On “sleaze and spivvery”

It doesn't mean that all the schemes in deficit will go bust though. Increases in interest rates would have an immediate impact on the funding numbers.

The vast majority of schemes in deficit will survive. Spreading fear about something that very few schemes will suffer is highly irresponsible, given the value of the benefits they offer to their members.

DiggerUK wrote: »

It has been the case that profits for shareholders, was put ahead of pensions for employees...

At the order of HMRC. If a company put money into a pension scheme that all the actuaries agreed had more than enough money already, it was considered tax avoidance. Can't have big corporations avoiding their fair share of tax, now can we?

DiggerUK wrote: »

Successive governments have allowed this to happen. The truth is that surpluses are far from the norm.

The regulatory situation now is radically different to the situation in the 80s, let alone the 90s.

Current ‘strength’ of pension funds seems to be based on highly contentious valuations.

This isn't true, DB liabilities reported in company accounts are done on a standardised, very prudent basis (wasn't like this 30 years ago, i.e. this is something that has got better).

On the figures in the articles linked to on this thread, a permanent 10% dive in the markets would cause enormous problems.

What figures? You cited the PPF 7800 Index before - this exclusively uses gilt yields (which remain at historic lows) to assess liabilities:

http://www.pensionprotectionfund.org.uk/Pages/PPF7800.aspx
http://www.pensionprotectionfund.org.uk/DocumentLibrary/Documents/S179%20Assumptions%20Guidance.pdf

Go back as far as you want,

The PPF began in 2005. Looking at before then to justify scaremongering about the present is entirely specious.

but it seems that when firms crash, so does the pension fund, BHS was one of the worst

You realise BHS pension entitlements didn't actually 'hit the rocks' however? See here:

http://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/docs/quick-guide-bhs-pension-settlement.pdf

If the company had the same result as the pension scheme members, there would still be lots of BHS shops in business.

Woolworths

Entered the PPF.

MFI

Ditto.

Austin Reed

PPF assessment period; probably will enter the PPF permanently.

all had the same problem...

Being backed by one or more sponsoring employers is just how DB works in this country. The employer failing and its pension scheme entering the PPF does involve a hit to member benefits, yes, however this happening isn't a disaster for the member, and doesn't involve any taxpayer bailout.

hugheskevi wrote: »

Nonsense. Britain's 5,794 have just 91.2 per cent of the funds they need to meet s179 pension liabilities, ie, PPF-level benefits. This is considerably lower than what they have promised to their members.

The schemes have a little under 70% of the assets they would need to meet full buy-out liabilities (what they have promised to members, valued on a gilt-yield basis). That would have been a far better statistic for a sensationalist article.

Also worth considering the previous levels of s179 liability funding:

2012 83.4%
2013 84.1%
2014 96.7%
2015 84.2%
2016 85.5%
2017 90.5%

So put in perspective, it is reasonable to say something like

Source: Purple Book

Yes but you know how it is, that's being far too positive

DiggerUK wrote: »

This article from The Independent, serves as a dire warning of how unsafe many retirement funds in Defined Benefit (DB) schemes really are. Successive governments have allowed this situation to get to the level of crisis we see.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/pension-wolves-preying-on-steelworkers-highlight-scandal-of-cash-strapped-retirement-schemes-a8092716.html

That article now appears to have been pulled from The Independent website.