- Welcome to Halcrow Pensioners Forum.
Recent posts
#31
General Discussion / Re: Collective Defined Contrib...
Last post by philjohnson - April 06, 2019, 11:19:57 AMSteve - Such ideas for these collective pension schemes are only under consideration at the moment. We heard about these at the latest OPA meeting that I and Jon Bateman attended on behalf of HPA. There is therefore no suggestion that Jacobs, HGL or the Trustee have anything to consider. From what we heard, there are going to be lots of issues to sort out so I suspect they are a number of years away from evening becoming a reality
#32
General Discussion / Re: Collective Defined Contrib...
Last post by Steve_2 - March 24, 2019, 12:49:00 PMThe advantage of collective dc is that pools funds remain invested, like a drawdown, so more risk can be taken. My concern is that once these CDC's become multi employer, Halcrow might see this as an easy option to switch the DB to a Target based CDC. As a cheaper option than securing buyout
#33
General Discussion / Re: Collective Defined Contrib...
Last post by John Ratsey - March 24, 2019, 10:36:22 AMThanks for the link. I note considerable discussion of risk-sharing in the consultation, presumably to protect those who made poor investment decisions (or the managers took all the money in admin costs).
It wouldn't be easy to shift out of defined benefit into defined contribution.
One of the shortcomings of many defined benefit schemes is that they have a lot of their money invested in bonds or similar "safe" (but low yielding) investments so there's certainty about having enough money to pay the next 10 years or so of pensions. And, as in the case of HPS, the scheme was underfunded then it doesn't leave a good share of the assets available to be invested for growth.
If I were putting money into a defined contribution scheme then I would be looking for capital growth (which tends to be associated with more risk) and would only consider locking in some of that growth when getting close to drawing the pension.
It wouldn't be easy to shift out of defined benefit into defined contribution.
One of the shortcomings of many defined benefit schemes is that they have a lot of their money invested in bonds or similar "safe" (but low yielding) investments so there's certainty about having enough money to pay the next 10 years or so of pensions. And, as in the case of HPS, the scheme was underfunded then it doesn't leave a good share of the assets available to be invested for growth.
If I were putting money into a defined contribution scheme then I would be looking for capital growth (which tends to be associated with more risk) and would only consider locking in some of that growth when getting close to drawing the pension.
#34
General Discussion / Collective Defined Contributio...
Last post by Steve_2 - March 21, 2019, 09:49:08 PMThought I'd post this link https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/delivering-collective-defined-contribution-pension-schemes
No idea if Jacobs is thinking if this as a solution. Either as a transfer option (with financial advice) or an enforced change from DB to CDC.
No idea if Jacobs is thinking if this as a solution. Either as a transfer option (with financial advice) or an enforced change from DB to CDC.
#35
News / Using TPAS or the PO
Last post by Ken Falls - October 02, 2018, 12:12:34 PMAs some are aware the resolution role of TPAS was moved to the PO some months ago. This seems to have resulted in some confusion and requires legal clarification. It also possibly meant that some pensioners having sought advice from TPAS found themselves being in contact with the newly created Early Resolution Service of the PO.The PO has issued a clarification of the roles and process and here is a link
https://www.pensions-ombudsman.org.uk/2018/09/signposting-for-pension-dispute-resolution-just-became-clearer/
In summary,
1 TPAS is for advice only
2 A complainant can ask the Early Resolution team at the PO to take on a dispute and if both parties agree reach a conclusion without the need for a complainant going through the Internal Dispute process of a pension scheme.
3 A complainant can only formally ask the PO to investigate a complaint and reach a determination after first going through a scheme's Internal Dispute process.
https://www.pensions-ombudsman.org.uk/2018/09/signposting-for-pension-dispute-resolution-just-became-clearer/
In summary,
1 TPAS is for advice only
2 A complainant can ask the Early Resolution team at the PO to take on a dispute and if both parties agree reach a conclusion without the need for a complainant going through the Internal Dispute process of a pension scheme.
