@FraserNelson@alexburghart Wierd how both the University of Cambridge and the Institute of Actuaries provided formula books 20 years ago. I guess I am just one of the dumb ones …
A move in 10 year yields of 0.07 up and down is not ‘substantial’. That’s about a seventeenth the one day move at the height of the mini-budget crisis.
@David_J_Robbins The indices revising to be in line with the actual schemes. Interesting illustration of the disconnect between those working in different silos of the same organisations!
@ProspectPension@David_J_Robbins Also when pre 97 increases were granted inflation was expected to be much higher. Hence, accrual rates offered - I don’t think members have had a lot less than expected
@ProspectPension@David_J_Robbins I don’t think you are taking into account that the risk based levy is a significant tax on stressed companies. It has real consequences on plenty of low paid workers. If it was paid from general taxation like the FAS I would be much more sympathetic to your argument
@ProspectPension@David_J_Robbins Let’s not forget, schemes pre 97 design were often 60ths precisely because they weren’t providing inflation increases. And 60ths without increases is much more generous than private sector workers get now.
@ProspectPension@David_J_Robbins PPF compensation aimed to cover a basic DB benefit. Significant minority didn’t have increases pre 97 hence is a benefit improvement (no reasonable person should think PPF compensation should be a higher benefit than original pension!).
@julianHjessop Where I have seen the numbers for SMEs which have sites that are the size of a school they tend to have pretty rapid paybacks. Biggest issue tends to be grid related red tape.