Projections of future mortality typically used for funding pension scheme liabilities assume that future year-on-year decreases in mortality rates will slow rapidly, and that there is very limited potential for further decreases at the oldest ages. This paper considers the consistency of such projections with current trends in life expectancy. Particular focus is paid to whether future mortality should be subject to a minimum level of improvement to reflect general advances in medicine. Care is taken to exclude the additional increases in longevity arising from a concentration of positive health factors amongst the generation who are currently experiencing the ‘cohort effect’.

If historic trends continue into the future, then period life expectancy from age 65 in England & Wales will increase at 26 days p.a. for women and 41 days p.a. for men, with additional increases arising from the ‘cohort effect’. This is a faster rate of period increase in life expectancy than embedded in the interim cohort projections. One way to ensure that actuarial projections keep pace with the population trend is to subject projections to a minimum level of (geometric) improvement of at least 11/4% p.a. for men and 3/4% p.a. for women, at all older ages and in all future years.

Consideration is given to the possible impact of differences between the socio-economic profile of England & Wales and the membership of the pension schemes to whom the projections will be applied ultimately. This paper also highlights that the application of a single minimum value, independent of time and age, simplifies a more complex underlying pattern, but that minimum improvements of 11/4% p.a. for males and 3/4% p.a. for females represent an average of historic improvements in mortality seen in England & Wales.

The paper includes a survey of the history of the low levels of mortality seen currently. The survey includes some discussion on the potential for future improvements and considers topical issues, such as the potential impact of obesity on life expectancy projections (and, in turn, the minimum value applied to improvements).

The financial impact of subjecting projections of mortality improvement to a minimum value is quantified.

Patterns and trends in late-life mortality are of growing financial importance. The growth in pension liabilities, both public and private, are of crucial interest to governments, insurers and companies with defined benefit pension schemes. This paper explores the patterns in international mortality data, and draws important lessons for actuaries in the United Kingdom.

The European Commission's project to develop a Europe-wide risk-based solvency supervision framework is well advanced, with the draft Directive due to be put before the European Parliament in June 2007. The consultation exercise which has helped to shape the proposals has been wide ranging, and will continue for some time to come. Actuarial input into the proposals has been extensive. As well as the activity of individual actuaries, the Groupe Consultatif has a large team of volunteers spread across a number of working parties, and the United Kingdom Actuarial Profession has two U.K. working parties set up, respectively, by the General Insurance and the Life Boards.

While many aspects of the proposed framework have been well debated across Europe and the overall shape of the likely final outcome is reasonably well understood, a number of significant issues still remain. It is important that actuaries are aware of what might be in store, and what could be done now to help to prepare for the new regime.

On the eve of the start of the third round of Europe-wide test calculations (Quantitative Impact Study 3, or QIS3 for short), therefore, it is appropriate to hold a Panel Discussion to explore some of the key issues and possible implications. A Briefing Note follows this introduction.

The meeting takes the form of presentations by the three panel members, and the discussion follows.

This paper looks at the risks faced by financial institutions, and how they can be modelled and managed. I compare the way in which each of the risks affects different types of financial institution and look for similarities (and differences) across industries. Finally, I consider what makes a good risk management system.

The General Insurance Premium Rating Issues Working Party (GRIP) was established by the General Insurance Board of the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries in 2005 to review actuarial involvement in premium rating issues, pricing being one of the key areas in which actuaries work.

GRIP published a full report in January 2007, which is available at www.actuaries.org.uk/grip. This short paper summarises the recommendations of that full report. Further background, discussion and the rationale for these recommendations are set out in more detail in the full report.

In the following discussion, whenever reference is made to ‘the paper’, this is the paper Anderson et al. (2007), which is the full paper produced by the General Insurance Premium Rating Working Party (GRIP), and which is being discussed here. The full reference on how to access the paper is given at the end of the Summary Paper, which appears immediately before this discussion.