On “sleaze and spivvery”

cloud_dog

DiggerUK wrote: »

Successive governments have allowed this to happen. The truth is that surpluses are far from the norm. Current ‘strength’ of pension funds seems to be based on highly contentious valuations. On the figures in the articles linked to on this thread, a permanent 10% dive in the markets would cause enormous problems.

I doubt it. If these DB schemes are anything like the one I am a member of then they do not have the majority of their exposure in equities.

....Not that there could be any potential issue with bonds in the future....

woolly_wombat

My former employer's pension scheme is known to be in deficit, but that did not prevent the aforementioned former employer from acquiring another business with two indebted pension schemes, which they failed to disclose to the press or to their shareholders at the time.

I'm hoping, selfishly, that they keep going for a while longer without falling into the PPF.

If the worst does happen then I will be able to 'comfort' myself with the knowledge that it could have been even worse; I could so easily have transferred that particular deferred pension into the 'must-have' pension of it's day, my Equitable Life with(out)-profits pension!

Eggs and baskets spring to mind, and I'm hoping that all my eggs don't turn out to be rotten 'uns.

The DB pensions future does not look bright, but the PPF ensures that it is not as dark as it could have been.

Malthusian

woolly_wombat wrote: »

If the worst does happen then I will be able to 'comfort' myself with the knowledge that it could have been even worse; I could so easily have transferred that particular deferred pension into the 'must-have' pension of it's day, my Equitable Life with(out)-profits pension!

Thank goodness that doesn't happen nowadays and people aren't being transferred out of DB schemes offering real guarantees into the pretend guarantees offered by With Profits.

They're being transferred out of DB schemes into the pretend guarantees offered by PruFund instead.

But it's OK because PruFund isn't With Profits. Apparently.

hugheskevi

Recalling my comment earlier in the thread:

So put in perspective, it is reasonable to say something like

Quote:
Britain’s 5,794 final salary pension schemes have the highest funding level since 2014.

I was very amused by a Professional Pensions headline today:

DB funding soars to highest level since 2014

woolly_wombat

hugheskevi wrote: »

I was very amused by a Professional Pensions headline today:

DB funding soars to highest level since 2014

Flippin' hilarious considering what was also in your previous post

Britain's 5,794 have just 91.2 per cent of the funds they need to meet s179 pension liabilities, ie, PPF-level benefits. This is considerably lower than what they have promised to their members.

The schemes have a little under 70% of the assets they would need to meet full buy-out liabilities (what they have promised to members, valued on a gilt-yield basis)