- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by
.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
- Posts
sir in every question related to additional pension benefits payable to employees or loss on curtailment my text some how always alluded to the fact that “redundancies/improvement were not foreseen at start of the year” OR “redundancies/improvement was not allowed for in the original actuarial assumptions”.
I do not get why these sentences are necessary? i mean what are their implications?
if instead the sentence said that “the costs/additional benefits are already factored in the actuarial assumptions” then what would that mean for us?
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
- The topic ‘curtailment and amendment’ is closed to new replies.