Dear University lecturers - get back to work
Discussion
I understand that the Government is considering using the pensions pool of money, or some of it, to be put to a more productive use. IIRC it mentioned using the funds for infrastructure building rather than billions of pounds lying around earning very little in terms of return on investment. Must be a year ago or more. Anybody know anything about such a schemeor proposal?
crankedup said:
I understand that the Government is considering using the pensions pool of money, or some of it, to be put to a more productive use. IIRC it mentioned using the funds for infrastructure building rather than billions of pounds lying around earning very little in terms of return on investment. Must be a year ago or more. Anybody know anything about such a schemeor proposal?
'Earning very little in terms of return on investment'.On what basis do you make that claim?
Do pension funds not already invest in equity and property / infrastructure?
travel is dangerous said:
I thought I already told you? Academics in Germany get up to 70 % of their final salary as a pension and they don't make any contributions towards it. They also can't be fired, by the way.
Why did you leave Germany?travel is dangerous said:
There is no logical reason that both of the arguments I posit cannot be advanced simultaneously. They are both valid and are not contradictory.
Your claims about the DB scheme are fundamentally and categorically wrong. "Drivel" is a suitable analysis.travel is dangerous said:
I am not wrong - it is clearly counterfactual to assume that any significant number of the employers (universities) supporting the scheme will fail. This is because they are universities. And most of them some of the best in the world, at that.
That is not how it works at all. This is a lack of understanding on your behalf.travel is dangerous said:
Your arguments are just rhetoric, you don't bring any evidence, you just make statements. The deficit is calculated assuming that scheme closes, that employers no longer fund it,
Not true. The deficit is a measurement of the assets needed now to fund benefits already accrued. Nothing to do with future accrual. If the scheme refers future contributions to fund benefits already earned then there is a deficit!!travel is dangerous said:
and that the assets of the fund have to be moved to very low return gilts.
Also not true. You really should read and try to understand the link about the scheme that I provided previously.travel is dangerous said:
None of these things will happen, short of a nuclear holocaust. What other event can you see that would lead to the closure of the top 60 universities in the UK?
You fail to understand how the scheme deficit has been calculated. No surprise there.travel is dangerous said:
I don't want any benefit from the stockmarket upside - I want to be certain that I will have a decent annual pension.
You want someone else to pick up all of that risk, something that has a significant cost that you appear to be oblivious to. No surprise there.sidicks said:
crankedup said:
I understand that the Government is considering using the pensions pool of money, or some of it, to be put to a more productive use. IIRC it mentioned using the funds for infrastructure building rather than billions of pounds lying around earning very little in terms of return on investment. Must be a year ago or more. Anybody know anything about such a schemeor proposal?
'Earning very little in terms of return on investment'.On what basis do you make that claim?
Do pension funds not already invest in equity and property / infrastructure?
At the moment the split is 75/25 or 80/20 (don't remember precisely) stocks and shares vs lower yielding bonds and stuff like that, I think. If the scheme has to switch because it no longer has any income, then growth of the pot will be substantially lower. It would only have to to do this if the scheme had no more income, which would only happen if all of the universities that are members fail. that won't happen.
travel is dangerous said:
On the basis of the methodology that the USS use to evaluate the size of their deficit.
At the moment the split is 75/25 or 80/20 (don't remember precisely) stocks and shares vs lower yielding bonds and stuff like that, I think. If the scheme has to switch because it no longer has any income, then growth of the pot will be substantially lower.
It would only have to to do this if the scheme had no more income, which would only happen if all of the universities that are members fail. that won't happen.
This is nonsense! Again.At the moment the split is 75/25 or 80/20 (don't remember precisely) stocks and shares vs lower yielding bonds and stuff like that, I think. If the scheme has to switch because it no longer has any income, then growth of the pot will be substantially lower.
It would only have to to do this if the scheme had no more income, which would only happen if all of the universities that are members fail. that won't happen.
The whole point of assessing whether a scheme is in surplus or deficit, is to determine whether the scheme has enough assets NOW to fund the liabilities promised to date. It is nothing to do with future contributions.
The scheme receives income on the assets it holds which, in combination with selling down assets, is what is available to fund the promised benefits.
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 13:42
Red 4 said:
'ere, sidicks ...
There's a thread over on SP&L about police pensions.
Don't go there. You'll do yourself an injury.
Are they as ignorant about their pensions as many of those in the NHS and USS appear to be? Certainly one of them was some time ago, until things were explained to them.There's a thread over on SP&L about police pensions.
Don't go there. You'll do yourself an injury.
sidicks said:
travel is dangerous said:
On the basis of the methodology that the USS use to evaluate the size of their deficit.
At the moment the split is 75/25 or 80/20 (don't remember precisely) stocks and shares vs lower yielding bonds and stuff like that, I think. If the scheme has to switch because it no longer has any income, then growth of the pot will be substantially lower.
It would only have to to do this if the scheme had no more income, which would only happen if all of the universities that are members fail. that won't happen.
This is nonsense! Again.At the moment the split is 75/25 or 80/20 (don't remember precisely) stocks and shares vs lower yielding bonds and stuff like that, I think. If the scheme has to switch because it no longer has any income, then growth of the pot will be substantially lower.
It would only have to to do this if the scheme had no more income, which would only happen if all of the universities that are members fail. that won't happen.
The whole point of assessing whether a scheme is in surplus or deficit, is to determine whether the scheme has enough assets NOW to fund the liabilities promised to date. It is nothing to do with future contributions.
The scheme receives income on the assets it holds which, in combination with selling down assets, is what is available to fund the promised benefits.
