Re: Company pension

In message , Tim writes

You could be right but I have never known of a company that doesnt do this.

Not worth it, is it?

"john boyle" wrote

Are you just thinking about actuaries working for the employer, or actuaries working for the trustees instead?

In message , Tim writes

The Latter.

"Terry Harper" wrote

Exactly! And if the commutation rate were as high as (say) 21.00, then "80ths plus 3/80ths" is exactly equivalent to a **70ths** pension-only scheme.

Useful thread. Thanks

Rob

"Robin Graham" wrote

Glad to be of some help! ;-)

negotiation.

years' time?

The point is that if the rate is stated in the contract, it cannot be changed unilaterally. Contracts are agreements; to be changed, all parties must agree.

"john boyle" wrote

The employer pays whatever the trustee's advisor recommends?

So, in the cases where the employer also gets advice from a *different* actuary, then they still pay the amount that the *trustee's* advisor recommended? ... !!

"Fergus O'Rourke" wrote

Of course. But my point is that these items are very rarely, if ever, stated in the employment contract - or do you know better?

In message , Tim writes

Is that a pr4oblem?

"john boyle" wrote

Not a problem as such, but then I'd consider why the employer went to the trouble to get their own advice as well?

Did they suspect the trustees advisor's recommendations to be on the high side? And were shown correct? But still paid the higher level??!! If they were going to do that, they might as well just have paid the high level and not bothered with the time&cost of getting their own advice!

In message , Tim writes

I dont know that they do.

As already said, I am not aware that they do, I just thought you knew that some did. For myself, I can see no earthly reason why a Company should appoint its own actuaries when the law only allows the trustees actuaries opinion to count.

Tim ( snipped-for-privacy@home.uk) wrote on 1 January last:

(Sorry for delay in replying).

I don't know how common or rare it is, not having seen all that many employment contracts, but I have seen several contracts specify the pension scheme benefits.Even where it is not written down, there must be many cases where it is implicit and relatively easy to prove that it was so.Who can plausibly suggest that a 45 year old joining a company with a civil service type pension arrangement is not influenced in his agreement to join by those terms ? Likewise, it would be strange if the employer did not include them as an element in persuading him to join.

In message , Fergus O'Rourke writes

I had an employment contract that said I would be a member of the company pension scheme the details of which were as contained in the current Pension Scheme Particulars book (which could be changed).

"john boyle" wrote

My point entirely - the employment contract will generally not include actual pension accrual rates (etc), but rather refer to other docs which can be amended.