3 A complainant can only formally ask the PO to investigate a complaint and reach a determination after first going through a scheme's Internal Dispute process.
#36
News / Re: Hampshire v PPF
Last post by Jane Tordoff - September 10, 2018, 03:54:06 PMA ruling on this case was made last week.
http://www.pensions-expert.com/DB-Derisking/PPF-must-not-cut-pensions-by-more-than-half-EU-court-rules?ct=true
http://www.pensions-expert.com/DB-Derisking/PPF-must-not-cut-pensions-by-more-than-half-EU-court-rules?ct=true
#37
News / Hampshire v PPF
Last post by Ken Falls - July 30, 2018, 09:15:03 AMThere has been progress in this case which will be of interest to those who chose PPF and may have wider implications.
The attached address is to an article which explains but it is unclear what the full implications might be once the courts finally conclude.
https://www.monckton.com/eu-advocate-general-concludes-that-uk-pension-protection-rules-are-contrary-to-eu-law/
The attached address is to an article which explains but it is unclear what the full implications might be once the courts finally conclude.
https://www.monckton.com/eu-advocate-general-concludes-that-uk-pension-protection-rules-are-contrary-to-eu-law/
#38
General Discussion / Re: Redemption of CH2M shares
Last post by rysiek - March 04, 2018, 03:59:23 PMFollowing from the previous note I had another e-mail from Jacobs' Executive Vice President Kevin Berryman on 2nd March, see below:
[/size]Dear Stockholder,
[/size]As a follow-up to my email on February 8, I want to let you know that Jacobs has engaged [/size]PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to assist our international stockholders who received merger consideration from Wells Fargo following the transaction between Jacobs and CH2M and had taxes withheld from that consideration despite having a proper tax form W-8BEN on file with Computershare.
[/size]PwC is finalizing the process and will work with affected stockholders on an individual basis to recoup these funds from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). We expect to have details on how to complete the necessary forms for PwC by the end of next week.
[/size]Again, we apologize for this error and appreciate your patience as we work to make this right for you. If you would like to view our Frequently Asked Questions related to the transaction, they are accessible on our Investor Relations site [/size][size=78%][/size][/color]here[size=78%][/size][/size][/color].
[/color][/size]Sincerely,[/size]Kevin C. Berryman
[/size][size=0pt]Executive Vice President and[/size][size=0pt][/color]Chief Financial Officer[/size][size=0pt][/color]Jacobs[/size]
[/size]Dear Stockholder,
[/size]As a follow-up to my email on February 8, I want to let you know that Jacobs has engaged [/size]PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to assist our international stockholders who received merger consideration from Wells Fargo following the transaction between Jacobs and CH2M and had taxes withheld from that consideration despite having a proper tax form W-8BEN on file with Computershare.
[/size]PwC is finalizing the process and will work with affected stockholders on an individual basis to recoup these funds from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). We expect to have details on how to complete the necessary forms for PwC by the end of next week.
[/size]Again, we apologize for this error and appreciate your patience as we work to make this right for you. If you would like to view our Frequently Asked Questions related to the transaction, they are accessible on our Investor Relations site [/size][size=78%][/size][/color]here[size=78%][/size][/size][/color].
[/color][/size]Sincerely,[/size]Kevin C. Berryman
[/size][size=0pt]Executive Vice President and[/size][size=0pt][/color]Chief Financial Officer[/size][size=0pt][/color]Jacobs[/size]
#39
General Discussion / Re: Redemption of CH2M shares
Last post by rysiek - February 11, 2018, 03:48:45 PMFor general info, I had the following e-mail from Jacobs' executive vice president on 8 Feb. It seems that the withholding tax error has been identified and the withheld tax is to be refunded with interest. Although the mention of interest and the fact that Jacobs are engaging an accounting firm for this exercise probably means it will be an arduous processes to claw back tax from the IRS coffers, see below:
Richard Sewerniak
Dear Stockholder,
[/color]We recently learned of a serious issue that has affected our international stockholders who received merger consideration from Wells Fargo following the transaction between Jacobs and CH2M. For certain of these stockholders, taxes were withheld on both the cash and stock portions of the merger consideration at a rate of 28%, even if the shareholder had a proper tax form W-8BEN on file with Computershare. This was due to a miscommunication with our transfer agent, Wells Fargo, relating to tax withholding requirements for non-US persons. Had we realized this was going to occur, we would have taken immediate steps to avoid it. According to our records, you are one of the affected stockholders.
