Low? USS CETV offer

Thrugelmir

Southend_2 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Southend_2 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Schemes have to treat all members fairly. Given the sizable deficit of the scheme.  Offering high CETV's would neither be fair nor sustainable. A mass exodus of members would simply compound the underlying funding issues. 

The USS deficit is now so greatly reduced that as of last month the scheme says no deficit reduction contributions are necessary. Yet the fiction of underfunding of the scheme continues to be promoted as an excuse to slash benefits for members.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XDTFWH1s2BhcGFUat1mwye_nQoDxxl8i/view

£2 billion is still a significant sum. No reason for members that are exiting to receive preferential treatment.  

I agree on both points. Just pointing out that the deficit is heading rapidly towards zero and the trustee has confirmed that no deficit reduction contributions are now required.  So there is arguably no need to penalise members either. 

Deficits are simply a snap shot in time. The trustees may well be concerned that the overall financial position could rapidly deteriorate again. There's huge uncertainty as to what lies ahead in the next 18 months. Markets of all asset classes are likely remain highly volatile. 

ussdave

I don't disagree with you entirely, but I do wish that the reasoning provided for decisions seemed to take into account a long-term view rather than what feels like interpretation of points in time to suit an agenda.  Only last year the scheme rejected the suggestion that a snapshot taken at the lowest point in the marked in 2020 might not be the best marker to plan ahead on and the deficit used to justify significant reduction in future benefit accrual.  Similarly, the somewhat more rosy picture here seems to be interpreted to suggest that changing the inflation indexation rules should be avoided.