USS - General discussion

Morgan-Green

Barralad77 said:

You’ll probably have to check with USS how they would view that, but I suspect it might not be acceptable to them.

swindiff said:

A sabbatical might be a way round it rather than unpaid leave?

Thank you, both, for your replies.  You may well be right Barralad77, but I will check.  I'm not in an academic role swindiff, so a sabbatical isn't an option.

Panda_Panda

Asimovs_nightfall said:

Twigwidge said:

@Barralad77 No in fact the only things that she mentioned were the 1.7% uplift (instead of the 2.5% baked into the model) and possible underperformance of investments as the likely causes in the drop, I got the impression that she did not really know and suggested that I get a new quote for the most accurate figures. I am surprised that more people are not posting about this on here to be honest

Did anyone find out a more substantive reason as to why the figures on the modeller changed post April 1st? 

I am trying to pursue this and will give an update if I have one. I'm not confident that I'm going to hear anything enlightening though. I had a reply saying that advisors were not able to access the new calculator! I see that the figures have not returned to where they were in March. It would at least be good to hear why the calculation changed so significantly in April.

Barralad77

I find it galling that the only explanation offered thus far (that the annual uplift was 1.7% rather than the 2.5% assumed by the modeller) clearly isn’t the only reason and that the people you speak to are completely in the dark as to what the full explanation is. If the difference really was solely due to a lowering in the annual uplift of 0.8% then my annuity would be valued at somewhere around £100,000. Sadly, it’s nowhere near that (if it were, I would be much less bothered about the difference between March and today). What also irritates me is that - at least in my experience - when the advisor on the phone says they don’t have the answer they rarely, if ever, say they’re going to find someone who does have the answer and get back to you. That would be helpful but, alas, USS tends to be lacking in that department.

Morgan-Green

Morgan-Green said:

Thanks for the advice so far.  I'm going to ask in individual consultation if the uni will consider retaining my services on a 0.2FTE contract to my 60th next March, but in the meantime I have started a £1k monthly additional contribution to the Investment Builder regardless.  If they decline a fractional contract I will take VR and add the payment to the DC savings as a lump sum.
  

So another suggestion is taking full VR and being hired back on a 0.2 fixed-term contract until the end of March next year, during which I turn 60.  Obviously I would be contributing less to my pension during that period, but am I right in thinking that arrangement would mean I avoid the pension "cliff edge" as I would still be a contributing member on my 60th?  

Asimovs_nightfall

Morgan-Green said:

Morgan-Green said:

Thanks for the advice so far.  I'm going to ask in individual consultation if the uni will consider retaining my services on a 0.2FTE contract to my 60th next March, but in the meantime I have started a £1k monthly additional contribution to the Investment Builder regardless.  If they decline a fractional contract I will take VR and add the payment to the DC savings as a lump sum.
  

So another suggestion is taking full VR and being hired back on a 0.2 fixed-term contract until the end of March next year, during which I turn 60.  Obviously I would be contributing less to my pension during that period, but am I right in thinking that arrangement would mean I avoid the pension "cliff edge" as I would still be a contributing member on my 60th?  

Often with VR, there is a period before being able to be re-hired, so check that out too (i.e. 3 years).

Morgan-Green

Asimovs_nightfall said:

Often with VR, there is a period before being able to be re-hired, so check that out too (i.e. 3 years).

Oh yes, good point.

Cobbler_tone

Asimovs_nightfall said:

Morgan-Green said:

Morgan-Green said:

Thanks for the advice so far.  I'm going to ask in individual consultation if the uni will consider retaining my services on a 0.2FTE contract to my 60th next March, but in the meantime I have started a £1k monthly additional contribution to the Investment Builder regardless.  If they decline a fractional contract I will take VR and add the payment to the DC savings as a lump sum.
  

So another suggestion is taking full VR and being hired back on a 0.2 fixed-term contract until the end of March next year, during which I turn 60.  Obviously I would be contributing less to my pension during that period, but am I right in thinking that arrangement would mean I avoid the pension "cliff edge" as I would still be a contributing member on my 60th?  

Often with VR, there is a period before being able to be re-hired, so check that out too (i.e. 3 years).

It is 5 years at the Uni my OH is taking VS from. Seems a very long time, not that she will be going back.
Not sure on the T&C's and whether that includes any type of employment. They love a contractor!

Morgan-Green

Cobbler_tone said:

It is 5 years at the Uni my OH is taking VS from. Seems a very long time, not that she will be going back.
Not sure on the T&C's and whether that includes any type of employment. They love a contractor!

Okay thanks, sounds like that option is likely a non-starter.

Micrographia

Barralad77 said:

I find it galling that the only explanation offered thus far (that the annual uplift was 1.7% rather than the 2.5% assumed by the modeller) clearly isn’t the only reason and that the people you speak to are completely in the dark as to what the full explanation is. If the difference really was solely due to a lowering in the annual uplift of 0.8% then my annuity would be valued at somewhere around £100,000. Sadly, it’s nowhere near that (if it were, I would be much less bothered about the difference between March and today). What also irritates me is that - at least in my experience - when the advisor on the phone says they don’t have the answer they rarely, if ever, say they’re going to find someone who does have the answer and get back to you. That would be helpful but, alas, USS tends to be lacking in that department.

What settings are you using on the modeller when you make your regular checks? I do the same and also noted the decrease in my modelled benefits this month. For simplicity I always tick the box for "Take all my benefits and savings" and maximise my TFLS. On these settings my IB pot size affects the annual pension number presented in subsequent steps. For example, if you play with the modeller and check the effect of increasing your IB pot, the quotes for the annual pension and the TFLS both increase. OTOH if I choose to take less of my IB pot at retirement both numbers decrease. On this basis I'd assumed that an unusually chunky decrease in the value of my IB pot due to market movements was at least partially responsible for the lower quotes for TFLS and annual pension this month. 

EEM

Barralad77

Neither. I’m looking at the numbers before deciding whether [a] to take any of the IB and/or [b] carry out any reverse commutation. In other words, the value of the annuity (and the 3 x TF lump sum) displayed at Step 1 in the modeller (the IB doesn’t come into play at all in this). Put another way, I’m only comparing the defined benefit elements of the scheme, not any impact of the defined contribution element (as that would mean not comparing like-for-like because of the fluctuations in the value of the DC element due to market forces).