TPR data catch-up :  Transforming its data for better saver outcomes

You can catch up on TPR’s approach using this link.

Nothing wrong with wanting to catch up (just keep it to yourself)

I think that Government run Regulators are allowed to produce documents which allow them to feel that they are on the pathway to whatever is thought good today. Today’s good is “Artificial Intelligence”. One would hope that such documents were intended for internal circulation and not for general readerships. Sadly, TPR has decided to share a document that says what we hoped , maybe even thought, was in place.

Open Standards are pretty common in business and I’d rather thought they’d be in place in TPR’s way of doing things. The diagram above suggests that the Pension Regulator is doing something  with Pension Schemes , TPAs and advisors, the economy, environment and society and with Government. Somewhere disconnected from TPR are “better outcomes for savers”. These  appear to be impacted and impact the economy , environment and society. Somewhere pretty central to everything is the private sector – though they are disconnected to the savers whose “outcomes” are not connected to TPR, Pension Schemes or New Products or Services

This is weird, there’s a whole new ecosystem of inter-actions going on in the minds of those who have been thinking about TPR’s role and I’d love to have a conversation about this view of the world works!

There are some emphatic statements from TPR about what is about to change…

We will change how we work over the next five years by focusing on three key development areas.

• Implementing strong data principles and developing forward-thinking data professionals.

• Creating an internal data marketplace that links to the external data ecosystem, enabling us to make the most effective use of all our data and reduce regulatory burden.

• Ensuring that the value of data is focused on saver outcomes.

Like “open standards” all this is good news but isn’t it in place already? Isn’t this an admission of shortcomings if it has to worry that data management is currently a “regulatory burden“.

There are some interesting insights into what TPR thinks is going on

Bad data (information that is incorrect, incomplete, outdated or poorly formatted) drives extra costs. For defined benefit schemes, these costs make them less attractive to buy out.

That is the total statement on Defined Benefit, DB is simply treated as a commodity to be valued by insurers to varying degrees. We want to have a Pension Regulator who wants the future of pensions to be more than insured annuities. We want DC savings pot to aspire to be pensions.

We would like TPR to join us as we have been living in the world it says it is moving to for some years. We appreciate that there may be some people who find technology hard to embrace and need the help of TPR as it transforms, but we suggest that most of us are  ahead of you in some areas!

We hope you will join us on this journey, be a part of this transformative movement, and help shape the future of pensions by collaborating with us.

Yesterday I was with the Pension Oldie who was discussing things with me with laptop and phone illustrating points we were discussing between us. Today I will be with Jnamdoc and Con Keating and William McGrath, discussing how we can help pensions re-attain their superiority as a means for millions to get what they were promised when they entered schemes regulated by TPR.