Methodology, and the matters where it shows.
The firm publishes periodically, when a substantive question warrants it. Each piece is tied to a Solution or Advisory engagement area; together they set out the firm’s methodological positions on the questions where the standard answer isn’t the right one. Authorship is institutional rather than by-line: the credential is the firm’s methodology, applied consistently across engagements.
What makes a Single Joint Expert pension report defensible at trial
For matrimonial solicitors instructing pension experts in financial remedy proceedings, the methodological choices that determine whether an SJE report holds up under FPR Part 25 questioning and cross-examination — and the procedural details that separate routine instructions from defensible ones.
Read article →Pension calculation pre-Form-E: a methodological position, not a procedural one
A pension calculation done pre-Form-E sits in a different methodological position from one done post-Form-E. The methodological case for commissioning the work before settlement crystallises around the scheme’s issued figures.
Read article →Pension sharing on divorce: the methodological questions matrimonial solicitors raise
The questions matrimonial solicitors raise at intake, treated on their methodological merits. CETV versus fair value, when a pensions expert is required, what a defensible report should contain, and the firm’s default handling of the implementation gap.
Read article →When the CETV the scheme issues isn't always the right number
For DC arrangements and public-sector schemes, the scheme's CETV is the right starting point. For substantial private-sector defined-benefit matters, the structural difference between the CETV and a fair value of the same entitlement can move the practical outcome materially.
Read article →What makes a pension valuation defensible
A defensible valuation has two distinct jobs — producing a number that survives technical scrutiny, and translating that number into an outcome that holds up at implementation. Most methodology focuses on the first; the cases that go wrong tend to be the ones where the second was treated as a clerical detail.
Read article →Pension loss in employment claims — why the actuarial figure usually isn’t the contributions figure
For employment lawyers preparing claims that include pension loss, the technical question that separates a defensible figure from a contestable one. Why contributions are not the right answer in DB and hybrid contexts, what the actuarial methodology actually does, and what independent FCA-regulated analysis adds.
Read article →Employment-related compensation claims: where the actuarial methodology actually matters
Where employment compensation has meaningful pension-loss or future-loss components, the figure rests on actuarial choices that have to be defensible at tribunal or in cross-examination at settlement. The methodological position and the regulatory frame.
Read article →Checking an employment-related compensation offer: the methodological case for an independent check
An independent check on a compensation offer is, methodologically, the asymmetric counterpart to the work the offering party has already done. The methodological case for closing that asymmetry.
Read article →Why the Value for Money rating doesn't tell members what they need to know
The CP26/1 rating tells you whether an arrangement is delivering acceptable value on the regulator's defined dimensions. The question for IGCs is what additional analytical layer is needed to translate that into the answer the Annual Statement narrative needs to give to members.
Read article →What an IGC chair should ask before the next Annual Statement
An IGC chair preparing for the first CP26/1 reporting cycle has a manageable but non-trivial agenda. Three questions for the next IGC meeting that determine whether the Year 1 Annual Statement defaults to the rating or goes beyond it.
Read article →DB pension redress: what the calculation does and what it requires
The methodological position behind the firm’s Redress Solution — what FCA DISP App 4 requires, the calculation chain from input to output, where the calculation gets contested, and what makes it defensible in front of regulator, skilled person, and Ombudsman.
Read article →Paying redress under FCA DISP App 4: DB transfer redress payment mechanics
How DB transfer redress under FCA DISP App 4 is paid in practice — augmentation versus cash payment, the tax adjustments that apply, and the differences between actual-loss and prospective-loss cases.
Read article →Past business reviews: when an FCA-regulated firm needs independent actuarial calculation
Section 166 skilled-person reviews, voluntary past-business reviews, and population-scale remediation programmes — when independent calculation matters, what the engagement involves, and what FCA expects of the methodology at scale.
Read article →Capital adequacy and redress: projecting the cost of remediation
Where an FCA-regulated firm carries material redress liability, projection of the cost against the firm’s financial resources is its own discipline. Central estimate, scenario range, time profile, and the ICAAP and board-reporting implications.
Read article →