Pensions Actuary - Divorce Financial Settlement
Discussion
Hi All,
A friend of mine (yes, really!) is going through a s
tty time due to his ex being an absolute cow over all things financial. He ended the relationship for a multitude of reasons and she's now the woman scorned...
Their house is on the market and has a reasonable chunk of equity in it, however the largest asset is her pension. His solicitor has said he needs a Pensions Actuary to work out what it's worth to him. His solicitor has advised that it needs to be taken into account as it's rather significant in size. He thought it was a simple / straightforward calculation...perhaps not?
Has anyone here used one? Or is there a PHer that is a Pensions Actuary?
Any help greatly appreciated.
WideOpenBottle :-)
A friend of mine (yes, really!) is going through a s
tty time due to his ex being an absolute cow over all things financial. He ended the relationship for a multitude of reasons and she's now the woman scorned...Their house is on the market and has a reasonable chunk of equity in it, however the largest asset is her pension. His solicitor has said he needs a Pensions Actuary to work out what it's worth to him. His solicitor has advised that it needs to be taken into account as it's rather significant in size. He thought it was a simple / straightforward calculation...perhaps not?
Has anyone here used one? Or is there a PHer that is a Pensions Actuary?
Any help greatly appreciated.
WideOpenBottle :-)
Assuming it is a defined benefit pension arrangement, all his solicitor needs to be doing is asking her solicitor to provide the Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV) of her pension benefits. He doesn't need to engage a pensions actuary for that.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Saturday 9th September 12:20
JulianPH said:
In that case Purple is correct with the above.
An actuary will cost a fortune and is completely unnecessary.
Your friend's solicitor is useless in suggesting this.
Oh dear! The solicitors are specialists, too! So, in short, it's a Final Salary pension and a Cash Equivalent Transfer Value is what's needed? Is there a calculation/ formula that can be applied to this? Pension value = x, years together married = x, etc, etc?An actuary will cost a fortune and is completely unnecessary.
Your friend's solicitor is useless in suggesting this.
WideOpenBottle said:
JulianPH said:
In that case Purple is correct with the above.
An actuary will cost a fortune and is completely unnecessary.
Your friend's solicitor is useless in suggesting this.
Oh dear! The solicitors are specialists, too! So, in short, it's a Final Salary pension and a Cash Equivalent Transfer Value is what's needed? Is there a calculation/ formula that can be applied to this? Pension value = x, years together married = x, etc, etc?An actuary will cost a fortune and is completely unnecessary.
Your friend's solicitor is useless in suggesting this.
WideOpenBottle said:
Hi All,
A friend of mine (yes, really!) is going through a stty time due to his ex being an absolute cow over all things financial. He ended the relationship for a multitude of reasons and she's now the woman scorned...
Their house is on the market and has a reasonable chunk of equity in it, however the largest asset is her pension. His solicitor has said he needs a Pensions Actuary to work out what it's worth to him. His solicitor has advised that it needs to be taken into account as it's rather significant in size. He thought it was a simple / straightforward calculation...perhaps not?
Has anyone here used one? Or is there a PHer that is a Pensions Actuary?
Any help greatly appreciated.
WideOpenBottle :-)
You need an actuary. A friend of mine (yes, really!) is going through a s
tty time due to his ex being an absolute cow over all things financial. He ended the relationship for a multitude of reasons and she's now the woman scorned...Their house is on the market and has a reasonable chunk of equity in it, however the largest asset is her pension. His solicitor has said he needs a Pensions Actuary to work out what it's worth to him. His solicitor has advised that it needs to be taken into account as it's rather significant in size. He thought it was a simple / straightforward calculation...perhaps not?
Has anyone here used one? Or is there a PHer that is a Pensions Actuary?
Any help greatly appreciated.
WideOpenBottle :-)
What used to be referred to as CETV gives you a number. It's how the number is used is what's important. For instance, a Pension Credit Member (PCM) is assigned a percentage share but can only take benefits at aged 65, whereas the Pension Debit Member can take (his?) benefits at 60. The PCM, after surrendering her (?) own career to raise their family, wants to take benefits 60, too, but has to take an actuarial reduction of, say, 5% pa. So, she has to negotiate a higher share. That's only one tiny aspect. Get an actuary who knows the scheme inside out.
