IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bracjl/v28y2023ip-_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Considerations for actuaries when advising on commutation rates

Author

Listed:
  • Hilsden, Jonathan
  • Berriman, Ben
  • Crocker, Paul
  • Fish, Judith
  • Forsyth, Jon
  • Lindsay, Kerry

Abstract

This paper sets out the working party’s view that for a defined benefit pension scheme’s commutation rate the appropriate starting point should be to set it in line with the scheme’s cash equivalent transfer value basis. We recognise that there may be several reasons why an actuary in their advice may deviate from that starting point and we explore these in detail, giving our views on when deviation is and is not justified, noting that many common reasons used such as selection risk are often used without (in our view) adequate justification. We also cover frequency of review – our view is that commutation rates should be reviewed at least every 3 years and actuaries should consider performing a high-level review of commutation rates annually. We suggest that actuaries should consider proposing market-related commutation rates especially in periods of volatile market conditions. In terms of timing, there are good arguments to review commutation terms either following or during a valuation. Finally, we set out some considerations on how actuaries should present their advice, such as clearly setting out all the information required to take key decisions, following up with any actuarial certification in writing (if necessary) and illustrating the impact on members for changing commutation rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Hilsden, Jonathan & Berriman, Ben & Crocker, Paul & Fish, Judith & Forsyth, Jon & Lindsay, Kerry, 2023. "Considerations for actuaries when advising on commutation rates," British Actuarial Journal, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28, pages 1-1, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bracjl:v:28:y:2023:i::p:-_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1357321723000077/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:28:y:2023:i::p:-_7. 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.