Report comment

I agree that some claimants are required to increase their risk profile in order to make up a shortfall, however that is not an issue which ought to inform a debate on the discount rate, simply because not even the most partisan, pro-claimant observer would argue that the discount rate should provide a mechanism by which a claimant can make up a shortfall. Besides which, if a claimant decides to adopt a high risk strategy, that itself suggests that they do not require the protection of a discount rate designed to cushion them from that very risk. A risky investor is not going to be buying gilts.

More fundamentally though, in my experience, deputies are not taking high risks with their clients' money, even in cases which settled with a shortfall for whatever reason. Even with low risk investment, the returns are far, far greater in practice than the 2.5% discount rate suggested.

It is far more common for a claimant to die with liquid assets than for a claimant to die having exhausted his or her funds.