Pension Fund Development

Pension Funds....What originally started with well-meant intentions, has developed to one of the most complex risk management topics and will end in a nightmare if we don't change our risk management approach drastically and fast.

Pension Fund times have changed
Back in the second half of the twentieth century, Pension Funds were an excellent (HR)-instrument to stabilize employer-employee relationship and keep retention high. Since then, a lot has changed:

• Employees became more flexible and international orientated
• Permanent or Lifetime employment is nowadays no longer key
• Increased social en technical complexity,  supervision, governance, etc., urge for an increasing professional approach.
• Original Pension Fund advantages (economies of scale:cost, funding, risk) are at stake, due to the enormous (rising) costs  (administration, supervision, management [risk, asset, hedging] , funding, etc).

But there's more...  Surreptitiously, like the famous 'boiling frog', the (member) composition of a pension fond has fundamentally changed during the last decades.

Some decades ago, at the start of a Pension Fund, almost all participants where existing employees of the corresponding company (sponsor).  Today, the number of 'current employees' is often overshadowed by the number of 'pensioners' and the - until now - quiet force of  'deferred pensioners' (former employees, that left the company before retirement).

Managing Pension Fund Powers
All Pension Fund concerned parties, the three member-groups as well as the employer (sponsor), have different and sometimes opposite interests with regard to the financial policy of the Pension Fund. The tension between these parties with regard to what's best for the employer, the employees, pensioners and deferred pensioners, will therefore increase as the Pension Fund becomes more mature.

The first step to manage this tension is to redefine Pension Fund Governance in line with the changed balance of power. Skipping this governance step seems not wise, as this will undoubtedly lead to future financial claims of the concerning power-discriminated parties.

The second step is just as important.

Even with the right balanced governance in place, it will be an almost impossible task to manage a Pension Fund if the often implicit 'embedded options' between the defined member groups (including the sponsor) are not proactively recognized, defined, explicated and - above all - financially and organizational managed (settled).

Regain Pension Fund Risk Control

To regain Pension Fund Risk Control, governance principles have be transparently defined and every possible - likely or unlikely - future situation (scenario), has to be identified, described, valued, controlled and managed.

In this approach, a strong segmented, segregated or 'split up' framework, helps to keep oversight at board level and urges to define all possible 'embedded options' as clear as possible and to clear out possible sticky, fuzzy or unspoken arrangements, deals or intentions.

Pension Fund's Objectives

Of course this comprehensive operation makes only sense if the Pension Fund's objectives are (upfront) well defined and if all members agree upon those objectives. Main objectives among others are:

General (financial) PF objectives

• Target Pension Benefit Level and volatility
• Target Contribution Level and volatility

• Target PF Growth Rate and volatility
• Target Risk level and volatility
• Target Coverage Ratio and volatility
• Target Indexation level and volatility
• Target Assets Returns and volatility
• Target Cost Rates and volatility
• Target AL-Mismatch and volatility
• Target Mortality Rates and volatility

FMCs

In so called Financial Member-Contracts (FMCs) has to be defined exactly what the explicit financial consequences are for every Pension Fund Member, each time the actual performance of one of the objectives scores (negative or positive) out of the defined expected 'volatility range' for a certain predefined period.

On top of, these FMCs have to give a clear upfront financial answer to other general or Pension Fund specific developments. Some examples:

• Consequences of a sponsor's default or down- or upgrade.
• Consequences of  possible exit of substantial employers, corporate split up, outsourcing, etc.  (upfront exit conditions, restructure consequences, etc.)
• New upfront entering conditions and principles in case of future take-overs or new employers joining the Pension Fund
• Defining upfront catch-up indexation rules in case the target indexation levels are not met.
• Consequences, principles, methods and guide lines that will be used in case of possible future changes in (pension) legislation, supervisory, governance or value) accounting.

Sponsor Default Risk
Last but not least, let's take a look at an interesting risk element.
One of the most risky and underestimated elements in the Pension Fund's Risk Management Framework is the 'default risk' and correspondent creditworthiness of the sponsor.

The sponsoring employer’s ability to support Pension Fund volatility by providing additional funding if required, is defined in the so called 'Employer Covenant' or 'Corporate Covenant'

Although, with regard to the obligations of the sponsor, legislation  from country to country differs strongly, the Corporate Covenant and more explicitly, the capacity of the sponsoring employer to cover (incidental) losses in the event of poor investment outcomes or the guarantee of incidental or temporary underfunding, is crucial and impacts the valuation of the Pension Fund strongly.


That this 'sponsor default risk' is not negligible, is well illustrated by the next table of Global Corporate Cumulative Average Default Rates by Standard & Poor.

