Average Career Earning Pensions

So do I take it that 25% is the 'expected then?

Thanks again for your help ..... it is the first real assistance I have had.

No

I believe that you are entitled to the full 50% of the pension as valued, but be prepared to be flexible a few percentage points here or there, providing any gain isn’t lost in fees to argue the point.

Peter, Seriously thank you so much for your advice! I may even be able to sleep tonight for the first time in weeks!

One last question before I leave you alone....

Assuming the figures are a reliable ballpark (but I wont count on it until i've seen the paperwork!) i.e. £100k CETV value, would the 50% still apply if I go for an offsetting agreement - should I still go for a 50% split do you think and then be prepared to drop to say .... 35% in negotiation?

We are both hoping to use mediation to get the detail sorted and then be approved by our lawyers but have to try and save the legal pennies where we can.

Thanks again!

Jezzie

Don’t worry about the “leaving us alone” point; one of the best things about this forum is that we reply by choice. We can always just not respond, so keep asking away, your questions may well help other is similar circumstances.

My non-commercial answer to your question is that you should start with the CETV, have in mind that it could under value the pension by about 30% and negotiate around that figure.

The alternative commercial answer is that you and your husband agree to use the figure that you will get from the Express Pension Valuation (EPV) report that Nigel suggested and negotiate around that value, it being much closer to a fair value of the pension. Please remember that although the EPV often produces a valuation which is higher than the CETV it is actually a neutral figure and not intended to favour one party over another.

My feeling is that being prepared to drop to 35% of the pension valuation is very generous, but it is of course your call. Ask yourself what your attitude is the house value, would you accept a similar adjustment to its value – possibly on the basis that the housing market is quite volatile at the moment?

Peter.

I never realised it would be such a minefield!

What has confused me more is that there seems to be a universal assumption on the forums that for offsetting, a 25% rule of thumb is applied .... that is unless I am getting completely the wrong end of the stick here.

However, I will get a valuation when the time arises because, to be frank, it could mean the difference of our own home or rented accomodation!

More Thanks again!!!!

Apart from the professional injury caused by the legal profession thinking that they can improve upon my hours of work and years of training by making some arbitrary adjustment to my approporiate pension values calculated specifically for use in divorce, there are many serious reasons why pension values shouldn't be multiplied by 25% or anything other than 100%. And I have read the case law on the issue, which as with all case law is very dependent on the particular circumstances of the case.

I'll only make two points here.

1. If pensions are only worth "25%" of other assets such as cash, why does anyone, ever, convert cash into pension by buying a pension? Are they all mad? Why did judges get a special exmption from the government on their pension scheme if they rate them so lowly?

2. You do have to judge the success of any financial solution in the round. If one party gets all the pensions and nothing else, and they have little income and nowhere to live then of course pensions aren't worth much to them: they ain't going to live long enough to get them in that circumstance! You have to look at the quality of the assets in light of the income and commitments of the individuals to make sure a division is really fair.

Here endth rant for today.

Bless my little cotton actuarial socks as Peter says.

To my new friends at BDM!

I cannot thank you enough for your voluntary assistance. I now am reassured enough (!) to sit tight for a while until my H begins to start talking about financial settlement and then advise him to get his CETV.

I have in my favour that I am a methodical researcher, he is not and probably hasn't even given his pension a second thought. When he initially mentioned the finances he thought me having 50% of the equity only was fair! I did have to point him in the right direction on that one.

I am, however, hopefull that we will be able to agree, with or without, mediation, a suitable settlement that leaves our children secure. I now have an idea of ballpark figures and the fall-back position, I have to achieve. This wouldn't have been the case without your assistance.

In my case forewarned is forearmed.

I'm sure I will be in touch at some point.