eglnyt

Nothing of the sort. What you call dissembling and spinning is actually debate. If you are going to debate a subject you have to be prepared to have your argument challenged and an alternative point of view advanced.

I know you only like Yes or No and I apologise that there are no Yes or No answers because this is complex but let's examine your three points.

These were perpetual loans so there was nobody knocking at the door demanding that they be settled. Indeed if I was the lender and getting a 12% return with that sort of risk I'd be very happy for them to remain outstanding for as long as possible. However this sort of lending comes with all sorts of conditions and that often inhibits the ability of managers to manage the business. You get rid of preferential loan notes as soon as possible so on that basis NATS probably had to repay those loans as soon as it had the means to do so.

There was always going to be some repayment penalty with settling these loans. These were loans advanced on very advantageous terms for the lender at a time when NATS had no choice but to accept. NATS always had to pay that penalty it was just a question of when. The sooner you take the hit the better the chance of covering that cost with savings so again NATS had to pay those charges as soon as it could.

NATS and the union financial experts disagree with you on that point. I'd argue that they are probably better qualified. NATS might spin the figures but I don't see why the union experts would and as there are PCS members in NATS finance and this is their pension too I think it unlikely that the truth would not out.

As we've covered several times previously that profit would only be available to fund your pension if the regulator agrees.

alfie1999

eglnyt


Ok, let's try again to get a straight answer out of you.


If we take NATS profits for the year and add...

1) c£65m loan note repayment

2) c£15m early repayment charges

3) c£23m exceptionals for the WD move


...would NATS be able to pay their worst case underlying contribution rate and still make a profit?

Just a 'yes' or 'no' will do so that those of us who don't understand the extremely complex issues can be informed by someone like yourself who obviously does have an excellent grasp.





Oh, and out of interest did you answer the rough age/years in scheme question I asked? As I said at the time, it's fair enough if you don't want to answer.

FDP_Walla

"As NATS and the unions have been negotiating for close on two years if this has much to do with the current recession they must have been psychic."

Another smarta***e comment. Negotiations may have been going on for two years but I remember the One_NATS_ONE_Pension website which was still active only a few months ago. Im suggesting that recent events may have influenced the recent announcements.

eglnyt

Can't include this as it seems to have been financed from additional borrowing rather than cash.

These are in the £39 million exceptionals. Even if you consider this to be discretionary spending and all available to fund the pension it's not enough to fund the worse case based on the figures that have been quoted.

Sorry I pop in and out of here and if it get's a bit heated you can often miss little posts that quickly slip a few pages back. You'll understand why I won't answer exactly but I've been with NATS a few years more than you and have a corresponding bit extra in the pension fund. Like you I still have a long time to go, longer since the 40 year rule was abolished, but I do have slightly less years to go than I've paid in.

Vote NO

Any truth in the rumour that most of Swanwick will vote yes for BAND 6 ?

Also rumoured PB will go in March 09 to his next victim.

And rumoured that if No vote prevails a cap of RPI +1% will be offered with a few other additional sweeteners in return for "certain conditions"

anotherthing

Don't know where you got that from - certainly not being mooted at Swanwick.

Be very wary of dis-information - from either side.

A friend of mine told me today that Scottish are of the belief that it will be a 'yes' vote from Swanwick. This belief is because they were told by a Union Bod (last week), that the majority of people at Swanwick are going to vote 'YES'. (edited for mistake)

Not only is this quite possibly untrue, it is totally out of order for a Union person to voice this in an attempt to get Scottish to either change their vote, or to not bothering vote because they think it's not worth it as Swanwick (the biggest unit) will be voting 'yes' en masse.

Do not believe all you hear - make sure you vote as this is the most important issue to hit us for ages.

Vote for what you believe is the correct course of action, then lets see how the cards fall.

Vote NO

Thanks mate

PeltonLevel

And it's possible that the Deloitte report was the recent event in question!

Min Stack

Interesting snippet from 2003:

