#USS's statement confirming that they will be conducting a new valuation as at 31 March 2018:
uss.co.uk/how-uss-is-run…
uss.co.uk/how-uss-is-run…
Galvin's post reaffirms his commitment to Test 1 in all but name, plus the related measure of short term risk, involving the gap to self-sufficiency.
Galvin's reaffirmation of Test 1 in all but name: 
The following is a clear and comprehensive statement of Galvin's views on the significance of current cost of moving to a self-sufficiency portfolio (aka short term risk & reliance) & the Test 1 gap to self-sufficiency in 20 years's time:
Galvin notes that, on 31 March 2017, it would have cost £22 bn for the scheme to replace its existing return-seeking portfolio of assets with a 'self-sufficiency' portfolio consisting of bonds with a low return of gilts+0.75%. So a self-sufficiency portfolio is now unaffordable.
But why should it matter that we can’t afford to do what we have no reason to do?
medium.com/@mikeotsuka/wh…
medium.com/@mikeotsuka/wh…
Galvin concedes that we have no reason to move to a self-sufficiency portfolio now: "The trustee has no intention of funding pensions at that level of confidence while employers are willing and able to support the scheme..."
So why should it matter that we can’t now afford to do what we have no reason to do?
Galvin's answer appears to be that, if the current gap to self-sufficiency becomes too large, that indicates that the scheme won't be able to reduce to the required Test 1 gap in 20 years time:
In their linked paper that was released yesterday, @FirstActuarial takes a different view regarding the significance of the current gap to self-sufficiency:
ucu.org.uk/media/9971/Fir…
ucu.org.uk/media/9971/Fir…
In the past, #USS has called on employers to agree to automatic triggers between valuations of higher contributions in the event that the gap to self-sufficiency becomes too large. Galvin's current post indicates that he is still wedded to this approach:
Here is @FirstActuarial's contrasting view of the merits of such contribution hikes:
Regarding this tweet, I don't think Test 1 will be the problem, but I do think automatic triggers in the event of short term gap will pose a problem. I explain why below. 1/
JEP's proposals largely take Test 1 on board. JEP recommends only a modest adjustment to Test 1's 20 year gap to self-sufficiency, from £10bn to £13bn. Employers accepted this in their consultation response & Galvin raises no objection in today's statement. 2/
But see this embedded tweet and the ones below regarding an unresolved difficulty regarding #USS's position regarding triggers of automatic contribution increases in the event of an increase in the current gap to self-sufficiency. 3/
Galvin's statement from today indicates that this difficulty remains unresolved. We need, as I try to do in tweets above & linked material, to explain to employers & scheme members why #USS's concerns over the short term gap to self-sufficiency are unwarranted. 4/4
The following statement by Galvin to @JosephineCumbo confirms my view that automatic triggers in the event of a short term increase in the gap to self-sufficiency poses the biggest threat to JEP's proposed solution:
