Pension 2020

[Countdown begins]

My first post so please be gentle.
Its a mess with pensions from what I read (judges and firemen, and the possible ramifications on ours) but notice it’s too quiet, or deafeningly silent on the ‘contributory’ pension we have been told is coming.
I was auto enrolled onto 2015 because of my age, and now it may be that that move was illegal. That will pan out, slowly I guess.
Has anyone heard of the work on Pension 2020? I’ll be 52 and I’m interested to see if there is any gen at all. It could just be that my Unit has not had a team visit yet.

[Red Line Entry]

I guess all will go quiet until the Govt work out what the Fire Brigade decision means for all the other pension systems. This could take a looooong time!

[Lima Juliet]

Never heard of AFPS 2020 or any such contributory scheme. If they wanted it for 2020 then they would have started work on it in 2017 at the very latest and consultation would have started by now.

Nice rumour - but I suspect it is total bunkum!

As for the other matter, I agree Red Line Entry - that will take a very long time. I also don’t want any changes personally as I am very happy with AFPS15 on my own career profile. So “horses for courses” as they say! :ok:

[unclenelli]

I suspect that the fallout of the McCloud case (Firemen & Judges) will take far longer for the Govt to work out their smoke & mirrors. It took 4 months to work out, 6 months to implement, last years pay rise. As McCloud hasn't yet finalised into reality, I think it'll be 2022/3 before a new AFPS system.
Remember this all has to be installed into JPA - an OTS system, that MOD buggered about with so much that it forgot what a Bank Holiday was!!!!!!

[Bob Viking]

What happened to no pension changes for 25 years after AFPS 15?

Pension changes are never for a better deal. If true, people will leave. To be fair, just rumours of pension changes might make people leave.

BV

[Countdown begins]

Could really do with an FPS advisor stepping in to clarify this. It’s definitely fact about a new scheme, a full-on contributory scheme is coming, but agree with others that it will move right, but by how far?
Could it be part of the new joiner package, basic paint without X factor until you deploy? There is a team at Wycombe investigating all of this, but they’re more secretive than Secret Squirrel!

[Melchett01]

I think contributory pensions might have been discussed a while back as part of broader MOD finance issues, along with abolition of increments. Not heard anything since and if I were running things I would be very nervous about any such move given the already tight - and in some cases parlous - manning situation. Plus pay is already abated to take pensions into account. Things aren’t going that well that people will be willing to lose even more money on top of already reduced pensions and years of pay restraint.

The easy way round this is just to put everyone on the same scheme. I suspect the numbers of personnel remaining on grandfather rights are relatively small and at the tail end of careers making the impact if they walked a little more baresble. It would be significantly easier than coming up with yet another new scheme - the third in 15 years.

[Miles Magister]

Guys,

Join the Forces Pension Society, they are a good bunch of chaps.

MM

[Countdown begins]

MM, I’m a way off from taking my EDP, just trying to find out what’s out there. From the silence I think it’s a very good bet it will have shifted right, and on a selfish head on... whatever it is, it won’t affect me.
it will be interesting if a contributory scheme will enable people to claim their tax back.
For me, it’s 12 months before I will join the FPS.

[Lima Juliet]

Could really do with an FPS advisor stepping in to clarify this. It’s definitely fact about a new scheme, a full-on contributory scheme is coming, but agree with others that it will move right, but by how far?
Could it be part of the new joiner package, basic paint without X factor until you deploy? There is a team at Wycombe investigating all of this, but they’re more secretive than Secret Squirrel!


Ah, now you are making a wee bit more sense. There has been work on the New Joiner Offer which was expected for 2020. However, it has all been shelved and rolled into another study - I think that decision was made about this time last year.

This is what NJO was going to be all about:


Why are we developing a New Joiner Offer?
The current offer is failing to attract sufficient numbers of the people defence needs and has remained broadly similar for many years. Research now shows that the next generation has different expectations of what they want from a career, with a greater focus on variety, choice and flexibility of employment. We need a new offer that has the flexibility to respond to future societal changes or the armed forces offer will become increasingly out of step with the employment expectations of our recruits.

At the same time the cost of the current offer continues to rise. The gradual reduction of the armed forces has kept personnel costs stable, but further reductions to the size of the services are not an option. If we do nothing the next 10 years will see defence facing a significant deficit in personnel costs. Defence must live within its means and the New Joiner Offer must achieve savings, but it must also attract and retain the people we need.

