Archive 6 of IBM UK's radical downgrade :  AMIPP Forums (Message Boards) The fastest message board... ever.
of its pension provision. YOU CAN NO LONGER POST HERE! This is now an archive 
Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue
Posted by: Eddy (IP Logged)
Date: 09 February 2014 08:26PM

Hi Mad Dog,

Inflation uplift has been applied to all ages except 60 & 62.

Check out page 6 it gives two options A & B.

It says......

On the basis that the April 2011 changes were valid, the retirement illustrations in this statement for your Hybrid Deferred Plan have been based on the higher of the following:

A.The value of your pension as at 5 December 2013, using your Final Pensionable Earnings as at 5 December 2013, but pensionable service and State Pension Deduction as at 5 April 2011;

B The benefit provided by the ‘Deferred Underpin’, this being the value of your pension as at 5 April 2011 (using Final Pensionable Earnings, pensionable service and State Pension Deductions as at that date) increased by ‘Statutory evaluation’.

It then goes on to say..... Any Early Retirement Discount Factors (ERDFs) and Plan limits have then been applied. As advised by the Plan Actuary, an assumed cost neutral ERDF of 4% per year (compound) has been applied to the figures for each year of retirement before your NRA of 63*.

*The exception to this is for the pensions quoted for ages 60 and 62, which, in accordance with the C Plan Court judgment, have been calculated on basis (A) above but with no ERDFs being applied, where this provides a higher value than basis (B) (after the application of ERDFs).

So, the option (A) has had no Inflation adjustment and is based on Dec 2013 FPE, which are quoted as the same as April 2011. In fact, you can verify it has no inflation adjustment by checking last years statement (where they confirm no underpin has been applied). The pension figure is the same in both last years and this years quotes.

So much for the initial ruling that allows us to retire at 60 with no reduction in pension. They have reduced it via the back-door by mysteriously using Dec 2013 FPE and not applying the Underpin of 6%.

Also, they say they have made the statement 'simpler'. In fact it is even more difficult to understand because they now leave out the exact calculations and include no explanations for why the 60 & 62 pensions do not include CPI adjustment, use April 2011 State Pension Deductions and Dec 2013 as an arbitrary date. The only explanation being 'according to the C plan Court judgement'. I re-read the whole judgement & saw nothing specific on this.

One further point, if we do not win the upcoming court case, by calculating the pension this way, there is no longer such a big jump between 59 & 60. It has become 'smoothed out'. Previously, it was easy to look at the statement, see the big increase at 60 and think - 'i'll just hang in there to 60'. Now it looks smoothed out by playing about with the 60 & 62 figures - that incentive to stay is lessened. I hope that is not the thinking behind these changes and it is just my mistrust of IBM & Pensions working overtime. But with Barry gone & more IBM Executives moving int to make up the balance of power - I have even more doubts about the Trust looking after employees ahead of IBMs interests.



Subject Views Written By Posted
  Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 3332 Eddy 07 February 2014 10:39PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1547 ImGone 08 February 2014 11:35AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1438 Mad Dog 09 February 2014 05:52PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1701 Eddy 09 February 2014 08:26PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1328 Mad Dog 10 February 2014 12:07AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1414 Eddy 10 February 2014 07:47AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1974 CeeGee 11 February 2014 04:13PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1332 Eddy 10 February 2014 04:16PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1337 Mad Dog 10 February 2014 05:44PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1313 Eddy 11 February 2014 08:43AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1234 Mad Dog 11 February 2014 06:52PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1212 Eddy 11 February 2014 05:57PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1177 Mad Dog 11 February 2014 06:44PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1199 Ace Buzz 11 February 2014 07:14PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1307 Mad Dog 11 February 2014 07:34PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1267 CeeGee 11 February 2014 09:49PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1396 Ace Buzz 12 February 2014 06:21AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1374 CeeGee 12 February 2014 03:06PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1247 CeeGee 24 February 2014 08:05AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1511 Eddy 11 February 2014 10:15PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1453 thoms 12 February 2014 07:22AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1285 ImGone 12 February 2014 05:01PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1295 Mad Dog 12 February 2014 05:21PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1325 Eddy 12 February 2014 05:40PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1260 Mad Dog 12 February 2014 05:48PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1259 Eddy 12 February 2014 05:59PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1239 jerry 12 February 2014 08:56PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1281 Slide Rule 12 February 2014 09:13PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1251 Mad Dog 12 February 2014 09:47PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1489 Anonymous User 13 February 2014 09:21AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1235 Slide Rule 13 February 2014 10:32AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1280 scunnered 13 February 2014 10:40AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1296 Anonymous User 13 February 2014 11:11AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1233 Mad Dog 14 February 2014 04:09PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1333 GrumpyGuts 13 February 2014 08:15AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1514 Mad Dog 13 February 2014 09:33AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1274 GrumpyGuts 13 February 2014 09:39AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1488 Mad Dog 13 February 2014 10:53AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1344 blaster 14 February 2014 03:19PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1326 CeeGee 14 February 2014 07:23PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1209 scunnered 17 February 2014 03:08PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1236 growingold 14 February 2014 08:57PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1312 Eddy 15 February 2014 07:51AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1293 Ace Buzz 15 February 2014 08:51AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1257 ImGone 15 February 2014 12:07PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1218 Mike Eacott 15 February 2014 11:44AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1249 dave 16 February 2014 08:54AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1290 Mad Dog 16 February 2014 09:30AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1282 dave 16 February 2014 10:55AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1231 goner 16 February 2014 06:59PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1331 dave 16 February 2014 10:45PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1307 Ace Buzz 17 February 2014 07:21AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1236 goner 17 February 2014 05:10PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1322 dave 17 February 2014 09:54PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1326 ImGone 18 February 2014 11:34AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1301 itsnotthe companyIjoined 18 February 2014 12:14PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1339 Mike Eacott 18 February 2014 12:55PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1307 JACK05 18 February 2014 02:55PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1357 Anonymous User 18 February 2014 05:14PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1427 ImGone 19 February 2014 02:05PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1361 dave 18 February 2014 03:32PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1349 Eddy 24 February 2014 10:55AM


Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.