capaDATA
  • PERFORMANCE
    • Younger saver, 30 years to retirement – 5-year annualised returns
    • Younger saver, 30 years to retirement – 3-year annualised returns
    • Younger saver, 30 years to retirement – 1-year annualised returns
    • Older saver, 5 years to retirement – 5-year annualised returns
    • Older saver, 5 years to retirement – 3-year annualised returns
    • Older saver, 5 years to retirement – 1-year annualised returns
  • 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

High court ruling creates further problems for DB schemes on GMP equalisation

23 November 2020
High Court rules PPF payments ‘discriminatory’
Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedIn

Those who have transferred out of a defined benefit scheme over the past 30 years now urgently need to seek advice on whether they are due top-up payments, following a high court ruling last week.

This legal judgement gives members who have transferred out of DB schemes the right to have their payments reviewed in light of the  equalisation of guaranteed minimum pensions (GMP) benefits accrued between 1990 and 1997. 

This ruling states that top-ups should correct the original transfer calculation with interested added, rather than reflecting how the basis for calculating transfer payments has changed in the meantime.

Willis Towers Watson senior director Colin Smith says: “There have been over 250,000 transfers out of defined benefit schemes since ‘pension freedom’ took effect in 2015. 

“Not all of these members will have had 1990-1997 GMPs and not everyone who did will be due a top-up, but the number of transfers in scope from this era alone could be approaching 100,000. While transfers before then were less common, the judgment does not apply a time limit, so transfers stretching all the way back to 1990 are in scope.”

“Top-ups will generally be quite a small percentage of the original payment, especially for higher earners.  The average amount might be in the low thousands of pounds, but we have seen examples where the top-up could be as big as £30,000.”

However, members have to contact schemes if they want their payment recalculated, rather than schemes recalculating and paying redress automatically. 

DeVere Group chief executive and founder Nigel Green says this means there is now an urgent need for these members to seek advice on this issue. Many would have had to get advice prior to a DB transfer.

Green estimates that this landmark ruling could mean that up to  a million savers are potentially be entitled to have payments recalculated – although not all will get top-ups.

He says: “This will be an expensive blow and an administrative nightmare for many businesses who will now need to trawl decades of data and then shell out this money to these pension holders.

He advised those who have transferred their retirement nest eggs to demand the additional money “as soon as possible.”

Willis Towers Watson points out that this is going to create significant extra work for pension schemes and may also add to their liabilities.

Smith says: “Schemes will need to do a lot of work to estimate the cost, but we would expect this to be around £0.5bn in aggregate. Accounting disclosures suggest that the 2018 GMP ruling added around £4bn to FTSE 350 companies’ defined benefit liabilities.  

“Although the financial impact of today’s judgment may be smaller, the administrative task of going back to top up past transfers for members who were thought to have left schemes many years ago, could be much more challenging.”

He adds: “Despite everything that the pandemic has thrown at pension schemes, a recent Willis Towers Watson survey found that making progress with ‘GMP equalisation’ was the issue most likely to be cited by DB schemes as their top priority for the next year. That task just got bigger.”

Hymans Robertson head of GMP equalisation, Matt Davis adds: “This ruling addresses the thorny issue of pension schemes picking up the tab for GMP equalisation for past transfer values.  

“This should be good news for some of those who took a transfer value as they may now be in line for a top up payment.  However, the effort involved in revisiting transfers paid out by pension schemes across the industry over the last 30 years will be a very significant challenge for schemes, and in many cases historical data will not be available.

“For sponsors of pension schemes who report accounting figures under IAS19 the ruling is likely to trigger a need to assess extra accounting liabilities and the impact on P&L.  For those due to report as at 31 December 2020 the timing of the ruling doesn’t leave much time to analyse this.”

This ruling also present significant challenges for trustees. Adrian Kennett, a professional trustee at Dalriada Trustees, adds: “Trustees who thought they were protected by discharge forms signed by members who transferred out now learn that they largely are not. 

“They will now need to go hunting for data to recalculate transfers out of schemes as far back as 1990. It is yet another painful day in the subject of GMP equalisation – administration systems and processes are going to be really put to the test.”

 

The post High court ruling creates further problems for DB schemes on GMP equalisation appeared first on Corporate Adviser.

TweetShareShare
Previous Post

CDC ‘beats drawdown by 57pc’ – Willis Towers Watson

Next Post

DWP work and health head keynote at CA protection conference

Category

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

© 2019-2024 Definite Article Media Limited. Design by 71 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
No Result
View All Result
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact us
  • Privacy policy
  • Syndication