You are receiving this Newsletter because you have registered on the IBM C-Planners' Web Site. If you do not wish to remain registered, then please visit the site and use the registration form to "unregister". If you are an "E-mail Buddy", please print this down and give it to your buddy.

Most of you will have read previous newsletters. If you have not, you may want to read first some of the references at the end of this letter. (The software on your computer may allow you to link directly from this email to the items. If not, you can browse the copy of this newsletter which is in the Documents section of the website and link from there.)

Here are items new since Newsletter 6:

An addition to the complaints correspondence.

Remarks on the recent Members' Report.

A link to a Private Eye item.

An individual view on the prospects of effective action by the Ombudsman.

Another source of data on pensions in payment, the Watson Wyatt Index.

An article on IBM US accounting practice.

Of course, there are also new messages and new material on sites linked to from ours, eg this US one. (For shareholders there is a proposed resolution) There is no news on the Actuarial Report 2000, which is still not released to us. We have seen no news on the government's discussions with the Law Commission on possible new law. On the political front, there is ample evidence that MPs are concerned at the public's loss of faith in pension prospects and mechanisms. The effectiveness of the regulations and the Ombudsman mechanism, and the question of a US company's extraterritorial powers over a UK trust, are just part of this picture, of interest to some MPs. Whether this interest will turn into focussed action is another matter!

The recent complaints correspondence has made clear that the decision to have an M-plan, and the decision about how to fund it, were made in 1996, just before new laws requiring elected trustees came into play. MPs on a Select Committee, describing the general situation then, wrote:

"Trust law presupposes that the interests of the settlor and the beneficiaries coincide, but in reality there is a potential conflict between the interests of the employer and those of members."

"Under the guise of a trust, the employer can maintain effective and total control of the trustees, the investment policies and the power of amendment."

The effect of the 1996 IBM decisions was to take away bargaining power that the trustees would otherwise have had.

It is not obvious that the new laws, which only require a minority of elected trustees, have actually helped matters generally. A recent Times article suggested that:

"Members of company pension schemes can fall victim to the predations of their own employer. If your boss wants to commit fraud after the style of Maxwell, there is little you can do to stop it, despite a raft of new safeguards introduced in the wake of this shameful affair".

We have reported before on the views of some complainants that there are some issues (eg school expulsions, harassment, genocide) where a view of the pattern of behaviour needs to be taken, on top of asking whether any individual event justifies strong action, and that IBM pensions was such an issue. On this basis they wanted more of the complaints taken together. All the established procedure for getting a change in the way that the complaints are to be administered has now been exhausted. It seems there will not be an investigation that takes a holistic view.

We have been told that the new Ombudsman, who takes office on Sept 1st, will decide the IBM complaints. The first results will be about the Cawley & Mitchell complaints. From what we are told about the timing of the investigations of other complaints, it may be months before the first results are out. That is good news if the time is actually being spent investigating.

If you have read previous newsletters, the rest of this one won't be new to you. It is intended for those wanting to catch up with the story.

The performance of our fund in building up reserves. (Better than average - see a Decade of Incline).

The benefit we have received from this. (Worst of all comparable schemes - see a Decade of Decline and Decade of Decline 2)

IBM's proposals to use the reserves for transfers that would benefit no member of any plan. (See FAQs 10 to 14.

On the unfairness of the proposals. (C and M plans totally different - see DAT Reid analysis).

On the illegality of the proposals. (See early documents, aims, strategy, situation).

How the proposals came to be accepted. (Various views, eg see Trustview 2).

How members have reacted. (see 600+ messages by subject in the archived messages.)

On the avenues open to members. (see the Ombudsman site, OPAS site etc).

The words of some complaints, complaints that OPAS has supported being submitted to the Ombudsman.

On legal matters and the European Court.

Yours sincerely

Mike Eacott (Membership secretary for the C-Planners' Group)