• 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
      Defined Benefit Consolidation Conference

      Professional Pensions is hosting this concise digital event on the 25th March to provide a crucial update on where the current regulation stands on DB Consolidators, assess the different models available, what the expected funding levels are and the governance requirements. This event will be a combination of short presentations followed by live Q&A’s with our expert speakers allowing plenty of time to answer your questions.

      • Date: 25 Mar 2021
      • Digital Conference
      event logo
      Defined Contribution Conference

      Professional Pensions Defined Contribution virtual event, hopes to take stock of the last year, and ask the important questions; are members saving enough and have we improved the member journey at retirement? This two part digital event will provide you with the latest thinking and innovation in the DC market during our snappy 15 minute presentations, with plenty of time to ask questions during our live speaker Q&A.

      • Date: 20 Apr 2021
      • Virtual Conference, Virtual Conference
      event logo
      Sustainable Investment Festival 2021

      The Sustainable Investment Festival will run online from 22-25 June and will include thought-provoking presentations from renowned keynote speakers, innovative breakout events and sessions specifically tailored to meet the information needs of fund selectors, financial advisers, pension consultants, trustees and scheme managers.

      • Date: 22 Jun 2021
      • Online, Online
      event logo
      UK Pensions Awards 2021

      The UK Pensions Awards – now in their 24th year – remain the industry's most prestigious accolades. They shine the light on excellence and recognise the advisers, providers and investment managers that offer the highest level of innovation, performance and service to occupational pension schemes and their members, and have done the most to improve this over the past year.

      • Date: 14 Sep 2021
      • London
      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
Sponsored by T. Rowe Price
  • 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

Con Keating: The purpose of a pension scheme

Con Keating: The purpose of a pension scheme
  • Con Keating
  • 26 September 2017
  • Tweet  
  • Facebook  
  • LinkedIn  
  • Send to  
0 Comments

Con Keating explains why he believes we need a debate to determine the precise role of DB pension schemes and their funds.

Given its length and subject matter, Iain Clacher, Andrew Slater and I were surprised, and flattered, by the number of downloads - over one thousand - of our response to the DWP Green Paper, DB Pension Schemes: Security and Sustainability. Less satisfyingly, the majority of the comments, criticisms and questions we have received have concerned our first, and principal recommendation, which is that the precise role of defined benefit (DB) pension schemes, and their funds, be debated and determined. It was felt that our description of the issues of concern surrounding the purpose of a scheme and fund were just too sparse and scanty.

The truth is that the original version of the paper was one third longer than that finally submitted and published, which was itself longer than the consultation. Much of the material excised was concerned with an elaboration of some of these issues and their consequences. In this article, we shall attempt to precis some of the less well-trodden, but nonetheless important aspects.

Related articles

  • Lifetime allowance freeze creates 'bizarre disincentive'
  • The threats and opportunities of booming cyber crime
  • Six areas of focus will help savers' outcomes
  • Value for money in pensions admin: Learning from the world's top schemes

It is a fundamental feature of English law, and many other legal systems, that a person's debts and obligations cease to accrue on death. This holds for both natural and juridical persons. The obligations do not transfer to heirs and successors. This is often misleadingly, and incorrectly stated as 'your debts die with you', when in fact they crystallize and become payable, as the value accrued to date. It is self-evident that the person cannot perform the future actions promised; consideration of what might have been is clearly futile.

In other words, it is not the proper purpose of a company to make provision for events occurring after its insolvency. It is as misguided for a company to over-provide security for its pensions promises as it would be to the company to create and fund a trust for the payment of dividends to shareholders to take place after the company's insolvency.

There is also an issue of equity among stakeholders to be considered. Favouring one class, pension beneficiaries, above all others, is inequitable. This holds true even if insolvency does not occur.

This raises some fundamental questions for both regulation and current practice. The specific questions arising range far and wide, from the trivial to the profound. They include valuation procedures taking present values of projected cash flows that arise after sponsor insolvency, to concepts such as the "self-sufficiency" of the scheme. The central regulatory themes of protecting beneficiary members and funding to reduce Pension Protection Fund exposure are deeply suspect, though well-intentioned.

