70% of RMPP Members Worse off with WinRS?

[BeamishStout]

Apart from the RM propaganda that has been issued via the usual sources, I'd like to know how RM have come to the conclusion that they have done re the WinRS v RM New proposal. I note that they just quote members in RMPP from the latest 'factoid' delivered to my pda today. How about a % figure for all employees and not just those in RMPP?

Any views on any justification to this claim?

[RobertT]

I have a few observations concerning RM’s recent communications regarding Cash Balance vs WinRS.

RM say that their Cash Balance scheme is DB.
It isn’t! It’s a DC scheme with the added feature of being linked to the rest of our benefits, pending government approval. It’s no different to AVC’s Bonusplan & Flexiplan, other than it guarantees a minimum amount.

RM say that WinRS is based on an accrual rate of 1/100th.
Going by Hilary Salt’s video presentation, it’s actually 1/60th, which means we’d be accruing pension at a higher rate.

RM say their CB scheme is likely to pay out more for 70% of members compared to WinRS.
WinRS is a DB scheme proposing to pay out a guaranteed pension in retirement, similar to what we have now. Cash Balance & Defined Contribution are basically savings accounts with added contributions from RM and the government.

Cash Balance investment returns are based on CPI+2%.
RM have given no indication of where our money will be invested to gain those returns. It’s in their interests to keep returns low.

RM say since WinRS would be £2 Billion in deficit had it been implemented in 2012, based on CWU investment strategy
Stock markets have actually risen sharply in that time.

RM say ‘on a like for like basis’ Cash Balance is better than WinRS.
They are not comparing like with like!

Personally I don’t think WinRS is necessarily a viable option, but the CWU is at least trying to get a decent DB scheme for its members. But for RM to come out with such badly written, obvious tripe is unbelievable.
They are basically trying to confuse people by dressing up the figures. And that’s figures they seem to be plucking out of thin air.

The same could be said for the latest pension illustration!

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I don't understand pensions as deeply as you RobertT but if it's that bad would it be worth the CWU taking it to the Pension Ombudsman.

[fly-catchers]

I like the way they say that around 85% of Plan members will get the FULL state pension. I doubt that somehow.. On my illustration I was given 0% improvement to their "new proposal" to their "original DC" one.. Generous!!

[RobertT]

I don't understand pensions as deeply as you RobertT but if it's that bad would it be worth the CWU taking it to the Pension Ombudsman.

Realistically no!

What we've already accrued up to 31st Match 2018 is safe, it's what happens afterwards that's up in the air, and they can do pretty much what they want.

All employers are legally obliged to offer their staff a pension scheme and pay a minimum contribution, which is currently only 1% of pay. So in my opinion we can fight for a better deal, but ultimately it's RM's decision what sort of pension to provide.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Not even the fact that the illustrations are tripe, they must have some responsibility to make reasonable assumptions not the best possible.

[nataddick]

I totally agree with Robert’s comprehensive summary above. RM have selected the year 2012 to support their argument whereas the WINR’s scheme has look at historical returns over a much longer timeframe and is therefore more relevant. Just watch Hilary Salt’s video from First Actuarial. It is high time the CWU provided a ‘rebuke’ from their own professional advisers and publicised it to members!

[BeamishStout]

They are basically trying to confuse people by dressing up the figures. And that’s figures they seem to be plucking out of thin air.

Agree with all the points you raise particularly the above summary.

[BeamishStout]

Just watch Hilary Salt’s video from First Actuarial. It is high time the CWU provided a ‘rebuke’ from their own professional advisers and publicised it to members!

Watched it twice and should be viewed by anyone wanting a handle on WinRS. I totally agree that CWU could do with an urgent rebuke to set the record straight re WinRS. Many of those voting will not be following the debate in this forum about the various pension schemes proposed and may fall hook, line and sinker for the RM take on pension provision post 2018 because of the incessant propaganda.

Ideally the same kind of numbers and assumptions that RM are using in their illustrations could be used to provide a comparison between the WinRS and the RM schemes.

Maybe WinRS is not the all-singing dancing pension solution but I just wouldn't have enough information to make an informed decision other than my gut instinct of trusting the CWU (which I do ) and being extremely sceptical of RM's position (which I am ).