UKH

Things are getting so outrageous with USS proposals we now have this:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/letters/false-assumptions-of-...

In reply to Offwidth:

Context?

In reply to Offwidth:

Summary?

In reply to Bob:
Universities Superannuation Scheme propose a new set of changes with some huge drops in benefits for some staff (30%+ drops!) UCU ballot for industrial action. Emminent Statisticians write letter explaining how much of the analysis used to justify the changes is unfair or incorrect.

In reply to Offwidth:

I think this is actually of interest to a lot more people in pension schemes than just university lecturers. I would be very surprised if the same faulty logic had not been used in lots of other schemes up and down the land to construct "terribly sorry but we just can't afford it" cases to slash peoples pensions. Unfortunately this time they picked on a group of professionals who had the training and skills to spot the twisted logic. Good luck to them.

Paul

In reply to Offwidth: do you have a link to the original document. I would be surprised if there isn't some tremendous cherrypicking of stats - 11% pa for all of the last 5 years ?

In reply to Paul Evans:
Where is the faulty logic? Surely taking low growth, and high wage inflation and life expectancy estimates is the cautious thing to do? There is room to argue about the precise numbers but tot me the approach is what I would expect, and I would be alarmed if any else had been a summed. I'm not sure being a statistician (rather than actuary) is a of much significance.

In reply to Offwidth:

what..... you mean people who aren't baby boomers are going to be working longer for less, having had to experience real term pay losses over the past 5 years and also being priced out of family homes by ridiculous speculation from said baby boomers who are 'downsizing'.

Blimey, it's as if politicians only care about people who vote rather than those who suffer the consequences of pandering to those who vote.

In reply to smithaldo:
Nothing to do with that. Ive argued this repeatedly on here, that although I strongly disagree with the mechanisms used to assess such pensions (going into details will be a distraction to my point here) and that some on the neo-liberal side argue the urgency of application of such change is still not enough, no one other than an idiot can deny they are being applied (the amount paid in is being significantly increasd and now the proposed payouts significantly reduced).

What has happened here is beyond that: some of the justifications put out for the changes are plain incorrect and one wonders what those who generated such information were trying to do. Incidently its not the first time: UCU pointed out that the longevity stats were mysteriously low for the past and mysteriously high for the future on an employers organisation e-breifing until they suddenly disappeared from that website. Allowing such behaviour to go unchallenged in a sector that should be representing the very best in truth, research and debate would be pretty stupid. Call me old fashioned but I think is clear evidence of terrible dishonest behavior from some of those who run our Universities that should be of great publc concern .

In reply to wbo:

Web search engines are your friend.

http://www.employerspensionsforum.co.uk/en/utilities/document-summary.cfm?d...

In reply to MG:

Never mind their logic, before we look at that is there is evidence of you thinking at all. Are you really saying you suspect such eminent people will make untrue public assertions on such numbers?

In reply to Offwidth: no they'll make a statistical assessment of risk which includes their own opinions and biases. Which may not be everyone else's, or indeed 'best practice'.

That link doesn't work for me - I've already had a go

In reply to Offwidth:


Umm no. read what I wrote. I'm asking, assuming the broad thrust of what they is true, why that is a bad thing.

Separately, the accounting standards used are general and nothing special here. They should criticise the standards if they don't like them rather than complain about one instance. (There are several that are consistent in terms of trend, which is the real worry)

In reply to MG:

Wildly unrealistic data which are in part self contradictory and a bottom line statement that is plain wrong. You must work for USS.

In reply to wbo:

Cant understand why...tried it again and it is still there (unlike the previous paper with errors that they pulled)

In reply to smithaldo:


Personally if they don't vote then they only have themselves to blame

In reply to Offwidth:

Offwidth meets a different opinion and goes all as him. Nothing new today.

In reply to MG:

Ad hom...

In reply to MG:
How about arguing some specifics then rather than resorting to exactly what you acuse me of.

Lets start with an easy one: is it possible to completely remove the calculated defecit by relatively small chamges in assumptions as these statisticians claim and which they think is incorrect in the advice they critique? Should be easy as this is straight math.

Number 2 why do you think that it is normal that wage growth assumptions follow a fixed, above inflation, formula which is outside any wage growth experienced in any long term period for the group in question.

In reply to Offwidth:
They seem like reasonable questions.

In reply to Timmd:

The latest...

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/warning-of-a-winter-of-disconten...

Another odd theme is that the changes hit the most successful institutions hardest as they have a higher proportion of staff over the £50k transition point (where CRB contributions end and defined contributions take over); hence maybe Oxbridge etc asking the most tricky questions.