Skip to content

GRA · Institutional Funds Nexus

Spatial financeWhere capital meets hazard, exposure and transition

Actuarial mathematics for pension funds

Actuarial mathematics turns a promise to pay into a number a board can manage: the present value of benefits, the contributions needed to fund them and their sensitivity to rates, inflation and survival. For institutional funds it is the measure of the liability side, and every assumption it rests on is a judgement that must be stated.

02Application

What actuarial mathematics does here.

Actuarial mathematics applies probability, statistics and financial theory to measure and price contingent risks, particularly in insurance and pensions. It determines reserves and premiums for uncertain future obligations. In capital markets and investment and society and human development, actuarial methods determine whether risks can be insured and at what cost. They help assess accumulation of correlated losses across portfolios and regions. The canonical description is on the STEM Commons.

Liability valuation on several bases

Projected benefit cash flows are discounted on funding, accounting, guarantee and buyout bases, so the board sees how the same promises look under each purpose and which assumptions drive the differences.

Mortality and longevity projection

Base tables are adjusted to scheme experience and combined with improvement models, and the liability is revalued under alternative improvement paths to show longevity sensitivity.

Funding plan and recovery path

Contributions, expected returns and benefit outgo are projected forward to show how a deficit is closed over the recovery period, and how the path changes under stressed returns or a weaker sponsor.

03Monitor

Tail fit.

The screen a team would use to follow this method: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.

Tail fit

Institutional funds · Actuarial mathematics for pension · Run R-7350

Shape parameter uncertainGRA · Institutional Funds Nexus

Return level curve

Method card

Method
Actuarial mathematics
Approach
peaks over threshold
Threshold
98th percentile
Label
MODELLED

Parameters

generalised Pareto fit

Shape ξ0.29−0.040.47heavy tail if above zero
Scale σ3.01.15.1units of the variable
Exceedances68declustered
Tail fit: the screen’s structure, terms and states for Institutional funds.Example names and illustrative values; a design, not a record or a live system.
04Data

What the method consumes.

Datasets and records used by actuarial mathematics on this platform, with the role each plays and the label its values carry. Sources are listed in the source register.

DataRoleLabel
Scheme membership and benefit dataProjected benefit cash flowsREPORTED
National and actuarial mortality tablesBase mortality and improvementPublished statistics
Government bond and swap curvesDiscount rates and inflation expectationsOBSERVED
Scheme mortality experience studiesAdjustment of tables to the membershipESTIMATED
Disclosed actuarial assumptionsComparison across fundsDECLARED
05Loss model

Loss exceedance, average annual loss and probable maximum loss.

The loss a portfolio in the footprint can expect per year and at the 1 in 100 and 1 in 250 levels that insurers and lenders price, from the same three blocks every catastrophe model uses. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction.

Controls

Typical annual hazard intensity (location)
1.00 intensity index
Spread of extremes (scale)
0.80 intensity index
Intensity at which half the value is lost
4.00 intensity index
Dispersion of vulnerability
0.55
Share of value in the hazard footprint
40%
Protection standard (return period)
50 years

Readouts

Average annual loss
0.51% of value
Loss at 1 in 100 years
24.5% of value
Loss at 1 in 250 years
28.4% of value
Intensity at 1 in 100 years
4.68 intensity index
Numbers, methods and sources
Return period (years)Intensity (intensity index)Loss (% of value)
10.090.00
21.270.00
41.910.00
72.470.00
133.000.00
243.510.00
444.020.00
824.5323.55
1545.0326.44
2875.5328.87
5366.0330.88
1,0006.5332.53

Methods

  1. Gumbel extreme-value hazard Gumbel (1958), Statistics of Extremes, Columbia University Press
  2. Lognormal fragility (vulnerability) FEMA (2003), HAZUS-MH Technical Manual
  3. Exceedance-probability curve and average annual loss Grossi and Kunreuther (2005), Catastrophe Modeling, Springer
  4. Levee effect Di Baldassarre and others (2013), Socio-hydrology, HESS 17
  5. Uncertainty fan (parameter Monte Carlo) Spiegelhalter, Pearson and Short (2011), Visualising uncertainty about the future, Science 333
  6. One-at-a-time sensitivity (tornado) Saltelli and others (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, Wiley

