Sticking with familiar advisers feels reassuring. But defaulting to the existing arrangement can mean missing specialist expertise, or a delivery model that would work better for the scheme and its members. The question isn’t whether change is always needed. It’s whether your current team has been tested against what’s coming.
Scrutinise every adviser, not just the insurer
Trustees put insurers through detailed analysis: price, financial strength, contract terms, member experience and ability to execute. The same challenge should apply to every adviser on the transaction, including the administrator.
Administration sits at the centre. Benefit specifications, member data, calculations, insurer queries and member communications all depend on it being accurate and on time. So ask whether your administrator has the specialist knowledge, capacity and project discipline for an endgame transaction, not just whether business-as-usual has run smoothly.
A fresh perspective doesn’t have to mean lost knowledge
The usual worry is that changing administrator now means losing scheme knowledge or hurting the member experience. That risk is real, but it can be managed. A well-planned handover is a chance to capture knowledge properly, clarify responsibilities and put the scheme’s data and benefits under constructive challenge.
In our experience, fresh eyes spot issues that have become embedded over time. “On a recent onboarding we found that pension increases had not been applied in accordance with the Scheme Rules and contingent spouses’ pensions were missing from the inherited data we received, this Client was looking to windup within 2 years, therefore this work was undertaken alongside the GMPe project which also had not been completed. This work was completed within 12 months, and the Client was able to transact within the 2 years”. A detailed review of calculations, benefit provisions, historic practices and data can bring problems to the surface early. When that review targets things that could derail a buy-in or delay buy-out, the savings can outweigh the cost of onboarding or exit.
Data readiness is more than a clean-up
Data quality is one of the biggest factors in whether a scheme is genuinely buy-in ready. Reviewing data before it goes to insurers can uncover missing information, historic inconsistencies or complex benefits that need investigating. Find those mid-transaction and they eat adviser time, slow insurer engagement and put pressure on decisions.
The question isn’t whether issues will arise. It’s whether the right people and processes are in place to resolve them. Trustees should understand:
- how exceptions will be identified, prioritised, documented and escalated
- who makes the decisions
- how dependencies between advisers will be managed
- how progress will be evidenced in reporting
Staying with the incumbent doesn’t always preserve continuity either. Some administrators pass transaction work to a separate team. Whichever model is used, ask how scheme knowledge will carry across, and look at how the work will actually be delivered rather than assuming the existing appointment guarantees it.
Capacity and member experience go together
Trustees need confidence that their administrator can handle specialist transaction work and keep core services running. A backlog of member cases stretched resource or unclear priorities can hit the buy-in timetable, complicate conversion to buy-out and shake member confidence.
Buy-out and wind-up will prompt questions from members, some of them worried about what it means for their pension. Administrators need to give clear, consistent communications and real human support. Operational resilience and member experience can’t be treated separately. Both matter for keeping trust through a period of significant change.
Challenge the default before you start
Before the transaction gathers pace, ask whether your current advisers are best placed to see you through every stage. Look at specialist experience, resources, data and benefit review capability, project governance, member support, cost transparency, and how well they work with the insurer and other advisers.
That doesn’t mean changing advisers for the sake of it. It means making a positive, evidence-based decision rather than letting familiarity decide. If your incumbent is still the strongest option, the review gives you assurance and may show what to strengthen before the project begins. If another provider is a better fit, acting early leaves time for an orderly transition and thorough onboarding.
Wind-up is the closing chapter of the trustee–member relationship, and members will remember whether it felt clear, controlled and supportive. By challenging the default at the outset and choosing advisers with the right mix of expertise, capacity and care, trustees give their scheme the best chance of reaching its endgame efficiently, and of ending on the right note.
Julie Yates, Director of Pensions Administration - Cartwright Pension Trusts
