Session 6A, Mortality Improvement Approaches. Moderator: Jean Marc Fix, FSA, MAAA. Presenters: Laurence Pinzur, FSA

Similar documents
Session 158 PD - Living to 100: Modeling of Mortality Improvement. Moderator: Andrew J. Peterson, FSA, EA, FCA, MAAA

General Session #2. Mortality in 2-D. Christopher Bone. Laurence Pinzur PBGC. Aon Hewitt. March 25, 2014

Session 36 PD, Mortality Assumption Setting for Pension Actuaries. Moderator: Andrew J. Peterson, FSA, EA, FCA, MAAA

Informal Discussion Transcript Concurrent Session 6A: Mortality Improvement Approaches

Task Force Report on Mortality Improvement

Our New Old Problem Pricing Longevity Risk in Australia. Patricia Berry, Lawrence Tsui (& Gavin Jones) < copyright Berry, Tsui, Jones>

Session 2b Pension Product Pricing and Longevity Risk Management. Andrew D. Rallis, FSA, MAAA

The CMI Mortality Projections Model

Mortality Improvement Scale MP-2018

Selection of Mortality Assumptions for Pension Plan Actuarial Valuations

April 9, Robert Choi Director, Employee Plans Internal Revenue Service 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW NCA 614 Washington, DC 20224

Selection of Mortality Assumptions for Pension Plan Actuarial Valuations

Session 48 PD, Mortality Update. Moderator: James M. Filmore, FSA, MAAA

Constructing Two-Dimensional Mortality Improvement Scales for Canadian Pension Plans and Insurers: A Stochastic Modelling Approach

Mortality Improvement Trends and Assumption Setting

MISSOURI STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM - JUDGES

U.S. Public Pension Plan Mortality Assumptions Compared to Pub-2010 Mortality Tables

Longevity Underwriting

IFRS Convergence: The Role of Stochastic Mortality Models in the Disclosure of Longevity Risk for Defined Benefit Plans

A Simple Stochastic Model for Longevity Risk revisited through Bootstrap

Texas Municipal Retirement System. June 20, Retiree Mortality Study. Joseph Newton Mark Randall. Copyright 2012 GRS All rights reserved.

Votaire Assumptions and Methodology

Modelling Longevity Dynamics for Pensions and Annuity Business

Mortality Table Development 2014 VBT Primary Tables. Table of Contents

Termination, Retirement and SMP Experience Study for the Public Service Pension Plan

Article from: Pension Section News. May 2014 Issue 83

The CMI Mortality Projections Model Fri 13 th November 2009

Good practice when choosing assumptions for defined benefit pension schemes with a special focus on mortality

Evaluating Hedge Effectiveness for Longevity Annuities

SOA Annual Symposium Shanghai. November 5-6, Shanghai, China

Post-NAIC Update/PBA Webinar

Update on Development of New Payout Annuity Mortality Table

HEDGING LONGEVITY RISK: A FORENSIC, MODEL-BASED ANALYSIS AND DECOMPOSITION OF BASIS RISK

Aon Switzerland Ltd. Aon Hewitt Retirement. Longevity Assumption. Alternative model for projecting future mortality improvements in Switzerland

Mortality Improvement Research Paper

MORTALITY ASSUMPTIONS AND LONGEVITY RISK. Challenges in assessing expected longevity risk

September 30, Results of 2009 Experience Study

P U B L I C E M P L O Y E E S R E T I R E M E N T A S S O C I A T I O N O F M I N N E S O T A L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T C O R R E C T I O N A L S

MORTALITY RISK ASSESSMENT UNDER IFRS 17

Mortality Table Update on the 2015 VBT/CSO

February 3, Experience Study Judges Retirement Fund

December 2, Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota General Employees Retirement Plan St. Paul, Minnesota

Mortality Projections

COUNTRY REPORT TURKEY

MODELLING AND MANAGEMENT OF MORTALITY RISK

American Academy of Actuaries Life Reserve Working Group - VM-20 Mortality Section

It Takes Two: Why Mortality Trend Modeling is more than modeling one Mortality Trend

Mortality Improvement:

