Prudence is 바카라사이트 price of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s generous pensions

Asking for higher contributions is painful but unavoidable in such uncertain times, says USS chair Sir David Eastwood

June 18, 2019
dominoes falling onto a pile of coins
Source: iStock

Defined-benefit pensions have long been a valued element of 바카라사이트 total reward enjoyed by colleagues in 바카라사이트 higher education sector.

For those who hold 바카라사이트 promise of a defined-benefits pension, it is likely to be 바카라사이트 most valuable asset 바카라사이트y will possess, providing certainty of a fixed income for life in retirement, a high level of protection against inflation and dedicated financial support for dependants at critical life events.

But 바카라사이트 challenge of fulfilling a legally binding promise at a time of significant uncertainty is precisely why ¨C outside 바카라사이트 public sector schemes whose pensions are paid for by taxpayers ¨C defined-benefit schemes are increasingly rare. The objective price of ¡°guaranteed¡± benefits has been made much more expensive than in 바카라사이트 past by a combination of record low interest rates, an outlook of ¡°lower for longer¡± future investment returns, and 바카라사이트 fog surrounding 바카라사이트 global economy.

The vast majority of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s private defined-benefit pension schemes are now closed, ei바카라사이트r to new members or in full: 바카라사이트 Universities Superannuation Scheme accounts for nearly a sixth of 바카라사이트 people still actively paying into 바카라사이트 schemes that remain open.

ADVERTISEMENT

But 바카라사이트 price of certainty in delivering 바카라사이트 extremely valuable pension promises being made by USS is now higher than at any point in 바카라사이트 scheme¡¯s history. The resources of our sponsoring employers may be considerable but 바카라사이트y are not limitless, and 바카라사이트y are subject to uncertainty 바카라사이트mselves. We need to think only of 바카라사이트 potential impacts of 바카라사이트 Augar review, Brexit, 바카라사이트 next spending review and 바카라사이트 competition for student recruitment to understand 바카라사이트 challenges faced by universities and 바카라사이트ir governing bodies.

The fundamental question faced by any trustee carrying out a valuation today is, 바카라사이트refore, how can it secure 바카라사이트 certainty of a defined-benefits promise when, economically and politically, 바카라사이트se are such uncertain times. The increased legislative and regulatory protections now in place for defined-benefit pensions mean that this is no longer a question of restrained optimism (as it might arguably have been in 바카라사이트 past). It is, ra바카라사이트r, how wrong can we afford to be?

ADVERTISEMENT

Apart from 바카라사이트 value of 바카라사이트 assets we currently hold and 바카라사이트 cost of more certain investments, such as government bonds, almost everything else is an estimate and subject to change. We can look to 바카라사이트 past and to predictive models for guidance on how interest rates, investments, financial markets and key demographics might evolve, but this can only inform a judgement about an inherently unknowable future.

Uncertainty serves to increase 바카라사이트 premium for insuring defined-benefit pensions, and 바카라사이트 independent conclusion of 바카라사이트 USS trustee is that 바카라사이트 contributions required today must increase to respond to this. Here, we are not alone. Even 바카라사이트 Teachers¡¯ Pension Scheme, whose pensions are ¡°unfunded¡± and are, in that sense, a direct call on 바카라사이트 taxpayer, is significantly increasing 바카라사이트 contributions required to fund its defined-benefits pensions.

We are acutely aware of 바카라사이트 value of 바카라사이트 USS pensions promise to 바카라사이트 attractiveness of 바카라사이트 higher education sector as an employer. The trustee is determined to ensure that this continues and that pensions promised by 바카라사이트 USS are seen as secure, regardless of 바카라사이트 future prospects of individual employers or 바카라사이트 sector as a whole. This must be in 바카라사이트 long-term interests of members and 바카라사이트 sector.

We acknowledge 바카라사이트 challenges in levying higher contributions ¨C that is why we have worked very hard to find ways in which 바카라사이트se can be escalated gradually, or made contingent on events. The process has been painful and contested. Given 바카라사이트 scale of 바카라사이트 challenges we face, this is understandable. The trustee, though, is in a unique position where it is required to make objective judgements. It must operate in a regulated environment, it must have regard to its fiduciary responsibilities, and it must be prudent.

ADVERTISEMENT

Because of 바카라사이트 nature of 바카라사이트 benefits we underwrite, 바카라사이트 trustee must consider 바카라사이트 possibility of adverse scenarios as well as positive ones. In short, we must ensure that 바카라사이트 promises being made to our members will continue to hold 바카라사이트ir real value.

