Transparency Times #30 October 2018

Page 1

October 2018

This month’s contributors are: Andy Agathangelou

Paul Moxey

Transparency Task Force

London South Bank University

David Rowe

Page 3

Page 6

Page 10

Neeta Mundra

Requirement One

Page 14

David M. Rowe Risk Advisory

Anais Berthier

Client Earth

Page 16

Get in touch if you wish to place an article! Edition #30 October 2018 The official publication of The Transparency Task Force. FREE to members of the Transparency Task Force, membership of which is also FREE

3 Why we’re at a defining moment in the trek towards transparency 5 Upcoming Events 6 New UK Corporate Governance Code 10 The Two Faces of Risk

14 Is the Regtech-Debt increasing post 2008 crisis? 16 Court of Justice of the EU Rules that the European Commission must make impact assessments that supports it’s decision-making process public 20 The TTF Ambassadors 22 The TTF Teams 23 The TTF Advisory Board 24 The Directory of Pro-Transparency Organisations 28 Get Involved


The Transparency Times | | October 2018 | Edition #30

TTF COMMENT: Why we’re at a defining moment in the trek towards transparency The topic that sparked the creation of the Transparency Task Force was the lack of transparency on costs and charges in pensions and investments. It was rightly felt to be a social justice issue as well as a barrier to free and open markets working efficiently; and opacity certainly gets in the way of investors and pension savers being able to seek and find value for money. There are many strong views about what should happen to remedy the situation and various regulators, government departments and trade bodies have been actively involved. Furthermore, the bright light of scrutiny has been shone onto the subject by many academics, though-leaders and campaign groups, right round the world. The Transparency Task Force has been trying to play its part in all that. We are now at a defining moment in the journey towards costs disclosure transparency because very shortly the body that is taking over from the Institutional Disclosure Working Group (IDWG) is going to be launched and the cost disclo-

sure cost templates that have been worked on by many are going to be published. We’re going to be covering this topic at our costs/charges symposium in London on 6th November. If you haven’t yet booked your place please crack on and do so using the link below. I think we’ve assembled an outstanding group of subject-matter experts including Dr. Chris Sier (former Chair of the IDWG), Marcel Staub (CEO at Novarca Group who is flying in from Switzerland to present a utility – it can

keep the TTF afloat I don’t want cost to be a barrier to anybody that wants to participate in the discussions we are going to have – I’m sure it’s going to be a particularly interesting symposium. If I had a magic wand here is what I would wish for in a consumer-centric cost disclosure regime: • It would be run by regulators rather than trade bodies so that it could truly focus on the needs of the investor, not torn between doing that and caring for the commercial interests of the industry

be used for the IDWG templates) and Alan Miller (Co-Founder of the True and Fair Campaign, which has done a great job to raise awareness of the importance of cost disclosure).

• It would be compulsory not voluntary so that we don’t end up with a mess of inconsistency that undermines a key purpose of costs disclosure - comparability

Please use the link below to secure your place and if the ticket price is genuinely a problem for you not to worry – just let me know and I can adjust as necessary. Whilst our revenues from events are vital to help

• It would cover all types of pensions and investments products so there was a level playing field; how else can people know how to best invest their money think pensions v long term

Edition #30 | October 2018 | | The Transparency Times


savings as an example • It would have an intelligent data verification system based on regulators making spot checks; inaccurate data would be severely penalised and consistent failure to report accurately would jeopardise a licence to operate • It would contextualise cost in relation to performance and risk; cost analysis alone is insufficient and cheap definitely does not automatically mean good • It would drive out a single figure assessment of value for


money so that it is easy for investors to understand whether they should be pleased with or concerned by their investment • It would indicate the extent to which the investment outcomes being achieved have required harming the planet; amongst other things we really do need to have a sense of what I call “managed urgency” around the whole “1.5. to survive” agenda At 11:30 in our programme at the 6th November symposium we will be facilitating a discussion around what delegates think the body that is being

launched to replace the IDWG (which may or may not be called the Consumer Transparency Initiative) should do and how it should operate; unless it has been launched by then in which case we’ll be running a session all about it and the templates that are going to be used. Either way it will be a very important part of the programme. Here’s your link to book yourself on: london-6th-november-2018/

The Transparency Times | | October 2018 | Edition #30

UPCOMING E VENTS Time for Transparency - “Costs & Charges: Are we there yet?� Tuesday 6th November In the UK, great progress has been made by the FCA, TPR, the IDWG and the DWP in relation to costs and charges transparency. Where exactly have we got to and what more is there to do? What do we think about the progress made thus far in the UK and what do we really think about MiFID II? Dimensional Fund Advisors, 20 Triton Street, London NW1 3BF

