When will my wife die? and ......
Discussion
Thanks all for all the food for thought.
The answers to a FEW points that have been raised are:
Yes, we do have to speak to their appointed IFA of we want to take the uplift
and many of your points will be put to them.
We don't need the money now and it's not a huge pension anyway, but it is a meaningful sum to my wife in terms of her financial independence from me.
In the long term it MIGHT come in handy towards care home fees
and I talk as somebody who is contributing to my own mother's care home fees
.
I've emailed them to ask if we could hedge by taking a 50% uplift in exchange for 50% of RPI annual increases, but have had no response.
If we did take the uplift, what are the chances long term of bettering RPI by putting the difference between the 36% uplifted monthly amount and the (pretend we didn't take the uplift) non-uplifted amount in some kind of monthly fed investment in a tax free wrapper?
If inflation did take off, I do realise that we're not using all the monthly pension to play that game because the non-uplifted portion (still being spent by my wife) is frozen.
The answers to a FEW points that have been raised are:
Yes, we do have to speak to their appointed IFA of we want to take the uplift
and many of your points will be put to them.
We don't need the money now and it's not a huge pension anyway, but it is a meaningful sum to my wife in terms of her financial independence from me.
In the long term it MIGHT come in handy towards care home fees
and I talk as somebody who is contributing to my own mother's care home fees
.I've emailed them to ask if we could hedge by taking a 50% uplift in exchange for 50% of RPI annual increases, but have had no response.
If we did take the uplift, what are the chances long term of bettering RPI by putting the difference between the 36% uplifted monthly amount and the (pretend we didn't take the uplift) non-uplifted amount in some kind of monthly fed investment in a tax free wrapper?
If inflation did take off, I do realise that we're not using all the monthly pension to play that game because the non-uplifted portion (still being spent by my wife) is frozen.
Re inflation, most pension schemes don't provide full inflation protection - it is typically up to a limit of 5% a year. So if inflation really took off, you wouldn't be fully covered (although definitely in a better position than with no inflation protection at all).
I doubt they'll agree to your request for a 50/50 split. Your wife's pension scheme is likely to have thousands of members being made this offer and individual variations like you have suggested would be very difficult to administer - the more complicated the administration, the more likely it is to go wrong. I'd be pretty certain it will be an all or nothing offer.
I'd say your chances are pretty good of putting the extra 36% into an ISA (say) and outperforming - the interest rate the actuary will be using is likely to be a fair bit lower than typical returns on equities, and it might also be that their projection of future inflation is higher than reality. But it would be a gamble and the problem for pensioners is that they're not usually in a very good position to make good any loss if the gamble doesn't go their way.
I doubt they'll agree to your request for a 50/50 split. Your wife's pension scheme is likely to have thousands of members being made this offer and individual variations like you have suggested would be very difficult to administer - the more complicated the administration, the more likely it is to go wrong. I'd be pretty certain it will be an all or nothing offer.
I'd say your chances are pretty good of putting the extra 36% into an ISA (say) and outperforming - the interest rate the actuary will be using is likely to be a fair bit lower than typical returns on equities, and it might also be that their projection of future inflation is higher than reality. But it would be a gamble and the problem for pensioners is that they're not usually in a very good position to make good any loss if the gamble doesn't go their way.
Zigster said:
Re inflation, most pension schemes don't provide full inflation protection - it is typically up to a limit of 5% a year. So if inflation really took off, you wouldn't be fully covered (although definitely in a better position than with no inflation protection at all).
I doubt they'll agree to your request for a 50/50 split. Your wife's pension scheme is likely to have thousands of members being made this offer and individual variations like you have suggested would be very difficult to administer - the more complicated the administration, the more likely it is to go wrong. I'd be pretty certain it will be an all or nothing offer.
I'd say your chances are pretty good of putting the extra 36% into an ISA (say) and outperforming - the interest rate the actuary will be using is likely to be a fair bit lower than typical returns on equities, and it might also be that their projection of future inflation is higher than reality. But it would be a gamble and the problem for pensioners is that they're not usually in a very good position to make good any loss if the gamble doesn't go their way.
Inflation protection is limited to 10% in this scheme.I doubt they'll agree to your request for a 50/50 split. Your wife's pension scheme is likely to have thousands of members being made this offer and individual variations like you have suggested would be very difficult to administer - the more complicated the administration, the more likely it is to go wrong. I'd be pretty certain it will be an all or nothing offer.
