View from City Road: Sting in the tail that wags the dog
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Reed Elsevier's promptness in quantifying the cost to its pension fund of the ACT changes introduced in last March's Budget is to be commended. But it serves to underline how many companies have yet to come clean about the damage likely to be done to their profits by the decision to cut the tax credit on dividends from 25 to 20 per cent.
For pension funds - which do not pay tax - that in effect represents a cut in income of about pounds 1bn a year. Since the corporate sector stands behind most of those funds, it is fair to say that companies face a bill of equivalent proportions.
Reed is one of those lucky companies making money out of its fund. It has such a large surplus in its scheme that it will be able to take a credit in its profit and loss account in respect of it each year until the end of the decade.
The change in the tax regime simply means this credit will shrink to pounds 9m this year instead of last year's pounds 28m. But the tax credit is only part of the problem. Dividend income has plummeted through the recession. When the actuaries run their slide rules over many of the pension funds attached to UK plc they will find a shortfall.
So which companies are most vulnerable to a rise in their pension liabilities? NatWest Securities, which has been pondering the subject, says a fund's solvency ratio - the margin of error by which its liabilities are covered by its assets - is one guide.
But it suggests that the most important indicator is probably the size of a company's fund relative to its market capitalisation - the average FT-SE pension fund clocks in at about 23 per cent.
This is because if the fund is big relative to the size of the company even a small drop in its value can require relatively large increases in contributions to compensate.
Take a look at the corporate sector and - surprise - the companies that turn out to be the most vulnerable are large, old ones, especially those that have been privatised. British Steel, British Airways and Rolls-Royce all have pension funds larger than the market worth of the company.
British Aerospace's pension fund is almost three times as large as its market capitalisation. Doesn't that look like a very large tail wagging a very small dog?
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments