TPR Played a Blinder But PPF No Longer Needs its Minder

TPR played a blinder.  It has a role to reduce the risk of calls on PPF.  So it convinced the pension industry to ignore PPF's existence even as sponsors funded it.  Great loss adjuster work.  Helps the risk transfer industry.  But why did all those clever pension lawyers and consulting actuaries fall for it?
 
Now public policy is changing and TPR has moved on.  Paragraph 64 of “The Funding Regime” section of the new DB Funding Code sets out a sensible position, which was probably always the case.  How to see the PPF?  The reality remains the same.  It's the spin that's changed.  And why has the policy changed?  Looks like someone has been checking precedents. 

Referring to the case of Hope-v-Independent Trustee Services : 2009, Para 106 / 119:

“There is no single all-purpose answer to the question whether the PPF is a relevant consideration……. It all depends on the context and the purpose”
“…..the PPF is in certain contexts a legitimate matter for trustees to take into account…..”

The Judge wanted to avoid “the dangers of invoking public policy in relation to a situation which is not before the Court”.   The position was re-iterated in Brass-v-Goldstone 2023.

Paragraph 64 means that in TAS300 V2 actuarial exercises the probability of loss and gain can be assessed without a folklore-based assumption there is no safety net.
 
“64. When performing their duties under Part 3 of the Pensions Act 2004 , trustees should not take advantage of the existence of the PPF as a justification for acting in a way which would otherwise be inconsistent with those duties.”
 
PPF is a success and no longer needs its minder.