Moreover the importance of the sponsor's default risk is in general essential if you take into account that the majority of companies is rated as BB an B, as is clear from the next 2003 and 2009 Corporate Ratings Distributions by S&P:

Valuing Corporate Covenant

If you're interested....In an excellent article called 'Corporate Covenant and Other Embedded Options in Pension Funds', Theo Kocken explains, how various contingent claims in a pension fund, such as the Corporate Covenant or Conditional Indexation, can be valued with the same techniques that are used to value options on stocks.

However, there's one slight problem.......

Vicious Value Circle
Future IASB proposals will  gradually move towards 'plain fair value' in case of Pension Funds. The new 2010 IASB draft versions make a first step by proposing - as AON calls it - a "third way" (between buffering and mark-to-market in combination with asset smoothing) .

As Pension Funds become more and more mature and the volatility of pension Funds is more and more reflected in the sponsoring employer's balance sheet and P&L, the question of valuing the Pension Fund becomes a kind of vicious circle.

On the one hand the value of the Pension Fund depends on the default risk and credibility of the sponsor. On the other hand the credibility and default risk of the sponsor depends strongly on the volatility of the Pension Fund.

This dependency implies that if either the sponsor or the Pension Fund gets into serious financial trouble, revaluing forces will pull the value of both institutions into a negative spiral towards a default situation, leaving the Corporate Covenant as a paper farce.


It's clear: Risk Management of Pension Funds is challenging and urges actuaries to keep eyes open.


Related links:
- Corporate Covenant and Other Embedded Options in Pension Funds
- Mercer: Assessing Employer Covenant (2009)
- S&P:Global Corporate Average Cumulative Default Rates (1981-2009)
- S&P:Global Short-Term Ratings and Default Analysis (1981-2009)
- AON: IASB Releases Exposure Draft on DB Accounting
- AAA:Pension Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers

What kind of actuary are you?

We all know plain actuarial skills are not enough to be(come) a successful professional actuary.

Time and time again we have to conclude that it takes more than average communication skills to overcome the persistent communication gap between actuaries and their audience.

In a 2008 workshop Matthias Bonikowski (Senior Manager at Milliman) presented the outcome of a German survey.

Here are the stunning results:

Proposition		Actuaries' opinion	Non-Actuaries' opinion
1.	Actuaries are pessimists	85%	85%
2.	Actuaries are not opportunists	70%	70%
3.	Actuaries communicate clearly and transparently	15%	5%
4.	Actuaries think out of the box	50%	15%
5.	Actuaries live in an ivory tower	10%	50%

The Copy Paste Actuary

From the Bonikowski survey it's clear that non-actuaries (including: board managers, sales directors, product managers, coaches and headhunters) don't speak highly of actuaries.

It looks like most of the 'actuary species' are perceived as a kind of 'Copy Paste Actuary'. One who's not able to think out of the box.

We are congenital pessimists, trained to do a sort of one trick pony act. An act we can't explain or communicate, like 'normal' people seem to be able to do. 

On top of this  - just like the famous Baron Münchhausen who was unable to escape from a swamp by pulling himself up by his own hair - we actuarial poor devils seem unable to lift ourselves to the next level.

We're obviously trapped in our 'non-communication' addiction, smoke gets in our eyes and nobody around us seems capable of helping us to move from our alien planet to the world of real people, business and social life.

The non-actuaries' view in Bonikowski's survey emphasizes this image...

The non-actuaries' view
The non actuaries' view on actuaries comes down to::
- They explain complex terms as complex as possible
- Inability to make actuarial things clear to non-actuaries
- They are not able to take a bird‘s eye view
- They are missing empathy for non-actuaries

As possible reasons for this view, non-actuaries notice:
- They are isolated from decision processes…
- High expectations about actuarial knowledge – deep and broad
- Communication skills are not a part of actuarial education

As a 'solution', 7 suggestions for successful communication are developed:

1. Point out key messages
2. Leave out details
3. Use more pictures and examples
4. Explain more in “black and white”
5. Avoid academic language/technical jargon
6. Pick up non-actuaries earlier
7. Define target-group specific communication rules

As we all know, these issues and solutions are not really new or surprising. Why is this issue of non-communication and 'Ivory Tower Effect' so hard to solve?

Actuaries are invisible

In 'My Opinion' of the Actuarial Review 2010, Grover Edie shows that we 'actuaries' are not in any way involved in important (political) decisions.

Important decisions that society has to take in coping with challenges as aging, longevity, health, etc.  Grover Edie explicates: 'they don’t ask us (actuaries) because we are not visible'.

My view is that the 'invisibility of  actuaries' is more or less a global issue.

Undoubtedly this theme of invisibility finds his roots in the actuary's attitude. This is well illustrated by Grover Edie's summarized reactions of actuaries on the issue:

• “If I do good work, others will ask me for more of it.”
• “I don’t need to advertise or to sell my work: My work speaks for itself.”
• “I certainly don’t need to sell others on the value of my work, and if they are too stupid to know the value of what I do, that’s their problem.”

