Pension career? Why not?

[pushing_a_rock_up_a_hill]

Hi everyone.

I am another 35 y.o. career changer (IT/programmer now), wondering about the various sub-specialties within actuarial work. I read an earlier discussion which said that Pension work has more business/customer relations type stuff, a *little* less advanced mathematical modeling. Sounds great, if true :)

Anyway, what are the main *problems* with Pension as a field, especially wrt entering it right now (or in the next year after an exam)?

[Emily]

The main problem is that private DB plans aren't too popular right now, and new accounting rules could make them obsolete in a few years. Public plans and multi-employer plans aren't going anywhere though. However, some people think it's not a growing field.

Actuarially speaking, the problem with pensions is that the field is stuck in 1976 due to IRS and DOL regulations. We don't pay much attention to cutting edge actuarial science.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Well said, Emily. I'm about mathyguy's age and I'm actually looking to get out of the pension field due to all the uncertainty. Actually, there's not much uncertainty beyond whether there will be a slow decline or a quick collapse. The major pension actuarial firms have already been reduced to a savage competition for each other's clients, since there are no new private plans and no chance of any in the near future.

[Optimus Prime]

I'm just thinking out loud...

So what's going to happen is that the EA's that are left are going to fight for the Public and Multi business? This surplus of suppliers should drive down the cost of actuarial work, because everyone will undercut each other to get the work. Salaries for Pension actuaries will start to come down, since there isn't enough revenue to support paying them...or rather salaries of new pension actuaries won't go up as much.

Are these trends that we can already notice? Pension salaries going down and declining revenues? Not making very much as a company and not making very much as an individual doesn't make it a very fun place to work.

Aging population, means a bigger a ratio of retired lifetime to working lifetime. A great need for retirement systems to support this. Will 401K's and SS be enough? Probably not, people will work longer. If this becomes a problem shouldn't the government do more to support better retirement benefits? Agreed, ERISA is not only dated but very slow to change.

Health and retiree health will be come big. Will we see a lot of actuaries flowing into that work?

[wonderer]

Nationalized Health Care may collapse the Retiree Health Care Actuary business faster than pensions.

A wonder drug having us live hundreds of years will reduce Life actuaries to Accident only work, and they will succumb to the rising CAS.

But then again, the dollar may collapse to the yuan when China dumps its Fed debt and the dollar basis supporting the need for casualty insurance will collapse.

Really sharp pension professionals will be needed, and therefore some top-notch EAs will be needed. At some point, there will not be a large enough pool of math talent interested in the field and the legal types will exert more and more influence thereby driving the business more and more to transaction based accounting. For instance, once somebody proposes that every single DB plan can be viewed as a cash balance plan from a standpoint of accrued benefit accounting, then somebody will come up with a standardized set of factors to accumulate account balances based on generalized plan terms. The investment community will welcome this development because it will allow complete transparency. Once 411(d)(6) is properly modified, an annual fluctuation in account balances will be allowed due to investment performance and there will be no need for EAs anymore.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Four current problems facing the private pension field, according to the American Benefits Council:

1. Regulatory cloud hanging over cash balance plans -- if resolved unfavorably or left unresolved, cash balance sponsors might say the hell with it and switch to 100% 401k.

2. Failure to identify a long-term replacement for the 30-year Treasury rate for funding and lump sum calculations.

3. Uncertainty/concern about new Bush administration funding reform proposals, such as the yield-curve approach to valuation.

4. Mark-to-market accounting reforms that would push pension volatility onto the balance sheet much faster.

[WWSituation]

How about the fact that the pension plan itself is practilly irrelevant to an industry with a mobile workforce?

Can a person who changes jobs every 5 years ever earn a meaningful retirement benefit in a traditional DB program? We all know that the answer is no. So why would an employer want to offer one and put up with all of the accounting volatility, pbgc premiums, legal requirements, cost, etc.? This leads to the question - who wants to hire an EA?

I can't see any entry level actuary rising through the ranks anymore in the pension industry.

