For the wife, she’s got another letter about moving her accrued pension from the 1995 scheme to the 2008 scheme. She’s got 6.5 years in the 1995 scheme.

Doesn’t look worth it to me – £x a year from age 60 vs £x+180 a year from age 65 – and the lump sum is the same, going by what’s on the letter.

At face value it’s a no brainier – leave it where it is – but have we missed anything?

Nope. I’m no expert, but if a pension has been withdrawn and replaced by another, it seems unlikely in the extreme that the replacement is going to in any way represent better VFM for the employee. Bastard government.

That was the reasoning I used when offered the ‘opportunity’ to move my old police pension to the new one (although both now closed) – if they’re encouraging it then it’s better for them therefore worse for me.

I think it’s better to keep the flexibility of being able to have at least something at 60.

The BMA advice at the time was to stay in the ’95 scheme; while the ’08 scheme accrues faster as it’s based on 60ths rather than 80ths, IIRC it’s CARE rather than ‘best of final 3 years’, there’s no lump sum and you can’t draw on it until 65 without an actuarial reduction.

Mrs B had this, as said if they want you to move it dont!

She opted to keep all previous benefits in old scheme.

It appears to be all CARE from now on, whatever scheme you were/are in, they’re just offering you another chance to move what you’ve accrued in the 1995 one to the 2008 one.

Yep, same reasoning going on here bruneep.

It appears to be all CARE from now on, whatever scheme you were/are in, they’re just offering you another chance to move what you’ve accrued in the 1995 one to the 2008 one.

Not entirely, as I understand it everyone is being moved onto the 2015 scheme which is CARE but any benefits accrued on the ’95 or ’08 schemes will stand.

Yes, that’s EU law, they can’t touch your accrued pension under ECHR. I worded my post badly. She’ll have a hybrid pension, part final salary (whichever scheme she decides as per the offer to move it from 1995 to 2008 terms) and part CARE accrued from now on.

Yes, that’s EU law, they can’t touch your accrued pension under ECHR. I worded my post badly. She’ll have a hybrid pension, part final salary (whichever scheme she decides as per the offer to move it from 1995 to 2008 terms) and part CARE accrued from now on.

FWIW I and Mrs RBIT are both staying in the ’95 scheme for what we’ve accrued so far (for me this is 14/80).

Yeah, as it say, it seems a no brainier looking at the projected figures (which are surely only going to change fairly similarly, or in proportion to each other). Just wondered if we were missing anything.

OP I would be with those who would say the new one is highly unlikely to be better. I haven’t seen the terms obviously but I would caution looking at projections, full of assumptions – what happens if markets and returns are negative ? You may nit be right in yoir view that return assumptions would affect both similarly. Also returns are just part of the story who knows what is in the small print and differ between the two ?

Transfer of accrued benefits to the new scheme only starts to be worth it if you are looking at working longer, i.e. past 65. I’d leave it personally.

I had a look and (for me; 11.5 years in 1995 scheme) it depended on when I wanted to retire.

Note that the 2008 scheme takes the average salary of the last 10 years of service as its basis for final salary calculation, whereas the 1995 scheme is the best of the last 3.

I stayed in the 1995 scheme, as this had a slightly better lump sum.

With 13.5% personal contributions and a move to the career average scheme since 2015, I’m alert for any developments that make it not worth paying in any more.

what happens if markets and returns are negative

They dont give a toss, it is a defined benefit scheme.

With 13.5% personal contributions and a move to the career average scheme since 2015, I’m alert for any developments that make it not worth paying in any more.

Me too. 13.5%!!! That’s a fair wack for a fundementally worse scheme. Thieving barstewards.

It’s a government ponzi scheme same as mine, so unaffected by investment performance.

Thanks folks, one of those nice straightforward threads where the answers confirm my own view. If only every thread was like this 🙂