Adjust 17: two different actuaries could legitimately derive wildly varying figures for your company's pension scheme deficit under FRS17. David Davison urges FDs to question actuarial assumptions.

AuthorDavison, David
PositionOpinion

Although FRS17 has undoubtedly gained acceptance in recent years, there is still a significant divergence of opinion about the audit standard. Some people believe that it provides a useful measure of a potential liability and some treat it more as a necessary evil--while others still see it as a complete pain in the proverbials. But, if nothing else, it has at least given us a starting point from which to measure companies' pension liabilities on a consistent basis. Or has it?

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The debate has moved from "should the FRS17 figure be produced?" to "just how accurate and consistent a measure of pension scheme liabilities is it?" This question has become increasingly important as the standard has become more widely used to value pension liabilities on everything from sales and purchase to setting scheme contributions. It has...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT