The regs in force during 14% 'contribution holiday' made it possible for #USS to run the scheme in the manner that @FirstActuarial & @ucu now recommend. That's what they did! More below on @USSbriefs JEP submission by @deepa_driver (tagging @Sam_Marsh101):
The '99, '02 & '05 valuations that Deepa analysis were *before* the days of tPR and Pensions Act 2004. They were all governed by Pensions Act 1995, which provided much more scope for #USS to fund & manage the ongoing scheme in the sensible manner @FirstActuarial recommends. 1/
In this long thread, I draw attention to the many ways in which #USS ran their scheme back then in the sensible manner that @FirstActuarial endorses: 2/
Here I note that they were able to do this b/c the regs back then did not inappropriately force schemes such as #USS to adopt an overly prudent discount rate & de-risk its portfolio into bonds. 3/
The Minimum Funding Requirement in force from '99 to '05 was one that #USS easily exceeded: its was 139%, 144%, & 126% funded in '99, '02, & '05. Hence no remedial action was called for. 4/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_f…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_f…
The scheme was in deficit in '05 by its own valuation methodology, which conservatively discounted liabilities at the rate of gilts+0%. But @ucu and @FirstActuarial rightly reject such a discount rate as inappropriate. 5/
And #USS was also right not to regard the deficit generated by such a discount rate as calling for either contribution increases or benefit cuts. 6/
See this embedded tweet and the ones below for the rationale #USS offered at the time for keeping calm & carrying on w/o raising contributions. 7/
One can criticise #USS for ignoring the 2005 deficit rather than hiking contributions only if one thinks the liabilities should be discounted at a rate of gilts+0%. But nobody at @USSbriefs thinks that. 8/
On the best estimate minus approach to the setting of the discount rate that @FirstActuarial advocates, and which conformed to the regulations in force at the time, the scheme was in surplus throughout the '99-05' period of 14% employer contributions. 9/9
Note how friendly the regulations in force from '99 to '05 were to investment in equities. Non-pensioner liabilities matched by equities. NB 'equity easement' of pensioner liabilities for large schemes such as USS. (MFR = minimum funding requirement which USS greatly exceeded.) 
