B seems like the most logical choice to me. The employer has to step in if the funds are insufficient. I'd rather not depend on the whims of the stock market, thank you very much.
B seems like the most logical choice to me. The employer has to step in if the funds are insufficient. I'd rather not depend on the whims of the stock market, thank you very much.
B) The employer would make additional contributions into the scheme if the actuary predicted a shortfall in the funds available to pay post-employment benefits.
Ha! D is clearly the funniest option. The employer can just take a 'contributions holiday' if the assets are sufficient. Like a paid vacation, but for the company!
I think the correct answer is A) The amount of the post-employment benefits paid to former employees depends on how well the scheme's investments have performed.
I think the correct answer is A) The amount of the post-employment benefits paid to former employees depends on how well the scheme's investments have performed.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Log in to Pass4Success
Sign in:
Report Comment
Is the comment made by USERNAME spam or abusive?
Commenting
In order to participate in the comments you need to be logged-in.
You can sign-up or
login
Loise
2 months agoAvery
12 days agoTenesha
1 months agoRashad
1 months agoPatria
2 months agoAvery
2 months agoRyann
2 months agoPete
2 months agoRyann
2 months agoCharlene
2 months agoJamal
1 months agoDenny
1 months agoGerald
2 months agoJunita
13 days agoJamey
15 days agoTonja
16 days agoLuis
17 days agoLouvenia
19 days agoGerald
20 days agoHoa
24 days agoGwenn
1 months ago