When will it be implemented?
The aim is for the New Joiner Offer to be available from 2020.

Who will it apply to?
The New Joiner Offer is intended for new entrants who join the services from 2020.


So there is still no plan for an AFPS20, I am 100% sure of that. I would be really surprised if there were any changes for at least another 10 years.

[BEagle]

Bob Viking wrote: To be fair, just rumours of pension changes might make people leave.

That was a strong push factor and as such it confirmed my intention to pull the black and yellow back in 2003! After years of retired pay stability, the mere mention of fiddling with pension rates made me lose any confidence in the future of the system....

[ForcesPensionSociety]

Quote:
Could really do with an FPS advisor stepping in to clarify this. It’s definitely fact about a new scheme, a full-on contributory scheme is coming, but agree with others that it will move right, but by how far?
Could it be part of the new joiner package, basic paint without X factor until you deploy? There is a team at Wycombe investigating all of this, but they’re more secretive than Secret Squirrel!

FPS:
There is no news on the pensions front at them moment. The ruling on the Firefighters and Judges has everybody considering the implications for their schemes. As soon there is something to share, we will be back.

[Training Risky]

I left with an Immediate Pension in 2015 on AFPS 75 terms. Here's hoping that no changes are made to us 'retired' folk currently receiving the pension we left with!

[VinRouge]

So there is still no plan for an AFPS20, I am 100% sure of that. I would be really surprised if there were any changes for at least another 10 years.

So potentially a risk if approaching 38/EDP point and making the decision to stay or go.

They need a separate, higher pay scale with for pilots, as the medics and legal departments have. The disparity in pay and conditions is getting too big now to risk staying in.

[Bob Viking]

You are absolutely spot on. It is high time the RAF accepted that pilots, as a speciality, deserve to be suitably remunerated.

On a different thread I was saying how the package is actually pretty good. I stand by this, but not for everyone. I have been very fortunate and my personal package (oo er) has been very good up until now.

I joined in ‘99. I was fortunate enough to make Flt Lt one year after IOT ( the one advantage of a 4 year degree) and got flying pay shortly after that. I was also on AFPS 75 (now 75/15). I am PAS and I have also been lucky enough to enjoy a few other good deals along the way.

I guess I joined back when we valued pilots. Nowadays it feels like the whole ‘Officer first, pilot second’ mantra has been taken to extremes.

A FJ pilot currently spends longer in training than a Doctor (it took me over 5 years from starting IOT to being CR on the Jaguar so things haven’t changed that much). There are very specific skills expected of a pilot and it is a long old road. And a bloody expensive one.

There are those who will think I am just lodged up my own backside and with an overblown sense of my own self importance. It’s probably hard to argue but then consider what happens when all of us prima donnas leave. Who will do the flying then? OC Catering? OC PMS? The Ops O? Because right now they all earn the same as a first tourist Typhoon pilot.

So who should we worry about upsetting the most? The jealous few who think the pilots are all prima donnas or the expensively trained assets who operate our war machines?

Please note I am a FJ guy and will only ever speak for the FJ fraternity. Individuals from other fleets can speak for themselves.

BV

[heights good]

BV,

If I may? From an RAF perspective, the new system actually has a lot of JO pilots by the short and curly's. 6-7 yrs until OCU finished which means a 6 yr ROS... which is about the time that flying pay kicks in... For newbies, it might work well as they dont have the knowledge or experience of all the ToS changes. It will just be what they join up with.

[alfred_the_great]

The likelihood of specialist pay spines akin to MODOs for pilots has two hopes: and Bob is dead. There is no shortage of people wanting to be pilots, and I imagine if the self-licking lollipop that is the training system actually worked (which is rife with pilots), you’d actually have more people than you could cope with.

If you don’t like being an Officer, I’m sure we can get you all down to SACs.

[Melchett01]

The likelihood of specialist pay spines akin to MODOs for pilots has two hopes: and Bob is dead. There is no shortage of people wanting to be pilots, and I imagine if the self-licking lollipop that is the training system actually worked (which is rife with pilots), you’d actually have more people than you could cope with.

