• Home
  • Admin/Tech
  • Benefits
  • Buzz
  • DB
  • DC
  • Diversity
  • Investment
  • Law & regulation
  • Risk reduction
  • Events
  • Whitepapers
  • Spotlights
  • Digital Edition
  • PPTV
  • Newsletters
  • Sign in
  •  
      • Newsletters
      • Account details
      • Contact support
      • Sign out
     
    •  

      You are currently accessing ProfessionalPensions via your Enterprise account.

      If you already have an account please use the link below to sign in.

      If you have any problems with your access or would like to request an individual access account please contact our customer service team.

      Phone: +44 (0) 1858 438800

      Email: [email protected]

      • Sign in
  • Follow us
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
    • Newsletters
    • YouTube
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • Events
    • Upcoming events
      event logo
      Investment Conference

      This two part Investment Conference will bring you the latest updates from economists, asset managers and pension consultants. We will be taking a look at the outlook for the 2021 economy, alternatives, cashflow strategies and global equity markets to name a few, assessing how they fared through the volatility and what we can expect for the year ahead.

      • Date: 20 Jan 2021
      • Digital Conference
      event logo
      Webinar: Using passion for ESG to unleash member engagement

      This webinar will look at how pension schemes can harness their members’ interest in ESG to engage them more broadly with their pensions. In particular, it will look at exclusive research showing how members are reacting to ESG; their propensity to act versus their actual behaviour; and the expectations they have of providers in this regard.

      • Date: 26 Jan 2021
      • Webinar
      event logo
      Webinar: What to put on your GMP Equalisation project roadmap for 2021

      This webinar will bring together views from actuaries, lawyers, administrators, trustees and data experts to look at the pragmatic, collaborative solutions that are open to schemes to solve the GMP equalisation challenges in 2021. It will assess the individual challenges schemes face with equalisations and provide some practical options that are available to resolve these issues.

      • Date: 02 Feb 2021
      • Webinar
      event logo
      Webinar: Will the world return to normal in 2021?

      In this webinar, PP editor Jonathan Stapleton will be joined by BMO’s chief economist Steven Bell and director of fiduciary management, Christy Jesudasan, alongside PTL trustee director Melanie Cusack and Isio’s head of fiduciary management oversight Paula Champion to discuss the significant impact of these themes on the pensions sector.

      • Date: 04 Feb 2021
      • Webinar
      View all events
      Follow our Professional Pension Events

      Sign up to receive email alerts about our events

      Sign up

  • Whitepapers
    • How DC schemes can gain exposure to different asset classes in a low-return environment

      So far, DC plans have largely been focused on the onset of auto-enrolment and changes to the regulatory framework - be it the ‘charge cap,' ‘pension freedoms' or consultations around ‘value for money', says Annabel Tonry, Executive Director at J.P. Morgan Asset Management (JPMAM).

      Download
      Pension freedoms three years on

      In 2015 George Osborne, then the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, decided that those age over 55 could take much more of their pension in cash. This has since opened up a range of possibilities for DC scheme members in the world of pensions.

      Download
      Find whitepapers
      Search by title or subject area
      View all whitepapers
  • Spotlights
  • Digital Edition
Professional Pensions
Professional Pensions
  • Home
  • Admin/Tech
  • Benefits
  • Buzz
  • DB
  • DC
  • Diversity
  • Investment
  • Law & regulation
  • Risk reduction
 
    • Newsletters
    • Account details
    • Contact support
    • Sign out
 
  •  

    You are currently accessing ProfessionalPensions via your Enterprise account.

    If you already have an account please use the link below to sign in.

    If you have any problems with your access or would like to request an individual access account please contact our customer service team.

    Phone: +44 (0) 1858 438800

    Email: [email protected]

    • Sign in
  • Law and Regulation

Should ministers have M&A intervention powers to protect pensions?

Acquisition
Acquisition
  • Stephanie Baxter
  • Stephanie Baxter
  • 28 November 2016
  • Tweet  
  • Facebook  
  • LinkedIn  
  • Send to  
0 Comments

At a glance

  • There are doubts about what it would add to the current regulatory regime and whether any minister would actually use it
  • If the regulator is given extra powers, surely that should be enough to protect scheme members

Amid reports ministers could be granted public interest powers to interfere in company takeovers to protect schemes, Stephanie Baxter asks if it would really help prevent another BHS.

It emerged last week that the government may be planning to introduce special powers for state intervention where a pension scheme comes under threat. The Sunday Times reported on November 20 that it would look to create a public interest test to allow ministers to intervene in takeovers to safeguard pension funds or fine employers who raid pension pots.

This potential measure, which would follow the British Home Stores (BHS) fiasco, could be introduced in the government's forthcoming green paper on wider corporate governance reforms. It would be separate to the Department for Work and Pensions' (DWP) future green paper on defined benefit (DB) schemes which will explore a range of options including whether to give more powers to The Pensions Regulator (TPR).

Related articles

  • Is mediation set to become the new normal for pension disputes?
  • Navigating covenant and ESG in 2021 - what does the environment look like?
  • Pension scheme cyber risk - the key challenges and who is responsible
  • Managing operational and costs considerations is key to overall success

During her October party conference speech in Birmingham, Prime Minister Theresa May clearly set out her ambition to crack down on pension scandals following BHS, issuing a stark warning to "a director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust".

Under the Enterprise Act 2002, the government can intervene if a merger or acquisition raises public interest concerns over defence for example. But should ministers be given powers where concerns arise around pensions? Would it make any difference in practice or would it just be a case of government wanting to be seen to be doing something to prevent another BHS?

State intervention?

If it does come into force, Sackers partner Faith Dickson is doubtful the power would ever actually be called upon: "I feel it's a grand gesture that won't result in much happening in practice. Ministers will be extremely reluctant to exercise powers to stop takeovers going ahead where there's a risk to the pension scheme, because they'll be cautious about freezing up UK transactions and interest in companies from abroad. They'll want to be very careful about the UK being seen as a good place to do business, which in reality will colour their views."

There is scepticism about what it would actually add to the regulatory regime currently in place to protect pension schemes.

Penfida founding partner Paul Jameson says: "We already have TPR which is well-positioned to judge whether or not a corporate transaction would be materially adverse for a pension scheme. I'd expect the ministers would probably have to pick up the phone to speak to the regulator anyway, and therefore it would be more effective if the regulator was involved because they are the experts."

He also believes it should be more of an "objective regulatory test" rather than a political test.

While it may be such a public interest power would only be used as a last resort, it potentially risks undermining TPR by introducing such a measure in the first place.

Also, if the regulator is given extra powers as a result of the DWP's green paper on DB provision, surely that should be enough to protect members without the involvement of the government? The regulator has been very specific about the powers it would like from learnings over BHS. It wants to require people to come to TPR in certain limited circumstances before they do corporate transactions, and to have more information gathering powers.

TPR's role

Dickson believes if the regulator had more advance warnings, it should be able to deal with these situations better.

"We keep missing the point that the regulator has pretty significant powers to impose obligations on companies to contribute to schemes. I can see TPR may benefit from greater requirements in legislation for it to be notified on certain things."

She suggests a requirement to notify the watchdog about a particular corporate activity such as where there is big hole in the pension scheme, and more upfront warning where dividend payments are going to be particularly high compared to scheme funding and deficit contributions.

She added: "I can see sense in giving TPR more notice to do something, but once it knows what's going on, it already has the powers it needs to require companies looking to buy other companies to face up to their responsibilities."

Some believe the Takeover Code should be amended to include a provision that had been considered in 2012 following the Craft takeover of Cadbury's.

Jameson says: "When the Takeover Code was modified in 2013, we asked for TPR to be given powers to review certain transactions and be able to block them, but that was ruled out as was thought to be detrimental to corporate transactions. The Code should include a provision that where there's a materially adverse effect on a pension scheme due to a corporate transaction, the regulator is given a power to pre-clear the transaction.

"The clearance regime isn't imposing the kind of disciplines on the corporate transaction market that it was intended to, so that's why there's a real case to consider a similar approach to the way we protect consumers with the competition regulation."

Any plans to grant ministers powers must be considered very carefully in the wider context of the current regime, and not just be a big political gesture. If TPR is given the extra powers it says would help do its job more effectively, surely that should be enough without having to involve politicians.

  • Tweet  
  • Facebook  
  • LinkedIn  
  • Send to  
  • Topics
  • Law and Regulation
  • TPR
  • DWP
  • BHS
  • Sackers
  • Penfida
  • Government

More on Law and Regulation

Blyth: Anticipating a call for ways to draw a line under disputes
Is mediation set to become the new normal for pension disputes?

Mediation has been under-utilised historically as a means of dispute resolution in this area. Mark Blyth and Geoff Egerton think this is going to change.

  • Law and Regulation
  • 15 January 2021
Fairs: Working through the issues raised from the consultation
TPR response to funding code consultation reveals level of industry concern over twin-track regime

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has published the interim response to its first defined benefit (DB) funding code consultation – highlighting the depth of industry concern around its proposed twin-track regime.

  • Law and Regulation
  • 14 January 2021
Opperman: No-one should find their hard-earned pension savings eaten away by charges
DWP sets de-minimis for flat-fee AE charges and launches work to standardise cost reporting

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will ban the charging of flat fees on AE auto-enrolment (AE) pots below £100 and launch work on how to standardise cost and charges reporting.

  • Law and Regulation
  • 13 January 2021
2021 outlook: What's next for regulation?

After a year that took everyone by surprise, experts tell Professional Pensions what could be on the horizon for regulation in 2021.

  • Law and Regulation
  • 30 December 2020
TPR bans corporate trustee and its director for 'serious' failings

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has banned a corporate trustee and one of its directors from acting as pension scheme trustees after multiple governance failures highlighted a lack of competence, capability and integrity.

  • Law and Regulation
  • 24 December 2020
blog comments powered by Disqus
Back to Top

Most read

LGPS to become negative cashflow 'by 2024'
LGPS to become negative cashflow 'by 2024'
Opperman: New TPR powers will not be backdated
Opperman: New TPR powers will not be backdated
Aegon commits to net-zero default funds by 2050
Aegon commits to net-zero default funds by 2050
DWP sets de-minimis for flat-fee AE charges and launches work to standardise cost reporting
DWP sets de-minimis for flat-fee AE charges and launches work to standardise cost reporting
Marie Curie completes £30m buy-in with L&G in first 2021 deal
Marie Curie completes £30m buy-in with L&G in first 2021 deal
Trustpilot

 

  • Contact Us
  • Marketing solutions
  • About Incisive Media
  • Terms and conditions
  • Policies
  • Careers
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Newsletters
  • YouTube

© Incisive Business Media (IP) Limited, Published by Incisive Business Media Limited, New London House, 172 Drury Lane, London WC2B 5QR, registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 09177174 & 09178013

Digital publisher of the year
Digital publisher of the year 2010, 2013, 2016 & 2017
Loading