Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:37:52.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Overviewing the findings: the Technical Panel Review of the Pension Insurance Modeling System*‡

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 December 2014

OLIVIA S. MITCHELL
OLIVIA S. MITCHELL*
Affiliation:
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Locust Walk, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19104-6302 (e-mail: mitchelo@wharton.upenn.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's (PBGC) Pension Insurance Modeling System (PIMS) is used to evaluate the financial security and resilience of the national program backstopping private defined benefit plans. The Pension Research Council of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania recently convened a Technical Review Panel of experts to review key inputs, outputs, and model assumptions. Our review was intended to provide a formal evaluation of the technical adequacy of the model by outside experts. The papers herein summarize views of each expert on this project. Key findings are as follows:

  • • The PIMS models are an important and valuable tool in modeling the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's liability risk. To the best of our knowledge, there is no other model that can do a comparable job.

  • • Nevertheless, some improvements could be integrated in the Agency's approach to modeling. Those deserving highest priority attention, in the experts’ view, include incorporating systematic mortality risk (i.e., treat mortality and longevity as stochastic variables); including new asset classes increasingly found in defined benefit plan portfolios (e.g., commercial real estate, private equity funds, infrastructure, hedge funds, and others); developing a more complex model for the term structure of interest rates; and incorporating an option value approach to pricing the insurance provided.

  • • 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, 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.

Keywords

G22J26J32G28Pension Benefit Guaranty CorporationPension Insurance Modeling System (PIMS)pensionsinsurancedefined benefitpublic policyrisk
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Pension Economics & Finance , Volume 14 , Issue 2: Special Issue on Assessing the U.S. Pension Insurance Modeling System (PIMS) , April 2015 , pp. 115 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Babbel, D. (2015). Evaluating Pension Insurance Pricing. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance 14(2): 186–201.Google Scholar
Bone, C. (2013). Actuarial Perspectives on Defined Benefit Pension Risk – Modeling Emerging Issues. Pension Research Council (PRC) Working Paper WP2013-11. Philadelphia, PA: Pension Research Council. Available at http://www.pensionresearchcouncil.orgGoogle Scholar
Clarke, M. (2013). Modeling Risk-based Pension Insurance Premiums in the UK. Pension Research Council (PRC) Working Paper WP2013-13. Philadelphia, PA: Pension Research Council.Google Scholar
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (2005). The Risk Exposure of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Washington, DC: CBO, September.Google Scholar
Fabozzi, F. (2015). Measuring and Explaining Pension System Risk. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance 14(2): 161–171.Google Scholar
Fuerst, D. (2013). Actuarial Assumptions & Models for DB Pensions. Pension Research Council Working Paper WP2013-10. Philadelphia, PA: Pension Research Council. Available at http://www.pensionresearchcouncil.orgGoogle Scholar
Geczy, C. (2015). Financial market assumptions and pension plan models: a comment on PIMS model asset markets assumptions. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance 14(2): 127–143.Google Scholar
Lucas, D. (2015). Joint risk of DB pension underfunding and sponsor termination: incorporating option-based projections and valuations into PIMS. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance 14(2): 172–185.Google Scholar
Maurer, R. (2015). Integrated risk management for defined benefit pensions: models and metrics. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance 14(2): 151–160.Google Scholar
Novy-Marx, R. (2015). Economic and financial approaches to valuing pension liabilities. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance 14(2): 144–150.Google Scholar
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) (2010 a). SE PIMS System Description. Washington, DC: PBGC.Google Scholar
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) (2010 b). ME PIMS System Description. Washington, DC: PBGC, September 22.Google Scholar
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) (2012 a). Excellence in Customer Service. FY2012 Annual Report. Washington, DC: PBGC.Google Scholar
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) (2012 b). Press Release: FY 2012 PBGC Exposure Report. Washington, DC: PBGC.Google Scholar
Segal, D. (2013). An Actuarial Perspective on Pension System Risk. Pension Research Council Working Paper WP2013-12. Philadelphia, PA: Pension Research Council. Available at http://www.pensionresearchcouncil.orgGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

Buck Consultants (2012). ME-PIMS Peer Review Report. Letter from Buck Consultants to Larry Shirley of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Berwyn, PA: Buck Consultants, September 12.Google Scholar
Lynchval Systems (2012). Multiemployer PIMS − Known Limitations in ME-PIMS, Version 2.0. (Disclosures for Validation). Chantilly, VA: Lynchval Systems Worldwide, Inc., February 10.Google Scholar
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). How PBGC Operates. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation [website]. Available at http://www.pbgc.gov/about/factsheets/page/pbgc-facts.htmlGoogle Scholar
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) (2009). SE PIMS PPG App B. Tech Architecture vFY09. Washington, DC: PBGC.Google Scholar
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) (2010 a). A Brief Description of PIMS’ Source Code. SE PIMS Programmers Guide. Washington, DC: PBGC.Google Scholar
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) (2010 b) SE PIMS User Guide. Washington, DC: PBGC.Google Scholar
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) (2010 c). SE PIMS PPG App A. Pension Insurance Modeling System (PIMS) Input Data Structure vFY09.1. Washington, DC: PBGC.Google Scholar
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) (2011 a). PIMS Technical Specification – Update ME-PIMS Code to Accommodate ME Provisions of PRA 2010. (ME PIMS Pre-Rollout Specs 1 and 2, ME PIMS Post-Rollout Specs). Washington, DC: PBGC, February 6.Google Scholar
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) (2011 b). Overview. Multiemployer PIMS System-Validation Documentation. Washington, DC: PBGC, February 7.Google Scholar
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) (2011 c). Key Differences Between SE-PIMS and ME-PIMS. Multiemployer PIMS System-Validation Documentation. Washington, DC: PBGC, February 7.Google Scholar
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) (2011 d). SE PIMS Environment Plan FY11. rev. March 25. Washington, DC: PBGC.Google Scholar
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) (2011 e). Overview of the Pension Insurance Modeling System (PIMS). Washington, DC: PBGC, April 27.Google Scholar
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) (2012). A Brief History of PIMS. Washington, DC: PBGC, September 27.Google Scholar
Society of Actuaries (SOA) (2012). Proposed Pension Funding Stabilization: How Does It Affect the Single-Employer Defined Benefit System?. SOA Research Report. Schaumburg, IL: SOA.Google Scholar
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) (1997). 1997 PBGC Report. Washington, DC: GAO.Google Scholar