Data

The model runs on the teaching values set by the controls. To calibrate it for a place, read it against these admitted layers and series, which this page’s map can draw:

  • Rivers Natural Earth
  • Urban extents Natural Earth
  • Cities Natural Earth
  • Earthquakes M4.5+, past week (USGS) U.S. Geological Survey · register usgs.earthquake.summary-feeds
  • Rain rate, last half hour (IMERG) NASA GPM IMERG Early · register nasa.gibs.context-live-layers
  • River discharge forecast, 30 days with range (GloFAS via Open-Meteo) Open-Meteo.com (CC BY 4.0), Copernicus GloFAS · register open-meteo.public-pages
  • Built-up and settlement extent, 2010 (HBASE, Landsat) CIESIN/Columbia, NASA SEDAC HBASE · register sedac.context-urban-layers
Loss exceedance, average annual loss and probable maximum loss. Illustrative teaching model: it runs on the values set by the controls, not on measured data. Methods: Gumbel extreme-value hazard (Gumbel (1958), Statistics of Extremes, Columbia University Press); Lognormal fragility (vulnerability) (FEMA (2003), HAZUS-MH Technical Manual); Exceedance-probability curve and average annual loss (Grossi and Kunreuther (2005), Catastrophe Modeling, Springer).
06Validation

How results are checked.

Assumptions are tested through experience studies and actual-versus-expected analysis. Independent actuarial review checks methods and results.

CheckHow it is done
Actual versus expected analysisDeaths, retirements and withdrawals are compared with what the assumptions implied, and persistent gaps prompt a change of assumption
Analysis of surplusThe change in funding between valuations is decomposed into returns, rates, experience and assumption changes, and the residual is reported
Sensitivity reportingLiabilities are restated under shifts in discount rate, inflation and longevity so each assumption’s weight is visible
Independent actuarial reviewMethods and assumptions are reviewed by an actuary not involved in the valuation, under professional standards

Historical experience may not reflect emerging or correlated risks. Long-tail liabilities are sensitive to assumptions about future trends.

07Exposure, loss and capital

What actuarial mathematics for pension funds means for exposure, loss and capital.

The exposure, loss, scenario and capital views a risk officer, supervisor or ministry of finance would ask for, with the frameworks they report against. Structures follow supervisory and actuarial practice. Values are illustrative: never prices, ratings or advice.

Exposure and loss at return periods

How losses from actuarial mathematics for pension funds grow with severity, gross and net of reinsurance, against capital.

1 in 101 in 501 in 1001 in 250grossnet of reinsurance800
Return periodAnnual probabilityGross lossNet lossNet, capital = 100
1 in 100.10141010
1 in 500.02332121
1 in 1000.01462727
1 in 2500.004683939
Average annual loss3.12.22.2
Illustrative loss index for a example portfolio (capital = 100): the exceedance-probability form insurers and supervisors read. Not data on any institution, not a price or a rating.
NGFS climate scenarios · Network for Greening the Financial SystemIFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures · ISSBTCFD recommendations · Financial Stability Board TCFDPrinciples for the effective management of climate-related financial risks · Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
09Stewardship

Who maintains the method.

Actuarial and Quantitative Risk stewards actuarial mathematics for the Consortium and reviews how it is applied across platforms.

11Questions

Questions and answers.

What are the limits of actuarial mathematics in this field?
Historical experience may not reflect emerging or correlated risks. Long-tail liabilities are sensitive to assumptions about future trends.
How are results checked?
Assumptions are tested through experience studies and actual-versus-expected analysis. Independent actuarial review checks methods and results.
Are the values on this page real?
The data names, roles and checks are real descriptions of practice. The canvas shows a design of the method’s use, not a run; no result is reported here.
Where else is this method applied?
The canonical method page lists every platform that applies it.
ReportsContribute

Contribute evidence from this page.

Reports is the Consortium’s quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.

Global Risks AllianceInstitutional Funds NexusFinance and Insurance ReadinessScenario and Stress-Test
Institutional Funds Nexus

Bring an exposure or capital question to the Alliance.

Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.