Br Steel and the big Pension question

[Rovinghawk]

Adrian W said:

From your responses you must work in the pension/finance industry, where all of the victims are stupid for not having the relevant qualification to fully understand the weasel words in the contract.

I detect a trace of resentment here. My understanding of contracts is that one should read & understand before signing, otherwise one is a fool. One might even get advice.

Adrian W said:

fortunately sooner or later you all get found out.

What exactly gets found out?

[V8 Fettler]

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

Are there not public sector schemes where substantial change occurs for many current employees but the changes exclude those with 10 or less years to go to retirement?

Possibly, but not sure of the relevance to the claims made by the OP..!

The variation in how public sector schemes treat existing employees with less than 10 years to go to retirement compared to how private sector schemes treat employees in a similar situation.

[sidicks]

V8 Fettler said:

The variation in how public sector schemes treat existing employees with less than 10 years to go to retirement compared to how private sector schemes treat employees in a similar situation.

Haven't the differences been linked to retirement ages rather than to the benefit terms?

Given that the vast majority in the private sector haven't had DB pensions for 15+ years, I'm not sure that what happens in the public sector is really that relevant! Every other DB pension scheme that was forced to close to new accrual for economic reasons just did so - no special cases.

I'm not sure of the justification that those who are closest to retirement (who by definition will have benefitted most from DB schemes) should have special treatment?


If something isn't affordable (unless you have taxpayers to subsidise it) then it's not affordable...

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 1st June 08:29

[Welshbeef]

sidicks said:

Haven't the differences been linked to retirement ages rather than to the benefit terms?

Given that the vast majority in the private sector haven't had DB pensions for 15+ years, I'm not sure that what happens in the public sector is really that relevant! Every other DB pension scheme that was forced to close to new accrual for economic reasons just did so - no special cases.

I'm not sure of the justification that those who are closest to retirement (who by definition will have benefitted most from DB schemes) should have special treatment?


If something isn't affordable (unless you have taxpayers to subsidise it) then it's not affordable...

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 1st June 08:29

Awaiting the usual response that it's going to be a race to the bottom.... Well it's a race to affordability. Why should those in need of NHS treatment have to wait longer due to beyond belief Public sector DB schemes?

[sidicks]

Welshbeef said:

Awaiting the usual response that it's going to be a race to the bottom.... Well it's a race to affordability. Why should those in need of NHS treatment have to wait longer due to beyond belief Public sector DB schemes?

Keep up - we already had this on page 4...

Ian Geary said:

My point: do we want a race to the bottom on our pension provision? Who do that help?

Incredibly, this was then followed with:

Ian Geary said:

We need a sector that is realistic, affordable and fair.

[shirt]

the BS pension fund has been mismanaged since the year dot. pretty sure tata had to pay a hefty sum to shore it up as part of their takeover deal of corus.

i am doing my bit for you uk taxpayers by offshoring my own BS pension as soon as humanly possible.

[sidicks]

shirt said:

the BS pension fund has been mismanaged since the year dot. pretty sure tata had to pay a hefty sum to shore it up as part of their takeover deal of corus.

Mismanaged? Or just an inevitable consequence of changing demographics, changing economics and changing tax and regulatory rules, increasing deficits and requiring companies to make increased contributions over time to close the gap. Unfortunately, sometimes the business fails before the gap has closed.

shirt said:

i am doing my bit for you uk taxpayers by offshoring my own BS pension as soon as humanly possible.

You are taking a reduced transfer value away from the DB scheme?

[Murph7355]

shirt said:

...

i am doing my bit for you uk taxpayers by offshoring my own BS pension as soon as humanly possible.

Thanks for taking your spending power and applying it to Magaluf rather than the UK.

[Welshbeef]

shirt said:

the BS pension fund has been mismanaged since the year dot. pretty sure tata had to pay a hefty sum to shore it up as part of their takeover deal of corus.

i am doing my bit for you uk taxpayers by offshoring my own BS pension as soon as humanly possible.

People used to live on average 5 years into retirement 70yo now average chap is 12years longer and that's been the case since the 1980's more or less yet no individual had to pay in more and nor did the company for all that time....

Retirement age has not been pushed back to compensate longer life or accept lower pension over the longer life.

Enforced pension holidays by the govt

Removal of dividend tax credits Gordon brown in 1997/8/9 costing £400billoon and counting to be pension industry yet no employee was asked to pay in more to cover his gap or to accept a lesser pension ditto the company.


Essentially zero growth in 16 years in equity and 8 years and counting for govt bonds so needed growth isn't happening why are employees and employer asked to pay more in or accept less out?


Tough questions and when it's only detrimental it's lalala I cannot hear you.

[shirt]

sidicks said:

shirt said:

the BS pension fund has been mismanaged since the year dot. pretty sure tata had to pay a hefty sum to shore it up as part of their takeover deal of corus.

