Thanks to Aron Muralidhar for pointing out that what can go on in Canada, can go on in the USA, my point being that benchmarks must be refereed by officials not paid by the team.

We long to think that our institutional fund managers are showing the way. The USS, LGPS and a smattering of collective funds are thought to be above “value for money”. But the truth is that the money that goes in and the money that comes out of these huge DB funds is the same money that goes in and out of a DC savings scheme.

This post by Dan Mikulskis shows how the CPP has been ripping off its members by over charging and undelivering

There is scrutiny on our DC pension plans that we don’t see in other countries or – for that matter – in other types of pension plans.

We have underperforming DB plans in this country, there are some parts of LGPS and there is the whole of the USS that are not returning what the benchmark for DC is becoming. The Cap data performance measurement, published this weak by Corporate Adviser’s Sam Seaton will show us an independently refereed league table that we can trust.

We have in Nest, L&G, WTW’s Lifestyle and People’s four DC funds that might like to think of themselves (having got to the £25bn scale) in a premier league. But they are not, they need to be pitched against teams from the lower leagues as well as those from abroad.

As for these American and Canadian aberrations (I wrote about the Canada fraud this weekend,

We can’t have a system building up where pension schemes are incomparable as being in their league of one. Though that suits its executives who can be rewarded as no one else is rewarded, that does not make their pay immune from criticism.

There will come a time when British DC plans will hit hard times with people’s “real” money at risk. There will be times when CDC challenge DC funds in delivering long-term value. All of these funded pensions are comparable and even if the sophisticated benchmarks measure more than the actual returns, ultimately it is the place in the table that will matter.

I don’t think that level of accountability is something that CIOs and CEOs and CFO’s of commercial fund managers look forward to.

Fund managers are employed by trustees to deliver and if they fail, they should be held accountable by trustees as  contractors.

I suspect we are a long way from there but that is where we have to be heading if we do not head up in America or Canada where fund managers manage their reward and their league tables so that they are top in pay and performance. It is what the members get and (in the case of DB) what the sponsors pay, that matters most,