For any enquiries about the above event please make contact through

Edition #30 | October 2018 | | The Transparency Times




by Paul Moxey | SAMI Fellow and Visiting Professor of Corporate G

The New UK Corporate Governance Code looks very diff shorter, places greater emphasis on applying governanc plicitly requires boards to consider stakeholders other th monitor culture. Will it make any difference? A test of its efficacy is whether it would have helped prevent the failure of Carillion. It can only be a theoretical test because the failure was in the past and, arguably, it is hard to spot such a failure before it happens – ask the Carillion directors and its auditor KPMG. Hard to spot? – perhaps but not impossible. It is relevant to consider whether the new Code would have made failure less likely. Previous codes were, it would seem, ineffective. The governance statement in the Carillion’s 2016 Annual Report (reported against the 2014 Code) gave the impression of a well governed company. Amongst other things its statement on its reviews of board and individual director effectiveness claimed they were all highly effective. It also reported the audit committee


had concluded the board could have ‘a reasonable expectation that the Company will be able to continue in operation and meet its liabilities as they fall due over the three-year period of their assessment’. A key factor to emerge from the collapse was whether the financial statements overstated

the value of work in progress on its various contracts. Reassuringly the governance statement said ‘a significant proportion of the (audit) Committee’s time is spent reviewing contract judgements given the Group’s extensive portfolio of contracts. The Committee reviewed, through discussions with management and the external auditor, the positions and judgements taken by management…. the

Committee concluded that the positions and judgements taken in relation to the contracts reviewed and the licence income recognised were reasonable’. With the benefit of hindsight, and the findings of the Parliamentary Investigation, it seems clear that the directors and the board were not effective, that contracts were significantly overvalued and that the viability review was flawed. We may never know whether the directors knew in early 2017 that Carillion was close to insolvency and allowed misleading statements to be made in the 2016 annual report or whether they were ignorant of the gravity of the situation. In spite of years of refinement since the first (Cadbury) governance code in 1992, and the lessons from numerous subsequent corporate failures, it would seem we

The Transparency Times | | October 2018 | Edition #30


Governance | London South bank University.

fferent from previous versions. It is ce principles and for the first time exhan shareholders and to assess and have not yet found way of constructing a governance regime that prevents knowingly or negligently misleading statements about a company’s financial position and board effectiveness.

courages misplaced optimism and discourages staff from raising concerns.

Ultimately whether or not a company thrives or fails is down to the leadership of the board The new 2018 Code may at first and particularly the chair and sight offer little improvement in the CEO. CEOs are paid to be this respect. But there is some optimistic and take calculated scope for optimism;. requiring, as risks. It is largely up to the chair the new Code and new draft leg- to ensure that this is in pursuit islation do, boards to make pub- of long-term value creation lic statements on how they have and that the board sufficiently had regard for various stakehold- understands the risks being run er interests and other factors set and provides proper checks and out in S172 of the 2006 Compabalances. Unfortunately not all nies Act could make it harder boards want to understand the for boards to flout the interests risks properly. The more you of employees, contractors and look the more you are expected pension funds. A company which to know. Chairs and non-execmakes misleading statements utive directors may hope that runs the risk that stakeholders, nothing blows up while they including employees, will call are in office. Like Ostriches foul. In the Twitter age this could sticking their heads in sand mean rapid significant negative they may choose not to ask the publicity for the company and right questions thinking that igpublic censure for directors. The norance is a reasonable defence requirement for boards to assess provided they can demonstrate and monitor culture may also they went through the motions. help; if boards actually look for This may work in a court of law culture risks they may help spot a culture which, for example, en- but not in the court of public

Paul is a governance, culture and risk management consultant, expert witness, trainer and author. He works with boards and others on governance, board effectiveness, risk, business ethics and corporate culture. His latest publication is a text book on corporate governance. A chartered accountant and chartered secretary, he is visiting professor of Corporate Governance at London South Bank University, a fellow of scenario and futures consultants SAMI Consulting and an editorial board member of the journal Governance. He has also been chairman of a housing charity, a trustee of a pension fund and a sailing club, and started and sold a retail and printing business.

Edition #30 | October 2018 | | The Transparency Times


opinion; it is hardly professional nor can it be particularly satisfying. A more thorough approach to risk involves boards and senior executives thinking outside their normal boxes to think the unthinkable and ask what could bring the company down or break the business model and what could be done to make the business model more resilient. The new FRC Guidance on Board Effective-


ness invites boards to consider using scenario analysis to help assess the strategic importance and potential impact of challenges and opportunities. The guidance also encourages boards to test key decisions for alignment with values and consider the risk that a decision could encourage undesirable behaviours. This is good advice. SAMI Consulting is the home of scenario planning and helps

organisations to make robust decision in uncertain times. Its governance experts can help boards who want to do more than go through the motions to ensure that risk governance not only ticks the box but can make a real difference.

The Transparency Times | | October 2018 | Edition #30

Venues wanted for transparency symposia in all of these locations: Amsterdam, Auckland, Beijing, Berlin, Boston, Brussels, Cape Town, Chicago, Dubai, Dublin, Frankfurt, Geneva, Hong Kong, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Melbourne, Montreal, New York, Ontario, Paris, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney, The Hague, Tokyo, Toronto, Vancouver, Washington D.C. and Zurich. For further information please get in touch through Edition #30 | October 2018 | | The Transparency Times




by David Rowe | Founder and President | David M. Ro

Visible Risk vs. Dark Risk One of the most important distinctions that risk managers mu is that between “risk” and “uncertainty”. These terms originate mist Frank Knight (1885-1972). In his 1921 book Risk, Uncertai Knight defined ‘risk’ as randomness that can be analyzed using a distributional framework and ‘uncertainty’ as randomness that cannot be so analyzed. Unfortunately, experience indicates that the terms “risk” and “uncertainty” are not powerful enough to drive home the fundamental difference between these two concepts. A central failure of financial risk management, as it developed from the mid-1980s to 2008, was to neglect this distinction. Unfortunately, “uncertainty” has proven to be an insufficiently powerful word. I prefer to use the term “dark risk”, which conveys the appropriate sense of opacity and looming danger in a way that “uncertainty” does not. Situations in the visible risk domain are characterized by repeated realizations of random events generated by a process that exhibits stochastic stability or, at least, a high degree of stochastic inertia. In layman’s terms, this means that the nature of the randomness