If you don’t like being an Officer, I’m sure we can get you all down to SACs.

Plus at the risk of being controversial, one of the first things the Treasury will ask is - so if pilots are so special, why are we spanking all this cash on unmanned? You told us they were the future.

I’m not in anyway dismissing the pilot - admirer VFM question, but you can see it’s not a straight forward pitch to those holding the purse strings.

[Lima Juliet]

A few little gems to throw in if I may?

Sgt Pilots are more expensive than Fg Off Pilots and Flt Sgt/MAcr Pilots are more expensive than Flt Lt Pilots. That is if we use the Pay Supplement 4 and the RRP(F) rates which AAC NCO Pilots are on. So there is absolutely no advantage there apart from lowering the number in the Officers’ Mess.

I think the biggest danger in becoming a ‘specialist branch’ is that it could undo the progression up the ranks to CAS - do we really want the Royal Air Force completely run by those that only know how to support Air Power and flying?

The only true way of doing this is a bit like in the commercial sector - where you have a pay ladder, you are placed on the pay ladder according to your skill and profession - and discussing what salary you are on is a dismissible offence. Otherwise, there will be an absolute melee of “I’m better than them, and that’s not fair”. Also, we have to somehow do this tri-Service too. Finally, on RRP(F) then the Treasury will be loathed to move that into main pay as it then becomes pensionable (££,£££,£££,£££s).

[Just This Once...]

Worth remembering that ground branch officers have a flt lt to sqn ldr promotion rate 3 times or more greater than that of aircrew. Typically they achieve that promotion before today's time-delayed pilot has finished his first OCU return of service. Meanwhile the flt lt pilot is marking time at the top of their pay band; again.

Delays to flying pay / RRP awards adds additional disincentives and, for those that actually stay for PAS, results in a lower entry point onto that spine. This further reduces the package, total income and CARE pension provision until the forever sleep.. Meanwhile they have served the same number of years as others more fortunate.

I think it is a mess. The outflow vs inflow ratio suggests that it is a crisis.

[Lima Juliet]

JTO

Good points. I do believe that all Officer Aircrew promote to Flt Lt earlier than some of their ground branch colleagues, but that probably doesn’t offset for the earlier promotion to Sqn Ldr by some the ground branches. Also, promotion to Wg Cdr and above is way more open to Aircrew than to some ground branches. So it may just all ‘even out’ in the wash - but I suspect that is more by luck than by design!

[Melchett01]

Initial thoughts from the FPS on the fact that the Government has accepted its mistake in how it handled the transition to AFPS 15 are out. Suggestion is that the Government with its ongoing remit to ensure pension affordability may feel released from its promise that AFPS 15 is good for 25 years given that it now has a £4Bn hole to fill across the public sector.

Of course it could just move everyone regardless of age across to 15 scheme and be done with it. However, that would be too much like common sense and I can already sense the bat being inserted yet again with a new scheme, leaving the average serviceman paying the price for government incompetence. Again.
https://forcespensionsociety.org/news/public-sector-pension-ruling-and-the-armed-forces/

[downsizer]

Interesting..... I can't see them offering people to go back to full '75...

I lost all my old calculations between '75 and '75+'15 that I am on now. I'd love to have them to compare again.

[Melchett01]

Interesting..... I can't see them offering people to go back to full '75...

I lost all my old calculations between '75 and '75+'15 that I am on now. I'd love to have them to compare again.

No I can’t see that either. I know it would crinkle with those given grandfather rights, but no more so than the crinkling for those who didn’t get them in the first place, but simply moving everyone to 15 has to be the sensible option. There’s no age discrimination, it sidesteps the worst of the £4Bn hole, means they should be able to honour their 25 year pledge and doesn’t undermine public sector pensions by seemingly sticking 2 fingers up at the private sector as they will perceive their taxes paying for a pension rise (not the story but that’s how it will be spun) whilst they suffer.

[downsizer]

No I can’t see that either. I know it would crinkle with those given grandfather rights, but no more so than the crinkling for those who didn’t get them in the first place, but simply moving everyone to 15 has to be the sensible option. There’s no age discrimination, it sidesteps the worst of the £4Bn hole, means they should be able to honour their 25 year pledge and doesn’t undermine public sector pensions by seemingly sticking 2 fingers up at the private sector as they will perceive their taxes paying for a pension rise (not the story but that’s how it will be spun) whilst they suffer.


