Help I feel swindled

kidmugsy

ProDave wrote: »

I doubt you will have "lost out" by waiting.

If she's been living off savings instead of a pension of which a large part would presumably have been tax-free, then she very possibly will have "lost out".

capital0ne

doubletop40 wrote: »

Anyway by not taking your pension early, my belief FWIW, is you did the right thing, it will almost certainly lead to a bigger income going forward. When I retired in 2006 at fifty I knew I could take my pension reduced by (15*4) 60% .I'm going to take it in a month or so reduced by 10%

And on top of that the amount you get increases each year while deferred, well at least my final salary scheme with Pearson group increased for each year it was deferred by about 9% - very nice thank you.

Silvertabby

If you joined the scheme in about 1988, that was well before retirement ages in occupational pension schemes had to be equal for men and women, so your scheme retirement age was almost certainly 60, in line with the state pension age. Posted by Marcon

It depends on the scheme. NRA for both sexes in the LGPS has been 65 since the scheme began in the 1920s (with 65 also being the State pension age for both sexes at the time).

xylophone

And on top of that the amount you get increases each year while deferred,

Some schemes don't offer "late retirement increases".

xylophone

I

t depends on the scheme. NRA for both sexes in the LGPS has been 65 since the scheme began in the 1920s (with 65 also being the State pension age for both sexes at the time).

Yes, although some members may have been able to take advantage of this?


https://www.kentpensionfund.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/63067/Qs-and-As-about-the-85-year-rule-factsheet.pdf

Silvertabby

It depends on the scheme. NRA for both sexes in the LGPS has been 65 since the scheme began in the 1920s (with 65 also being the State pension age for both sexes at the time).

xylophone wrote: »

I

Yes, although some members may have been able to take advantage of this?

https://www.kentpensionfund.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/63067/Qs-and-As-about-the-85-year-rule-factsheet.pdf

Yes, but NRA (normal retirement age) was still 65 - it's the CRA (critical retirement age) that could have been between 60 and 65 (for both sexes) subject to R85.

ermine

sue139uk wrote: »

I have "lost out" massively. I have found out this year that fellow workers who drew their pension early and invested the lump sum have seen it increase by more than inflation.

This is pure FOMO, and it's not even right. Workers who drew a pension early have a permanently reduced DB pension due to the actuarial reduction. Yes, they took the lump sum, and they invested it. Two things boosted their lump sums - one is that the stock market has been on a tear, and the other is that Brexit devalued the pound, so foreign assets were boosted by that fall. It is true that Brexit has permanently reduced the buying power of your DB pension. If you had had a good crystal ball then yes, perhaps eating the actuarial reduction and investing would have been a good move.

I have a DB pension, and took redundancy at a similar time ot you by the looks of it. Like you I am deferring it to the normal retirement age, because a DB pension is only truly defined at NRA. I am happy with that decision, although perhaps it is softened compared to you inasmuch as I have significant ISA assets in global equities, which have been artificially inflated by the aforementioned events.

I could have drawn it early, and invested the lump sum, and accepted a permanently reduced pension. I would have been better off measured at this particular point in time. But you know what? I don't have to manage that lump sum, I was/am not exposed to the risks of the stock market crash that is coming, and I won't have to stress about investing for my base income in my dotage.

You have a great pension, and you have more of it than your pals. They took their chances at the take and it came good. You took a more conservative path, which was probably right, because if you are coming on here spitting bricks about feeling swindled because you didn't pay attention to information you could have asked for or had in front of you then you are unlikely to have the makings of a great stock market investor over the long term.



You were left on the default conservative option, which was to take your DB pension at NRA. You will have more defined pension than your buddies. Take a look at annuity rates to see how much they would have to spend to make up the actuarial reduction - you need a hell of a lot of capital, typically 25 times the desired income, to get a defined income from the capital. Roll back your guns.

Marcon

Silvertabby wrote: »

It depends on the scheme. NRA for both sexes in the LGPS has been 65 since the scheme began in the 1920s (with 65 also being the State pension age for both sexes at the time).

Thank you for the correction - it would have been more accurate to say occupational schemes in the private sector.

xylophone

occupational schemes in the private sector.

The Civil Service pension had an age 60 NRA, as did the TPS and the NHS (could be 55 for special classes).

And didn't the Police Scheme/Fire Service Scheme/Armed Forces used to allow for even earlier retirement on full pension?

sue139uk

xylophone: In April, when I had signed to get pension, the administrators wrote saying the scheme's overall NRA for the works pension is the end of the month in which you reach age 65.