changes only slowly over time. In today’s world, the themes of best-selling books provide a good indication of widely shared attitudes. It is informative, therefore, that one of the most widely read books among risk managers in the late 1990s was Peter Bernstein’s Against the Gods: The remarkable story of risk. This was a rather triumphalist book that contributed to a sense that modern tools of statistical analysis had brought risk under control. Unfortunately, too many risk managers who should have known better failed to emphasize that reality was far less sanguine. It is not surprising that the 2010 review by The Economist of what went wrong with risk management during the financial crisis of 2008 and thereafter was titled The Gods Strike Back. In an example of what a difference a decade can make, Nassim Taleb’s 2007 book The

Black Swan achieved best-seller status just before, during and after the Global Financial Crisis broke in earnest in September of 2008. I am quite proud that 2½ years before the book appeared, I devoted my Risk

magazine column to a favorable review of Taleb’s ideas. I had stumbled across his thinking on his website and immediately realized he was on to a powerful metaphor that promised to drive home the importance of extreme event risk in a way that

The Transparency Times | | October 2018 | Edition #30



ust keep in the forefront of their thinking in the work of early 20th century econointy and Profit. traditional risk managers had failed to do. One of the most important lessons Taleb has driven home is that theoretical statistical methods have an inherent but often unrecognized bias when atten-

tion turns to the issue of tail risk. To be tractable mathematically, statistical distributions, even those with infinite tails, need to have rapid attenuation of the probability in the tails. When we overlay a theoretical distribution on a finite sample,

we typically choose a mathematically tractable distribution that “fits� the sample observations we have available. Thus, by the very act of limiting ourselves to a mathematically tractable distribution, we have implicitly imposed rapidly diminishing probability density in the tails.

David M. Rowe is founder and president of David M. Rowe Risk Advisory, a risk management consulting firm. Dr. Rowe has spent over 40 years in the risk management technology, banking and economic forecasting industries. He authored the monthly Risk Analysis column in Risk magazine from 1999 to 2015.

Having imposed (or fitted) such a distribution on a finite sample, analysts often use the tails of that theoretical distribution to make assertions about behavior of the underlying process being examined. Taleb’s essential contribution is to emphasize the point that this is both an invalid and a positively dangerous line of reasoning. Furthermore, minor adjustments to our distributional analysis will not only fail to address the problem of tail risk, they may be positively dangerous by lulling non-specialists into a belief that this form of risk is now under control. Effective analysis of

Edition #30 | October 2018 | | The Transparency Times


dark risk must involve a fundamentally different and more qualitative approach than we use to assess short-term volatility. Most important, we must never lose sight of the irreducible core of unpredictable dark risk that defies classic statistical analysis. It’s Seismology, Not Roulette Analogies can be very powerful mental tools, as long as they are sufficiently robust. Misleading analogies, however, can result in serious errors in judgment. Taleb is right to criticize much of risk management practice as grounded in the analogy of roulette. If we are seeking an analog between the behavior of financial markets and a specific physical process, roulette is a dangerously misleading choice. A far better analogy would be to think in terms of earthquakes. The crucial similarity between the dynamics of financial markets and earthquakes is that both are examples of punctuated equilibria. Most of the time in such systems there is sufficient structural stability to contain and absorb random disturbances. Not only that, such disturbances are usually the net result of hundreds or thousands or even millions of small unrelated forc-


es, many of which cancel each other out. The essential point to remember is that these conditions do not always prevail. Sometimes pressures along the fault lines in the earth’s crust reach unsustainable levels. When this happens, the tectonic plates need to shift to relieve the pressure. Needless to say, the movement that occurs during such a transition is not a 20plus standard deviation random draw from the same distribution of small seismic tremors that had occurred for years. Instead, it is a structural shift in

pressures and some vague sense of how serious they need to become to force a structural adjustment. Even Taleb, using his own powerful metaphor, has been known to argue that it is sometimes possible to turn Black Swans into “Gray Swans”. 1. This is an edited excerpt from the author’s forthcoming book: An Insider’s Guide to Risk Management – Relearning the Lessons of the Global Financial Crisis 2. I am indebted to Stuart Turnbull for this term, which he says was inspired by the mystery of dark matter. 3. Originally articulated in Taleb, N.; The Black Swan: Why Don’t We Learn that We Don’t Learn?; p. 19, January 2004 draft paper originally available at www. fooledbyrandomness. com.

the environment required to reestablish a new temporary equilibrium.

4. In my view, introducing expected shortfall or ES (defined as the expected value of all simulated losses beyond a specific percentile) to replace simple Value-at-Risk in the Basel Capital Accord is just this type of dangerous sop to overheated and ill-informed public and legislative opinion.

Similarly, pressures in financial markets can build up quietly until they reach a point where they are unsustainable. The good news is that such pressures are at least amenable to structural analysis of these

The Transparency Times | | October 2018 | Edition #30

Edition #30 | October 2018 | | The Transparency Times




by Neeta Mundra | Senior Executive | Requirement On As we mark the 10th anniversary of Lehman Brothers collapse even today. About $1.4 trillion in annual economic output will alone. Today as we stand, we all realise trust and confidence in keep the economy stable.

