Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • June 2014
06

Actuaries back TPR's new DB funding code

Open-access content 11th June 2014

Actuaries have welcomed The Pensions Regulator’s revised code of practice on the funding of defined benefit schemes, saying it strikes the ‘right balance’.

Following a lengthy consultation exercise, the TPR yesterday published the new, shorter code, entitled Funding DB Benefits. The code has been laid before Parliament and is expected to come into force in the next few months.

Stephen Soper, TPR's interim chief executive, said: 'The revised DB funding code and strategy set out our expectations of trustees, and how we will balance our current member and PPF protection objectives with our new objective to minimise any adverse impact on the sustainable growth of an employer.

'In the vast majority of circumstances, trustees and employers should be able to agree funding plans that both benefit the business and strengthen the scheme's long-term security - but this can only be achieved by employers and trustees working openly and collaboratively.'

Among the changes it makes are: a requirement for schemes to demonstrate more clearly a 'proportionate and positive' stance with regard to risk; and a change in the emphasis on 'reasonable affordability', away from repaying deficits as quickly as reasonably affordable, to one that considers the appropriate period in which to do so in view of the risks to the scheme and the impact on the employer.

It also makes clear that trustees do not need to scrutinise key business decisions made by employers unless employers are seeking to prioritise investment in the business over funding the pension scheme.

Nick Salter, president-elect of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, welcomed the emphasis on a more proportionate approach to managing risk and the encouragement of a collaborative approach between sponsors and trustees.

'Many pension schemes are engaged in de-risking strategies that anticipate reducing or eliminating risk over a period,' he said. 

'The focus on identification, evaluation and monitoring of residual scheme risks rather than elimination of all risk, in our view, strikes the right balance.'

Salter added that the institute was pleased to see the change of emphasis to 'reasonable affordability' in determining shortfall contributions, but said it anticipated some challenges for sponsors and trustees in reaching agreement on what this would mean in practice.

At Towers Watson, senior consultant Graham McLean said that the regulator's statements offered something for the 'pension deficit hawks' as well as something for the 'doves'.

He said: 'The regulator does not want to be seen as a brake on economic recovery, but nor does it want to be blamed for not getting the money out of employers while it had the chance.

'The government has told the regulator to "minimise any adverse impact on the sustainable growth of an employer". Now, the regulator has copied and pasted this phrase when setting out what it expects trustees to help deliver - even though trustees' duties to scheme members have not been watered down.

'This is the main change from the draft code that was published in November and looks like a lobbying victory for employers - though the regulator still emphasises that trustees need to understand and manage risk.'



 

This article appeared in our June 2014 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in:
06
Topics:
Pensions
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

GI Model development contractor

£700 - £1000 per day
Reference
119012

Pricing Actuary - Marine, Credit, Aviation

London (Central)
Total package circa £230K
Reference
119011

Capital Modelling Actuary

London, England
£70000 - £100000 per annum
Reference
119010
See all jobs »
 
 
 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2020 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited, Level 5, 78 Chamber Street, London, E1 8BL. Tel: 020 7880 6200