2006 General Meeting, Chicago Illinois IP-33: ERM & The Pension Actuary Emily Kessler

2006 General Meeting, Chicago Illinois

IP-33: ERM & The Pension Actuary

Emily Kessler

2006 General Meeting, Chicago Illinois

IP-33: ERM & The Pension Actuary

Emily Kessler

Canadian Institute

of Actuaries

Canadian Institute

of Actuaries

L’Institut canadien desactuaires

L’Institut canadien desactuaires

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

ERM for Pension PlansERM for Pension Plans

• What is ERM?

• Why is ERM important? Why is ERM important for pension plans?

• Using ERM – To improve ALM – To design next generation plans

• Appendices

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Fundamental ERM tenetsFundamental ERM tenets

• Corporations exist to create value

• ERM processes help companies identify and manage risks to maximize value creation

• ERM can be thought of on three levels: Operational, Strategic and Catastrophic

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006OperationalOperational

• Objective: Control risk, by keeping risks within enterprise limits on an ongoing basis

• Identify, monitor, limit, offset and transfer all potential significant losses to a firm

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

StrategicStrategic

• Objective: Promote risk taking to maximize risk adjusted returns

• Integrate risk into pricing, planning and performance evaluation, using economic capital in pricing, capital budgeting and risk adjusted performance measurement

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006CatastrophicCatastrophic

• Objective: Protect limits or reduces the risk of firm failure

• Identify and prepare for potential catastrophic events that could threaten the success of the enterprise – Through trend analysis, stress testing, contingency

planning and catastrophic risk transfer/offset

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Why is ERM important? Why is ERM important?

• ERM is a framework to understand the risks to your enterprise and manage them

• If you don’t manage risk, it will manage you– Crisis management

– Not feasible to do in global economy (can be catastrophic)

• Real value: if you manage risk well, you can do a better job of growing your business

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Why is ERM important for pension Why is ERM important for pension plans?plans?

• The pension plan is not part of the core business, but represents a financial risk for corporation– Long-tailed liability

• Owe benefits to employees long since terminated or retired

– Sticky liability• Easier to dump a business than unwind a pension plan

– Call on cash• Mostly due to risks taken with plan investments

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

The fallacy of ongoing planThe fallacy of ongoing plan

• Plans have been viewed as having an infinite lifespan– In theory, they can infinitely take on risk

• Problem: plan doesn’t exist outside of plan sponsor– Plan must have source of cash: plan

sponsor– Plan can only take as much risk as the

enterprise can support

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Lifecycle conceptLifecycle concept

• One way to think about risk management & pension plans is as a lifecycle issue– Lifecycle of plan lifecycle of business

– Ability of sponsor to absorb plan risk varies over lifecycle

• This framework helps you understand– Why current statutory framework is failing

– Why managing to accounting doesn’t work

– Why we have hedge funds that own a few airplanes

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

A simplistic business lifecycleA simplistic business lifecycle

A business is born

grows

reaches maturity

experiences difficulties in maturity

and reaches a turning point

merger/ acquisition

bankruptcy (fast decline) slow

decline

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

A simplistic plan lifecycleA simplistic plan lifecycle

Freeze the plan

A plan is established

grows

and reaches a turning point Plan matures

with business

termination

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Plan and business cycle Plan and business cycle

?

A plan is born; negligible cost

core business growing rapidly

Plan matures; cost grows

core business grows faster

Business matures; Plan cost still growing

core business not growing

Business matures; Plan cost still growing core business declining

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

How is plan generated risk viewed How is plan generated risk viewed relative to core business risk? relative to core business risk?

?

None/ negligible

Moderate/ acceptable

Difficult: why do we have a plan?

Unacceptable

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

The lifecycle challengeThe lifecycle challenge

• Plan and core business have antithetical lifecycles – Plan grows initially more slowly than

business• Plan improvements granted during this period

magnify future difficulties

– Plan matures after core business peaks– Plan continues to mature as core business

declines

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

The lifecycle challengeThe lifecycle challenge

• Position in lifecycle considers size, stage, industry

• Size – Market capitalization (not ratio of actives to

retirees)

• Stage– Growth, maturity, retooling (e.g. Eastman Kodak

in the age of digital cameras)

• Industry– Globalization– Other industry specific, e.g. deregulation

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Risk management, financial Risk management, financial economics & lifecycleeconomics & lifecycle

• Risk management can tie together financial economics & lifecycle issues – Financial economics gives you the answer to “how

do shareholders perceive the risk, and what’s the best way to mitigate risk from plan”

– Lifecycle can help you understand level of acceptable risk

– Risk management helps sponsor make decisions about whether to accept, mitigate or avoid risk

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Investment Strategy & ERM Investment Strategy & ERM

• Consider ALM consulting from ERM POV

• Goal: evaluate plan investment strategy relative to how well the enterprise can sustain the effects of those risks

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

ERM ALM FrameworkERM ALM Framework

• Risk mitigation baseline (100% government bonds)

• Aggressive investments could drive down cost of plan, allowing company to create value in core business (move into equities)

• Can company take the downside risk – the 99th percentile event – should the investment strategy fail without core business suffering?

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Letting the tail wag the dogLetting the tail wag the dog

• Traditional ALM: Sponsor’s decision based on whether asset mix allows it to use a discount rate/expected return on asset assumption that is competitive with peer group

• Accounting standard (reporting) drives investment strategy (risk)

• Accounting, by its nature, is backward looking – Risk monitoring not risk management– Can’t drive looking backwards

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Letting the dog wag its tailLetting the dog wag its tail

• ERM ALM: Use knowledge of pension finance to drive a risk management discussion – The perfect hedge strategy, to indemnify

shareholders, is 100% bonds– But, can your shareholders take additional risk? – Where are you on the lifecycle?

• What is the size of your plan relative to your market capitalization?

• Where is your business today?• What specific issues is your industry facing or are just

down the road?

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006


• The answer may be that 70% equities/30% bonds is OK because the corporation can sustain the investment risk without hurting core business– It probably wouldn’t be for most large, established

companies

– Caveat: From a pension finance point of view there are still issues around which generation of shareholders pays and benefits, and tax arbitrage issues

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006


• Statutory framework puts everyone into same risk paradigm – That may not be the right place for this plan

sponsor

• Risk management means evolving thinking – Failed risk management: hedge fund that owns a

few airplanes

– Successful risk management: airline with a very large but secure pension fund.

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

ERM & the Pension PractitionerERM & the Pension Practitioner

• Today, ERM is a state of mind– ALM study example: letting the dog wag its tail

(ERM frame of mind)

– Considering plan within the core business

– Financial economics (immunizing risk)

• DB plans under fire presents opportunities to design new retirement systems– That better meeting economic, demographic needs

of 21st century

– That incorporate ERM principles

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

ERM & Pension PractitionerERM & Pension Practitioner

• Benefits of ERM frame of mind– Thinking differently about how we do our

jobs today – Using the lessons of risk management and

DB failure to design better systems for 21st century

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Thinking differently about risk todayThinking differently about risk today

• Many plans, industries are mature: catastrophic risk is real – What is the risk of the plan to the business? – What is the risk of the business to the plan?

• Manage the plan dynamically – Beyond the statutory/accounting framework– Consider how the plan and company may

grow (and may grow at different rates)

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Thinking differently about risk today Thinking differently about risk today

• Consider the risk the plan puts on the enterprise – Size of plan relative to market

capitalization– How close is the plan to fully funded?

(more variation at the edge of full funding)– What happens when market shocks?

Interest rate shocks? Demographic shocks?

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006


• Look forward, not backward– Help your clients talk to shareholders about

plan costs and risks going forward • Percent of payroll, variation in percent of

payroll

• How you’ve considered the investment strategy and how that’s projected to benefit shareholders

– Does your plan design best manage risk? • Consider eliminating options that add risk to

plan

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006


• All plans aren’t infinite– Companies have a beginning, middle and end, and

so do their pension plans– Plan for the end, but don’t dwell on it

• Long-lived liabilities will have extreme events– Can the plan sustain a 99th percentile event?– Long-tail liabilities will have a 99th percentile

event: there will always be a perfect storm • September 2004, Pension Section News, “Defined

Benefit Plans are More Successful with Bonds,” Mark Ruloff

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Using ERM to Answer 21Using ERM to Answer 21stst Century Century ChallengesChallenges

• Pension Systems under stress, in US, Canada and other countries

• Use ERM to design better systems – Transparent, hedgable risks – Risk pooling versus risk transfer– Understanding needs, risks and roles

• SOA Pension Section’s Retirement 20/20 effort– www.retirement2020.soa.org

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Using ERM to Answer 21Using ERM to Answer 21stst Century Century ChallengesChallenges

• Don’t be afraid to understand why DB broke– DB met 20th century needs for retirement

system– DB clearly doesn’t meet 21st century needs

for retirement system– If we understand why, we can design better

systems …

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Learning from DB FailureLearning from DB Failure

• NY Times interview of Dr. Henry Petroski, engineer:

• “From [Dr. Petroski’s] vantage point, failures in design and construction present perfect teaching opportunities. They are object lessons in the history and practice and beauty of engineering. ‘Failure is central to engineering … [e]very single calculation that an engineer makes is a failure calculation. Successful engineering is all about understanding how things break or fail.’”

NY Times, 02 May 2006 “Engineering a Safer, More Beautiful World, One Failure at a Time” emphasis added

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006


• “Successful engineering is all about understanding how things break or fail.”– Break: operational risk, fail: catastrophic

risk

• What can we learn about DB plan risk management from the perceived “brokenness” and “failure” of DB plans?

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006


• “Success masks failure. The more a thing operates successfully, the more confidence we have in it. So we dismiss little failures … as trivial annoyances rather than preludes to catastrophe”

• DB risk taking in 70s/80s/90s masked risk in plans

• Risk grew but strategies to mitigate it didn’t

• Individual years of bad performance were dismissed

NY Times, 02 May 2006 “Engineering a Safer, More Beautiful World, One Failure at a Time”

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006


• “Systems that require error-free performance are doomed to failure”

• Error-free performance – Ongoing plan– Company’s ability to

provide cash to plan

• Lifecycle model – Plan will grow relative

to size of company– Company always fails/

shrinks before plan


2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006


• “Computer simulations and other methods of predicting whether components will fail are themselves vulnerable to failure.”

• ALM studies based on assumptions– Limit on long bonds

• Ignore lifecycle, change in company over time

• In our presentations, do we consider 99th percentile events


2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006


• “Devices can be made foolproof, but not damn-fool-proof …”

• Agency issues• “DB plans are for

adults only”• Lifecycle

– Benefit levels may not always be sustainable

– Risk tolerance may change over time


2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006


• “Today’s successful design is tomorrow’s failure, in that expectations for technology are continually on the rise.”

• Global competition • Increasing

shareholder expectations– Not interested in

long term


2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006


• “A device designed for one purpose may fail when put to another use. (Is it fair to call that a failure? Dr. Petroski smiled. ’Good question,’ he said.)”

• DB plans are wholly-owned block of annuities

• Been treated like investment trusts (generating income)

• DB plans won’t fail if risk is managed


2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006AppendicesAppendices

• Appendix I: Objectives of Risk Management

• Appendix II: Failure of Statutory systems/Understanding DB under fire

• Appendix III: ERM in a DB/DC Consulting Framework

• Appendix IV: Resources

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Appendix I: Objectives of Risk Appendix I: Objectives of Risk ManagementManagement

• Compliance

• Knowledge

• Culture

• Value added

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006


• Compliance– E.g. Sarbanes-Oxley– Limitations

• Risk monitoring is not risk management• Can become bureaucratic

• Knowledge• Culture• Value added

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006


• Compliance• Knowledge

– Understand the risks taken (transparency) – Risk

• Accept risk when there is a competitive advantage• Mitigate (e.g., hedging, reinsurance)• Avoid

• Culture• Value added

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006


• Compliance• Knowledge• Culture

– Developing a risk management culture

• Value added– Determine risk appetite/tolerances– Prioritize risks and optimize risk/return profile– Provide incentives to take risk where it adds

marginal value

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Appendix II: Failure of Statutory Appendix II: Failure of Statutory Framework Framework

• Statutory framework: Accounting standards, funding standards

• Today’s statutory framework fails, for most plans, the risk management goal

• Risk management goal: Manage to the appropriate level of risk based on position in lifecycle

• Current statutory/accounting standards work against this goal for majority of large plans

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Appendix II: Failure of Statutory Appendix II: Failure of Statutory FrameworkFramework

• Current statutory/accounting standards developed when most plans in “growth/ maturity” stage – Plan risk relative to core business was smaller– A risk-taking model worked, at least in short-term

• Problem: didn’t encourage evolution of risk-taking to account for shifting size of risk– Stopped evolution of thinking around risk – Result: many companies taking risks they ought

not to be taking

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Appendix II: Understanding Appendix II: Understanding DB Under FireDB Under Fire

• Statutory framework encourages one-size-fits-all risk taking. Results:– All DB plans have been taking the same

level of risk– In some critical industries, this is too much

risk (e.g. airlines, steel, auto)– As these industries fail, so do their DB

plans

• Markets now view all DB plans are viewed as too costly and too risky

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006


• We can understand the failure of DB plans if we consider objectives of ERM – Compliance– Knowledge

• Understand the risks taken (transparency) • Risk

– Accept risk when there is a competitive advantage– Mitigate (e.g., hedging, reinsurance)– Avoid

– Culture– Value added

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Appendix II: Understanding Appendix II: Understanding DB Under Fire DB Under Fire

• Lack of transparency is driving much of the discussion about pension plans– FAS 87/CICA 3461 type standard not adequate for

mature plans– “Traditional” funding rules spreading losses not

sufficiently transparent or secure for mature plans and declining industries

• ERM says eliminate risks that aren’t transparent– Mitigate or avoid

• Observation: in an ERM framework, transparent standards are in the best interest of DB plans

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006


• Mitigate – Hedge, reinsure through bond, annuity purchase – Mitigation strategy has little attraction today