An actuarial report isn't expensive. Depending on the complexity, or lack of, expect to pay between £850-£1500. But, and this is the big But, you have to know what you want your report to say for you. I'll happily send a draft tasking order back five or six times to the other party's representative until I'm happy it reflects what my client needs. Usually, the costs are born by both 'sides', but if the fund is substantial enough, tell your mate to go it alone and produce one that reflects his/her specific need.
So, in summary, get an actuary, get a good one, and get one who'll generate a report that reflects what you need - it's so much more than just a 'CETV'. If you want a steer, feel free to message me.
Edit: Of course, if the PCM in my hypothetical example elects not to take benefits @60, and waits instead, until 65, she (usually) has earned themselves a larger pension as the percentage allocated might stay a constant, but the value of it will increase. Consequently, she may take benefits when she quits her job and draws a state pension. She makes money because she gets more, and she gets more because she pays less tax. This is what a well specified report will indicate to the cognisant professional. Clearly, it's a weapon, and both 'sides' need to be aware of the rules of war. It's a dreadful thing to say, but unless your mate has a solicitor who buys into non adversarial counselling, the knife twists deeply for everyone.
Edited by Ginge R on Saturday 9th September 14:29
JulianPH said:
WideOpenBottle said:
JulianPH said:
In that case Purple is correct with the above.
An actuary will cost a fortune and is completely unnecessary.
Your friend's solicitor is useless in suggesting this.
Oh dear! The solicitors are specialists, too! So, in short, it's a Final Salary pension and a Cash Equivalent Transfer Value is what's needed? Is there a calculation/ formula that can be applied to this? Pension value = x, years together married = x, etc, etc?An actuary will cost a fortune and is completely unnecessary.
Your friend's solicitor is useless in suggesting this.
Ginge R said:
You need an actuary.
What used to be referred to as CETV gives you a number. It's how the number is used is what's important. For instance, a Pension Credit Member (PCM) is assigned a percentage share but can only take benefits at aged 65, whereas the Pension Debit Member can take (his?) benefits at 60. The PCM, after surrendering her (?) own career to raise their family, wants to take benefits 60, too, but has to take an actuarial reduction of, say, 5% pa. So, she has to negotiate a higher share. That's only one tiny aspect. Get an actuary who knows the scheme inside out.
An actuarial report isn't expensive. Depending on the complexity, or lack of, expect to pay between £850-£1500. But, and this is the big But, you have to know what you want your report to say for you. I'll happily send a draft tasking order back five or six times to the other party's representative until I'm happy it reflects what my client needs. Usually, the costs are born by both 'sides', but if the fund is substantial enough, tell your mate to go it alone and produce one that reflects his/her specific need.
So, in summary, get an actuary, get a good one, and get one who'll generate a report that reflects what you need - it's so much more than just a 'CETV'. If you want a steer, feel free to message me.
Edit: Of course, if the PCM in my hypothetical example elects not to take benefits @60, and waits instead, until 65, she (usually) has earned themselves a larger pension as the percentage allocated might stay a constant, but the value of it will increase. Consequently, she may take benefits when she quits her job and draws a state pension. She makes money because she gets more, and she gets more because she pays less tax. This is what a well specified report will indicate to the cognisant professional. Clearly, it's a weapon, and both 'sides' need to be aware of the rules of war. It's a dreadful thing to say, but unless your mate has a solicitor who buys into non adversarial counselling, the knife twists deeply for everyone.
Ok, thanks for the info. It's much appreciated. I'll PM you. What used to be referred to as CETV gives you a number. It's how the number is used is what's important. For instance, a Pension Credit Member (PCM) is assigned a percentage share but can only take benefits at aged 65, whereas the Pension Debit Member can take (his?) benefits at 60. The PCM, after surrendering her (?) own career to raise their family, wants to take benefits 60, too, but has to take an actuarial reduction of, say, 5% pa. So, she has to negotiate a higher share. That's only one tiny aspect. Get an actuary who knows the scheme inside out.