Dear Trustees of the Local Government Correctional Service Retirement Plan:

CalPERS Experience Study and Review of Actuarial Assumptions

CITY OF TALLAHASSEE PENSION PLANS ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2016

Actuary s Certification Letter (Pension Trust Fund)

Implications of Mortality Improvements

Term / UL Experience (Mortality, Lapse, Conversion, Anti-selection)

Understanding, Measuring & Managing Longevity Risk. Longevity Modelling Technical Paper

Session 127 PD, Life and Annuity In-Force Management. Moderator: David J. Weinsier, FSA, MAAA

CITY OF ALLEN PARK EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Article from. The Financial Reporter. December 2015 Issue 103

P U B L I C E M P L O Y E E S R E T I R E M E N T A S S O C I A T I O N O F M I N N E S O T A

CONTENTS. 1-2 Summary of Benefit Provisions 3 Asset Information 4-6 Retired Life Data Active Member Data Inactive Vested Member Data

Aleš Ahčan Darko Medved Ermanno Pitacco Jože Sambt Robert Sraka Ljubljana,

Longevity risk: past, present and future

NORTH CAROLINA NATIONAL GUARD PENSION FUND Report on the Actuarial Valuation Prepared as of December 31, 2012

SIMPLIFIED ISSUE & ACCELERATED UNDERWRITING MORTALITY UNDER VM-20

MODELLING AND MANAGEMENT OF LONGEVITY RISK. Andrew Cairns Heriot-Watt University, and The Maxwell Institute, Edinburgh

Pricing death. or Modelling the Mortality Term Structure. Andrew Cairns Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh. Joint work with David Blake & Kevin Dowd

City of Albany Police and Fire Relief or Pension Fund

Stochastic Analysis Of Long Term Multiple-Decrement Contracts

ACOPA Actuarial Symposium Workshop 6 New Mortality Tables: Their Use and Applications. August 8, 2015

The Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit GASB Statement Nos. 67 and 68 Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pension Plans of

November 28, Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota General Employees Retirement Plan St. Paul, Minnesota

Session 88 PD, PBR: Practical Implementation and Governance Issues. Moderator: Helen Colterman, FSA, CERA, ACIA

Kent County Levy Court. Actuarial Valuation of the Kent County Retiree Benefits Program As of January 1, March 16, 2009

C I T Y O F S T. C L A I R S H O R E S E M P L O Y E E S R E T I R E M E N T S Y S T E M 6 4 T H A C T U A R I A L V A L U A T I O N R E P O R T A S

TRANSACTIONS OF SOCIETY OF ACTUARIES 1995 VOL GROUP ANNUITY MORTALITY TABLE AND 1994 GROUP ANNUITY RESERVING TABLE

INSTITUTE AND FACULTY OF ACTUARIES. Curriculum 2019 SPECIMEN SOLUTIONS

City of Marine City Retirement

Article from: Reinsurance News. July 2013 Issue 76

DATE SUBMITTED 2009/06/10. 1 ST AUTHOR LAST NAME Rozar. 1 ST AUTHOR FIRST NAME Timothy L

St. Paul Teachers Retirement Fund Association

P U B L I C E M P L O Y E E S R E T I R E M E N T A S S O C I A T I O N O F M I N N E S O T A

Longevity Seminar. Forward Mortality Rates. Presenter(s): Andrew Hunt. Sponsored by

Public Service Shared Risk Plan Actuarial Valuation Report as at January 1, 2016

Report of the Group Annuity Experience Committee Mortality Experience for

Longevity Risk Task Force Update

VILLAGE OF CARPENTERSVILLE CARPENTERSVILLE POLICE PENSION FUND. Actuarial Valuation Report. For the Year. Beginning January 1, 2016

Teachers Pension and Annuity Fund of New Jersey. Experience Study July 1, 2006 June 30, 2009

With the adoption of Valuation Manual 20 (VM-20) on

Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System

Report to Board of Administration

Shared Risk Plan for CUPE Employees of New Brunswick Hospitals

Session 39 PD, Non-Variable Annuity PBR Update. Moderator: James W. Lamson, FSA, MAAA