The lessons and effects of the 2008 crisis are all well known. The entire financial system was so loose that it could not detect the building risks leading to banks building on debt with little equity which they could not cover up during crisis thus resulting in banks being bailed out at taxpayers’ (consumers’) expenses.

by government and central banks if there were a financial crisis again. Some of the points to ponder on are: Is there a high level of confidence in financial services industry today? How often are consumers risked with lower returns on investment? How often is the blame put on economic conditions, market volatility and so on, instead of lack of duty of care? Is the global financial system as exposed and vulnerable as it was in 2007? I do agree regulators are making attempts to address these issues with new regulations to avoid the crisis, but should regulators also look at how the reg-debt is increasing in the financial services industry over the years?

Post the crisis, fast forward last 10 years, many financial institutions were either merged or nationalised, resulting in big becoming bigger. The risks are still concentrated in a handful of large institutions - market makers. The risk and challenge that looms now is that the big banks are too big to be saved

While profitability is of importance for financial institutions to survive, it is equally important to ensure better models and technologies to improve: operational costs, risk awareness, data governance, ability to compute price and returns on investment, better interaction with regulators and consumers

It is crucial to understand the financial services value chain and the role played by each link in the chain - the financial services organisations, counterparties, asset management companies, pension funds, insurance companies, regulators, etc. and the impact of their actions and decisions on the end consumer.


- thus protecting consumers’ interests. However, this not entirely happening, and hence new regulations are being imposed on financial services to ensure that public interest objectives are met and to address

the information imbalance across the value chain between providers and consumers. To meet generally strict timelines, financial organisations land up complying to regulations to just avoid penalties which at times could lead to more patchy fixes to their platforms, often as a

The Transparency Times | | October 2018 | Edition #30


e, the aftereffects of that debacle are felt l never be recovered, and that is in US n financial institutions is important to


tick-in-the-box activity to meet compliance deadlines. However, ever increasing regulations addressed badly or only partly through an ever increasing series of piecemeal solutions

without a unified model will only lead to mounting reg-debt or regtech-debt (as it is steadily building up in financial services today) resulting in inefficiencies like poor governance, inefficient policies, controls, poor data quality, lack of traceability.

There are indeed challenges in keeping up with new regulations and changes to existing regulations, but with challenge comes opportunity. This is the opportunity for financial organisations to look at how compliance can be managed more innovatively and effectively. Innovative technology based solutions should be employed to enable financial institutions to keep up with latest developments in regulations. Technology can also be applied to provide information in different forms for various management levels, financial reporting, regulatory and consumer selling purposes. Smooth and consistent information and data flow across the value chain is important for the success of any industry. Aspects of the financial services industry are difficult to understand however transparency of information is of key importance for the survival and success- in turn enabling better control and visibility on future risks.

Neeta is a senior executive with a strong entrepreneurial spirit and a commitment to driving business outcomes with over 19 years of global banking and insurance experience and a deep understanding of technology and financial services. As Chief Strategy Officer, Neeta heads the company’s growth and strategic development efforts. Prior to this, Neeta was a partner at an advisory company where she enabled banks to comply with regulations such as MiFiD2, EMIR and GDPR. Over the years, Neeta has performed various roles ranging from building products (claims management, payer-provider platforms, digital policy issuance), business consulting to client management. Her ability to bring together business, operations and technology seamlessly has enabled her to lead engagements to successful outcomes. Neeta is an advisor to fintech start-ups, on the board of Young Women’s Trust (UK), on the committee of Women in Banking and Finance and and a mentor with the Cherie Blair Foundation.

Edition #30 | October 2018 | | The Transparency Times




This month, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled in favour of Cl greater transparency in the European Union. Fifteen grand cha Commission must make public its impact assessments – a key proposing new laws – It sets an important legal precedent not also more broadly concerning the public’s right to hold policy ing. The files in question concerned two draft impact assessment reports relating to access to justice in environmental matters at member state level and a proposal for a strategic framework for inspections and surveillance in environmental matters. They also included opinions of the Impact Assessment Board, the internal body to the Commission that validates or rejects the assessments. The documents contained strategic information as they enshrine the Commission assessment of the economic, social and environmental impacts of adopting legislation on a given matter. Having access to the analysis of the Commission would have enabled us and the rest of civil society to inform public debate


about the need to adopt legally binding EU legislation guaranteeing the exercise of access to justice rights by members of the public. Access to courts being one of the, if not the best, ways to ensure better implementation and enforcement of

environmental legislation. Providing access to justice in environmental matters is an obligation that stems from the third pillar of the International

Aarhus Convention to which the EU and its member states are a party. Contrary to the Convention’s first two pillars on access to environmental information and public participation in public authority decision-making, the Convention’s access to justice provisions have still not been implemented by EU law. These provisions require parties, including the EU, to provide members of the public access to administrative or judicial proceedings to challenge acts and omissions by private persons and public authorities which contravene provisions of national law relating to the environment. The lack of implementation of these provisions results in serious discrepancies in the way access to courts is provided throughout the EU

The Transparency Times | | October 2018 | Edition #30


lientEarth in a long-running case for amber judges ruled that the European y part of the Commission’s process for t only for environmental matters but ymakers to account in their decision-mak-

