• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • Conference
  • Events Calendar
  • Webcast151
  • MOTB
  • Log In
  • Register

Room 151

  • Treasury
  • Technical
  • Funding
  • Resources
  • LGPS
  • Development
  • 151 News
  • Blogs
    • David Green
    • Agent 151
    • Dan Bates
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Sheen
    • James Bevan
    • Steve Bishop
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • David Crum
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O’Donnell
    • Jackie Shute
  • Interviews

2019 LGPS valuations: The good, the bad and the ugly

0
  • by Guest
  • in LGPSi
  • — 22 Oct, 2019

Results from the LGPS triennial valuations are coming in and they look good. Graeme Muir argues, however, it’s more complicated than that.

We are now half way through the year with most LGPS funds discussing assumptions and initial results from the trienniel valuations with their actuary. The question from interested observers is—how are they going?

The good

In terms of crunching the numbers, the data is a lot better than 2016, the first valuation of the new CARE (career average revalued earnings) scheme introduced in 2014. Funds have been working hard cleaning and their data with some help from our online data checker. Of course, data is never going to be 100% clean and some funds still struggle getting information from their employers but the less data estimation required the easier the valuation process and the quicker we can report results.

But it’s not just that the data is better. Funds continued to achieve strong positive asset returns in the three years to March 2019. Some quite considerable variation though with returns ranging from about 8% per annum (around 25% over the three years) to 12% per annum (or around 40% over three years). Strategy would have been a key factor as well as manager selection.

So any other good news?

As has been widely reported, there has been a slowdown in the rate of improvement in longevity. This might not sound like good news but it is for some—undertakers and defined benefit pension funds are the more obvious benefactors.

With the help of our longevity team, we have been analysing the mortality experience of our LGPS funds. As at 2019 mortality rates are generally higher than we were projecting back in 2016 and future projections have also been scaled back. Mortality is still improving—we are all still living longer—but maybe not as long as previously thought. Funds are now projected to pay out less pension benefits than previously thought.

The Bad

Of course, it’s never all good news. The slowdown in longevity improvements will lead to less being paid out than before. However, forward projections of inflation have increased meaning more getting paid out than before. Overall, one probably cancels out the other.

Strong positive asset returns are, of course, great (provided you had some assets at the start). Not so great if you still need to buy some—much more expensive than before, so more cash is needed to buy the same assets. It’s a bit like the property market: mums and dads feeling a bit wealthier as property prices increase but the kids looking to buy need more cash to join the party.

However, LGPS funds are still accruing new liabilities and need to buy new assets to fund these liabilities. This means we need more cash to buy these more expensive assets to meet these new liabilities. This all gets reflected in the determination of those discount rates that everyone loves but never really understands. The biggest part of most employers’ contributions—the so called “primary rate” of cost of future accrual—has increased, albeit not as much as it might have done thanks to the slowdown in longevity improvements.

So overall how does it all stack up?

Funding levels will be up—as expected but likely to be quite a bit higher than expected—the extra asset returns and longevity changes will have outpaced the increase in inflation and lower discount rates.

Higher funding levels usually means lower deficits (not always though) and reductions in deficit contributions. Hurrah!

However, primary rates have increased thanks to higher inflation, lower future return expectations as reflected in discount rates net of the longevity expectations. Boo!

When we add it all together where are we and will we see any reduction in employers’ total contributions? It’s a question we get all the time: What does it take to actually reduce employer contributions? It’s a simple question with a not so simple answer. As ever, it depends on a number of factors. Funding level does come into it but so too does the existing level of contribution.

In the long term the cost of the LGPS to employers is probably somewhere in region of 15% to 20% of pay.

In a fund with a 102% funding level with employers paying 18% of pay, a reduction is unlikely as it wouldn’t take much to get back into negative territory and there is a not insignificant risk of having to increase contributions at the next valuation having just reduced them. For a fund on a funding level of 98% with employers paying 25% of pay, a modest reduction is more likely as it still might be okay in three years’ time, even if funding levels decline.

