IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bracjl/v13y2007i03p375-464_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should Projections of Mortality Improvements be Subject to a Minimum Value?

Author

Listed:
  • Baxter, S. D.

Abstract

Projections of future mortality typically used for funding pension scheme liabilities assume that future year-on-year decreases in mortality rates will slow rapidly, and that there is very limited potential for further decreases at the oldest ages. This paper considers the consistency of such projections with current trends in life expectancy. Particular focus is paid to whether future mortality should be subject to a minimum level of improvement to reflect general advances in medicine. Care is taken to exclude the additional increases in longevity arising from a concentration of positive health factors amongst the generation who are currently experiencing the ‘cohort effect’. If historic trends continue into the future, then period life expectancy from age 65 in England & Wales will increase at 26 days p.a. for women and 41 days p.a. for men, with additional increases arising from the ‘cohort effect’. This is a faster rate of period increase in life expectancy than embedded in the interim cohort projections. One way to ensure that actuarial projections keep pace with the population trend is to subject projections to a minimum level of (geometric) improvement of at least 11/4% p.a. for men and 3/4% p.a. for women, at all older ages and in all future years. Consideration is given to the possible impact of differences between the socio-economic profile of England & Wales and the membership of the pension schemes to whom the projections will be applied ultimately. This paper also highlights that the application of a single minimum value, independent of time and age, simplifies a more complex underlying pattern, but that minimum improvements of 11/4% p.a. for males and 3/4% p.a. for females represent an average of historic improvements in mortality seen in England & Wales. The paper includes a survey of the history of the low levels of mortality seen currently. The survey includes some discussion on the potential for future improvements and considers topical issues, such as the potential impact of obesity on life expectancy projections (and, in turn, the minimum value applied to improvements). The financial impact of subjecting projections of mortality improvement to a minimum value is quantified.

Suggested Citation

  • Baxter, S. D., 2007. "Should Projections of Mortality Improvements be Subject to a Minimum Value?," British Actuarial Journal, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 375-464, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bracjl:v:13:y:2007:i:03:p:375-464_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1357321700001513/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Haberman, Steven & Renshaw, Arthur, 2012. "Parametric mortality improvement rate modelling and projecting," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 309-333.
    2. Danesi, Ivan Luciano & Haberman, Steven & Millossovich, Pietro, 2015. "Forecasting mortality in subpopulations using Lee–Carter type models: A comparison," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 151-161.
    3. David Atance & Alejandro Balbás & Eliseo Navarro, 2020. "Constructing dynamic life tables with a single-factor model," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 787-825, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bracjl:v:13:y:2007:i:03:p:375-464_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/baj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.