1. How ASOP 51 Will Affect Future Actuarial Valuations
Shelley Johnson, ASA, MAAA
Consulting Actuary

2. How ASOP 51 Will Affect Future Actuarial Valuations
What are ASOPs?
Recent Changes to Current ASOPs
New ASOP 51
Current Proposed ASOP Revisions
Foster & Foster

3. I. What are ASOPs? ASOPs = Actuarial Standards of Practice
Set by the Actuarial Standards Board (ASB)
Describe procedures an actuary should follow when performing actuarial services
Identifies what should be disclosed when communicating the results of those services
Assures the public that actuaries are professionally accountable
Provides a basis for evaluating an actuarial work product
Currently 53 ASOPs in effect
Typically of little interest to those outside of theprofession
Foster & Foster

4. How are ASOPs developed?
Set by vote of 6 out of 9 members of the Actuarial Standards Board
ASB members represent a broad range of backgrounds and areas of practice
ASB reviews and evaluates current and emerging practices, and solicits a wide range of ideas and perspectives, then develops a standard draft for exposure
Proposed ASOP “Exposure Draft” is made public:
Distributed to all members of the actuarial organizations governed by the ASOPs
Distributed to other individuals who have expressed an interested in the ASOPs, such as state insurance commissioners.
Posted on ASB website
Comment period is usually a minimum of 60 days
If more complex, then may have longer comment periods and/or public hearing
May issue second exposure draft
Foster & Foster

5. ASOPs that generally apply to all actuarial work:
ASOP 1 – Introductory ASOP
ASOP 17 – Expert Testimony by Actuaries
ASOP 23 – Data Quality
ASOP 25 – Credibility Procedures
ASOP 41 – Actuarial Communications
Foster & Foster

6. ASOPs specific to pensions:
ASOP 4 – Measuring Pension Obligations and Determining Pension Plan Costs or Contributions
ASOP 27 – Selection of Economic Assumptions for Measuring Pension Obligations
ASOP 34 – Actuarial Practice Concerning Retirement Plan Benefits in Domestic Relations Actions
ASOP 35 – Selection of Demographic and Other Noneconomic Assumptions for Measuring Pension Obligations
ASOP 44 – Selection and Use of Asset Valuation Methods for Pension Valuations
ASOP 51 – Assessment and Disclosure of Risk Associated with Measuring Pension Obligations and Determining Pension Plan Contributions
Foster & Foster

7. II. Recent Changes to Current ASOPs
Pension Committee has been reviewing all pension-related standards
Long-standing language: ASOP 41 states “the actuary should consider what cautions regarding uncertainty or risk in any results should be included in the actuarial report.”
Recent changes to ASOP 4:
Requires disclosure that future pension measurements may differ significantly from the current measurement
Requires actuaries to provide the potential range of future measurements if included in the assignment, or state that such an analysis was not performed due to the limited scope of the assignment
Actuary “should consider the uncertainty or risk inherent in the measurement assumptions and methods and how the actuary’s measurement treats such uncertainty or risk.”
Foster & Foster

8. III. New ASOP 51:
Assessment and Disclosure of Risk Associated with Measuring Pension Obligations and Determining Pension Plan Contributions
Developed as part of the larger review process to help plan sponsors better understand and manage risk
Expands on current language regarding risk in other current ASOPs
Provides guidance to actuaries in determining and communicating the risks that the actual cost of a pension plan may differ from expected cost
Measuring pension obligations and calculating actuarially determined contributions require the use of assumptions regarding future economic and demographic experience.
Users of such measurements may not understand the effects of these assumptions not matching actual future events.
Foster & Foster

9. III. New ASOP 51
Effective for any actuarial work product with a measurement date on or after November 1, 2018.
Applies to funding valuations, projections and pricing of proposed plan changes, and risk assessments unrelated to funding or pricing
Defines risk as “potential of actual future measurements (such as pension obligations, actuarially determined contributions, and funded status) deviating from expected results due to actual experience that differs from the actuarial assumptions”
2 Key Requirements of ASOP 51:
Assessment of Risk
Disclosure of Plan Maturity Measurements
Foster & Foster

