not resting on our laurels. We are always trying to improve. It is about insurers always pushing each other to improve, which is a good thing, and that is what we need to continue doing.

Matt Richards: As an insurer building this population of people as our policyholders is a huge responsibility but I feel a huge sense of pride and excitement. If I play a small part in helping some people to maximise and enjoy their retirement, by not worrying about where their pension is coming from, or in facilitating them to understand how to act when there has been a bereavement, or signposting some of that, that is a really exciting part of the world to work in.

This roundtable was held on 7 July 2026 in association with Pension Insurance Corporation