Tag: mortality assumption

MBTA retirement fund is headed for a financial reckoning

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/06/19/opinion/mbta-retirement-fund-finances/

Excerpt:

The MBTA Retirement Fund is going over a cliff, and the reasons why are well known. But neither the T nor its unions are in a hurry to do anything about it.

The new MBTA Retirement Fund Actuarial Valuation Report shows the fund’s balance as of Dec. 31, 2022, was $1.62 billion — about $300 million less than what it was just 12 months earlier. Its liability — the amount it will owe current and future T retirees — is over $3.1 billion, meaning the fund is about 51 percent funded. In 2006, it was 94 percent funded. A “death spiral” generally accelerates when retirement system funding dips below 50 percent.

In April, the Pioneer Public Interest Law Center got the MBTA to hand over an August 2022 arbitration decision regarding a pension dispute between the T and its biggest union. It contained a critical win for the authority: Arbitrator Elizabeth Neumeier decided that most employees would have to work until age 65 to earn a full pension, saving the MBTA at least $12 million annually.

But the Carmen’s Union sued to invalidate that portion of the decision, and the parties returned to the bargaining table. The new pension agreement they hammered out doesn’t include the historic retirement age victory; T management negotiated it away.

….

As of Dec. 31, 2022, 5,555 active employees paid into the fund, but 6,783 retirees collected from it. The biggest reason for the mismatch is the age at which T employees retire. Those hired before December 2012 can retire with a full pension after 23 years of service, regardless of age. Those hired after December 2012 can retire with a full pension at age 55 after 25 years.

The arbitrator finally gave the MBTA the win it so desperately needed, and T management promptly gave it back. Many MBTA managers have long opposed changing the age at which employees can earn a full pension, fearing the reaction of T unions.

….

Hard as it may be to believe, the T retirement fund’s financial outlook is even worse than it appears. Financial projections assume the fund’s assets will earn 7.25 percent annually. Over time, actual returns have been more like 4 percent to 7 percent.

These misleading projections are based on other faulty assumptions. In her 2022 decision, Neumeier refused the MBTA’s request to use newer actuarial tables, ruling that changing would be costly and that there was no compelling reason to update the tables. The ones in place are from 1989 — so old that they assume all T employees are men. Since women tend to live longer, the tables materially understate the retirement fund liability.

Author(s): Mark T. Williams, Charles Chieppo 

Publication Date: 19 Jun 2023

Publication Site: Boston Globe

Mortality and the provision of retirement income

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/private-pensions/launch-publication-mortality-provision-retirement.htm

Graphic:

Video:

Excerpt:

The report analyses the development of mortality assumptions to build mortality tables to better protect retirement income provision. It first provides an international overview of longevity trends and drivers over the last several decades, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It then explores considerations and traditional approaches for developing mortality tables, and details the standard mortality tables developed across OECD member countries. It concludes with guidelines to assist regulators and supervisors in assessing whether the mortality assumptions and tables used in the context of retirement income provision are appropriate.

The OECD will provide an overview of the publication, followed by a roundtable discussion with government and industry stakeholders. Topics discussed will include:

  • Recent mortality trends and drivers
  • How mortality trends/drivers can inform future expectations, and how to account for that in modelling
  • The challenge of accounting for COVID in setting mortality assumptions
  • Trade-offs for different modelling approaches
  • The usefulness of the guidelines included in the report in practice
  • How to better communicate around mortality assumptions to non-experts

Publication Date: 2 Feb 2023

Publication Site: OECD

The Mortality Improvement Model, MIM-2021-v2

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.soa.org/resources/research-reports/2021/mortality-improvement-model/

Graphic:

Excerpt:

Different mortality projection methodologies are utilized by actuaries across applications and practice areas. As a result, the SOA’s Longevity Advisory Group (“Advisory Group”) developed a single framework to serve as a consistent base for practitioners in projecting mortality improvement.  The Mortality Improvement Model, MIM-2021-v2, Tools and User Guides, compose the consistent approach and are defined below.

