Capacity and continuation
Can the remaining pool keep sharing fairly?
A member joins within the pool’s capacity, receives survivor allocations, and grows beyond what that pool can support.
The question arises after the money has been committed. A fair allocation today can leave the surviving balances too concentrated for the next allocation to be fair. Any response must account for both the value of those assets and the release dates already agreed.
Moving value also changes rights
Suppose a member has £60,000 committed and £40,000 outside sharing. A £20,000 survivor allocation raises the committed balance to £80,000. If a review then considers moving £20,000 elsewhere, there are two economically different possibilities.
| Position | This pool | Other pool | Ordinary | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before the credit | £60,000 | £0 | £40,000 | £100,000 |
| After the credit | £80,000 | £0 | £40,000 | £120,000 |
| Early-release alternative | £60,000 | £0 | £60,000 | £120,000 |
| Pool-transfer alternative | £60,000 | £20,000 | £40,000 | £120,000 |
The last two rows are alternatives. Early release moves the slice into ordinary pension saving and ends its sharing commitment. A transfer to another accepting pool could preserve its original release dates.
The £20,000 credit came from other committed accounts. Both alternatives preserve the member’s £120,000 total at the transfer date; their future sharing and beneficiary rights differ. These amounts illustrate that distinction.
Include the next requirement
The continuation calculation tests a current allocation against the future events it is required to cover. If the ordinary FTP allocation fails, it seeks another allocation that is fair now and leaves those successor states feasible.
One example starts with eight members and settles three deaths together. Ordinary FTP leaves 23 of the 56 possible successor pools unable to share the next triple fairly. A constrained allocation leaves all 56 able to handle each of the specified next counts: one, two or three deaths.
Those results use equal mortality odds and exactly checked feasibility conditions. A separate pair-death example shows that current fairness and the required continuation conditions can also conflict. That state requires a change of policy or membership.
Transfer the commitment with the assets
A pool transfer would carry the agreed proportions across the remaining ladder. The receiving pool would test its ability to accept the member, and the sending pool would test the accounts left behind.
The handover also needs a valuation point, responsibility for deaths around that point and treatment of allocations awaiting verification. The original release dates would remain part of the commitment. Building that transfer policy is one of the next research tasks.
Specify the settlement when continuation fails
A complete contract must deal with the case in which no receiving pool has capacity. Retained assets still have owners and commitments, even when a calculation stops.
The reason for stopping determines the response. An unfinished audit may require more calculation. Proven infeasibility requires a different state or a settlement rule agreed in advance. Scheduled releases enter that analysis because they change the balances still exposed.
The simulation records identify where the current policy stops. The next study will connect those accounts to a continuation and settlement policy, then measure the resulting income.