In Reply to: Re: 2006 Annual increases. posted by Mike Eacott on 03 April 2006 at 19:38:29:
: Brian
: You wrote: "Mike. I hate to differ, but A in your post actually gives 2.4 and not 2.0. In B why do you chose CZBI rather than CZBH which again gives 2.4?"
: IBM's letter stated "The increase in pension earned before 6.4.97 is based on RPI in January 2006."
: February was an annual change of 2.4, being a monthly change of 0.4 (up) from January. That makes January 2.0.
: I also pointed that IBM could have used CZBI. I guess IBM could have chosen CZBH 2.4. But it appears they did not.
Mike. If one goes to the website which you mention, ie http://www.statistics.gov.uk/instantfigures.asp it does indeed state that annual RPI increase for Feb 2006 is 2.4 and that monthly increase was 0.4 BUT if you click on "More" this gives more detail on the RPI number, including the statement that "RPI stays at 2.4%" in other words, January RPI was 2.4
RPI is a single measurement. There are no other definitions. IBM should have used 2.4 as the basis for their calculations. I would be interested to hear from a current or past MED what the Trustees regard as the definition of RPI used in the Company proposals for pension increases for the next 15 years.
The latest Retiree Information Sheet is unambiguous "Increases.... are based on the recorded Retail Price Index (RPI) figure....". I repeat, the Government's recorded RPI increase for January 2006 was 2.4
I shall seek clarification from Anne Conroy.