Member States. In certain jurisdictions, this right is simply not provided. The Commission refused to disclose the requested documents and relied on their internal policy to disclose the impact assessments only after its decision was made, to either adopt a directive proposal or a guidance. The Commission remained inactive for more than three years once the assessments were finalised, keeping citizens in the dark as to what options were envisaged and recommended. The Commission finished by adopting a mere guidance - not following its own impact assessment report, which favoured

the adoption of a legally binding directive. This questions the value of the exercise. It disclosed the assessments once the guidance was adopted and claimed before the Court that there was no need to adjudicate anymore. This ruling is important for the following reasons: The Court found there was still a need to adjudicate, despite the fact that we had had access to the documents. The ruling includes some helpful considerations for future actions as it relies on ClientEarth’s role in promoting transparency and lawfulness in relation to the EU

Anaïs Berthier is a Senior Lawyer in our Brussels office and leads the Environmental Democracy programme. She is specialised in European environmental law. Her work focuses on ensuring the implementation and enforcement of the procedural rights provided by the Aarhus Convention: access to information, public participation in decision-making process and access to justice in environmental matters. Anaïs has worked for law firms in France and in Belgium, including Huglo-Lepage & Associés, handling issues on a wide range of European law matters including waste, chemicals (including on the REACH Regulation), facilities’ permits, environmental liability and climate change. Before moving to Brussels, she worked as a lawyer for the French Ministry of the Environment, where she focused on Kyoto Protocol and World Trade Organisation (WTO) issues. She holds degrees in International and European law from French and British universities. She was admitted at the French bar in 2005.

Edition #30 | October 2018 | | The Transparency Times


legislative process. It found that it was likely that ClientEarth would again request access to documents similar to the those at issue in future, and that the Commission would once more refuse to grant access – which would lead us to bring another action. The question of the lawfulness of the confidentiality presumption at issue, was therefore relevant in view of future requests for access to such documents. On substance, the CJEU ruled that the Commission had to stop keeping its impact assessments confidential, whilst deliberating on whether to legislate or not. The Court rejected the setting up of a new presumption of confidentiality covering the reports. It rejected the argument of the Commission that it need not carry out an individual examination of the documents in question and demonstrate how these were covered by an exception allowed under Regulation 1049/2001 governing access to documents held by EU institutions. This was welcomed as it has become a trend of the Commission and EU Courts to create these presumptions, which are problematic because they reverse the burden of the proof on the applicant, the applicant then has to demonstrate that no exceptions to the right of access apply and that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. They are at odds with the founding principle enshrined in the access to documents Regulation (1049/2001) and the Aarhus Regulation (1367/2006) implementing the provisions of the Aarhus Convention at EU level, according


to which access to information is the rule and confidentiality the exception. They seem to be irrefutable, which is not legally allowed, as up until now the court has never considered that they could be reversed even when the applicant argues that there is a highest interest in disclosure. In response to the Commission, the Court identified only five limited categories of documents in respect to which there was a “general presumption of confidentiality”. These all concerned procedures that might result in sanctions, concerning state aid, infringement, mergers, or EU court proceedings and related administrative or judicial proceedings. The attempt on the part of the Commission to establish a new presumption was brought to a close. Furthermore, the Court stressed that, contrary to what the Commission argued, the potential exercise of pressure and undue influence from third parties on the Commission’s policy choices following disclosure did not permit the Commission to act confidentially. It is up to the Commission to deal with that pressure, as there is no obligation to respond on the merits, and in each individual case, to the remarks it may have received following disclosure of the relevant documents. The court found that on the contrary, it is transparency and openness that ensures that EU institutions are legitimate, credible and accountable. It is also transparency that enables the Commission to act independently and exclusively in the general public interest when exercising its initiative

power within legislative matters in accordance with Article 17 TEU. The Court recalled that Recital 6 of Regulation 1049/2001 indicates that wider access should be granted to documents in cases where EU institutions are acting in their legislative capacity. Consequently, « the possibility for citizens to scrutinise and be made aware of all the information forming the basis for EU legislative action is a precondition for the effective exercise of their democratic rights as recognised, in particular, in Article 10(3) TEU … the exercise of those rights presupposes not only that those citizens have access to the information at issue so that they may understand the choices made by the EU institutions within the framework of the legislative process, but also that they may have access to that information in good time, at a point that enables them effectively to make their views known regarding those choices.» Further, it stressed that the expression by the public of their views on the choices made and the policy options envisaged by the Commission in the context of its initiatives, “in particular its legislative initiatives in respect of environmental matters, before that institution has made a decision regarding the planned initiative, is an integral part of the exercise by EU citizens of their democratic rights.” Having set out the principle, the Court clarified whether the impact assessments are legislative documents, including the implication about the level of transparency attached to these documents, and the obligation

The Transparency Times | | October 2018 | Edition #30

to publish them. According to Article 12 (2) of Regulation 1049/2001, not only acts adopted by the EU legislature, but also, more generally, documents drawn up or received in the course of procedures for the adoption of acts which are legally binding in or for the Member States, fall to be described as ‘legislative documents’ and, consequently, subject to Articles 4 and 9 of that regulation, must be made directly accessible. The Court concluded that it followed that “impact assessment reports, and the accompanying opinions of the Impact Assessment Board, contain information constituting important elements of the EU legislative process, forming part of the

basis for the legislative action of the European Union”. The Court concluded that the documents at stake were among those covered by Article 12(2) of the regulation and needed to be actively disseminated and not only available on request.

decision-making process. This ruling from the Grand Chamber is a clear disavowal of the opaque practices of the Commission. It will help show where clear evidence contradicts poor decisions.

As to the possibility to rely on the exception under Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, protecting the internal decision-making process of the institutions, the Court confirmed Saint-Gobain according to which that exception needs to be interpreted more restrictively in environmental matters, and found that the Commission had not shown how disclosure would seriously undermine its

Edition #30 | October 2018 | | The Transparency Times


The Transparency Task

While we value every member of our campaign They are particularly aligned to our cause and, positive change.

They are our Transparency Task Force Ambassa Name




Larry Bates


The Wealth Game

Jackie Beard

Director of Manager Research Services EMEA

Morningstar Europe Ltd


JB Beckett

Consulting Chief Investment Officer/UK Lead

New Fund Order Consulting/ Association of Professional Fund Investors


Steve Conley

Chief Executive

Values Based Adviser


Stephen Davis

Associate Director and Senior Fellow

Harvard Law School Programs on Corporate Governance and Institutional Investors

Larry Elford


Investor Advocates

Richard Field


Institute for Financial Transparency

Ralph Frank

Co-Head DC


Dr. Nicholas Morris

Adjunct Professor

University of New South Wales


Ian Fryer

Head of Research

Chant West


Daniel Godfrey

Non-Executive Director

Big Issue Fund Management


Darby Hobbs

Co-Founder and Chairperson

Conscious Capitalism Boston Chapter


Catherine Howarth

Chief Executive



Con Keating

Head of Research

BrightonRock Group


George Kinder


Kinder Institute of Life Planning

David Knox

Senior Partner


Peter Kolthof

Partner and Head of the Netherlands

Avida International

Markus Krebsz

Interim Chief Risk Officer



Jon Lukomnik

Executive Director

IRCC Institute

USA – New York

Rory Maguire




USA – Boston Canada USA – Boston UK

USA – Boston Australia Netherlands


Philip Meadowcroft Independent Shareholder Activist NA


Matthew Murray


Centre for Business Ethics and Corporate Governance

Bernie Nelson

President – North America

Style Research

David Pitt-Watson


London Business School


Robin Powell


Ember Regis Group


Paul Secunda

Professor of Law and Director, Labor and Employment Law Program

Marquette University Law School


Kara Tan Bhala

President and Founder

Seven Pillars Institute for Global Finance and Ethics

USA – Kansas

Henry Tapper


Pension PlayPen


Anna Tilba

Lecturer in Startegy and Corporate Governance

Newcastle University Business School


Chris Tobe


Stable Value Consultants


Eric Veldpaus

Founder and Managing Director Institutional Benchmarking Institute


USA – Washington USA – Boston


The Transparency Times | | October 2018 | Edition #30

k Force Ambassadors

ning community, some go over and above. , as such, are profoundly impactful for

adors. Name




Ian Peacock

Chief Client Officer

IG Group


Mark Polson

Founder and Principal

The Lang Cat


Lorelei Graye


Leodoran Financial


Adam Choppin

Investment Officer

FIS Group


Mike Barrett

Consulting Director

The Lang Cat


Julia Dreblow


SRI Services & Fund Eco Market


Helen Scott

Chief Executive Officer

Eris FX


Greg Rogers




Charlie Atkins




Thomas Wifffels

Senior Policy Advisor

The Federation of Dutch Pensions


Andrew Parry

Head of Sustainable Investing

Hermes Investment Management


James Daley

Managing Director

Fairer Finance


William Price

Global Pensions Consultant

The World Bank


David Stripp

Proposition Manager

David Stripp Limited


Jon Spain


Law for Life


David Rowe


David M. Rowe Risk Advisory


Francesco Briganti

Secretary General

Cross Border Benefits Alliance Europe


Helen Spoto


Sentry Financial Planning


John Spoto


Sentry Financial Planning


Edition #30 | October 2018 | | The Transparency Times


The Transparency Task Force Teams The TTF Teams are our collective response to the extensive need for reform of the financial services sector, right around the world. We believe that those who areaware of issues should collaborate with others to put things right it’s in everyone’s interest to do so. Our Teams are all about understanding the potential power of working together to drive much needed change by harnessing the transformational power of transparency. Each of of our teams have a meeting/conference call quarterly. For further information please get in touch through:




Improving transparency and professionalism.

Foreign Exchange

Challenging the extensive opacity in the FX market.

Market Integrity

Championing ethical practices.

Costs and Charges

Helping investors access better value for money.


Focusing on issues jeopardising the success of auto enrolment.

Scams and Scandals

Raising awareness to help shut them down.

Global Transparency Index

Mutual learning to inform the Global Transparency Index.


Purpose, Impact Investing, Sustainability, CSR, ESG and SRI.


Progressive asset managers working together.

Financial Stability

Working to mitigate the risk of another Global Financial Crisis.


Promoting transparency in the Asia Pacific area.


Promoting transparency in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Team Americas

Promoting transparency in North and South America.


The Transparency Times | | October 2018 | Edition #30

The Transparency Task Force Advisory Board The Transparency Task Force has now grown to the point that an Advisory Board is now needed to formally shape our purpose and strategy moving forward.





