And most importantly, good to hear actuaries getting a brief shout out!
And most importantly, good to hear actuaries getting a brief shout out!
Fascinating chart (orders a pizza...)
It's always an interesting conversation when the TD&R gives sole discretionary power to the Trustees...!
Over 50% (although I suspect that says more about my lack of X followers!).
NEW: The autumn 2024 Budget brought some agricultural property into inheritance tax.
So what are the changes, who will be affected and was the change a good idea?
Read the briefing by David Sturrock, Stuart Adam and @helenmiller.bsky.social
π§΅SALTπ§΅
It's been snowing in the UK and the road gritters are out in force, begging the question:
Have you ever wondered where that grit actually COMES from?
The answer is more magical, beautiful and fascinating than you probably realised.
1/14
Surely this would be inside some kind of trust arrangement regardless of the choice of asset?
I suggest a morning walk without news/notifications π
Team them about investing early. Explain shares, get them to "invest" (whether actually or virtually) in companies they're interested in and follow the ups and downs.
Ha! I fear this will be in my head now the next time I review a valuation report.
How else would you communicate asset allocations Mike π²
That's correct, most of the April 2025 increases in public service pension schemes are linked to September 2024 CPI.
(I say most because some link in-service revaluation to earnings growth instead.)
Genuine question, do you agree?
2. This is particularly unhelpful to smaller employers, who don't have the resource to undertake bulk annuity transactions.
1. Sticking with the LGPS, a wider point is the inconsistency in the options Funds provide.
Some Funds offer investment 'buckets', allowing employers to continue to offer future accrual while protecting their funding level. Others do not.
www.pensions-expert.com/Defined-Bene...
Circumstances, legislation, markets and accounting rules all change.
Employers owe a duty to stakeholders (whether shareholders or social housing tenants) to manage risk. I don't think that choosing to participate in an LGPS decades ago precludes them from a logical course of action today.
I'm still of the view that where employers are underwriting the risks, we shouldn't be discouraging options to help them manage that risk.
But, debate is a good thing Henry!
(Addressed to Henry, not Mike!)
If it's a closed (or almost closed section), why would the Fund want to push back against an employer wanting to lock in some of the funding improvements?
Thanks Henry. But this was a buy-in transaction with an insurer, different to simply purchasing some LDI.
Fair.
(Although if any retailers are listening, I'm open to talks...)
Interesting news in pensions land this week, with the first(?) LGPS buy-in.
Let's see whether this is the start of a trend, or a one-off project for a particular employer.
I'd also be keen to understand why full/partial cessation was ruled out.
www.pensions-expert.com/Defined-Bene...
Playing devil's advocate, does the intense public-facing element of their role (along with inevitable misogyny) make a difference here?
Indeed! A pet hate of mine when surplus/deficit figures are discussed without this context.
I'd personally like to see the actuary's best estimate included in the figures, but I can understand why it wasn't.
All fair points.
The current Β£10,000 threshold attempts to achieve some of this (albeit clumsily).
Agree with all that (and good to see you on BS Andrew).
The Β£10k pa threshold goes some of the way to address your concerns, and sensibly updating this from time to time would be a good idea.
Totally agree.
8% of QE works out at around 6% or so total contribution rate for an average worker, which just isn't enough.
I'd much rather see a conversation about making the first Β£ pensionable and increasing the overall rate.
And of course Gemma Collins, if she ever migrates from Instagram.
I'd recommend @prospectpension.bsky.social from a public service pension POV.
I think it probably does.