A question in the recent policy consultation “Local Government Pension Scheme: Changes to the Local Valuation Cycle and the Management of Employer Risk” asking if schemes needed greater protections from admitted bodies, and some recent communication with a Fund, really highlighted a misconception held by Funds and those associated with them.
A constant frustration for me, and something which must be a huge irritation for charities participating in LGPS is to be accused by Funds of recklessly building up liabilities they can’t afford and then complaining about having to deal with them. This is a blatant distortion of the facts and admitted bodies would in my view have every right to feel aggrieved by the assertion. I’d just like to set out some facts so that if this assertion does rear its ugly head it can be swiftly returned to whence it came.
- Most organisations participating in LGPS were encouraged to do so by Councils and Funds without being provided with any risk warnings about their participation. Charities therefore joined with the best of motives but often unaware of the future risks they’d be exposed to. Had these warnings been provided in a clear way I’m sure many Trustee Boards would have taken a decision not to participate.
- Even today warnings are far from transparent and the key driver for organisations not participating is that they are not permitted to join without Government or Council protection. Most Funding Strategy Statements outline the process for achieving this for potential participants however Funds have taken no steps to rectify the legacy position.
- In a similar vein Funds have been happy to transfer liabilities built up by these public bodies to organisations without their knowledge, without any choice and on a basis which leaves the charity with a liability many times that of the public body. The inequity is enshrined in Regulation and Councils in my experience use it as an excuse to avoid dealing with liabilities accrued on their watch. Should Funds not be looking to protect members interests to the maximum extent possible. Surely a public sector guarantee over historic liabilities does this? Yet Funds have been reluctant to pursue this with conflicts of interest to the fore. Indeed from what I’ve seen Funds and government bodies have looked instead to seek every route possible to avoid their obligations.
- Crucially then Regulation limits organisations ability to deal with the issue. While other UK DB schemes will allow employers to close to future accrual and continue to fund on an ‘on-going’ funding basis to manage down risk in LGPS Funds unilaterally trigger a cessation debt on a gilts basis. There is the constant insistence that this is the correct basis to value these liabilities even though that is not the way Fund themselves invest their assets or indeed usually the way assets are invested post a cessation. Councils are effectively using exiting charitable bodies to cross subsidise their funding. Even where professional advice has been provided to the Scheme Advisory Board recommending change this has been strategically ignored.
- Even where some flexibility is offered this is on the repayment term, not on the closure basis. In addition Funds are using the negotiation around an exit to leverage additional security or extort higher contributions.
- Funds usually have a one dimensional view of risk driven by what happens when an admitted body looks to exit the Fund. They are not however balancing this with the risk they are exposing participants to by allowing further accrual, particularly for those with weaker covenants. Funds are not assessing this risk to properly identify the overall position and better manage it.
Based on the above I think charities would have every right to question who needs protection from who?