Each year, The Association of Member Nominated Trustees conducts a survey of the views of its members.

The 2017 survey is now out for responses and we'll present the final results at our Summer Conference next week. Ahead of this, I highlight the key trends we have seen emerging from responses thus far.

By way of context, the AMNT has grown to be a sizeable force in the pensions field. We now have 700 members in number and come from 500 pension schemes.

Together, we represent assets under management of just under £700 billion. We say that is around one third of the total UK occupational pension sector. Our survey sets out to find out the status of schemes reported on and levels of funding, what our members see to be the biggest risks in their roles and finally, how they see the input MNTs can have.

Key highlights to date:

• DB schemes make up just under half the total of schemes represented. DC schemes also make up just under half.
• Sponsoring employers have a strong hold on the identity of trustee chairs: three quarters of these are either directly nominated by the employer, or are professional trustees who are paid by the employer.
• DB schemes are at the upper end of performance in terms of funding.
• The three biggest risks are seen to be 'volatility/underperformance in investment', 'employer covenant' and 'regulatory changes'. Only one out of 20 respondents put ESG issues in their list of risks to watch.
• Pension issues to be prioritised in 2017 are funding, investment strategy and buy in and buyout.
• On the whole, MNTs see their greatest contribution as 'asking the straight forward question', 'following the common sense approach' and 'playing the role of devil's advocate'.
• Members believe trustees can attract new MNTs through payment, training and knowledge and emphasising the importance of pensions.
• 55 per cent believe there should be a compulsory trustee qualification.

The AMNT maintains that the governance of a well-run pension scheme should be viewed as a triangle. The three sides of the triangle are represented by: firstly, the sponsoring employer; secondly, the professional advisers and managers; then, most importantly, the pension scheme members themselves. Each of these sides needs to be kept in balance.

There are sometimes moves afoot to reduce the role of the scheme members and their nominated representatives on boards. The AMNT view is that this would be a mistake. We should not forget the infamous Maxwell pension scandal. Then an over powerful employer worked with compliant advisers, and missed out the scheme members from the decision making process.

Pension scheme members are comforted by having an MNT presence for their scheme. It helps to bolster them that their retirement needs are being met and understood. It helps to reassure them that they are not being ripped off in excessive costs and charges. Scheme members must be happy that they are getting good value if they are to make higher levels of contribution. These are needed to fund increasing numbers of years in retirement. The other sides in my governance triangle both have competing interests.

The House of Commons Select Committee spelt it out in their report on BHS, at paragraph 175. They said: "This inquiry has exposed how capitalism can be worked to the advantage of directors, financiers and advisers at the expense of employees and the wider public."

Our survey results to date have highlighted that AMNT members are clearly seeing areas where we think we can make particular contributions. Transparency in costs and charges is one. Integrated risk management, assessment of employer covenants and cyber security arrangements are other key areas emerging.

Written by David Weeks, Co-Chair of the AMNT