[blactuary]

I just have a general question: What's the point of having a DB plan anymore? This isn't the 1960's where people would have only one or two jobs in their lifetime and companies could dangle the carrot of a great pension in an attempt to attract and retain quality employees. If you stay on the same job 5 good years you're doing really well. I've always wondered why more companies don't freeze or outright terminate their plans in favor of DC (or DC hybrid) plans and save money. I think this will be the wave of the future but I could never get an EA/principal to concede this to me. Am I thinking correctly? Let's be honest, most of the time in the employee benefit consulting sector they aren't really trying to "add value", they are trying to strike that delicate balance between sucking more money out of the client and attempting to find ways to skirt the regs to get highly compensated employees more money through retirement benefits. Then again, maybe I'm just venting.

[exactuary]

Do you have any suggestions on how to add value with or without db?

[Malik Shabazz]

I just have a general question: What's the point of having a DB plan anymore?
DB plans have many advantages over DC plans. Off the top of my head, here are some:

Funding flexibility Employer-paid No risk of outliving your benefit Flexibility to tailor benefits to workplace (e.g., early retirement windows, plant shutdown benefits)

[Malik Shabazz]

This isn't the 1960's where people would have only one or two jobs in their lifetime and companies could dangle the carrot of a great pension in an attempt to attract and retain quality employees.
When I was at Watson Wyatt, they tested this hypothesis. What they found was surprising:

Workers in the 1980s and '90s didn't change jobs more frequently than workers did in the 1950s and '60s when the results were adjusted for age.

The research found that younger employees in all decades tend to change jobs more frequently than older employees. The baby boomers joining the workforce created the appearance of greater job mobility than in the past, simply because their numbers skewed the results.

[24fan]

Why do you call yourself Malik Shabaz? I hope you're a fan of him, and not just some jerk mocking a civil rights leaders. Are you even black?

[Malik Shabazz]

Why do you call yourself Malik Shabaz? I hope you're a fan of him, and not just some jerk mocking a civil rights leaders. Are you even black?
After my parents, Malik Shabazz (Malcolm X) was probably the person who has influenced my life the most.

[wonderer]

i have done a lot of compensation studies and anecdotally noticed there seemed to be a high correlation between companies that used fixed salary increases year in and year out and companies who became takeover targets

i wonder if severe corporate downsizing and/or bankruptcy will be correlated with companies that have db plans in the next decade

[Smurf]

http://www.contingencies.org/julaug04/defined.pdf


If this DCPP happens, then EAs will still be in business.

[24fan]

"Unlike DB plans, DCPPs could reduce benefit if the actuary and administrator determine the plan is underfunded."

"There would be no PBGC protection."

"Since there are no guaranteed benefits, the plan administrator would be held responsible for taking prudent actions designed to minimize the likelihood of having to reduce benefits" ROTFLMAO! I'M ROLLING ON THE FLOOR. I'M LAUGHING. AND MY ASS FELL OFF.

I will give him credit for trying. It's more than 99% of his peers are doing.

[Malik Shabazz]

I haven't read Ken Steiner's proposal yet.

A few months ago, the Pension Section News (http://library.soa.org/library-pdf/PSN0403.pdf) published another proposal for a "new kind" of DB pension plan.

[Kenny]

As far as I understand his proposal, the DCPP has a benefit formula simialr to existing defined benefit plans, but the funding of this plan is optional. If the assets do poorly and the plan sponsor chooses not to make additional contributions then the plan sponsor can proportionately reduce everyone's benefit to bring the plan to a "fully funded" status.

So basically particpants lose the upside potential of their investments and keep the downside. His "benefit" is that risk will be diversified across all participants and benefits may or may not be paid as an annuity. Why can't I just invest my 401k in a mutual fund to diversify my risk? Then I can withdraw my $ in small monthly amounts or use the balance to purchase an annuity at retirement.

Aside from being company paid I don't see the benefit.

[WWSituation]

Why can't I just invest my 401k in a mutual fund to diversify my risk? Then I can withdraw my $ in small monthly amounts or use the balance to purchase an annuity at retirement.

Aside from being company paid I don't see the benefit.

I can think of a couple of arguements -

1. The annuity you will buy will be more expensive than the one provided by the DCCP. The program uses mortality pooling the way a normal DB plan does.

2. Individuals don't have near the ability to diversify their investments as institutions. They also don't know what they are doing for the most part.

