Under 50

[Dutto]

.......... aren't deficit caused by the company not paying their contributions? ...........

I'm pretty sure that any company not paying their part of the contributions is using the same money to fund something else. e.g. Shareholder Dividends? Director's Salaries? etc. This is supported by the quote below.

Pension deficits have nothing to do with companies using the pension funds to fund business activities, it’s illegal for them to do so. It’s the difference between how much it is required to pay out to members and how much is being paid in on final salary (defined benefit) pension schemes.

Basically, not enough is being raised from current workers’ pension contributions to pay for current pensioners pensions. ....

EDIT - this article probably explains it a bit better than me trying to remember stuff I learned for my Chartered Acvountancy qualification about 10 years ago.
https://www.expertsforexpats.com/expat-pensions/pension-deficits/

I quote from the Reference material:

"How historical decisions have also led to deficits

Conversely, there was a period in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s when defined benefits schemes were finding very good performance in their pension assets as interest rates and equities were providing double-digit returns each year.

Because of this short-sighted approach, a number of schemes took contribution holidays and went through a period where they no longer allocated further capital to the scheme. This will have made share-holder returns look a lot better during those times but is having a negative effect now that this needs to be put right."

So, the money they saved by taking a contribution holiday made "share-holder returns look a lot better" and probably resulted in massive bonuses and pay rises for the company's management as well.

In any case, it has to be classed as "mis-management" or "incompetence" at best, but I deeply suspect that the terms "theft" and "fraud" are nearer the mark.

Dutto
DMS CDipAF MBIM (Retd) :wave:

 

[MickDundee]

I'm pretty sure that any company not paying their part of the contributions is using the same money to fund something else. e.g. Shareholder Dividends? Director's Salaries? etc. This is supported by the quote below.

But you said “That pension fund was the accumulated savings made by the workers, to provide a secure income when they retired. It was NOT paid in to fund the activities of the company.”

This reads to me that you were claiming they were taking workers contributions and using it for company activities. In actual fact it was their own contributions, which they didn’t pay because they thought the “boom times” would last forever and never thought of things like changes in life expectancy.

It was terrible mismanagement, very unethical, caused by short term thinking and it’s caused a terrible mess, but at no point did they steal “savings made by workers”.

 

[Leon103]

I'm pretty sure that any company not paying their part of the contributions is using the same money to fund something else. e.g. Shareholder Dividends? Director's Salaries? etc. This is supported by the quote below.



I quote from the Reference material:

"How historical decisions have also led to deficits

Conversely, there was a period in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s when defined benefits schemes were finding very good performance in their pension assets as interest rates and equities were providing double-digit returns each year.

Because of this short-sighted approach, a number of schemes took contribution holidays and went through a period where they no longer allocated further capital to the scheme. This will have made share-holder returns look a lot better during those times but is having a negative effect now that this needs to be put right."

So, the money they saved by taking a contribution holiday made "share-holder returns look a lot better" and probably resulted in massive bonuses and pay rises for the company's management as well.

In any case, it has to be classed as "mis-management" or "incompetence" at best, but I deeply suspect that the terms "theft" and "fraud" are nearer the mark.

Dutto
DMS CDipAF MBIM (Retd) :wave:

My argument you would be that government read YOUR reference and make sure it couldn't happen agan

 

[Leon103]

Carillon gone bust now

 

[Bigcol49]

Hi!
The Teachers' Pension Scheme does not have an invested fund - the difference between what is collected from serving teachers and what is paid out to retired teachers is pocketed by the Treasury.

 

[Dutto]

But you said “That pension fund was the accumulated savings made by the workers, to provide a secure income when they retired. It was NOT paid in to fund the activities of the company.”

This reads to me that you were claiming they were taking workers contributions and using it for company activities. In actual fact it was their own contributions, which they didn’t pay because they thought the “boom times” would last forever and never thought of things like changes in life expectancy.

It was terrible mismanagement, very unethical, caused by short term thinking and it’s caused a terrible mess, but at no point did they steal “savings made by workers”.

I'm sorry, but they DID steal money that was supposed to be "savings made by workers".

If an Employer decides not to pay 100% of an agreed salary, the Employer is stealing from the Worker.

If an Employer fails to pay an agreed amount into at the Worker's Pension Fund then, yet again, the Employer is stealing from the Worker.

There is no way that the money could ever be classed as part of the Company's funds but as YOUR article pointed out Employers were allowed to take "pension holidays"; which improved the look of the Company's profits and is obviously a Management Speak euphemism for "stealing from the Workers Pension fund".

My argument you would be that government read YOUR reference and make sure it couldn't happen agan

So the first two of Murphy's Law has kicked in yet again! i.e.

1. If it can happen it will happen.

2. When it happens it will cause the maximum amount of distress to the greatest number of people.

As someone on the TV pointed out this morning "The Management of Carillion should not be allowed to walk away from this!" ...

... and my personal attitude is "Please choose the reasons from mis-management, incompetence, fraud or theft; there being no other sensible reasons for the collapse."


PS

The collapse of Carillion will affect me personally in a very small way.

They recently won the contract to build a second By-Pass around Lincoln, so their collapse will result in me sitting in the usual queues whenever I'm heading west!

 

[Bigcol49]

so their collapse will result in me sitting in the usual queues whenever I'm heading west!

Hi!
Thought you went West years ago :laugh:

Seriously: if companies want to screw the workers they do it with the complicit backing of the Tories.

 

[Dutto]

Hi!
Thought you went West years ago :laugh:

Seriously: if companies want to screw the workers they do it with the complicit backing of the Tories.