I'd say your chances are pretty good of putting the extra 36% into an ISA (say) and outperforming - the interest rate the actuary will be using is likely to be a fair bit lower than typical returns on equities, and it might also be that their projection of future inflation is higher than reality. But it would be a gamble and the problem for pensioners is that they're not usually in a very good position to make good any loss if the gamble doesn't go their way.
No - they won't let her do the 50/50 split.
She's just had a chat with the IFA who agrees with all the points in your last paragraph:
The company's projection of RPI is 3.25%, the IFA's company reckons 2.5 - 3.0% but admits that nobody knows.
Interestingly over the whole scheme, the one off increase if taken, is 75% of the expected value of the future yearly increases being given up.
Elderly said:
Inflation protection is limited to 10% in this scheme.
No - they won't let her do the 50/50 split.
She's just had a chat with the IFA who agrees with all the points in your last paragraph:
The company's projection of RPI is 3.25%, the IFA's company reckons 2.5 - 3.0% but admits that nobody knows.
Interestingly over the whole scheme, the one off increase if taken, is 75% of the expected value of the future yearly increases being given up.
I was going to post and say they were unlikely to do the split. Almost certainly from admin and process grounds. If it's not a massive pension pot then it would cost them too much to change their systems and deal with a pension that now has two components, with two calculations etc. They'd need to change It systems, reporting systems, plus other MI that people run internally...all for 1 contract.No - they won't let her do the 50/50 split.
She's just had a chat with the IFA who agrees with all the points in your last paragraph:
The company's projection of RPI is 3.25%, the IFA's company reckons 2.5 - 3.0% but admits that nobody knows.
Interestingly over the whole scheme, the one off increase if taken, is 75% of the expected value of the future yearly increases being given up.
They must have some kind of driver to "de-risk" their existing portfolio by shrinking their exposure to RPI.
Elderly said:
Interestingly over the whole scheme, the one off increase if taken, is 75% of the expected value of the future yearly increases being given up.
Bear in mind that that is 75% on the scheme actuary's basis (e.g. views of future investment returns, inflation and life expectancy). YMMV.For example, a reason it is not a full 100% is due to mortality "selection" which means that a pension scheme member who viewed their life expectancy as shorter than average is more likely to take the offer than one who thinks they will live longer than average. Using a shorter than average life expectancy would mean a higher than 75% value swap. Selection can be a difficult concept to grasp - apologies if it's not clear here and I can give it a more detailed go.
The IFA might be able to help you understand how the value compares based on your expectations of the future.
Reasons for the pension scheme doing this are:
1) it reduces their view of the scheme's liabilities
2) it does give members the option to take a pension in a form which might be more valuable to the member (more money now rather than later).
3) it does reduce exposure to future inflation - one less variable to worry about. Plus, it brings forward the payments so the pension scheme is less exposed to long-term (uncertain) investment returns.
I could go on ... but I've probably lost most of you already.
Zigster said:
Bear in mind that that is 75% on the scheme actuary's basis ...... YMMV.
For example, a reason it is not a full 100% is due to mortality "selection" which means that a pension scheme member who viewed their life expectancy as shorter than average is more likely to take the offer than one who thinks they will live longer than average. Using a shorter than average life expectancy would mean a higher than 75% value swap. Selection can be a difficult concept to grasp - apologies if it's not clear here and I can give it a more detailed go.
Yes please! For example, a reason it is not a full 100% is due to mortality "selection" which means that a pension scheme member who viewed their life expectancy as shorter than average is more likely to take the offer than one who thinks they will live longer than average. Using a shorter than average life expectancy would mean a higher than 75% value swap. Selection can be a difficult concept to grasp - apologies if it's not clear here and I can give it a more detailed go.
Here's a simplified and exaggerated example.
Imagine the pension scheme had just two members, both men aged 70 and with apparently identical characteristics. The actuary believes that both members can be expected to live for a further 15 years each.
However, unknown to the actuary, member A has just found out he has cancer and has just a year to live. Conversely, member B has a history of longevity in his family (all four grandparents and both parents lived to age 100).
The scheme trustee offers members a one-off lump sum in return for giving up their pension - these do exist and some of you might have seen ETV (enhanced transfer value) offers from your pension scheme.