Shared Risk Plan for Certain Bargaining Employees of New Brunswick Hospitals

Subject: Experience Review for the Years June 30, 2010, to June 30, 2014

Session 155 PD, Guaranteed Issue, Simplified Issue and Preneed Update. Moderator: Cynthia MacDonald, FSA, MAAA

Employees Retirement. City of Ann Arbor. System. Actuarial Experience Study

Behavioral Analytics for Annuities. Timothy Paris

MORTALITY TABLE UPDATE VBT & 2017 CSO

Society of Actuaries Finalizes New Mortality Assumptions

M I N N E S O T A S T A T E R E T I R E M E N T S Y S T E M J U D G E S R E T I R E M E N T F U N D

Transcription:

Session 6A, Mortality Improvement Approaches Moderator: Jean Marc Fix, FSA, MAAA Presenters: Laurence Pinzur, FSA

Session 6A Mortality Improvement Models 6 January 2017 Laurence Pinzur, PhD, FSA Aon Hewitt

Agenda The Challenge Some Basics Deterministic Models used in the US Deterministic Models used in the UK and Canada Assessing Model Effectiveness Questions LT100 January 2017 2

The Challenge Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. Niels Bohr

The Challenge = 1.0% = 1.6% Source: SOA; Mortality Improvement Scale MP 2016 Report LT100 January 2017 4 4

The Challenge LT100 January 2017 5 5

The Challenge: Signal vs Noise LT100 January 2017 6 6

Some Basics

Stochastic vs Deterministic Both start with historical mortality experience, but Stochastic mortality improvement (MI) models reflect assumed probability distributions, which permit future volatility to be quantified; some examples: Lee Carter Cairns Blake Dowd (CBD family of models) Deterministic models produce a single answer (based on a given set of inputs); some examples: CMI RPEC LT100 January 2017 8 8

Age Only vs Two Dimensional Age only projection scales consist of (genderspecific) MI rates that do not vary over time Example: Scale AA Let q(x,y) represent the mortality rate at age x in calendar year y Then q(x,2016+t) = q(x,2016) (1 AA x ) t Two dimensional projection scales consist of (gender specific) MI rates that are functions of both age and calendar year Example: Scale MP 2016 Let f(x, y) represent the MP 2016 rate at age x in calendar year y Then q(x,2018) = q(x,2016) (1 f(x,2017)) (1 f(x,2018)) LT100 January 2017 9 9

Static vs Generational Mortality Calendar Year Static Age 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 60 q(60,2016) q(60,2017) q(60,2018) q(60,2019) q(60,2020) q(60,2021) q(60,2022) q(60,2023) q(60,2024) q(60,2025) 61 q(61,2016) q(61,2017) q(61,2018) q(61,2019) q(61,2020) q(61,2021) q(61,2022) q(61,2023) q(61,2024) q(61,2025) 62 q(62,2016) q(62,2017) q(62,2018) q(62,2019) q(62,2020) q(62,2021) q(62,2022) q(62,2023) q(62,2024) q(62,2025) 63 q(63,2016) q(63,2017) q(63,2018) q(63,2019) q(63,2020) q(63,2021) q(63,2022) q(63,2023) q(63,2024) q(63,2025) 64 q(64,2016) q(64,2017) q(64,2018) q(64,2019) q(64,2020) q(64,2021) q(64,2022) q(64,2023) q(64,2024) q(64,2025) 65 q(65,2016) q(65,2017) q(65,2018) q(65,2019) q(65,2020) q(65,2021) q(65,2022) q(65,2023) q(65,2024) q(65,2025) 66 q(66,2016) q(66,2017) q(66,2018) q(66,2019) q(66,2020) q(66,2021) q(66,2022) q(66,2023) q(66,2024) q(66,2025) 67 q(67,2016) q(67,2017) q(67,2018) q(67,2019) q(67,2020) q(67,2021) q(67,2022) q(67,2023) q(67,2024) q(67,2025) 68 q(68,2016) q(68,2017) q(68,2018) q(68,2019) q(68,2020) q(68,2021) q(68,2022) q(68,2023) q(68,2024) q(68,2025) 69 q(69,2016) q(69,2017) q(69,2018) q(69,2019) q(69,2020) q(69,2021) q(69,2022) q(69,2023) q(69,2024) q(69,2025) 70 q(70,2016) q(70,2017) q(70,2018) q(70,2019) q(70,2020) q(70,2021) q(70,2022) q(70,2023) q(70,2024) q(70,2025) 71 q(71,2016) q(71,2017) q(71,2018) q(71,2019) q(71,2020) q(71,2021) q(71,2022) q(71,2023) q(71,2024) q(71,2025) 72 q(72,2016) q(72,2017) q(72,2018) q(72,2019) q(72,2020) q(72,2021) q(72,2022) q(72,2023) q(72,2024) q(72,2025) 73 q(73,2016) q(73,2017) q(73,2018) q(73,2019) q(73,2020) q(73,2021) q(73,2022) q(73,2023) q(73,2024) q(73,2025) 74 q(74,2016) q(74,2017) q(74,2018) q(74,2019) q(74,2020) q(74,2021) q(74,2022) q(74,2023) q(74,2024) q(74,2025) 75 q(75,2016) q(75,2017) q(75,2018) q(75,2019) q(75,2020) q(75,2021) q(75,2022) q(75,2023) q(75,2024) q(75,2025) LT100 January 2017 10 10

