Retiring from the NHS

Turtle

jamesd wrote: »

Nice try.

I'm nothing if not optimistic!

jamesd wrote: »

It's not too bad. Tracers in general are good for those who want to put money in and never pay attention again. I have a feeling that this does not and will not describe you. Even if you don't know so much today, nor did I a few years ago. This isn't their only use, it's just that when using actively managed funds you have to pay attention to the manager changes and performance as well as the performance of particular general classes of investment. So a bit more work and it can take a bit longer to learn.

It's not really, I do like to understand things and get frustrated when I don't. Which is a shame as I'm no Einstein, but I want to know it's working well for us and hopefully with a bit of effort I'll get there.

Is there a middle ground between sticking in your cash and leaving if for 30 years without checking, and checking fund manager movements and how for example, property is performing compared to gold and making decisions on moving stuff around?

jamesd wrote: »

Just ask him to explain the difference between the billiard ball model of atoms and reality. If he starts to talk about something other than orbitals and probability distributions and wanders off into mathematical equations tell him to stop unless you enjoy pure mathematics...

I did ask him but he looked a bit vague :rotfl:. I'm sure if maths were a strong point I might be finding this all a bit easier!

jamesd wrote: »

The one I use is Vanguard FTSE Developed World ex(cluding) UK.

Yes and yes.

Bond prices have been increasing for well over a decade and there is reason to believe that there's a large price bubble that may cause a sharp decline in prices once interest rates start to return to more normal levels. This would happen in part because a bond pays out a fixed amount of interest. To pay more the price has to drop, so if you need to sell after interest rates have risen you will need to sell for less or you wont' find a buyer.

Thanks I will look at that one (as of this week I've heard of it at least!) and will stay away from bonds.

jamesd wrote: »

Just jump in and do reading as time allows. It does become clearer over time. Nothing you an do with funds will be too bad to undo later after learning from the experience.

Jump in. It's OK, not wonderful, not horrible.

Read my posts from 2005 and 2006... Everyone starts out knowing nothing. Just takes getting started.

That's reassuring to know. I'm well aware there's a risk you don't get with cash deposits but I don't want to wake up in 10 years with all our low rate mortgage invested in a fund that hits the floor overnight and we can't pay it off.

I'll certainly dig out your old stuff, must have been a fair journey

BobQ

Turtle wrote: »

Indeed they are. We have no children or other dependants and so don't have to plan for uni fees / weddings (only our own ), house deposits etc.

.

Also remember that the NHS scheme has other benefits that a personal pension fund or an investment fund will not provide. Not sure of the exact details but there is probably a 50% pension for you if he dies before you, a death benefit (twice salary) if he died while an active contributor to the scheme before retirement, potential for better severance terms for his pension if early retirement on health grounds was necessary.

Not very pleasant to discuss but you would have to pay extra to get similar terms from insurance products if available. Also, if he does not need the lump sum from the 1995 scheme he can convert it to extra pension.

Thicko2

BobQ wrote: »

Also remember that the NHS scheme has other benefits that a personal pension fund or an investment fund will not provide. Not sure of the exact details but there is probably a 50% pension for you if he dies before you, a death benefit (twice salary) if he died while an active contributor to the scheme before retirement, potential for better severance terms for his pension if early retirement on health grounds was necessary.

Not very pleasant to discuss but you would have to pay extra to get similar terms from insurance products if available. Also, if he does not need the lump sum from the 1995 scheme he can convert it to extra pension.

Bob - i dont think the lump sum can be converted back. Shame as at 12:1 commutation rate the other way, it would have been more beneficial.

Turtle

BobQ wrote: »

Also remember that the NHS scheme has other benefits that a personal pension fund or an investment fund will not provide. Not sure of the exact details but there is probably a 50% pension for you if he dies before you, a death benefit (twice salary) if he died while an active contributor to the scheme before retirement, potential for better severance terms for his pension if early retirement on health grounds was necessary.

Not very pleasant to discuss but you would have to pay extra to get similar terms from insurance products if available. Also, if he does not need the lump sum from the 1995 scheme he can convert it to extra pension.

Neither of us have an issue discussing what would happen if either of us died, much as we hope that wouldn't happen, it comes to us all and it's just sensible to know what the position is . We'd both get spouses pensions and lump sum death in service benefits.

Turtle

Thicko2 wrote: »

Bob - i dont think the lump sum can be converted back. Shame as at 12:1 commutation rate the other way, it would have been more beneficial.

At some point I'll be going back through this thread and writing down all my questions. New things keep coming up I haven't thought of so thanks for the continued discussion:)

butterfly72

BobQ wrote: »

If he stayed in the NHS for another 13 years and left at 55 he would have his 1995 pension until 2015 plus 13 years in the 2015 scheme. This presents some issues in that he will get his 1995 pension at 60 and his 2015 pension at whatever is his normal retirement age (68?). So if he left at 55 and drew his 1995 pension at 60 it would not include his 2015 Pension unless he wanted to take that part earlier

I thought that both parts had to be taken together. So if one retires at 60, they get their protected 1995 FS and the new CA part is also taken with a reduction. I'm not sure you can opt to take the 1995 section at 60 and the CA at normal retirement age.

BobQ

Thicko2 wrote: »

Bob - i dont think the lump sum can be converted back. Shame as at 12:1 commutation rate the other way, it would have been more beneficial.

Mmm. I am more familiar with the Civil Service Classic Scheme which appears similar to the NHS 1995. Classic does allow this but you may be right this is not allowed in the NHS 1995. But OP could check on that if its relevant.

butterfly72 wrote: »

I thought that both parts had to be taken together. So if one retires at 60, they get their protected 1995 FS and the new CA part is also taken with a reduction. I'm not sure you can opt to take the 1995 section at 60 and the CA at normal retirement age.

As I read the booklet referenced below, you can retire from the 1995 Scheme and draw your pension and carry on working part time <16 hours. The complication is the New Scheme and how that will work. You may be right that you have to completely retire from the NHS to draw the 1995 section.

http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/Pensions/Documents/Pensions/SD_guide_-_Online_(V10)_04.2013.pdf

Thrugelmir

Turtle wrote: »

That's reassuring to know. I'm well aware there's a risk you don't get with cash deposits but I don't want to wake up in 10 years with all our low rate mortgage invested in a fund that hits the floor overnight and we can't pay it off.

The downside of cash deposits is inflation. Over 20 years the likelihood will be is that the value of it will halve.

Spirit_2

BobQ wrote: »

As I read the booklet referenced below, you can retire from the 1995 Scheme and draw your pension and carry on working part time <16 hours. The complication is the New Scheme and how that will work. You may be right that you have to completely retire from the NHS to draw the 1995 section.

http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/Pensions/Documents/Pensions/SD_guide_-_Online_(V10)_04.2013.pdf

Current terms are you can retire from 1995 scheme,after a 24 hour break you can work <16 hours for the first month, and then more hours thereafter.

Dafyd_2

Hope this helps
The pensions provider should be able to advise you and provide estimates for your chosen route before you make any decisions.

In some schemes you can ask for your pension to be paid from as early as 50 onwards ( actuarially reduced) but any annual increments are not implemented until age 55.

Normally if a person leaves or takes up another job (with a different pension arrangement)
their pension is automatically managed by the pension
provider and is paid at the "normal retirement age for that
pension scheme" eg age 60
unless you ask for something else to happen.

Suggest talking to the pension adviser and taking some financial advice.
dafyd

Turtle wrote: »

Hi

I've been thinking about us planning for early retirement recently and have this morning been reading through my husband's pension information.

He's in the NHS scheme and a couple of years ago had to make a decision about staying in the 1995 scheme or transferring to the 2008 scheme. He decided to stay in the 1995 scheme as this is better if you want to retire at 60 and not 65 (he's currently 40).

What I couldn't find in the information was whether he could retire at 55 and just defer drawing the pension until 60. If he had to draw the pension at 55 it would be reduced by 24% which is quite a chunk, but wouldn't want to work at this job until he's 60 (or at least that's what he's currently thinking).

I know the pension administrator would be able to answer this for definite but I wondered if anyone had any experience of this?

If any more background is needed please let me know. Thanks in advance for any help.