a great chair, passionate disagreement and an epic debate
This is my 20th year going to NAPF/PLSA conferences and during that time I have seen some pretty exciting debates. I remember one delegate , the Pension Manager of the MP’s scheme calling out the Chair of Stagecoach for homophobic comments in an open session,, I’ve been booed for accusing pension schemes of complacency over LDI, I’ve seen Harriet Harman jeered for not taking questions after her talk.
The debates at these conferences have been live, personal and full of passion, But this seems unlikely to last.
There are three threats in particular
- The threat of remote presentations
- The sponsorship of sessions
- Slido
Let me explain
Remote presentations
Conferences are demeaned when speakers accept and then fail to turn up. presenting on Zoom or even worse , pre-recording a video. Many delegates pay the thick end of ten grand to be at these events and they can expect to get real time presentations from speakers in the same room as them. If politicians think it is acceptable to do their presentations from their desks , they should be told it is not. The cabinet met yesterday in Yorkshire, Scotland is not abroad’ it is easily accessible from London by public transport- Edinburgh particularly so.
This year there is only one politician. Paul Maynard, due to speak. If he doesn’t turn up , I will call him out. I’ve met the man and I suspect he has sufficient humility and humanity to go to Edinburgh.
The sponsorship of sessions
I have already had a complaint from one session Chair that (s)he has been put under pressure to toe the sponsor line on an important debate. It is not acceptable for sessions to be sponsored, it creates a bias and stifles debate. In this case I expect to see proper questions from the floor putting an alternative view to that of the commercial sponsor.
Slido
Slido is a way for people to ask questions “in running” which go to the Chair digitally and can be used to shape a debate, especially when questions from the floor aren’t encouraged.
I’ve heard it argued that Slido gives the opportunity for “anonymous” to ask the question he (or more particularly she) wouldn’t ask. Apparently many people who want to ask a question don’t because they feel intimidated. The answer to that is to reward with praise the asking of questions (rather than the making of statements).
Slido is a last resort, Slido questions should not be put before questions asked from the floor. Slido questions are crafted and lack spontaneity, they do not get engagement from speakers as real questions do, they make sessions dull beyond measure. I would ban Slido and get Chairs to ask proper penetrating questions if delegates don’t.
The importance of chairs
A lot of chairs at the PLSA conferences of late (and I’ve been to all of them) have been shrinking violets, refusing to challenge the statements of speakers and panels and allowing sessions to meander on , typically with violent agreement between all parties in the room to a point where you wondered if anyone has engaged with the topic in an active way.
Most people will take in information passively and choose not to debate, but that doesn’t mean they don’t want to see a debate between panellists or proper questions from the floor or chair.
Chairs are our protection from the hegemony of Slido, from sponsors turning sessions into advertisements and from politicians getting away with pre-recorded or remotely delivered statements.
We want conferences to be live, If the debates shrivel, then we are attending a trade fair. The PLSA should accept that for the money they are demanding we need real debate.
Daring to be controversial
The agenda for this year’s investment conference that begins later today is uncontroversial. There are many areas of controversy surrounding pensions investment
- the role of the regulator and in particular of the DB funding code
- the lasting impact of the LDI “episode”
- the state of the investment trust market
- freeholders and investments into ground rent
- DC decumulation
- policy failures around CDC/dashboards and productive finance
- the retreat from net zero
and many more.
Here is the agenda for the conference
in my view, it could give rise to some interesting sessions but only if the audience participate. I fear that the triple whammy of remote presentations, sponsorship and Slido will stifle debate. It will be up to Chairs to bring sessions to life or we will find ourselves attending a trade show, not a conference.