capaDATA
  • PERFORMANCE
    • Younger saver, 30 years to retirement – 5-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
    • Younger saver, 30 years to retirement – 3-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
    • Younger saver, 30 years to retirement – 1-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
    • Older saver, 5 years to retirement – 5-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
    • Older saver, 5 years to retirement – 3-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
    • Older saver, 5 years to retirement – 1-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
  • RISK/RETURN
    • Risk/Return – Younger saver, 30 years from retirement, 5-year annualised
    • Risk/Return – Younger saver, 30 years from retirement, 3-year annualised
    • Risk/Return – Younger saver, 30 years from retirement, 1-year annualised
    • Risk/Return – Older saver, 5 years from retirement, 5-year annualised
    • Risk/Return – Older saver, 5 years from retirement, 3-year annualised
    • Risk/Return – Older saver, 5 years from retirement, 1-year annualised
  • PROVIDERS
    • Aegon Master Trust
    • Aon Master Trust
    • Atlas Master Trust
    • Aviva Master Trust
    • The Bluesky Pension Scheme
    • Ensign Retirement Plan
    • Fidelity Master Trust
    • Legal & General Investment Management – WorkSave Pension Mastertrust
    • LifeSight (Willis Towers Watson)
    • Mercer Master Trust
    • National Employment Savings Trust (NEST)
    • Now: Pensions
    • The People’s Pension
    • Salvus Master Trust
    • Scottish Widows Master Trust
    • Smart Pension
    • Standard Life DC Master Trust
    • SuperTrust UK Master Trust
    • TPT Retirement Solutions
    • Welplan Pensions
  • Research
    • ADVISERS
      • Pension provider selection factors
      • Switching
      • Diversification
      • Illiquids
      • ESG
      • Green
      • Digital
      • Consolidation
    • PROVIDERS
      • Master Trusts by number of members
      • Master Trust defaults by assets and number of employers
      • Member charges
      • Employer charges
      • Master trust investment advisers
      • Equity exposure
      • Derisking
      • Asset managers used
  • NEWS
  • MORE
    • About
    • Advertise
    • Contact us
    • Privacy policy
    • Content syndication
    • Terms & Conditions
CAPA
No Result
View All Result

David Fairs: Why it’s wrong to abandon the draft DB code

18 May 2020
David Fairs: Why it’s wrong to abandon the draft DB code
Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedIn

Over the last few weeks, calls have been made for us to rethink or abandon the first consultation on our draft DB funding code. The arguments are that it was written in different, more benign, economic conditions and it is now out of place.

I can understand these sentiments, but I strongly disagree.

At this stage, we are seeking views on what the principles for a sound, resilient funding framework should look like and what they should be seeking to achieve.

These principles build on our past messages on the importance of trustees setting a long-term objective and putting a realistic plan in place for how to get there. This should enable them to manage the bumps along the way and improve the resilience of their scheme to adverse events as it matures.

Many well-run schemes already do this. We are just looking to embed this good practice in our guidance and regulatory approach, taking account of the views from industry on how best to do that.

I also believe the issues the consultation raises are even more important and relevant in the light of Covid-19. There is good evidence that schemes which have managed their risks well, and have built in sufficient resilience in their long-term funding strategy, are likely to have fared better as market conditions have worsened. Integrated risk management is needed now more than ever.

The importance of flexibility

Of course, what the Covid-19 crisis has also shown is the importance of a flexible funding regime which enables trustees and employers to withstand significant economic fluctuations. We believe our proposals preserve this flexibility. Trustees and employers would have a choice: follow Fast Track guidelines or agree bespoke solutions which take account of their scheme and employer circumstances.

Some have argued that requiring trustees to justify the risks they are taking relative to the Fast Track benchmark undermines flexibility. I don’t agree.

The White Paper focused on the need for greater clarity through an agreed standard and the government is looking to require trustees to explain their approach and capacity to bear risk in a statement. It is only right that with greater flexibility comes greater accountability and regulatory scrutiny. Having a benchmark – as we envisage for Fast Track – enables this.

However, it would not, as I have heard some say, force employers to put more money in to the scheme than they can reasonably afford to pay. One of the key principles we have proposed is that recovery plans should be driven by employer affordability. Bespoke would allow schemes longer recovery plans where the employer cannot afford to follow the Fast Track guidelines.

Striking the right balance

We think the principles under consultation still stand.

But when we consult on where Fast Track guidelines should be set later next year, it will be essential to have regard to prevailing market conditions and where the majority of the landscape sit at that time. This is to ensure we strike the right balance between risks to members and the PPF and employers’ sustainable growth.

We explained in our consultation document that our second consultation would include an impact assessment. We will also consult on our proposed process for setting and reviewing Fast Track guidelines (such as technical provisions and recovery plan lengths) so that they remain relevant and reflect economic conditions.

When it comes to the long-term objective, however, we have been more specific in our first consultation as to what the low dependency funding basis (Gilts + 0.25-0.5 per cent) and timing point for reaching that target (duration 12 to 14 years or equivalent measure) might be. We will review these parameters in light of the change in market conditions since we issued our consultation, informed by further modelling based on a range of economic scenarios. And, of course, we are looking for your views on this.

Extending the DB consultation deadline

We are also conscious that many stakeholders, advisers, trustees and employers are busy dealing with the immediate impacts of Covid-19. We decided to extend the deadline for response to 2 September 2020 to make sure that all interested parties are able to give the consultation their full attention. We will continue to review the situation and consider whether a further extension is required.

So, in summary, we believe the principles we have laid out for consultation remain the right ones to focus on. We recognise the challenges the current environment brings and we intend to reflect prevailing conditions in any parameters we set in our second consultation on the DB code later on next year. We are looking forward to a robust and constructive debate and our door remains open for anyone who wants to talk to us about the consultation ahead of it closing.

David Fairs is the executive director of regulatory policy, analysis and advice at TPR.

The post David Fairs: Why it’s wrong to abandon the draft DB code appeared first on Corporate Adviser.

TweetShareShare
Previous Post

Women want pension funds to get tough on poor pay practices

Next Post

Private corporate Covid testing goes viral

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy

Category

  • By Provider
  • News
  • Not for search
  • Provider page archive
  • Uncategorized
  • video
CAPA data

© 2019 Definite Article Media Limited. Design by Bedazzled Media Limited.

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact us
  • Privacy policy
  • Syndication

Follow us

No Result
View All Result
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact us
  • Privacy policy
  • Syndication

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.AcceptReject Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Non-necessary

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.

SAVE & ACCEPT