Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

UK. New DB funding rules risk forcing schemes into ‘straitjacket’

New funding rules for defined benefit (DB) pension schemes risk forcing all schemes into a ‘one-size-fits-all straitjacket’, leading to potential employer insolvencies in some cases, LCP has warned.

In July, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) published its consultation on new regulations for DB scheme funding, whereby schemes would be required to have long-term plans set out in a funding and investment strategy.

Schemes will be required to reach a funding level where no additional funding is expected to be needed from the sponsor, and to then lock in that low dependency though a low-risk investment strategy by the time they are ‘significantly mature’.

LCP analysis found that nearly 10 per cent of its UK scheme clients could already be categorised as significantly mature under the rules, with the firm estimating this proportion will rise to around half of schemes within a decade.

While it acknowledged there would be a measure of flexibility in how schemes get to that state, particularly prior to being significantly mature, LCP said that under the proposed regulations there would be very little flexibility for schemes after that time.

The consultancy warned that this was a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution that did not reflect the diversity of the DB pensions landscape and would be unsuitable in several cases.

LCP highlighted that some schemes have a relatively weak employer that may not have the resources to top up scheme funding to the required level in time, which, in some cases, could see the sponsoring employer being asked for “unaffordable levels” of pension contributions and be at risk of insolvency.

Analysis of its clients suggested that up to 5 per cent of schemes could currently be in this position.

LCP warned that this could leave trustees with a choice of either breaking the law by maintaining current investment and funding risk in the scheme or complying with the new law and potentially forcing the sponsoring employer into insolvency.

In the ministerial foreword of the consultation, Pensions Minister, Guy Opperman, stated: “Those schemes that are maturing will be required to manage their risks carefully, taking proper account of the extent to which those risks remain supportable as they move towards run-off, or securing members’ benefits.

“But these draft regulations also take account of open schemes which are not maturing and have adequate ongoing sponsor support.

“It is not our intention that such schemes should have to undertake inappropriate de-risking of their investment approaches. The intention is to have better, and clearer, funding standards, but not to move away from the strengths of a flexible scheme specific approach.”

Read more @Pension Age

301 views