Judge Your Own Entry
Probably the over-riding point to keep in mind is that IPE Awards judges are pensions professionals and will read your entry from their wide experience and knowledge of pension scheme management. So when completing your entry, try to anticipate their reaction and structure your entry accordingly. Then test it as if you were asked to evaluate it. If any point in your entry raises a query in your own mind, you can be more or less sure the judges will ask the same thing. This exercise enables you to address any shortcomings.

 

In general, the judges will essentially be looking for a concept, idea, development or strategy that stands out and could be considered exceptional. This could take any form and be part of a longer term plan and does not necessarily need you to demonstrate exceptional annual performance to impress the judges. The long-term benefits of any change, development, innovation, among others, are considered equally, if not more important, than each year’s individual return. Put more simply, as one judge suggested to us during our 2014 judges survey: “we do not want to read about the steps that all pension fund take as a matter of course.”

 

Leave Nothing To Chance
You should endeavour to answer all questions on the entry forms and offer reasons why you cannot give some of the fundamental data required. The more you provide, the more the judges have to go on. You may be marked down or receive negative feedback if you do not provide either the data or a reason why you haven’t, especially if other entrants have answered in full. 

 

This is particularly important in response to questions where the judges expect a specific reply. For instance, if a question asks you to explain your investment strategy, you should not write about, as one judge stressed “your business plan or schedule of benefits.”

 

The judges are very positive about pension funds that demonstrate innovative thinking or approach challenges or problems in an original way or by using novel concepts. But they equally readily pick up on unsubstantiated claims or unclear objectives.

 

Remember, as a pension fund, your long-term approach is a key factor. You may base your entry on a particular strategy or change or course in the past few years. That is fine. But the judges will be keen to see outcomes of any short-term goals or reviews you have undertaken to protect against sudden volatility or downside pressure that coincides with the period under review. In other words, add in any updates to ensure your entry is as current as possible.

 

Where possible, demonstrate your case with relevant numbers. We do ask for certain figures to be given formally in the entry form and these are mandatory. Judges may view negatively entries that do not provide all the fundamental data the entry form requires. So if there is some overriding reason your fund cannot provide the requested data, please explain the reason why in the relevant box. The judges will take this into consideration and you will most likely not be marked down so much, if at all, as a result. 

 

As pension professionals, the judges are extremely aware of the issues surrounding performance figures. While good performance numbers do enhance entries, they are not necessarily the strongest feature, as we have already suggested. First of all, judges like to see performance figures in context, such as the overall expectations of the pension fund, the regulatory environment and, perhaps, most importantly, your long-term strategy and objectives. So if you can, show the evolution of performance data in relation to any changes or new ideas you have introduced or part of the overall evolution of your scheme. Conversely, be careful not to give a misleading impression by presenting any data in isolation in the text boxes that the judges may not understand.

 

Poor or negative numbers are often as a result of factors outside a pension fund’s control. The judges are well aware of any challenges and trends that could affect a scheme’s short-term performance. Please do not be discouraged from entering or afraid to declare negative returns; the judges are unlikely to penalise you, so long as you explain the downturn at your scheme and, more importantly, how you have reacted and drafted any short, medium or even long-term measures to counter the decline and ensure you meet the challenges ahead. Indeed, the judges will most likely actively reward schemes that have acted in a timely manner and set in motion a recovery plan. So long as you include this, you will be judged positively.

 

The more background information and explanation you can give, the more the judges will understand your fund’s achievements. Although you do not want to waffle, neither do you want the judges to feel like there is something missing with questions unanswered that could impede your chances of success. Try therefore to present as much as you can in a historical context. A good example is your investment strategy. In addition to reporting positive performance as a result your current allocation policy for the period under review; consider adding how the results affect your funding level and therefore your ability to cover your liabilities and increase the level of member benefits, your capacity to take extra risk and any other positive impact it might have in the long run. 

 

Building on this last point, While entries often focus on investments, as many of the themed awards relate to specialist investment areas, the judges like to see how the investment areas relate to the fund’s objectives overall. A good example could be investing in alternatives. Judges would be keener to see your reasons why you include alternatives as part of and impact on your overall risk budgeting and long-term objectives rather than a strategy that seeks returns only. Investments-aside, judges are equally responsive to entries focusing on any other aspect of a pension fund’s activities, such as its structure, governance, operations, communications, IT systems, reporting, and general management, including personnel. But again, if your chosen area of excellence is, for example, member communications or implementing a new IT system, make sure that this is presented within the overall needs of the fund and its long-term goals. The message here is that the judges like to have as holistic and rounded a view of your fund as possible. Put yourselves in the judges’ shoes as far as you can when you review and read over your entry before submitting it to IPE.