Reduced Pension Transfer Value?

mgdavid

kidmugsy wrote: »

Do you happen to know how the PPF deals with widows' pensions?

from an article in 'thisismoney' -

Typically, the PPF, will also pay 100 per cent compensation to those who have retired on legitimate ill-health grounds, regardless of age, and those receiving a pension in relation to someone who has died at the time that the employer went bust

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-1680441/The-Pension-Protection-Fund-PPF.html#ixzz3PDfNqntg

...caveated to say, this is the Daily Fail !

kidmugsy

mgdavid wrote: »

from an article in 'thisismoney' -

Typically, the PPF, will also pay 100 per cent compensation to those who have retired on legitimate ill-health grounds, regardless of age, and those receiving a pension in relation to someone who has died at the time that the employer went bust

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-1680441/The-Pension-Protection-Fund-PPF.html#ixzz3PDfNqntg

Thank you; it led me to this: "How much compensation will my spouse, civil partner or relevant partner receive?
Where you have reached normal pension age and your survivor is eligible as described above, compensation will be payable at half the amount of compensation you were receiving immediately prior to your death."

So there's another source of loss for me, since my widow is currently entitled to a pension equal to 90% of mine.

LeCoop

My annual statements also make lots of pre & post 1997 references.

"As you assume you will die first,you really do need to consider what will provide the best "return" for your wife in your absence and I would find it hard to look past a guaranteed inflation linked income for her"

Daniel54, I assume you are saying that I should stick with the DB scheme, but I am finding it hard to resist the pull of 16-17yrs worth of annual pension up-front that I can reinvest, knowing that in the event of mine and my wife's death, there will be a residual inheritance for my children.
I know that I forego all the guarantees that go with transferring out but, as I said previously, I am fortunate enough that I would not to need to drawdown from my pot during lean years; I could easily turn to other 'rainy day' investments that give a low return (e.g. our full allocation of premium bonds). I am in this position precisely because of cautious, risk averse investments.
The counter argument of course is to keep all the savings I have built up so far for my children and look after my own needs from a guaranteed pension.
I am still torn ...and I guess, lucky to have such a choice to make, when I think that my son is on 5x my 1970s salary but paying 14x as much as I did for his first house.

PensionTech

Haven't read everything, just wanted to respond to this:

I'll be chuffed if I live to 82 but 76 is far more accurate for my lifestyle & family medical history.

It's a really bad idea to look back at past generations for an idea of your mortality. Sure, if half of your family died of a particular hereditary disease, then you would want to consider the likelihood of you also contracting that disease. But life expectancy is moving on all the time, and your parents' life expectancies are 20-30 years out of date - and even worse for the grandparents. I'm sure you've heard that one of the reasons for pension schemes being in the mess they're in is because not enough people recognised, and planned for, the upwards trend in life expectancy. Look at it more like this:

1. Are you currently of comparable health/fitness levels to your peers?
2. Is there a strong chance that you have inherited a genetic predisposition to a serious illness e.g. certain types of cancer, or you have already suffered from such an illness?
3. Are you reasonably financially comfortable?

If your answers are 1. yes, 2. no and 3. yes, then don't assume you're going to die early just because other generations did, and take the up-to-date mortality statistics seriously.

LeCoop

PensionTech- I take your point ...and seriously too, but would still be chuffed at reaching 82

mgdavid

LeCoop wrote: »

..... I am in this position precisely because of cautious, risk averse investments. .......

That approach has stood you in very good stead so far.
The cautious risk-adverse option now is to keep the (inflation-proof?) DB pension.

The risky way is to take the money and invest it and try to beat inflation by sufficient margin to make the effort worthwhile. All on the premise that you stay compos mentis and fit enough to be able and willing to keep working at these investments right into old age.