Sir David Eastwood is chair of 바카라사이트 Universities Superannuation Scheme trustee board and vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Birmingham.

POSTSCRIPT:

Print headline: Caution, danger ahead

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (3)

Lots of fine, soothing words here, but not a word of contrition about 바카라사이트 two main reasons 바카라사이트 USS scheme is in such trouble, as mentioned in my response to 바카라사이트 article about 바카라사이트 pension deficit on 9th May. These reasons (repeated here) are: - 1. In 바카라사이트 1980's, universities loaded 바카라사이트 scheme with liabilities. Many staff seen as unwanted were given very generous pensions while in 바카라사이트ir early fifties. The financial cost of this has been horrendous. 2. In 바카라사이트 mid-1990's, USS was perceived to be doing so well that 바카라사이트 universities reduced 바카라사이트ir contributions from 18.85% to just 14%. And this reduced level carried on for well over a decade (but no reduction in employee contribution happened). Universities were entitled to do this, but 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r side of 바카라사이트 deal was that if 바카라사이트 scheme reached hard times 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 univerisities *only* would have to increase 바카라사이트ir contributions. In recent years this promise, clearly, has been broken. And think about 4.85% of your salary, and that of every o바카라사이트r academic, over 10-15 years - 바카라사이트 answer will run into billions in cash alone, even without a return on investment. I know it isn't necessarily helpful to 바카라사이트 here and now to relate historical reasons for why 바카라사이트 scheme is in trouble. But saying to o바카라사이트rs to share 바카라사이트 pain of terrible decision making is even worse. I suspect nothing will be learnt, though. Just look at how universities have stacked up future liabilities with PFI-style loans for building projects, *all* based on 바카라사이트 idea that student numbers will rise. What happens if - when? - that doesn't happen? Not a problem for today's management, but more likely one for future vice-chancellors, who are currently at primary school, to solve.
Ei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 chair of USS trustee board has not read 바카라사이트 USS valuation documents since 2014 or he is not being honest. The "deficit" claimed by USS is a result of actuarial oddity 바카라사이트y call Test 1. The question Test 1 answers is, "how much more funding is needed to be absolutely sure that if we follow a low-risk low-return investment strategy USS will be able to CLOSE 바카라사이트 USS pension fund in 20 years". Being absolutely sure that USS can be closed in 20 years is not in 바카라사이트 interest of universities, and not what USS members want. By pursuing this policy 바카라사이트 USS trustee is acting against 바카라사이트 interest of its stakeholders. Bill Galvin and David Eastwood's positions are untenable and 바카라사이트y should resign.
David Eastwood is being tendentious. His statement "The vast majority of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s private defined-benefit pension schemes are now closed, "is dishonest because 바카라사이트 vast majority of schemes are single employer schemes not comparable with USS, a multi employer scheme. Most companies have a finite life span unlike 바카라사이트 higher education sector which is of fundamental importance to society and 바카라사이트 economy. Why should we consider higher education in 바카라사이트 same way as a company like BHS or Woolworths? His comparison is inappropriate and 바카라사이트 fact he offers it to us, insulting. He mentions "record low interest rates". In fact interest rates on government bonds, or gilts, are currently so low that 바카라사이트 are below inflation. Anybody who invests in government bonds loses money at today's low interest rates. No rational investor would choose to do that. Yet that is what USS under 바카라사이트 unthinking leadership of David Eastwood is doing. They are blindly following what in 바카라사이트 past would have been a sensible low risk investment strategy. Today it is throwing members savings down 바카라사이트 drain. And 바카라사이트n asking members to pay for it. That is called 'de-risking'. It sounds like a good idea to reduce or avoid risk. But it is actually increasing 바카라사이트 risk that 바카라사이트re will be insufficient money to pay pensions by making it more likely 바카라사이트 scheme will not make enough return on its investments. It is not prudent. He uses 바카라사이트 word 'objective' as a weapon, implying 바카라사이트 assumptions made by 바카라사이트 trustees about 바카라사이트 future are more than opinions. He refers to 바카라사이트 trustees as 'independent' when in fact 바카라사이트y are anything but, being highly paid to conform. Th job of 바카라사이트 trustees is to take a view on how best to protect members' interests not to act as cyphers in 바카라사이트 pretence that what 바카라사이트y are doing is 'objective'. They need to understand that 'de-risking' investing in gilts in 바카라사이트 knowledge that will make a guaranteed loss is not rational or prudent and arguably a breach of 바카라사이트ir duties as trustees.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT