Thursday, 1 November 2012
Jenny Davidson's Blog: Making auto-enrolment work
Jenny Davidson's Blog: Making auto-enrolment work: Fast food giant McDonalds announced today that they will use the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) for 35,000 hourly-paid w...
Sunday, 17 October 2010
An open letter to Trevor Llanwarne- Government Actuary
Trevor
I'm writing in a private capacity rather than as a Director of First Actuarial.
I'd like to compliment you and GAD on your paper "Reducing the Annual Allowance- setting the valuation factor".
Your paper clearly sets out a consistent methodology to allow us to better understand the value of pensions, not just occupational DB but our DC pensions and by extension the value of our State Pension entitlements.
While there will inevitably be squabbling among actuaries regarding your assumptions and concern that you have over-simplified the pensions landscape. These arguments do little to help general understanding. I am grateful that you have been as decisive as you have. It is GAD's perogative to be definitive.
I am suprprised and dismayed that the Treasury chose to adopt your latest assumptions for the Annual Allowance and not for the Lifetime Allowance. This is not at all helpful.
I struggle to understand why the Treasury chose to ignore your revised recommendation for an LTA multiplier of between 22.1 and 23.6. I am also struggling to justify why the public should be under the impression that their DB benefits including State Benefits should be valued using obsolescent assumptions.
Those of us involved in encouraginging people to engage and understand their retirement provision need a firm base from which to start. A clear and consistent set of valuation assumptions provides such a base. The Treasury Paper published on Thursday doesn't.
Kind regards
Henry Tapper
I'm writing in a private capacity rather than as a Director of First Actuarial.
I'd like to compliment you and GAD on your paper "Reducing the Annual Allowance- setting the valuation factor".
Your paper clearly sets out a consistent methodology to allow us to better understand the value of pensions, not just occupational DB but our DC pensions and by extension the value of our State Pension entitlements.
While there will inevitably be squabbling among actuaries regarding your assumptions and concern that you have over-simplified the pensions landscape. These arguments do little to help general understanding. I am grateful that you have been as decisive as you have. It is GAD's perogative to be definitive.
I am suprprised and dismayed that the Treasury chose to adopt your latest assumptions for the Annual Allowance and not for the Lifetime Allowance. This is not at all helpful.
I struggle to understand why the Treasury chose to ignore your revised recommendation for an LTA multiplier of between 22.1 and 23.6. I am also struggling to justify why the public should be under the impression that their DB benefits including State Benefits should be valued using obsolescent assumptions.
Those of us involved in encouraginging people to engage and understand their retirement provision need a firm base from which to start. A clear and consistent set of valuation assumptions provides such a base. The Treasury Paper published on Thursday doesn't.
Kind regards
Henry Tapper
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)