[/size]We apologize for this error and are working hard to address this matter. As discussed in the [/font][/size][/color]Frequently Asked Questions[/url][/font][/size][/color], Wells Fargo has already remitted the tax withholdings to the United States Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) so they cannot re-issue checks without the tax withholdings. We are in the process of engaging an accounting firm to provide you, an affected international stockholder who would not otherwise be filing a tax return with the IRS, with individual assistance, at Jacobs' expense, to return these tax withholdings to you. In addition, Jacobs will be providing affected shareholders with interest on the amounts that were improperly withheld as a result of the delay in receiving these funds.[size=78%]
[/color][/size]Once we arrange this, we will send you a follow-up email and a written letter with further guidance on this issue. Rest assured, we are very focused on addressing this as quickly as possible and it is a top priority for us. Thank you for your patience as we work to make this right for you.[/size]If you are aware of any other shareholders who have experienced this withholding issue, please share this email with them. If you have other questions relating to the transaction, we are maintaining updated FAQ's, which are accessible by clicking [/size]here[/url][/size][/font][/size] and viewing the tab for "CH2M FAQS" under "CH2M Filings and Reports."[/size]Sincerely,[/size]Kevin C. Berryman
[/size]Executive Vice President and[/font][/size][/color]Chief Financial Officer[/color]Jacobs
Richard Sewerniak
Dear Stockholder,
[/color]We recently learned of a serious issue that has affected our international stockholders who received merger consideration from Wells Fargo following the transaction between Jacobs and CH2M. For certain of these stockholders, taxes were withheld on both the cash and stock portions of the merger consideration at a rate of 28%, even if the shareholder had a proper tax form W-8BEN on file with Computershare. This was due to a miscommunication with our transfer agent, Wells Fargo, relating to tax withholding requirements for non-US persons. Had we realized this was going to occur, we would have taken immediate steps to avoid it. According to our records, you are one of the affected stockholders.
[/size]We apologize for this error and are working hard to address this matter. As discussed in the [/font][/size][/color]Frequently Asked Questions[/url][/font][/size][/color], Wells Fargo has already remitted the tax withholdings to the United States Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) so they cannot re-issue checks without the tax withholdings. We are in the process of engaging an accounting firm to provide you, an affected international stockholder who would not otherwise be filing a tax return with the IRS, with individual assistance, at Jacobs' expense, to return these tax withholdings to you. In addition, Jacobs will be providing affected shareholders with interest on the amounts that were improperly withheld as a result of the delay in receiving these funds.[size=78%]
[/color][/size]Once we arrange this, we will send you a follow-up email and a written letter with further guidance on this issue. Rest assured, we are very focused on addressing this as quickly as possible and it is a top priority for us. Thank you for your patience as we work to make this right for you.[/size]If you are aware of any other shareholders who have experienced this withholding issue, please share this email with them. If you have other questions relating to the transaction, we are maintaining updated FAQ's, which are accessible by clicking [/size]here[/url][/size][/font][/size] and viewing the tab for "CH2M FAQS" under "CH2M Filings and Reports."[/size]Sincerely,[/size]Kevin C. Berryman
[/size]Executive Vice President and[/font][/size][/color]Chief Financial Officer[/color]Jacobs
#40
General Discussion / Re: Adjustments to Pensions in...
Last post by rodhacker - February 02, 2018, 03:40:59 PMI am fortunate in that I received a positive correction to past pension payments. A few pounds per year compounded and paid with interest last December. The error related to incorrect treatment of the GMP portion after age 65.