Spartacus 1(a) You were suggesting it as an alternative. Theoretically is might be, but to any sane person it clearly isn't. (b) I have several answers but in the absence of seeing comparative projections it is impossible to do anything other than rule out any continuation of the status quo. 2. No I am most certainly not. I am referring to the figures stated in the 2011 audited States of Guernsey accounts. 3. I know exactly what you are referring to. I know that you are relying on the fact that the actuarial valuation doesn't apply FRS 17 whereas the States accounts do. I am saying, ad nauseum, ad nauseum, ad nauseum, ad nauseum, that the FRS17 method is the more reliable one. You just don't like that because of its implications, but you fail to grasp WHY its the most appropriate one. You once again demonstrate your lack of understanding of how an actuary works. I am in no way criticising Stephen Ainsworth or BWCI. If their client, the States of Guernsey, asks them to apply a 3.25% projected rate of return into the actuarial projections, then they will do just that, and the resulting figures will be spewed out. Its NOT saying that a 3.25% projected rate of return is impossible, but FRS17 is saying that the correct, prudent, global accounting standards method of evaluating the liabilities is to use the AA Corporate Bond returns of 2.05%. It is the States of Guernsey who adopt the final decisions re the actuarial projections. The actuary can only advise them what rates to apply. Its rather like going to a lawyer for advice. The lawyer can advise you, but ultimately its your call, as the client. But then you would know that. The States of Guernsey in my opinion are fundamentally wrong NOT to insist on applying FRS17 to the actuarial valuation, especially as they DO apply it to their audited accounts. Why not be consistent? Being inconsistent can only breed confusions. For a start, you and I and others on this blog would not be having such a debate. Moreover, decisions to change the public sector scheme would then have beem made much earlier, saving the taxpayer tens of millions, indeed possibly hundreds of millions, in the process. So yes - BWCI are presenting a materially over-rosy picture of the health of the pension scheme, but only because of the investment projections provided to them by their client, the States of Guernsey. I will speculate that since 2010/2011 this spectre has been looming, and the politicians were simply unwilling to confront it, preferring to kick the can down the street until after the 2012 election, for reasons which would seem obvious. As ever with cans which kicked down the street, you eventually reach a dead end when the can has to be picked up. Which is now.
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
