Discussing Life-Cycle Pensions & Longevity

In this blog I'm going to discuss two persistent pension topics:

1. One of the most common misunderstandings in pension fund land is that an individual (member) investment policy weighs up to a collective investment approach.
2. Is there a rule of thumb that expresses 'longevity risk' in terms of the yearly return?  

1. Collective vs. Individual Investing Approach

In case of a 'healthy pension fund', new members will join as time continues. In a mature pension fund the balance of contributions, investment returns, paid pensions and costs will stabilize over time.

Therefore the duration of the obligations of a pension fund will more or less stabilize as well. The duration of an average pension fund varies often between 15 and 25 years. Long enough to define a long term investment strategy based on a mix of risky equities (e.g. 60%) and fixed income (e.g. 40%). Regardless of age or status, all members of a pension fund profit from this balanced investment approach.

In case of an individual (member) investment strategy, the risk profile of the individual investments has to be reduced as the retirement date comes near. In practice this implies that 'equities' are reduced in favor of 'fixed income' after a certain age. As the age of a pension member progresses, the duration of the individual liabilities also decreases, with an expected downfall in return as a consequence.

Let's compare three different types of investment strategies to get a clear picture of what is happening:

1. Collective Pension Fund Strategy Approach: Constant Yearly Return
   40% Fixed Income à 4% return + 60% Equities à 6% = 5.2% return yearly
    
2. Life Cycle I Approach ('100-Age' Method)
   Yearly Return (age X): X% Fixed Income à 4% + (100-X)% Equities à 6%
    
3. Life Cycle II Approach (Decreasing equities between age 45 and age 65)
   Yearly Return (age X) = MIN(MAX((6%+(44-X)*0.1%);4%);6%)

All visually expressed in the next chart:

Pension Outcomes

Now lets compare the pension outcomes of these three different investment strategies with help of the Pension Excel Calculator on basis of the next assumptions:

- Retirement age: 65 year

- Start ages 20 and 40

- 3% and 0% indexed  contributions and benefits

- Life Table NL Men 2012 (NL=Netherlands)

Results Pension Calculations (yearly paid pension):

Conclusion  I

From the above table we can conclude that switching from a collective investment approach to an individual investment approach will decrease pension benefits with roughly 10%. Think twice before you do so!

2. Longevity Risk Impact

To get an idea of the longevity impact on the pension outcomes, yearly paid pensions are calculated for different forecasted Dutch life tables (Men).

Life Tables

Forecast Life Table 2062 is calculated on basis of a publication of the Royal Dutch Actuarial Association.

The Forecast Life Table 2112 is (non-official; non scientific) calculated on basis of the assumption that for every age the decrease in mortality rate over the period 2062-2112 is the same as over the period 2012-2062.

Pension Outcomes per Life Table

Here are the yearly pension outcomes on basis of the forecasted life tables:

From the above table, we may conclude that the order of magnitude effect of longevity over a fifty to seventy year period is that pensions will have to be cut  roughly by 25%-30%.


Another way of looking at this longevity risk, is to try to fund the future increase in life expectation from the annual returns.

The next table shows the required return to fund the longevity impact for different forecasted life tables:

Roughly speaking, the expected long-term longevity effects take about 0.7%-1.2% of the yearly return on the long run.

Finally

Instead of developing a high tech approach, this blog intended to give you some practical insights in the order of magnitude effects of life-cycle investments and longevity impact on pension plans in general.

Hope you liked it!

Links/Downloads:

- Excel Pension Calculator including Dutch Life Tables 2012-2062 

- Excel Tables of this Blog
- Forecasted NL Life Tables  2012, 2062, 2112

- Original Pension Excel Calculator

- Publication Dutch Life tables 2012-2062 (Dutch)

- Excel Spreadsheet Forecast Dutch Life Tables 2012-2062

Actuarial Cookery in the Boardroom

Suppose your friend gave you the recipe for a delicious 'Paleo Tomato Soup'.

Does that recipe also guarantees you a delicious meal ?

Undoubtedly you answered this question with a clear "no".

Why?

