Low DB CETV Quote

AnotherJoe

dunstonh wrote: »

You are willing to give up potentially half of that £95k value to cash it in? Even if you dont have any other earnings you are going to lose a quarter of it. If you do have other earnings, you could be closer to a half of it.

For the OP, Dunston is taking your words literally that you will take it all as cash in one year rather than eke it out over a few years so you just pay 15% tax on it (25% TFLS plus 20% on rest unless you are a high rate tax payer)

kilfinan

Apologies. More info would be helpful. I intend to drawdown over at least 10 years.

hyperhypo

i requested a CETV value for my scheme in Feb 2017 and now again within last month....the values were the same, at a multiplier of x35 of the original valuation of the deferred scheme as of June 2012.

I requested a revaluation in today's money of the DB scheme and that reduced the multiplier c x 31.5. I've always wondered which correct amount to assess muliplier value ..deferred date or revalued to present.

I am c. 4 years away from scheme NRA ... i had expected more recent valuation to be less than t hat of early 2017. Perhaps that's why it hasn't changed much.

I haven't transferred yet although , although i confess i am still tempted and knowing more about how to assess pro's and con's hasn't made anything easier.

My combined current DC SIPP and potential future CETV transfer would equate to £600k , and a siren voice in my head provokes the thought that should be sufficicient , deployed carefully and withdrawn modestly, should be sufficient to justify a transfer.

That i haven't done so yet is because i'd be relying entirely on the transferred amount , until SP age. My thinking may be flawed but surely there's a "number" which permits retaining a few years of living expenses in cash spending, plus a core mixed asset de
cumulation 3.5 % withdrawal.


So retain both DB and DC for time being, although confess temptation still remains.
I also wonder what DB scheme will be like in 15 years time, given nature of core business...that and the question of the "number" nag still a little.