Does anyone have a view on the novel way that M&S have found to plug their pension deficit? Some information and background can be found at:
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2180842.ece
It seems that some M&S properties have been placed in trust for 15 years in an agreement whereby the properties are still owned M&S at the end of the day, but during the next 15 years, the rental income from the transferred properties will fund the pension scheme. This is like an additional contribution by the sounds of things. However, in the event of employer bankrupcty, the capital value of the properties will be used to plug the deficit, so pension members get the additional funding over the long term, and in the short term they get the security of the property assets.
It doesnt sound like the basis of an SA6 question as it is more to do with the liabilities, but it is interesting nevertheless. Any thoughts?
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2180842.ece
It seems that some M&S properties have been placed in trust for 15 years in an agreement whereby the properties are still owned M&S at the end of the day, but during the next 15 years, the rental income from the transferred properties will fund the pension scheme. This is like an additional contribution by the sounds of things. However, in the event of employer bankrupcty, the capital value of the properties will be used to plug the deficit, so pension members get the additional funding over the long term, and in the short term they get the security of the property assets.
It doesnt sound like the basis of an SA6 question as it is more to do with the liabilities, but it is interesting nevertheless. Any thoughts?