A company should rightly be concerned with actions that continue or enhance its sustainability, which serves to the advantage of all stakeholders. As part of this process, honouring the due performance of its existing contracts and commitments is paramount. But not more.

The establishment of a trust to administer[1] the scheme raises further issues. The beneficiaries of an occupational pension scheme, current and past employees, are not the only members of the scheme. The employer sponsor is usually[2] the residual claimant to assets remaining after the discharge of all pension liabilities, and in this sense, it is also a member of the scheme having an interest in it, albeit of a different class. This means that the management objective of the trustees is compound. It is not simply to look after the interests of one class of member. In many regards, this is analogous to the standard situation of corporate finance, where creditors have fixed claims and the equity owners are the residual claimants. The most remote claimants, the equity owners have the most control.

The analogy is also helpful inasmuch as, analogously with stakeholders and the assets of a firm, members have an interest in the trust, not in its assets. In this regard, the strategy of transferring and encashing DB pensions enabled by so-called pension freedoms can be seen as a gross error of judgement. How could a company operate if its long-term creditors or equity holders could help themselves to the company's assets at any point in time, at the sole discretion of those stakeholders?

There is an implicit return promised on the contributions made by both the employer and employees, which is defined and determined by the projected benefits payable. We refer to this as the contractual accrual rate. This is arguably the main occupational link. The employer underwrites any shortfalls from this rate. By equal part, as the residual claimant, it gains from returns on assets in excess of this rate. In all too much of the discussion around the risks of shortfalls, this fact gets scarcely a mention.

The sponsor is the bearer of the risk associated with the liability. The manner in which the asset portfolio is managed is the primary contributor to the sponsor's risk exposure. It is only proper that it should therefore determine the asset allocation strategy of the fund, which contrasts sharply with the current legal position.

It is also worth distinguishing between real risks, that is to say the factors which increase the pensions ultimately payable and those arising from the measure used to reduce those liabilities to a present value. The former include longevity, and wage and price inflation, and the latter market interest rates. Changes to the expectations of the former alter the true cost of provision, the contractual accrual rate.

By contrast, changes in the valuation discount rate do not in and of themselves have to have cost implications. It is only when interim actions are based upon those valuations that this becomes the case. Unfortunately, solvency regulation, with its requirements for deficit repair contributions, operates in just such a manner. This is also true of cash equivalent transfer values - pensions freedoms have granted an attractive option to scheme members, which is integrally linked to the (actuarially utilised) discount rate. This is extremely costly to schemes in the current environment.

However, the true risk exposure of the sponsor is determined at the point of execution of the pension contract. In this regard, it is analogous to the fixing of a coupon at issuance for a debt instrument. Any actions by the sponsor to limit or modify this risk subsequently may only be properly done at the sponsor's expense. Correctly, such actions should be conducted by and within the sponsor company, not the scheme.

A sponsor company may validly decide that it no longer wishes to bear the risk associated with its underwriting of the scheme, but in doing so, the costs incurred should be for its account, not members, not the scheme. Moreover, as these costs arise from a change in corporate risk preference or tolerance, they should not be classified as pensions or even labour costs.

It is disappointing to see some trustees accepting broad limitations on deficit repair contributions. Indeed, the idea that a sponsor may limit its exposure in absolute terms is anathema to the very root of a DB scheme. Once restricted, this is a defined contribution arrangement. In particular, it is inappropriate for the terms of new awards to contain elements of deficit repair; this would constitute subsidy of the sponsor's cost liability by members.

The setting of extremely low expected return rates in the pricing of new award contributions is one, perhaps subtle, way of doing this. The risk exposure of the sponsor is relative to this rate and the use of a low expected return both limits the sponsor's downside and increases their upside, to the detriment of beneficiary members.

