A Fairer outcome

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<rdf:Description>
<dc:creator>Sharpe, Ian G.</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2019-12-02</dc:date>
<dc:description xml:lang="es">Sumario: In the UK, pensions on divorce often work well: the cash equivalent (CE) is readily available to divorcing couples, and a pension can be split between them, using that measure to create a clean break. In many cases, and especially when there are only defined contribution (DC) pensions, this is transparent, fair and consistent. However, in defined benefit (DB) cases there can be pitfalls resulting from differences in valuation when the CE is used as the only measure. In cases where couples off set the pension (one party keeps their pension in exchange for a lower share of other marital assets), it is unclear whether the CE is the right measure. Off setting is much more common than pension sharing. Expert advice, often from an actuary, can be taken to address these difficulties. Unfortunately, the availability of expert advice is not sufficient to solve the problem.</dc:description>
<dc:identifier>https://documentacion.fundacionmapfre.org/documentacion/publico/es/bib/171435.do</dc:identifier>
<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
<dc:rights xml:lang="es">InC - http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</dc:rights>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Buenas prácticas</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Divorcio</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Matrimonios</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Actuarios</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Pensiones</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Reino Unido</dc:subject>
<dc:type xml:lang="es">Artículos y capítulos</dc:type>
<dc:title xml:lang="es">A Fairer outcome</dc:title>
<dc:relation xml:lang="es">En: The Actuary : the magazine of the Institute & Faculty of Actuaries. - London :  Redactive Publishing, 2019-. - 02/12/2019 Número 11 - december 2019 , p. 18-20</dc:relation>
<dc:coverage xml:lang="es">Reino Unido</dc:coverage>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>