The hedging practices survey took place towards the end of 2015 in the final few months prior to Solvency II regulations coming into force. At the point of completing the survey we would expect that companies would have largely transitioned their hedging approaches to work in a Solvency II environment. There may be some cases where further changes were planned but not implemented at the point of completing the survey. Further, as familiarity with working under the new regulations increases, approaches are expected to continue to develop over time. The working party hopes that this report is useful in summarising industry attitudes at this point in time and as a comparator in future years. Before launching the survey we did have several conjectures of what we may expect to see in the results. Some proved true, for some it was difficult to glean any strong conclusion from the data, and there were one or two where results countered what we expected to see.

This abstract relates to the following paper: KlumpesP., LedlieC., FaheyF., KakarG. and StylesS. Incentives facing UK-listed companies to comply with the risk reporting provisions of the UK corporate governance code. British Actuarial Journal. doi: 10.1017/5135732/716000180

A new stream of research proposes how people can increase their income in retirement by pooling their mortality risk. How one of these mortality risk-sharing rules could be implemented in practice, as part of a retirement income scheme, is considered. A potential advantage of the scheme is that a retiree’s housing wealth can be monetised to provide an income stream. This would mean that retirees can continue living in their home, without needing to downsize. It may be most attractive to the millions of single pensioners, particularly those who are “asset-rich and cash-poor”. Other types of assets that could be included and how to mitigate selection risks are assessed. A way of smoothing the raw mortality credits in order to make the scheme more appealing to potential members is proposed. An illustrative premium calculation suggests that the cost of the smoothing is very small compared to the potential attractiveness of an enhanced, smoothed income.

The move from defined benefit to defined contribution (DC) has transferred the longevity and investment risks from the plan sponsor to the individual plan member. Without the actuarial cross-subsidies implied by pooling these risks, the danger of outliving one’s savings is significant. Much attention has been focussed on pre-retirement investment design but less on post-retirement. In most countries, the post-retirement systems in place are insufficient to solve this challenge for small asset sizes or small proportions of individuals’ retirement accounts. However, a number of DC markets are mature, such as Australia and Chile, and the principles of a solution that works for all must be identified. This paper researches a number of post-retirement systems around the world and identifies ten key factors that contribute to post-retirement solution design. These factors can result in an inconsistency between countries regarding the most appropriate post-retirement solution. Additionally, a disconnect is apparent between what retirees need and want in post-retirement. Successful post-retirement solutions will inevitably blend investment and insurance components in a balanced manner. With lengthening life expectancies, research supports strategies that blend a growth and income account-based approach for the first 15–20 years after retirement with longevity protection in later life.

This abstract relates to the following paper: MorganL-A. and LothianS.A. Designing successful post-retirement solutions by blending growth, income and protection. British Actuarial Journal, doi: 10.1017/S1357321717000034