Copyright © 2008 by "Ian McKeever & Co"  ·  All Rights reserved  ·  E-Mail: ianmckeever@actuaries.eu.com
Valuing Your Future
Ian McKeever & Co Consulting Actuaries
Market Views
Markets
Why should the government have to rescue banks?
The banking Crisis
Economic Views
The Economic Outlook
Professional
Services
Issued by Ian McKeever & Co. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority in the conduct of investment business 
What Government Borrowing means for you
What it means
Divorce
The main area we are asked to advise on in divorce proceedings is pensions and pensions sharing. However remuneration packages for senior executives can include contingent benefits upon which actuarial advice might be sought such as share options which may need to be valued.

One of the parties may also have other assets of a contingent nature, which need to be valued. One of the parties may be a beneficiary under a trust and their interest may need to be valued for the purposes of apportioning the couples' assets. Financial products are becoming ever more complex and there may be other assets, which need expert valuation. If you would like see more about our services in relation to the valuation of trust interests or remuneration click on the linked words and you will be taken to the relevant page.

Normally on divorce, pensions are relatively easy to value on the Cash Equivalent Transfer Value basis, which is the established method of valuing pension benefits on divorce. In most cases and these values can be obtained from the scheme.

However, these may not represent a fair value of the benefits involved where the transfer value is reduced because the scheme is underfunded, as many are, or where the benefits are complicated. This is particularly true of some Public Sector schemes such as the armed forces pension scheme, the police and fire service schemes.

Complications can also frequently arise where both parties have pension benefits from different schemes. The cash equivalent assumptions are likely to differ and clearly both sets of pension benefits should be valued o the same assumptions because otherwise the figures are not comparable.