Cut old people's benefits, they'll die soon anyway

[sidicks]

Andy Zarse said:

So you're saying just because some people got some things wrong - and ignoring that a high percentage of blame for these issues can be laid directly at the door of the Regulators as well as the regulated - that therefore the experts must be wrong about everything and that you choose to ignore everything they've got right?

It seems that way.

I guess that must apply to doctors, engineers and everyone in a similar position...!

[Andy Zarse]

turbobloke said:

If this longevity extension materialises, the pensions scene will be 'interesting'

To those in the industry, are there any current plans around such a major change in life expectancy? Is the author talking out of his pension plan?

I've probably as much respect for predictions by WHO as you have for climate by NASA GISS

That said, they're clearly going in the right direction and yes the industry does recognise the problems longevity poses. It's government, the public, and most egregiously the unions, who are sticking fingers in ears and going la-la-la.

[London424]

turbobloke said:

sidicks said:

Andy Zarse said:

Precisely. For example he'll have no problem explaining the relevance of critical yield, within the context of asymmetrical market movements across a spectrum of asset classes, to achieving a targeted return within preset risk parameters (and if anyone thinks this sounds poncy, well I'm sorry but it isn't, it's core).

We're all ears...

To be honest, I'm most interested in the claim that independent experts and governments across the world have been lying about population longevity for multiple decades...

Has there been an accusation of lying - if so, missed that.

Either way, get ready to reset those calculations chaps

A recent book The Ageless Generation claims that we can reset longevity expectations

'last week, experts at the World Health Organisation predicted a world in which living to 100 should be the norm'

Cited book author said:

These estimates are probably a bit conservative, since it is very likely that people already in their 30s and 40s will be able to work way past 100.

If this longevity extension materialises, the pensions scene will be 'interesting'

To those in the industry, are there any current plans around such a major change in life expectancy? Is the author talking out of his pension plan?

To the last sentence...you're seeing it. DC schemes rather than DB. The onus/risk is moved from the company to the individual.

[V8 Fettler]

Andy Zarse said:

V8 Fettler said:

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

You're inviting me to criticise the competence of the financial sector? That's a big target!

Failure to addequately manage liquidity leading to the liquidity crisis in 2008
Failure to provide good advice re: endowment policies in the 1980s and early 1990s
Failure to undertake effective due diligence during acquisition e.g. RBS and ABN Amro

Which regulated professional bodieswere involved in the above?

Stop ducking the key issue: competence of the financial sector. You'll try and chip away but the key issue remains the same: none of the three examples I've quoted would have arisen if the parties involved were competent (leaving aside greed and short-termism).

So you're saying just because some people got some things wrong - and ignoring that a high percentage of blame for these issues can be laid directly at the door of the Regulators as well as the regulated - that therefore the experts must be wrong about everything and that you choose to ignore everything they've got right?

I include the incompetent regulators in the description "financial sector". You're trying to move the goalposts by twisting my original comment "There's nothing quite as dangerous as a professional working in the financial sector who has the utmost belief in the competence of his profession." into "the experts must be wrong about everything".

The so-called "experts" got it very wrong in the three examples I've quoted.

[Andy Zarse]

V8 Fettler said:

Andy Zarse said:

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

There's nothing quite as dangerous as a professional working in the financial sector who has the utmost belief in the competence of his profession.

To question the competence of the profession you'd need to provide some evidence to support that criticism...

Precisely. For example he'll have no problem explaining the relevance of critical yield, within the context of asymmetrical market movements across a spectrum of asset classes, to achieving a targeted return within preset risk parameters (and if anyone thinks this sounds poncy, well I'm sorry but it isn't, it's core).

We're all ears...

You're using jargon as a smokescreen to disguise guesswork and incompetence. I've taken professional financial advice over the years from advisers who used similar phrases, the end results have ranged from benign to catastrophic. To put this into context, the very best financial advice I've received in several decades was when I advised me to buy some elderly motorcycles.

There's no jargon there, they are all perfectly understandable English words. Maybe try to read them and digest to understand?

I'm asking you to explain (and it applies equally to established collective schemes as well as individual pension pots under the new regime) is how best would you go about managing different assets (basically bonds/equities/property and their many sub-classes) to match your required returns in a situation of non-correlated market movements to provide an income stream with limited capital depletion.

As a classic bike owner too, I somehow never discovered how to make my Triumph Thunderbird create a steady income stream (except for the owner of BritBits! )

[turbobloke]

Andy Zarse said:

turbobloke said:

If this longevity extension materialises, the pensions scene will be 'interesting'

To those in the industry, are there any current plans around such a major change in life expectancy? Is the author talking out of his pension plan?

