I read the two articles as giving almost opposite messages: One allows companies to make optimistic assumptions about future investment returns while the other states that reduction of pension fund deficits should feature on a company's financial priorities. Which way will CH2M Hill jump? Make optimistic assumptions about future investment returns or start filling the funding hole by reducing dividends to shareholders? Halcrow, I recall, was quicker to reduce payments into the pension fund than reduce the dividend payments.
John
