Thanks for this explanation but I am still confused.
Does this mean that a lack of confidence in the ability of the government to pay its debts to gilt holders when the principal of the gilt eventually becomes returnable is undermining confidence in pension funds? Or is it that the value of a gilt itself is somehow variable over time? So that when it becomes due the principal is lower?
And are Pension Funds therefore having to flog off some of those gilts to raise money so as to provide reassurance that they are capable of meeting their present and future financial obligations? But nobody is keen on buying them so that’s what the BofE are doing?
Am really struggling to grasp any of this. Think I got my head around what Credit Default Swaps were back in 2008 but am totally flummoxed by what an LDI (Liability Driven Investment) is and what the chain of cause and effect is in this instance?
It’s too arcane for me (or maybe I am too thick to figure this out).
Zen
I always found it a complicated subject and some of my understanding may be off as I retired a few years back.
Maybe and hopefully helpful is the following
The state pension is covered as long as long as enough folk continue to work and fund the lavish lifestyle of us oldies via NI contributions. The lower the overall sum of NI contributions the bigger the pressure on the gvmt finances. It’s why changes have been enforced on statutory retirement ages. Even putting payment commitments off by a year can have a big impact and help gvmts. Conversely the triple lock hammers the gvmt finances which is why the gvmt would love to do away with it. Ideal for the Tories would be a lot more pensioners dying, higher retirement ages to defer state pension payments and people working and paying NI for longer.
With regards public sector final salary type pensions many are 'unfunded' schemes in that there is no central fund, and they are paid for only by taxpayers year by year. Pensions of teachers, firefighters, NHS workers, the police and the armed forces are the best examples.
Of course MPs belong to a gold plated arrangement and
can choose to contribute at 1/40th, 1/50th or 1/60th In a final salary arrangement. It is a contributory pension with the contribution rates set at 11.9%, 7.9% and 5.9% of salary respectively. I think I understand that it’s about the best pension scheme still going. And why not coz they all work so hard for us commoners?
With regards most workers arrangements.
If you are in a defined contribution scheme like most folk your pension pot is safe and belongs to you and is invested in stocks and shares etc by whoever administers it. Of course, as the sales blurb goes the value of your pot can go up or down
If you are in (very luckily) a final salary scheme or have invested into a scheme that is now frozen or you’ve left it behind when working in a previous job it’s quite likely that a decent slug of the overall pot in the fund is invested in Gilts.
The last figure I saw was that overall in the UK Gilts account for some 20% of assets in these funds.
As the unit value of a gilt declines the organisation has to find a way to fill the shortfall to keep the fund topped up to assure that the liabilities can be met - where there’s a shortfall this is often done via a repayment plan.
This is what the reported worry is about. Where will companies find additional funds to top funds up as the value of Gilts falls….when often Boards of directors want to put shareholders dividends ahead of these payments or where the company is basically on its arse and has no spare cash or it wants to invest in technology or infrastructure or whatever to secure its future?
If any of these final company pension funds fail the default is the Pension Protection Fund. This security fund underpins the final salary schemes and takes on the liability and pays out a high percentage of peoples due pensions- some 90% I think.
Hope this helps