The offer is structured such that it makes financial sense if the member lives to age 85 (i.e. 70+15); is a poor deal if the member lives past age 85; but is a great deal if the member doesn't live to age 85. If both members take up the deal then, on balance, the scheme is financially neutral.
Member A snaps up the deal because he knows it represents great value for him as he only has a year to live. This is selection - the member has better information on his personal circumstances than the actuary. Conversely, member B declines as he believes he will be worse off for the opposite reasons - this is also selection. So the scheme is worse off - it has paid out "too much" to member A and will need additional funding to keep paying member B his pension for another 40 years.
So, in practice, the actuary would advise the deal be structured to provide less than 100% value on average in the knowledge that those taking the deal are likely to be selecting against the scheme.
Imagine the pension scheme had just two members, both men aged 70 and with apparently identical characteristics. The actuary believes that both members can be expected to live for a further 15 years each.
However, unknown to the actuary, member A has just found out he has cancer and has just a year to live. Conversely, member B has a history of longevity in his family (all four grandparents and both parents lived to age 100).
The scheme trustee offers members a one-off lump sum in return for giving up their pension - these do exist and some of you might have seen ETV (enhanced transfer value) offers from your pension scheme.
The offer is structured such that it makes financial sense if the member lives to age 85 (i.e. 70+15); is a poor deal if the member lives past age 85; but is a great deal if the member doesn't live to age 85. If both members take up the deal then, on balance, the scheme is financially neutral.
Member A snaps up the deal because he knows it represents great value for him as he only has a year to live. This is selection - the member has better information on his personal circumstances than the actuary. Conversely, member B declines as he believes he will be worse off for the opposite reasons - this is also selection. So the scheme is worse off - it has paid out "too much" to member A and will need additional funding to keep paying member B his pension for another 40 years.
So, in practice, the actuary would advise the deal be structured to provide less than 100% value on average in the knowledge that those taking the deal are likely to be selecting against the scheme.
Only read part way down, horrible cynical bit from me anyway..
One extra for "take it now" - aged 60, you still have loads you can do with the money. Aged 80, anything exciting will only lead to upset. What's the benefit of being well heeled at 80+? Old people don't do anything..
An extra horrible cynical thing is that once you hit care, say goodbye to the lot anyway. Great mother in law used to have a house in Finchley (sold to pay for care)and whatever her pension was it went to the (nhs) home and that was that. Unless you have sufficient income from pension to pay for a posh home, then you might as well spend it - once you have nowt, care is free.
As I said, horrible cynical thinking, but it's another factor..
One extra for "take it now" - aged 60, you still have loads you can do with the money. Aged 80, anything exciting will only lead to upset. What's the benefit of being well heeled at 80+? Old people don't do anything..
An extra horrible cynical thing is that once you hit care, say goodbye to the lot anyway. Great mother in law used to have a house in Finchley (sold to pay for care)and whatever her pension was it went to the (nhs) home and that was that. Unless you have sufficient income from pension to pay for a posh home, then you might as well spend it - once you have nowt, care is free.
As I said, horrible cynical thinking, but it's another factor..
Thanks Zigster. I suppose that your own longevity is the only factor that you MIGHT be able to forsee better than the actuary.
Some Gump - my own mother is in a home and she was entitled to have her care totally paid for,
but the homes with block booked rooms where the local authority would have placed her were s
te ,
which is why I am topping up in order to have her in a 'posh' home.
Some Gump - my own mother is in a home and she was entitled to have her care totally paid for,
but the homes with block booked rooms where the local authority would have placed her were s
te ,which is why I am topping up in order to have her in a 'posh' home.
Zigster said:
Here's a simplified and exaggerated example.
An excellent analysis set out in straightforward language. Brilliant stuff for PH.Related to your point - I sometimes wonder what a life assurance company does to protect itself from selling "enhanced annuities" to people who claim to have been heavy smokers all their lives but in fact have only an occasional cigarette. If the insured lives for a long time (as probability says some heavy smokers inevitably will) does the insurer interview the family on the 85th birthday to make sure you're actually a heavy smoker??? Must be a tough one. After all, when the bloke makes an appointment to come round it's easy enough to make sure you've got one lit up!
Zigster said:
Elderly said:
Interestingly over the whole scheme, the one off increase if taken, is 75% of the expected value of the future yearly increases being given up.
