UK: Trends In Post A-Day Executive Pensions

Last Updated: 2 November 2005
Most Read Contributor in UK, August 2017

Article by Bill Cohen, Orlando Harvey Wood, Feargus Mitchell & Neil Campbell

Introduction

With just six months to go before the start of the new simplified tax regime for UK pensions on 6 April 2006 (A-Day) many employers are currently working to develop policies for post A-Day executive pension provision.

For some organisations, pensions simplification is viewed as merely a tax change and the focus of their attention has been on a tax analysis of the available alternative options. For other organisations, however, pensions simplification raises more fundamental questions about the role which executive pension provision should play in overall executive remuneration.

Remuneration committees are increasingly aware of the need to be satisfied that packages offered are consistent with corporate objectives. As a result, this has led to many of the elements of executive reward (i.e. bonuses, options, performance share plans, etc.) being linked to corporate or individual performance. The balance between fixed and variable pay is also becoming an area of particular focus. However, executive pension provision is rarely brought into this equation.

There is also a surprising inequality of pension provision for executive directors across FTSE350 employers and sometimes within the same employer, suggesting that pensions are rarely taken into account for benchmarking purposes. Our own research1 earlier this year indicated that executive pensions are typically worth between 20% and 70% of basic salary and sometimes more, with additional diversity in the type of arrangement on offer.

The way in which employers address the challenges posed by pensions simplification will determine whether or not these anomalies continue.

One of the main challenges in developing new policies for A-Day is trying to understand general trends and in particular what policies are being implemented by defined peer groups. In practice this information will only become available through disclosures in annual accounts after A-Day.

At this crucial stage of policy development we have carried out research to ascertain how employers are proposing to respond to pensions simplification and what, if any, alternative arrangements are being proposed for remuneration committee approval. This report sets out the findings which have emerged from our survey.

About our respondents

This survey was put together to give a snapshot view of how companies are managing the impact of pensions simplification and what stage they are at in the overall process. The survey was sent to a wide range of Deloitte clients and contacts in mid August 2005. There were responses from 77 companies, which can be categorised as follows:

We have not broken down the responses across these categories because they indicated a consistent approach across all the organisations that responded, regardless of which of these categories they fell into2.

Headlines

  • Most organisations have identified individuals likely to be impacted by Pensions Simplification and most are planning to implement a policy to provide alternative benefits after A-Day.
  • Retaining key talent is the most important driver in the planning process, closely followed by the need to manage cost implications. Given the increasingly high profile of pensions with investors along with increased public scrutiny, the challenge is to balance these and other objectives.
  • Cash compensation is the most popular alternative benefit being proposed. While cash is risk free and straightforward, other alternatives may be more tax efficient.
  • There is no clear practice emerging as to whether cash alternatives are being calculated on an individual or a collective basis. However, we expect companies to move, over time, to a collective basis rather than setting benefits on an individual basis.
  • Where companies are providing alternative benefits, the cost of providing these is often less than the current disclosed costs of providing defined-benefit pensions. We have observed historic costs in the range 20%-70% of salary (the median is 30%-50%) for executives, whereas the cost of proposed alternative arrangements is generally less than 35%.
  • Companies are using a range of different methods to communicate post A-Day alternative benefits policies, with many companies using more than one method. This is understandable as the issue is a complex and important one for employees to consider.
  • Things may still change before A-day, as most companies are still in the planning stages.

Impact of pensions simplification

Individuals will be adversely impacted by pensions simplification where their aggregate registered pension benefits on retirement exceed the new Lifetime Allowance (2006/07 – £1.5m) or where the annual increase in the value of pension benefits after A-Day exceeds the new Annual Allowance (2006/07 – £215,000 pa). Where this happens, the individuals concerned may be required to make additional tax payments.

Since 1989, pension benefits in approved UK schemes have been based on a pensionable salary which is restricted by the earnings cap (currently £105,600 pa) for individuals joining schemes after this date. In response, many organisations have put in place unapproved arrangements to provide benefits based on salary above the earnings cap.

Under pensions simplification, the earnings cap restrictions are removed and all executives whether in occupational schemes or with employer contributions to personal pension arrangements, will be subject to the same tax regime.

Unsurprisingly our survey indicates that most employers have identified that they have an issue to address (including all respondents from the FTSE100).

For smaller employers, lower salary levels mean that in some cases this is likely to be less of an issue. However, of all the respondents to our survey, 76% indicated that they employed people who were likely to be adversely impacted by pensions simplification.

Alternative benefits

Unlike the 1989 earnings cap, the A-Day changes do not restrict the level of benefit which can be paid but, rather, impose an additional tax charge where benefits exceed the new allowances. This means that one possible response to pensions simplification is for companies to take no action, allowing executives to continue to fund for retirement benefits without reference to the Lifetime Allowance or the Annual Allowance, with the executive meeting any additional tax charges as and when these arise.

For companies employing individuals impacted by pensions simplification, 91% are planning to implement a policy to provide alternative benefits, which may avoid these extra tax charges.

Only 12% of companies however have completed the development of their post A-Day policy. The balance of companies have indicated that they are still in the planning stage. However, time is now of the essence with only six months for plans to be finalised and communicated to the impacted population.

Key drivers

Respondents rated the importance of various drivers which we have used to calculate the index illustrated below.

For companies developing new policies, retaining key talent was rated most important followed by managing cost implications and maintaining current benefit levels.

