Slightly worried /intrigued

geelamch

Do any of the posters on this site believe that the amount of queries on drawdown etc is possibly a little bit more than I expected.
My initial thoughts on recent changes were that the more sensible who have budgeted for retirement would pretty much ignore the changes/access to funds.i appreciate that there will be some cases where this will suit their needs ,however I think this withdrawal situation may pick up pace.
Would this help those of us who would remain in scheme etc or will it reduce the value through the long term.
I don't mean to insinuate that it will be the lamborginhi/world cruise but could a whole load of cash in the market bring inflation in to play.

Good_bad_and_ugly

Pensionwise isn't as busy as it seemed it may have been. There is some slack in the system if anyone needs an appt..

kidmugsy

geelamch wrote: »

I think this withdrawal situation may pick up pace. ....
Would this help those of us who would remain in scheme etc or will it reduce the value through the long term.

It had occurred to me that by adroit calculation of CETVs, many surviving DB schemes might manage to offload enough liabilities to improve its security for remaining members.

The art, presumably, is to offer CETVs that appeal to the would-be absconders, but reduce the liabilities more than they do the assets. The second art is somehow to build in enough margin to cover the fact that the would-be absconders will be disproportionately single, and have poorer than average life expectancies.

agarnett

kidmugsy wrote: »

It had occurred to me that by adroit calculation of CETVs, many surviving DB schemes might manage to offload enough liabilities to improve its security for remaining members.

The art, presumably, is to offer CETVs that appeal to the would-be absconders, but reduce the liabilities more than they do the assets. The second art is somehow to build in enough margin to cover the fact that the would-be absconders will be disproportionately single, and have poorer than average life expectancies.

Why are you using the derogatory word 'absconder' ?

Now that we have reached where we have reached with UK private pensions, i.e. that we all have the right to receive fair value if we wish to swap our pension, then I think what you have written is as bad as asserting that white people and especially white women should receive higher CETV quotes because they live less dangerous lives, and that males in same sex relationships should receive the lowest CETV quotes of all :eek:

Discrimination by trustees between scheme members on wild lifestyle assumptions, or some prejudice against "prodigals" who have an idea how to turn a modest fortune into something better instead of burying it and digging a bit of it up each year while their long-term spouse keeps careful watch until they die and then takes over, is surely wholly unacceptable poppycock at this stage of the proceedings in the UK

More succinctly put, you appear to be suggesting it is okay to deliberately shortchange those who wish to leave a scheme simply for exercising their new right ? Why ? Is the process somehow covered by scheme rules which anticipated the new right and which override the government intention ?

Or perhaps you are suggesting that it is indeed the government intention, as an obvious consequence of the new rules, to further "let-off" employer sponsors (of private sector DB schemes which they've already allowed to habitually run seriously in deficit for a decade) by allowing them now to milk "absconders" on behalf of the more needy "wiser" stay behinds.

I.e. Are you advocating that those who will patiently attend the table at the appointed time, and queue to be fed as the most loyal and constant part of the family until they die, are naturally to be treated as better citizens and so more deserving ?

Loughton_Monkey

agarnett wrote: »

Why are you using the derogatory word 'absconder' ?

....I think what you have written is as bad as

....you appear to be suggesting it is okay to deliberately

....Or perhaps you are suggesting that it is indeed

....Are you advocating that those who will patiently attend the table

Phew!!!!!

So many suppositions from such a short post. You seem to be on a one-man mission to encourage everyone to leave their final salary schemes.

kidmugsy

agarnett wrote: »

Why are you using the derogatory word 'absconder' ?

Because I thought it might raise a smile from readers with a sense of humour.

agarnett

kidmugsy wrote: »

Because I thought it might raise a smile from readers with a sense of humour.

Well if you sure it is well meant, else if it's "I made it up here to a comfortable retirement / I'm all right, Jack, but look at that shower down there clamouring to escape" type humour, you can stick it right back at you

LM wrote:

So many suppositions from such a short post. You seem to be on a one-man mission to encourage everyone to leave their final salary schemes.

I encourage them to see it as a right and not as a Trustee discretion. I very much encourage everyone to find out exactly where their final salary scheme is at, CETV wise, funding deficit wise and death benefit wise. In all three cases they might be very surprised.

These things generally will not be found out unless you ask the right questions. A general pattern of "if you don't ask, you don't get" seems to have beset some schemes reporting styles.

Meantime, deflation and crazy bond markets are playing havoc and some very interesting numbers may rightfully drop out from simple enquiries to your scheme administrators.

On the other hand, trustees playing God, and scheme employer sponsors playing shady games by unashamedly using deferred pension scheme members as an ablative heatshield to protect their shareholders at all costs from paying anything but lip-service to scheme deficits will soon be found out.

geelamch

Jeez oh, it was posted as a discussion.
If you are gay,single married. Or whatever. It's ok you deal with your own situation, if you want to subscribe to the guardian view steam on , alone.

agarnett

Oh ... Sorr-ee!

So you're the sensible one and you're worried that your pension scheme might suffer a run on the bank whilst your promise remains unfulfilled? Best talk to the bank about why their capital ratios are so thin and why they aren't securing/ring fencing more funds to meet pension liabilities instead of dissembling and misleading by declaring business as usual!