Pension question

Debt_Free_Chick

Schnorbitz wrote: »

Yes, they are the section 179 valuations. I try to avoid using industry lingo as much as I can on here, but occasionally I can't help it: it's no wonder so many people feel so confused by pensions in general.

When responding to those not in the business, I too prefer to either avoid jargon or explain what it means. But I used s179 as I was pretty sure you would know what I meant - and hopefully show you that I knew what it meant too Not to show off, but just so that you could be confident we were talking about the same thing

Incidentally, Debt_Free_Chick, (and here comes a jargon warning for everyone else) have you received any of your DB schemes' regulator returns for this year? There's a new requirement for "period life expectancy" and "cohort life expectancy" in the financial information section, which has confused every set of trustees who have come to us with help on them so far. Our valuation programmes and annuity calculators were set up to do either one or the other, depending on whether the last valuation used a calendar projection mortality table (in which case the two are the same) or a cohort improvement table (in which case they are different). It took a good bit of tinkering with a spreadsheet to get the right answers out.

Don't get me started :mad:

Why, oh why doesn't the PPF speak to the Institute, the ACA, the PMI and the SPC and TELL THEM WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO ASK FOR? Seek REAL consultation? Listen? And then design the return accordingly. Then, all the industry groups can warn their members that "this is what the PPF is going to ask for this year".

By involving the Institute/Faculty of Actuaries, you would then be told what information your clients are going to ask for.

That wretched return is a complete pain in the !!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: And I have THREE to do (i.e. three different schemes!!)

I am no longer a creative enterprising pensions manager - I am a Risk Manager/Compliance Officer! :mad:

........ and breathe <sigh>

Schnorbitz_2

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Don't get me started :mad:

Why, oh why doesn't the PPF speak to the Institute, the ACA, the PMI and the SPC and TELL THEM WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO ASK FOR? Seek REAL consultation? Listen? And then design the return accordingly. Then, all the industry groups can warn their members that "this is what the PPF is going to ask for this year".

By involving the Institute/Faculty of Actuaries, you would then be told what information your clients are going to ask for.

That is such a good idea. If only the Regulator would send us an example return in, say, November or December. The first time we saw these was this week. And we have been adjusting our valuation reports according to what the Regulator was asking for: in last year's return they were asking for life expectancies from 50, so we started putting them in, and in this year's return they've started asking for life expectancies from 45. So it's back to the spreadsheets for us again.