Workers strike over company pensions scheme

A new era in British industrial relations began on Friday 18 July 2003 as workers at the French-owned company Rhodia walked out in protest at the closure of the company’s final salary pension scheme to new members.
Over 600 workers at the company’s chemical manufacturing plants in the West Midlands and Cheshire are striking in a dispute over changes to Rhodia’s pension arrangements.
The strike, organised jointly by Amicus and the GMB, is the first time that British workers have gone on strike to defend final salary company pension schemes. BAE Systems and Rolls Royce have previously backed down over proposed benefits reductions following the threat of strikes.
Unions are angry that Rhodia is closing its final salary scheme to new entrants and claim the company took a partial "pensions holiday" over the last three years.
GMB leader Kevin Curran, said: "GMB members know that closing the scheme to new entrants puts the long term viability of the scheme at risk. Their security in retirement is being put in jeopardy by the decisions being made by the company now."
Rhodia denies endangering the company’s pension scheme, arguing that union claims that the company took a contributions holiday are "unfounded." After taking over Albright & Wilson in March 2000, Rhodia claims it increased the level of employer contributions for former staff, and made large cash injections to correct the pensions deficit it inherited.
Rhodia’s UK HR Director, Bob Tyler argued that closing the company’s pension scheme "does not affect the pension provision of current employees in any way."
He added: "We are closing the final salary scheme to new members to protect the interests and benefits of current Rhodia employees and ensure the future security of the fund."
Unions are planning further strike action at the company’s plants in Oldbury and Widnes for dates in August and September.
The Rhodia strike is the first time since the collapse of the stock market that British workers have walked out in protest at changes to their pension scheme.
It comes after thousand of French workers went on strike in June over reforms that would increase the pension contribution period for all workers to 41 years by 2012. And in May, Austrian workers staged the first general strike in decades at government plans to extend the period of pension contributions from 40 to 45 years and reduce benefits.
Many in the UK union movement believe pensions will be a growing issue of contention in coming years. In a recent survey, 90% of Amicus members said they would be prepared to take industrial action if their employer stopped contributing to their pension.
Emily Thomas, spokesperson for the GMB, commented: "Our members are becoming more aware of this issue, and it is becoming an integral part of negotiations on terms and conditions."
"Lots of companies took pension contribution holidays. Some are now putting in double to make up for it. Others are using the stock market as an excuse, and are saying that putting more into pension schemes is not sustainable."
Some in the union movement are calling on the government to bring in tighter regulation to ensure companies contribute to final salary pension schemes.
The government announced proposals in June, following consultations on the Pensions Green Paper, to safeguard the rights of workers with occupational pensions schemes. These included funds to protect pension rights when a company goes bankrupt, and the full buy out of pension scheme members when a company chooses to wind up its scheme.
Critics argue such measures are not enough. Lee Whitehill, spokesperson for Amicus said: ’the Government should make it compulsory that employers make pension scheme contributions."
He added: "We would like pension schemes to be seen as a form of deferred payment. It is money you have worked for. And we believe workers should get the same rights as other creditors if a company goes bankrupt."
Emily Thomas of GMB agrees. She believes the UK needs: "mandatory standards for pension schemes. Companies keep reducing contributions and then blame problems on the stock-market. Pensions are a three-way responsibility: government, individuals and companies. Workers will only get security if everyone contributes what they should."

eglnyt

So did they manage to stop the company closing their pension scheme to new entrants?

PeltonLevel

I think that there's a bit of double counting here.
The actual hit on last years profit was from the redemption charge. If you can face trawling through the annual report, you will see that the high fixed interest loans were replaced by variable interest loans at the going rate - about half the fixed rate. If the rates charged go no higher than those current at the end of the FY (and the Bank of England's recent actions, together with the company's A rating, make this seem quite likely), the penalty will be money well spent within five years.



Sorry -just noticed that eglnyt has said much the same.

alfie1999

eglnyt,

Useful information, thanks.



Pelton,

Your age seems to have disappeared off your posts (unless my laptop is playing up).

PeltonLevel

Well, not quite!

Emma1974

Maybe I am being a little suspicious,but could someone answer the following for me...................

When asked previously to vote for certain issues(pay round and HTD spring to mind) I am certain that the ballot papers were returned to an independent body,or at least had some mention of them on the literature to ensure fairness and transparency.

Has this been the case this time?I have put mine in the recycling and returned the NO vote so cant check.

Thanks

Vote NO

I think the union guys check all of them

The Prospect count will in theory be "checked/watched" by an ATCO. However I don't believe this will actually be done in practice (slightly awkward and embarassing), but how do you prove otherwise ?

alfie1999

Come on guys, I love a conspiracy theory as much as the next person but not for one moment do I think that the count will be anything other than scrupulous.

In the meantime you can borrow my tin foil hat from the last page.

ZOOKER

I believe, historically, this type of 'count' was carried out under the supervision of "independent scrutineers".
It may be worth contacting the union to find out if this is still the case, especially with their present emphasis on "Working Together".

Fenella

As far as I know the count will be done by Prospect staff. Bearing in mind this is their full time career, it would surely be a sad indictment on our part if we went down the road of insisting ATCOs were there for the count. I'm not surprised it was voted down at the SDC... and by the way, I've been told that the reps do the voting at conferences, not the BEC.

Vote NO

Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll

Poll Results latest


NO ....81%....96

YES....19%....22

Looking conclusive so far......and remember this, Management have gone from "there is no other option if you vote no" to "It depends on the size of the No Vote" ... FACT not fiction ! So what does that tell you? Basically, they have another option and have been , lets say, economical with some of the facts and will be caught out if the no vote prevails!

If you vote yes, you are a turkey voting for XMAS




Vote Here
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php

VOTE NO

MERRY XMAS

250 kts

I think Paranoia is setting in. I was referring to "us" as a collective forum.

I just can't believe the level of mis trust shown on here.eg.

1) The figures presented at the briefings and verified by independant actuaries

2) The fact that discussions have been taking place since well before the present financial downturn.

3) And most bizarrely the way the count will take place.

I presume you have the same concerns about the count in PCS as well??

But in the same thread there are already rumours about what NATS may offer in the event of a "no".

Vote no is obviously very close to the top Managment or the unions if he is hearing rumours like these. Any chance of enlightening us (sorry me) of the "certain conditions"?