Hello everyone. Thank you so much for joining us on today's A webinar. So I'm Lydia Fern, I'm a partner at LCP and I'll be chairing today's session and it's called Unraveling the chances, Mansion House speech and its impact on UK pensions and the wider economy. And with me, I've got two of my expert colleagues, Steve Budge and Steve Hodder. But just before we start, I'll just talk through what you can see on the screen in front of you and you should be able to see the slides on us as speakers. You'll also see our BIOS and contact details, so feel free to follow up with any of us afterwards. There are subtitles or closed captioning available. You just need to click CC in the media player to enable the captions and blue means it's on. Captions are live, so the accuracy may vary. There's also resources list where you can see some more materials on this topic. Feel free to download those. The webinar is being recorded and this will be emailed to you later this week, or whether you can rewatch it if you'd like to, or share it with colleagues or those that couldn't make it today. But most importantly, you'll also find the QA box, and here you can enter any comments you have or any questions as they occur to you. We'll be keeping our eye on that box and we'll try and address as many of those comments or questions as we can. But we've got a good number of you on the call today, which is brilliant for us. So we might not be able to get through all of them, but we will respond to any unanswered questions afterwards. And finally, you can tailor your screen to suit you. So just move around the various windows and change sizes, that sort of stuff. Or at the bottom of the screen, you can actually just switch off all of these extras and focus on the slides. So what are we going to cover today? Well, I'm going to kick us off by focusing on the DC market and the pension investment review consultation. There was quite a bit covered on the LGPS, but we won't be talking about that today. And so when I've done the review, I'm going to hand over to Steve Budget who's going to consider the implications for the DC market and what we think will be coming in the future. And then Steve Hodder will look at DB, acknowledging that whilst there wasn't a particular focus on DB within these announcements, we do expect more to come. So as I said, we want to hear from you as well. We've got a couple of polls to throw into the mix, so keep your eye out for those as we go through. And as usual, we really want to hear your experiences and your questions. So again, use AQ and a box to pop in any thoughts, comments, questions, and we'll pick them up as we go. So kicking us off, what are the main points for the matching House speech and the subsequent consultation? So here we go. Well for DC, as you probably all know, the main message was consolidation is the way forward and they want to know how we should be achieving it and achieving it in the fastest way possible. So they've looked at other pension systems, particularly Canada and Australia and are thinking actually the UK should follow suit. So firstly, in line with the consultation, they're looking for views on what the right minimum size is for default strategies within a provider. And that's signposting 25 billion as potentially the lower end as well as asking whether providers should be limited to a particular of defaults And if so, should there be exclusions within that and what should they be? And should the pricing be consistent of those defaults across all the employers? They also appreciate it will take time to implement this. So suggest it should be from 20-30, but they're open to views and also any risks associated with this potential consolidation program. So that's the first area from the from the consultation. And so secondly, part of encouraging consolidation is to allow the transfer of assets from the contract base books at the GPPS to other arrangements. And they want to understand how we can put in that process, what should be followed and who should be in charge of that. So for example, the independence governance committees, the providers or employers themselves, but actually ensuring that members are moving to an improved arrangement when deciding to move them. And then finally the final focus was to think about the increased role of the employer and this is really to aim to reduce the focus on cost and improve the focus on value for their employees. And so in order to do this they have suggested that companies could nominate an executive within responsibilities for the pension arrangement and make it a board level consideration. And this is with the aim to, and I quote from the consultation to prevent the duties over the pension scheme falling to a junior member of HR or procurement. And so as part of that responsibility, they're considering whether to ask the employer to review their arrangements, say every five years. And that would potentially be aligned with the forthcoming value for money framework. So the suggestion there was that investment consultants would support this review and so ask if they should be doing that and whether they should be brought under the FCA regulation. So that's kind of in a nutshell what we saw from the consultation from ADC perspective. So what we thought we would do is have a look at the size of the DC market currently. And so on this page, we've put here the top 10 providers aggregated asset size. And so this includes the whole DC book and that's across master trust, contract based and trust based schemes. And at the moment and Steve will come on to this later, this is focusing on providers in the market, master trusts and not single trusts. So as the end of December, it's likely that the data is as at the end of the December last year. So it's likely the eight of those 10 providers on there sits above the 25 billion. There is a there is a lot more smaller providers out there too. And so we may see some movement at the smaller end over the coming years. But breaking that down a touch more, we find that