Dear University lecturers - get back to work

[sidicks]

gooner1 said:

Can I get a thin crust B-B-Q Chicken and a Sprite please. ??

[Rovinghawk]

gooner1 said:

Can I get a thin crust B-B-Q Chicken and a Sprite please. ??

Be careful what you order- I asked for a thin & crispy Supreme & he brought me Diana Ross.

[Rovinghawk]

travel is dangerous said:

"university lecturers are funded by public money, therefore its not appropriate to use that money to fund a pension that is better than* what most people can afford. We should therefore reduce the value of their pension."

I have no problem with you having a valuable pension. I have a problem with having to fund an excessively generous pension for you & many others at the detriment of my own financial position.

Many others feel the same.

[PugwasHDJ80]

jjlynn27 said:

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Who said this

who said:

that's why active DB schemes don't really exist in the private sector any more!

Talking about liars.

The key point is highlighted in bold. The vast majority of DB schemes are closed to new accrual and that number is growing. No new schemes are being opened and those schemes that are open are reducing the benefits for future accrual.
HTH

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 13:04

That's not the key point, liar. You see, I call you a liar with evidence. Contrary to your lie, active DB schemes do exist in private sector. It was you who said that the "acitve DB schemes really don't exist anymore" in private sector. And no, the open ones, at least the ones that I know about, are not reducing benefits for the future accrual.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to lie about the above.



ETA; lol, keep editing your post, that'll make you less of a liar.

I call you a liar

contrary to your lie, DB schemes effectively don't exist- the number of people with DB schemes as a percentage of the workforce is now tiny.

For anyone in their forties and below, either you have a DB scheme with the government (and complain about how little you are paid) or you join the private sector and put up with a DC.

[gooner1]

Good to see my post taken in the spirit in which it was intended.

[sidicks]

gooner1 said:

Good to see my post taken in the spirit in which it was intended.

Of course! You should see the company car they’ve given me

[crankedup]

drainbrain said:

crankedup said:

What astounds me is how the heck some posters finds the time to spend on forums, somebody pays for a days work might be disappointed that work includes time wasting on forums.

These days the annuity sales dept isn't busy. Time hangs heavy.

Hesitate to mention it, my daughter works in the pensions industry, she is some sort of Manager or something decision making on billions of pounds and strategy decisions. Very boring, I know she works extremely hard in a demanding job. She receives a bonus dependant
upon performance in addition to her salary. Different to sidicks then who is paid on performance only, which seems unusual.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Yes, lecturers are likely. onsidered to be in. better position to gain better T&C including pension, than others in different industries. If you refer back to my fairness definition it might help you to recognise where you are failing to grasp the reality of the situation in the real World.
Yes I agree that currently the economics of the scheme are failing the investors, the answer is to adjust the model not abandon it imo.

The economics of the situation IS the real world, which the lecturers appear to feel they should be immune to.

The proposal is to adjust the model, not abandon it. That is what the lecturers are trying to resist.

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 16:02

No the model is sought to be worsened, a lazy cop out by those that cannot find a better resolution.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Hesitate to mention it, my daughter works in the pensions industry, she is some sort of Manager or something decision making on billions of pounds and strategy decisions. Very boring, I know she works extremely hard in a demanding job. She receives a bonus dependant
upon performance in addition to her salary. Different to sidicks then who is paid on performance only, which seems unusual.

I said no such thing.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

No the model is sought to be worsened, a lazy cop out by those that cannot find a better resolution.

Feel free to invent some new economics and a magic money tree.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Sidicks has a good knowledge of pension scheme tech’ well he should as he works in the industry. I’m hoping he may ‘advise’ the cost of administration to the contributor of the money into the scheme. Also be interesting to read of ‘market averages’ earns by the investment companies before these costs are deducted.

Investment management costs are generally between 0.02% and 1.5% depending on investment strategy.

I thought I was being reasonable in asking about costs and returns, same as any investor would be interested in. And yet again you seem to relish ‘I m the expert’ and obnoxious posting remarks in your replies. Why. cant you simply have a normal exchange with posters?

Edited by crankedup on Thursday 22 March 16:58

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

travel is dangerous said:

"university lecturers are funded by public money, therefore its not appropriate to use that money to fund a pension that is better than* what most people can afford. We should therefore reduce the value of their pension."

I have no problem with you having a valuable pension. I have a problem with having to fund an excessively generous pension for you & many others at the detriment of my own financial position.

Many others feel the same.

Me to club, have you considered that you and many others MIGHT enjoy benefits not afforded to uni lecturers?

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

I thought I was being reasonable in asking about costs and returns, same as any investor would be interested in. And yet again you seem to relish ‘I m the expert’ and obnoxious posting remarks in your replies. Why. cant you simply have a normal exchange with posters?

As I posted previously, I respond in the same tone as the post i’m responding to.

Let’s not forget the language you repeatedly use in this context:

crankedup said:

How much money is sucked out of pension investments by those Companies that provide such services?

crankedup said:

Yes I read somewhere or other that pensions funds amounting to £31 billion had been dumped into gilts.

crankedup said:

On the basis that the yields are poor and the pensions management fees are relatively high its little wonder people have had to be forced into pension schemes.

