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
  • February 2017
02

Meaningful measures of pension scheme strength

Open-access content Tuesday 7th February 2017 — updated 5.50pm, Wednesday 29th April 2020

Chris O’Brien says actuaries should seek more relevant ways to measure the financial strength of pension schemes

2


Regulations in the UK require trustees of a defined benefit pension scheme to disclose information to members about the financial position of the scheme. I would suggest that the regulations as they stand are quite unsatisfactory. I am sure actuaries, with their public interest role, can help to improve them. 

The regulations require trustees to disclose, in a summary funding statement (SFS) to members, the scheme's financial position on two measures. The first compares the market value of assets with liabilities assessed as the buy-out cost from an insurer. It is common for trustees to explain that the buy-out cost inflates the liabilities compared with the trustees fulfilling their obligations themselves, and that they have no intention of using a buy-out.

The relevance of the buy-out cost is therefore downplayed, and members are led to focus on the disclosure arising from the other measure in the regulations, where assets are compared with 'technical provisions'.


Variations on a theme

The main problem is that technical provisions are not well defined. Particularly serious is the choice available in determining the discount rate, which the regulations say can be based on either government (or other high-quality) bond yields or the expected investment return on the scheme assets. The choice of discount rate can lead to substantial variations in technical provisions, but with members being unaware of such discretion, this makes the disclosure almost meaningless.

In practice, trustees typically choose the discount rate as a prudent expected investment return. Such a valuation has an important role in helping the sponsor assess what contributions need to be made to the scheme. It takes advanced credit for expected future investment returns in excess of risk-free, matching market instruments, and this reduces the value placed on the liabilities, typically by up to 40%, compared with a risk-free discount rate. 

This approach was called a 'budgeting framework' in the sessional paper by Cowling et al (British Actuarial Journal, 2012) but the authors argued that it is inadequate for disclosing the financial strength to members. After all, the liabilities depend on matters such as inflation, years of service and mortality, and don't automatically reduce if the trustees and sponsoring employer choose a higher risk investment strategy. There are also unfunded schemes, which still have liabilities even without an expected investment return.

The alternative to a budgeting framework is a 'matching framework', where liabilities are valued with reference to market instruments with matching cashflows; and Cowling et al pressed for this to be the focus of disclosure to members. Now the buyout cost is a matching approach, but assumes trustees transfer their obligations to an insurer, whereas we wish to understand the position if trustees fulfil their obligations. That could lead to discounting at government bond yields, although we can justify using yields on risky assets minus the effect of risk; for example, Solvency II's approach of using swap rates with a small credit risk adjustment. It is also fair to adjust for the illiquidity of defined benefit liabilities. Some simplifications may be needed for practicability, and the outcome should be regulations prescribing the discount rate as the gilts or swaps yield together with some margin.


Press for change 

Trustees may still wish the SFS to include a funding ratio using the budgeting framework, perhaps in the context of explaining contribution levels. Such disclosure should not be compulsory and, if made, must avoid leading to confusion and should not undermine the relevance to members of the matching framework. 

The actuarial profession can play an important role in helping to shape relevant regulation, perhaps greater with post-Brexit freedoms. I suggest it should press for a change in the regulations regarding disclosures in the SFS, to require the use of a discount rate based on a matching framework in order to provide a more meaningful and consistent measure of a pension scheme's financial strength.


Chris O'Brien is a senior associate at the Centre for Risk, Banking and Financial Services, Nottingham University Business School


This article appeared in our February 2017 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in:
02

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, 71-75 Shelton Street, London WC2H 9JQ. Tel: 020 7880 6200