I've probably as much respect for predictions by WHO as you have for climate by NASA GISS

That said, they're clearly going in the right direction and yes the industry does recognise the problems longevity poses. It's government, the public, and most egregiously the unions, who are sticking fingers in ears and going la-la-la.

So far the government appears to be piddling at the edge of the pool. State pension ages pushed back a year or two - if the author is even close, it will require decades surely...there may be a step change or two rather than slowly slowly on life expectancy as gene therapies and various hifalutin drugs come to market.

[legzr1]

V8 Fettler said:

Stop ducking the key issue: competence of the financial sector. You'll try and chip away but the key issue remains the same: none of the three examples I've quoted would have arisen if the parties involved were competent (leaving aside greed and short-termism).

Good post.

You have a handle on these two it seems.

[sidicks]

legzr1 said:

Good post.

You have a handle on these two it seems.

If I recall correctly, you were asking others not to post on 'your' threads if they don't have what you consider to be appropriate expertise.

I suggest you follow your own advice....

[Andy Zarse]

sidicks said:

legzr1 said:

Good post.

You have a handle on these two it seems.

If I recall correctly, you were asking others not to post on 'your' threads if they don't have what you consider to be appropriate expertise.

I suggest you follow your own advice....

He has no handle at all; his "what aboutery" concedes the argument.

[legzr1]

I have expertise - I can see who is answering questions and who is dodging, squirming and speaking at length without saying anything.

Attempting to shut me up, remove me from the thread or 'bully me into leaving Lolz!!!' isnt going to change the fact you'd rather concentrate on my single post than give honest answers to points made by V8.

I suggest you ignore my post and use your expertise where it's needed.

[sidicks]

V8 Fettler said:

Stop ducking the key issue: competence of the financial sector. You'll try and chip away but the key issue remains the same: none of the three examples I've quoted would have arisen if the parties involved were competent (leaving aside greed and short-termism).

No ducking requires - your inability to differentiate between the numerous and vastly different people and professionals operating in the 'financial sector' says all we need to know about your understanding in this area.

[legzr1]

Andy Zarse said:

He has no handle at all; his "what aboutery" concedes the argument.

Ok then, my mistake.

You two certainly showed him.

[sidicks]

legzr1 said:

Ok then, my mistake.

You two certainly showed him.

Have you read the rest of the thread? If you do you'll see how some major misunderstandings of the police pension scheme (presumably originating from their Union, either intentionally or otherwise) were highlighted and corrected for a start!

I'm sure that Derek feels much better knowing that rather than having been ripped off, his pension has been subsidised by taxpayers!

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 8th October 11:17

[Andy Zarse]

legzr1 said:

I have expertise - I can see who is answering questions and who is dodging, squirming and speaking at length without saying anything.

Attempting to shut me up, remove me from the thread or 'bully me into leaving Lolz!!!' isnt going to change the fact you'd rather concentrate on my single post than give honest answers to points made by V8.

I suggest you ignore my post and use your expertise where it's needed.

Nobody is bullying anyone, or trying to remove them, so please there is no need to play the victim card.

The point made by V8, unless I am mistaken, is that the pensions industry does not know what it is doing, and by implication that it is unprofessional. In order to illustrate this he gave examples of areas that have nothing to do with pensions.

Pensions is deeply complex subject, and the people working in the industry undertake a heavy responsibility, and face huge pressures of expectation from all external angles. To be so disparaged, by someone who apparently has next to no knowledge or experience of the subject, is deeply insulting and disrespectful.

[turbobloke]

sidicks said:

turbobloke said:

Has there been an accusation of lying - if so, missed that.

syncii said:

Govts have a vested interest inflating life expectancy figure

syncii said:

And no. I don't believe the life expectancy figures branded about. Not saying that life expectancy isn't higher than it was 50 years ago, but the Govt have a vested interest in making this figure (and other applicable statistics) as high as possible as it "forces" DB schemes (including their own) to eventually close.

Saw that, but noted the absence of lie or lying. It may be inferred if you're looking for it, but isn't explicit.

Making new rules for categorising, organising and presenting data has been around longer than the 'modern' pensions industry (1908 Old Age Pensions Act). Unemployment figures over the years aren't a lie as such, there's no need to lie when the data can be managed by those presenting it, as above.

[turbobloke]

Andy Zarse said:

legzr1 said:

I have expertise - I can see who is answering questions and who is dodging, squirming and speaking at length without saying anything.