As we all know, it is the 'touch of the chef' that determines the quality and final taste of the meal. The recipe is the score and the chef the performer of the culinary piece of music, that will end up on your plate.

Although the above example probably sounds logical to us, the actuarial cooking practice appears different. Let's take a look at the next example.

An Excellent ALM Advice

What about a 'plate of five' asset mix advice that's on the board's breakfast table, as the ultimate outcome of your excellent ALM analysis...

Illustration: Colin Daniel

Does this ' computer recipe' actually guarantees a sound decision about an adequate investment policy?

Actually, the answer to this question can hardly be other than 'NO'.

Your advice is a static advice in a dynamic world and - on top of - the final question remains whether the asset manager is able to 'spice up' your recipe.

The actuary as Risk-Director

Key question is whether we as a profession - keeping ourselves inadvertent in the role of  'technical experts' - merely feel responsible for delivering the recipe for a cold asset mix salad on basis of 'expected values' ​​and variances.

Or ... that we actuaries are willing to act as 'risk-director' in the interactive process of creating a dynamic investment policy that's based on a nonlinear constructed healthy and varied based asset mix over time. Albeit..., without taking the driver's seat in the advice process, but with the obligation to report the eventual existence of any GMCs ('Genetically-Modified Cickens') in the asset-mix.

Economic Risk Management or ALM?

In the thorough process of adopting a dynamic investment policy, financial boards more and more take decisions based on the study of different future economic scenarios.

This development challenges actuaries to invest more in the development of "Economic Risk Management" (ECRM) models instead of traditional ALM modeling. In ECRM 'asset class data' (as in ALM) and economic data (GDP, inflation, consumer confidence, etc) are mixed in an integral set of data, that's analysed and - with future expectations, 'stress-test conditions' or of 'believes' -  (nonlinear) translated and optimized in a dynamic asset mix.

This economic risk approach requires new nonlinear economic-asset models that urge for a close cooperation between economists and actuaries, resulting in an serious interactive board discussion (board members and economical & actuarial experts) of the ECRM models.

This approach is not limited to the well-known three or four so-called 'muddle through scenarios', but covers the outcome and impact of a large number of more precise formulated possible economic scenarios on the asset mix and the investment strategy.

Scenarios that help determine the overall risk appetite and result in a major impact on the composition of the strategic asset mix.

New Q&A's

In other words, new scenarios that give answers to questions like:

• What happens if China suddenly withdraws from U.S. bonds?
• What happens when the U.S. Fed stops its QE program?

As with the current ALM approach, the focus should not be only on the quantitative outcome of the ECRM model, but more on the discussion and wider perception of how economic risk affects the optimal asset mix and the dynamic asset policy, allowing boards to take more informed and underpinned investment policy decisions.

In this approach, ALM and ECRM are helpful but not dominating decision support tools in the creation of the final investment policy and not an unintended consultant's dictate that's implicitly adopted ("take note") by the board and then subsequently implemented.

How to Check the Quality of your ALM or ECRM Advice?

Fortunately, it is easy to check whether your ECRM or ALM advice is actually a good quality decision document or just a bite-sized chunk.

If your advice offered only 'one option' or was adopted without a serious debate or any amendments, then -  to put it euphemistically - your advice is 'ready for improvement'.

Actuaries: Backroom to the Boardroom

Finally, it all comes down together whether we as actuaries want to profile ourselves as 'recipe writers' or pick up the 'risk-director role' as an 'actuarial chef'. If you choose the latter, please stand up and help to bring out actuaries from the Backroom to the Boardroom. Success!

From Economic Scenarios to Informed Guesses

Defining a long term investment strategy build on one chosen economic scenario is reckless.

As crystal ball gazing is no option, defining strategies on more (multi based) economic scenarios makes more sense, but often ignores the underlying forces that drive those economic developments.

And precisely these elemental forces are the drivers for a dynamic investment strategy.

Informed Guesses
What remains as next best solution, is to define an investment strategy on basis of what is called 'Informed Guesses'.

This implies that a strategy is not just build on professional guessing (statistical & actuarial modeling; Monte Carlo, etc). The key to success in the approach is this word 'Informed'...

