In our response to the DWP consultation ‘Strengthening The Pensions Regulator’s Powers: Contribution Notice and Information Gathering Powers Regulations 2021’, we are again concerned that there is too much uncertainty in how the regulations will be applied giving rise to Read More ...more »»
In our response to the DWP consultation ‘Strengthening The Pensions Regulator’s Powers: Contribution Notice and Information Gathering Powers Regulations 2021’, we are again concerned that there is too much uncertainty in how the regulations will be applied giving rise to Read More …
In our response to the TPR’s consultation on the investigation and prosecution of the new criminal offences guidance, we accept the high-level policy intent to protect pension schemes, but more clarity is needed in TPR’s policy to limit the risk Read More ...more »»
In our response to the TPR’s consultation on the investigation and prosecution of the new criminal offences guidance, we accept the high-level policy intent to protect pension schemes, but more clarity is needed in TPR’s policy to limit the risk Read More …
In our response to the DWP consultation “Incorporating performance fees within the charge cap”, we welcome greater clarity on performance fee calculations and “look through” mechanisms for fee disclosures, but highlights the devil in the detail. We also set out Read More ...more »»
In our response to the DWP consultation “Incorporating performance fees within the charge cap”, we welcome greater clarity on performance fee calculations and “look through” mechanisms for fee disclosures, but highlights the devil in the detail. We also set out Read More …
In our response to the Office of Tax Simplification’s call for evidence on its third-party data reporting review, we have expressed support for any ‘sensible’ initiatives to simplify the processes of the pensions tax system and make it easier for Read More ...more »»
In our response to the Office of Tax Simplification’s call for evidence on its third-party data reporting review, we have expressed support for any ‘sensible’ initiatives to simplify the processes of the pensions tax system and make it easier for Read More …
We are looking for essays of no more than 1,500 words on exploring innovative ideas to improve the provision, public understanding and take-up of longer-term and shorter-term pension and savings and/or overall savings adequacy at all levels of UK society. This must be presented in writing although entrants can support their essay with a video if they so wish.
The winner of the Essay Prize will receive an award of £3,000 and the two runners-up will receive awards of £1,500 each. The Winners will have the opportunity to present their entries at the ACA Bloomfield Lecture being held on 3 November 2026 at a central London venue.
The winning essay submission also will be published in TheActuary journal, alongside articles from leading writers working in the insurance, savings and pension industries from across the world.
Format
Your essay must be:
Your individual work.
Papers written for courses are eligible, but all papers must be the original, unpublished work of the individual student.
Submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF in English and can be supported by visual elements which will not go towards the word count.
Any visual material in your essay (e.g. photographs, PowerPoint or Excel charts) must be fully embedded within your Word or PDF document; do not include embedded objects that rely on external source files.
Text-based hyperlinks are permitted.
Entries must be submitted online through the essay competition email, which will be open from 30 March 12:00 am to 30 June 11:59 pm. Late submissions will not be accepted.
Submitted with an application form.
Submitted without your name on the essay document.
All pages must be typed and include the title of the essay and page numbers.
Double line spacing.
Submissions will be judged anonymously so please do not include any personally identifying information (name, university) in the essay document.
A maximum of 1,500 words.
The prize winners may be requested to grant permission for the ACA to have the right to publish or reproduce at any time all or part of the award-winning entries.
Your word count:
Must be included at the foot of the essay.
Includes the main body of the essay and annexes.
Excludes the title and footnotes (for example citations and brief references to other research).
Footnotes to be no more than 25 words each.
Use of generative AI tools: your essay must be your sole creation and original work. AI may be used for research, proofreading and checking spelling and grammar. If an entrant chooses to use generative AI, the entrant is responsible for checking the accuracy of the output. Entrants are not permitted to use any AI programme to write all or part of an essay to enter this competition. Any essay which has been written, in part or in whole, by ChatGPT or similar programmes will be excluded from the marking and judging process and ineligible. The view of the judges will be final.
References should be inserted using the Harvard style referencing system.
Reworked coursework, journals or articles: each essay must be an original piece of work written by the entrant for the competition without peer review or editing by anyone else. All essays must be the individual unpublished work of the entrant.
Eligibility criteria
When the essay is submitted and at the date of the close of the competition, you must satisfy the following criteria:
The competition is open to all undergraduate and graduate students who, at the time of entry, are enrolled full- or part-time at an UK accredited, degree-granting institution of higher education seeking an undergraduate (two-, three- or four-year) or graduate degree.
Students may be enrolled in any discipline. Students enrolled in life science, physical science, social science, health, actuarial or mathematics courses are especially encouraged to participate.
Students may be enrolled in any UK accredited college or university.
We will only transfer the prize money to you if you are successful once confirmation of your eligibility to enter the competition has been received from one of the UK academic institutions (see 1 above).
The administration team and the judges have the final decision as to whether an essay is eligible. No correspondence will be entered into.
Judging
Essays will be evaluated for:
Clarity
Analysis and reasoning
Originality and creativity
Compliance with competition requirements
Judges for the competition will be drawn from senior professionals, academics and commentators working in the pensions and savings world.
Plagiarism policy
The essay must be the sole creation and original work of the entrant. Entrants are expected already to be aware of and to follow any plagiarism guidance and policies of the academic and professional training institutions to which they currently belong or have belonged. The ACA guidance reproduces and adapts information from other such policies for the purposes of its Essay Competition. The ACA is grateful to both institutions for permission to do so.
Plagiarism occurs where an entrant copies from any other source (published or unpublished) in an unauthorised manner and attempts to present that work as if it were the entrant’s own in order to obtain an unfair advantage.
Examples of plagiarism include:
Submitting someone else’s work as your own.
Copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit.
Failing to put a quotation in quotation marks.
Giving misleading information about the source of a quotation.
Changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit.
Copying so many words from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not.
Quotations from recognised sources are usually acceptable but must be clearly acknowledged and a reference given for the source (i.e. sources must be cited). The following situations almost always require citation:
Whenever you use quotes.
Whenever you paraphrase.
Whenever you use an idea that someone else has already expressed.
Whenever you make specific reference to the work of another.
Whenever someone else’s work has been critical in developing your own ideas.
In the case of any doubt, citation is recommended.
The ACA may proactively seek out instances of plagiarism, for example by the use of an electronic plagiarism detection system or service to scan submitted essays.
Any entry which is found not to be the sole creation and original work of the entrant (“plagiarism”) will be disqualified from the 75th Anniversary ‘Future of Pensions’ Essay Competition.
Data protection notice
Our purposes for processing your data: we will process your personal data for the purposes of administering this essay competition and (in the case of successful entrants) publicising and promoting future such competitions. Our lawful basis for this processing data is ‘legitimate interests’ on the basis that individuals would have a reasonable expectation that we will process the personal data they have provided, which include the provision of initiatives to support education and training and to promote innovation in actuarial and related fields. Please go to our privacy statement for more details.
Association of Consulting Actuaries Second Floor (206) • 40 Gracechurch Street • London EC3V 0BT Tel: 020 3102 6763 • www.aca.org.uk • david.robertson@aca.org.uk
