Connect with us

News

UK pension trustees raise alarm on transferring risks offshore

Published

on

UK pension trustees raise alarm on transferring risks offshore

Stay informed with free updates

Senior industry professionals say they are worried about the growing involvement of overseas reinsurance firms operating outside UK regulation in corporate pension deals.

Many UK businesses with large pension schemes have offloaded them to life insurance companies. These “buyouts” — of pension plans and the assets backing them — are regarded as the gold standard for safeguarding benefits.

But as higher interest rates improved pension scheme funding levels, prompting a record £50bn of corporate pension deals last year, some UK life insurers have passed on portions of these pension scheme assets and liabilities to reinsurers, often based in Bermuda. Such “funded reinsurance” deals reduce capital requirements for life insurers, making it easier for them to do further deals.

Advertisement

“We don’t believe we fully understand the risks associated with these offshore insurance companies,” said Natalie Winterfrost, a professional trustee and former chair of the investment committee at The Society of Pension Professionals.

“They will be subject to different and potentially less stringent regulatory oversight.”

She added: “This is where the disquiet comes in for trustees — and their advisers too.” 

Victoria Tillbrook, a UK pensions expert at consultancy PwC, said “more and more” trustees wanted to fully understand developments in what insurers were doing, what was being reinsured and the position of the UK’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which compensates customers if a financial business fails.

Melanie Cusack, a professional trustee at Zedra, a corporate services business said: “More questions are being asked: if something happens to the reinsurer, what happens to the members?”

Advertisement

The Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority, which supervises insurers, declined to comment. 

But it warned the industry last year that relying on funded reinsurance could create a “systemic vulnerability” for the sector, in the case of reinsurers failing and the original life insurers having to pay the pension benefits but without the underlying assets.

The regulator has proposed that insurers limit how much funded reinsurance they do with any one counterparty, among other safeguards.

The Association of British Insurers welcomed the PRA’s acknowledgment of the importance of reinsurance to well-functioning insurance markets, and said the sector gave “vital protection and peace of mind” to pension scheme members and employers.

Privately, insurers stress that funded reinsurance represents a small proportion of pension buyout deals, and that even a large reinsurer failure would be unlikely to create major problems for life insurers. They also point out that the FSCS would step in if there was a failure.

Advertisement

Disclosure on funded reinsurance is partial. Legal & General did £3.2bn of deals last year, Just Group £0.4bn in the same period and Pension Insurance Corporation a cumulative total of £2.5bn as at June last year, while Rothesay does not do any, according to people familiar with the details. All declined to comment. Aviva and Phoenix Group did not provide figures when asked by the Financial Times. 

Kunal Sood, managing director of defined benefit solutions and reinsurance at Phoenix’s Standard Life business, said the industry had “strict due diligence processes and regulation in place to ensure decisions are managed with policyholders’ interests in mind over the longer term”.

He added funded reinsurance was one of a number of risk management measures used by Phoenix “as part of a wider strategy to maintain a well-diversified, robust balance sheet for policyholder protection”.

The UK Pensions Regulator said it was monitoring market developments and was working on a” number of initiatives” with the Bank of England and the PRA.

Advertisement

News

Video: F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

Published

on

Video: F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

new video loaded: F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

transcript

transcript

F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

The National Transportation Safety Board said that a “multitude of errors” led to the collision between a military helicopter and a commercial jet, killing 67 people last January.

“I imagine there will be some difficult moments today for all of us as we try to provide answers to how a multitude of errors led to this tragedy.” “We have an entire tower who took it upon themselves to try to raise concerns over and over and over and over again, only to get squashed by management and everybody above them within F.A.A. Were they set up for failure?” “They were not adequately prepared to do the jobs they were assigned to do.”

Advertisement
The National Transportation Safety Board said that a “multitude of errors” led to the collision between a military helicopter and a commercial jet, killing 67 people last January.

By Meg Felling

January 27, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Families of killed men file first U.S. federal lawsuit over drug boat strikes

Published

on

Families of killed men file first U.S. federal lawsuit over drug boat strikes

President Trump speaks as U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth looks on during a meeting of his Cabinet at the White House in December 2025.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Relatives of two Trinidadian men killed in an airstrike last October are suing the U.S. government for wrongful death and for carrying out extrajudicial killings.

The case, filed in Massachusetts, is the first lawsuit over the strikes to land in a U.S. federal court since the Trump administration launched a campaign to target vessels off the coast of Venezuela. The American government has carried out three dozen such strikes since September, killing more than 100 people.

Among them are Chad Joseph, 26, and Rishi Samaroo, 41, who relatives say died in what President Trump described as “a lethal kinetic strike” on Oct. 14, 2025. The president posted a short video that day on social media that shows a missile targeting a ship, which erupts in flame.

Advertisement

“This is killing for sport, it’s killing for theater and it’s utterly lawless,” said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “We need a court of law to rein in this administration and provide some accountability to the families.”

The White House and Pentagon justify the strikes as part of a broader push to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. The Pentagon declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying it doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation.

But the new lawsuit described Joseph and Samaroo as fishermen doing farm work in Venezuela, with no ties to the drug trade. Court papers said they were headed home to family members when the strike occurred and now are presumed dead.

Neither man “presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the United States or anyone at all, and means other than lethal force could have reasonably been employed to neutralize any lesser threat,” according to the lawsuit.

Advertisement

Lenore Burnley, the mother of Chad Joseph, and Sallycar Korasingh, the sister of Rishi Samaroo, are the plaintiffs in the case.

Their court papers allege violations of the Death on the High Seas Act, a 1920 law that makes the U.S. government liable if its agents engage in negligence that results in wrongful death more than 3 miles off American shores. A second claim alleges violations of the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreign citizens to sue over human rights violations such as deaths that occurred outside an armed conflict, with no judicial process.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Jonathan Hafetz at Seton Hall University School of Law are representing the plaintiffs.

“In seeking justice for the senseless killing of their loved ones, our clients are bravely demanding accountability for their devastating losses and standing up against the administration’s assault on the rule of law,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel at the ACLU.

U.S. lawmakers have raised questions about the legal basis for the strikes for months but the administration has persisted.

Advertisement

—NPR’s Quil Lawrence contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

News

Video: New Video Analysis Reveals Flawed and Fatal Decisions in Shooting of Pretti

Published

on

Video: New Video Analysis Reveals Flawed and Fatal Decisions in Shooting of Pretti

new video loaded: New Video Analysis Reveals Flawed and Fatal Decisions in Shooting of Pretti

A frame-by-frame assessment of actions by Alex Pretti and the two officers who fired 10 times shows how lethal force came to be used against a target who didn’t pose a threat.

By Devon Lum, Haley Willis, Alexander Cardia, Dmitriy Khavin and Ainara Tiefenthäler

January 26, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending