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: CeeGee (IP Logged)
Date: 12 February 2014 03:06PM

Ace Buzz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So to put it at it's most basic - either they
> don't take the ERDF off OR they raise the pension
> in line with CPI but they won't do both. So is
> there a "choose your poison" option or has IBM
> decided already on the statement ? I apologise
> again for these simple questions but I don't have
> the staement so can't see for myself.

The way I read it (and I'm NOT 100% sure I'm right) the statutory revaluation has been applied to all ages except 60 and 62 (again, I ask why not 61?). At ages 60, (61?) 62 they have used whichever method gives the higher result (but don't say which one). Looking at the table on the opposite page (age at retirement; Cplan pension; ASC/AVC pension; total pension) and from comments made above it would appear that at ages 60 and 61 basis A(no-ERDF) has been used, because the figures are the same as the Dec 2012 statement. At 62 the figure is higher than the 2012 statement so I have to assume that is because basis B(statutory revaluation) has been used.

Eddy summarised the notes earlier, but to repeat for those who don't have access to a statement:

Main Plan pension
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;and

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 Revaluation’.

Statutory revaluation is the amount by which your pension entitlement would have been increased had you left the membership of the C Plan completely on 5 April 2011, and underpins the value that you will receive from the Hybrid Deferred Scheme at retirement.

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).

Regards,



Subject Views Written By Posted
  Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 3357 Eddy 07 February 2014 10:39PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1565 ImGone 08 February 2014 11:35AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1453 Mad Dog 09 February 2014 05:52PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1718 Eddy 09 February 2014 08:26PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1342 Mad Dog 10 February 2014 12:07AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1428 Eddy 10 February 2014 07:47AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1989 CeeGee 11 February 2014 04:13PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1345 Eddy 10 February 2014 04:16PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1355 Mad Dog 10 February 2014 05:44PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1328 Eddy 11 February 2014 08:43AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1252 Mad Dog 11 February 2014 06:52PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1227 Eddy 11 February 2014 05:57PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1193 Mad Dog 11 February 2014 06:44PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1210 Ace Buzz 11 February 2014 07:14PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1322 Mad Dog 11 February 2014 07:34PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1280 CeeGee 11 February 2014 09:49PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1414 Ace Buzz 12 February 2014 06:21AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1387 CeeGee 12 February 2014 03:06PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1263 CeeGee 24 February 2014 08:05AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1529 Eddy 11 February 2014 10:15PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1470 thoms 12 February 2014 07:22AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1302 ImGone 12 February 2014 05:01PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1311 Mad Dog 12 February 2014 05:21PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1342 Eddy 12 February 2014 05:40PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1273 Mad Dog 12 February 2014 05:48PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1271 Eddy 12 February 2014 05:59PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1256 jerry 12 February 2014 08:56PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1299 Slide Rule 12 February 2014 09:13PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1267 Mad Dog 12 February 2014 09:47PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1502 Anonymous User 13 February 2014 09:21AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1250 Slide Rule 13 February 2014 10:32AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1298 scunnered 13 February 2014 10:40AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1312 Anonymous User 13 February 2014 11:11AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1246 Mad Dog 14 February 2014 04:09PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1346 GrumpyGuts 13 February 2014 08:15AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1527 Mad Dog 13 February 2014 09:33AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1288 GrumpyGuts 13 February 2014 09:39AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1499 Mad Dog 13 February 2014 10:53AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1359 blaster 14 February 2014 03:19PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1341 CeeGee 14 February 2014 07:23PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1222 scunnered 17 February 2014 03:08PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1251 growingold 14 February 2014 08:57PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1326 Eddy 15 February 2014 07:51AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1303 Ace Buzz 15 February 2014 08:51AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1270 ImGone 15 February 2014 12:07PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1230 Mike Eacott 15 February 2014 11:44AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1261 dave 16 February 2014 08:54AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1305 Mad Dog 16 February 2014 09:30AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1294 dave 16 February 2014 10:55AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1245 goner 16 February 2014 06:59PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1347 dave 16 February 2014 10:45PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1324 Ace Buzz 17 February 2014 07:21AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1249 goner 17 February 2014 05:10PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1336 dave 17 February 2014 09:54PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1341 ImGone 18 February 2014 11:34AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1313 itsnotthe companyIjoined 18 February 2014 12:14PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1359 Mike Eacott 18 February 2014 12:55PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1321 JACK05 18 February 2014 02:55PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1371 Anonymous User 18 February 2014 05:14PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1442 ImGone 19 February 2014 02:05PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1378 dave 18 February 2014 03:32PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1366 Eddy 24 February 2014 10:55AM


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