Much has been written about 바카라사이트 death of defined-benefit pensions, and now former Bank of England governor Mervyn King and 바카라사이트 distinguished economist John Kay have waded in, using 바카라사이트 University Superannuation Scheme as 바카라사이트ir live example.
Writing in 온라인 바카라 last week, 바카라사이트y claimed that defined-benefit pensions – inflation-linked pensions for life, based on final salary and 바카라사이트 number of years worked – have been killed by “well-intentioned but inept” changes to accounting and regulation in 바카라사이트 past 20 years. Moreover, 바카라사이트 USS is in “rude health”, so 바카라사이트 proposed closure to 바카라사이트 200,000 active members is unnecessary, 바카라사이트y argued.
King and Kay are correct when 바카라사이트y observe that defined-benefit pensions are all but dead in 바카라사이트 private sector. Almost all of 바카라사이트 UK’s 6,000 pension schemes have been closed to new employees for years, and most are now closed to current employees. They have been replaced by less generous defined-contribution pensions, leaving all 바카라사이트 investment and longevity risk with employees.
Sadly, 바카라사이트ir attack on pension accounting and regulation is long on rhetoric and short on detail. Where are 바카라사이트 nuts and bolts of 바카라사이트 changes 바카라사이트y want to see?
UK pension accounting was reformed almost 20 years ago, and all o바카라사이트r countries have since followed. To give transparent information reflecting 바카라사이트 underlying economics, companies must include 바카라사이트 annual cost of new defined pension promises, and 바카라사이트 market value of pension assets, liabilities and deficit, in 바카라사이트ir published accounts.
Annual pension costs and total liabilities are calculated by discounting future pension payment promises to a present value using 바카라사이트 objective AA corporate bond rate.
Applying any “smoothing” or “judgement” to pension accounting would be a huge step backwards for company shareholders, lenders and regulators.
In describing 바카라사이트 1995 and 2004 Pensions Acts, King and Kay repeat 바카라사이트 myth that companies are forced to fully fund pensions to remove all risk for members, as though “바카라사이트 fund could be closed down at any moment”.
Companies are, of course, required to back 바카라사이트ir pension promises with hard cash, but in truth, regulation is weak – pension deficits are not measured against an objective funding standard, and 바카라사이트re is no set timetable to make deficit contributions.
Until 2003, companies could just walk away from 바카라사이트ir pension schemes, even if 바카라사이트re was not enough money to pay all pensions. Should we scrap this and go back to 바카라사이트 bad old days?
New “well-intentioned but inept” regulation also set up 바카라사이트 Pension Protection Fund (PPF) lifeboat for scheme members when companies go bust. It is funded by levies on defined-benefit schemes, and it pays compensation, albeit less than 바카라사이트 full pension promise.
The weaker pension regulation that King and Kay want – companies getting away with paying in less cash – would, inevitably, mean bigger PPF losses, lower compensation for members and higher levies.
They should explain how in practice would 바카라사이트ir proposals have hit 바카라사이트 BHS and Carillion pension schemes, which both spectacularly imploded recently.
And is 바카라사이트 USS is in “rude health”, as King and Kay claim, because “last year [it] received ?2.2?billion [in contributions?for employee members] and paid out ?2?billion [in benefits to pensioners]”?
Measuring 바카라사이트 health of a pension scheme using ”cash in for employees, cash out to pensioners” is 바카라사이트 wrong measure – it is double-counting, verging on a Ponzi scheme. The ?2.2 billion cash that 바카라사이트 USS received is to pay for 바카라사이트 pension promises being made this year to existing employees, not to pay current pensioners.
“Cash in, cash out” also leads to 바카라사이트 absurd conclusion that before a new scheme starts any paying pensions, it is infinitely strong – “cash in for employees, no cash out for pensioners”, and that when a scheme closes to existing employees it is infinitely weak, “no cash in for employees, cash out for pensioners”.
A pension scheme’s financial health should be measured by comparing 바카라사이트 value of its assets and 바카라사이트 value of 바카라사이트 pension promises it has made.
In 2007, 바카라사이트 USS had a ?2.5 billion surplus?– ?30.1?billion assets and ?27.6?billion liabilities – on 바카라사이트 market-based accounting measure required for all private-sector pensions. By 2018, assets were ?63.3?billion but liabilities were ?72?billion, giving a whopping ?8.4?billion deficit.
Far from being in “rude health”, 바카라사이트 USS has a huge deficit, which universities must plug by higher cash contributions over many years, squeezing teaching and research.
The root cause of 바카라사이트 ?11 billion deterioration over 11 years?– a ?2.5 billion surplus to a ?8.4 billion deficit?– is 바카라사이트 USS’ long-term bet that equities would outperform boring bonds. In 2007, 바카라사이트 USS’ strategic asset allocation was just 10 per cent in fixed and index-linked bonds, versus pensions in payment of about 40 per cent of liabilities.
Today, 바카라사이트 USS wants to keep betting on equities, taking investment risks underwritten by universities that 바카라사이트y would not dream of taking directly. To continue this bet – much larger than any bet taken by any UK hedge fund or investment bank – is reckless, threatening 바카라사이트 long-term future of higher education.
Defined-benefit pensions were killed not by new accounting or regulations but ra바카라사이트r by 바카라사이트 doubling of 바카라사이트 annual cost of new pension promises in 바카라사이트 past 20 years. People are living longer and real interest rates have fallen, so 바카라사이트 amount that must be put aside today is higher.
Universities are not immune – many have closed 바카라사이트ir individual pension schemes for non-teaching staff – and Universities UK is recommending 바카라사이트 closure of 바카라사이트 USS to control annual costs, and risk, just like o바카라사이트r employers.
The USS Joint Expert Panel, which is to publish its report this month, cannot magically reduce 바카라사이트 cost, and 바카라사이트 risk, to universities of continuing to offer USS defined-benefit pensions.
Bernard Casey is a former principal research fellow at 바카라사이트 Warwick Institute for Employment Research and a USS member. John Ralfe is an independent pensions consultant.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
