Below is an article first published in the FT and written by David Pitt-Watson with the assistance of Hari Mann. David and Hari set up and Chair the RSA’s CDC Forum.
Published at the request of the authors.
Below is an article first published in the FT and written by David Pitt-Watson with the assistance of Hari Mann. David and Hari set up and Chair the RSA’s CDC Forum.
Published at the request of the authors.
It is true that CDC pensions may be higher than DC. This comes about because there is risk-sharing among members, most notably between pensioners in payment and actives (and deferreds). which permits a growth investment strategy to be maintained over a full life-time. However, it should be recognised explicitly that there are winners and losers among those pensioners – they may be receiving a higher pension than if they were drawing their DC savings but those that die young (before the scheme average) will receive much less than those who are long-lived.
I regret to say that the regulations which permit CDC are significantly flawed and very few if any employers will sponsor them as the rules are. They are yet another example of ‘gold-plating’ which is more concerned with the avoidance of blame by the regulatory authorities than with providing a reasonable framework within which men of goodwill may operate. Perhaps the multi-employer regulations will be better – but don’t hold your breath.
I’m sure Con’s alluding to “ Les Hommes de bonne volonté” in his penultimate sentence, in case some readers think there is a hint of male chauvinism hereabouts.
Just as there can be both “good will” and “goodwill”, so we may have the “commonweal” and the “common weal” as our intention.
Pingback: Have the rules of work hardened against CDC? | AgeWage: Making your money work as hard as you do
Yes Indeed Derek – a useful reference that – I wonder which is longer our pensions regulation or the 27 volumes of L’Homme ( I confess to having only read the first three) and that was thirty-odd years ago.