1. Core formula
The score is intended to be absolute and stable across runs. A scheme score changes when that scheme’s underlying data changes, for example when a new Expert Research report is generated or a new document changes the evidence base.
Score = [(40% × Funding Score × Risk Transfer Multiplier) + (40% × ER Intelligence Score) + (20% × Incumbent Score × Trustee Modifier)] × HPW Modifier
LGPS schemes and fully bought-out schemes are excluded from the private-sector propensity universe. Schemes with no ER report are still scored on the structural components and tagged as “No ER yet”. No normalisation is applied.
2. Three weighted factors
Funding level — 40%Uses technical-provisions funding to identify schemes with enough tension, end-game uncertainty or journey-plan need to justify HPW engagement.
Expert Research intelligence — 40%The most actionable factor. ER reports identify pain points, recent appointments, business issues, pension risk, cost-reduction opportunities and HPW sales hooks.
Incumbent adviser — 20%Scores the switch opportunity created by expensive, weak, consolidating or conflicted incumbent providers, then adjusts for trustee profile.
3. Funding score and risk-transfer status
| Funding level | Base score | HPW interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| < 60% | 25 | Serious distress may reflect sponsor weakness. HPW may be attractive on fees, but risks are high and PPF-style work is not the desired opportunity. |
| 60%-80% | 70 | Underfunded but viable; likely still far from buyout and may need journey-plan support. |
| 80%-100% | 75 | Material funding gap or journey-plan requirement, often creating a strong advisory angle. |
| 100%-110% | 50 | Well funded; potential run-on, surplus, end-game or governance planning questions. |
| > 110% | 25 | Lower urgency unless ER or governance signals are strong. |
4. Expert Research intelligence
| ER signal | Points | How HPW uses it |
|---|---|---|
| No ER report | Excluded from factor 2 | Scheme remains structurally scored and marked “No ER yet”. |
| Recent adviser appointment within two years | -100 | Suppresses near-term switch propensity where scheme actuary, administrator or investment consultant has just been appointed. |
| ER report exists | +20 | Base evidence uplift because a specific adviser conversation can be prepared. |
| Pain point categories identified | +20 per category, capped at +100 | Includes business issues, pension-risk issues, cost-reduction opportunities and similar ER-derived HPW hooks. |
5. Incumbent adviser and trustee modifiers
| Incumbent signal | Base score | Switching implication |
|---|---|---|
| Weak or consolidating incumbent such as Capita, EQ/Equiniti | 100 | Highest provider-change opportunity. |
| Expensive incumbent such as LCP, WTW, Mercer or Aon | 90 | Strong pricing/value challenge for smaller schemes. |
| Mid-tier incumbent | 20 | Lower structural switch pressure unless ER evidence is strong. |
| Unknown | 40 | Moderate default until better evidence is available. |
| Trustee signal | Modifier | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| No professional trustee / lay board | 1.0 | Maximum sponsor influence and high receptivity. |
| Corporate trustee, sponsor-run | 1.0 | Treated similarly to a lay board for switching influence. |
| Non-conflicted sole trustee such as BESTrustees, Capital Cranfield, LawDeb, PAN or Pi | 1.2, capped at 100 | Can amplify a credible adviser-switching case. |
| Conflicted sole trustee such as Dalriada, Vidett or IGG | 0.3 | Suppressed because these firms may self-appoint or expand services where permitted. |
6. HPW-specific modifiers
| HPW modifier | Multiplier | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Existing buy-ins exceed 40% of scheme assets | 0.3 | Scheme is far down the risk-transfer path and less likely to switch. |
| GMP reconciliation need, for example a GMP reserve remains in latest accounts | 1.3, capped at 100 | HPW expects capacity for this work in late 2026. |
| LCP, Aon, Mercer, Marsh or WTW hold all three roles: actuary, administrator and investment consultant | 1.3, capped at 100 | Creates a pricing, conflict and junior-staff-turnover challenge where HPW can credibly position experienced people at sensible prices. |
| Ombudsman complaints in the last two years | 1.2, capped at 100 | May indicate service-quality pressure and switching receptivity. |
| Outdated administration systems relative to HPW | 1.2, capped at 100 | Strengthens the HPW administration and digital-tools case. |
| Actuarial valuation due in 2027 | 1.3, capped at 100 | Plenty of time to switch before the next AVR. |
| Actuarial valuation due in 2026 | 0.3 | Probably too late to switch before pre-valuation discussions begin. |
7. Score bands used for review
HPW reviews the raw non-normalised scores in the following ranges. These bands are used for prioritisation and QA, not as a replacement for adviser judgement.
0-20Low
20-30Watch
30-40Research
40-50Possible
50-60Good
60-70Strong
70-80High
80-90Very high
90-100Exceptional
Release note: this method is HPW’s initial best-guess prioritisation framework. It should be refined during the first 2-3 weeks after release using HPW’s preferred sales judgement, client-list classification under NDA and feedback from real outreach outcomes.