An actuarial report isn't expensive. Depending on the complexity, or lack of, expect to pay between £850-£1500. But, and this is the big But, you have to know what you want your report to say for you. I'll happily send a draft tasking order back five or six times to the other party's representative until I'm happy it reflects what my client needs. Usually, the costs are born by both 'sides', but if the fund is substantial enough, tell your mate to go it alone and produce one that reflects his/her specific need.
So, in summary, get an actuary, get a good one, and get one who'll generate a report that reflects what you need - it's so much more than just a 'CETV'. If you want a steer, feel free to message me.
Edit: Of course, if the PCM in my hypothetical example elects not to take benefits @60, and waits instead, until 65, she (usually) has earned themselves a larger pension as the percentage allocated might stay a constant, but the value of it will increase. Consequently, she may take benefits when she quits her job and draws a state pension. She makes money because she gets more, and she gets more because she pays less tax. This is what a well specified report will indicate to the cognisant professional. Clearly, it's a weapon, and both 'sides' need to be aware of the rules of war. It's a dreadful thing to say, but unless your mate has a solicitor who buys into non adversarial counselling, the knife twists deeply for everyone.
Edited by Ginge R on Saturday 9th September 14:29
Ginge R said:
You need an actuary.
What used to be referred to as CETV gives you a number. It's how the number is used is what's important. For instance, a Pension Credit Member (PCM) is assigned a percentage share but can only take benefits at aged 65, whereas the Pension Debit Member can take (his?) benefits at 60. The PCM, after surrendering her (?) own career to raise their family, wants to take benefits 60, too, but has to take an actuarial reduction of, say, 5% pa. So, she has to negotiate a higher share. That's only one tiny aspect. Get an actuary who knows the scheme inside out.
An actuarial report isn't expensive. Depending on the complexity, or lack of, expect to pay between £850-£1500. But, and this is the big But, you have to know what you want your report to say for you. I'll happily send a draft tasking order back five or six times to the other party's representative until I'm happy it reflects what my client needs. Usually, the costs are born by both 'sides', but if the fund is substantial enough, tell your mate to go it alone and produce one that reflects his/her specific need.
So, in summary, get an actuary, get a good one, and get one who'll generate a report that reflects what you need - it's so much more than just a 'CETV'. If you want a steer, feel free to message me.
Edit: Of course, if the PCM in my hypothetical example elects not to take benefits @60, and waits instead, until 65, she (usually) has earned themselves a larger pension as the percentage allocated might stay a constant, but the value of it will increase. Consequently, she may take benefits when she quits her job and draws a state pension. She makes money because she gets more, and she gets more because she pays less tax. This is what a well specified report will indicate to the cognisant professional. Clearly, it's a weapon, and both 'sides' need to be aware of the rules of war. It's a dreadful thing to say, but unless your mate has a solicitor who buys into non adversarial counselling, the knife twists deeply for everyone.
Hi Al, some excellent comments, but I don't think matters have reached this stage yet.What used to be referred to as CETV gives you a number. It's how the number is used is what's important. For instance, a Pension Credit Member (PCM) is assigned a percentage share but can only take benefits at aged 65, whereas the Pension Debit Member can take (his?) benefits at 60. The PCM, after surrendering her (?) own career to raise their family, wants to take benefits 60, too, but has to take an actuarial reduction of, say, 5% pa. So, she has to negotiate a higher share. That's only one tiny aspect. Get an actuary who knows the scheme inside out.
An actuarial report isn't expensive. Depending on the complexity, or lack of, expect to pay between £850-£1500. But, and this is the big But, you have to know what you want your report to say for you. I'll happily send a draft tasking order back five or six times to the other party's representative until I'm happy it reflects what my client needs. Usually, the costs are born by both 'sides', but if the fund is substantial enough, tell your mate to go it alone and produce one that reflects his/her specific need.
So, in summary, get an actuary, get a good one, and get one who'll generate a report that reflects what you need - it's so much more than just a 'CETV'. If you want a steer, feel free to message me.
Edit: Of course, if the PCM in my hypothetical example elects not to take benefits @60, and waits instead, until 65, she (usually) has earned themselves a larger pension as the percentage allocated might stay a constant, but the value of it will increase. Consequently, she may take benefits when she quits her job and draws a state pension. She makes money because she gets more, and she gets more because she pays less tax. This is what a well specified report will indicate to the cognisant professional. Clearly, it's a weapon, and both 'sides' need to be aware of the rules of war. It's a dreadful thing to say, but unless your mate has a solicitor who buys into non adversarial counselling, the knife twists deeply for everyone.
Edited by Ginge R on Saturday 9th September 14:29
It appears to me they are at the fact finding stage prior to a From E submission (otherwise they would already have this info) and to pay for an actuary now may be jumping the gun.
Any actuary the court would rely upon would have to be agreed and appointed by both sides on an independent basis and there is no going back with different, more favourable, reports for one party.
My understanding is that it is his solicitor asking him to do this (not his solicitor asking her or her solicitor asking him).
We have no idea regarding the length of the marriage or if children are involved so much of this may be a moot point. However, assuming it is a lengthy marriage then your input is interesting if age difference before being able to receive benefits is a factor that could go in his favour (i.e. she would need a smaller percentage of the pot now to draw the same level of benefit at the same age - but not at the same time - he does).
My major concern is that if he pays an actuary working solely for him at this stage in proceedings then he is likely to end up paying a second time towards and independent jointly appointed one further down the road.
This is a tricky one to assist with given the lack of info on which to base any opinion/advice on.
WideOpenBottle said:
Hi All,
A friend of mine (yes, really!) is going through a stty time due to his ex being an absolute cow over all things financial. He ended the relationship for a multitude of reasons and she's now the woman scorned...
Their house is on the market and has a reasonable chunk of equity in it, however the largest asset is her pension. His solicitor has said he needs a Pensions Actuary to work out what it's worth to him. His solicitor has advised that it needs to be taken into account as it's rather significant in size. He thought it was a simple / straightforward calculation...perhaps not?
Has anyone here used one? Or is there a PHer that is a Pensions Actuary?
Any help greatly appreciated.
WideOpenBottle :-)
Sorry, I am being idiotic - it is her final salary pension not his! That changes everything and please ignore my previous comments.A friend of mine (yes, really!) is going through a s
tty time due to his ex being an absolute cow over all things financial. He ended the relationship for a multitude of reasons and she's now the woman scorned...Their house is on the market and has a reasonable chunk of equity in it, however the largest asset is her pension. His solicitor has said he needs a Pensions Actuary to work out what it's worth to him. His solicitor has advised that it needs to be taken into account as it's rather significant in size. He thought it was a simple / straightforward calculation...perhaps not?
Has anyone here used one? Or is there a PHer that is a Pensions Actuary?
Any help greatly appreciated.
WideOpenBottle :-)
JulianPH said:
Hi Al, some excellent comments, but I don't think matters have reached this stage yet.
It appears to me they are at the fact finding stage prior to a From E submission (otherwise they would already have this info) and to pay for an actuary now may be jumping the gun.
Any actuary the court would rely upon would have to be agreed and appointed by both sides on an independent basis and there is no going back with different, more favourable, reports for one party.
My understanding is that it is his solicitor asking him to do this (not his solicitor asking her or her solicitor asking him).
We have no idea regarding the length of the marriage or if children are involved so much of this may be a moot point. However, assuming it is a lengthy marriage then your input is interesting if age difference before being able to receive benefits is a factor that could go in his favour (i.e. she would need a smaller percentage of the pot now to draw the same level of benefit at the same age - but not at the same time - he does).
My major concern is that if he pays an actuary working solely for him at this stage in proceedings then he is likely to end up paying a second time towards and independent jointly appointed one further down the road.
This is a tricky one to assist with given the lack of info on which to base any opinion/advice on.
Subsequent post duly noted. It appears to me they are at the fact finding stage prior to a From E submission (otherwise they would already have this info) and to pay for an actuary now may be jumping the gun.
Any actuary the court would rely upon would have to be agreed and appointed by both sides on an independent basis and there is no going back with different, more favourable, reports for one party.
My understanding is that it is his solicitor asking him to do this (not his solicitor asking her or her solicitor asking him).