Whether or not post A-Day policies are effective in retaining key talent may be a function of how a given company’s policy compares against its peer group. This information however, will only become available in the disclosures to post A-Day company accounts when we expect that some companies may look to revisit their policy to remain competitive in talent retention.

While pensions simplification presents an opportunity for organisations to develop a single robust executive pensions policy, the importance of retaining key talent creates pressure to maintain current benefit levels for existing executives in the new tax regime, while putting in place a different policy for new executives.

Companies will however, be sensitive to criticism from shareholders and their representatives, as well as the media, that they are continuing with generous pension policies for executives in an environment where general levels of employee pension provision are being cut back.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) recently indicated that they believed pensions simplification provided an opportunity for companies to reassess their pension arrangements for executive directors and senior executives.

In particular, where individuals have already accrued pension entitlements in excess of the Lifetime Allowance, the ABI have stated that shareholders would expect a "convincing rationale" for the continuation of defined benefit type pension provision.

In a number of cases, the drivers and objectives of an A-Day strategy may be at odds with each other. For example, maintaining current levels of benefit may not be compatible with managing cost implications. How these potential conflicts are resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned will be a main determinant in the success of post A-Day executive pensions policy.

The true picture of post A-day strategy will only appear in post A-day accounts. Anecdotal evidence however, suggests that most companies are putting in place policies which will not result in any net increase in costs for the company. This indicates that overall levels of executive pension provision can be expected to fall as a result of pensions simplification.

Alternative options

We were keen to understand which options companies had looked at when developing their policy for post A-Day pension benefits for executives. As noted earlier, many companies responded to the introduction of the earnings cap in 1989 by putting in place Funded Unapproved Retirement Benefit Schemes (FURBS) or Unfunded Unapproved Retirement Benefit Schemes (UURBS) to provide for benefits based on salary in excess of the earnings cap.

The recent statement by the ABI, combined with a less favourable tax position for FURBS and UURBS than when they were first introduced, means that many employers are now favouring cash supplements.

Other less traditional options, such as employee benefit trusts and family benefit trusts are technically available for post A-Day pension compensation, but have not been popular.

Cash compensation has certain attractions for executives as they will have full flexibility as to how this is invested and when and how the benefit is taken. While cash compensation is a simple solution, it is not ideally suited for meeting the objectives of long term retirement provision and results in additional National Insurance costs, particularly for the company; this should be taken into account when determining the quantum.

Unsurprisingly, the relative attractiveness of cash will depend on how much is paid. Cash also normally lacks both the retention benefits of many pension promises as well as any link to performance. Care will be needed to ensure this is not simply regarded as another element of basic pay.

For those companies that have responded to pensions simplification by using UURBS or "defined benefit" FURBS to provide compensation, the response of their remuneration committee to the ABI statement on justifying the use of these arrangements may, in due course, require this decision to be revisited.

Whilst not specifically mentioned by respondents, we are aware of some companies making adjustements to existing defined benefit arrangements (via acceleration of accruals, ammendments to the definition of pensionable remuneration, adjustments to early retirement factors etc) to keep executives whole at no extra cost to the company. Where this is possible it can be very tax efficient, since it maximises benfits under the pre A-day regime.

Contributions Basis

We were interested to find out whether contributions to any alternative benefits would be calculated on a individual or group basis. The mixed response of our survey indicates that there is no prevailing common practice.

This is still an emerging area. From our own experience, many employers undertook individual calculations to assess a cost-neutral alternative solution, but have subsequently decided to offer somewhat less than the full funding cost and as such have less need to carry out accurate individual calculations.

It is typical practice for many companies to have a banded approach to compensation, compensating senior employees at a higher level than more junior ones.

Levels

Contributions to alternative benefits are generally less than the funding costs of typical defined benefits for executives. Where our respondents indicated the contribution rate to compensate employees these were all less than 35% of basic salary, whereas the value of executive defined benefit plans can be twice as much according to our own research earlier this year (The Missing Link: Executive Directors’ Pensions – Policy and Practice, February 2005).

The levels of contributions planned were no different across the alternative options or by different types of organisation. This suggests that there does not appear to be a premium for cash alternatives being paid in relation to defined benefits.

What is not clear is whether some of the funds which are currently spent on executive pensions will be re-allocated to other elements of the remuneration package, which may have a stronger link to either corporate or individual performance.

Communication

Communicating the agreed policy effectively is an important component of managing the impact of pensions simplification. Individuals will need a clear understanding of how the changes impact on their current pension expectation, what alternative provisions the company is putting in place and what decisions, if any, they will be required to make.

Communications will include projections of likely benefits, often using a range of financial assumptions. Bespoke software packages have been developed by leading market practitioners to carry out the necessary calculations and to present these in a meaningful and clear format.

There are different communication methods available and many respondents have indicated their communications strategy will use a mixture of these. In addition, companies may wish to commit different levels of resource to different groups; for example individuals with more complex circumstances or choices to make may be offered tailored individual advice whereas individuals with more straightforward circumstances may only be invited to a group presentation. We would expect that these sorts of decisions would be clarified at the strategy planning stage.

Footnotes

1 The Missing Link: Executive Directors’ Pensions – Policy and Practice February 2005.

2 "Other" includes other FTSE and AIM listed companies, large multinationals with operations in the UK, partnerships and other sizeable privately owned companies.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.