Do I not like this!

sandsy

wjr4 wrote: »

Sorry to open an old thread but it seemed relevant rather than start a new one and basically copy & paste the above! The offers for these pensions have been issued now and I'm quite surprised with some of their offers, an increase of the fund value of between 53%-70%. Now the issue is, how do you actually review whether to keep the GAR or accept the increased fund value?

Well, that's because GARs are valuable and generally in the money at the moment. You should have a personal illustration which shows your own figures. You should also have information somewhere which explains who might benefit and who might not.

anselld

rangersfc wrote: »

Hello wjr4,
I have received personal offer. Examples are given for various scenarios, with or without GAR annuity or lump sum etc.
Everyone's position and circumstances are different , so it is personal choice which is best if the offer is accepted.
Contrary to fears and concerns expressed here and elsewhere, the scheme OPT-OUT option allows individual members to retain the GAR in event of the changes/proposals being approved.
Regards,
mrwmartin

True. However it is a strange vote. Those who would otherwise vote "No" must opt out and may not therefore vote. Only those intending to vote "yes" can actually vote.

Turkeys can opt out of Christmas but they cannot vote against it.

I hope those who decide to opt out are not disadvantaged by funds being disproportionately redirected towards the buyout.

[Deleted User]

Hello anselld,
I'm afraid I am not interested in discussing turkeys or Christmas. Your statement that only those intending to vote yes can actually vote is incorrect. Planholders can vote no , but will lose the GAR if vote is in favour of change.
I have no reason to push or try to influence votes one way or the other. I merely pointed out the overlooked fact that people who wished to keep GAR only had to OPT OUT.
I too hope that no one is disadvantaged, but fewer people will choose annuities in future pension choices, GAR or not, regards,,mrwmartin

anselld

rangersfc wrote: »

Planholders can vote no , but will lose the GAR if vote is in favour of change.

Not a viable option, which makes the vote a pointless rigged yes vote.

[Deleted User]

Hello again anselld,
A no vote is not pointless. If the majority vote no, the proposal will not proceed and everyone keeps the GAR. It is not a rigged vote,but we obviously have opposing views on that subject.
The outcome of every vote,in all situations, is never satisfactory to the losers.
Regards,
mrwmartin

anselld

rangersfc wrote: »

The outcome of every vote,in all situations, is never satisfactory to the losers.

That was not my point. The way this has been set up there are no losers. Those who want to keep the GAR opt out. Those who want the buyout opt in and vote yes.

Everyone gets what they want. Not a bad thing, so then why the phoney vote?

atush

dunstonh wrote: »

Either by using an IFA or your own calculations.



That was always going to be the case. Not sure how people got a different idea

You would have thought so, but the poor choice of wording in the inital phases seemed to lead to that outcome.

sandsy

anselld wrote: »

That was not my point. The way this has been set up there are no losers. Those who want to keep the GAR opt out. Those who want the buyout opt in and vote yes.

Everyone gets what they want. Not a bad thing, so then why the phoney vote?

A vote is required by the Companies Act before a court will sanction the scheme:

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/0-107-7201?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)