TL;dr: I predict even more enthusiasm from UUK about CDC in coming months as part of long-term plan to remove DB to reduce pension liabilities 1/
REMINDER: Collective Defined Contribution (CDC) pensions share risk *between* the members of the scheme. CDC means that employers are not exposed to the risks associated with DB plans. i.e. Risk is transferred from employer ---> employees ft.com/content/64ae04… 2/
The 16 July report from Work & Pensions Cttee gave enthusiastic thumbs up to enabling CDC for Royal Mail "in a way which will allow other companies to follow suit". Report speaks of a "new wave of collective pensions in the UK" publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cm… 3/
Remember that UUK has a strong interest in CDC. e.g. Open letter from Janet Beer and Alistair Jarvis at start of #USSstrike (22 Feb 2018) spoke of 'exploring alternative models for risk sharing', including CDC universitiesuk.ac.uk/news/Pages/uuk…#USSstrike 4/
I became interested in CDC as I started, as a total novice, tracking actors in the pensions dispute during #USSstrike. Back in Feb 214, for example, Aon Hewitt (UUK's actuarial advisor) calls "on UK government to concentrate on collective DC" threadreaderapp.com/thread/9731361… 5/
I'm slowly working my way through written evidence provided to Work & Pensions Cttee Inquiry on CDC, including from actors in some way related to #USS dispute. eg you'll find submissions from Aon, Mike Otsuka, First Actuarial (UCU's actuarial advisors) 7/ publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cm…
I'm noticing how & by whom #USS is invoked in this written evidence. Where that happens, #USS is installed as likely/potential candidate for CDC. Again, we need to think *how* futures are made – how paths are laid out that make potential realities more likely to become reality 8/
We at @USSbriefs have got our eyes 👀 on CDC, since we're convinced that CDC will heave into view as #USS pensions dispute hots up again in Sep/Oct (as JEP reports, as consultations over contribution increases take place) 9/
Let's keep 👀 on the prize: opening up, contesting, challenging the flawed approach to #USS valuation
Let's not be seduced into believing that any future CDC 'risk-sharing' wd be anything but a way of #USS employers reducing their own risk & pension liabilities #USSstrike 10/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Given importance of HE sector "there may be a case for future governments to consider alternative options" (incl "state-backed guarantee" or "measures enabling more risk-taking"). Powerful piece from @JMariathasan on #USS DB debate post-#JEPipe.com/analysis/blogs…#USSstrike 1/
Article argues that central problem lies in regulatory changes that transformed management of a DB pension scheme into "a risk management problem, not an investment one" 2/
Thank you to @EricRoyalLybeck & all the other organisers in Exeter, as well as @ExeterUCU: Volunteer University Revisited was such a magical day. Gathering all of our energies for the months & years to come #YesVolUniCan 1/
So many ideas for ways forward. So many kinds of expertise being bought to bear on what now, how, for universities as a community. Also so many testifying to violence, intimidation, threats to academic freedom – & of particular subjects being of course more exposed 3/3
There's a bonanza of new FOI responses that give us a much better sense of the range of university responses to #UUK#USS consultations from Oct 2016 and Feb/March 2017. Picking through them it's fascinating to see which universities challenged the direction of travel 1/
e.g. Aberdeen: "Aon ... & UCU have indicated that it may be advantageous to consider other models. We are interested in the Trustees views as to whether there are alternative models that could result in a more considered outcome" whatdotheyknow.com/request/508696… cc @aberdeen_ucu 2/
e.g. LSE: "We note that the latest benefit changes were implemented less than 12 months ago. The School’s view is that it is too soon for further changes to be made." whatdotheyknow.com/request/509128… 3/
So with the publication of the #JEP, the issue of UUK consultations with employer institutions is back big time. Both the famous Sept 2017 survey – and now the possibility, if JEP recommendations are taken up, of UUK reassessing employers' appetite for risk.
I'm worried. 1/
#JEP has emphasised the problems with how UUK framed the questions. What's really obvious if you look back Sept survey is that all the focus is on risk and on a *reduction to benefits*. And NOT on the potential to increase contributions. Or on amending the technical provisions 2/
You can see the structure of the questions here, in Nottingham's response (one of the institutions that wanted less risk): whatdotheyknow.com/request/440685… 3/
2. #JEP has a lot to say about Test 1. Its sentence 'The view of the Panel is that Test 1 is not well understood outside of USS' is ... well ... certainly marvellously diplomatic.
3. #JEP's discussion of #USS's & #UUK's 'differing perspectives' on the shift from Sept to Nov valuation shows just how murky the deliberations that resulted in this shift still are.
This remains a big issue, given #JEP proposal to reassess employers' atttude to risk (p. 45) 7/
4. #JEP agrees w many of us that UUK's 'framing' of questions around risk in their consultations has serious consequences.
How can we be confident that any future assessment of employers' risk appetite by UUK shows an improvement in their use of social scientific methods? 🧐 8/
After a few weeks away from Twitter, I'm back to think – alongside many others – about content & rhetoric of the #JEP.
And abt what we at @USSbriefs have been doing all summer w @OpenUPP2018 to encourage deliberations over #USS valuation to take place in public #USSstrike 1/
1. There's a judicious use of rhetoric – particularly around 'confidence', '(mis)understanding' & 'communication'. This cleaves closely to that used by #UUK & Bill Galvin – whether that is deliberately so as to increase likelihood of acceptance by those parties, you can decide 3/