I cannot go to this event and would be out of my depth if I did.
But I can see the issues that are being discussed and wonder if open DB schemes such as USS have markedly different issues than those that will face trustees of CDC schemes going forwards.
Indeed it seems likely that DB schemes will have CDC features built into them. Haven’t USS been talking about increases paid contingent on performance of underlying assets in the fund?
I would hope that in due course Collective Pensions will be considered as including DB pensions and CDC schemes, especially when both are whole of Life and open for future accrual.
Shouldn’t CFOs, Heads of Pensions , Finance Directors and Trustees of DB and collective pension plans share the same interests?
This is a question to Emma Pittaway and other professionals working in this area. It is important that we do not let pensions become compartmented.
I hope that Emma and those at Bufdg will accept this as a compliment of their work.
Are you sure she was talking about USS? “Universities with self-administered defined benefit pension schemes …” might conceivably refer to the DB schemes that individual universities run for their non-academic staff.
Or, indeed, this one: “Academics directly employed by Trinity College Cambridge receive pension benefits through a bespoke, college-administered private pension arrangement rather than the national Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS).”