OK so you agree it is currently affordable.

Future affordability is way too subjective there is no way you can prove the employer “will not be able to” meet its future obligations. So many factors can effect this some within the control of the employer some not. Legally surely this is no justification.

The deficit will only change in 20-25 years time if they decide to change the funding target.

In the meantime the contribution rate could change and could be higher or lower.

You don’t know what the dependency ratio will be in 20-25 years time, this is within the government’s control to change through immigration policies etc.

Report abuse

You are using the wrong tense regarding affordability of the pension scheme.

Its not the case that the States “cannot” meet its obligations. That’s the present tense and currently it can. The correct phrase is “will not be able to” meet its future obligations. Its the impact of this massive deficit in 20-25 years time which is the major problem, especially when the dependency ratio in Guernsey will have massively changed from what it is today.

Report abuse

Thanks for the additional information.

I will respond and conclude my views however I also do not really have anything more to add until there is more news.

I’m not a subscriber to the digital press sorry.

Regarding the statement “Public sector salary pension schemes should be ended” Thank you for collating the list of election candidates (now deputies) who agree with that statement. It probably won them a few votes!

It is interesting to note that it is a minority of deputies and that half the policy council did not support it!

What I would add is that the statement does not indicate whether they feel the existing employment contracts should be honoured or whether the scheme should just be closed for new entrants. That is a very pertinent point.

Having experienced employee disputes yourself I would have expected you to be me more understanding in relation to the rights of workers and the precedent these changes would set. There would be serious ramifications for those members who are on middle and lower incomes for the future.

Guernsey Press have been very clear on their stance on the pension debate and I have read all their opinion columns. I agree with very few of the points they have made but totally understand why they have taken the stance they have. They are in the business of selling newspapers.

Regarding Guernsey Post, the business struggles they have had have been well documented, post is a declining industry. In the private sector I suspect they would have failed as a business. I gather the pension assets are not included on their balance sheet but the liabilities are, that could be misleading but as it is a wholly owned entity it is understandable how it fits in to the SOG accounting. I can understand why they want that changed.

I could not see any reference to the pension fund on pages 166 & 167 of the Billet. Did I miss something?

Regarding Dave Jones, as I have said, I am in no doubt that any statement he made with regard to sustainability of the pension would have been his personal subjective belief, not a statement of fact or expressing it in any official capacity or on behalf of any other person or body. He is welcome to correct me if he is reading this and if I’ve got that wrong.

You are entitled to your own opinion and to draw your own conclusions however it is incumbent on the States of Guernsey as employer to prove that the island is in such a mess that it cannot afford to meet it’s obligations. There is no way it could or would do that and the public financial records do not support that stance. It seems the employees therefore have a strong legal and moral case.

It will be interesting to see the outcome to the pension review on which the recommendations for change were based. I am frustrated and annoyed that this has not been published.

Report abuse

You did not say which links you cannot open, I will try again.

The first link is to a digital edition of the Press, you have to subscribe. I cannot cut and paste for some reason. The comments are worth reading. It is £1.50 for one issue.

The second link is a questionnaire which was given to candidates in the election. Question one was a list of statements that you supported. One of these was: Public sector final salary pension schemes should be ended. The following agreed with this statement:

Chris Green, Johnathon Le Tocq, Paul Luxon, Mike O’Hara, Francis Quin, Mike Hadley, Richard Conder, Peter Harwood, Barry Brehaut, Roger Domaille, Rob Jones, Peter Gillson, Dave Jones, Tony Spruce, Roger Perrot & David Inglis.

It is interesting to note that half of the Policy Council supported this.

The first of the remainding links is a Press comment, the second is about Guernsey Post struggling with their pension scheme. This is also verified in the January 2013 Billet, this can be found here:

http://www.gov.gg/article/104934/2013-January-30th-Billet-I-and-II

Page 166 & 167

With regards to Dave Jones, I remember vividly that the statement was that the pension scheme was unsustainable, I will try to dig it out for you.

I will await the release of the 2012 accounts before commenting further on this issue, we are going in circles.

I am in the GM camp on this and think you are wrong. This is no disrespect to you but our opinions differ.

Report abuse

Thank God for that. Peace and sanity at last.

Report abuse

Not that I need to explain myself to you but I will.

There are some people who know that I am GM (because I told them) and in one topic I needed to post something important but couldn’t do so as GM. I am not saying any more on that for the same reason.

I will reiterate though that I have otherwise posted solely as GM for at least two years. I couldn’t give a toss whether you believe that or not.

Report abuse

On 6 Dec you said “I’ve used this site for 7 years under various pseudonyms”

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/news/2012/12/04/hssd-board-members-refuse-to-go/#comment-211250

I don’t know how you can try to justify using a different pseudonym “for sensitivity reasons” when you are anonymous anyway, that makes no sense at all.

Report abuse

Re your post we will have to agree to disagree and leave it there.

I agree with the all the experts and my qualifications, training, experience and understanding means I have excellent bs radar. Those without will no doubt hang on your every word, especially those who enjoy a good old fashioned anti government conspiracy theory.

I’ll leave you to it.

