Why pension surpluses should get investors to prick up their ears - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
FT商学院

Why pension surpluses should get investors to prick up their ears

With interest rates higher, many schemes are moving out of deficit, which could feed through to share prices

Over the years, I had several grim meetings with management at the now defunct Uniq dairy food company. We should have been talking about cream cakes. Instead, most of the meetings seemed to be about its huge, badly underfunded pension fund. Pension fund concerns have soured many a company meeting subsequently.

Britain’s long history of paying low wages but extraordinarily generous final salary — or “defined benefit” (DB) — pensions has left a painful legacy. It has been made worse in some cases by chief executives who are nearing retirement opting to receive less in bonuses in favour of a higher salary, knowing they were locking in the income for life. In some schemes it is a handful of these big earners who are responsible for much of the deficit.

Too often, cash needed to be injected to fill the chasm between a scheme’s obligations and what was in the coffers. This money could have been spent on the business, improving returns for investors. I am afraid you have to get your head around this if you buy UK shares, but I think it is worth the effort.

Some history, briefly. The pension problem became even more apparent in about 2000 when, among other regulatory changes, an accounting standard was introduced that required a company to state any shortfall in its DB scheme as a financial liability on its corporate balance sheet.

Successful investment is about managing risk, not eliminating it. Without risk, returns are meagre

Many companies responded by closing their DB schemes and moving to de-risk their pension schemes to avoid swings in reported shortfalls. This meant selling down equities and buying gilts — not the best idea, it transpired.

Successful investment is about managing risk, not eliminating it. Without risk, returns are meagre. And these companies could not afford meagre returns. In the years after the rule change, deficits often worsened as interest rates fell and liabilities increased, because scheme members were living longer than expected. In 1990, for example, we expected men in the UK to live to nearly 73 and women to over 78. By 2018 it had risen to 79 and 83, according to the Office for National Statistics.

There were other unintended consequences of the collective de-risking. The headwind for UK equities of pension funds selling down their exposures meant the relative cost of capital for UK companies increased — issuing shares no longer raised the same amount as it had. All this meant less capital for productive investment. It helps explain under-investment by UK companies and its relatively poor productivity. 

Some company bosses, weary of the responsibilities and distraction of the whole thing, transferred out their pension funds to an insurance company. However, change is happening. And here is where investors should prick up their ears.

With interest rates higher, many schemes are now moving from deficit to surplus. Ten years ago the average pension deficit across the FTSE 100 was 6.2 per cent and across the FTSE 250 nearer 16 per cent, according to stockbroker Liberum. Today that has become a 3 per cent surplus for the FTSE 100 and a 1.1 per cent surplus for the FTSE 250.

Longevity is no longer increasing either. It has actually fallen slightly. A pension fund in surplus might now prove an asset to a company that does not jettison its scheme.

The new Pensions Funding code comes into force this month. This allows increased flexibility for pension funds to dial up the risk on the surplus element, allocating a bigger portion to equities. This will happen only if the company retains control — not if it passes a fund on to a large insurance company. Equities generally generate greater returns over the long term than gilts, strengthening fund positions further and enabling beneficiaries to be given better inflation protection or other enhancements.

It will, quite rightly, remain very challenging for companies to simply take surpluses back, but with the support of pension fund trustees they can use surpluses to reduce contribution costs for the current workforce, now in defined contribution schemes — improving employee satisfaction and helping with recruitment.

Meanwhile, I believe this improving position should benefit many investors. An example may illustrate why. In 2018 NatWest agreed to pay up to £1.5bn in additional contributions into its pension fund. It paid an additional £1bn between 2020 and 2021. Today it has a surplus. In fact, as much as £45bn may now be sitting as surplus in FTSE 350 company pensions. 

I expect these improving numbers to feed through to share prices. We saw this with Premier Foods in April 2020, when it merged three schemes — one in surplus and the other two in deficit ­— enabling it to nearly halve deficit contributions and invest in its first TV ads for Bisto gravy granules in six years.

Between the beginning of May and mid-July that year its share price doubled. Its other brands, like Sharwood’s and Mr Kipling, have also seen more investment recently, with exceedingly good results, if its latest trading update is anything to go by — 9 per cent sales growth for groceries in the first quarter. 

Intriguingly, some of the UK companies that have attracted cash bids this year, like our former holdings Wincanton and Royal Mail owner International Distribution Services, have pension surpluses. So I am watching these numbers very closely within company reports, as I am not sure the market is fully awake to the potential benefits.

I also believe we are past the lows of equity allocation by pension funds and might be seeing a reversal of a 20-year trend. You may think I am venturing into fantasy land now, but we might even see an increase in pension fund allocations to UK equities. The pensions bill announced in the recent King’s speech needs to work through parliament, but it will be interesting to see if the new Labour government pursues the idea of encouraging and even forcing more UK pensions and savings to invest in British companies.

Individual investors may not need such incentives. The economy here appears to be strengthening, wages are growing faster than inflation for the first time in years and UK shares still look relatively cheap. 

James Henderson is co-manager of the Henderson Opportunities Trust, Lowland Investment Company and Law Debenture. He owns NatWest stock.

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

特朗普媒体收购核聚变公司:金融与核聚变的共通之处

Lex专栏:现金随处可得,但股市的热情却是稀缺的礼物。煤炭与现金壳已过时,如今当红的是聚变和炒作。
8小时前

普京就欧盟冻结资产发出报复威胁 欧盟各国感到不安

意大利、比利时和奥地利担心俄罗斯针对其企业采取行动。

派拉蒙与Netflix为争夺华纳兄弟探索的角力

华纳兄弟探索拒绝了派拉蒙的收购要约,为这场可能重塑好莱坞的收购拉锯战再添变数。

Lex专栏:马斯克收购推特的剧本无助于华纳兄弟收购案

华纳兄弟探索希望拉里•埃里森提供万无一失的个人担保,就像马斯克在收购推特时所做的那样。

万斯力挺特朗普经济政策,试图扭转舆论风向

美国副总统呼吁民众在生活成本负担能力问题上保持耐心,他还把美国顽固的通胀归咎于前总统拜登。

风向逆转:生活成本负担能力问题让特朗普陷入困境

美国总统将生活成本负担能力问题斥为“骗局”,遭遇民众的强烈反弹。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×