over 50% of the assets of those top of those top ten sit in contract based and smaller trust based schemes. So a potential consultation result may be that we see a lot of movement either into a main default or it's a master trust. And this will depend provider, provider on how disparate the defaults are within each of those offerings. So really interesting to see the implications of this which Steve will come on to. But in clearly this speech and subsequent consultation is really trying to find a way and we haven't covered it massively here and Steve will come on to it, but the DC market to invest more in the UK. And I say Steve will pick up that those points. But before we do, we just wanted to ask you a bit of a pointed question on this to really get your views on what you think in terms of UK investment and how we as a DC market can facilitate that. So what we're going to do is a quick poll before I hand over to Steve. B, this is so maybe click on. So to what extent do you think UK pension schemes are under serving the UK with their choice of investments And the options are A, not at all, B to some extent. And C definitely please vote. I think some please vote now. If you haven't seen it, we'll give you a couple of seconds, a few seconds, 30 seconds. I think that's fair. Probably to answer that, keep submitting your votes. We didn't want to lead the witness, so we thought we'd ask you this upfront before we go into our particular views. But I think Steve B's got a lot to share on that, haven't you? Yeah, absolutely. I think we'll be coming on to that in a moment. Couple more seconds. Keep submitting good stuff. Do you think that's OK, Steve, shall I, should we go forward, go for it, see what the answer is? Let's have a look to some extent. Interesting. That's really interesting. I don't think I was expecting that I. Think we know where the government sits in terms of this decision but and this choice, but yeah. Absolutely. Thank you so much for the input on the poll. I'm going to hand over to Steve now, but again, if you've got any questions or comments, please continue to put them into the Q&A box. We've already had some in already. Thank you for that. Over to you, Steve. Thanks, Lydia. So we'll we'll take those kind of answers into account, as we say, go through the rest of the the presentation. So thank you for for answering that. But really I just wanted to turn to kind of what does this really mean? And and you know, when you listen to the chancellor as she was speaking, if there's ever a time when a chancellor had the opportunity to do the old, you know, mic drop at the end of a speech and exit stage left, I think this was it. Her announcements are expected to bring the biggest ever pension reform to UKDC pension scheme design, particularly across the provider market. I'm really just highlighting what Lydia's already, already talked through with the lack of anything kind of major in the autumn Budget relating to pensions in particular around DC. This was the time for the Chancellor to set out expectations ahead of the pension scheme bill that will be coming spring next year and continues the themes around consolidation and productive finance. And she really just didn't disappoint around these these messages. So we now have a new term applying to DC. We're now calling these things mega funds. It's a clear indication of the chancellor's ambitions to really drive the scale. So why is the government doing all of this? I just pulled out this quote from the chancellor's speech, Simply put, is to put is to power growth in our economy. So there's a clear link from the government to drive that scale, which is then the the push on consolidation. This in turn will foster greater levels of investment in the UK economy, which is the link then to the productive finance focus. And that's where the the government is really trying to drive at UK pension as scheme design, particularly on the on the DC side. There was reference to improving member outcomes too, which I'm sure you'll be pleased to hear, although the government's own analysis didn't offer much positive support in this area. It's really the priority around the UK economy and utilizing kind of pension scheme investment to support that drive. So I'm often asked, why are DC schemes just not investing more in the UKI mean, does it come down, as we've highlighted on the slide, to scale or a lack of opportunity? So let's look at scale. According to the analysis behind the consultation, the benefits of scale start to be realized at around 25 billion, but the real benefits from an economic growth perspective is likely to start from around 50 billion. So this is the government's perspective and obviously has informed their thinking. And it's the latter of those points that are really trying to drive through pension scheming investment, hence the 50 billion. Now as Lydia pointed out, there are currently, so looking at kind of UKDC market, there's actually only three master trusts with assets greater than 25 billion at the moment. We don't have any that are over the 50 billion, at least not yet. But clearly the government just really wants to change this and hence the drive with a view to creating greater pools of assets and the link then to the greater levels of home investment. Interestingly, as we were kind of preparing for this, The Times recently wrote an article commenting on the equity exposure of UK master trust and comparing them to other global markets, particularly kind of Canada and Australia. And this analysis differs to the DWP zone analysis. So while it did show that the UK pension funds don't necessarily invest much in the UK, so they have a low investment, it's actually the Canadian pension funds invest even less in their own equity market. So there's definitely some aspects that need a better kind of understanding and really kind of drive that link to, to to kind of home investment or home bias going forward. Now what's the opportunity? So the other side of that is very much our view that we believe there needs