Report abuse

No Neil Forman did not state that Dave Jones had commented “on behalf of T&R”. I never said he did! Perhaps you should try reading what is written!!

I know Dave Jones is capable of speaking on his own behalf and often does which is always extremely helpful. Nevertheless comments he makes do not necessarily represent the beliefs of others.

I believe T&R would be responsible for making any announcements in regard to the pension fund although I’m aware that the policy council ordered the review.

Report abuse

Your post of 10.18am is so riddled with inaccuracies and inconsistencies about what you actually said previously that it would take me hours to correct you one by one.

You arguments are totally full of holes and you very clearly don’t know the meaning of the word “fact”. I concur with GM (and I reiterate that I am not GM), that your interpretation of the whole funding scenario is way off the mark. You either don’t know anything about pensions, which I suspect is the case, or are you simply trying to be very clever and failing miserably because you’ve been found out. More likely, its both.

I am very happy that you want to “leave it there”, although I don’t believe for one moment that you will do that.

Report abuse

Re your post to Martino, I cannot let that pass.

I am not trying to pull the wool other anyone’s eyes. Quite the opposite. I am trying to ensure that the wool no longer remains pulled over the eyes of the taxpayers by T&R, as it has for the past few years. You are vigorously trying to maintain that cover-up.

No – I am not Pragmatist. I keep telling you that and you obviously don’t believe me. That’s your problem. You can believe what you like, just as you do with this whole topic.

And its hardly “dishonest” of me to have admitted that I used a pseudonym on two occasions last year, for specific sensitivity reasons, and as I said to you at the time, not on pension-related threads. Not sure what part of that you didn’t understand, but then again comprehension never has been your strong point.

Report abuse

If you had bothered to actually read what I had written, which seems to be a simply concept way beyond you, you will have noticed that I referred to the lack of materiality of the timings of withdrawals and contributions when it comes to generally assessing the investment performance. I did suggest at the the time that the concept of materiality was beyond you. You’ve proved that.

You are also repeatedly reinforcing your ignorance with each posting that you make.

Yes – pensions are paid monthly. A lump sum is not a pension, its a lump sum payment. I thought you would have known that.

Fortunately, the annual audited accounts of the States provides a detailed breakdown of contributions received from employers and from employees, and also of lump sum payments and other adjustments to the “revenue accout” of the pension scheme. From that, it is easy to see the net annual “movements” on the revenue account. We can then, in turn, see the extent to which the investment assets of the scheme have been added to or drawn down from during the year. In virtually every year, the net adjustment has been minimal. It is therefore obvious that the difference between the investment values at the start of the year and the end of the year reflects the “total returns” of the investment portfolio during the year. We are talking about a £900m fund. The impact of timing of contributions and withdrawals of a net £10m in either direction to/from the “revenue account” is simply not material in assessing the investment performance of the £900m fund. I am sure that such basic principles should be within even your very limited intelligence to understand.

As far as the make-up of the investment portfolio is concerned, it should make no difference whatsoever whether the fund is worth £100m, £500m or £1 billion when deciding what asset classes to invest into. Government bonds, corporate bonds and equities should always make up the vast majority of the portfolio. Pension funds of this type should ALWAYS be invested in low to moderate risk assets, seeking risk-adjusted returns, with appropriate levels of volatility. But you’d know that, of course, if you really knew anything about pensions.

Why the cover-up? I don’t know. I’d like to know. My instinct tells me that they didn’t want to highlight bad news ahead of an election. It would have brought the unaffordability of the scheme
to the fore ahead of the election and nobody will have been wanting to upset 4,700 members as voters at that stage.

I’m not saying that the actuaries got it wrong. I don’t know whether their full advice was acted on or ignored by T&R re. the contribution levels or the investment strategy to be followed. I suspect their advice was ignored.

I think the accountants (T&R) definitely got it wrong with their financial reporting, and they know it. The auditors therefore probably got it wrong as well.

As far as the investment managers are concerned, I don’t know whether the managers got it wrong or whether their client, the States/trustees, gave them an inappropriate mandate. We need to find out though.

You say that I don’t know your qualifications, experience or knowledge. That’s true. But I don’t need to. Its very obvious that as far as pensions are concerned you are clueless.

As I have said from the outset…

Report abuse

Why don’t you try reading what was actually written? When did Neil Forman state that Dave Jones had commented “on behalf of T&R”? He is quite capable of speaking on his own behalf as a deputy, and I for one am very glad that he does.

Report abuse

I know how pensions work, GM is successfully trying to pull the wool over your eyes, because you don’t know any better but would like to see the pension benefit decrease. I’m not even convinced that GM believes his/her own argument.

I’m pretty sure she/he and pragmatist are one and the same person but I can’t be certain. All I know for sure is that GM is disingenuous, dishonest and has admitted to using more than one pseudonym/gravatar to enhance his/her ability to mislead people.

Report abuse

What a pathetic argument. Like Pragmatist, I share almost 100 per cent the views of GM, who actually knows something about how pensions work, unlike you.

You, Sparty, are the pensions equivalent of a creationist, arguing that the Earth was build 6,000 years ago and that man walked with the dinosaurs. You have lost all credibility.

Report abuse