Another good branch statement on the cost-sharing increases. This one from @leedsucu. My thoughts below.
"The September valuation was rejected by a substantial minority of institutions (42%), leading to that more damaging November valuation and related proposal of shifting from defined benefits ... to defined contribution" 1/
👆An important reminder of how @UniversitiesUK got us into this mess. Here's my own rendition: 2/
medium.com/@mikeotsuka/th…
medium.com/@mikeotsuka/th…
"It later transpired that this 42% consensus had been generated by double-counting institutional responses to UUK surveys, and some evidence of seeming collusion between some of them." 3/
👆Again, it's important to remind us of this Oxbridge double-counting and collusion. Here's my last blog post on this, which also includes links to all my earlier blog posts plus some subsequent Twitter updates: 4/
medium.com/@mikeotsuka/ca…
medium.com/@mikeotsuka/ca…
"The USS argues that these increases are necessary to make up the ‘deficit’ as calculated on certain disputed bases last year." 5/
👆Of the 10.6% increase that wd be imposed by April 2020, 3.9% consists of increased deficit recovery contributions. But the other 6.7% is due to #USS's claim that the cost of future DB accrual (i.e., DB accrual in exchange for contributions we make in future years) has risen. 6/
So the lion's share of the increase comes, not from having to recover from the deficit, but from the cost of future service. It is important, therefore, that @UCU not be so focused on the deficit. 7/
"We do know that USS’s ‘accounting deficit’ has recently dropped from £17.5bn to £8.4bn, as a result of them applying different mortality and bond yield forecasts" 8/
👆A minor quibble. In addition to a different morality forecast, the other factor wasn't moving to a different bond yield. Rather, it was a reduction in their CPI inflation forecast, due to a change in assumed RPI-CPI gap & inflation risk premium. 9/9
