In Reply to: Re: Pensioners to take legal action against IBM in SA posted by Chas Tyler on 09 December 2003 at 13:32:47:
Chas,
You are right in the view that IBM scheme members are under-informed - for example it is hard to imagine any other trust introducing a money purchase scheme without letting the members know how it would be funded.
There are a lot of major and minor decisions that scheme members have to make about the security of their deferred pay, AVCs, annuity purchase, transfer or defer, etc. AMIPP is of the view that members should be told whatever facts the members might reasonably think were relevant to those decisions. However, the trust's communications might suggest to you that a majority of trustees think providing information (beyond what the regulations explicitly require) is a choice in manipulating the members' perceptions.
What the regulations explicitly require to be divulged is a few documents and some calculated values; plenty to chew on but very little in the area you describe as "what's going on". This may change, as the government is proposing to require consultation with members before scheme changes are made. But in general one should not expect much help from the regulations.
I expect all three elected trustees would volunteer for communication activities if the majority of trustees favoured such communication but it clearly has not happened in the past - the retiree social clubs have had difficulty over the years in getting trustees (as opposed to the administrators) to present to them.
There have been messages on these "freedom of information" topics before, reachable from the "Elected directors" section of our message archives, eg message 1483. My conclusion from there is that the information from our trust will get better only when the trust wants it to get better.
However, for all trusts, part of the motivation for providing better information is an assessment of how much the scheme members want the information. If the members don't ask for what they really want it is more likely they will be fed morsels chosen to placate rather than inform.
I suggest that if you want to know the fund's deficit you ask. If you want to know how long a period in deficit is planned, ask. If you want to know what you would receive if the C-plan wound-up now, ask. If you want to know why it was implied that the period for investigation of the complaints was normal when actually it is unique, ask. If you want to know who decided it was appropriate for you to know that there was a gap between what the trustee proposed for benefits and what IBM delivered, but not appropriate for you to know what the gap was, ask. If you have been quoted transfer values that you find counter to what you would expect, ask for detail. If you want to know where the actuary gets his employee salary forecasts from, ask. You can ask pensions administration (see top link of the links section of this website) or you can ask at a retiree club meeting or you can ask your manager or you can ask a trustee.
Of course the answers will often be evasive, as with the £31M in the last actuarial report that was regarded as too trivial to explain. But the absence of an answer will tell you about the secrecy and can be information in itself. (As in the pensions admin offer to look for a company with a worst PIP record than IBM UK's - no name has been forthcoming.)
If you do learn anything, posting it here will help the community.
(Not with trustee hat on)