John Howard Founding Chair of Director the Adviory Board

Consumer Insights


Lord Jamie Lindsay


UK Accreditation Servie


JB Beckett

Consulting Chief Investment Officer/UK Lead

New Fund Order Consulting Association of Professional Fund Investors


David Weeks




John Rosling




Margaret Snowdon

Non-Executive Director

The Pensions Regulator and Phoenix Group


Steve Kenzie

Ececutive Director

UN Global Impact UK


Baroness Ros Altmann Pensions Expert

House of Lords


Matthew Simms


River and Mercantile Solutions


David Pitt-Watson

Visiting Fellow

Cambridge Judge Business School


Gavin Starks


D Gen


Susan Flood


ARK Campaign Group


Heather Buchanan

Policy Director

APPG on Fairer Business Banking


Julia Dreblow


SRI Services & Fund EcoMarket


Sue Lewis


Alistair Kellie

Managing Partner

Newgate Communications


Henry Tapper


Pension PlayPen


David Masters




Edition #30 | October 2018 | | The Transparency Times


The Directo r y of Prcot-oTrryan f o s parency e r i D The O ragraennicsyation p s n a r T s Pro s n o i t a s i n a g r O

A business shouldn’t stand out because it’s ‘pro-transparency’, it should be the norm. If you lead a pro-transparency organisation, join those already advertising in our directory. The more firms are seen here, the more weight gathers behind our argument that transparency is a commercial virtue and not a threat. We’re happy to consider classifications beyond those shown here. Please contact for more information.


The Transparency Times | | October 2018 | Edition #30

ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS Prof. Dr. Heinz-Dietrich Steinmeyer University of Muenster, Germany School of Law, Universitätsstrasse 14-16D-48143 e: Muenster phone: 49-251-8329744 m: 49-171-8384816 I am a professor for Social Security Law, Labour Law and Civil Law at the University of Muenster Law School. My special field is pensions – occupational/ supplementary pensions as well as public pensions. I am doing consulting work nationally and internationally including international organizations (EU etc.). I am the Chairman of the European Network for Research on Supplementary Pensions.

AUTO ENROLMENT Steve Conley, Managing Director, Workplace Pensions Direct e: w: t: 0113 457 4563 m: 07850 102070 Since 2015, Workplace Pensions Direct has made auto-enrolment simpler for small businesses, enabling employers to focus on running their companies without having to worry about pension law, and the cost of poor pension decisions. Workplace Pensions Direct offers an affordable, end-to-end, auto-enrolment solution that guarantees compliance with the law. With professional expertise, a century of payroll and pensions experience, and professional indemnity insurance – Workplace Pensions Direct has removed the worry and risk of autoenrolment for thousands of small businesses and their advisers.

Gavin Perera-Betts, Chief customer officer, NEST e: w: t: 020 3056 3719 NEST has been set up by the government especially for auto enrolment. We’re here to make sure that every employer has access to a workplace pension scheme that meets the requirements of the new pension rules. But we do more than just meet the regulatory minimum. NEST comes packed with the sort of high-quality features you need, whether you’re saving with us, using us for your workers or helping your employer clients.

COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Lesley Alexander, Managing Director, Ferrier Pearce e: w: t: 020 3772 5360 Transparency – clarity, straightforwardness, honesty. As communications consultants, we support transparency in financial products, especially long-term savings. This applies not just to charges, but to the way we describe the products and their benefits to consumers. We believe the language we use should be clear, unambiguous and direct, helping people to make the most out of their money.

DATA SERVICES Larry McLaughlin, CEO | GSAV Ltd e: w: t: +44 203 655 2182 m: +44 7771 978 118 US m: x+1 646 946 5272 GSAV Ltd is Reg Tech/Fin Tech company exclusively serving the Buy-Side and delivering pricing solutions in the Collateral Lending Market to benefit Beneficial Owners and enable Managers to meet their Fiduciary and Regulatory obligations. GSAVr is a specialist pricing, tracking and regulatory tool and provides an independent price for collateral lending transactions that defines rate and use in a manner that the Regulators feels meets the test of both price and use. GSAVr is the only solution available today that addresses the current challenges of any form of collateralized lending, full price discovery and full price transparency.

Edition #30 | October 2018 | | The Transparency Times


David Rich MIod, CEO | Accurate Data Services e: w: t: 01603 813366 m: 07919918623 David is Chief Executive of Accurate Data Services, a specialistdata quality and positive people tracing business that is focused on unclaimed assets in the financial service sectors. ADS traces lost members, clients and policy holders for a variety of organisations including Life and Pensions funds, Banks and Asset Managers. The goal is to help businesses reunite their customers / members with their assets and deliver positive consumer outcomes. David is an active campaigner for transparency and action around the large unclaimed assets issues present in the UK.

FIDUCIARY MANAGERS Ralph Frank, CEO DC (UK), Cardano e: w: t: +44 (0)20 3170 5910 Cardano was founded in 2000 and now has over 150 staff with backgrounds in the areas of risk management, investment management, research, actuarial and investment advisory. Cardano studies the causes and impact of risk and costs in order to significantly improve financial performance and resilience. We currently provide Investment Advisory or Fiduciary Management services to over 1.3m pension fund beneficiaries with assets totalling over £120bn.