to be more done to improve the attractiveness of investing in the UK where we've been doing a lot of work across the industry to remove the barriers to allow DC schemes to invest in, you know, private markets more generally. But this won't be sufficient on its own to drive UK focused investment. DC schemes and members need to be almost, almost must be kind of supported in really thinking that UK assets are at least as attractive as overseas assets from a financial perspective, or at least even more to try and get that the the home waiting increased. Ruston Smith, chair of the PMI, has talked about putting the UK in the shop window, so to speak. And you know, highlighted that everyone knows about the magnificent 7 in the US market, but there's no equivalent kind of U, KS, Famous 5 or anything like that. So we need to do more work to shine the light on positive UK stories to better support the investment case, something that we think the government should be striving to support. So what does it mean when the government's talking about investing in the UK? We thought we'd kind of just highlight this as a as a point of interest. In 2017, the government was focusing on getting UK pension schemes to invest in UK infrastructure investments. We've seen that evolve and move on to being, you know, private equity. We've had the Mansion House speech last year with providers committing to, you know, invest 5% in private equities with the view that some of that would be invested in the UK as well. The new Lord Mayor for the coming year has already stated that UK pension schemes should be investing in the UK stock market. So that's the Footsie all share and that's really at odds with the direction of travel where the level of UK equity investment has been slowly reducing in favor of a more global allocation. The key point there is that that's actually benefited members, particularly over the last 10 years, given that the UK stock market has been one of the lower performing of the the regional allocations is as much as half the level of kind of global returns over the last 10 years. So although we've got a very broad definition, it's unlikely and we think this will probably work through the pension scheme bill next year in in that form. We think the real interest from government is in the real assets in the private equity space, hence why we're kind of thinking more attention will be in these areas. However, we do note that one area where the government has been fairly silent at the moment and something that we'll kind of feedback through consultation is the reference to sustainability and investing responsibly. This is an area where the government should be clearer and set expectations that productive finance should be sustainable and in keeping with EU KS Net 0 targets and ambitions to really just help frame the debate about productive finance by the UK pensions industry. So turning to how does the government achieve their objectives, I mean, we've already seen the increasing disclosure requirements by by UK kind of DC pension schemes that will continue through the next iteration of the value for money requirements. We've also seen recently the launch of the British Growth Partnership announced in the Mansion House speech that creates opportunities for investment and that is backed by the obviously the British Business Bank. We've seen initiatives such as lifts, which is an opportunity for a particular sector, so that was a technology and science sector and is supported by capital commitment from the government also. So we think both of these initiatives show really good progress, but we really need to ramp up this further by expanding into other sectors, other regions, which would help showcase more investment opportunities and obviously have that linked to being supported by the government through incentives as well. We haven't got quite to the point where mandation was required. I think there was a likelihood, or at least some were saying that Mansion House might have have have said as much and put that forward. The Pensions Minister, Emma Reynolds has already stated that further measures might might be taken if these reforms fail to boost domestic investment. So I'm calling that arm twisting at the moment. However, given the scale of these plan changes, it's unlikely to happen for a while yet in terms of that mandation point, but we'll wait to see around that. So what does this all, all mean? Lydia has already kind of introduced some of these these aspects. And I mean just again to highlight this is all subject to kind of consultation and market engagement as Lydia mentioned, but we thought we'd start with the master trust and provide a market. This minimum threshold is likely to be applicable from 2030 and this gives providers a master trust a really kind of chance to grow clearly and in terms of assets also a chance to kind of consolidate where they are still on those those journeys, you know, with new business share plans for meeting any new size requirements. So there's a lot of work to do in terms of understanding that the impact on on the market, but for the master trust market more generally, it's a race to get to scale on on this and that's really across the whole market. A key point to, you know, point of detail around this is the proposals are linked to the assets, specifically to a default fund rather than all scheme assets. So this does support those with the default fund use across multiple products, but it also will drive those consolidation across default funds into a much smaller number of offerings going forward. The government has even stated that they may limit the number of default funds that can be made available. Again, trying to just generate that interest into a smaller number, greater pools for then kind of the productive investment. So to enable the transfer of member savings to support this consolidation, the government will provide new powers to unblock these types of transfers, particularly in the contract based book that puts the insurers and their