Bear in mind that that is 75% on the scheme actuary's basis (e.g. views of future investment returns, inflation and life expectancy). YMMV.Zigster said:
For example, a reason it is not a full 100% is due to mortality "selection" which means that a pension scheme member who viewed their life expectancy as shorter than average is more likely to take the offer than one who thinks they will live longer than average. Using a shorter than average life expectancy would mean a higher than 75% value swap. Selection can be a difficult concept to grasp - apologies if it's not clear here and I can give it a more detailed go.
If a scheme member gives up inflationary increases if and only if they receive the one off increase to the level annuity that they receive.The 75% that the OP mentioned is the expected value of the one off increase as a percentage of the expected value of the future inflationary increases being given up.
The two expected values are calculated using the same basis as one only occurs if and only if the other does too.
Hence whether or not select mortality is used will not have contributed to this 75%.
I would suggest that part of the reason the 75% is what it is, is because the scheme are offering a 36% increase and not say a 48% increase.
Zigster said:
The IFA might be able to help you understand how the value compares based on your expectations of the future.
Reasons for the pension scheme doing this are:
1) it reduces their view of the scheme's liabilities
2) it does give members the option to take a pension in a form which might be more valuable to the member (more money now rather than later).
3) it does reduce exposure to future inflation - one less variable to worry about. Plus, it brings forward the payments so the pension scheme is less exposed to long-term (uncertain) investment returns.
I could go on ... but I've probably lost most of you already.
The reason for the scheme doing this is to reduce the risk in it's liabilities.Reasons for the pension scheme doing this are:
1) it reduces their view of the scheme's liabilities
2) it does give members the option to take a pension in a form which might be more valuable to the member (more money now rather than later).
3) it does reduce exposure to future inflation - one less variable to worry about. Plus, it brings forward the payments so the pension scheme is less exposed to long-term (uncertain) investment returns.
I could go on ... but I've probably lost most of you already.
I think that your 1) and 2) will be a result of the scheme's action in making this offer, and not reasons for it.
Edited by CarlosFandango11 on Thursday 21st January 00:26
CarlosFandango11 said:
Choice of basis shouldn't have much impact on the calculation of the 75% - the same assumptions will be used to calculate the present value of liabilities with and without indexation. Investment return wouldn't be one of these as only liabilities are being considered.
True but not the point I was making. My point was that, if the pensioner has expensive debt such as credit card balances, the extra income now could be used to pay off that debt more quickly. So it's not about whether the actuary thinks future investment returns will be 5%, 6% or whatever. It's about what effective return (including reducing expensive debt) the pensioner could achieve with the extra money compared with that used to calculate the offer.CarlosFandango11 said:
If a scheme member gives up inflationary increases if and only if they receive the one off increase to the level annuity that they receive.
The 75% that the OP mentioned is the expected value of the one off increase as a percentage of the expected value of the future inflationary increases being given up.
The two expected values are calculated using the same basis as one only occurs if and only if the other does too.
Hence whether or not select mortality is used will not have contributed to this 75%.
I would suggest that part of the reason the 75% is what it is, is because the scheme are offering a 36% increase and not say a 48% increase.
I confess I'm not quite sure of your point here. If using a 100% equivalence gave a 48% increase and the scheme was only offering 75% of that, that would be 36%. But that's just the outcome - simple maths. The question is why the scheme wouldn't offer the full 48% and there are good reasons for this - it's not just that the scheme is trying to rip off members.The 75% that the OP mentioned is the expected value of the one off increase as a percentage of the expected value of the future inflationary increases being given up.
The two expected values are calculated using the same basis as one only occurs if and only if the other does too.
Hence whether or not select mortality is used will not have contributed to this 75%.
I would suggest that part of the reason the 75% is what it is, is because the scheme are offering a 36% increase and not say a 48% increase.
I wasn't talking about select mortality (i.e. the tables used in the first few years) - pensions actuaries rarely if ever use those. I was talking about members selecting against the scheme on grounds of their own views of their future mortality.
CarlosFandango11 said:
The reason for the scheme doing this is to reduce the risk in it's liabilities.
I think that your 1) and 2) will be a result of the scheme's action in making this offer, and not reasons for it.
I disagree, although it's not an important point. In my experience, trustees and companies like the idea of giving members that extra flexibility. It might not be the primary driver for making the offer but it's a consideration.I think that your 1) and 2) will be a result of the scheme's action in making this offer, and not reasons for it.