There is a relation between the contractual accrual rate (and its scheme equivalent, the weighted average accrual rate) and the required rate of return on assets held necessary to meet all obligations as they fall due; it is the limiting case. This immediately gives rise to a measure of the performance of the sponsor. When the contractual accrual is above the required rate of return on assets held, the sponsor is outperforming its contractual obligations and when below, the sponsor is delinquent.

Why are we so concerned about these aspects of DB pensions when 'everyone knows they are both unaffordable and dying. The future is DC'. The reasons are simple and many. The risk sharing and risk pooling of open ongoing DB schemes are powerful; depending upon the precise elements present, the efficiency of DB relative to DC lies between 30% and 100% above DC. Moreover, survey work shows that DB characteristics, not DC, are what individuals actually want in their pension. This preference for a predictable lifetime income is independent of the age of survey respondents. Contrary to the received wisdom, it is the younger cohorts who are most willing to pay more for a stable predictable lifetime income.

This is a sketch of some of the issues, omitted from our Green Paper response, which we believe need an open and frank debate. We would welcome it beginning.

Con Keating is head of research at Brighton Rock Group



[1] It has become common practice to use the existence of trustees to delegate to them responsibility for certain discretions regarding the pension obligation, for example pension increases, as specified in the governing documentation.  But the trustees do not, in any sense, own the resultant obligation.

[2] This is the norm, but not universal.  There will be some pension arrangements where it is not specified in governing documentation that the sponsor is a beneficiary of residual assets.  But it is grey, as there is legislation which provides for a refund to the sponsor if the assets are considerably greater than the value placed on the pension obligation, although that legislation been reviewed or revised for quite some time.

 

  • Tweet  
  • Facebook  
  • LinkedIn  
  • Send to  
  • Topics
  • Law and Regulation
  • Con Keating

More on Law and Regulation

Smith: It is only fair that DB schemes pay the most as this is where most of the regulator’s energy is focused
DWP confirms general levy hike from April; Option one chosen

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has confirmed that it will increase the general levy pension rates from April 2021 in line with its preferred option.

  • Law and Regulation
  • 05 March 2021
The consultation closed in 2019
DWP delays consultation response on trustee oversight of investment consultants

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has delayed further a consultation response and final regulations to enact requirements relating to investment consultants.

  • Law and Regulation
  • 03 March 2021
Opperman: We are now progressing secondary legislation to ensure the UK’s pension system is safer, better and greener
Pensions minister sets out timetable for Pension Schemes Act regulations

Pensions minister Guy Opperman has set out a timetable for secondary legislation to bring Pension Schemes Act provisions into force.

  • Law and Regulation
  • 03 March 2021
What a ban on corporate directors could mean for schemes

Shane O'Reilly and Julia Chirnside look at how a government proposal could put professional trustees in breach of the law.

  • Law and Regulation
  • 03 March 2021
The investigation is the second of its three-part inquiry and the Committee said it concluded taking evidence for its first part in January.
MPs to investigate advice in ongoing pensions freedoms inquiry

MPs on the Work and Pensions Committee (WPC) will assess the availability of financial advice in the second stage of its pensions freedom inquiry.

  • Law and Regulation
  • 23 February 2021
blog comments powered by Disqus
Back to Top

Most read

Spring Budget 2021: Lifetime allowance freeze, flat rate of tax relief and AE review among expectations
Spring Budget 2021: Lifetime allowance freeze, flat rate of tax relief and AE review among expectations
Spring Budget 2021: Lifetime allowance frozen until 2026
Spring Budget 2021: Lifetime allowance frozen until 2026
KPMG employer covenant team acquired by private equity firm H.I.G Europe
KPMG employer covenant team acquired by private equity firm H.I.G Europe
DB funding - February 2021: Gilts-plus deficit eliminated, says PwC
DB funding - February 2021: Gilts-plus deficit eliminated, says PwC
Spring Budget 2021: Government to consult again on DC investments and charge cap barriers
Spring Budget 2021: Government to consult again on DC investments and charge cap barriers
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