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 13:42
Now, if you are a scheme which has net zero cashflow, you can afford to take a slightly risker approach to your investments, right? i.e. your scheme can withstand largish short-term shifts in the value of your assets and and size of your return on them. Because every year you get some new assets - cash. Which you can invest or pay out (presumably, because there is a cost associated with selling/buying assets, a prudent scheme would source the majority of its pay-outs from the cash that comes in anyway?).
This is what the argument is about. The deficit is calculated assuming a particular return on investments that is extremely cautious but disappears if you assume a different, very slightly less cautious return on investments.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
I understand that the Government is considering using the pensions pool of money, or some of it, to be put to a more productive use. IIRC it mentioned using the funds for infrastructure building rather than billions of pounds lying around earning very little in terms of return on investment. Must be a year ago or more. Anybody know anything about such a schemeor proposal?
'Earning very little in terms of return on investment'.On what basis do you make that claim?
Do pension funds not already invest in equity and property / infrastructure?
sidicks said:
Red 4 said:
'ere, sidicks ...
There's a thread over on SP&L about police pensions.
Don't go there. You'll do yourself an injury.
Are they as ignorant about their pensions as many of those in the NHS and USS appear to be? Certainly one of them was some time ago, until things were explained to them.There's a thread over on SP&L about police pensions.
Don't go there. You'll do yourself an injury.
I'd still stay away though if I were you.
You might start foaming at the mouth. Or something.
Red 4 said:
Dunno.
I'd still stay away though if I were you.
You might start foaming at the mouth. Or something.
Too late!I'd still stay away though if I were you.
You might start foaming at the mouth. Or something.
The initial question was regarding the removal of pensions due to disciplinary action, which I don't know anything about. However, if others want to post nonsense about me or the pensions themselves, then I'll respond!
crankedup said:
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
I understand that the Government is considering using the pensions pool of money, or some of it, to be put to a more productive use. IIRC it mentioned using the funds for infrastructure building rather than billions of pounds lying around earning very little in terms of return on investment. Must be a year ago or more. Anybody know anything about such a schemeor proposal?
'Earning very little in terms of return on investment'.On what basis do you make that claim?
Do pension funds not already invest in equity and property / infrastructure?
Or you're simply making things up...
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 15:02
travel is dangerous said:
Ok, and the question of whether the current assets are sufficient to meet current liabilities depends critically on the investment returns from those assets, which are uncertain because they will come in the future. When calculating the deficit, small changes in anticipated investment returns will massively alter the value of the deficit, right? especially if the assets are £60bn.
Indeed, that's why we have professionals to do this process. And of course the assumption about those returns will depend on the amount of risk that is being taken - do you want high pensions but with a significant risk that here isn't enough in the scheme to fund them, meaning even higher taxpayer subsidies, or should schemes be run in a prudent manner, to secure these pensions with a high degree of confidence...travel is dangerous said:
Now, if you are a scheme which has net zero cashflow, you can afford to take a slightly risker approach to your investments, right?
You mean like the 70% in equities which is already taken into account in the scheme valuation?travel is dangerous said:
i.e. your scheme can withstand largish short-term shifts in the value of your assets and and size of your return on them. Because every year you get some new assets - cash. Which you can invest or pay out (presumably, because there is a cost associated with selling/buying assets, a prudent scheme would source the majority of its pay-outs from the cash that comes in anyway?).
These future contributions need to be set aside to fund future liabilities.travel is dangerous said:
This is what the argument is about. The deficit is calculated assuming a particular return on investments that is extremely cautious but disappears if you assume a different, very slightly less cautious return on investments.
The valuation doesn't imply an 'extremely cautious' approach - it implies matching assets and liabilities, which seems like a sensible approach...Why should the taxpayer take large amounts of investment risk to fund your pensions? Do you think that USS employees should be immune to economics?
The current deficit position is despite record equity returns over a number of years. However, stock markets were 10% down this year which will have significantly worsened the deficit position.
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 15:09
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
I understand that the Government is considering using the pensions pool of money, or some of it, to be put to a more productive use. IIRC it mentioned using the funds for infrastructure building rather than billions of pounds lying around earning very little in terms of return on investment. Must be a year ago or more. Anybody know anything about such a schemeor proposal?
'Earning very little in terms of return on investment'.On what basis do you make that claim?
Do pension funds not already invest in equity and property / infrastructure?
Or you're simply making things up...
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 15:02
Edited by crankedup on Sunday 25th February 15:15
crankedup said:
I can’t provide any links or evidence,it’s something Iheard about a year go and not heard anything since, this is why I asked in here.Why wouldcoming from youits no surprise. I post lies,very odd and inflammatory remark to make, butCan you read ?
Can anyone translate, please?So to be clear, the words 'lying around earning very little' are not yours, they related to a genuine government initiative..?!
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
I can’t provide any links or evidence,it’s something Iheard about a year go and not heard anything since, this is why I asked in here.Why wouldcoming from youits no surprise. I post lies,very odd and inflammatory remark to make, butCan you read ?
Can anyone translate, please?So to be clear, the words 'lying around earning very little' are not yours, they related to a genuine government initiative..?!
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
I cannot recall the precise words, certainly the proposal was linked to the poor performance coming from current arrangements within the industry.
Poor performance?FTSe AllShare returned 16.8% in 2016 and 13.1% in 2017. Many overseas markets had even higher returns.
Silly me thinking the Government were perhaps looking at the long term future
crankedup said:
here you go
gov.uk>publications>pensions
surprised you know zero about this, but then again.
There are numerous documents there. The most relevant (in terms of infrastructure) refers to:gov.uk>publications>pensions
surprised you know zero about this, but then again.
"In November 2016, the government asked the Law Commission to look at how far pension funds may or should consider issues of social impact when making investment decisions."
What is the reference (or relevance) to assets 'lying around earring very little'?
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 15:40
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff