Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sevenlayermuddle]

Schemes I have dealings with would require the employer to immediately fund any extra cost of the fund due to early retirements.

Now maybe, but 25-30 years ago, pre Gordon Brown’s pensions raid, when funds were generally in surplus rather than deficit, and regulations were less strict?  Pretty sure they could just raid the pension fund in those days, to avoid redundancy costs, as long as it was in surplus.

But even now, if the employer has to make good the cost, how is the cost calculated?   Most likely it will depend upon an Actuarial analysis, in other words, a study of probabilities, which may prove wrong, and is very susceptible to either deliberate or unintentional ‘bias’.   I am deeply sceptical of such calculations.

[Black Sheep]

I am glad to hear that the relationship between Company, Trustees, and scheme members seems amiccable.   That is good.

But do not forget, the trustees have legal duties to manage the scheme.   Such schemes (in the general case, not BT specific) can, and will, employ dodgy wide-boy lawyers, who will pour over the small legalese print in the deeds, looking for loopholes in vageuly worded terms, to reduce benefits.

I do speak from experience.   My own pension was with a well-liked and respected employer, and we all enjoyed a lot of trust between employees, employer, and the scheme.   Over the years the Company transformed its structure, becoming more isolated and as the pensions deficit grew, the wide-boy lawyers got drawn in.   Loopholes were found and benefits were slashed, without sympathy, wherever it could legally be done.  The company didn’t care, because the old DB scheme had been closed and most employees by then were on the newer money purchase plan.    It can happen anywhere, and probably will happen everywhere, just a question of when.

As a scheme member I would never, ever, trust advice that came from a scheme trustee.   Legally they are probably not allowed to give advice, but they can issue communications that look like and sound like advice, tread carefully.

The days are gone, whereby companies can be 'wide-boys' or carry out 'dodgy-dealings' .... especially where company pensions are concerned !!

The scheme trustees are there to manage the fund, not give advice. I think you may have mis-understood what I intended about BT providing a financial advisor. They don't pay for them, they just rubber-stamp the fact that they are akin to a blue-chip company and can be highly trusted with your investments or giving advice. Unlike what happened to a friend of mine's brother, who after 11yrs with a certain financial advisor, ran off with a few hundred grand of his money !! 

BT have had to re-assess their pension fund deficit (which came about as a result of borrowing from the company to purchase 3G licenses, back when regulation was p1ss-poor), and as a result of this and the fact that their pensioners are living longer, the DB scheme has had to close.

I cannot begin to tell you the options that are now available to folk thinking of retiring ..... they are many and varied ..... and as I say, luckily I have a decent employer who have brought in an independent company to guide us through the changes and inform us of the plethora of different options.