Supply and Demand
Grover Edie thinks that this underlying 'laissez-faire  attitude' is the basic problem. A problem that - in his view - can be solved with a simple sales training approach.  With all due respect...., the invisibility of actuaries has probably a deeper cause than this superficial laissez faire attitude only, that is mainly the effect of the Law of Supply and Demand.

Most actuaries had to study hard to achieve their goal of becoming a qualified actuary. Once they'd become an actuary, there was, still is and will be, more than enough well paid work. In other words: The Demand side of the market market exceeds (by far) the Supply side of the market. Why should actuaries develop a commercial sales attitude if they don't need it?

In this situation the risk that an actuary eventually becomes a 'Mirror Actuary', is not inconceivable.

A mirror actuary, one who just reflects and gives back what the environment offers him.

He looks a bit like the invisible actuary. Without a real own opinion,  the mirror actuary just reflects the financial impact and consequences of decisions taken by others.  He  acts without sincere social engagement or conviction. Hence he's unable to generate a critical positive feedback viewpoint, necessary to make what its takes, the difference.

What does it takes?
Convincing actuaries to become more visible and socially or publically involved, takes more than a professional sales approach. Actuaries have to be made conscious of why and where they are and what they really want to achieve in life.
In other words:

What kind of actuary would you (really) like to be?

In this case the answer is not a traditional one like 'Pricing Actuary', 'Pension Actuary', 'Health Actuary; or the humorous answer 'very kind'. No, the answer to this question hits our actuarial soul....

The good old actuarial horse
Would you like to be the well paid 'actuarial horse' in front of the wagon, that gets his orders from the coachman and does his calculation work every time he's being asked to do deliver some?

Or do you want to sit on the wagon, next to the coachman, discussing and advising on the best route of the wagon?


Answering these simple questions is key in solving the persisting actuarial mind setting issue.

Visibility? Select at the gate!
This invisibility issue deals with the fundamental structure of an actuary's personality.  It's not something that can be easily learned or changed during or after achieving a (long term) study. If we want visible actuaries who are socially and publically involved, we'll have to select them on that attitude at the gate, before they undertake an actuarial study. Just like we test their arithmetic talent and other mental capacities, before actuaries start their study.

The Dancing Actuary

If we don't act upon this new 'visibility insight' and keep trying to beat the famous dead horse, things will never change.

In this situation there's a tricky risk that we enjoy our salary and comfortable position so much that we suppress our critical view and potential power to change things. In which case we become totally dependable on our monthly paycheck and the opinion of our boss or manager.

In doing so, we might gradually become implicitly susceptible to extortion and eventually things will escalate.

Ultimately in this situation, we could even develop to a kind of 'dancing bear', in this case a 'Dancing Actuary'.

Try to keep your eyes open. If you feel completely 'chained' or if our environment constantly forces you to support actions or decisions you can not really account for, seek help or step out before it's too late.

The Wise Actuary

Wrapping up this warning blog about invisibility, you could get the wrong impression that black swan actuaries doe not exist at all.

Of course we know better. There are lots of wise and visible actuaries around the world and as you've made your way to the end of this blog, you'll be probably one of them....

Wise actuarial owls that want to make the difference in life and society. Actuaries who are not for sale and who know their personal limits. Actuaries that know when and where to say 'no' or 'yes'.

Actuaries that don't just want to talk about a better world, but want to act(uary) on it.

Are you that 'wise actuary', who's visible, socially active and leading society to the next level?

Test

If you want to find out if you're a wise, invisible, mirror or dancing actuary, take the next 5 minutes 15 questions test called:

What kind of actuary are you?

Good luck with this 'actuary stress test'!


Related links/ Resources:
- Workshop Actuarial Communication (2008) Presentation (pdf)
- Article: They Don’t Ask Us Because We Are Not Visible
- Test:What kind of actuary are you?

Solvency II Project Management Pitfalls

When you - just like me - wonder how Solvency (II) projects are being managed, join the club! It's crazy...., dozens of actuaries, IT professionals, finance experts, bookkeepers accountants, risk managers, project and program managers, compliance officers and a lot of other semi-solvency 'Disaster tourists' are flown in to join budget-unlimited S-II Projects.

On top of it all, nobody seems to understand each other, it's a  confusion of tongues..... 

Now that the European Parliament have finally agreed upon  the Solvency II Framework Directive in April 2009, everything should look ready for a successful S-II implementation before the end of 2012. However, nothing is farther from the truth.....

