Tapper, McGrath, Plender, Scott and Goddard,
William McGrath lead a tough debate about the standards adopted by the actuarial community. It was a debate that ended in a fairy tale from our speaker but it was a bitter tale.
There were a high proportion of actuaries in the debate, a few accountants and some interested spectators (Floyd , Plender and a few others for whom words are a profession).
Please take this link and post it to those you like, this is important and deserves attention by all with fiduciary , sponsorship , advisory and regulatory responsibilities.
It is quite clear that we are at a critical point in the future of pensions , being only a few days from the publication of the Pension Bill , the debate, the secondary legislation and ultimately changes in practice. We may look back at a debate that happened yesterday and feel amazed that we had to debate what now looks obvious but then still had to be argued for.
That large and solvent pension schemes that have the means to grow to the advantage of members, sponsors and to staff who have been so disadvantaged by not having access to a DB plan should sell themselves at a huge price to insurers seems monstrous to me and to many in the room,
It now seems that more are following. Mercer recently announced that 5 out of 6 schemes of size are not countenancing buy-out. Professional Pensions ran three headlines yesterday that told the same story
A collection of Trustees appear to have changed their outlook for their schemes
A major operator of Pension schemes find sponsors “eager” to take advantage of pension schemes they could not be rid of a few months ago
Even an insurer sees the schemes it invests money for, more valuable open than on its books as annuities. I do find an insurer who has dismissed pensions as the legacy of the past now lecturing the readership of Professional Pensions for doing just that, a little hypocritical. But for the general good, let the insurers change their overcoats.
A word on the video
The video is XXX as it speaks bluntly about the failings of the actuarial profession to adopt its own standard TAS 300 , standing by when damage is inflicted on schemes through unjustified buy-ins and the prospect of surplus’ being divided between insurers and private shareholders without any debate involving the advantage of run on.
The meeting is not for the faint hearted, it is not one you will hear in the IFoA or even the ICAEW but it is the conversation going on between our Pension Minister and the Work and Pensions Committee; a debate going on in both Houses of Parliament and one that should have retrospective implications for large bulk annuity purchases carried out at schemes such as WH Smith and most NatWest/RBS.
Can we have some certainty in pension rules long term planning needs simple stable parameters to work within.
A new book on Britain by Torsten Bell due in mid June hopefully adds clarity. https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/B0CW3Q7QKB?source_code=ASSORAP0511160006&share_location=pdp
Torsten’s paperback book was published some time ago and can be found at good book sellers such as Waterstones & Amazon. It is packed full of research on the state of the UK and well worth reading.
For too long a DB pension scheme has been seen as a liability to be removed by the M&A industry and financial markets. The penny seems to be slowly dropping that a DB pension scheme in surplus is a valuable asset to the sponsoring employer. While many companies, if they haven’t already got it, are seeking access to pension scheme surpluses without winding up the scheme: most appear to want to use the surplus productively in the business rather than receiving a single lump sum payment to be used for a dividend or share buy-back.
The most efficient way of using the surplus in the business is to re-open DB accrual in the same scheme, thereby reducing future employment costs using the investment return on both the existing scheme assets and new contributions. In the new section, the maxim that “the more you ask me to guarantee, the less I will guarantee” will apply, but the current employees will still benefit from a guaranteed inflation protected retirement income that should considerably outstrip that provided by an equivalent DC contribution.
This is all available now under current legislation and the re-opening of DB accrual doesn’t require trustee consent. In this way current and future employees benefit from the surplus and any sharing of surplus with members is not restricted to historic past service employees.
Having unfortunately been unable to attend William’s live playpen session yesterday, I have just watched the video recording. William this is a seminal session, that should be watched repeatedly by the powers that be at the Treasury, DWP, TPR, FRC & PRA.
In particular we have an opportunity with the upcoming Pensions Bill to intergrate many/all of the action points raised, into a pragmatic re-engineered occupational pensions environment to ensure “real pensions” are deliverable efficiently for current and future generations.