ATTENTION MUST BE PAID to a tension between statements to FT's @JosephineCumbo from (1) #USS and (2) @TPRgovuk. Details in tweets below.
Here's why these statements are in tension. The #USS statement was a clarification of this initial #USS statement to @JosephineCumbo: 3/
I had a different interpretation: 5/
This is significant because the Rule 76 contribution increases are based on, and presuppose the soundness, of the linked Rule 76.1 Scheme Actuary's report. 7/
uss.co.uk/~/media/docume…
uss.co.uk/~/media/docume…
This valuation is based on the assumptions the #USS trustee approved in November 2017. It is the so-called 'November valuation', which claims a £7.5 bn deficit (rather than the less pessimistic Sept valuation, w/ £5.1 bn deficit). 8/
That, however, is precisely the 2017 valuation that the JEP is spending the summer assessing and on which it will report in late September. (Link to JEP website.) 9/
ussjep.org.uk
ussjep.org.uk
So #USS must be saying that it might revise its Rule 76.1 valuation in the light of the JEP report, as would be necessary in order to modify the level of contribution increase required to maintain the DB status quo. 10/
But @TPRgovuk says in statement in tweet '2/' above: 'we expect the valuation to be finalised and submitted after the contributions have been agreed'. This must refer to the Rule 76.1 'November' valuation on which the contributions on which we'll be consulted are based. 11/
CORRECTION to '4/' above: This was @JosephineCumbo's comment: "This is important. There is flex in the cost sharing process for #USS contributions, announced today."
👆In light of all of the above, #USS owes is a clearer account of how, precisely, JEP might be able to influence and make a difference to the 2017 valuation of the scheme. 12/12
CORRECTION to '4/' above: This was @JosephineCumbo's comment: "This is important. There is flex in the cost sharing process for #USS contributions, announced today."
