Unpopular view: the full balance sheet is the wrong default for most moves today

Agree with the diagnosis, less with the cure. Local-plus looks simple until you move someone from a high-pay country to a low-pay one, or from a country with a strong state pension to one without. Then you rebuild the balance sheet through exceptions, only without the logic.

The administrative cost argument is the strongest one. We costed our programme at about USD 9,000 a year per assignee in provider fees, data and tax compliance on the balance sheet, against about USD 3,500 on local-plus. With 150 assignees that funds a lot of flexibility.

What nobody mentions is pensions. The balance sheet keeps people in their home plan. Our local-plus movers under 35 did not care at the time, and several are now discovering gaps of four or five years in their retirement savings. We have added a requirement to explain this in writing at the offer stage.

A segmentation by who initiated the move and whether there is a return date covers most of it. Company-initiated with a return: home-based. Employee-requested or open-ended: host-based. We have four policy types on that grid and very few exceptions.

The pension point is a fair hit and something we handled badly at first. We now make an employer contribution to an international savings plan for local-plus movers whose host country scheme they are unlikely to benefit from.