How Pensions Are Hurting Industrial Companies

Pensions are throwing a spanner in the works for companies already struggling against the downturn.

(October 11, 2012) — Industrial companies in the United Kingdom have some of the worst pension fund deficits, despite efforts to reduce them, which could impact their prospects for growth and very survival, research has shown.

Pension fund deficits represent over 8% of an industrial company’s market capitalisation, on average in the FTSE350, according to investment consulting firm and actuary Barnett Waddingham.

This is the second highest percentage after consumer cyclical companies, Barnett Waddingham said, but noted that this sector has seen company share prices fall sharply as a result of a drop in spending on the high street by recession-struck shoppers.

For ever other sector, the average pension deficit was equivalent to 4% or less of the market capitalisation of the company.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

This is an important consideration for company bosses when addressing financing, the consultants said, and could make it trickier for them to borrow in order to expand – or even continue to operate.

“One potential consequence for a company with a large pension scheme deficit disclosed on the balance sheet is the impact it will have on the company’s gearing ratio (a measure often used to assess financial risk or longer-term solvency),” the report from Barnett Waddingham said. “The gearing ratio can be an important indicator for companies looking to raise additional finance and the pension scheme deficit can have implications for debt covenant restrictions. At the margin, an increased gearing ratio can lead to a higher cost of borrowing.”

Industrial companies have been doing more than most to try and reduce pension deficits over the past couple of years. Last year, those in the FTSE350 used an average 40% of free cash flow to pay down the shortfall – the second-highest average payment in the corporate sector. Energy companies paid an average of 68% of their free cash flow in deficit contributions last year – a 20% increase compared to a year earlier.

Across the FTSE350, shortfall contributions have become 30% more expensive than the payments made for future pension benefits, Barnett Waddingham said.

Per member, companies in the FTSE350 are paying £2,600 a year for future benefits, and £3,400 to clear the backlog accrued in the deficit.

In 2010, 16% of companies operating a defined benefit pension paid more than 100% of free cash flow to try and plug the funding gap – in 2011, 28% of them contributed this much.

The report said: “The worsening of these figures can be attributed to both an increase in funding deficits for the majority of companies and an increase in the number of companies where free cash flow is now negative. For many companies contributions have changed significantly between 2010 and 2011.”

Yesterday, the Pension Protection Fund revealed that there were 5,248 schemes in deficit at the end of September, and 1,184 fully funded or in surplus in the UK.  

Touchy Subject: Institutional Investors on CEO Pay

Asset owners and managers have a lot to say on CEO pay, and it's mostly opposite of corporate stances, according to a recent survey.

(October 10, 2012) — Surprise: Corporations’ and institutional investors’ opinions seriously diverge on CEO compensation, executives serving on board committees, and transparency. 

Institutional Shareholder Services recently published a report on its corporate governance survey of 97 investors (including asset owners and managers) and 273 respondents from debt-issuing corporations. The results: Notably, executive compensation is the top area of concern for both groups, but investors and corporations have different takes on how to improve the situation. 

For instance, 81.3% of investors considered severance settlements for retiring/resigning CEOs problematic, while half the number of corporation respondents felt the same way. Likewise, the immediate acceleration of all unvested stocks upon an executive’s termination bothered 84.4% of investors, but only 44.8% of corporate types. 

Pension funds have been taking an increasingly active stance against excessively (in their view) generous payouts to corporate bosses. The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System, for example, is in the midst of suing Simon Property Group’s board, alleging that the shopping-mall giant increased pay for its CEO without obtaining shareholder approval. The police pension accused the company and its board of exceeding its authority by granting its CEO $120 million in equity to stay on until 2019. 

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

Post-retirement compensation roused more disagreement between the survey respondents than almost any other issue. The vast majority of institutional investors (80.6%)—many of whom were from public pensions—took exception to generous pensions or supplemental executive retirement plans, while only 32.5% of their corporate counterparts found them problematic. 

One area of agreement between the two sets: executives pledging company stock (to use as loan collateral, for example) is a red flag and a bad idea. Just 13.1% of investors are comfortable with the practice, and 20.1% of corporate respondents. Nearly half of those surveyed from each group (49.2% and 45%, respectively) said CEOs should keep their shares off the table, period.

«