Firstly, an independent actuary is not calculating a CETV as the CETV (or Cash Equivalent to give it it''s proper name) is a valua based on a set of assumptions which the scheme trustees have adopted having received actuarial advice.
So, why have an independent valuation? the main reasons which I come across are
1) where there is more than one pension arrangement, to ensure that all pensions are valued on a consistent basis, otherwise it''s coparing apples & oranges.
2) where there are benefits available which are not reflected in the CETV, such as right to retire early in uniformed services, discretionary benefits not included etc
3) to adjust for taxation of benefits in payment - CETV values gross of tax benefits.
In general, I get asked to provide advice in relation to implications of pension sharing much more often than providing an independent valuatiuon whic is mostly requested where there are multiple pensions all valued on different bases and therefore not comparable.
kdad, the reason an independent actuary has been suggested is to have someone who is an expert in pension related issues (solicitors are not pension experts)consider the issues and provide a report on which negotations can be based.
If you have some pensions knowlede you should know that the basis on which pension sharing is implemented within all public sector schemes is on the basis that the spouse gets benefits which are of equvalent value to those given up by the member and similar in nature - index linked pension, cash option etc. Please don''t give the impression that you know more than you actually do.
I suggest Ian, that you first reasd the posts I have made, before criticising me. I did qualify my posts by stating that I work in the private sector, not the public sector, and I recommended that every person finds out exactly how their scheme works before entering into a pension sharing order.
I also suggest that you read the statements on the forces pension website www.forcespensionsociety.org/how-we-can-...ensions-and-divorce/ - this states exactly what I have posted, and the dangers of not following recognised procedures as you seem to suggest. Perhaps you ought to get yourfacts right before making derogatory comments.
I don`t think Ian would benefit from reading general information in the two links, he is after all an actuary, nor do i see any criticism, he has indeed suggested your knowledge may not be at a level you suggest when posting, this is an open forum and all are welcome to post but from time to time professionals need to correct a post or get a thread back on track.
And as someone who has been in pensions for over 30 years and seen the upset and frustration caused by various "experts" when members are going through divorce, I would like to think I know a little bit about it.
The lonk is useful, because what it doesn''t do is recommend the asppointment of an independent actuary.
I''m glad to see the value of professional people being recognised on these boards. Believe me Dukey, I am reassured by this comment as my experience as a professional who has privately assisted many members on this site in employment matters to date including people referred to me from the wikivorce helpline has given me a very different impression.
I should point out however, that there are some highly qualified professionals operating on these boards whose professional experience and chartered qualifications are not permitted by wikivorce to be shown as such on the boards themselves.
A limitation of the site in my view and one to be fair that i have raised privately. I get that there are many professions that are not relevant to matters on this site, but there are some that are and a decision has been made not to formally recognise this. It''s a shame Dukey as members in some cases are not able to differentiate between well meaning general opinion and advice given by a qualified professional who is willing to help unless every member goes in and checks profile details of everyone posting their opinion on their case.
I find it sad that recently a member was advised to go to the citizens advice bureau about an employment matter mainly because people are not aware that qualified professionals in the relevant area can possibly help more quickly on these boards. It''s a shame.
30 years doing what though, are you actually qualified to take an actuary to task, your manner of posting would suggest not, not by a long chalk.
Even if you understand the basics you will be aware that it is court who order actuarial reports, those who chose to have the report are in the minority, but even when a report is produced it is for the judge to decide the final decision not the actuary.
These reports are often very important indeed as often the pension/s are the second mots valuable asset from a marriage, i think it was Hadenoughnow who suggested equalising pensions on retirement is a very common poser for a judge, without the report the judge would have little idea, also as mentioned solicitors and barristers are not expert in pensions, its an expertise best left to the IFA`s and actuary''s.
Many of us older wiki`s are aware of your qualifications and your assistance is far from unnoticed rest assured.
Wiki is run by a very small number of happy helpers, but the site takes a great deal of time to maintain, given all those who are TeamWiki are divorced and have a new life there comes a point where they cannot be squeezed any more, and lord knows i squeeze them often.
Safety of the site is always a priority always will be, every professional who post on wiki is interdependently checked if they say they are a solicitor they are, if an actuary they are, an IFA they are, there is a limit to what checks can be made and the time the guy that does the job can give.
There are many professionals on site with many specialisms but wiki must prioritise those that help the site the most, for now that is limited to lawyers IFA`s and actuary''s maybe one day it can be expanded but for now time limits what can be done.