MRM.COM : The Pension Schemes Bill has been introduced in the House of Lords

[rogersh]

Copy & Paste;
"How long does it take for a bill to go through parliament?

The Bills Office submits the Act form to the President's Office by courier, together with a letter stating the name, number and translation, signed by the Secretary to Parliament. This process can take from two weeks to three months, depending on how difficult the text is."

As you say Robert no definitive timescale, but this gives a hint that it could be sometime this year.

[nataddick]

https://www.professionaladviser.com/new ... ent-powers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Woody Guthrie]

In a way I think CDC is a bit like drawing down a normal individual DC pot.

Without the individual control over where that pot is invested and with the added twist that it's not an individual pot at all.

A better analogy is a pitcher of beer and 6 straws, as long as there's a barman (contributing members) around to fill it up and nobody spills too much (poor investments) we can all get drunk but the rate the barman fills the pitcher will determine how much comes through the straw.

[RobertT]

In a way I think CDC is a bit like drawing down a normal individual DC pot.

Without the individual control over where that pot is invested and with the added twist that it's not an individual pot at all.

A better analogy is a pitcher of beer and 6 straws, as long as there's a barman (contributing members) around to fill it up and nobody spills too much (poor investments) we can all get drunk but the rate the barman fills the pitcher will determine how much comes through the straw.

And if you read the rest of what I was saying, and put it in context, you'll see that I was saying basically the same as you. :

In a way I think CDC is a bit like drawing down a normal individual DC pot. The money is invested and you take out a certain amount each year. If the value of your investments go down you either:

Take out a smaller amount to allow for that reduction; or
You take out the same amount and potentially let your pot decrease quicker.

CDC pensions take the first option.

The whole point of CDC is there doesn't need to be money going in all the time(that is more akin to a DB scheme). Whatever is in the pot will be shared out on a proportional basis. If the investment targets aren't met, our pensions will go down.

[Woody Guthrie]

Turning off the supply will increase the risk of pension transfer.

If members are allowed to transfer out under the pension freedoms (and we still don't have a definitive answer on this), you get what's known as selection bias and lose what's known as longevity pooling because members with the shortest life expectancy tend to transfer out first. This could in theory lead to the CDC eating itself very quickly.

That's the human factor Robert, its not just a numbers game.

[heapsy]

In a way I think CDC is a bit like drawing down a normal individual DC pot.

Without the individual control over where that pot is invested and with the added twist that it's not an individual pot at all.

A better analogy is a pitcher of beer and 6 straws, as long as there's a barman (contributing members) around to fill it up and nobody spills too much (poor investments) we can all get drunk but the rate the barman fills the pitcher will determine how much comes through the straw.

And if you read the rest of what I was saying, and put it in context, you'll see that I was saying basically the same as you. :

In a way I think CDC is a bit like drawing down a normal individual DC pot. The money is invested and you take out a certain amount each year. If the value of your investments go down you either:

Take out a smaller amount to allow for that reduction; or
You take out the same amount and potentially let your pot decrease quicker.

CDC pensions take the first option.

The whole point of CDC is there doesn't need to be money going in all the time(that is more akin to a DB scheme). Whatever is in the pot will be shared out on a proportional basis. If the investment targets aren't met, our pensions will go down.

Wouldn't the issue surrounding how much is drawn down be compulsory? By that I mean a reduction would have to be enacted. Otherwise the the whole thing could collapse.

[Woody Guthrie]

That kind of goes to the heart of the issue heapsy, this new pension neither has the security of a DB pension or the individual control of a DC pension pot.

You could argue it's a necessary evil but it's certainly not an ideal solution and could possibly end up being the worst of both worlds.

A lot has been made of the Dutch model but an occupational pension in the Netherlands is a smaller proportion of retirement income and many of their CDC pensions have had to merge to stop administration costs eating up a large chunk of the fund. I would predict that RM will be hoping other companies join the fray otherwise they'll be isolated.

[heapsy]

That kind of goes to the heart of the issue heapsy, this new pension neither has the security of a DB pension or the individual control of a DC pension pot.

You could argue it's a necessary evil but it's certainly not an ideal solution and could possibly end up being the worst of both worlds.

A lot has been made of the Dutch model but an occupational pension in the Netherlands is a smaller proportion of retirement income and many of their CDC pensions have had to merge to stop administration costs eating up a large chunk of the fund. I would predict that RM will be hoping other companies join the fray otherwise they'll be isolated.

I'm very suspicious that RM will fail to deliver the goods regarding funding on this.

[Woody Guthrie]

That's another worry, there are no gaurantees that RM will provide a primer for the fund or any long term assurances that they will maintain their contribution levels.

If I were a 20 year old I would still enter the scheme, free money is free money but I would designate it as no more than 20% of my retirement income and start looking at other options along side it.

Changed days sadly.

[heapsy]

That's another worry, there are no gaurantees that RM will provide a primer for the fund or any long term assurances that they will maintain their contribution levels.

If I were a 20 year old I would still enter the scheme, free money is free money but I would designate it as no more than 20% of my retirement income and start looking at other options along side it.

Changed days sadly.

I'm actually thinking that they wont invest our money the way they need to. let's face it, if they wanted the Final Salary Pension to work, then it would have.
This scheme is a loser for me. Our union rep is convinced it will work. Complete loser if you ask me, he hasn't got a clue about pensions as he admits. I sent him the pension details for the new scheme. He hasn't even read it, citing that he hasn't had time.