Attempting to shut me up, remove me from the thread or 'bully me into leaving Lolz!!!' isnt going to change the fact you'd rather concentrate on my single post than give honest answers to points made by V8.

I suggest you ignore my post and use your expertise where it's needed.

. . .

The point made by V8, unless I am mistaken, is that the pensions industry does not know what it is doing, and by implication that it is unprofessional.

It's possible you may be mistaken.

V8 Fettler said:

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

There's nothing quite as dangerous as a professional working in the financial sector who has the utmost belief in the competence of his profession.

To question the competence of the profession you'd need to provide some evidence to support that criticism...

You're inviting me to criticise the competence of the financial sector? That's a big target!

No specific mention of the pensions industry but two specific mentions, one in each post, of 'the financial sector'. In which case any element is fair game.

Can't see any defence worthy of the name as there's incompetence in any sector, regulated or not.

[sidicks]

turbobloke said:

Saw that, but noted the absence of lie or lying. It may be inferred if you're looking for it, but isn't explicit.

Making new rules for categorising, organising and presenting data has been around longer than the 'modern' pensions industry (1908 Old Age Pensions Act). Unemployment figures over the years aren't a lie as such, there's no need to lie when the data can be managed by those presenting it, as above.

The case of being dead or alive is fairly unambiguous compared to the case of being unemployed or otherwise,

Deliberately saying something is 'X' when the answer is known to be 'y' is a pretty good example of lying in my book!

[turbobloke]

sidicks said:

turbobloke said:

Saw that, but noted the absence of lie or lying. It may be inferred if you're looking for it, but isn't explicit.

Making new rules for categorising, organising and presenting data has been around longer than the 'modern' pensions industry (1908 Old Age Pensions Act). Unemployment figures over the years aren't a lie as such, there's no need to lie when the data can be managed by those presenting it, as above.

The case of being dead or alive is fairly unambiguous compared to the case of being unemployed or otherwise,

Deliberately saying something is 'X' when the answer is known to be 'y' is a pretty good example of lying in my book!

The binary issue of being dead or alive isn't what was being discussed; those dead (or alive) aren't treated individually in longevity stats. There are categories, groupings, start (retirement) and end dates (of a study or report) and so on.

[V8 Fettler]

Andy Zarse said:

V8 Fettler said:

Andy Zarse said:

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

There's nothing quite as dangerous as a professional working in the financial sector who has the utmost belief in the competence of his profession.

To question the competence of the profession you'd need to provide some evidence to support that criticism...

Precisely. For example he'll have no problem explaining the relevance of critical yield, within the context of asymmetrical market movements across a spectrum of asset classes, to achieving a targeted return within preset risk parameters (and if anyone thinks this sounds poncy, well I'm sorry but it isn't, it's core).

We're all ears...

You're using jargon as a smokescreen to disguise guesswork and incompetence. I've taken professional financial advice over the years from advisers who used similar phrases, the end results have ranged from benign to catastrophic. To put this into context, the very best financial advice I've received in several decades was when I advised me to buy some elderly motorcycles.

There's no jargon there, they are all perfectly understandable English words. Maybe try to read them and digest to understand?

I'm asking you to explain (and it applies equally to established collective schemes as well as individual pension pots under the new regime) is how best would you go about managing different assets (basically bonds/equities/property and their many sub-classes) to match your required returns in a situation of non-correlated market movements to provide an income stream with limited capital depletion.

As a classic bike owner too, I somehow never discovered how to make my Triumph Thunderbird create a steady income stream (except for the owner of BritBits! )

When you switch your electric lights on at home, you rightly expect the power generation and transmission industry to function competently and effectively because that's what you pay for. You need zero knowledge of the various theories dealing with rotating electrical machines or the transmission of electricity, it should just work. My view of the financial sector is similar.

You might have to sell the Thunderbird to realise a profit, and then buy another couple of bikes at the bottom of the J curve. Alternatively, keep the Thunderbird and buy another couple of bikes as well.

[V8 Fettler]

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

Stop ducking the key issue: competence of the financial sector. You'll try and chip away but the key issue remains the same: none of the three examples I've quoted would have arisen if the parties involved were competent (leaving aside greed and short-termism).

No ducking requires - your inability to differentiate between the numerous and vastly different people and professionals operating in the 'financial sector' says all we need to know about your understanding in this area.

Why should I have detailed understanding? Should it not just work because I pay for it to work? Or is that too much to ask?