IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Technical Review Panel for the Pension Insurance Modeling System (PIMS)


  • Olivia S. Mitchell

    (The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania)

  • Christopher C. Geczy

    (The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania)

  • Robert Novy-Marx

    (Simon School of Business, University of Rochester)

  • Raimond Maurer

    (Finance Department, Goethe University)

  • Donald E. Fuerst

    (Mercer Human Resource Consulting)

  • Christopher M. Bone

    (Edth Limited LLC)

  • Donald J. Segal

    (Society of Actuaries)

  • Martin G. Clarke

    (Pension Protection Fund)

  • Frank J. Fabozzi

    (EDHEC Business School, EDHEC Risk Institute)

  • Deborah Lucas

    (Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

  • David F. Babbel

    (The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania)


In April of 2013, the Pension Research Council of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania convened a Technical Review Panel, comprising ten experts whose task it was to review the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s (PBGC) Pension Insurance Modeling System (PIMS), including inputs, outputs, and model assumptions. The review was intended to provide a formal evaluation of the technical adequacy of the model by outside experts. Each expert participating on the Technical Panel was asked to review background material (see References) and focus on a particular aspect of the PIMS model. The list of panelists and topics was developed by the Council in discussion with the Social Security Administration (SSA). This report and the appended papers herein from our Technical Panel comprise the Final Report under this project. The Panel’s key findings may be summarized as follows: (1) The PIMS models are an important and valuable tool in modeling the Agency’s liability risk. To the best of our knowledge, there is no other model that can do a comparable job. (2) Nevertheless, some improvements could be integrated in the Agency’s approach to modeling. Those deserving highest priority attention in the experts’ view are the following: (a) Incorporating systematic mortality risk (i.e., treat mortality and longevity as stochastic variables); (b) Including new asset classes increasingly found in defined benefit plan portfolios (e.g., commercial real estate, private equity funds, infrastructure, hedge funds, and others); (c) Developing a more complex model for the term structure of interest rates; and (d) Incorporating an option value approach to pricing the insurance provided. (3) The Agency could also do more to communicate the range of uncertainty and potential for problems associated with the PBGC’s financial status. This could include additional information including the Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR), and perhaps an ‘intermediate,’ ‘optimistic,’ and ‘pessimistic’ set of projected outcomes, as well as the expected ‘date of exhaustion’ for assets backing pension benefits insured by the PBGC.

Suggested Citation

  • Olivia S. Mitchell & Christopher C. Geczy & Robert Novy-Marx & Raimond Maurer & Donald E. Fuerst & Christopher M. Bone & Donald J. Segal & Martin G. Clarke & Frank J. Fabozzi & Deborah Lucas & David F, 2013. "Technical Review Panel for the Pension Insurance Modeling System (PIMS)," Working Papers wp290, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.
  • Handle: RePEc:mrr:papers:wp290

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. David F. Babbel & Craig Merrill, 2005. "Real and Illusory Value Creation by Insurance Companies," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 72(1), pages 1-22, March.
    2. Merton, Robert C, 1974. "On the Pricing of Corporate Debt: The Risk Structure of Interest Rates," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 29(2), pages 449-470, May.
    3. Jeremy I. Bulow, 1982. "What are Corporate Pension Liabilities?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 97(3), pages 435-452.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:mrr:papers:wp290. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (MRRC Administrator). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.