The ugly

The ugly stuff is mainly the regulatory uncertaintythe well intentioned if flawed and now paused cost management process, section 13 valuations and, of course, the McCloud case. Of all the assumptions actuaries have to make these are probably some of the most challenging and make forecasting future mortality changes a bit of a walk in the park.

However, we are a creative lot and with a bit of imagination we will deal with the ugly stuff.

So how are the valuations going? Fine.

Graeme Muir is partner and head of public sector at Barnett Waddingham.

Share

You may also like...

  • Local Pensions Partnership launches with FCA approval and an eye on treasury assets Local Pensions Partnership launches with FCA approval and an eye on treasury assets 13 Apr, 2016
  • Questions raised over LGPS pools’ equity investment strategies Questions raised over LGPS pools’ equity investment strategies 20 Aug, 2019
  • Managing inflation risk in LGPS funds Managing inflation risk in LGPS funds 21 Nov, 2013
  • A five-step climate action plan for LGPS 14 Oct, 2020

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Latest tweets

    Room151 23 hours ago

    What role will climate change have on the pricing of government bonds?: Sponsored article: Kerry Duffain finds that “vulnerability and resilience to climate change” have a significant impact on the cost of government borrowing. Ardea Investment… dlvr.it/RtNKv7 pic.twitter.com/wDjT31x4Yt

    Room151 2 days ago

    ESGenius: Slashing emissions will fuel green growth for decades: Sponsored article: Velislava Dimitrova argues that a big enough investment could mean transition to a low, or no, carbon economy can become a reality. The world needs to slash carbon[...] dlvr.it/RtKZJp pic.twitter.com/cd8S3ijERl

    Room151 2 days ago

    Prudential code: “Not perfect, but its heart is in the right place”: The new Prudential Code offers revised rules for borrowing. Nikki Bishop is sceptical it will work while Gary Fielding offers his support. Nikki Bishop I have been asked to give[...] dlvr.it/RtKZFh pic.twitter.com/OriN28lXcb

    Room151 3 days ago

    Tremendous report from @MarkSandford3 citing @room_151 no fewer than six times (despite what the @lgcplus fact checking/counting dept might tell you) #localgov commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brief… 1/5

    Room151 1 week ago

    Dan Bates: Capitalisation directions are not the only tool for rebuilding finances: Dan Bates argues deep seated problems are contributing to a rush for capitalisation directions. For some time now we have been reading that a number of councils are in… dlvr.it/RspKff pic.twitter.com/xRRsgVim9u

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    Is local government funding “broken”?: Andrew Hardingham looks at the underlying issues that caused more than a third of respondents in the Room151/CCLA treasury survey to say that the funding system for local govenrment is[...] dlvr.it/RsYhsg pic.twitter.com/plNp7Ayys6

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    GameStop: A lesson for LGPS in the risks of short selling: Day traders coordinating their efforts through the social media platform Reddit have not only boosted the stock of US GameStop, but also badly hurt hedge funds engaged in huge bets[...] dlvr.it/RsGdVV pic.twitter.com/NTMC3j6J2u

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    Room151 panel backs unitary councils and devolution: Bigger isn’t always better when it comes to local government, according to Sir Bob Kerslake, chair of the Peabody Trust, but “ …we need to move to unitary government and[...] dlvr.it/RsFPNv pic.twitter.com/lT4eCi0TmV

  • Categories

    • 151 News
    • Agent 151
    • Blogs
    • Chris Buss
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • Dan Bates
    • David Crum
    • David Green
    • Development
    • Forum
    • Funding
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O'Donnell
    • Interviews
    • Jackie Shute
    • James Bevan
    • Jobs
    • LGPSi
    • Mark Finnegan
    • Recent Posts
    • Resources
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Fitzgerald
    • Stephen Sheen
    • Steve Bishop
    • Technical
    • Treasury
    • Uncategorized
  • Archives

    • 2021
    • 2020
    • 2019
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2016
    • 2015
    • 2014
    • 2013
    • 2012
    • 2011
  • Previous story Financial resilience index revisions set to scrap traffic light indicator on reserves
  • Next story The Pensions Regulator has spoken: LGPS is ‘high risk’ for governance and admin

© Copyright 2021 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website.OK