TPR would like us to be impressed. TPT thought it warranted a press release , they wanted headlines in the trade press- they got them. This was marketing. I’m not impressed by using Trustee appointments as marketing.

The trustees TPT have been appointed –  9 months in advance of TPT’s application for CDC. The Trustees will be responsible for making sure TPR are ready to go on July 31st 2026, when authorisations start. The Trustees may  give TPT a head start. TPT  may be the first provider to open its doors – maybe in 2026, probably in early 2027. The processes and documentation needed to be in place will have been tested, Trustees will be familiar with the Proprietor and the proposition. All this is good, I am a fan of what TPT are doing, but please be careful to keep the roles of Trustees separate from that of the Proprietor!

“Strictly come Trustees”

There is something of a gameshow about this. If the authorisation  process was renamed  “Strictly Come Trustees”, they’d have been made “judges”.  There has been early doors “capture” of three names , including one trustee with experience of single employers CDC.

All three should have prominence.

Kim Nash (chair) , Alison Hatcher and Venetia Trayhurn are impeccably qualified. Alison was a non-exec at TPR (tipped by some to be Chair), Venetia knows her way round CDC chairing the Royal Mail Collective Pension Plan (RMCPP).  Kim has been chair of IGCs and Master Trusts.

I think it is great to get Trustees in early. In the case of multi-employer CDC schemes there will be a lot of following what a workplace mastertrust does. It will be good to get TPT’s master trust’s processes replicated and for TPR to have a line of sight of how the TPT CDC trust will operate.

But a press release?

The DWP consultations make it clear that Trustees are not to be used to attract employers.

The consultation makes it clear that trustees will not be allowed to trawl for employers and while I don’t suppose any of the three see “sales” as on the CV, I think there is a risk that TPT will be promoted by consultants and the like as  fiduciary “woke” – in the positive sense of course. We do not want to see CDC getting into “trophy ism”.

I hope that this concern is made by many responding to the forthcoming consultation on trusteeship (mentioned by the Minister in Manchester). We are getting to the point where a small group of firms and an elite group of trustees are now considered vital in promoting DC master trusts commercially.

My worry is that that “careerism” is now a critical skill for a professional trustee. CDC will be considered a top job among the top firms.  The consultation on the power of a handful of professional trustee firms will look closely at Vidett and Zedra here. Until a few months ago Trayhurn was at Law Debenture, she has moved on and set up as a self-employed trustee firm – Falcon.

This has got to be a step towards diversity.  Self-owned means less likelihood of “house views” on matters and more personal engagement with key issues.

That said Trayhurn is a lawyer, let’s hope that TPT include further trustees that speak more directly for members, the unions have a place to play in this.

Meanwhile , the handful of top firms, mostly funded by private equity firms are a long way from the membership. Member Nominated Trustees have their own Association but can they compete against the financial might of those backed by private equity?

Can these trustees be considered as representing members? I think they will be considered as primarily ensuring the scheme is compliant to the Regulator, well managed to the employers but beyond the reach of the members.

The professional trustee leads a lifestyle very different from  most  members of most workplace schemes . It worries me that the business of professionalism has now become isolated to lawyers , investment consultants  and actuaries.

I think these appointments are “capture” and their announcement “marketing” . I hope that this kind of thing will stop when  the intent of the trustee consultation becomes clear.