Me Me Me Me,
We are both talking from the same hymn book and I agree that you are correct in the majority of what you are saying
However, this is not incompetent management, nor slack or sackable. It's 'by the book' and considered prudent fund management,
However I have to question the fact that it is not
deemed incompetent.
As far as I am concerned, it is
totally incompetent and certainly
extremely bad practice for
any fund manager to aim to run a fund, which relies wholly on the performance of stocks, shares and bonds, at
just 100% funding.
Because as soon as those stocks and shares start to lose money (which as we all know happens from time to time), the fund is in deficit and measures have to be taken to bring it back up to proper funding levels.
Maybe it is 'by the book', but does that make it correct? That's like soldiers who commit war crimes saying they were merely 'following orders'!
The book needs to be re-written as far as investment funds are concerned because it is neither prudent, nor good practice to run a fund that can grow or shrink at the whim of the stock markets at jsut 100%.
We don't (or at least try not to ), as individuals, run our own bank accounts/overdraft facilities like that, why do fund managers think is it a sensible way of managing investment funds??
Not Long Now
Changing from 1/60ths to 1/58ths is indeed a benefit to fund members,
however it had a huge, further benefit to management because it actually increased
permanently (not just for the term of reduced contributions) the liability/burden on the fund, thus in turn making the funds future viabillity less stable... another way, along with not implementing SMART pensions from the outset, that management have been implicit in their intent to ensure the pension was no longer viable.