Etc

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Me to club, have you considered that you and many others MIGHT enjoy benefits not afforded to uni lecturers?

They are welcome to move jobs if they want. The difference is that those in the public sector aren’t being forced to fund the benefits of the private sector.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Yes I read somewhere or other that pensions funds amounting to £31 billion had been dumped into gilts. On the basis that the yields are poor and the pensions management fees are relatively high its little wonder people have had to be forced into pension schemes.

Once again, demonstrating a massive lack of understanding:

Pension schemes haven’t ‘dumped’ anything, they’ve chosen to invest in government bonds as these are a good, low risk, match for their liabilities.

You make a claim about management fees on pensions being ‘relatively high’, but in conjunction with the above, what has this got to do with government bonds which are at the bottom end of the range I quoted - 0.02%?
Are you claiming that 0.02% is a high fee?!


No one has to be ‘forced’ into a DB scheme.

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 16:13

I use the term dump as an expression not as a term insinuating a lack of thought. You are being overly defensive in your readings.
The fee you mention being at the low end of scale of fees is fair and reasonable, I still ask about value for money in other areas of pensions investments, of course you. any not know in which case I should ask elsewhere.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Yes, lecturers are likely. onsidered to be in. better position to gain better T&C including pension, than others in different industries. If you refer back to my fairness definition it might help you to recognise where you are failing to grasp the reality of the situation in the real World.
Yes I agree that currently the economics of the scheme are failing the investors, the answer is to adjust the model not abandon it imo.

The economics of the situation IS the real world, which the lecturers appear to feel they should be immune to.

The proposal is to adjust the model, not abandon it. That is what the lecturers are trying to resist.

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 16:02

Yes but you need to try and understand that people are also part of the real World

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

I use the term dump as an expression not as a term insinuating a lack of thought. You are being overly defensive in your readings.

Do nurses salaries ‘suck up’ NHS resources? You have repeatedly made similar numerous claims about asset management in the past. As above, if you don’t want an unfriendly response, maybe you should consider the tone of your posts first.

crankedup said:

The fee you mention being at the low end of scale of fees is fair and reasonable, I still ask about value for money in other areas of pensions investments, of course you. any not know in which case I should ask elsewhere.

I provided a range of fees of fees which reflect a huge variety in terms of client size, asset class and mandate type. Trying to boil this down to just one number simply doesn’t make sense given how things work in practice. Mandates for DB schemes are typically highly bespoke.

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 17:12

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

I use the term dump as an expression not as a term insinuating a lack of thought. You are being overly defensive in your readings.

Do nurses salaries ‘suck up’ NHS resources? You have repeatedly made similar numerous claims about asset management in the past. As above, if you don’t want an unfriendly response, maybe you should consider the tone of your posts first.

crankedup said:

The fee you mention being at the low end of scale of fees is fair and reasonable, I still ask about value for money in other areas of pensions investments, of course you. any not know in which case I should ask elsewhere.

I provided a range of fees of fees which reflect a huge variety in terms of client size, asset class and mandate type. Trying to boil this down to just one number simply doesn’t make sense given how things work in practice. Mandates for DB schemes are typically highly bespoke.

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 17:12

My tone??? please show me where I have used such tones in this thread that you have disliked.
You now chose to mention that fees for a DB scheme are significantly higher owing to the. expose nature of such investments. This being so why couldn’t you have mentioned this adding to your one line answer when I asked? I was not asking for one number but as an expert you must have greater knowledge than I. So you also harbour grudges.

As for nurses, simple answer is that they get paid, same as you get paid for doing. job. Big difference is we know how much they get paid and what it genuinely costs the paying public.
I asked you some simple questions in a vain attempt to dis over the value that companies offer to clients, you take umbrance at this. Like most in financial services it seems the old habits die hard.
I do know that Companies are now being more transparent and lowering thier management fees in instances of low management requirement investments.

Edited by crankedup on Thursday 22 March 17:24

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

My tone??? please show me where I have used such tones in this thread that you have disliked.

Already explained above.

crankedup said:

You now chose to mention that fees for a DB scheme are significantly higher owing to the. expose nature of such investments.

WTF?

crankedup said:

This being so why couldn’t you have mentioned this adding to your one line answer when I asked? I was not asking for one number but as an expert you must have greater knowledge than I. So I ask and then you decide to take the piss.
Why?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I previously tried to explain that there wasn’t a simple answer to the question you were asking, but you weren’t happy with that!

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 17:25

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

My tone??? please show me where I have used such tones in this thread that you have disliked.

Already explained above.

crankedup said:

You now chose to mention that fees for a DB scheme are significantly higher owing to the. expose nature of such investments.

WTF?

crankedup said:

This being so why couldn’t you have mentioned this adding to your one line answer when I asked? I was not asking for one number but as an expert you must have greater knowledge than I. So I ask and then you decide to take the piss.
Why?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You have no idea, that much is true.