Sorry but I have to say that the accountancy profession has let the British public down on this.To try and put "true" numbers in a current P&L to represent future liabilities in 20-50 years time is about as relevant as the Inflation accounting standard of the 70's. Think again.

Andrew (like his boss, Ian Mackintosh) seems to like saying there has not been much opposition so far. I could cite Pensions Research Accountants Group among accountants, and also the KPMG clients quoted in detail at the ASB's own conference in May, to give just two examples; but I would prefer simply to agree with the succinct comments of Duncan Moncrieff above.

Unable to stop myself there, though, I'd also suggest that ASB try doing some Impact Assessment analysis of FRS 17 and also extend their somewhat stylised consultations on very, very long papers to be much more inclusive, and speak to those most affected, people in closed occupational pension schemes and their representatives among trade unions and pensions trustees.

There is no "right" number, Andrew, but you don't seem to be listening, or, it appears to me, be brave enough to face up to the consequences of accounting standards for people's long-term pensions based on accountants' short-term fair values, marked to volatile markets.

ICAS has a public interest duty to say more on this than simply fall in line behind would-be standard-setters like the ASB.

I think that the ASB has failed to grasp the message that FRS17 was and remains a theoretical calculation and such calculations can destroy companies - a fact that seems not to have concerned these decision-makers. It's fine for a big five firm and FT 100 representatives to decide that one-size fits all but they clearly haven't considered the majority of small firms for whom FRS17 is a millstone. They cannot afford to carry out financial engineering to ensure that the Pension Scheme deficits don't damage their reputations completely. Consider the case of many small and medium-sized companies who started many years ago and, as good employers, started pension schemes - final salary of course as most/all were those days. After 40/50 years many of these companies have shrunk in size perhaps through greater efficiency or perhaps through changes in the marketplace yet they are supporting Pension Schemes vastly larger than the employers. If the auditor follows FRS17 and charges a theoretical sum to the P&L it will quickly show that the company is "theoretically" insolvent. So what happens? It closes, throws all the staff into unemployment, loses staff their life savings as the PPF might take over the company at a future date and pay a proportion of their expected pension and we lose the knowledge amassed over generations. Never mind - the ASB ruling has done its job! No it hasn't - it has forced a profitable company into death or a slow and grinding decline. (And please don't accuse tham of pension holidays - most of them probably haven't indulged themseves with a holiday as their bigger quoted counterparts have done.) Left to themselves as responsible employers these SME companies can often continue, grow, augment the pension schemes as much as possible and may well work their way out of their immediate problems - supported by a better stock market and maybe a more pension-friendly government. Pensions we are told is a longterm business and investments are made for the longterm. So why then does the ASB think short-termism is the right course of action? There is an alternative and probably many companies have decided to disregard FRS17 as being an indulgence of the ASB - who made an honest attempt to address a problem but have got it wrong. (It's like legislation - how many times have politicians enacted leglislation and got it wrong but forund it very difficult to admit the fact. I am afraid that I come from a generation of accountants where judgement was taught, recognised and respected. When a new FRS is issued, it now seems compliance is mandatory. I commend the ASB for trying to provide standards but what a sad world it is when adherence to such standards is almost a stipulation. There are excellent around in the profession and in business who retain an open mind but sadly they do not get recognised for that independence.

Yes I do blame accountancy, at least in part, for the demise of the final salary pension scheme. It has forced schemes to become so risk averse that their cost has become prohibitive. Taking greater risk in a controlled way should lead to improved long term returns, but at the cost of short term volatility - but this can no longer be afforded due to mark to market accounting rules.