"Opt of of Serps" - Is it still active?

magpiecottage

agarnett wrote: »

Nothing common about our scheme. The employer could afford every penny and the trustees did the employers dirty work instead of resigning as they should have done.

So why did you not become a member trustee and hold them to account?

agarnett wrote: »

Well maybe your maths ain't up to it - we can't all be experts in everything now can we? Although some make themselves out to be. There's absolutely nothing complex about the reality of how much pension contribution went where and why. It's in my payslips an P60s and I only have 40 of those. Might I suggest a course in Microsoft Excel and Visual Basic

Okay - so you think it is easy, do you.

Get your spreadsheet and show us how you will calculate not only the GMP but the SERPS adjustment from your 40 payslips.

Having taken advanced courses in both Excel functionality and Visual Basic, I would still go back to using functionality found in Lotus 123 - which I was trained to use about 30 years ago.

However, I also know that simply knowing Visual Basic will not help me to carry out the necessary calculations.

On the other hand, if you are the expert, please show us how you can do it.

It can be estimated, with reasonable accuracy, from just one. I know this because I have, on occasion, had to do that. So forty should be easy for an expert like you.

Oh really ? Do the ombudsmen set the rules by which they judge cases or is it others who come through as insiders and streamline the ombudsman decision making process in order to streamline operational throughput ? It's a highly political task of course.

I believe you will find it is section 228 the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. That was established by Parliament.

Not very challenging though, was it? I mean when the dear old chap did it, he was no older than me, and no doubt in full working order, and it wasn't exactly a degree level qualification, now was it? How quickly did he pass it?

[/quote]Given that he is, and was, a QC, I am sure that he found it relatively straightforward.

Was it multiple choice?

If you knew what you were talking about, you would not need to ask.

agarnett

magpiecottage wrote:

Okay - so you think it is easy, do you.

Get your spreadsheet and show us how you will calculate not only the GMP but the SERPS adjustment from your 40 payslips.

Having taken advanced courses in both Excel functionality and Visual Basic, I would still go back to using functionality found in Lotus 123 - which I was trained to use about 30 years ago.

However, I also know that simply knowing Visual Basic will not help me to carry out the necessary calculations.

On the other hand, if you are the expert, please show us how you can do it.

It can be estimated, with reasonable accuracy, from just one. I know this because I have, on occasion, had to do that. So forty should be easy for an expert like you.

I didn't say it was easy.

You said:

Unfortunately, GMP calculations are very complex. That is the fault of the government, not the insurance company - or the employer. There are people who can calculate them. Aviva, and other insurers normally use actuaries to do it and they maintain software to calculate it.

On the rare occasion I have calculated it from scratch, it has taken me days to do it.

I said maybe your maths wasn't up to it, and from the way you hark back to "functionality" in Lotus 123 which you can't find in Excel it seems you might only be a user of built-in functions. If they aren't dished up on the plate you are stumped, right?

So tell me, if I've worked 40 years for 12 x 40 payslips, each showing a carefully computed pension contribution and NI deduction, why can't I input the whole lot into a well designed spreadsheet with a sensible bit of code behind it and expect an answer to appear immediately? What's difficult about that? . That's just 40 P60s, and 480 payslips - 480 lines in a spreadsheet, fewer if your spreadsheet can handle it. But estimated from just one payslip? That surely would be a leap of faith. Why does anything have to be estimated by you? Are you sure you are best qualified to argue that estimates are accurate and acceptable in lieu of full calculations?

All I am saying is mathematicians find these things straightforward. You tell them clearly what your problem is and they will program something to take the sweat out of it for you. Yes mathematicians, not computer programmers. And you talk of actuaries as if they might be as rare or set upon pedestals in high places a little like Martians. Perhaps you worship actuaries or the ground they walk on? I don't. They are mostly just mathematicians with a bent towards statistics. I am surrounded by mathematicians in my family. They can calculate from scratch how stuff works. They use computers thesedays, not blackboards and jotting pads. Get a real mathematician on your side and free up your life to enjoy real progress!

Job done. Next?

I am sure you'll understand there is a better way and there is no rightful industry excuse for you to be charging your fee rate for even a days work, let alone more than one day, if it is all spent estimating GMP on a single case just because you don't have access to the clever code in proprietary actuarial applications like Towers Watson's Transcalc TM (which is in fact just a glorified spreadsheet, isn't it!), or the knowhow to use it.

Oh, and why didn't I become a member trustee? Because I was younger then, clueless on how to manoeuvre on such things against my ruthless City bosses who were the trustees, and of course, I wasn't invited - quite the opposite in fact. I am not even sure there was a seat for a member trustee, or if there was, it was reserved for a boss's man.

Naturally, it being the City, it wasn't long after I made my thoughts clear, before I was out on my ear for stepping out of line.

magpiecottage wrote:

Particularly ar FOS. The majority of its ombudsmen have never worked in financial services other than for a regulator or FOS or one of its predecessors.

me wrote:

Oh really ? Do the ombudsmen set the rules by which they judge cases or is it others who come through as insiders and streamline the ombudsman decision making process in order to streamline operational throughput ? It's a highly political task of course.

I believe you will find it is section 228 the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. That was established by Parliament.

Was it, bejesus? You mean this little old rulebook here ?? Seems to leave rather a lot to the opinion of the ombudsman {ombudsmen? - is there just one or a whole tribe of them with a boss?}, as to what is or is not fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, - I wonder who feeds them the lines for their reports since they've never worked in financial services according to your assertion - how can they judge if they don't know what has passed for acceptable practice ? So they've learned all they needed to know at one or more of the myriad of past regulators e.g. IBRC, FSC, ABRD, SFA, ICS, DTI, Lautro, FIMBRA, IMRO, PIA, GISC, Lloyd's, FCA, FSA, SIB ... so not industry insiders at all, eh? Then what? They're mind readers - or more Martians ? :rotfl:

If you knew what you were talking about, you would not need to ask.

Oh you mean like if I need to ask the price I am in the wrong shop? Big mistake, mc. Big. Huge!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXdIK1xgfFk

magpiecottage

I see that as soon as I say something agarnett uses that as an excuse to rant against me - and anybody else she can think of - in order to antagonise, rather than have a sensible debate. Everytime you say something, she twists it in order to achieve her own peverse agenda.

There used to be a poster called moneyineptitude who would remind us we should not feed such trolls.

dunstonh

magpiecottage wrote: »

I see that as soon as I say something agarnett uses that as an excuse to rant against me - and anybody else she can think of - in order to antagonise, rather than have a sensible debate. Everytime you say something, she twists it in order to achieve her own peverse agenda.

There used to be a poster called moneyineptitude who would remind us we should not feed such trolls.

Also, the reason you are not getting many others join in is that they have agarnett on ignore for the very reasons you have said. There is no point in debating with someone incapable of debate and who resorts to name calling anyone that tries to explain or discuss.

magpiecottage

Back to the plot.

There are a few, very few, cases where Contracting Out of SERPS was a bad move at outset.

These include those cases where an investor was above the "pivotal age". This because an investment needs enough time for growth to overcome charges. This was typically 40-45 for men. It varied with provider - partly based on what their charges were.

For women it was generally 5 years lower. This is because the benefits were paid from State Pension Age and, at the time, this was 65 for men but 60 for women.

It was also possible that somebody on a low income would be worse off. This is because there are some flat rate costs which would make the effect on the relatively small rebates into their plan disproportionately high. In effect, this would push the pivotal age down.

Having looked into this in detail, the Finanical Services Authority decided that the in the majority of cases, it would have been in the investor's best interests at the time to Contract Out. Therefore, it is more likely than not that, had they been correctly advised, they would have been recommended to do so and would have followed that recommendation.

To be entitled to redress, it is necessary to demonstrate not only fault on the part of the person against whom the complaint is made but that, if the fault had not occurred the loss would not have happened. So the chain is broken on the link of "causality". Thus does not matter whether the link of "culpability" is broken or not.

For those who think that this is simply the FSA avoiding the problem, I would point to the review of Personal Pensions, the review of low cost endowments and the review of PPI.

Contracting out of SERPS would have been very small beer by comparison particularly as, at the time, the Pension Review software was still being maintained and could easily have carried out such calculations.

bigadaj

It's a shame that agarnett takes that approach, they are obviously not stupid and provide some good generic points. Problem is that the debate becomes antagonistic rather than an honest expression of views which may or may not oppose each other, and if the latter can't be left as a simple agreement that everyone's view is different, accept that and move on.

gadgetmind

bigadaj wrote: »

they are obviously not stupid

Perhaps, but clearly has a *very* closed mind, one incapable of seeing different points of view, taking on new information or <shudder> actually changing position on any matter.

All in all, very "Daily Mail".
.

dunstonh

All in all, very "Daily Mail".

You mean he has ample cleavage, flaunts his legs and lives in a house worth xxxx where every normal event is terrifying. Where conversations usually end with someone saying vote UKIP.

gadgetmind

The Daily Mash does some excellent spoof articles regards the Daily Mail.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/media/daily-mail-exactly-the-same-in-parallel-universe-where-nazis-won-20151120104044

Though this one could have come straight out of the Telegraph's money section.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/we-earn-190k-a-year-should-we-sell-a-child-so-we-can-buy-another-flat-20151120104033

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

You mean he has ample cleavage, flaunts his legs and lives in a house worth xxxx where every normal event is terrifying. Where conversations usually end with someone saying vote UKIP.

I was so disappointed at the election.

I was hoping Theresa May would say "you kip if you want to".