ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

In ¡°USS strike: why I?won¡¯t join the pensions strike¡± (Opinion, 28 March), Nick Foster argues that the case for pensions reform cannot be ignored. He cites a recent Green Paper,?Security and Sustainability in Defined Benefit Pension Schemes, which, on page 24, clarifies that the main concern of the Pensions Regulator is ¡°the risk of employer insolvency¡±: ¡°The critical risk to members [of a pension scheme] (and the PPF [Pension Protection Fund]) is, therefore, insolvency of the sponsoring employer(s) at any point when the scheme is underfunded.¡±

It is reasonable to worry about this, and to impose valuation assumptions based on a real risk of employer insolvency, where the employer is a company of the usual sort. It is crazy to worry about this, and to impose valuation assumptions based on a real risk of employer insolvency, where ¡°the employer¡± is, collectively, all 68 of the UK¡¯s pre?92 universities. On any realistic valuation assumptions, there is either no deficit or a surplus ¨C so no need to change the scheme. Neither the regulator nor the trustee of the Universities Superannuation Scheme should be making decisions on the basis of irrational assumptions.

Excelsior
Via timeshighereducation.com

Letters should be sent to:?THE.Letters@timeshighereducation.com
Letters for publication in?Times Higher Education?should arrive by 9am Monday.
View terms and conditions.