Thread by @MikeOtsuka

@NJSHardy I assume you mean lower even in the absence of 'contingent support'. Where has @TPRgovuk stated openness to this👇?

https://twitter.com/NJSHardy/status/1137372864737370114

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk tPR Dec letter says if you want to take on more investment risk to lower the discount rate & contributions, e.g., along lines of JEP proposals, then you must show that it's sufficiently underwritten with contingent support... 1/

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk ...preferably in the form of contingent cash contributions with robust triggers. It's clear from tPR's most recent letter that they had sight of USS's CC option 2. It's also safe to assume that the #USS triggers are as demanding as they are on account of tPR guidance. 2/

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk tPR says Option 1 33.7% is probably okay, since it's comparable to the Rule 76 2017 valuation that was submitted. They don't comment on Option 2. And they express grave concerns re Option 3. 3/

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk Hard to square this with "openness to a lower contribution rate than that proposed by USS", except if this involved even more demanding CC triggers than #USS's Option 2. 4/4

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk Re this: 1/

https://twitter.com/NJSHardy/status/1137372873201467392

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk JEP is explicit that its first report does not call for a change in valuation methods. 2/2

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk Re 👇, employers were consulted in the autumn re increased risk appetite in line w/ JEP Phase 1 recs & agreed to these increases. It's reasonable to await JEP Phase 2 recommendations re further increases in investment risk for employers.

https://twitter.com/NJSHardy/status/1137372874476593153

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk Re TPR, see this earlier tweet from @NJSHardy 👇.

https://twitter.com/NJSHardy/status/1102957831152648192

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk My query in reply👇.

https://twitter.com/MikeOtsuka/status/1102962870332149760

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk Nick's response👇.

https://twitter.com/NJSHardy/status/1102963750179688449

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk And this further tweet of mine👇.

https://twitter.com/MikeOtsuka/status/1102978423746711552

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk In light of ☝️, Nick is incorrect in stating👇 that "USS has done nothing to make a case for a lower rate, even when invited directly by TPR, and employers haven't asked them to."

https://twitter.com/NJSHardy/status/1137372864737370114

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk Both #USS & @USSEmployers have made the case for a rate below 30% rather than in the mid-30s. As TPR made clear, such a lower rate needed to be underwritten by contingent support. #USS & @USSEmployers have devoted the past 4 months to proposals for contingent support.

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk @USSEmployers In the past, @NJSHardy welcomed 👇employer refusal to engage w/ the sort of proposals for contingent support that tPR was calling for, as a condition of lower contributions. That is hard to square w/ his current stance.

https://twitter.com/NJSHardy/status/1106164098927075330

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk @USSEmployers A minor point in comparison w/ ☝️tweets re TPR, but "instead driven the Scheme towards a projected future deficit" 👇is incorrect. The projection is of full funding in 20 yrs time. 1/

https://twitter.com/NJSHardy/status/1137372863676243968

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk @USSEmployers See this chart👇by @Sam_Marsh101, re projections with "November de-risking" (i.e., starting now, rather than 10 year delay, as proposed under "September de-risking". 2/2

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk @USSEmployers @Sam_Marsh101 It's been drawn to my attention that @NJSHardy also lacks ground for his claim 👇that @USSEmployers adviser Aon has deemed a 26% valuation acceptable & that employers are ignoring this advice. 1/

https://twitter.com/NJSHardy/status/1137372860736049153

@NJSHardy @TPRgovuk @USSEmployers @Sam_Marsh101 Here's what Aon actually says re the 26% rate👇. 2/2