how to count pension in 20+ years time?

I'll come back on Downbutnotout's excellent points tomorrow.

Amanda would you inform me where in the law it says pensions must be offset at a discounted rate please?

Downbutnotout,

You have hit a key point: that couples can agree their own valuation of assets between themselves. That is when in my first post on this forum I said "in most cases".

This is true for all assets, so I'll use the house as an example as its easier to understand. The wife might put a £100,000 value on it, whilst the husband says £300,000. So what value to use? Perhaps the two parties might agree a value between them: best solution.

If not a judge has to decide. Judge might split the difference and say £200,000, however that just encourages parties to make silly valuations initially. More likely Judge will use the market value.

What its unlikely is that judge will use 25% of the council tax band valuation, which is the equivalent of using 25% of the CETV for pensions.

In summary if the two parties agree a value between themselves great, if not the market value is the next fairest.

I do not see where an arbitrarily reduced value fits in.

Lawyers' justification for using a reduced CETV for offsetting by Penfam -
"Developed by chairman Robin Ellison, a partner at Pinsents, managing director Libby Jones, former managing partner of Howells, .......
Maggie Rae, director of Penfam and a partner at Clintons,"
http://www.penfam.co.uk/guide/downloads/2003Divorce%20GuidanceWord_Version03.pdf
" 5 Remedy 1: Offsetting
Offsetting involves adjusting other assets, usually by means of lump sum or property adjustment orders to take account of pension assets without adjusting those.
When deciding whether or not to seek a set-off solution, the following factors will affect the negotiations:
• Tax
Whatever is agreed as the value, the agreed figure should be adjusted to take account of the fact that it will be settled without any tax obligation; normally pensions bear tax of between 10% and 40% although sometimes some of it can be commuted tax-free.
• Discount for cash
A spouse may also wish to give a further allowance for the fact that a benefit is being acquired in cash, rather than later in the form of pension.
• Discount for early payment
A spouse may also wish to give a further allowance for the fact that a benefit is being acquired now rather than some years in the future.
• Discount for risk
A spouse may also wish to give a further allowance for the fact that a benefit is being acquired which is certain, rather than subject to the vagaries of risk in the investment of the funds, the risks of death of either the member or the spouse or both, the risks of tax changes, and other risks.
• Setting off of own pension arrangements
Where both spouses have pension interests both will have to be taken into account.
• Ages of the parties
There are no rules governing the discounts or adjustments to be made although a brave attempt has been made by David Burrows (see [1999] Fam Law 556). Normally a pension advisor will be able to help.
• Pensions for house
In the past the practice has often been to adjust a spouse’s interest in the matrimonial home in lieu of being able to settle the pension rights. This practice continues (even after the introduction of attachment and pension sharing orders), but often there is insufficient equity in the house to do this."

The idea seems deeply ingrained but it looks as though these discounts are purely traditional and not justifiable.

What happens if there isn't enough equity in the property and other assets to offset against the pension?

How does offsetting the pension work in practice?
Is the £amount used for offsetting ­base­d on the amount of CETV that would allocated if the couple were sharing the pension under WRPA 1999: ie the pension division is calculated as for pension sharing to give a fair outcome,
then that amount is heavily reduced and sought elsewhere in the assets to avoid splitting the pension?

Can I ask you about what you said about offsetting DL ?
"I said it is law to offset them at a discounted value, which it is."
I've never been able to find anything that said that offsetting at a discount was anything other than discretionary - that is for pensions on divorce.
Pension offsetting for divorce derives from the 1970s when there was no other solution and the "one third rule" - the custom was that no matter how long the marriage - on divorce wives got a third of income and assets which included any pension.Isn't this just the last vestige?
The Penfam justification looks like finding ways to make it look right?

I think the implications of this debate are very serious - Nigel@BDM has said that the nature of the CETV calculation means that the pension CETV has already been reduced/discounted to give a current cash value.
DL has said that for offsetting on divorce the already discounted CETV must then be further discounted by law but hasn't told us which law.
On Monday people will be sitting in court and solicitor's offices apparently being told that if they want to give up their right to split the pension and put their share in their own name they must by law accept a reduced CETV.
Are they being misled?