As board members of financial institutions can not delegate or outsource their investment strategy, they have no other option than to inform themselves about the economic, social,  psychological, financial and statistical underlying forces and to formulate a dynamic investment strategy based on those basic forces.

 

Global Trends 2030

An excellent example of mapping these future driving forces is a December 2012 report published by the U.S. National Intelligence Council (NIC) called 'Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds'.

The NIC report does not seek to predict the future, which would be an impossible mission. Instead, it provides a framework that stimulates thinking about our world's rapid and vast geopolitical changes. Resulting in possible global future directions and implications during the next 15-20 years. 

The report defines 4 mega trends and 4 potential worlds:

Mega Trends 

1. Individual Empowerment and the growth of a global middle class 
2. Diffusion of Power from states to informal networks and coalitions
3. Demographic changes, growing urbanization, migration, and aging
4. Increased demand for food, water, and energy. 

Potential Worlds

1. Stalled Engines
   Most plausible worst-case scenario: Increasing risks of interstate conflict. The Us draws inward and globalization stalls. 
2. Fusion Most plausible best-case outcome. Collaboration of China and the Us, leading to broader global cooperation.
3. Gini-Out-of-theBottle
   Inequalities explode as some countries become big winners and others fail. Inequalities within countries increase social tensions. Without completely disengaging, the Us is no longer the “global policeman.” 
4. Nonstate World World driven by new technologies, nonstate actors take the lead in confronting global challenges

 

Let's take a look at some interesting charts from this report:

I. Asia's dominant growing consumer power...

 

II. U.S.-Asia's  combined World Power...

III. Europe, GDP Dominant in 2030 ?

IV. U.S.GDP, Any way : Going down...

Conclusion

"Global Trends 2030"is an interesting and relevant document for investment planning, that I would recommend to read, to draw your own conclusions.

A more general conclusion - as stated by NIC - could be that we are heading for a transformed world, in which “no country – whether the US, China, or any other large country – will be a hegemonic power.”

No matter what trend or potential world, one thing seems inevitable:
the influential power of the U.S. that's vital for our world's economy will decline.....

Success with defining new investment strategies!

Bye the way.... Actuaries help you out on your investment strategy:

Sources/Links:

- Escher Image from Freakingnews
- Escher: Hand with Reflecting Sphere (1935)
- Zero hedge: The world in 2030
- World in 2030 (original report (2012)

Gold as Investment

Financial institutions have to optimize ‘Risk – Return’ and diversify their portfolio. This (strongly interactive) presentation by CEO and Actuary Jos Berkemeijer, supports the power of Gold as the best asset class to optimize ‘Risk – Return’ in a given portfolio.

Just widen your knowledge about monetary gold by examining  the next  presentation given on June 19 2012 as a 'Johan de Witt Lecture' before 60 in gold interested actuaries of the Dutch Actuarial Association (Actuarieel Genootschap, AG), the professional association of actuaries and actuarial specialists in the Netherlands.

With the help of a button (""ACTuary NOW" ), Jos Berkemeijer calls for action by actuaries on several main issues . 

Gold as InvestmentGold as Investment

Excel Pension Calculator

Why isn't there just a simple pension Excel calculator on the internet, so I can do my own pension planning?

Well..., from now on there is!

Simply download the Excel Pension Calculator (allow macro's !!) and get an idea of how much you'll have to invest to end up with the pension benefit level of your dreams.... or less... ;-)

Or..., just fill in how much you can afford to invest monthly and see for yourself what pension benefit level is within reach, based on expected return rates, investment methods and inflation.

Just to give a small visual impression of the calculator...

Press on 'Calc' buttons to calculate the variable to the left, while leaving all other variables constant.

Graphics

Also some modest graphics are available. A small example....

Take a look at the next graph that shows how your yearly pension is yearly  funded by:

1. the yearly desavings (= dissavings) from your saving account
2. the yearly addition from the pension fund (= estimated savings of pension fund members that will die in this year)
3. the yearly return on your saving account

Notice the immense impact of the (yearly increasing) addition of your pension fund (= savings of the active members who are expected to die in a particular year and contribute to the savings of your account) compared to the other components (desavings and returns).

