Pensions - Articles - IFoA on DB Funding Code and Regulations being consistent


The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) believes it is essential for both the Funding Code and the Regulations supporting defined benefit (DB) pensions to be consistent if they are to be workable and implementable by trustees.

 The IFoA’s response to the Pensions Regulator’s (TPR) DB Funding Code consultation points out that trustees will be required to comply with the law as set out in Regulations from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), not the Code. The two must be completely aligned to avoid confusion for trustees and any lack of clarity on trustees’ and sponsors’ legal requirements.

 The IFoA supports TPR’s decision to maintain the Funding Code’s scheme specific nature and the flexibility incorporated into the current draft Code. We agree with TPR’s proposal to separate the Code and Fast Track guidance but have identified areas where further clarification would be helpful, in particular in relation to a Scheme Actuary’s role in confirming to TPR that three Fast Track tests have been satisfied.

 Leah Evans, Chair of IFoA Pensions Board, said: “TPR has rightly recognised that pension schemes, which differ in size, funding, and investment strategy, need some flexibility in the Code. We support the clarity that provides for schemes to take a bespoke approach to the Code while offering a fast-track route for regulatory supervision where this is appropriate and certain criteria are met.

 “However, there are areas which require further consideration in both the DWP’s draft Regulations and TPR’s draft Code if they are to be successful when the new funding regime is introduced, potentially later this year - most notably, the proposed approach to the calculation of significant maturity, the definition of low dependency and the requirements for schemes already past their relevant date when they first carry out a scheme funding valuation under the new requirements. It is essential that the final Regulations and Code work together on these points.

 “There is a high degree of complexity around the Code itself and the Regulations which provide the overall framework, complicated by TPR having oversight of the Code and DWP having oversight of the Regulations. For this reason, we would urge both DWP and TPR to seek further industry review of the Code and the Regulations before finalising the new regime.”
  

Back to Index


Similar News to this Story

Pensions for 9 in 10 DC savers invest in productive assets
TPR says larger schemes more likely to have the right governance standards and invest in a diversified portfolio. Smaller schemes seem less likely to
Transfer Activity index fell to record low in February 2025
XPS Group’s Transfer Activity Index has fallen to the lowest observed rate since the Index was established in 2018. In February 2025, there was an ann
Almost 300 buyin transactions completed in 2024 a new record
299 defined benefit (DB) pension scheme buy-ins were completed in 2024 – the largest ever number of transactions completed in a single year, according

Site Search

Exact   Any  

Latest Actuarial Jobs

Actuarial Login

Email
Password
 Jobseeker    Client
Reminder Logon

APA Sponsors

Actuarial Jobs & News Feeds

Jobs RSS News RSS

WikiActuary

Be the first to contribute to our definitive actuarial reference forum. Built by actuaries for actuaries.