Provost: "With the stock market performing more strongly in the months since the original valuation, the deficit is reduced and the cost of retaining a predominantly defined benefit scheme in the future is feasible". 2/
FACT CHECK: It's true that #USS maintains that the March 2018 deficit is £4 bn, which is £3.5 bn less than the £7.5 bn March 2017 deficit. It's also true that JEP recommendation to lower deficit recovery contributions from 6% to 2.1% appeals to asset outperformance in 2017-18. 3/
But appeal to asset outperformance plays only a small role in JEP's recommendation to lower DRCs from 6% to 2.1%. Moreover, stock market performance doesn't play a very large role in the reduction of the deficit. 4/
According to annex in JEP report, USS maintains that -£2.1 bn of the -£3.5 bn reduction in deficit arises from "Investment return in excess of assumed". But highlighted 👇indicates that stock market performance shouldn't be singled out as responsible for this outperformance. 5/
Since lowering of DRCs is just one JEP proposal among others & 2017-18 stock market plays only a marginal role in JEP proposal to lower DRCs, I think the Provost's email paints a pretty misleading picture. 6/
Another significant JEP proposal arises from higher employer risk appetite than UUK reported in their botched Sept 2017 consultation. UCL Provost's Finance Director was lead JNC negotiator for UUK back then & must have been instrumental in shaping UUK consultation response. 7/
Provost & his FD should be more up front with their staff. 8/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
.@UCL_UCU has responded on Twitter to my linked blog post "Questions for advocates of No Detriment". Below I expose two problems with their response. 1/ medium.com/@mikeotsuka/qu…
In that blog, I ask: "Do you think union members would vote to authorise a strike for a No Detriment elimination of their 1.1% rise for three years rather than accepting the JEP-modelled solution?" 2/
.@UCL_UCU's rejoinder is that they are proposing a negotiation of a No Detriment elimination of any rise in contributions, not only of the modest 1.1% over the next three years, but also beyond that three year period. 3/
.@UCL_UCU branch officers reveal that they misunderstood an important aspect of the JEP report when they pushed for their No Detriment motion today. In the embedded tweet, they write that JEP "don't refer accrual rate to JNC": 1/
In my subsequent exchange with @UCL_UCU that begins with the embedded tweet, I demonstrate that it is just as clear that they refer accrual rate to JNC as that they refer cost-sharing to JNC. 2/2
If employers call for a cut to DB accrual from 1/75 to 1/80 in order to keep employer contributions down to 19.3% on a 65%/35% employer/member cost-sharing basis, would that also be consistent, in you view, with acceptance of the JEP recommendations in full? 2/2
Here I elaborate on my above query, in an email to @UCL_UCU President Sean @SeanAWallis or anyone else who would like to respond:
It has been over a month since @Sam_Marsh101 submitted his Addendum to the JEP and #USS. If he's right, the current valuation contains a significant, hidden layer of prudence ABOVE AND BEYOND the following that JEP lists here: 1/
I say more about the significance of Sam's Addendum in this blog post, where I also explain why #USS and @GuyCoughlan owe us an answer to Sam's findings. 2/ medium.com/@mikeotsuka/us…
I believe that, so far, this is the only response @Sam_Marsh101 has received: 3/
🚨💣😱.@Cambridge_Uni's response to a 2016 consultation re strength of the #USS covenant has recently been released via FOI. Cambridge disputes PWC's finding of a strong covenant over 30 as opposed to merely 20 years! The following statement in their response is a bombshell: 1/
"We would be concerned if the increase in visibility of a strong covenant was used to support a less prudent approach to the 2017 valuation than that adopted in 2014, either in terms of the assumptions adopted or the time horizon for de-risking." 2/
We are all aware that tPR's challenge, in their Sept 2017 letter, to the PWC/#USS assessment of the strength of the covenant, wreaked havoc on our DB pension and helped explain the shift to the more conservative November valuation. 3/
JEP RECOMMENDATION #3: Smooth the cost of future service contributions over at least the next 6 years. As this chart indicates, this would reduce contributions by 1.5%. 1/
#USS's failure to smooth the cost of future service contributions constitutes a significant hidden layer of prudence. See this blog post: 2/ medium.com/@mikeotsuka/us…