Solve(ncy) Questions in Time
The end of 2012 might seem a long way of...
While time is ticking, all kind of questions pop up like:

• How to build an ORSA system and who owns it?
• What's the relation between ORSA and other systems or models, like the Internal Model
• Where do the actuarial models and systems fit in?
• What are financial, actuarial, investing and 'managing' parameters, what distinguishes them, who owns them and who's authorised and competent to change them?
• How to connect all IT-systems to deliver on a frequent basis what S-II reporting needs......?
• How to build a consistent S-II IT framework, while the outcomes from QIS-5 (6,7,...) are (still) not clear and more 'Qisses' seem to come ahead?
• Etc, etc, etc, etc^10

The Solvency Delusion
Answering the above questions is not the only challenge. A real 'Solvency Hoax' and other pitfalls seem on their way....

It appears that most of the actuarial work has been done by calculating the MCR and SCR in 'Pillar I'.

It's scaring to observe that the 'communis opinio'  now seems to be that the main part of the S-II project is completed. Project members feel relieved and the 'Solvency II Balance Sheet' seems (almost) ready!

Don't rejoice..., it's a delusion!  The main work in Pillar II (ORSA) and Pillar III (Reporting, transparency) still has to come and - at this moment - only few project managers know how to move from Pillar I to Pillar II.

Compliancy First, a pitfall?
With the Quantitative Impact Study (QIS-5) on its way (due date: October 2010) every insurer is focusing on becoming a well capitalized Solvency-II compliant financial institution.

There is nothing wrong with this compliance goal, but 'just' becoming 'solvency compliant' is a real pitfall and unfortunately not enough to survive in the years after 2010.

Risk Optimization

Sometimes, in the fever of becoming compliant, an essential part called "Risk Optimization" seems to be left out, as most managers only have an eye for 'direct capital effects' on the balance sheet and finishing 'on time', whatever the consequences......

Risk Optimization is - as we know - one of the most efficient methods to maximize company and client value. Here's a limited (check)list of possible Risk Optimization measurements:

1. Risk Avoidance - Prevent Risk    • Health programs    • Health checks    • Certification (ISO, etc)    • Risk education programs    • High-risk transactions       (identify,eliminate, price)    • Fraud detection       (identify,eliminate, price)    • Adverse selection       (identify, manage, price) - Adjust policy conditions    • Exclude or Limit Risk         (type,term)    • Restrict underwriter       conditions       (excess, term, etc) - Run-off portfolios/products 2. Damage control - Emergency Plans (tested) - Claims Service, Repair service - Reintegration services 3. Risk Reduction - Diversification - Asset Mix, ALM - Decrease exposure term - Risk Matching - Decrease mismatch    AL/Duration - Outsourcing, Leasing 4. Risk Sharing - Reinsurance (XL,SL,SQ) - Securitization, Pooling - Derivatives, Hedging - Geographical spread - Tax, Bonus policy 5. Risk Pricing - Exposure rating, Experience rating - Credibility rating, Community rating - Risk profile rating 6. Equity financing - IPO, Initial Public Offering - Share sale, Share placement - Capital injections

Solvency-II Project Oversight

Just to remind you of the enormous financial impact potential of 'Risk Optimization' and to keep your eye on a 'helicopter view level' with regard to Solvency-II projects and achievements, here's a (non-complete but hopefully helpful) visual oversight of what has to be done before the end of 2012.....

(Download big picture JPG, PDF)

Be aware that all Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Key Risk Indicators (KRIs) and Key Control Indicators (KCIs) must be well defined and allocated. Please keep also in mind that one person’s KRI can be another’s performance indicator(KPI) and a third person’s control-effectiveness indicator.

Value Added Actions

As actuaries, we're in the position of letting 'Risk Optimization' work.
We're the 'connecting officers' in the Solvency Army, with the potential of convincing management and other professionals to take the right value added actions in time.

Don't be bluffed as an actuary, take stand in your Solvency II project and add real value to your company and its clients.

Related Links:

- A Comparison of Solvency Systems: US and EU
- UK Life solvency falls under qis-5
- Determine capital add-on
- Reducing r-w assets to maximize profitability and capital ratios
- Risk: Who is who?
- Balanced scorecard including KRIs (2010)
- Solvency II, Piller II & III
- Risk Adjusted Return On Risk Adjusted Capital (RARORAC)
- ERM: “Managing the Invisible" (pdf; 2010)
- Unlocking the mystery of the risk framework around ORSA
- Risk  based Performance: KPI,KRI,KCI
- Risk of risk indicators (ppt;2004)
- Defining Risk Appetite
- Risk appetite ING KPI/KRI
- Board fit for S II?
- How to compute fund vaR?
- Technical Provisions in Solvency II
- Insurers should use derivatives to manage risk under Solvency II 
- Solvency Regulation and Contract Pricing in the Insurance Industry
- Overview and comparison of risk-based capital standards 
- Solvency II IBM
- Reinsurance: Munich Re  , Reinsurance solvency II