That would fcuk me off to the extreme. The '75 element of my pension is enormous compared to the '15 element. And surely that would open up a challenge as to why those that left between '15 and the present day got away with grandfather rights.

This is a mess for sure!

[Bob Viking]

I assume that, once you have left and are drawing your pension, it can no longer be tinkered with.

If I am correct then surely it could trigger a rush to the door for anyone who is getting close to a pension point.

As someone on AFPS 75/15 I have a vested interest in this decision.

BV

[Melchett01]

That would fcuk me off to the extreme. The '75 element of my pension is enormous compared to the '15 element. And surely that would open up a challenge as to why those that left between '15 and the present day got away with grandfather rights.

This is a mess for sure!

Downsizer - I'm in the same boat. But what I mean is not scrapping 75 element of the pension for those that have earned it, but the grandfather rights that were the crux of the case in the first place. Just move everyone across to the 15 scheme, preserving what they have already built up.

[London Eye]

I assume that, once you have left and are drawing your pension, it can no longer be tinkered with.

If I am correct then surely it could trigger a rush to the door for anyone who is getting close to a pension point.

As someone on AFPS 75/15 I have a vested interest in this decision.

BV

From DIN 2019DIN05-007:

https://forcespensionsociety.org/assets/files/2019/07/AFPP-McCloud-Text-Ministry-of-Defence.pdf

4. Service Personnel will not see any reduction to the pensions they have
earned/built up to date, irrespective of the pension scheme they are in.

[VinRouge]

That’s the apparent cost of this balls-up. That means that the Treasury will have to claw back the money from somewhere. It also means that the AFPS 15 promise not to mess with the pension for 25 years is no longer a thing.

The hidden cost of this action by the unions is going to screw all of us.

Not if you stick two fingers up at them, leave and realise your true value. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

Personally, would like to have the pension I was promised originally, the one I was thinking about when I was getting repeatedly shelled at the Basra COB. You know, the one The top brass gave themselves with the grandfather rights clause when AFPS 15 was introduced.

If they need the money, I suggest they look at shelving the @rse that is Brexit. currently costing ukplc 600 million a week.

[downsizer]

Downsizer - I'm in the same boat. But what I mean is not scrapping 75 element of the pension for those that have earned it, but the grandfather rights that were the crux of the case in the first place. Just move everyone across to the 15 scheme, preserving what they have already built up.

I'm not sure there will be many left in purely on '75 will there? \What was the criteria to not move to the mixed 75/15?

[scotpen]

I assume that, once you have left and are drawing your pension, it can no longer be tinkered with.
BV
This is not necessarily true for those of us retired in Scotland - and not trying to debate the pros and cons of Independence.

SNP policy is that following independence they wish to take responsibility for the payment of UK government pensions to pensioners resident in Scotland. It is also SNP policy to introduce a Scottish currency (which might or might not retain parity with the rUK £) which is likely to be the currency used for all Scottish pensions.

While UK government pension payments would obviously be (a small??) part of the hugely complex negotiations in the event of Scottish Independence, it is quite possible to envisage the purchasing power of existing pensions paid to those in Scotland and rUK diverging. For example, even ignoring any purchasing power differences between currencies what, if any, inflation rates would be used for uplifts if there were different governments responsible for payments?

[downsizer]

At a brief today....if I understand correctly 3 options have been put to the treasury....

1. Transfer everyone back fully to their old schemes, 75 or 05.
2. Transfer everyone to 15.
3. Offer people the choice to stay fully on their old scheme or transfer to the new one.

[Harley Quinn]

At a brief today....if I understand correctly 3 options have been put to the treasury....

1. Transfer everyone back fully to their old schemes, 75 or 05.
2. Transfer everyone to 15.
3. Offer people the choice to stay fully on their old scheme or transfer to the new one.

The right and proper thing to do would be (3), with the proviso new starters went straight into '15. My feeling however is that (2) will apply across the board.

[downsizer]

Option 2 would be my guess. Move all the people who stayed on old schemes to the new one.

At the end of the day it will be whatever is the cheapest.

[Bob Viking]

Mess with my pension and I leave ASAP. That is a promise.

