From: john boyle 
Newsgroups: uk.legal uk.finance uk.business.accountancy
Subject: Re: Self Administered Pensions (SSAS), Problems with? Please post opinions/experience.
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:47:59 +0000

In message <141usvo365kjkkpl1a0k5mmdqsbvb3upos@4ax.com>, John-Smith 
 writes
>I would agree that pensions ought to be vulnerable to bankrupcy - if
>going bankrupt was always something which resulted from your own
>deliberate action.
>
>But it need not do. An accident can happen, the risk may be uninsured
>(not everything can be insured, e.g. something your kids do) or the
>insurer refuses to pay, and if you live in a nice house you are a
>target for litigation. This can clean you out. I don't think it is
>fair that you should end up in the gutter as a result.
>
>Even in a business (where most risks are visible) you can be taken for
>a ride by a clever conman/customer. OK, you should always limit your
>exposure in any business, but...

I take your point, but the effect of what you are suggesting introduces 
degrees of bankruptcy. At the moment you are either bankrupt or you are 
not. The 'blame' aspect isn't relevant. Reckless or fraudulent 
bankruptcy is handled elsewhere.

What you appear to be suggesting is that hapless and completely innocent 
creditors could themselves be forced into bankruptcy because the debtor 
went under. Where will it end? Life is a risk.

>> The principle works
>>well in divorce!I
>
>This is also known as "gold digging", for good reason. There is no
>logic behind PRE-marriage assets (which is what the bulk of the man's
>pension fund is, in many or most cases)

Hmm thats interesting, do you justify that because of their time value?

>to be treated as matrimonial
>assets.
>
>
I agree, but the law often takes a different view I fear.
-- 
john boyle