10. 1. Assessment of Risk
The actuary should identify risks that may affect the plan’s future financial condition. Actuary should assess the identified risks. ASOP defines each risk pertaining to public pension plans as follows:
Investment risk – the potential that investment returns ≠ expected returns
Longevity and other demographic risks - the potential that plan demographics (mortality, disability, retirement, etc.) ≠ expected experience
Contribution risk – potential of future contributions deviating from expected future contributions. Examples:
Actual contributions are not made in accordance with plan’s funding policy
Withdrawal liability assessments or other anticipated payments to the plan are not made
Other material changes occur in the anticipated number of covered employees, covered payroll, or other relevant contribution base
Foster & Foster

11. 1. Assessment of Risk
Actuary, in discussions with system, will decide which type of analysis is most valuable.
Additional cost will likely result, particularly with quantitative assessments.
In selecting the method to use, the actuary should use professional judgement and should consider:
The degree to which the methods and models reflect the nature, scale, and complexity of the plan, and
Practical considerations such as usefulness, reliability, timeliness, and cost efficiency.
One size does not fit all!
Foster & Foster

12. 1. Assessment of Risk Quantitative Risk Assessments:
Scenario testing – Assesses the impact of one possible event, or several simultaneous or sequentially occurring possible events
Sensitivity testing – Assesses the impact of a change in an actuarial assumption on an actuarial measurement
Stochastic modeling – Generating numerous potential outcomes by allowing for random variation in one or more inputs over time for the purpose of assessing the distribution of those outcomes
Stress testing – A process for assessing the impact of adverse changes in one or relatively few factors affecting a plan’s financial condition.
Comparison to minimal-risk investments – Comparison of an actuarial present value using a discount rate derived from minimal-risk investments to the actuarial present value using the funding valuation or pricing valuation discount rate.
Foster & Foster

13. 1. Assessment of Risk Quantitative Risk Assessments (continued):
Deterministic modeling involves a specific set of assumptions.
Scenario testing - Project future contribution requirements and/or funded ratio over a given period, such as 20 years, assuming investment returns are consistently higher or lower than expected. Examples:
Attain expected return, plus/minus 0.5% annually
Greater than expected improvement in life expectancy
Disability experience doubles
Compare to a baseline projection (assumes all current assumptions will be realized).
Stochastic modeling is much more sophisticated, using random variables for specific inputs to develop a range of outcomes; more sophisticated = more costly.
Foster & Foster

14. 1. Assessment of Risk Quantitative Risk Assessments (continued):
Should select “plausible” inputs, using actuary’s professional judgment.
The purpose is not to feed gentle scenarios into the model to “prove” the System is “sustainable”.
Likewise, the purpose is not to find an extreme set of scenarios to “prove” System is not sustainable.
The purpose is to learn where potential stressors to the System are and to optimize policies and procedures (assumptions, funding procedures and methods, and perhaps even benefits) to improve sustainability and educate stakeholders of those potential risks.
The focus is not on the outcomes, but on the decisions that should be considered based on the outcomes of the test.
Foster & Foster

15. 1. Assessment of Risk Qualitative Risk Assessment (Non-numerical):
Has plan sponsor made the actuarially required contribution over the last 10 years?
Is funded ratio higher than it was 10 years ago?
Based on current assumptions/methods, is UAL expected to be lower in 10 years?
Does amortization method result in negative amortization (payment < interest due), open amortization, back-loaded schedules?
Likelihood of meeting/exceeding the expected return assumption
Annual percentage change in active population in the last 10 years
Any liabilities contingent on future experience? Are these accounted for in the assumptions and/or liabilities?
Current and historical active to retiree ratios
Foster & Foster

16. 1. Assessment of Risk Additional Assessment of Risk
When considering whether to recommend a more detailed study, the actuary should consider certain factors, including but not limited to:
Findings of the actuary’s risk assessment
Size of plan, and size of plan relative to the size of the plan sponsor
Maturity of the plan
Funded status of the plan
Plan’s asset allocation
Characteristics of the contribution allocation procedure (e.g. significantly backloaded)
Extent known by actuary that future recommended contributions may not be made
Length of time since last assessment
Significant changes since last assessment
Foster & Foster