wider books of business in a, in a, you know, strong position given that they're wider business. And that's in comparison to the other master trusts in the market. But it also gives them a massive amount of work to do to consolidate across products and defaults. So we do think there is work to be done across the entire market in better understanding, you know really what the impact will be of of these proposed changes on the employer side. Just to repeat what what Lydia has has already commented on, we do think this you know, legal duty to review their pension scheme for employees every five years. That will be something that has been talked about for a while and so was was expected. This responsibility though, I think the key thing is likely to sit at the board level, which could recreate a long-awaited kind of senior engagement again with retirement provision, which I think is a definitely a positive for the industry more generally. And then turning to single employer trust, maybe the the surprise in all this was that there was nothing really mentioned around in single employers, at least not not for now. We expect to see obviously those new requirements coming through, you know the value for money kind of new requirements from next year again through the pension scheme bill in in spring 2025. The view is that that these requirements will continue to drive further consolidation from this part of the DC market. Although there seems to be an increasing awareness that the largest single employer schemes are helping to support the chancellor's overall ambitions in one way, shape or form. So I think there's something there around being more supportive of single employer arrangements going forward, at least in the, in the short to medium term. So quite a lot going on. We thought, we thought what we thought we'd do is just again present another poll for you to to answer. So if I just turn to the question for you, if that's OK, are you currently expecting to make changes to your pension arrangements in light of these announcements? Now we know it's early days, so it's initial views, but what's your, what's your take? Do you think it's something that is significant in terms of making you rethink anything around your, your pension provision or something where you just going to see how these obviously work through consultation and the pensions review or the pension schemes Bill, sorry, next year? And just as people are replying there, Steve, we've had a question come in that I might put to you now, which is what if I'm in the middle of thinking about some changes to my pension arrangements, for example, choosing a master trust provider, What on earth should I do? Should I wait for this all to blow over? Shall I go ahead and make the best decision I can make right now? How would you approach that? Yeah, I think it's a very good question. It's something that we've been asked a number of times. So we're, our process at the moment is to reach out to all the providers and to get their their views on, you know the actual impact from from their perspective. And I think this is where possibly a pause is needed just to understand where the provider is or if you if that selection has been made or, or thinking through the process and just understand what the direction of travel. Now, there's still lots of reasons to carry on if, if you know you're already thinking about making changes. But I think you need to understand a bit more around the context of what's potentially, you know, the shortlist or a selected provider is likely to do in, in context of of these changes before you kind of move forward in that sense. At least that'll be my view. I think we've got a decent number submitted. So I'll show the results. There you go. Carry on as you were by by all accounts, Yeah. And that's and I think that's, that's right, isn't it? That's what we expected, as you say. Yeah. We, we, we talked to our clients about being aware of what's coming and but it shouldn't impact on doing the right thing for your membership and doing what you need to do from your own perspective. So fab. So yeah, over to Steve Hodder on on DB. Great. Thanks, Cydia. So quick whistle stop update on DB. So it's not going to be a long update because as as Lydia already mentioned, the Chancellor didn't actually say anything about to find benefit schemes in her speech last week. So no new announcements here, but don't worry, that doesn't mean to find benefit schemes have been forgotten about or drops from the government's thinking. The Labour pensions from review focus very much on DC and LGBS as their stated initial point of review and the conclusions of that fed into Mansion House speech last week. We know that DWP and Treasury are separately continuing to look at the defined benefit landscape, picking up the work led by the last government leading to the consultation earlier this year on options for DB schemes and the overall objective being similar there. From the government's point of view, could those DB schemes be invested more productively for the UK? But importantly, from my point of view and, and, and our point of view as a firm, would that also be a win win for their own members and their own sponsors in terms of the outcomes that can be delivered from here? The government is planning a response to that DB options consultation in the new year. We understand that actually the election, so they were intending to respond by May, but the election. Brought the DWP some some really helpful time to actually pick through exactly what the choices are and what the implications are. It's not a simple picture how DB schemes are run and what their incentives are and how that might change. So actually having that bit extra time has been quite helpful. We've helped set up a working group that I've sat on representing firms across the industry trying to help the government with that question. There are a lot of potential things that they could do and different trade-offs. And one thing that comes clear is that when the DWP does a consultation