A most important discussion on Wednesday 4th Feb – a day before a relevant parliamentary debate.
The positive impact of the deal done by the DB Stagecoach Pension Trustees and Aberdeen is rippling outwards as the legals are completed and the impact recognised. This is one event that should not be missed, the participants are well worth your time for what they have to say
I’m told the panel will explore the story behind the transaction, why it was pursued, how it was structured, and what it took to move from ambition to execution at pace from end to end.
The discussion will also unpack the decision-making journey from the trustee and provider viewpoints, including how the parties assessed the full range of options, undertook an accelerated due diligence process and became comfortable with the range of outcomes. We will reflect on what gave stakeholders the conviction to innovate as part of this detailed assessment under accelerated timescales.
The transaction has been widely welcomed by the market as a ‘win-win-win’ for the members, sponsor and provider. We will also touch on how regulators were consulted in advance and why the approach landed positively as an exciting example of responsible innovation.
Nan Paramanathan, PwC Life Insurance Market Leader, will be chairing an exciting panel featuring:
· Nick Chadha, Professional Trustee and Chief Operating Officer at PAN Trustees
· Rob Andrew, Head of Pension Strategy & Solutions at Aberdeen Group plc
· Iain Pearce, PwC Head of Alternative Endgames
4 by 4!
You can sign up here, for the gig next Wednesday (4th Feb) at 4pm
“How the parties assessed the full range of options”
Coincidental to but not accidental, has been work by a group of lawyers, actuaries , accountants and weirdly me, to get all parties assessing the full range of options. This is by using the actuarial standard TAS300 which tells the story of the endgame in numbers.
The numbers are different for each option on the table and I’d love to see the TAS 300 the trustees and employers looked at in the Stagecoach Pension/Aberdeen deal.
How this has been picked up in parliament?
I’d like to think you’ve elevated things when the Upper House of Parliament (the Lords) chooses to debate TAS 300 because of your deal, but that’s how John Hamilton , the panellists above and the wider group who’ve been assembled by William McGrath of C-Suite should feel today.
William wrote to the Lords earlier this month
To follow up on our previous email we have taken soundings from colleagues and produced a revised version.
The proposed amendments to The Pension Schemes Bill provide a mechanism to introduce coordination between the proposed statue and existing regulations on DB pensions. The greater cohesion can improve member outcomes and increase long term investment in productive assets.
Actuarial work has long been known to be subject to minimal scrutiny. Three major Government reports reached the same conclusion. The current reason is Financial Reporting Council has no statutory back up and does not have sufficient resources to enforce its regulations. That results in its admirable Technical Actuarial Standards – at least until FRC becomes the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority under delayed legislation – being largely ignored.
The last and the current Government saw that Defined Benefit pension schemes should consider run-on options ahead of transfers to annuity providers. A letter from then Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Mel Stride to the CEO’s of PRA and TPR in December 2023 provides an excellent summary of what is needed:
“Encouraging alternatives to DB de-risking and buyout, where schemes are well-funded with strong employer covenant – making their assets work harder and enabling continued investment in a broad range of assets, through clearer funding standards in Regulations, a Code of practice and guidance, and making it easier to share investment returns between sponsors and scheme members.”
Torsten Bell as Pensions Minister has picked up the themes well. In May 2025, in response to the Consultation on Options for Defined Benefit Schemes, Government stated:
“7. The changes to surplus sharing will give trustees of DB pension schemes access to their surplus to benefit both employers and members. Employers could use this funding to invest in their business, increase productivity, boost wages or utilise it for enhanced contributions in their Defined Contribution (DC) schemes. Schemes could also use funding to unlock increased benefits for scheme members, including through providing discretionary benefit increases. The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has acknowledged in its most recent funding statement that schemes are facing increased calls for such increases.”
The aim was to have more money available for investment and for value to be available to share between stakeholders. Technical Actuarial Standard 300 V2.1, first introduced in April 2024, provided a mechanism. A background note is attached. It has been glossed over by actuaries. The opportunity to produce incisive policy which links regulatory initiatives is there to be taken.
What the proposed amendments can ensure is that these good intentions are provided with back up to be effective in practice. Government is shown as being agile in its approach – looking to coordinate departments and their regulatory bodies. In particular, cross-reference to FRC regulations will raise their status and makes all stakeholders more aware of FRC’s role. TPR is very interested in risk adjusted member outcomes which TAS300V2.1 exercises can provide. Indeed, such exercises should be part of DWP / TPR “Funding and Investment Strategy” exercises.
Once actuaries focus on the mathematics and the governance consequences and put analyses to sponsors and trustees, there will be material changes in approach by DB schemes. It will impact how surpluses are used.
And last night he and those who believe in the power of TAS 300 got this reply from a Baroness
Thank you for all you have been doing to suggest ways of improving the Pension Schemes Bill and your guidance on the TAS300 issue. I am reaching out to you ahead of the final day of Committee next Thursday.
I have another amendment down for debate in the Committee next Thursday (5th February), which is not specifically about LGPS, but I would welcome some thoughts from you on whether or how to include this if appropriate.
The amendment I have put down for Thursday is:
After Clause 119, insert the following new Clause—
“Alignment of regulations with Technical Actuarial Standards
The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that regulations under this Act align with Technical Actuarial Standards issued by Financial Reporting Council,
requiring trustees to compare bulk annuity, superfunds and run-on strategies for defined benefit pension schemes before making irreversible decisions about scheme assets.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure a joint approach between Government departments and their related regulators including the PRA, FCA and TPR, to help align their respective responsibilities for solvency, consumer interest, member protection and promoting growth
The Baroness’ note concludes with a question..
Do you think I should try to get the TAS300 issue included at Report Stage – which is when matters are put to a vote?
Do you think it would make a meaningful improvement to the Bill in terms of improving pension scheme outcomes and governance and enable more schemes to run on?
One of the Amendments that I put down at Committee Stage was as follows, but you probably have better wording after listening to the debates?
33: Clause 10, page 11, line 22, at end insert—
“(ca) requiring the relevant actuary to confirm that work to comply with Technical Actuarial Standards issued by Financial Reporting Council on risk transfer processes has been completed,
Member’s explanatory statement: This amendment will ensure that prior to a surplus payment being made the trustees and sponsor have considered the impact on bulk transfer and run-on strategies currently required under TAS300V2.1 P5 other financial considerations for the scheme and the sponsor.
Making a difference with a discussion
The debate being had with PWC/Stagecoach trustees and Aberdeen is on the 4th, the debate on this very subject on the 5th in parliament- the following day but the same debate.
I am no actuary , Ian, Rob and Nick are. I would like the debate to be conveyed to the relevant members of the Lords who will debate this matter. I hope the opportunity won’t pass us by.