We have no idea regarding the length of the marriage or if children are involved so much of this may be a moot point. However, assuming it is a lengthy marriage then your input is interesting if age difference before being able to receive benefits is a factor that could go in his favour (i.e. she would need a smaller percentage of the pot now to draw the same level of benefit at the same age - but not at the same time - he does).
My major concern is that if he pays an actuary working solely for him at this stage in proceedings then he is likely to end up paying a second time towards and independent jointly appointed one further down the road.
This is a tricky one to assist with given the lack of info on which to base any opinion/advice on.
I've gone *into* Form E discussions with an independently commissioned actuarial report; sometimes, it's better to own the agenda if the other party knows the facts - at outset. I know only one solicitor who delves into the report to give it the substance it merits - without direction it's an iron bomb. With steerage, it's laser guided.
If the case is strong, if the DJ cannot convince both parties to settle amicably, then it goes to a full hearing. The actuary doesn't have to be agreed by the judge. In fairness, I have had solicitors swear at me because they think I'm being wilfully obstructive, but the reality is, most simply fret that case management is being lost.
What I will do, and have done, is toss the list of actuaries (usually three or so) that are 'suggested' to me by the other solicitor, I'd rather suggest one who I know can deliver the goods. Most solicitors don't understand the process in suitable depth, and invariably, my choice is cheaper and better anyway.
The process isn't intended, by me anyway, to be adversarial or to sup at the pool of people's misery, or drag things out to bump up fees. But it is ensure a fair settlement is reached - and to do that, full assessment of facts is vital. And that level of detail usually goes far beyond skimming a swiftly calculated simple top line transfer value.
Hope you're good.
Ginge R said:
Subsequent post duly noted.
I've gone *into* Form E discussions with an independently commissioned actuarial report; sometimes, it's better to own the agenda if the other party knows the facts - at outset. I know only one solicitor who delves into the report to give it the substance it merits - without direction it's an iron bomb. With steerage, it's laser guided.
If the case is strong, if the DJ cannot convince both parties to settle amicably, then it goes to a full hearing. The actuary doesn't have to be agreed by the judge. In fairness, I have had solicitors swear at me because they think I'm being wilfully obstructive, but the reality is, most simply fret that case management is being lost.
What I will do, and have done, is toss the list of actuaries (usually three or so) that are 'suggested' to me by the other solicitor, I'd rather suggest one who I know can deliver the goods. Most solicitors don't understand the process in suitable depth, and invariably, my choice is cheaper and better anyway.
The process isn't intended, by me anyway, to be adversarial or to sup at the pool of people's misery, or drag things out to bump up fees. But it is ensure a fair settlement is reached - and to do that, full assessment of facts is vital. And that level of detail usually goes far beyond skimming a swiftly calculated simple top line transfer value.
Hope you're good.
I'm good mate, how was you three months in Spain, relaxing I trust. Have you moved into the new house yet?I've gone *into* Form E discussions with an independently commissioned actuarial report; sometimes, it's better to own the agenda if the other party knows the facts - at outset. I know only one solicitor who delves into the report to give it the substance it merits - without direction it's an iron bomb. With steerage, it's laser guided.
If the case is strong, if the DJ cannot convince both parties to settle amicably, then it goes to a full hearing. The actuary doesn't have to be agreed by the judge. In fairness, I have had solicitors swear at me because they think I'm being wilfully obstructive, but the reality is, most simply fret that case management is being lost.
What I will do, and have done, is toss the list of actuaries (usually three or so) that are 'suggested' to me by the other solicitor, I'd rather suggest one who I know can deliver the goods. Most solicitors don't understand the process in suitable depth, and invariably, my choice is cheaper and better anyway.
The process isn't intended, by me anyway, to be adversarial or to sup at the pool of people's misery, or drag things out to bump up fees. But it is ensure a fair settlement is reached - and to do that, full assessment of facts is vital. And that level of detail usually goes far beyond skimming a swiftly calculated simple top line transfer value.
Hope you're good.
Obviously we know each other for what we do now, but I did have a previous life. I'm sure you have had solicitors swear at you before, but then again you are wilfully obstructive!
Good advice here, but I still consider waiting until the second hearing before spending money on something that could easily be contested (unless the advantages outweigh the cost).
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff