Here I'm starting a separate thread which discusses the leaked Xafinity @TrinCollCam's assessment of #USS and the risks of DB for the sector as a whole, rather than @TrinCollCam in particular. 1/
A striking feature of the @Xafinity document is that it implies that the closure of DB to future accrual as a major source of risk to the sector as a whole. In fact, Secs 4.3 & 4.4 model the risks of closure of DB to future accrual in the near future. 2/
I.e., it models the risks to the sector if #USS had followed through on @UniversitiesUK's Jan 2018 proposal to (at least de facto) close the scheme to all future DB accrual and hence suddenly cease all future DB contributions, soon rendering the scheme cash flow negative. 3/
Note that the 3rd bullet point below involves the risk of high deficit recovery contributions caused by the closure of the scheme and the consequent shift of the portfolio towards bonds as the DB scheme goes into run off. 4/ 
Here is the earlier description of "lock down" of the scheme via closure of DB to future accrual and shift to a self-sufficiency bond portfolio: 5/
More here about the expense of "lock down": 6/
This raises the following question: if closure and "lock down" of DB is so expensive, why not keep the DB scheme open, ongoing, and cash flow positive, as @RedActuary & @Derek_Benstead of @FirstActuarial have argued? 7/
It appears that @Xafinity's answer to this question is that it's only a matter of time before things go pear shaped and the increased cost of DB accrual forces scheme closure. 8/
Moreover, if the scheme closes later rather than sooner, this will be more costly, since they claim that the DB liabilities are growing each year, relative to the size of the sector. See here (& note "and when" scheme closes, not merely "if" scheme closes): 9/
Here are @Xafinity's grounds for their claim that the scheme will grow relative to the sector: 10/
It is important to emphasise that the JEP report rejects @Xafinity's claim re growth of scheme relative to size of sector: 11/
Here JEP provides further explanation for why the scheme won't grow relative to size of sector: 12/
In coming to their conclusion, JEP draws on analysis provided by #USS itself, as contained in Annex 7 of the JEP report. 13/
.@Xafinity's claim regarding growth of scheme relative to sector is contained in a document that pre-dates the JEP report & does not appear to take on board the significance of closure of final salary. 14/
By contrast, the linked @TrinCollCam Council document post-dates the JEP report, yet it repeats @Xafinity claims re growth of sector. I hope College Fellows will query the assertions of their Council re growth. 15/
academicfreedom.watch/node/40
academicfreedom.watch/node/40
If JEP & #USS are right that the DB scheme under existing arrangements will not grow relative to the size of the sector, then a significant argument for reduction or elimination of future DB accrual is eliminated. 16/
Given, moreover, the high cost of closure & "lock down" via bonds, of DB, which @Xafinity's report highlights, there remains @FirstActuarial's strong argument mentioned above for keeping DB open & ongoing, at least so long as liabilities don't grow relative to size of sector. 17/
As @felicitycallard notes here, and I also mention in another thread, @TPRgovuk shares @Xafinity's concerns re growth of scheme relative to sector: 18/
Here's my thread on @TPRgovuk's letter. 19/19