And reducing exposure to the risk of future inflation also reduces liabilities, on the grounds that protection against inflation tends to be "expensive" - i.e. buying inflation protection is usually more expensive than best estimate views of future inflation (the insurance cost of protecting against inflation).
So I stand by all three points being reasons for making the offer in the first place.
Zigster said:
Bear in mind that that is 75% on the scheme actuary's basis (e.g. views of future investment returns, inflation and life expectancy). YMMV.
Zigster said:
True but not the point I was making. My point was that, if the pensioner has expensive debt such as credit card balances, the extra income now could be used to pay off that debt more quickly. So it's not about whether the actuary thinks future investment returns will be 5%, 6% or whatever. It's about what effective return (including reducing expensive debt) the pensioner could achieve with the extra money compared with that used to calculate the offer.
If your point was about scheme member's debt, then why didn't you mention scheme member's debt? 
And your post did mention investment returns as on of the scheme actuary's assumptions, presumably you mean choice of discount rate?
Zigster said:
I confess I'm not quite sure of your point here. If using a 100% equivalence gave a 48% increase and the scheme was only offering 75% of that, that would be 36%. But that's just the outcome - simple maths. The question is why the scheme wouldn't offer the full 48% and there are good reasons for this - it's not just that the scheme is trying to rip off members.
I wasn't talking about select mortality (i.e. the tables used in the first few years) - pensions actuaries rarely if ever use those. I was talking about members selecting against the scheme on grounds of their own views of their future mortality.
I wasn't talking about select mortality (i.e. the tables used in the first few years) - pensions actuaries rarely if ever use those. I was talking about members selecting against the scheme on grounds of their own views of their future mortality.
Zigster said:
For example, a reason it is not a full 100% is due to mortality "selection"
If you weren't taking about mortality selection, why did you state that it was a reason for the 75% not being 100%? The 75% was calculated by the pensions actuary, and not any scheme members... And why haven't you mentioned any of the good reasons why the scheme wouldn't offer 48%?
Zigster said:
I disagree, although it's not an important point. In my experience, trustees and companies like the idea of giving members that extra flexibility. It might not be the primary driver for making the offer but it's a consideration.
And reducing exposure to the risk of future inflation also reduces liabilities, on the grounds that protection against inflation tends to be "expensive" - i.e. buying inflation protection is usually more expensive than best estimate views of future inflation (the insurance cost of protecting against inflation).
So I stand by all three points being reasons for making the offer in the first place.
As you do point out, protection against inflation tends to be "expensive", if it was less expensive the the best estimate views of future inflation, the scheme actuary should be a little concerned about his projections...And reducing exposure to the risk of future inflation also reduces liabilities, on the grounds that protection against inflation tends to be "expensive" - i.e. buying inflation protection is usually more expensive than best estimate views of future inflation (the insurance cost of protecting against inflation).
So I stand by all three points being reasons for making the offer in the first place.
A scheme would be prepared to increase the expected value of its future liabilities if it meant a large enough reduction in risk.
I suspect the scheme would be concerned about the risk in its future liabilities, and would have looked at options in reducing them. This approach was one of them. When considering this approach in more detail, 1) and 2) would be noted as benefits of de-risking the scheme, but not reasons for looking to de-risk the scheme.
Edited by CarlosFandango11 on Thursday 21st January 09:10
Only read part way down, horrible cynical bit from me anyway..
One extra for "take it now" - aged 60, you still have loads you can do with the money. Aged 80, anything exciting will only lead to upset. What's the benefit of being well heeled at 80+? Old people don't do anything..
An extra horrible cynical thing is that once you hit care, say goodbye to the lot anyway. Great mother in law used to have a house in Finchley (sold to pay for care)and whatever her pension was it went to the (nhs) home and that was that. Unless you have sufficient income from pension to pay for a posh home, then you might as well spend it - once you have nowt, care is free.
As I said, horrible cynical thinking, but it's another factor..
One extra for "take it now" - aged 60, you still have loads you can do with the money. Aged 80, anything exciting will only lead to upset. What's the benefit of being well heeled at 80+? Old people don't do anything..
An extra horrible cynical thing is that once you hit care, say goodbye to the lot anyway. Great mother in law used to have a house in Finchley (sold to pay for care)and whatever her pension was it went to the (nhs) home and that was that. Unless you have sufficient income from pension to pay for a posh home, then you might as well spend it - once you have nowt, care is free.