Deterministic Models Used in the US «Tout ce qui est simple est faux, mais tout ce qui ne l'est pas est inutilisable.» Paul Valéry (Everything simple is false, but everything complex is unusable.)

SOA MI Scales Life insurance products: Scale used in conjunction with AG 38 and VM 20 (Scale AG38 MI *) Individual annuity products: Scale G2 Statutory group annuity reserves: Scale AA Measuring retirement plan obligations: 1994 through 2011: Scale AA 2012 and 2013: Scale BB Post 2013: 2D RPEC models (MP 2014, MP 2015, and MP 2016) All age only scales * No official name given to this mortality improvement scale. LT100 January 2017 12 12

AG38 MI (Life Insurance) LT100 January 2017 13

G2 (Individual Annuity) LT100 January 2017 14

AA (Group Annuity Reserves) LT100 January 2017 15

Explanation for AA s Shape LT100 January 2017 16

BB (Retirement Plan Obligations) LT100 January 2017 17

Development of Scale BB Derived from 2D array of smoothed/projected MI rates BB 2D (Males) RPEC backed into Scale BB from a table of deferred toage 62 annuity values (RP 2000; i= 6%) LT100 January 2017 18

Comparison (Males) LT100 January 2017 19

Comparison (Females) LT100 January 2017 20

2D MI Scales (US): RPEC_2014 RPEC_2014 Model Basis for MP 2014, MP 2015, and MP 2016 Conceptual framework based on CMI s (current) model Near term MI rates should reflect recent experience Long term MI rates (LTRs) should be based on expert opinion Near term rates should blend smoothly into long term rates In contrast to the CMI model, RPEC_2014 does not develop explicit A/P/C components Projection along 45 diagonals is meant to simulate cohort effects Smooth blending (from near term to long term) accomplished via horizontal and diagonal cubic splines LT100 January 2017 21 21

Heatmap: Scale MP 2016 LT100 January 2017 22 22

2D MI Scales (US): SSA SSA Model Future mortality improvement is one of many demographic assumptions needed to assess the ongoing financial status of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid Three sets of alternative assumptions (low, medium, and high cost) Long term rates of MI Based primarily on in depth cause of death analysis Reflect different LTRs for different age ranges ( age gradient ) Interpolation methodology For each gender and age, the starting point of SSA projections is the average MI over the most prior 10 years Purely horizontal; no explicit recognition of cohort effects Quick transition away from near term rates (towards long term) LT100 January 2017 23 23

