We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
DB Transfer
Comments
-
I would think the average deficit vs. a full buyout requirement would be a lot worse than a third. Even a scheme with 100% funding level could be close to 50% short of being able to pass the liabilities to an insurer."Things are never so bad they can't be made worse" - Humphrey Bogart0
-
You could well be right - my information is gleaned form October 2014 Purple Book and it uses March 2014 figures apparently.redbuzzard wrote: »I would think the average deficit vs. a full buyout requirement would be a lot worse than a third. Even a scheme with 100% funding level could be close to 50% short of being able to pass the liabilities to an insurer.
However, I am not sure where they got their so-called March 2014 figures as schemes are mandatorily just triannually valued and I think many are due their revaluations as at 31 March 2015 - it could be a further 15 months before those valuations are agreed and see the light of day.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455K Spending & Discounts
- 246.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards