Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

Phillip Dearden

Regulars
  • Content Count

    294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

266 Excellent

About Phillip Dearden

  • Rank
    MF Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,067 profile views
  1. Phillip Dearden

    Anna Soubry...

    I partly agree. The Brexit debate has become too toxic. We have to respect each others rights to disagree - some want to leave the EU and some don't - those are both reasonable positions. Any debate should be about the issues rather than the tribal name-calling a very serious debate has descended into. BUT...why is she anti-democratic. I can't see what is anti-democratic about campaigning for a different direction. If we could not change our minds we would still have Robert Walpole as Prime Minister along with slavery and sending children up chimneys. At the moment we have a Government following the referendum result and we are set to Leave, this makes me sad but I accept it is the result of a (far from perfect) democratic process. I want this direction to change but I accept this can only happen as a result of a new vote - either a referendum or an election. Why is it undemocratic to promote such a notion? "Harridan" is a tribal insult and has no place in a mature debate.
  2. Phillip Dearden

    Isle of Man Brexit headlines

    http://www.invest.gov.ma/?Id=77&lang=en Lots of tomatoes come from Morocco. Current terms of trade are relieved by a free trade agreement between Morocco and the EU. That will lapse, I do not know what happens then.
  3. Phillip Dearden

    Steam Packet to be sold

    You are right and I agree but not because of debt. The IOM Govt. does issue bonds - there are £260m of MUA Bonds in existence but it does not create money. I don't know if it can but even if it did, I think it would be hard to get people to use it.
  4. Phillip Dearden

    Steam Packet to be sold

    Wow. That's a can of worms. A Government that creates a money supply eg the UK can't really have "money". In the UK, a £ is a debt due by the government so a £ in a bank account held by the Govt. is really a £ owed by the Govt. to the Govt. which does not really mean anything. So you may be correct to laugh at the phrase "Government Money".
  5. Phillip Dearden

    PAC members to recuse themselves from film losses inquiry

    Is that not comparing an earlier apple with a later pear?
  6. Phillip Dearden

    Rex verdict

    Slightly dogmatic?
  7. Phillip Dearden

    Rex verdict

    I do not hate dogs at all, a number are assisting me in typing this response now. Are you sure a mistake was made?
  8. Phillip Dearden

    E-gaming is a sector we can be proud of, says Quayle

    ...and Gambling Duty.
  9. Phillip Dearden

    Charity Laws change considered

    No. Charities are not exempt from Vat.
  10. Phillip Dearden

    World Cup Final

    I agree. I think Croatia edged it and deserved to get through but England had a great tournament.
  11. Phillip Dearden

    £3.8 Billion

    Tricky. I can’t say John is wrong as I don’t know how these figures were evaluated but we do have some clues. Before I dive too deep I should say that these figures are not the most important part of this problem (as I keep saying, that is future cash flows). These figures try to put a current figure on the value of the future liabilities. The pension and accounting worlds have a slight issue in that Actuarial Valuations can differ from Accounting provisions. The Actuarial Valuation is used for funding the pension scheme (thus, not too relevant for IOM as scheme is not funded) and the Accounting figures are prescribed by FRS 102 and determine the figure to go in the accounts. The Actuarial Valuation comes from here; https://www.gov.im/media/1358594/2016-valuation-report.pdf See section 2 The Accounting figure comes from the 2017 Audited Accounts; https://www.gov.im/media/1359110/iom-government-accounts-dark-blue-book-2016-17.pdf See 7.1.16 The rules for the Accounting figure are more prescriptive as standard setters do not want companies to have too much leeway as to how they do their accounts. In both cases we are trying to consider the future pension commitments, taking account of inflation, salary increases and mortality and then discount that to a value today. I don’t think future contributions come into it. [But I might be wrong here] They have nothing to do with accrued liabilities, they may be used to fund the pensions but so might tax, petrol duties and dog licenses. These can’t be shown as assets (as not receivable yet) and deducting them from a liability would be similar. At 3.2 CoMin is saying that if they had to have a fund to fund the liability, it would be £2.3bn but they have had to put £3.8bn in the accounts. The difference seems very large and I wonder what an Actuarial Valuation at 2017 would suggest? At the end of the day, this is all a bit academic. These numbers hint at the scale of the issue but the real problem is finding enough cash each year to meet the pensions as they fall due.
  12. Phillip Dearden

    £3.8 Billion

    A quick summary after a very quick scan. Pension Reserve Some discussion on this but PD starting to doubt himself here but I still think it is an irrelevance to funding future pensions. Liability In accounts at £3.8bn but if a fund was required, the amount would be £2.3bn. PD not sure how to reconcile these two numbers but it probably does not matter. The problem is annual cash shortfalls and how to fund them. Options Reduce accrued rights Difficult and likely to attract resistance Close schemes to new members and offer DCS Requires extra cash (currently 46m) to fund pensions Members and Unions may oppose Could be effective in the very long-run Close schemes to new members – except key staff Mirror defined contribution scheme Often suggested but little real rationale offered Incentive for members to move to new DCS Expensive incentives would be required Offer DCS to new members irrespective of whether existing schemes continue Borrow to fund pensions Borrow to fund a liability Then need to fund loan repayments Taxation of lump sums or extra tax on pensions Possibly discriminatory and thus legislation may be opposed Numbers not significant enough The report does not make recommendations, it sets out options. PD view – it is not a Pension Problem but a Government Cashflow problem and requires 30+ year projections of government revenues and expenditures (inc pensions) and then some tweaking to ensure the difference is positive. Easy to say…
  13. Phillip Dearden

    £3.8 Billion

    http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/Tynwald 20162018/2018-GD-0047.pdf
  14. Phillip Dearden

    £3.8 Billion

    Awesome, I will bear your kind thoughts in mind for when required.
  15. Phillip Dearden

    £3.8 Billion

    PD never too busy for MF, Steam Packet not broken - continues to trade happily and profitably despite my appointment. Pension Facts? Yes, the Actuarial Value of the current commitments was £3.823 bn per the audited accounts at 31/3/2017. This liability is not funded and the plan is that it will be paid out of future tax revenues. The pension reserve is a bit of red-herring - its an accounting provision. The pension will be paid out of future cash-flows and it is the quantum of future cash-flows that matters. I have asked and been told that forecasts exist that show this can be met. I have not seen these but I do hope they are correct. I expect future growth in GDP, population and tax revenues is important.
×