Archive 6 of IBM UK's radical downgrade : AMIPP Forums (Message Boards)
of its pension provision.
YOU CAN NO LONGER POST HERE! This is now an archive
Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement.
Posted by: CeeGee (IP Logged)
Date: 14 February 2014 07:23PM
That statement seems to back up my earlier thoughts.
Basis A comprises two factors: a) service to April 2011, and b) FPE at a certain date.
Basis B comprises three factors: a) service to April 2011, b) FPE at a certain date, and c) the statutory revaluation.
a) is the same in both cases.
b) although the dates are different, the FPE is the same in both cases.
The only difference is the Statutory Revaluation. So Basis A must always be lower.
Therefore it is no surprise that the company wishes to use that figure where they think they have the choice.
Does anyone remember where Hybrid deferred status was defined?
Basis A comprises two factors: a) service to April 2011, and b) FPE at a certain date.
Basis B comprises three factors: a) service to April 2011, b) FPE at a certain date, and c) the statutory revaluation.
a) is the same in both cases.
b) although the dates are different, the FPE is the same in both cases.
The only difference is the Statutory Revaluation. So Basis A must always be lower.
Therefore it is no surprise that the company wishes to use that figure where they think they have the choice.
Does anyone remember where Hybrid deferred status was defined?
Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.