17. 2. Disclosure of Plan Maturity Measures
The actuary should calculate and disclose current plan maturity measures that, in the actuary’s professional judgment, are significant to understanding the risks associated with the plan, such as:
Ratio of market value of assets to payroll
Ratio of cash flow measure to market value of assets
Ratio of benefit payments to contributions
Ratio of retired liability to total liability
Duration of the actuarial accrued liability
Actuary should include discussion of the significance of these measures
Foster & Foster

18. 2. Disclosure of Plan Maturity Measures
Historical information (such as 10 year history)
Plan maturity measures listed on previous slide
Funding Ratios
Actuarially determined contributions
Gains/Losses
Historical Normal Cost
Participant Count
Covered Payroll
Plan Settlement Liability (if applicable)
Foster & Foster

19. IV. Current Proposed ASOP Revisions
ASB recently issued exposure drafts with potential changes to 3 other ASOPs applicable to public pensions:
ASOP 4 – Measuring Pension Obligations and Determining Pension Plan Costs or Contributions
ASOP 27 – Selection of Economic Assumptions for Measuring Pension Obligations
ASOP 35 – Selection of Demographic and Other Noneconomic Assumptions for Measuring Pension Obligations
Comments were due July 31, 2018
Response was “particularly robust”, with over 100 comments in total
Foster & Foster

20. IV. Current Proposed ASOP Revisions
The most significant change is the requirement for actuaries to include “Investment Risk Defeasance Measure” (IRDM) in funding valuations, with obligation measure determined using:
Benefits accrued as of the measurement date
Unit credit cost method
Discount rate to reflect either U.S. Treasury yields or the rates at which pension obligations may effectively be effectively settled
Received many more comments in opposition than in support.
Foster & Foster

21. IV. Current Proposed ASOP Revisions
ASOP 4 (continued)
Comments in support:
The use of U.S. Treasury yields would provide a measure to help evaluate the level of investment risk being taken by a pension plan.
Society of Actuaries: The Investment Risk Defeasement Measure provides important information to assess the degree of risk in a plan’s funding and investment policy that, when accompanied by an actuarial report that provides context for its meaning, improves pension plan sustainability.
Foster & Foster

22. IV. Current Proposed ASOP Revisions
ASOP 4 (continued)
Comments in opposition received from:
Steering Committee of the Public Plans Committee of the Conference of Consulting Actuaries
Numerous actuaries/consulting firms with substantial public pension experience
Comments in opposition:
Market-based alternative liability measurements:
Are not decision-useful to public-sector stakeholders and policymakers
Not directly related to developing and implementing funding policy.
Will likely be misused politically to argue in favor of abandoning the defined benefit (DB) plan.
IRDM “seriously flawed” because “it only attempts to assess the cost of avoiding the investment risk”, and “may undermine the importance of the measures described in ASOP 51”.
Foster & Foster

23. IV. Current Proposed ASOP Revisions
ASOP 4 (continued)
Comments in opposition (continued):
National Public Pension Coalition:
We have “grave concerns that the process being used to formulate these proposed changes is a political one and that the outcome…would be to provide a political weapon to opponents of public pension plans. The proposed requirement .. is both unnecessary and potentially harmful.”
And “ … the only purpose for calculating an IRDM for public plans is to give political fodder to opponents of public pensions who seek to scare politicians into eliminating public pensions for future generations of teachers, firefighters, police officers, sanitation workers, and other public employees.”
Foster & Foster

24. IV. Current Proposed ASOP Revisions
ASOPs 27 and 35:
Proposed language would add the following:
When/If phasing in assumptions over multiple measurement dates, the actuary should select an assumption that is reasonable at each measurement date.
Actuary should determine whether assumptions continue to be reasonable at each measurement date.
For each economic and demographic assumption that has a significant effect on the measurement, the actuary should disclose the information and analysis used to support the actuary’s determination that the assumption is reasonable.
Actuaries should consider the use of recently published mortality tables.
Foster & Foster

25. Questions?
Foster & Foster