As I said, horrible cynical thinking, but it's another factor..
Dad had an offer like this a few months ago. As it was not the only pension in payment the immediate uplift made sense being in his 70's as they like to holiday at least three time a year with city breaks chucked in. No debt, mortgage free, no dependants, several other pensions in payment inc state, winter fuel allowance, free bus pass/tram pass etc. Obviously they worked out all the figures and an IFA paid for by the provider was consulted... Though in saying that they are just banking the extra cash for whatever need...
We don't live forever and like a previous poster says I wouldn't want to sit dribbling wishing I'd done things while I had the chance...
We don't live forever and like a previous poster says I wouldn't want to sit dribbling wishing I'd done things while I had the chance...
CarlosFandango11 said:
If your point was about scheme member's debt, then why didn't you mention scheme member's debt?
I did …Zigster said:
This is a good point which people often miss - it's not just about equivalence of value. Is a large pension of value to you when you're 95 years old watching a lot of daytime TV (free licence too) or would you prefer to have more money when you're 65 that you are sufficiently fit and healthy still to be able to have fun with?
Plus factor in that it might be something like 60%-80% of the value on the basis the scheme actuary has used (which would typically include a very low interest rate) but the equivalent value might be different on a basis you think is more appropriate to you. For example, if you had large credit card debts then you could use the higher income now to pay off that debt - a value to you that wouldn't be factored into the actuary's calculations.
Plus factor in that it might be something like 60%-80% of the value on the basis the scheme actuary has used (which would typically include a very low interest rate) but the equivalent value might be different on a basis you think is more appropriate to you. For example, if you had large credit card debts then you could use the higher income now to pay off that debt - a value to you that wouldn't be factored into the actuary's calculations.
CarlosFandango11 said:
And your post did mention investment returns as on of the scheme actuary's assumptions, presumably you mean choice of discount rate?
What’s the difference? The discount rate is the rate at which you discount future payments to today’s date, and the primary consideration is the returns expected (hoped) to be achieved on the investments held.CarlosFandango11 said:
If you weren't taking about mortality selection, why did you state that it was a reason for the 75% not being 100%? The 75% was calculated by the pensions actuary, and not any scheme members...
And why haven't you mentioned any of the good reasons why the scheme wouldn't offer 48%?
I explained when I first mentioned it what I meant by selection in this context – I clearly didn’t mean select life tables. And I think selection by the scheme member against the scheme on the grounds that the scheme member might have a view of their mortality which differs from the Scheme Actuary's estimate for the scheme as a whole (can't think why I didn't phrase it that way in the first place ...) is a pretty good reason in itself why the scheme wouldn’t offer “48%”. Plus, I gave another example about debt which I mentioned above.And why haven't you mentioned any of the good reasons why the scheme wouldn't offer 48%?
Zigster said:
For example, a reason it is not a full 100% is due to mortality "selection" which means that a pension scheme member who viewed their life expectancy as shorter than average is more likely to take the offer than one who thinks they will live longer than average.
CarlosFandango11 said:
As you do point out, protection against inflation tends to be "expensive", if it was less expensive the the best estimate views of future inflation, the scheme actuary should be a little concerned about his projections...
A scheme would be prepared to increase the expected value of its future liabilities if it meant a large enough reduction in risk.
I suspect the scheme would be concerned about the risk in its future liabilities, and would have looked at options in reducing them. This approach was one of them. When considering this approach in more detail, 1) and 2) would be noted as benefits of de-risking the scheme, but not reasons for looking to de-risk the scheme.
And in my experience of doing these exercises in practice, all three are reasons for offering the exercise (which is not quite the same question as looking to de-risk the scheme).A scheme would be prepared to increase the expected value of its future liabilities if it meant a large enough reduction in risk.
I suspect the scheme would be concerned about the risk in its future liabilities, and would have looked at options in reducing them. This approach was one of them. When considering this approach in more detail, 1) and 2) would be noted as benefits of de-risking the scheme, but not reasons for looking to de-risk the scheme.
The OP asked a reasonable question, I gave him a (hopefully) helpful answer. I’m not quite sure why you’re so determined to pick a fight over some of the more technical actuarial parts of this which are more likely to confuse readers than enlighten.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff