Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T04:17:57.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pension Funding and the Actuarial Assumption Concerning Investment Returns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2015

M. Iqbal Owadally
M. Iqbal Owadally*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Actuarial Science and Statistics, Cass Business School, City University, 106 Bunhill Row, London EC1Y 8TZ, England, Email: iqbal@city.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An assumption concerning the long-term rate of return on assets is made by actuaries when they value defined-benefit pension plans. There is a distinction between this assumption and the discount rate used to value pension liabilities, as the value placed on liabilities does not depend on asset allocation in the pension fund. The more conservative the investment return assumption is, the larger planned initial contributions are, and the faster benefits are funded. A conservative investment return assumption, however, also leads to long-term surpluses in the plan, as is shown for two practical actuarial funding methods. Long-term deficits result from an optimistic assumption. Neither outcome is desirable as, in the long term, pension plan assets should be accumulated to meet the pension liabilities valued at a suitable discount rate. A third method is devised that avoids such persistent surpluses and deficits regardless of conservatism or optimism in the assumed investment return.

Keywords

Actuarial valuationfunding methodintervaluation gains and losses
Type
Articles
Information
ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , November 2003 , pp. 289 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © ASTIN Bulletin 2003

References

Actuarial Standards Board (1996) Actuarial Standard of Practice No. 27: Selection of Economic Assumptions for Measuring Pension Obligations. Pensions Committee of the Actuarial Standards Board, American Academy of Actuaries, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Balzer, L.A. (1982) Control of insurance systems with delayed profit/loss-sharing feedback and persisting unpredicted claims. Journal of the Institute of Actuaries 109, 285–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berin, B.N. (1989) The Fundamentals of Pension Mathematics. Society of Actuaries, Schaumburg, Illinois.Google Scholar
Daykin, C.D. (1976) Long-term rates of interest in the valuation of a pension fund. Journal of the Institute of Actuaries 21, 286–340.Google Scholar
Dufresne, D. (1988) Moments of pension contributions and fund levels when rates of return are random. Journal of the Institute of Actuaries 115, 535–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufresne, D. (1989) Stability of pension systems when rates of return are random. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 8, 71–76.Google Scholar
Marden, M. (1966) The Geometry of Polynomials, 2nd ed. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.Google Scholar
McGill, D.M., Brown, K.N., Haley, J.J. and Schieber, S.J. (1996) Fundamentals of Private Pensions, 7th ed. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Owadally, M.I. and Haberman, S. (1999) Pension fund dynamics and gains/losses due to random rates of investment return. North American Actuarial Journal 3(3), 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, G.C. (1987) Control of unfunded and partially funded systems of payments. Journal of the Institute of Actuaries 114, 371–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P.N. and Wilson, A.F. (1992) A realistic approach to pension funding. Journal of the Institute of Actuaries 119, 229–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trowbridge, C.L. (1952) Fundamentals of pension funding. Transactions of the Society of Actuaries 4, 17–43.Google Scholar
Trowbridge, C.L. and Farr, C.E. (1976) The Theory and Practice of Pension Funding. Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, Illinois.Google Scholar