A leading consultancy firm is warning companies they may be paying too much into their pension schemes, and advising them to renegotiate agreements made with trustees.
Hymans Robertson said yesterday that favourable market conditions have reflated many schemes since agreements were made, and "companies paying more than necessary on pension deficits are in serious danger of harming their bottom line".
A string of blue-chip companies has agreed funding schedules with their trustees this year, in closely-watched deals such as private equity giant KKR's negotiation with Boots. Other potential deals, such as the initial private equity bid for Sainsbury and the recent approach for Scottish food group Devro, foundered on pension negotiations.
However, finance directors should now "revisit deficit funding agreements put in place with their pension scheme trustees in 2006 or early 2007 in light of improved performance experienced by many funds", according to Hymans Robertson.
Martin Potter, partner at the firm, said: "FDs who committed to high pension contributions last year could find themselves paying more simply because their pension schemes valuation came at a time when financial conditions were unfavourable.
"If the same FDs were negotiating their pension contributions now, the outcome would most likely be much lower contributions."
Pension fund deficits among the top 200 companies fell in April to £3bn, their lowest level since the FRS17 standard was introduced six years ago, according to rival Aon Consulting, which estimated almost half of the funds to be in surplus by the end of May. However, it also warned that FRS17 surpluses would need to top £100bn before pension promises could be fully secured with insurance companies.
Potter added: "This is real money, and once paid into a pension scheme the prospect of ever getting it back is negligible. Improved funding positions are also a great platform for taking some investment risk off the table and cashing in some of their chips'."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article