Some thoughts on this long, informative thread by @Sam_Marsh101. I'll limit myself here to comments on the decision to plough ahead w the as at 31 March 2020 valuation. 1/ https://twitter.com/Sam_Marsh101/status/1248151207153106945

. @Sam_Marsh101 addresses this decision in 2/-5/, starting here. 2/ https://twitter.com/Sam_Marsh101/status/1248151209279700992

As @Sam_Marsh101 mentions in /4, one reason for proceeding w/ the March 2020 valuation is that this appears to be the only way to intercept the scheduled 2018 valuation increase in contributions from 30.7% to 34.7% in Oct 2021. Seefor more on this. 3/ https://twitter.com/MikeOtsuka/status/1245868450800496642

As @Sam_Marsh101 also mentions in 3/, it's possible to take "post-valuation experience" into account between 31 March 2020 & date the valuation & schedule of contributions will be finalised, which will probably be sometime in summer 2021. 4/ https://twitter.com/Sam_Marsh101/status/1248151211439620097

One can adjust the schedule of required contributions for deficit recovery & future service in light of changes in market & other conditions, post-valuation. But this will get us only so far, as the valuation itself will still record market value of assets as at 31 March 2020. 5/

The value of the liabilities will also technically need to reflect market conditions (e.g., gilt yield) as at 31 March 2020. This snapshot of challenging market conditions frozen in time will remain a millstone. 6/

I nevertheless think it was right to proceed w 2020 valuation, both in the hopes of intercepting 31 Oct 2021 contribution rise w something more favourable, & also because @TPRgovuk would probably have pressured #USS into taking other action... 7/

...spelled out in the monitoring & action framework submitted to the regulator in Sept -- such as increased contributions now, or speeding up of planning 'de-risking' shift into bonds -- if #USS sought to delay the 2020 valuation. 8/

Given, however, how much uncertainty there now is regarding the long term economic & mortality effects of the coronavirus crisis, it will probably make sense to supersede an as at 31 March 2020 valuation with an as at 31 March 2021 valuation, as.... 9/

...by that point the likely long-term effects of coronavirus should be clearer. So the current valuation would serve as a one-year bridge to the next valuation, which allows for some short-term adjustments to the contributions schedule of the last valuation. 10/

We have a precedent here, in the manner in which the 2017 valuation was superseded a year later by a 2018 valuation. 11/

DB pension schemes are required to conduct a full actuarial valuation at least every three years. But they are not precluded from conducting valuations more frequently. 12/

Given the current level of uncertainty, a 2020 valuation swiftly followed by a 2021 valuation would probably make the most sense. 13/13