BV

[30mRad]

Mess with my pension and I leave ASAP. That is a promise.

BV

You won't be the only one and I will be seconds behind you. What message would this send to our people (who we keep saying are our most valuable capability)?!

[downsizer]

I can’t see how option 2 can be applied to everyone. What do you do with the people who left the service at their 16 year IPP on a 75/15 combination...not enough to qualify for anything under 15. Do you suddenly make them pay back their gratuity and pension?

I assumed they meant the people still in....

[VinRouge]

Option 2 would be my guess. Move all the people who stayed on old schemes to the new one.

At the end of the day it will be whatever is the cheapest.

at a time the Triple Lock for layabout pensioners is being exceeded and the magic money tree has been found, would be a brave government to enact this. I think they will have to bite the bullet as go with option 1 or 3 are the most likely options. Realistically, the government are going to add a few percentage points on the 2020 gilts issue to fund it.

Plus option 2 completely goes goes against every promise that the pension you earned on 75 is banked. Many will take HMG to court as this was what was agreed and planned upon. (Cue Lima Juliet for additional)....

The cynic in me alludes to what I’ve said before though....

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x480/f05f3548_74e6_4778_84cb_ff32138006fa_3ea1c45312dc9cbdadaf9d2 367464fb7232fabbb.jpeg

[Just This Once...]

There will be others who gained from the AFPS15 move from AFPS75 - particularly those joining the PA Spine around that time. This brings in career choices, ToS and RoS issues. It would be overly harsh to prevent someone from immediately pulling stumps on learning that their pension plan is not what they bargained for. So Option 1 would also be up for a direct challenge.

Option 2 would be rather extreme and legally dubious, especially for those who made career and financial plans on a pension that suffers a back-dated cut. I don't see how Option 2 could even be suggested as it throws-out any legislative precedent 'of sufficient time to prepare for a significant financial change' and would probably see a trip back to the courts. My guess is that Option 2 would just be a 'future plan' to move all remaining personnel (including those snapped-back to 75/05 terms again from the last fcuk-up) to AFPS15 terms at a future date.

Only Option 3 provides any legal certainty that the measure will survive scrutiny, as well as avoiding another own-goal when it comes to retention of more experienced personnel. Of course, the same clowns that pushed-through the last change and the stupid pension-tax burden are probably still around, ready to do their next self-dismantling pantomime car trick.

[downsizer]

To be clear, option 2 didn't mean the loss of banked 75/05 pensions, just that all personnel would be moved from 2015 into the '15 scheme. I guess those who stayed on '75 would get the hit.

The strong implication was that option 2 was likely as it removed the reasons for the challenge in the first place, which was illegality down to age.

Edit: They did say they recognised that some gained by going to '15. So it wasn't straightforward, but the decision is up to the treasury.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

To be clear, option 2 didn't mean the loss of banked 75/05 pensions, just that all personnel would be moved from 2015 into the '15 scheme. I guess those who stayed on '75 would get the hit.

The strong implication was that option 2 was likely as it removed the reasons for the challenge in the first place, which was illegality down to age.

Edit: They did say they recognised that some gained by going to '15. So it wasn't straightforward, but the decision is up to the treasury.
As with option 1, I still don't see how that survives contact with people already banking their pension? The only way I can see of someone not going to court is to give everyone including those already out and claiming pension who left after 15 option 3?

[VinRouge]

To be clear, option 2 didn't mean the loss of banked 75/05 pensions, just that all personnel would be moved from 2015 into the '15 scheme. I guess those who stayed on '75 would get the hit.

The strong implication was that option 2 was likely as it removed the reasons for the challenge in the first place, which was illegality down to age.

Edit: They did say they recognised that some gained by going to '15. So it wasn't straightforward, but the decision is up to the treasury.
option 2 breaks pretty much every assurance that you would not lose what you have earned. It was my understanding that this is actually a legal requirement than a nicety.

[downsizer]

As with option 1, I still don't see how that survives contact with people already banking their pension? The only way I can see of someone not going to court is to give everyone including those already out and claiming pension who left after 15 option 3?

they said there was no interest in going after anyone drawing the pension, it only applied to those still in.

[downsizer]

I’d encourage anyone in to get to one of the briefs.

most of it is garbage but the bit about the pensions ruling is relevant.

[Just This Once...]

To be clear, option 2 didn't mean the loss of banked 75/05 pensions, just that all personnel would be moved from 2015 into the '15 scheme. I guess those who stayed on '75 would get the hit.

Surely it cannot be 'all personnel' as that ship has already sailed. Having already stated that those who have already retired will not see their pension reduced we would be in a position where those who stayed in will take the punishment.

The 'protection' was for those within 10 years of their NRD and 45% of that time window has already passed. I fell just short of the 10 year protection and some of those who were slightly older remained on '75 protected terms but have subsequently left or plan to do so shortly. Will we see others hitting the PVR button ahead of the next potential announcement?

[CISAtSea]

It was along time ago, but I remember reading in the Armed Forces Pay Review that our "non-contributory" pension was assessed as being worth 8% of salary and so the recommended award was reduced by that amount. Non-contributory indeed!

Does this mean that those new entrants will be paid 8% more than those already serving to cover the contributions?

[VinRouge]

It was along time ago, but I remember reading in the Armed Forces Pay Review that our "non-contributory" pension was assessed as being worth 8% of salary and so the recommended award was reduced by that amount. Non-contributory indeed!

Does this mean that those new entrants will be paid 8% more than those already serving to cover the contributions?
they have updated this bollocks since. Apparently it’s now over 50% for Officers.

[Lima Juliet]

they have updated this bollocks since. Apparently it’s now over 50% for Officers.

How on earth can it bollocks VinRouge - it will pay you a tidy amount in retirement and so it must be worth something! Go onto any of the civilian pension websites and look at what a similar pension would cost the average Sqn Ldr mate at age 60 and you wouldn’t get much change out of £3k per month. So if you think that is bollocks, keep living in denial...

[VinRouge]

How on earth can it bollocks VinRouge - it will pay you a tidy amount in retirement and so it must be worth something! Go onto any of the civilian pension websites and look at what a similar pension would cost the average Sqn Ldr mate at age 60 and you wouldn’t get much change out of £3k per month. So if you think that is bollocks, keep living in denial...
so LJ, how did it used to be 8% but people used to get paid a much bigger pension much earlier? We have had this out elsewhere. The discount rate determines how much you supposedly have contributed as a percentage of pension.

[Lima Juliet]

VinRouge - are you an Actuary? Do you work for the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD)? If you do, why have your reports been so wrong in your opinion over the years? I have never heard that 8% figure in my 30 odd years of service in relation to SCAPE and I would be interested to see the reference to which the 8% applied.

[downsizer]

I've heard the 8% reduction in pay many times before...

VR, where do you get the 50% figure from?

[Sandy Parts]

downsizer - that figure is the approx 'virtual' cost of a similar pension if bought outside. It is being used by HMRC to catch serving personnel who are now falling into the Annual and Lifetime limits imposed by them. Exceed these limits and you get a letter demanding a punitive payment of extra tax due on this 'virtual' pension contribution. See https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/626221-pension-horror-annual-allowance.html

[downsizer]

Roger, so they aren't claiming the pay package is abated by 50% to adjust for the pension?

[Lima Juliet]

Released this week...

https://www.youtube.com/embed/THXqZZzl-60

[VinRouge]

VinRouge - are you an Actuary? Do you work for the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD)? If you do, why have your reports been so wrong in your opinion over the years? I have never heard that 8% figure in my 30 odd years of service in relation to SCAPE and I would be interested to see the reference to which the 8% applied.

what was the GAD figure 5 years ago? How much has it increased by in the past 5 years?

If it’s increased by this figure (do the research), why are we all not retiring to the Bahamas with those little umbrellas in our drinks with the supposed increase in service pensions? I remember a shafting for 100K in 2010, but no increase on the AFPS calculator in the past 5 years.

as for the integrity of GAD, those CBEs don’t earn themselves do they? Or are we pretending the Chairman of AFPRB wasn’t disposed of a few years ago for not agreeing with the party line?

[Just This Once...]

Wow, who knew that the Iraqi TV production crew that brought us the 1991 classic John Nichol & John Peters piece-to-camera were now working for the MoD. No visible bruises on those reading the script - better make-up team?

The final 'don't worry' bit for those who have already left the service achieved the opposite effect.

[Scribbly520]

It was in the AFPR reports.