Historical pension stuff

I'm coming across things, so parking them here, as external memory



first, a book review from 1972

(the OCR doesn't work all that great, but I'm not fixing all of it right now)



http://ift.tt/1vdaXf1

Quote:

BOOK REVIEW B’arnet N. Berin, The Fundnmentals of Pension Mathematics. Actuaries Club of New York, pp. 125, $12.50. .... As it should, Mr. Berin’s “Fundamentals” lays considerable stress on the computation of actuarial gains and losses (by source), not only as a check on the individual actuarial assumptions but also as a means of reconciling changes from one valuation date to the next, The author points out that the gain and loss analysis gives the actuary greater confidence in the accuracy of the valuation, pinpointing any errors, and provides authoritative answers to questions posed by employers, unions, accountants, and others relative to the reasons for changes in pension costs. The subject of gain and loss is worked into the discussion of funding methods, where it logically bed longs. As has been pointed out by a number of actuaries (notably Trowbridge), an actuarial funding method is not fully defined “until a mechanism is established for recognizing differences hetween actuarial assumptions and actual experience.” Mr. Berin has provided the mechanism. ..... Most actuaries in the pension field are aware that for several years a debate has been going on relative to the preparation, under the aegis of two of the principal actuarial bodies, of so-called “principles and practices” (or “guidelines”) for the valuation of pension plans. In a limited sense, Mr. Berin has written such a work. It is not couched in the language of a “guideline” and has no official sanction. Those who have urged official sponsorship of such a project have cited a supposed need for “policing” within the profession itself, in order to avoid such a function being taken over by persons outside the profession. Those who have opposed it have, for the most part, taken the position that a professional is distinguished hv tbe exercise of judgmental factors; In other words, an actuary qualified by education and experience should he considered the best judge of what is appropriate for the valuation of a plan under a given set of circumstances. Mr. Berin’s approach to the Fundamentals of Pension Mathematics indirectly suggests there may be a middle ground between these views, possibly further extension of the Opinions issued by various actuarial bodies in clarification of their guides to professional conduct. ..... If it is practicable and constructive to communicate a gain and loss analysis, one might ask whether it is not also practicable to disclose other, conceptually simpler, items in order to contribute to better public understanding. Computerized valuations have introduced a brand new ball game in the informational field. Expanding reported details would be time consuming to a degree. Yet, if limited to items which the actuary knows to be available and nzemingfrd, it could be less time consuming to pro- <‘ram a computer to provide the informa- c tion than to compile reams of virtually meaningless reports designed by well intentioned public servantswhich seems to be the direction in which we are heading. As for making things understandable (even interesting! ) to clients, the challenge this presents is hardly new. Mr. Berin points out most consultants are consultants because of that challenge.

Historical pension stuff