Mismanaged? Or just an inevitable consequence of changing demographics, changing economics and changing tax and regulatory rules, increasing deficits and requiring companies to make increased contributions over time to close the gap. Unfortunately, sometimes the business fails before the gap has closed.

shirt said:

i am doing my bit for you uk taxpayers by offshoring my own BS pension as soon as humanly possible.

You are taking a reduced transfer value away from the DB scheme?

inevitable is a better word i agree. another main factor being the huge numbers of people laid off through the company's history where early retirees were always prioritised for redundancy. however from my experience the scheme has alwys been in the st, was shorn up when the corus deal was done and again during the tata takeover.

i have no idea of my transfer value at present. i have been non-resident for 5yrs and no plans to return, its something i have been meaning to do for a while.

Welshbeef said:

Tough questions and when it's only detrimental it's lalala I cannot hear you.

which is always the case when companies change hands. seems this has never been addressed at a strategic level.

i am back in the uk next week i will prob. have the last couple of newsletters from the scheme waiting for me. will update if there's anything interesting therein.

Edited by shirt on Wednesday 1st June 10:20

[shirt]

Murph7355 said:

Thanks for taking your spending power and applying it to Magaluf rather than the UK.

bizarre comment is bizarre

[sidicks]

shirt said:

inevitable is a better word i agree. another main factor being the huge numbers of people laid off through the company's history where early retirees were always prioritised for redundancy. however from my experience the scheme has alwys been in the st, was shorn up when the corus deal was done and again during the tata takeover.

i have no idea of my transfer value at present. i have been non-resident for 5yrs and no plans to return, its something i have been meaning to do for a while.

I'm not sure they are going to be offering very attractive transfer values given a) the large deficit and b) the priority to protect remaining members.

[shirt]

we'll see. i will post here once i get an answer. tbh its not massive as that was my first job out of uni and i left after 6yrs in 2009. at the time it was a decent pension scheme, ho hum.

[Welshbeef]

sidicks said:

I'm not sure they are going to be offering very attractive transfer values given a) the large deficit and b) the priority to protect remaining members.

Actually on this even if the offer is poor it might actually work out more beneficial than what could happen?

Personally I've one scheme DB where it is a zombie company and has been for the last decade so even though the DB pension exists it could be reduced significantly. I'll hold it and what will be will be.

[V8 Fettler]

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

The variation in how public sector schemes treat existing employees with less than 10 years to go to retirement compared to how private sector schemes treat employees in a similar situation.

Haven't the differences been linked to retirement ages rather than to the benefit terms?

Given that the vast majority in the private sector haven't had DB pensions for 15+ years, I'm not sure that what happens in the public sector is really that relevant! Every other DB pension scheme that was forced to close to new accrual for economic reasons just did so - no special cases.

I'm not sure of the justification that those who are closest to retirement (who by definition will have benefitted most from DB schemes) should have special treatment?


If something isn't affordable (unless you have taxpayers to subsidise it) then it's not affordable...

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 1st June 08:29

There isn't any justification, but it occurs, particularly in the public sector where some employees continuing to retire in their early fifties because the schemes which permit this remain open to existing employees rather than being closed to all but retaining accrued rights.

[sidicks]

V8 Fettler said:

There isn't any justification, but it occurs, particularly in the public sector where some employees continuing to retire in their early fifties because the schemes which permit this remain open to existing employees rather than being closed to all but retaining accrued rights.

But as I alluded to earlier, changing someone's retirement 'close' to retirement is much more significant than changing future accrual.

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 2nd June 07:39

[V8 Fettler]

sidicks said:

But as II alluded to earlier, changing someone's retirement 'close' to retirement is much more significant than changing future accrual.

Do you mean changing someone's retirement age or changing someone's retirement income?

[sidicks]

V8 Fettler said:

Do you mean changing someone's retirement age or changing someone's retirement income?

Age.

[Welshbeef]

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

Do you mean changing someone's retirement age or changing someone's retirement income?

Age.

Well not 100% right the accrual built up to date is locked and starts at he usual age but post the consultation the future years until retirement would be at the new age.



I did some calls last night.
When I earned 1/3rd of the salary I do now I was in a DB pension 3% in 1/60th today it's DC. Anyway I locked in 6 years in that DB but to buy that (RPI guaranteed 5 years and 50% to spouse on death) it was £46,277 per £1k pension, so I'd need nearly 15 years at my salary now to get to the pension I achieved in 3 years with 1/3rd of he salary I have now.
Note I pay in a combined 15% into DC.
Really makes you think doesn't it.

[Jockman]

Welshbeef said:

Well not 100% right the accrual built up to date is locked and starts at he usual age but post the consultation the future years until retirement would be at the new age.

So I will get some of my state pension at 65, some at 66 and the rest at 67? Wait 'til I tell the Govt