Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
    • Webinars
    • Podcasts
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • August 2012
08

QE has not affected pensions, says Bank of England

Open-access content Thursday 23rd August 2012 — updated 5.13pm, Wednesday 29th April 2020

Quantitative easing has had a ‘broadly neutral’ impact on both defined benefit and defined contribution pension schemes, according to the Bank of England.

2

In The distributional effects of asset purchases, published today, the Bank said the main factor driving both widening DB deficits and the decline in annuity income than can be purchased from other pension funds was the fall in equity prices relative to gilt prices.

'This fall in the relative price of equities was not caused by QE,' it said. 'It happened in all the major economies, much of it occurred prior to the start of asset purchases, and stemmed in large part from the reluctance of investors to hold risky assets, such as equities, given the deterioration in the economic outlook, almost certainly as a result of the financial crisis.

'Indeed, by boosting the economy, monetary policy actions in the United Kingdom and overseas probably dampened this effect.'

The Bank has now spent £375bn on its asset purchasing programme, better known as QE. The programme has come under fire from pension funds and other retirement experts for its impact on both pension schemes and businesses.

However, in today's report, the Bank claimed without these measures it claimed that 'most people' in the UK would have been worse off.

'Economic growth would have been lower. Unemployment would have been higher. Many more companies would have gone out of business,' it said. 'This would have had a significant detrimental impact on savers and pensioners along with every other group in our society. All assessments of the effect of asset purchases must be seen in that light.'

It explained that while its asset purchasing of gilts had caused the price of gilts to rise and yields to fall, it had led to an increase in demand for other assets, including corporate bond and equities.

'The Bank's assessment is that asset purchases have pushed up the price of equities by at least as much as they have pushed up the price of gilts,' it said.

This had boosted the value of households' financial wealth held outside pension funds and in particular the richest top 5% of households holding 40% of those assets.

Referring specifically to DC schemes it said that, while lower gilt yields caused by QE had reduced annuity rates, the asset purchasing programme had also raised the value of pension fund assets.

'Once allowance is made for that, QE is estimated to have had a broadly neutral impact on the value of the annuity income that can be purchased from a typical personal pension pot invested in a mixture of bonds and equities,' the Bank said in a statement.

QE had also had a 'broadly neutral' impact on fully-funded DB schemes, it said. But, for a DB scheme already in substantial deficit, asset purchases are likely to have made the deficit larger.

'That is because although QE raised the value of the assets and liabilities by a similar proportion, that nonetheless implies a widening in the gap between the two,' the Bank explained. 'The burden of these deficits is likely to fall on employers and future employees, rather than those coming up for retirement now.'

Malcolm McLean, consultant at Barnett Waddingham, said it was 'disingenuous in the extreme' for the Bank to say that QE and its impact on gilt yields was not having a negative impact on annuity rates and pension funding. The bank should take a 'reality check' on the issue, he suggested.

'Although there are other factors, notably improving longevity, that have contributed to the problem, most experts would agree that QE has been bad news in that respect,' he said.

'Indeed, if the Bank were to persist with is policy and annuity rates were to fall much lower we will reach the point, which I fear we are close to now, where annuities simply repay the original capital to those who live to their normal life expectancy - and are, of course, offering substantially less value to those who might not.

'This is adding to the problem we are all struggling with at the present time of trying to persuade people that they must plan for their old age and that pensions are a cost-efficient way of doing so.'


COMMENTS

There is no obvious link between QE and Equities, unlike gilts where the impact is more direct and discernible. Equities may take off a temporary rally upon QE but this is usually not sustained over time. The problem is that Pension funds report their market value of assets (inc equities) at a defined moment in time. By the time, they report the market value of their assets (inc Equities), it is usually the case that the temporary filip on equities has been reversed, leaving deficits wider.

Ashley Moheeput, Actuary - 30/08/2012


This article appeared in our August 2012 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in:
08
Topics:
Pensions

You might also like...

Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Senior Underwriting Risk Manager

London (Central)
£85K-£95K + Benefits
Reference
124386

Reserving Manager (Contract)

London (Central)
£1200 - £1400 per day
Reference
124385

Life Actuary - Contract - IFRS 17 Financial Impact

England, London / England, Bristol / North Yorkshire, England
£900 - £1150 per day
Reference
124384
See all jobs »
 
 

Today's top reads

 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2022 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive Media Group Ltd, 71-75 Shelton Street, London WC2H 9JQ