on things like that, they get 100 different responses with about 300 different opinions in them. So actually working through that and trying to work out exactly what their choices are and what the implications are is, is not an easy process. We've certainly not through that group, managed to work the industry into one voice and one opinion that that's something that clearly wouldn't be the right answer regardless. But hopefully we've helped establish a clear set of options for the government so that they can make their own decisions on the economic implications. So we do think there are some relatively easy wins for the government in in terms of DB. Firstly to make it easier for all schemes to utilize surpluses on an ongoing basis. There are quite considerably surpluses flowing through into DV schemes already, but the lack of an easy way to actually benefit from having one is one key reason why lots of DV schemes aren't investing any of their assets productively. So that's one relatively easy win. The second we think is for the TPR to provide some guidance to trustees as to how and when they should be doing that. I don't envy trustees in positions of sitting on a surplus and and and wondering what to do with it because it's not something that there's strong and established precedents for. There are then some harder points for the government to work through in terms of how they protect members. Clearly none of us want to move to a world where DB surpluses are paid out to sponsors and more aggressive investment strategies adopted and members end up picking up the tab if it all doesn't work. We still think that it would be very powerful for the PPF to provide full protection either to qualifying schemes or schemes that used to opt in or or perhaps even to all DB schemes. There's also some debate across the industry about Trustee fiduciary duty. Is the interpretation of that in some cases a bit too narrowly focused on the security of benefits already promised at the detriment to potential for more benefit from members for for wins for sponsors and and also wider UK investment? I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to offer a view on that particular question. I suspect there might be some views across the call. We might get some questions on it. So just then two slides from me, a quick reminder on why DB schemes remain on the agenda. Firstly, the size of the prize. We know LGPS and DC are ongoing pots of capital. They will continue to provide pension provision for a long time, perhaps alongside CDC, whereas most DB schemes are closed. But DB schemes is where the largest part of money is right now, and the country does need money right now for boosting UK growth and tackling things like climate change. The second point to make on this page is that at least DC and LGPS schemes are already actually investing for growth. That might not be all investment in the places or the country that the UK government wants that investment to be, but at least the incentives and the management of those schemes is creating appetite for good growth investments. DB schemes clearly are in a different position as they continue to mature, but we do think the extent by which a lot of larger DB schemes have de risked has perhaps gone a little bit too far driven by regulations established at a completely different time in terms of their financial positions. So against that backdrop, we do think there is considerable potential for even modest tweaks in objectives and rules governing DB schemes to lead to modest refresh of DB strategies. I'm not talking about large scale re risking, I'm talking about nudges around the edges. But given the size of the assets in those schemes, even those modest changes could unlock considerable capital to help support all stakeholders. And just to quickly whip through how this could flow through into benefits for the UK but also the sponsors and members of those schemes. Firstly, we think there is some scope for DB schemes to invest in UK productive assets. Now I'm not talking about private equity or venture capital, risky very long term type investments, but I do think debt tranches in things like infrastructure projects created in the right structures with interesting incentives and crucially the right liquidity terms will be attractive to a portion of these DB schemes. Secondly, the gilt market, we know DB schemes invest in a very high proportion of the gilt market. This is a big problem for the Treasury, the Bank of England and the DMODMO is looking to borrow more than ever over the years ahead to fund government spending. The Bank of England is looking to sell the guilts that they hold through the quantitative easing program and this creates a problem if DB schemes are doing different things are potentially moving through to insurance world where lower levels of guilts around. Thirdly, on here surpluses return to sponsors. We, we talk a lot about ways to get pension money into productive investments to support the UK through how they invest. There's quite a powerful and direct way to get investment into the UK by allowing and permitting big surpluses that have accrued in DB schemes. There's about 1/4 of a trillion pounds of surplus in this money versus a low dependency level needed to pay the pensions. So allowing some of that to flow back to the UK sponsors or larger UK sponsors of DB schemes is a very powerful direct investment in the UK economy. Now of course, some of that will just be distributed to shareholders. Some of it might flow back to overseas parents, but at least some of it hopefully would lead to investment or renewed investment in UK employment and driving growth in the economy. 