Claims that a ‘Hard Brexit’ could increase UK pension deficit by over £200bn

Latest news and statistics by Cardano reveal an inevitable rise in the United Kingdom’s buyout deficit on pension funds provided a deal is not reached to solve the Brexit issue. It is estimated that a deficit of over £200 billion could occur which is 37% in the overall rise.

A no-deal Brexit risk has been lifted by the leadership of the conservative party challenge at Westminster.

According to the risk modelling findings by Cardona, severe Brexit effects are expected to result in a tremendous rise in total Pension Liabilities of the United Kingdom by 14%. This is attributed to the falling yields in gilts, depreciating interest rates, reduction in the power of the sterling pound and a further big increase in schemes inflation which are usually fulfilled in long-term requirements and obligations.

Pension fund assets will also suffer the hard Brexit consequences as they are likely to increase by 6% as a result of the decrease in the strength of the sterling pounds. The expected fall in the strength of the sterling pound will benefit the 100 FTSE international constituents and also the worldwide equality and debt allocation of schemes.

Nevertheless, the 14% increase in liabilities is expected to undermine the whole improvement which will result in the increase of the United Kingdom’s funding gap, added to by the costs of mis-sold pension claims.

On the other hand, basing on Cardan’s risk model, the UK’s total buyout deficit could gradually reduce by £138 billion which projects to a 24% fall when compared to the recent level provide a soft Brexit occurrence happens. Liabilities will reduce by 9% which will enable easy funding by the Schemes shareholders in collaboration with sponsors available in the United Kingdom.

Crucial unknowns encompassing Brexit have been addressed regarding the relationship between the European Union and the UK. This, therefore, paves way for growth improvement in the UK which will rise the bank rates by taking advantage of the slackness in the British economy including an increase in the sterling strength, rise in gilt outcomes and improving the FTSE 100 performance by softening it.

The UK chief executive officer based at Cardano, Kerrin Rosenberg, urged the United Kingdom schemes to examine the consequences which the hard Brexit is expected to cause and find solutions to avoid and deal with them when it was still early. The legal controllers including their advisers were advised by Cardano to consider reforming their strategies for investment as a result of the sponsors being affected by the hard Brexit.

Cardano further recommended that schemes should employ the liability-driven tools for investment in the minimisation of both the interest rate and inflation risks. They also need to be well informed of possible effects of Brexit in order to set up strategies for reducing assets risks in the United Kingdom.

Real and Abstract Infants, Tantrums, and The Virgen of Guadalupe

I like having a child. I like the abstract experience of having a child. I am challenged and stimulated by it. The actual human being I adore with a mammally passion that never stops surprising me, but that’s something separate. Right now I am kinda fed up with hearing my generation whine about how much having a child sucks sometimes or acting surprised that it doesn’t make us happy. Conversations about happiness make me particularly uncomfortable first because real, existing children are discussed as abstract objects or events. You can do that before you have kids and it makes good sense, but afterward it’s something different.

A real human being is no longer an abstraction or an object. He is a person. In his position as child he owes me very little. He didn’t ask to be brought into existence. It’s my responsibility as a parent to establish the framework for the relationship that will define us as a family. Someday we will owe one another everything that people who have a long and loving relationship owe one another. (I guess that’s a reasonable definition of family in our culture.) But the idea that my child should be, by his existence, responsible for my happiness is just a new age-y iteration of the idea that he owes me respect or money or unquestioning obedience by virtue of the fact I spawned him.

Anyone who knows me and my particular sainted infant will understand that I do not speak from the sort of dumb luck that causes the parents of fat placid babies who slept through the night from two weeks on and grew up into coy obedient toddlers, to bridle in horror when other people’s kids shriek and writhe on the subway. (No one could describe my child as obedient, a thing I concede with some ambivalence. Also, sorry about the shrieking and writhing. Really. I spend a lot of time feeling truly awful about it.) I am often tired. I have not slept through the night since well before he was born. I get enraged with the tantrums that inevitably take place when I keep him safe and sometimes end up stomping and flailing a bit myself.

