Pensions - Articles - Insolvency compensation has to cover full DB scheme benefits


The Bauer case relates to the German equivalent of the PPF. Advocate General Hogan has said that the Court was wrong in previous cases like Robins and Hampshire, which have to date required a minimum of 50% coverage. It seems from the Hampshire case that direct enforcement is possible against the PPF in the UK, as well as against the State.

 Abolishing PPF 'haircuts' would be great news for members of failed schemes. It could be a shock to the solvency of the PPF, and the employers that have to fund it. A dramatic increase in levy for the riskiest schemes could push more employers into insolvency, further increasing the PPF's burden.

 Anna Rogers, Senior Partner at ARC Pensions Law commented: "The European Court may or may not be persuaded by the Hogan Opinion. Hogan's reasoning is powerful in terms of protecting members, but this is the third time the recommendation has been made and in the past cases the Court balanced social protection against the cost.

 If full protection is required by the EU Insolvency Directive, Brexit would be relevant but the effect will depend on the timing of the ruling and the terms of withdrawal and the future relationship. No-one understood that full protection was required, in fact, it has been clear that it wasn't. So this may be a case where it is appropriate to change the law for the future only.

 This kind of temporal limitation was used in the Barber case in 1990 to softened the impact of the ruling that pensions had to be equal between men and women. If the European Court ruled that full protection had to be given for future accruals only, that would dramatically reduce the cost, given that so many DB schemes are closed to future accrual. It's worth emphasising that the Opinion is only advisory. The reductions, in this case, were small and the Court might allow them. If it goes for full protection, that could fundamentally change the nature of funding discussions. We know from case law that trustees are not allowed to 'game' the PPF but they can hardly ignore its existence. If there is a full safety net with no caps or loss of pension increases on pre-97 service, then there is less to play for in terms of securing PPF plus outcomes. In fact, the PPF plus market could disappear because there would be little or no gap between PPF and full buyout.

 Ultimately, if insolvency protection has to be backed by the State then even the capital adequacy requirements of the insurance regime lose some of their attraction. TPR might want to up the pressure on the pace of funding, with the new funding code coming out.
 Again, nothing has happened yet. The European Court may decide to go the other way or set a level of protection that the PPF already meets. If not, there could be a different kind of climate change ahead."
  

Back to Index


Similar News to this Story

The rise of the master trust
As the number of authorised master trusts rises to six, I thought it was worth considering the impact of the authorisation regime so far, good and bad
The Pension Superfund comments on TPR deal for Arcadia
Luke Webster, the CEO of The Pension SuperFund, said:
Transfer values near record highs while activity is steady
Transfer values near record highs while transfer activity remains steady

Site Search

Exact   Any  

Latest Actuarial Jobs

Actuarial Login

Email
Password
 Jobseeker    Client
Reminder Logon

APA Sponsors

Actuarial Jobs & News Feeds

Jobs RSS News RSS

WikiActuary

Be the first to contribute to our definitive actuarial reference forum. Built by actuaries for actuaries.