4th one on here, potential for additional benefits for members, fairly easy one there that that if well funded schemes are able to to support members with perhaps inflationary increases where there's a non increasing pension that puts more money in UK pensioners pockets to hopefully be spent in the UK economy. And then finally the world we live in, pretty much all of the above will be subject to some sort of tax take for the Treasury. So there's direct read through there into into the country's finances. So to sum up, we look forward to the government's response on DB schemes in the new year. Hopefully I'll see lots of you on a webinar then to digest exactly what they've settled on. But for now, I'll hand back to Lydia. Thanks very much. Keep your questions or comments coming in. We've had quite a few quite interesting questions, so hopefully Steve and Steve will be able to answer some of them. I think I was going to start with quite a few of you asked this as well. Is, is consolidation actually the answer? Is there evidence that bigger is better and actually means they're going to get what they're setting out to achieve? Steve B, maybe you want to. You've got a view on that, please. Yeah. I, I think in the government size that maybe start there that it, it definitely is. And I think that's the point that we're kind of responding to around that. I think once we go through consultation, I suspect that the the requirements might change in terms of trying to move the market towards that scale. But I think this this aspect is really kind of focusing in on trying to re bring together more the contract base market and that kind of perspective of a lot of different defaults, making them more kind of open to investment through more than the more modern, the newer investment strategies that probably set in those new iterations of default funds in that sense. So in some ways, yes, scale will help because you're combining a lot of older stuff with newer stuff. And hopefully then the newer stuff will be investing in more in line with with what the the government's ambition. We've still got a bit of, you know, kind of aspect to think through in terms of, you know, we can get to scale in terms of pooling assets through funds. And we've done a lot of that saying in the UK market and we don't necessarily see why one massive pool is better than lots of other pension schemes investing together. But clearly line of sight control with larger pools, I think we'll have obviously some merits and some benefits over smaller, smaller ones. I guess from the government's point of view, having that visibility on exactly where the money's going would probably make them feel comfortable. Do you think, I suppose it's also the smaller number of larger pools where they can engage with those providers potentially and it comes back to maybe that arm twisting that? Aspect exactly right. In terms of that, obviously the more they've got more providers, they've got to arm twist, that might be harder or maybe that's about a personal view. There's been a couple of questions actually on sustainability and the energy transition and that we need to achieve as a, as AUK market to really hit our goals. Do you think the strategy that they've sort of started off here is actually joined up enough with that sustainability goal? And and should, I mean you mentioned already there should be more on this. Is it something you think they're going to be considering? I think they definitely need to and I think there'll probably be a number of responses through the consultation process highly that, that highlighting that that needs to be kind of a key aspect of the, you know, the, the, the criteria for, for taking this forward. I mean, we, we're all aware, we're all in that kind of space of we know we need to be investing much more sustainably going forward. The UK has got its targets. There's lots of need to move forward on that journey. And if we don't control this focus, then it may not help as much as it could do. And I think that's just so the big picture, this needs to be invested sustainably in terms of trying to drive this, this greater focus and interest in the in the UK. Yeah, we had a similar comment, didn't we, When we do need value for money consultation response, you know lack of focus on ESG sustainability factors which we consider very important part of the overall investment for a member. And it Kim just brings it back to the member. So they're going to be thinking about, you know, long term risks and obviously from the investment strategy point of view and actually the the UK where they're going to be retiring in the future, you know, the future planet. All of those themes just feels like the sustainability is a clear link back to the member as well, which is another aspect to to bringing it into the the thinking. Yeah. Another interesting question around their consolidation. So we talked about is it, is it the answer? We've talked about sort of potential positivity on the government's aspect for making consolidation and and what they're going to get out of it. Do you see any negatives to to this path? Yeah. And I think possibly comes into some points that we've talked around before in terms of preparation for, for, for, for this webinar. I think with the sharp line that we put around this is consolidate with caution. We think there's a lot of good things happening in the market with providers that or schemes, sorry, that are aren't as large as say clearly some of the master trusts now, I think there's a bit more support for them in the kind of evidence that's behind the, the analysis around the, you know, the Mansion House speech. So there's there's definitely more awareness that they're doing good things and that should be supported. We also think that if we are to provide or have this set minimum, then you are creating, you know, a, a small market almost like a oligopoly. I can't even say the word oligopoly when the in thinking about, you know, you won't be able to get a new provider come into the market if your minimum is 25 billion, you know, you are ceasing that market. So again, why we think consultation, there might be some evolution of that thinking as part of that. But we think that we do want to really support those that are, you know, bringing innovation, bringing those important aspects to future benefits for, for members in terms of how they're saving