Options

The calculator offers several interesting options:

• Set the calculator to 'Saving Account' instead of 'Pension Fund' to notice the difference in outcomes between these two systems.
• Switch to the life table of your choice (p.e.  the country where you live)
• Set and name your own personal Life Table or Investment Scheme
• Simulate longevity effects by manipulating the Life Table Age Correction field

The Excel Pension Calculator has much more features. More than I can handle in this blog. Just download the calculator and play with it to really touch base and to learn what pension is all about....

- Download the Excel Pension Calculator

Enjoy!

Disclaimer: This pension Calculator is just for demonstration purposes. The accuracy of the calculations of this calculator is not guaranteed nor is its applicability to your individual circumstances. You should always obtain personal advice from qualified professionals. Also take notice of the disclaimer in the Excel Pension Calculator.

P.S. I : On request a Quick Start tip

1. Download Calculator and open Excel Spreadsheet

2. Don't forget to"Enable Macros" !! 
3. Enable iterative calculation; Set Max. Iterations=1000, Max. Change=0.4

3. Change 'Start Age  Contribution' to your actual age

4. Notice that the amount 'Saving Surplus at age 120:' changes

5. Press the 'Calc' button next to 'Contribution' to calculate your Contribution

6. Or, Press the 'Calc' button next to 'Pension'  to calculate your yearly pension

7. Set any other Field as you like and press any of the 'Calc' Buttons   

P.S. II : New update, version 2012.2 on April 4,  including a single premium option.
P.S. III: New update, version 2012.3 on April 20, drop down menus (under Excel-2010) now also operate under Excel-2007 versions...

Investment Strategy: The Price of Doubt

Most actuaries have seen it happen: A perfect designed investment strategy......., turning into a real nightmare. How could it come that far? What happened?

Life of an actuary...
Let's dive into a real life simplified actuarial case....:

As the actuary of your company, you've developed a perfect ALM study. Together with the head of the investment department, you've been able to convince your Board of the new developed 'Investment Strategy'. A consequent mix of 50% Bonds and 50% stocks, resulting in an average expected 6% return on the long term, turned out to be the best (optimal) investment mix given the risk appetite of your Board and the regulatory demands. All things are set for execution.

Now let's see how your strategic plan would develop (scenario I) and how it would probably be executed by the Board (scenario II) over the next ten years.

Although your investment strategy plan was designed on a rational basis and the execution of this plan was also intended to be a rational process, in practice they are not.....

Let's follow the discussion in the Board from year to year...

Year 1

The company's average portfolio return performs according plan (6%). Stocks: 8%, Bonds 4%, on average 6%. The Board concludes they have the right strategy. You, as an actuary, agree.

Year 2

Compliments from the Board. Stocks perform even higher (10%), leading to a 7% average return.
You sleep well that night.

Year 3

Another fabulous Stock performance year. A stock return of 20%, leading to an average return of 12%! Some Board members start to doubt and question your ALM-model. They are arguing that if stock prices are that high three years in a row, they would like to profit more from this development. They suggest to adjust the asset mix in favor of stocks. Your ALM model should me more flexible.

You are defending your Asset Liability Model to the grave, but after extensive discussions all board members agree that a slight 'temporary' adjustment to 70% stocks and 30% bonds would be 'worth the risk' to profit from this high stock return. With great reluctance, you agree....

Year 4

Although the performance of stocks is not as high as the year before, it's still relatively high (15%) and leads to an average return of 11.7%, which is 2.2% (!) higher than the 9.5% return that would have been achieved with a 50/50% mix.  The Board concludes that it took the right decision last year, to adjust the asset mix to 70/30%.

You - as the responsible actuary - warn again, but the facts are against you. Disappointed and misunderstood you return to your office as the President of the Board tries to cheer you up by thanking you for your 'constructive response' in the board meeting. You abstain from joining the festive Board Party that evening.

