The Actuaries don't have rose tinted specs they tend to have a gloomy outlook so they've gone out and got new pessimistic assumptions. Unfortunately those new assumptions greatly increase the cost of any defined benefit scheme and that's why generally the UK can't afford defined benefit schemes any more.
Not the ones who prepared the pension part of this year's NATS annual report. (£400m+ surplus compared to the deficit that was briefly glimpsed on that month-by-month valuation slide at the briefing).
College of Knowledge, Day 1, Lesson 1:
"Assumption is the mother of all fcuk-ups".
For me it is the difference between that annual report valuation and all the other valuations that kills it. I can't take it seriously where there is a difference of 15%+ between different valuations (yes I know there are different rules etc etc). It just seems that we use the most appropriate valuation and assumptions that suit our needs ('can't afford pension' vs. 'oooh look, shareholders, how much of a surplus there is in our fund'.
I would like to see retrospective valuations using the assumptions from 2001, 2003 and 2006, and vice versa, then I can draw my own conclusions.
It will be very interesting to see the valuation presented in next years's set of accounts.