Editorial & Advertiser Disclosure Global Banking And Finance Review is an independent publisher which offers News, information, Analysis, Opinion, Press Releases, Reviews, Research reports covering various economies, industries, products, services and companies. The content available on globalbankingandfinance.com is sourced by a mixture of different methods which is not limited to content produced and supplied by various staff writers, journalists, freelancers, individuals, organizations, companies, PR agencies Sponsored Posts etc. The information available on this website is purely for educational and informational purposes only. We cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of any of the information provided at globalbankingandfinance.com with respect to your individual or personal circumstances. Please seek professional advice from a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. Globalbankingandfinance.com also links to various third party websites and we cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of the information provided by third party websites. Links from various articles on our site to third party websites are a mixture of non-sponsored links and sponsored links. Only a very small fraction of the links which point to external websites are affiliate links. Some of the links which you may click on our website may link to various products and services from our partners who may compensate us if you buy a service or product or fill a form or install an app. This will not incur additional cost to you. A very few articles on our website are sponsored posts or paid advertorials. These are marked as sponsored posts at the bottom of each post. For avoidance of any doubts and to make it easier for you to differentiate sponsored or non-sponsored articles or links, you may consider all articles on our site or all links to external websites as sponsored . Please note that some of the services or products which we talk about carry a high level of risk and may not be suitable for everyone. These may be complex services or products and we request the readers to consider this purely from an educational standpoint. The information provided on this website is general in nature. Global Banking & Finance Review expressly disclaims any liability without any limitation which may arise directly or indirectly from the use of such information.


  • Liabilities continue to increase following Brexit vote, reaching record high of £856bn at end July
  • Despite asset rises, accounting deficits increased from £119bn to £139bn. At end of May deficits stood at £98bn, compared to £64bn at the start of 2016.
  • The Pension Regulator issued a statement reinforcing the importance of integrated risk management and good communication between trustees and sponsors following the Brexit vote

Mercer’s Pensions Risk Survey data shows that the accounting deficit of defined benefit (DB) pension schemes for the UK’s 350 largest listed companies increased from £119bn on 30 June 2016 to £139bn at the end of July.

At 29 July 2016, asset values were £717bn (representing a rise of £23bn compared to the corresponding figure of £694bn at 30 June 2016), and liability values were £856bn, representing an increase of £43bn compared to the corresponding figure of £813bn at the end of June. Pension liabilities reached a record high at the end of July, the highest level since Mercer has monitored deficits on a monthly basis.

“The continued fall in high quality corporate bond yields meant that liability values increased by over 5% during just one month,” said Ali Tayyebi, Senior Partner in Mercer’s Retirement business. “The combined fall in corporate bond yields since the end of May has meant that deficits have increased by 40% over the two month period up to the end of July, despite an 8% increase in asset values over that period. Deficits have more than doubled since the start of the year.

““The fall in corporate bond yields over the last two months has now broadly matched the fall in gilt yields.This means that both the measure of deficit used for reporting in company accounts, as well as the deficit figure used by pension scheme trustees as a basis for determining cash contribution requirements are now likely to be considerably higher following the Brexit vote,” added Mr. Tayyebi.

Le Roy van Zyl, Senior Consultant in Mercer’s Financial Strategy Group, said: “The vote for Brexit is clearly having a significant impact. Furthermore, the aggregate size of the pension scheme deficits glosses over the fact that some schemes and sponsors will have been much more affected than others, depending on their investment strategy and the nature of the sponsor’s business. In talking to trustees and sponsors over the past month it is clear that the continued uncertainty following the EU referendum makes it a challenging environment to operate a pensions scheme in.

“However, it is recognised that working through scenarios of what might happen is a very useful way of identifying key threats and opportunities. This will enable a revised set of priorities to be adopted, or at least ensure in other cases that “no action” is a deliberate decision. Indeed, some risk management opportunities are now much more attractive than before.”

Mr van Zyl continued “What has become very clear is that because different schemes have different stress points, careful assessment and planning is needed to ensure the right approach is adopted from here on.”

Mercer’s data relates to about 50% of all UK pension scheme liabilities and analyses pension deficits calculated using the approach companies have to adopt for their corporate accounts. The data underlying the survey is refreshed as companies report their year-end accounts. Other measures are also relevant for trustees and employers considering their risk exposure. But data published by the Pensions Regulator and elsewhere tells a similar story.