Year 5

Stocks are dramatically down to 0%, leading to an average mixed return of 1.2% this year.
The board meeting this year is chaotic. Some members support you as the 'responsible actuary' to readjust the asset mix to the original mix of 50/50%. Others argue that this stock dip is only temporary and that this year's average return is only 0.8% lower than would have been achieved with a 50/50% mix. On top of, most members strain that this year's 0.8% negative return is still lower than the 2.2% positive difference of last year. After two stressful board meetings, the Board decides to stick to their 70/30% investment mix.
The board president's eye fails to meet you, as you leave the board room that night.

Year 6

What was most feared, has become true.. A negative stock return of 10%, leading to an average return of -5.8% ....   When you walk into the board room that night, all eyes are on you as the 'responsible actuary'. You hold your breath, just like all other board members. After a short moment of silence the board president states that he proposes to bring back the asset mix to the original 50/50% mix. Without further discussion this proposal is accepted. There's no board party this year.

Year 7

Negative stock returns have increased to 15%, leading to an average return of -5.5% this year.
Some Board members fear that if stock prices will be down for another few years, the average 'needed' return of 6% will not be met. They doubt the current strategy.

Also the Regulator and some Rating Agencies insist on higher confidence and solvency levels with corresponding measures to be taken. Both are not positive and doubt the outlook on stock returns on the long term...

After a long meeting that night, the Board chooses for reasons of 'savety' (!) to adjust the asset mix to 30/70% in favor of the still 4% stable performing Bonds (Better something than nothing (!) ).

Again... you explain that night, that changing the asset mix following actual market performance, is the worst thing a company can do....  But again, you lose the debate.

The power of emotion is greater than the power of rationality. Now not only the Board seems against you, but the Regulator as well. Who wants to fight that! After all, 'ethical' rule number one is 'complying with the Regulator'. That evening you brainwash yourself and reprogram your attitude to 'actuarial follower' instead of 'actuarial leader'.

After two Johnnie Walkers you see the future bright again and seem ready for the new year.


Year 8
To everybody's surprise stocks performed extremely well at 25% this year. As a result the average return reaches a satisfying performance of 10.3%. With 'mixed feelings' board members take notice of the results. What nobody dears to say and everybody seems to think is: 'Had we stuck to our 70/30% asset mix, the performance would have been: 18.7% (!)......'

The Board President cautiously concludes that the Board took the right decision last year, leading to a proud 10.3% return this year. Compliments to everyone, including the actuary! Supported by your 'converted' mind, the 30/70% asset mix is continued. That evening you accept the invitation to the board party. Lots of Johnnie Walkers help you that night to cope with the decisions taken.

Year 9

Stocks perform at 20%, leading to an 8.8% average mixed return. No Board member dears to raise questions about the possibility of readjusting the asset mix to a 'more risky' (what's that?) one. After all, the overall performance is still higher than the needed 6%. So who may complain or doubt the new 'On the Fly Strategy'? Who cares or who dears? You go to bed early that night.

Year 10
Stocks returns have come down to a more 'realistic' level of 7%. As a consequence the average return is down to 4.9%, way down beneath the critical level of 6%. Board members have to strike a balance. Some of them doubt again. Continuing the 30/70% asset mix will not bring them the needed long term 6% objective return. Adjusting to a 50/50% mix probably will, but is more risky. What to do?

All eyes are on you as the 'final advising actuary'. With restrained pride you state: "Dear colleagues, what about our good friend, the original '50/50% asset mix'. Can we confirm on that?" Without anyone answering, the President takes a look around.... His gavel hits the table and the decision seems to have been taken.

AftermathEmatics.......

That night you decide to change Johnnie Walker for a well deserved glass of 'actuarial wine': a simple  'Mouton Rothschild 1945' (at the expense of the Board of course). You enjoy the moment and the pleasure of being an actuary. Even after the Rothschild you realize that the decade price of doubt was high: 0.9% p.a. ...

When you go to bed for a good night sleep, you smile...., as some little voice in your head tells you that next year this madness decade-cycle will probably start again...

Invest or laugh

Every crisis generates his own new quotes. Currently, investment quotes are the top.