OOoooooh! I am so tempted to tell you about the Steelers! :laugh:

I worked in Iran with an ex-Steelers player called Younger Klippert so I've kept an eye on them ever since. Enjoy your recording.

With regard to the second point I have to agree entirely. Things have to change, before the UK sinks into poverty stricken oblivion due to a combination of management greed, corrupt politicians and overall incompetence. :no:

 

[Dutto]

Oh look, a comment about an enquiry into the management of Carillion ....

"It comes amid growing anger at bumper payouts received by the firm's former chief executive Richard Howson.

He pocketed £1.5 million in salary, bonuses and pension payments during 2016 and, as part of his departure deal, Carillion agreed to keep paying him a £660,000 salary and £28,000 in benefits until October."

Fancy that! Who'd have thought it! I'm amazed! etc etc etc! :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Bigcol49]

Hi!
A verse from Ed Pickford's The Workers' Song
We're the first ones to starve
The first ones to die
The first ones in line
For that pie-in-the-sky
And always the last
When the cream is shared out
For the worker is working
When the fat cat's about

 

[Duxuk]

I had 2 private pensions. One seems to perform OK but the other had £17k in at one point. I didn't give it any thought for years but had noticed that it had dropped to £9k. When it came closer to being able to pocket this relatively small amount of cash there was little more than £3k left. When I got it last year it had spurted to a little over £4k. The robbing ******s. I bet the company made plenty of profit, though.

 

[Leon103]

In all fairness the boss did secure loads of billion pound contracts.

Whilst playing golf with the government officials

 

[Dutto]

............... When I got it last year it had spurted to a little over £4k. The robbing ******s. I bet the company made plenty of profit, though.

Back in 2001 a fellow management consultant retired with a pension of about £3,500 a month. For many, many years he'd sunk ALL of his spare cash into his Pension Fund and he didn't even pay off his +/-£600 a month mortgage, on the basis that his pension would cover that with ease when he retired.

The very day I retired in 2003 I went to my bank to pick up some cash and bumped into him on the street outside. I gave the usual "How are you doing Alan?" and he replied "Okay, I'm working at BP at the moment." I was totally shocked that he was back at work so we went for a dram, where he explained that his pension had been cut to just over £1,000 a month in a "Take it or leave it." deal with his Pension Provider.

Apparently Alan wasn't going to have an "Equitable Life" after all and never before or since have I thanked The Lord that I never took out a pension plan. Lucky me! :thumb:

 

[Dutto]

I hope everyone is watching today's PMQ!

Apparently, the government were just a customer of Carillion and therefore not responsible for the mis-management of the firm; including the massive payments made to the Directors and Shareholders of the company even though it was heavily in debt.

They are now reviewing what they have to do to sort out the contracts that Carillion have with the MoD, Schools, Hospitals, H2S, Prisons and others.

As I type, the PM is attacking the performance of a government that hasn't been in power for nearly TEN YEARS!

I give up! Things have to change! I'm fed up of thieves and politicians getting into bed with each other and trousering MY money without delivering what I am paying for!

 

[yeastinfection]

nothing to worry about for me, i cant see me having a pension thats worth anything, so i shall be working till the day i pass on,such is life,

 

[BeerCat]

May I point out to you youngsters, that ALL pension funds were "ring-fenced" so that employers couldn't start using the funds for business purposes!

In simple terms, WHAT YOU PAID INTO A PENSION FUND WAS THERE FOR YOUR USE!

Then, along came the Tory Party and it all went to Rat ****!

YOU voted for it, so stop moaning! :lol: :lol:

They are all in it together mate. Pigs feeding at the trough. Any pretence of honour amongst any of them is laughable. None will speak the truth.

 

[Dutto]

The Carillion Saga continues!:thumb:This is from today's BBC text service:

"Carillion 'wriggled out' of payments into its company pension schemes as its troubles grew, while it carried on paying shareholder dividends and bosses' bonuses say MPs.

The Work and Pensions select committee is questioning the way pension investments were managed at the collapsed outsourcing giant. The schemes overall are in deficit. But last year contributions to the pension funds were deferred until 2019, to help shore up the firm's finances."

So we are back to the choice of mis-management, incompetence, fraud or theft. Personally, I go for Fraud AND Theft on the basis that they MUST have known what they were doing.

Things have to change!

 

[terrym]

Pension deficits have nothing to do with companies using the pension funds to fund business activities, it’s illegal for them to do so. It’s the difference between how much it is required to pay out to members and how much is being paid in on final salary (defined benefit) pension schemes.

Basically, not enough is being raised from current workers’ pension contributions to pay for current pensioners pensions.

+1 on that.
Its also not illegal for the company to decide to not pay into the pension fund. I have worked for companies that have done that. There may be good business reasons not to pay into the pension fund, if it keeps the company going, with the spin off of providing its workers with a continuing livelihood.
So unless the company and its directors have done something illegal, there is no fraud involved.
And for all out there who believe in the myth that company 'shareholders' are a few people being driven about in their own Rolls Royce, company and private pension funds themselves are investors and ultimately shareholders, so anyone with a pension pot whether their own or in a company pension scheme are also indirectly shareholders.

 

[Bigcol49]

last year contributions to the pension funds were deferred until 2019, to help shore up the firm's finances.

Hi!
I'm thinking of writing to HMRC to request that my tax contributions be deferred until 2019 to help shore up my finances.

 

[simon12]

I'm not trying to defend Carillion but public pension funds never have the money put in any fund they get deferred for the next generation to pay then when they don't it gets borrowed and the generation currently in school or unborn will be paying for 3 generations pensions.