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
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • June 2014
06

Open-access content 30th May 2014
2

There is an old senior-common-room joke that while everyone else is carrying on a variety of discussions, the mathematicians are often off in the corner 'Pi/Lambda-ing'. That, I suggest, is what we see in the Society of Actuaries' report discussed in Charles Cowling's article (Dire states, The Actuary, April 2014). I suggest that this report deserves study by both American and British actuaries: it is a classic example of how not to communicate with the public.

It fails to communicate or even suggest that the prime problem of private pension plans (the possibility of the plan sponsor going out of business leaving pensions unfunded and, therefore, undeliverable) does not exist in the same way for public plans. Except for some small political units, public employers are not going out of business; more precisely, if they do we will have more to worry about than pensions. We need to address the problem up to, but not beyond, the following:

The major problem which can, and often in the US does, arise in public plans, is that there is no long-term balance between inflow and outflow. If total outflow valued on an open-group basis is not balanced by future expected contribution inflow, we obviously face serious trouble: either increased contributions or a Detroit-style collapse. It is not true, however, that some magic actuarial principle up in the sky suggests that accrued liabilities however defined must be funded in the same way, and for the same reasons, as in a private plan. "Pension obligations should be funded … for employees over their public service career" says the report, without explaining what this means or even noticing that in many public plans there are unfunded obligations in place for employees who are already on pension. 

Elsewhere it tells us "intergenerational equity [requires] fully funding pension benefits over the average future service period of public employees". Should public plans be brought to full funding at some future point so that contributions fall significantly after that point? If so, why? Cui bono? I understand that if this is not done in a private plan, future retirees may lose out; there is no such problem in a public plan if it is in the kind of long-term balance described above.

It is worth noting that if we have a major political disaster, even any public plans which are well enough funded to gladden the SoA's heart will be swept away. The pre-funding which produced that happy situation will be wasted. Intergenerational equity? I suggest not.

The report notes one member dissented from the Pi/Lambda-ing, but it is not clear why. I think the profession and the general reader should be told. Having recently promoted myself from retired SoA member to former SoA member for reasons some of which are obvious from the above, I guess I now fall into the general-reader category.

The editor welcomes readers' letters but reserves the right to edit them for publication. Please email [email protected]. The deadline for receiving letters for the July issue is 18 June 2014. 

This article appeared in our June 2014 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in:
06
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Make the switch from Pensions > Life Insurance

Manchester
Excellent Salary + Bonus (study support if required)
Reference
118732

Nearly/Newly Qualified Actuary – With Profits Reporting & Valuation

Scotland
£Upon Application
Reference
118763

Director of Investment Risk

London (Central)
+ comprehensive benefits
Reference
118783
See all jobs »
 
 

Most-Popular

 
 
 

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
​
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

© 2020 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited, Level 5, 78 Chamber Street, London, E1 8BL. Tel: 020 7880 6200