Heatmap: SSA MI Scale LT100 January 2017 24 24

Summary of US MI Scales Scale Type Latest Basis Update AG38 MI Age only 2016 SSA actual (2003 2013) + SSA (Alt. II) assumed MI (2014 2034) G2 Age only 2011 SSA actual (1990 2006) + SSA (Alt. II) assumed MI through 2022 + a bit extra AA Age only 1994 SSA & CSRS; retrospective only (1977 1993) BB Age only 2012 (Scale BB 2D): SSA; assumed LTR = 1.0%¹ MP 2016 2D 2016 SSA; assumed LTR = 1.0%¹ SSA (Alt. II) 2D 2016 Age dependent assumed LTR² based on cause of death projections ¹ MP 2016 LTR equals 1.0% for all ages up to 85; then tapers to 0% by age 115. ² Average LTRs in 2016 Trustees Report are 0.90% for ages 15 49, 1.07% for ages 50 64, 0.74% for ages 65 84, and 0.49% for ages 85+. LT100 January 2017 25 25

Deterministic Models Used in the UK and Canada

Current CMI Graduated Historical MI Age Period Cohort Residual LT100 January 2017 27 27

Current CMI Convergence Periods (CP) Vary In Current CMI Methodology A P A/P 100% of LTR C C Zero LT100 January 2017 28 28

Current CMI Historical MI Interpolation LTR Attained A/P 100% of LTR + C Zero + Residuals LT100 January 2017 29 29

CMI_2015 Example Mortality improvements from CMI_2015_M [1.5%] Source: The Future of the CMI Mortality Projections Model (October 2015) LT100 January 2017 30 30

Canadian Pensioners Mortality (CPM) Long term MI rates equal to C/QPP assumption for 2030 and beyond Flat 0.8% through age 82 Gradual decline to 0% at age 115 Gender /age specific MI rates that decrease linearly (to the respective LTR) between 2012 and 2030 No explicit recognition of cohort effects Subcommittee acknowledged that a cohort effect could be observed for Canadian males, but that the impact on most pension valuations would be negligible Source: Final Report: Canadian Pensioners Mortality (February 2014) LT100 January 2017 31 31

CPM B (MI Scale) Males LT100 January 2017 32 32

Assessing Model Effectiveness Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful. George Box

Desirable MI Model Features Features to consider Stability Historical Fit Backtesting Forecast Accuracy (Predictive Power) Smoothness Parsimony Simplicity Relative important of the features should depend on the specific actuarial application Increasing the score of one feature often reduces the score of other features LT100 January 2017 34 34

Stability vs Fit Model stability (with respect to adding new years of data) and goodness of fit to historical MI rates tend to be inversely related This is especially true when the model s interpolation methodology reflects a direction of travel Signal vs noise: What is the appropriate amount of historical smoothing? LT100 January 2017 35 35

Stability vs Fit: Historical Smoothing LT100 January 2017 36

Long Term Rate (LTR) How long is long term? SSA: 25 years MP 2016: 20 years CMI Core : 20 years (cohort component 40) CPM B: 20 years Even once a time frame has been established, determining an appropriate LTR can be problematic How much reliance should be placed on historical trends? Cause of death analysis (projected into the future) Expert opinion Unknown unknowns LT100 January 2017 37 37

Forecast Accuracy The ability to accurately predict future mortality rates should clearly be a desirable feature of any MI model But the forecast accuracy (or predictive power ) of a given model is turning our to be difficult to assess (!) CMI Working Paper #91 provides some reasons why this seems to be so challenging Inherent volatility of MI, along with no requirement that future drivers of MI must behave the same way as past drivers Interaction with the model s assumed long term rate of MI Data limitations (with respect to backtesting) LT100 January 2017 38 38

Inherent Volatility For a specific fixed age, let m(t) represent the central mortality rate for that age at time t Let s assume: log m(t) = S(t) + Z(t), where S(t) is some smooth, slowly varying, deterministic underlying trend and Z(t) is a standard normal random variable Variance for log m(t), Mortality Improvement (MI) and Direction of Travel (DoT) (log ( )) = 2 ( ( )) = ( Δ log ( )) = (Δ log ( )) = 2 2 ( ( )) = ( Δ 2 log ( )) = (Δ 2 log ( )) = 6 2 Source: CMI Working Paper #91; Section 5.3 LT100 January 2017 39 39

Questions 40