Background
In the years following the introduction of the Pensions Act 1995, it was widely perceived that it was failing to offer the protection to pension scheme members that had been anticipated. The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority was perceived as being reactive, didactic and uncommercial. The minimum funding requirement had not prevented some pension schemes winding up with insufficient assets to secure their liabilities, amid considerable publicity. There was strong political pressure to establish a guarantee fund similar to the American Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Much of the regulation was perceived to be unnecessarily restrictive. The Pensions Act 2004 was written to try to fix these deficiences. The Act introduced two new regulatory institutions: the Pensions Regulator, with the powers to require sponsoring companies to make contributions to ensure that scheme funding objectives are met; and the Pension Protection Fund, which would inherit the pension liabilities of a pension scheme in the event that a sponsoring company becomes insolvent.
In assessing the consequences of the act, there is evidence that corporate dividend and investment sensitivities to pension contributions were more pronounced in and after 2005, indicating that the regulations imposed by the act had a significant effect on corporate expenditures.
.svg)
