Welcome to the first issue of Life & Pensions
The life and pensions industry is reinventing itself. The old days when the business of long-term saving was driven by marketing, and liabilities didn't count, are gone forever. The now-notorious combination of low inflation, falling equity returns and increasing longevity over the past five years has shown the cost of risk management failure.
Providers have responded to this, using capital market solutions to repair and optimise their balance sheets, and changing their offerings from a marketing-driven to a capital-driven product mix. Regulators have also responded, attempting to restore confidence by moving towards realistic capital requirements. Sometimes the regulators are a step ahead of the industry they supervise, sometimes several steps behind.
The variation in skill and experience is enormous. On one extreme are the emerging tribe of chief risk officers at multinational life companies whose risk and capital modelling skills are arguably equal or superior to that of leading investment banks. At the other extreme are the part-time trustees of defined benefit pension schemes, many of whom are only beginning to appreciate their risk management responsibilities.
While the intellectual arguments are on the side of realistic, economic value approaches, one can partially sympathise with opposing views. Far more than banking, life and pensions provision in Europe is rooted in the social identity of nation states. Rapid change can be destabilising, such as forcing UK pension schemes to sell equities or German life companies to mark to market. Breaking the log jam are governments which realise that generous state retirement guarantees - made either explicitly or by default - are demographically and fiscally unsustainable.
Addressing these problems will require both analysis and argument, and will take time. There will have to be a breaking-down of historical barriers, not only between life and pensions practitioners, but also the silos between actuarial, insurance, quantitative finance, banking and investment knowledge. Even when solutions are found, they are seldom straightforward because they have to be implemented within far-from-perfect regulatory, accounting and taxation frameworks.
In this confusing and fast-changing world, the industry needs an international forum to share experiences, discuss the issues and learn about the new business environment. In the same way that our sister publication, Risk, fostered the development of over-the-counter derivatives markets and bank risk management, now enshrined by regulators in Basel II, we hope that Life & Pensions will perform a similar service for the life and pensions industry.
In the magazine you will find news on important regulatory, industry and intellectual developments. In our feature articles, there will be in-depth analysis of key issues such as capital models or supervisory frameworks, and of financial market or technology solutions. Where possible we will base much of our analysis of these solutions on the experience of life and pensions practitioners as well as vendors. Every month we will profile specific practitioners from across Europe.
At the back of the magazine you will find one or more peer-reviewed technical articles, as well as educational articles. Here, our aim is to create a body of knowledge and best practice that can become a recognised industry resource. To achieve its aims, Life & Pensions needs your support. We invite submissions of technical papers (see page 19 for submission guidelines), and we ask that experts make themselves available as anonymous referees. We invite suggestions and feedback on all aspects of the magazine, and look forward to serving our readership.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Snap! Derivatives reports decouple after Emir Refit shake-up
Counterparties find new rules have led to worse data quality, threatening regulators’ oversight of systemic risk
Critics warn against softening risk transfer rules for insurers
Proposal to cut capital for unfunded protection of loan books would create systemic risk, investors say
Barr defends easing of Basel III endgame proposal
Fed’s top regulator says he will stay and finish the package, is comfortable with capital impact
Bank of England to review UK clearing rules
Broader collateral set and greater margin transparency could be adopted from Emir 3.0, but not active accounts requirement
The wisdom of Oz? Why Australia is phasing out AT1s
Analysts think Australian banks will transition smoothly, but other countries unlikely to follow
EU trade repository matching disrupted by Emir overhaul
Some say problem affecting derivatives reporting has been resolved, but others find it persists
Barclays and HSBC opt for FRTB internal models
However, UK pair unlikely to chase approval in time for Basel III go-live in January 2026
Foreign banks want level playing field in US Basel III redraft
IHCs say capital charges for op risk and inter-affiliate trades out of line with US-based peers