{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022050716648291068, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.219178082191781, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The problematic nature of UK pension fund regulation: Performing governance at the expense of innovation

At the heart of UK pension fund regulation are quasi-compulsory codes of practices and tests of pension fund trustees’ competence. This regime of ‘soft’ regulation focuses upon the ‘performance’ of governance and is intrusive in terms of expected behaviour and board decision-making. Framed by defined benefit pension obligations in the private sector, it lacks rigorous standards of value when applied to defined contribution pensions. As such, pension ‘adequacy’ is discounted by the premium placed on performing governance in the market for financial services. The UK pension regime has hit a dead-end being neither fit-for-purpose in a world of technological disruption and financial turmoil nor capable of empowering those funds willing and able to innovate in the best interests of participants.