Perhaps two of the best investment quotes ever are from AIG Vice Chairman Jacob Frenkel:

"The left side of the balance sheet has nothing right and the right side of the balance sheet has nothing left. But they are equal to each other. So accounting-wise we are fine."

--------------------------------------------

"Credit markets do not function. Why not, because the word credit comes from credibility"

But there's more... A nice summary of investment ROFL quotes can be find on Ian Thomson's blog Investor Jokes.

As actuaries, let's profit from Ian's latest insights and gain some extra education points by studying the next new investment definitions:

• A long term investment: Short term investment that failed.
• Momentum Investing: The fine art of buying high and selling low.
• Value Investing: The art of buying low and selling lower

Probably investors and actuaries will have a hard time understanding each other, as the difference between them is in the 'tail' .....

Also large-cap fund managers have a hard time these days. No wonder everybody starts looking for a small-cap fund manager....
But how do you find one? Ians' answer is simple: Find a good large-cap fund manager, and wait...

Anyhow, keep up your good mood and laughs, as more investment 'animals' will show up next months.....


Let's conclude this blog with an old actuarial warning:

"Where there's smoke, someone gets fired"

P.S. For some more 'serious' investment quotes take a look at 52 Must Read quotes from the legendary Investor Warren Buffett. I'll quote some of the best here:

• I never attempt to make money on the stock market. I buy on the assumption that they could close the market the next day and not reopen it for five years.
• If past history was all there was to the game, the richest people would be librarians (actuaries?).
• It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.
• It’s better to hang out with people better than you. Pick out associates whose behavior is better than yours and you’ll drift in that direction.
• It’s far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price.
• Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.
• Risk comes from not knowing what you’re doing.
• Risk is a part of God’s game, alike for men and nations.

How can actuaries profit from Buffett's quotes?

Sources:
- Greekshares Jokes
- Ian's Investor Jokes
- Warren Buffett: 52 Must Read quotes

Hoax Investment Management

You and I always wanted to believe that in banking or investing business, with an overdue of compliance and regulations, we could trust on management, based on highly ethical standards.

Geraint Anderson – a successful star analyst -makes an end to that believe.

Anderson was so outraged by the greed and lust of the Square Mile that he resigned from his immoral job.

After his resign he published a book - Cityboy - about the excesses and wrongdoings within London’s financial market.

Anderson truly believes the credit crunch is a direct result of short-term gambling and the bonus culture.

Investment Technique Examples

Now, as interested actuaries, let's dive a little deeper.

To 'level up your actuarial skills' and to 'open up your eyes', just two simple examples Geraint Anderson gives of the sick making list of secret modern investment techniques:

• Pump & Dump
  Manipulation of shares is chiefly done by small teams of hedge fund operators spreading false rumours. Day in, day out, you see the shares rise slightly. Rumours go round that a certain company will be taken over. These nasty little toerags work in little groups, on mobiles, and it’s very difficult to prove who started the rumour. The shares would go up by 30%. Then they would sell.
  
  
• Trash & Cash
  The opposite of Pump & dump – Trash & Cash – also happened quite a bit. You would spread false rumours that shares were going down. At which point the hedgies would “short” the shares, namely borrow them from, say, a pension fund, sell them, watch the rumour do its work and then buy them back.

The reason why these techniques are so nasty is that they lead to financial instability, according to Anderson.

Hoax marketing
The most frightening aspect is however that no matter how strong the design of a regulation or supervisory system, it can not prohibit the negative effects of the above mentioned hoax marketing techniques.

As our investment models become more and more sophisticated, it looks like 'informal market information' is the only option to get an outperformance and 'make the difference'. At least in case of a a 'short performer'.

Solution
The solution to this problem is therefore very simple:

Set out a long term investing strategy, so you don't have to worry about (short term) volatility and never ever act on rumours or incidental high risk opportunities in the marketplace.

As actuaries - for decades - we proved that we could manage the right side of the balance sheet long term. Now let's apply that same kind of advise and strategy on the left side of the balance sheet. Success!

SOURCE