But considering all this in terms of happiness? Huh? I could lodge almost the same set of complaints about starting a business. (Though there the tantrums are mine alone and have mostly to do with printers and Adobe products.) Who are these magazine people whose choices in life are determined by what might or might not make them happy? What the hell does happy even mean? I am more likely to choose to undertake something because it promises to stimulate and challenge me, to change me. Having a child is one of those things. I had almost a year of enforced self-reflection, right smack in the middle of my thirties, when we’re all supposed to be too busy to think. I am more comfortable in a position of authority than ever before; more adept at achieving consensus and avoiding ultimatums. I am powerfully aware of the passage of time. In fact, I am changed.

Said Specific Human Child is playing Virgen de Guadalupe now (Soy la mama María!), pretending to breastfeed his exalted babydoll, whom he refers to as El Niño Oso, a mishearing of El Niño Dios, which I hesitate to correct.

In Which I Squint Hard and Declare With Inarguable Conviction That an Elephant Is Like a Rope and a Hand Fan

Paul Ford is talking about editors and editing the web, and I think he’s getting at another twisty strand of this thing I’m thinking about as I keep coming back to the problem of how best for humans to make sense of data. There’s no way around it—computers are very good at finding patterns and humans are very good at finding meaning within those patterns. Computers are not so good at finding meaning in patterns. We keep trying to skip ahead, asking machines to find meaning for us, but the most momentous way to use the computation power available to us right now is to have human beings edit the patterns machines find in data, rather than to have human beings edit the data itself to make it more palatable to the machines in hopes that the machines will extract something important for us. Machines think humans always want single answers when really humans just as often want to be able to wonder about things, to ask half-baked questions on a hunch and select or reject patterns in the same way. We want to be able to guide the computations toward the meaning we’re looking for.

And to step sideways for a sec and come at the idea of meaning from a different direction; I have a fuzzy theory that the meaning we are looking for has a visceral component. We need to make a connection that maps the external world of patterns to our bodies somehow, and we have to do it for ourselves. Mitsu often talks with frustration about how even when we (both the big we of Society and the small we of me) have precisely the information we’re looking for, we are often unable to bring ourselves to use it, or maybe even to really and truly believe it. Financial information from a time before we were born is a fine example of this. No matter how relevant, we can’t quite trust it. For some reason, once things fall outside of a certain scale—too far before or after our lifetimes, too big or small in comparison to our bodies—we seem unable to internalize even information we rationally find sound.

Part of the reason I am so fascinated with genomic data and personal tracking data is that I see it as a link between the scale of our bodies and historical, geographic, and molecular events that we might not otherwise find meaningful. (Ferchrissake, I can’t seem to stop saying meaning.) But imagine (and this is a totally scifi example, but still), if I were able to relate a present physical sensation to a set of epigenomic markers which in turn were associated with an event that took place in a specific geographic location some forty years before I were born. That historical event, the descendants of the people involved, the location, everything surrounding that event and the cascade of consequences take on a new kind of urgency for me. They are literally part of me.

A Bit More On Asking

Oh internet, you are so generous. I nervously post a messy, holey, unraveled idea like that (see previous post) and you take me seriously! You write me orderly, considered responses and send me links to things I’ve never seen before and I begin to understand a bit more of what it is I’m wanting. You always did that and I am ashamed to be still surprised. Because of you, I am starting to understand how my long ago, initial, uncertain impulse to venture an unfinished thought online was the embryo of this idea of a collaborative, inductive investigation of big sloppy messes of data. I will remember that in general the embarrassment with which I post is in direct proportion to the kindness and generosity of the responses. Thanks, fellas.

All of this started because we all keep talking about the democratization of information, but taken to it’s logical end, it can’t be. Information is no more democratic than money. Shareable information is valuable when it is not shared. Once it finds it’s level, we’re all in the same position relative to one another we were to begin with; though we’ve likely all shifted some against the physical world (probably not in a good way). I thought and thought about that and gradually fell into the frame of mind that makes showering and eating futile because one only gets dirty and hungry again.

But then it occurred to me that when information loses it’s value, it loses it’s menace as well. And it sounds like a little thing, but that was the moment I realized that maybe the important thing is not information itself or the possibility of highly specific answers, but the questions we can ask of it. We want to be able to inquire in a way that doesn’t lose meaning amidst the wash of data.