for retirement, you know, and, and really want to still have access to that, I'm sure is, is an important point for, for the the future benefit of the industry. Yeah, I have to. I think my main concern is that innovation point like that, the newer players coming in great ideas, you know start from a clean sheet and we learn, we learn a lot from innovators and develop that better member offering and it comes up going back to members again. It is a concern that we might lose that with this as Steve H appreciate there's not loads of questions on on DB, although there are there are some. I was just just thinking about the, the fact that you're waiting responses what what should be a bit bit like what asking this question you did earlier about DC schemes. What should the DB schemes be doing? Should they just continue on or wait to see what's coming out? Yeah, it's a good question because I'm aware there are a lot of schemes, in particular larger schemes have been pausing for thought over the past 12 to 18 months on what they want to do going forward and what their longer term plan is and possibly waiting for what the government's going to come up with as an influence there. One thing I'd say is we're already working with a number of multi billion schemes on implementing strategies to run on and grow surpluses, benefit members, benefit sponsors. There's lots that already can be done under the current rules. At times it can be a little bit tricky and you've obviously got to make sure that members are protected and trustees are comfortable and you've got to make sure that you've got efficient routes to to get surpluses out. Those are the things we hope the government will make easier and more efficient from next year onwards. But just to flag, there are things that can be done under the current rules and lots of larger schemes and sponsors concluding that there's, there's really attractive options for them even even under the current rules. So I wouldn't hang tight too long without considering what's possible under under the current system and and hopefully the government will make it easier at some point, but that doesn't mean you can't do anything now. Completely true. Steve B just thinking about single trusts as well on the DC side that may, may or may not be linked to the larger sort of larger DB. Do you, do you find, do you think it was interesting that the those single trusts weren't included in this sort of consolidation, do not think that they would help some of this move into the UK market more effective? Yeah, I think it was, it was a genuine surprise that they weren't. And this focus really is in the, you know, the provider of the contract market and the multi commercial, multi employer kind of mass trust space. And yeah, so we we were expecting it to be more focused around single employer again driving that consolidation point. But I think also we've have been on that journey already at the value for money framework that will come in from next year is is ratcheting up kind of the the pressure on schemes to make sure that they are delivering. And we think that that is probably going to continue that that drive for consolidation. I think the key thing for us also is, you know, a lot of the money isn't already invested for a lot of schemes with within the provider market. So if you're a trust based scheme, you're putting a bundled arrangement with a provider. And one of the aspects that we've kind of engaged with the the government around is, you know, moving that scheme into a mass trust is only just moving the product in, you know, from from where they are currently potentially. So that's the kind of aspect where it doesn't really change the shape of the, the, you know, the, the assets with the providers. It just means that we might have a bit more, a bit more flexibility for single employer trusts for the short term, medium term, thinking about trying to again their members rather than being forced to move or ratcheting up the pressure even more. And I think it's something we'll reference in our consultation responses and to it sort of making sure, making it clear where the exceptions are thinking about the single trust market and the benefits that some of those schemes bring as well as the consolidation point as well. Fab. I think we've possibly got time for one more question. And as I say, we'll, if you've please continue to answer, ask questions if you if you need, we can, we'll pick these questions up after the the webinar itself. So finally, I suppose, Steve B, this is again, do you think the time frame is long enough? So twenty 30s muted moments by the government, do you think that's long enough? I think it's a very good question. I think there's going to be a lot of work to do with providers that are trying to reposition and trying to to drive for that, that scar around default funds. My sense is that either there is an expectation on the AUM. So maybe that number comes down to allow you know get to the 2013. So we're not kind of cutting out too many kind of master trusts or providers in that sense or yes or the time frame extended. Now my sense is they want to do things as quickly as possible. So probably not the 20-30 you'll be moving, but we might find that maybe there's a lowering of the AUM if they are doing other things like investing in the UK like that kind of flexibility. So maybe something around that might might come in. Awesome. Well, we will be responding so you can all read our response in due course once it's finished. I think it's January isn't it? Mid January ish but it closes. So thank you all this. We've come to the end of the webinar now and we hope you've really enjoyed our conversations. Shortly after the webinar ends, the screen will prompt you to complete some feedback. Please do fill in the feedback form as it really helps for us to plan for future events. But thank you so much. As I say, you'll get the the link to the recording in a in a few days and we will hopefully speak to you soon. Thank you so much and bye for now. _1733391070826