• FAS 87 EROA

– Hedging might be more attractive under FRS 17 style standard

• Problem: transition• Changes the cost I thought I understood; no one wants to

pay more for the same thing

• Avoid: get out of DB

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Appendix III: ERM Consulting Appendix III: ERM Consulting FrameworksFrameworks

• DB only

• DB within company

• DB and DC

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Appendix III: DB plan as stand-alone Appendix III: DB plan as stand-alone entityentity

• The pension plan as pension trust (investment advisor viewpoint)

• Risk management of trust as stand-alone entity is not an elegant or useful application – Works OK (actually fairly well) within an

operational framework

• Problem: DB plan does not exist within a silo

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Appendix III: DB within companyAppendix III: DB within company

• Plan represents a catastrophic risk to company, and vice-versa – Strategic: plan has a call to cash of business – Catastrophic: If business can’t support plan, plan

fails, but plan underfunding can also drive business to bankruptcy

• Better: think about DB within the business framework of company– Lifecycle is one approach

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Appendix III: ERM, DB and DCAppendix III: ERM, DB and DC

• ERM framework best applied to both DB and DC plans

• Many sponsors see DC as “risk free” because they don’t have some of the same risks as DB

• Reality: DC plans aren’t risk free – Lifecycle issue: most DC plans aren’t yet mature– Conventional wisdom doesn’t yet consider DC

risks

• ERM helps you identify risks before they are uncovered by time, events

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Appendix III: ERM, DB and DC Appendix III: ERM, DB and DC

• Traditional risk management framework– Strategic– Operational– Financial– Hazard

Note: Some material taken from Towers Perrin (Canada) Perspective Are DC plans really risk-free for employers?

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Appendix III: DB and DC Operational Appendix III: DB and DC Operational RisksRisks

• Operational risk is the risk of not correctly implementing or running the program

• Compliance risk – Huge risk for both DB and DC– Outsourcing is one solution – only

incomplete and can often be a panacea

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Appendix III: DB and DC Strategic Appendix III: DB and DC Strategic risksrisks

• Strategic risk is the risk of not being able to meet your business objectives

• Attraction and retention of employees – Are your benefit dollars being spent

wisely?– Does your plan design fit your business

image?

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Appendix III: DB and DC Strategic Appendix III: DB and DC Strategic risksrisks

• Mature DB plans: – Is cost volatility affecting your core

business/shareholder value?– Do your plans push people out the door too

quickly?

• DC plans: are you spending enough today to ensure orderly retirement tomorrow?

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Appendix III: DB and DC Financial Appendix III: DB and DC Financial RisksRisks

• Financial risk is the risk that the expected cost or benefit does not materialize, or proves too variable

• Financial risk very different for DB and DC– DB plans: my employees don’t know what this is

and I’m spending all this money • But, when times are bad, older workers will still retire

– DC plans: I can spend less and the employees appreciate it more

• But, when times are bad, my older workers won’t be able to afford to retire

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Appendix III: DB and DC Hazard RisksAppendix III: DB and DC Hazard Risks

• Hazard risk is the risk of a sudden change in the landscape– Legislation– Litigation

• We haven’t yet seen litigation risk for DC plans (except in egregious circumstances) but we will …

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Appendix IV: ResourcesAppendix IV: Resources

• Andrews, Doug “Extending ERM to Multi-Employer Pension Plans,” 2006 ERM Symposium Monograph – http://www.soa.org/ccm/content/research-publications/library

-publications/monographs/other-monographs/2006-enterprise-risk-management-symposium/

• Chan, Bosco “Pension Plan Life-Cycle Funding Approach ” The Future of Pension Plan Funding and Disclosure Monograph, – http://www.soa.org/ccm/content/research-publications/library

-publications/monographs/the-future-of-pension-plan-funding-and-disclosure-monograph/

• Choquet, Andre “From Pension Risk Management to ERM,” Risk Management July 2006 – http://library.soa.org/library-pdf/RMN0607.pdf– Note this is a reprint of the article that appeared in the CIA

Bulletin

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

2006

Gen

eral

Mee

ting

Ass

embl

ée g

énér

ale

2006

Appendix IV: ResourcesAppendix IV: Resources

• Murphy, Ray “The Risk of Declining Market Cap with Large Pension Obligations,” Pension Section News September 2006 – http://library.soa.org/library-pdf/PSN0609.pdf

• Financial Economics – Pension finance resources page

http://www.soa.org/ccm/content/areas-of-practice/special-interest-sections/pension/research-thinking-ahead/pension-finance/pension-finance-resources/

– Coming, Autumn 2006 “The Pension Actuary’s Guide to Financial Economics”

• Mailed to SOA Pension Section members.• Also available through SOA bookstore (hard copy)

2006 General Meeting, Chicago Illinois IP-33: ERM & The Pension Actuary Emily Kessler

Documents

Transcript of 2006 General Meeting, Chicago Illinois IP-33: ERM & The Pension Actuary Emily Kessler