FINANCIAL PLANNING Mike Stafford CFP, Director, Stafford Wealth Management e: w: t: 01992 501601 Stafford Wealth Management was formed in 1986 to provide bespoke lifestyle financial planning and investment services to private clients. It is one of a small number of elite firms in the UK that is accredited by the Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment. Stafford Wealth Management is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for investment business.

INVESTMENT CONSULTANTS Marcus Whitehead, Head of Investment Consulting, Partner, Barnett Waddingham e: w: t: 0333 11 11 222 Barnett Waddingham has grown to become the UK’s largest independent provider of actuarial, administration and consultancy services. Our total headcount is now over 850 – with offices in seven locations around the UK. The investment consulting practice provides bespoke, independent investment advice to over 360 pension schemes with assets from the millions to billions. We continue to provide the personal, quality, tailored approach that has made us successful and has led to high levels of client retention.

INVESTMENT GOVERNANCE CONSULTANTS James N Meenan, Principal | JNM Investment Governance e: w: t: +353 (0)1 687 1027 m: +353 (0)86 257 2646 JNM Investment Governance gives trustees independent coaching and support to develop strategies and techniques to stem the overwhelming resource handicap they face in discussions with investment professionals. JNM’s objective is to facilitate a constructive two way dialogue with attendant benefits for all parties.

Henrik Pedersen, Managing Partner & Co-Founder, Clerus LLP e: w: t: +44 20 3356 2845 m: +44 7767 656234 We partner with pension schemes and other asset owners to review and improve investment decisions, governance and value-for-money, through independent and informed investment analysis. As a result, investment outcomes can be improved without the need to change service providers or taking on more investment risk. We offer a free initial assessment, so why not try us out?


The Transparency Times | | October 2018 | Edition #30

INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT Robin O’Grady, Head of Business Development, Hawksmoor Investment Management e: w: t: 01392 410180 m: 07468 697900 Hawksmoor specialises in providing high quality discretionary investment management services for private clients including trusts, pension schemes and charities. We are a privately owned business with no ties to a bank or any other financial institution. Our experienced and well qualified team of investment professionals is focused solely on providing clients with the best service and consistently good performance.

NOT FOR PROFIT Dr. Kara Tan Bhala, President & founder, Seven Pillars Institute for Global Finance and Ethics e: w: t: +1(785)865-8824 (mobile) Seven Pillars Institute (SPI) for Global Finance and Ethics is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan, organization whose mission is to highlight and analyze issues of moral philosophy in global financial markets with a view to enhancing ethical practice and policy.

PENSION ADMINISTRATION Margaret Snowdon OBE, Chairman, Pensions Administration Standards Association e: w: m: 07983 565955 The Pensions Administration Standards Association (PASA) is a not-for-profit organisation which acts as a focal point to engage with industry and government on pensions administration matters. It was created to provide an independent infrastructure to set, develop, and provide guidance on pensions administration standards. It is an independent accreditation body, assessing the achievement of good pension administration standards by schemes and providers.

RESEARCH Jackie Beard, Director of Manager Research Services EMEA e: w: Morningstar is a leading provider of independent investment research in North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia. The company offers an extensive line of products and services for individual investors, financial advisors, asset managers, and retirement plan providers and sponsors. Morningstar provides data and research insights on a wide range of investment offerings including managed investment products, publicly listed companies, private capital markets, and real-time global market data. Morningstar also offers investment management services through its investment advisory subsidiaries, with more than USD $200 billion in assets under advisement and management as of 31 December 2016. The company has operations in 27 countries.


COLOURS CMYK C100 M88 Y0 K0 C0 M0 Y0 K0



Arno Kitts, Founder & Chief Investment Officer, Perspective Investments C0 M0 Y0 K0

e: w: t: +44 20 3290 6486 Perspective Investments is a multi-asset multi-strategy investment COLOURS CMYK C100 M88 Y0 K0 manager. We invest on behalf of our clients, including our founder C0 M0 Y0 K0 family. Our commitment to our clients is to help them achieve their financial objectives. We do this by aiming to deliver higher returns with lower volatility and better capital CMYK preservation than conventional equity portfolios. Of course, COLOURS while our investment performance track record C100 M96 Y8 K5 is consistent with this aim, past investment performance is not necessarily predictive of future results. C0 M0 Y0 K0

Edition #30 | October 2018 | | The Transparency Times COLOURS CMYK



an article to the next Transparency Times. Articles of 250-1,000 words are welcomed along with a 100-word biography, print quality head shot and logo and your Twitter handle.

ADVERTISE ......... in our Pro-Transparency Organisations Directory. ATTEND ................ our symposia to hear thought leaders and share ideas. JOIN......................... a Task Force Team: AE, Americas, APAC, Banking, Cost & Charges, EMEA, Financial Stability, Foreign Exchange, Global Transparency Index, Market Integrity, PAM, PISCES and Scams & Scandals.

SPEAK OUT ........ and share your Transparency Statement. Just complete the sentence ‘I believe there ought to be higher levels of transparency in financial services because…’

SHARE .................... books and research (whether you read it or wrote it) in Recommended Reading.

The Transparency Times is brought to you free by the Transparency Task Force. To submit an article, request an advertising rate card, provide feedback or for any enquiries please contact or +44 (0) 7501 460308

Transparency Task Force Ltd, Registered in England 09698368.


The Transparency Times | | October 2018 | Edition #30