BHS 'could file for administration' threatening 11,000 jobs on Monday

vivatifosi

antrobus wrote: »

BSPS is a much bigger beast, £14bn in assets.

Sure, but it struck me as a difference in attitude. Not that any of this helps if they both end up under the PPF. Quite a strain on the scheme.

antrobus

vivatifosi wrote: »

Sure, but it struck me as a difference in attitude. Not that any of this helps if they both end up under the PPF. Quite a strain on the scheme.

Tata Steel is a much bigger beast. As far as I can see they agreed to pay an extra £40m over 10 years from a £4bn turnover business. BHS is a £675m turnover business. £9.5m a year is a comparatively bigger burden on the business.

Blood out of stones comes to mind.

vivatifosi

Found this. Looks as though BS Pension is in much better shape to start with. Fund is quite close to fully funded on an ongoing basis, per 2015 valuation (97%). On a buyout basis this will be lower, as it would be for any scheme, but figures are pretty good considering returns since 2007:

https://www.bspensions.com/media/userfiles/files/Special%20Newsbrief%202016.pdf

BHS otoh was 62% funded on ongoing basis 2012 and 65% in 2014. Not so good.

Thrugelmir

vivatifosi wrote: »

Sure, but it struck me as a difference in attitude. Not that any of this helps if they both end up under the PPF. Quite a strain on the scheme.

Scheme already looks under strain. Combined deficit of pension schemes runs into the hundreds of billions. Something has to give. As won't be taxpayers bailing the schemes out.

kabayiri

It seems from media reports that Sir Philip Green and even Mrs Green are going to be "invited" to appear in front of MPs.

That's nice then. Will there be cakes and tea?

I'm sure that if the Google bosses can sit through a couple of hours of squirming then Mr and Mrs Green will be just fine.

stator

Moneybox on BBC Radio 4 talked about the pension fund deficit if you want to hear some details about how the bailouts are funded

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

It seems from media reports that Sir Philip Green and even Mrs Green are going to be "invited" to appear in front of MPs.

That's nice then. Will there be cakes and tea?

I'm sure that if the Google bosses can sit through a couple of hours of squirming then Mr and Mrs Green will be just fine.

To be fair, it is one of those invitations that leads to you going to gaol if you don't take them up on it.

Anyway, this is all a drop in the ocean compared to the £4,700,000,000,000 in unfunded pension liabilities the Government had in 2012.

http://www.if.org.uk/archives/2031/ons-reveals-full-uk-pension-liabilities

antrobus

vivatifosi wrote: »

Found this. Looks as though BS Pension is in much better shape to start with.... .

BSPS has a whole website.
https://www.bspensions.com/

Generali wrote: »

To be fair, it is one of those invitations that leads to you going to gaol if you don't take them up on it.... .

I doubt it in Mrs Green's case. She is neither a UK resident nor a UK citizen.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

BSPS has a whole website.
https://www.bspensions.com/



I doubt it in Mrs Green's case. She is neither a UK resident nor a UK citizen.

Does that make any difference to the law? The reality is if she refused to turn up I couldn't imagine her being dragged to the UK in chains to face Parliament but she probably wouldn't want to visit the country until after the next election.

vivatifosi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Scheme already looks under strain. Combined deficit of pension schemes runs into the hundreds of billions. Something has to give. As won't be taxpayers bailing the schemes out.

The PPF is exceptionally well run. Per its last accounts, it ran a surplus (c115%) on an actuarial basis and plans to be fully funded on a buy out basis by 2030. It has billions under its control.

About 8% of the PPFs fund comes from recovery of assets. It's something that they are used to doing.

Lots of schemes are in deficit on a buyout basis... almost all schemes. If they weren't in deficit they'd be bought out. That doesn't make them insolvent though. Many companies are working judiciously towards full funding. Many are close on an actuarial basis. However for many it also makes sense to achieve full funding on an actuarial basis, rather than a buyout basis. It makes perfect sense provided that they are happy to continue taking the risk.

BHS scheme though is in a p*** poor state and someone has to be held to account for that.