  1. A report describing MIM-2021-v2 which summarizes the evolution of MIM-2021-v2; provides an overview of MIM-2021-v2; presents considerations for applying mortality assumptions in the model; and outlines issues the Advisory Group is currently considering for future model enhancements.
  2. A status report of the items listed in Section V of Developing a Consistent Framework for Mortality Improvement. This report advises practitioners about subsequent research and analysis conducted by the Advisory Group regarding these items.
  3. An Excel-based tool, MIM-2021-v2 Application Tool, and user guide, MIM-2021-v2 Application Tool User Guide, for practitioners to construct sets of mortality improvement rates under this framework for specific applications.
  4. An Excel-based tool, MIM-2021-v2 Data Analysis Tool, and user guide, MIM-2021-v2 Data Analysis Tool User Guide, for practitioners to analyze the historical data sets included in the MIM-2021-v2 Application Tool.

The Longevity Advisory Group is planning to update the framework annually as new data and enhancements become available. MIM-2021-v2 is the first revision since the initial release in April 2021.  This version uses the same underpinning as the initial MIM-2021 release but has been refreshed to include another year of historical U.S. population mortality data as well as more user flexibility and functionality to replicate RPEC’s MP-2021 and O2-2021 scales.  

Author(s): Longevity Advisory Group

Publication Date: June 2022, most recent update

Publication Site: Society of Actuaries

Who Cares About Life Expectancy?

Mary Pat Campbell

Link:https://contingencies.org/who-cares-about-life-expectancy/

Excerpt:

Life expectancy at birth (LEB) in the U.S. has grown about 50% since 1900, with most of the increase going to upper income groups. (See “Differences in Life Expectancy by Income Level”; Contingencies;July/August 2016.)Depending on the data source and the methodology used to determine it, LEB in the U.S. is about 77 and 82 for males and females, respectively.

I’m a retiree, so I’m more interested in life expectancy at age 65 (LE65). (OK, fine, life expectancy at a somewhat higher age is more pertinent for me, but LE65 is the more common measurement.) LE65 in America is about 18.2 and 20.8 for males and females, again depending on the dataset and methodology.

LEB and LE65 in America are calculated from a dataset of 330 million lives. Another dataset of 7.5 billion lives provides a LEB of 68 and 72 for males and females, a significant difference from the LEB mentioned earlier. The 7.5-billion-life dataset was the world population rather than the U.S. population subset. A meaningful LEB requires homogeneity of the underlying dataset.

Author(s): Bob Rietz

Publication Date: Jan/Feb 2022

Publication Site: Contingencies

$59 Million Settlement in Pension Plan Outdated Actuarial Assumption Litigation

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/59-million-settlement-pension-plan-outdated-actuarial-assumption-litigation

Excerpt:

A dramatic, recent example of this dilemma occurred in a Massachusetts district court proceeding, when an employer agreed to a $59.17 million settlement in a proposed ERISA class action accusing it of using outdated mortality rates to calculate pensions. Cruz v. Raytheon Co., Mass. Dist. case number 1:19-CV-11425-PBS, Feb. 16, 2021.

The employer had argued in its motion to dismiss that the retirees failed to make the case that the plan violated ERISA by unreasonably using a mortality table created in 1971 and a 7% interest rate to calculate retirees’ alternative annuity benefits it said would be “actuarially equivalent” to the plan’s benefits. The employer argued that its conversion factors for determining the alternative annuity benefits were reasonable and that the retirees were attempting to force their own arbitrary actuarial assumptions. The employer further asserted that under ERISA, employers sponsoring pension plans have wide discretion in determining which actuarial assumptions or conversion factors can be used, requiring only that the single life annuity (SLA) normal form of benefit is equivalent by actuarial standards.

Author(s): Jeffrey D. Mamorsky, Richard A. Sirus, Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Publication Date: 16 March 2021

Publication Site: National Law Review