[Kenny]

WW, I won't disagree with you, but I think both seem to be small as compared to the loss of the upside potential without gaining guaranteed stability. It has been a while since my last finance class, but I thought an appropriate sample of stocks would diversify away all individual risk and keep market risk only. Given that required the sample was small (I believe the studies we looked at said 15-25), I don't see how an institutional investor would be better than an informed individual investor.

Some other points the author makes are that participants are weary of the downside potential of 401ks after the last few years, while companies are enjoying the relatively low costs associated with them. The DCCP will increase the costs for sponsor's due to increased administration costs while doing nothing to protect accrued benefits.

[wonderer]

ww :

there are sure an awful lot of investment learning programs out there ... seems unlikely people don't know what they are doing ...

my (paid) analysis of people's investment options against a risk return curve shows that as a group about the only advantage a big pool of money has is that of time horizon

regarding the cost of an annuity : i have seen private plans use the 30 year treasury rate and up-94 mortality in converting balances

a private enterprise in their costing structure may choose to do better than that, or maybe individuals will just realize they can partake in treasury auctions and live off the interest, forego the mortality bump in the annuity and therefore preserve principal for the next generation ...

[WWSituation]

Since there already exists a savings vehicle (401(k)/IRA and after-tax savings), a trustee directed DCCP would diversify society's risk to individual investment performace.

About the diversification ability of institutional investors (disclaimer - I am an institutional investor so I probably have a bias) I'm speaking mainly about access to asset classes like long duration bonds, hedge funds, real estate, private equity, commodities, emerging markets, etc. as well as the resources (actuaries and investment professionals) to analyze the plans to best determine the overall asset allocation.

Even if a 401(k) program provides options in those asset classes, it is still likely to be on a single manager approach, so you don't have style diversification. Furthermore, the fees are far less when you can leverage everybody else's account balances.

As far as not knowing what they are doing - it was a bit of a generalization but the point is that (IN A VERY GENERAL AND THEORETICAL SENSE) those who invest well will end up funding the welfare of those who invest poorly.

[Traci]

there are sure an awful lot of investment learning programs out there ... seems unlikely people don't know what they are doing ...

Your run-of-the-mill worker-bee doesn't attend very many investment classes.

[wonderer]

that's probably right

but i bet the run of the mill worker listens to talk radio

or reflects on what is said when somebody brings up something they heard over lunch or over a beer

there are an awful lot of practical people out there who are not bogged down with high-falutin terms and also have the practical sense of staying away from investments they do not understand

"if it sounds too good to be true" ..... access to fancy investments is not always a good thing and is certainly not a sure thing

[WWSituation]

that's probably right

but i bet the run of the mill worker listens to talk radio

or reflects on what is said when somebody brings up something they heard over lunch or over a beer

there are an awful lot of practical people out there who are not bogged down with high-falutin terms and also have the practical sense of staying away from investments they do not understand

"if it sounds too good to be true" ..... access to fancy investments is not always a good thing and is certainly not a sure thing

I'm interested in what the great educational information is out there. Not to be arguementative, but many of the people who run the seminars or get on TV and radio know as little about how to invest a person's portfolio than the person themselves.

Besides, like I said earlier - there is no shortage of vehicles these days that allow a person to direct their own investments (regardless of how much or little they know about what they are doing).

Most institutional investors don't do it right either, with boilerplate 60/40 or 70/30 asset allocation strategies, but at least they have the ability to manage risk. The additional asset classes they have access to aren't necessarily high fallutin buzz words - they can serve a specific purpose to a pension plan, depending on the plan's needs. CFOs are more aware of their plan now than ever - it isn't enough to throw buzz words at them anymore. This is why risk management has become so widely accepted.

[wheat66]

I always find the annual PBGC data book interesting regarding the continued demise of DB plans. The 2003 version was just published: http://www.pbgc.gov/publications/databook/databook03.pdf

Look at page 11, Figure 8 for the PBGC-covered DB plan count. I couldn't figure out how to paste that graph here.

[Emily]

I always find the annual PBGC data book interesting regarding the continued demise of DB plans. The 2003 version was just published: http://www.pbgc.gov/publications/databook/databook03.pdf

Look at page 11, Figure 8 for the PBGC-covered DB plan count. I couldn't figure out how to paste that graph here.
It looks like the first derivative has been increasing for about 15 years.

[Optimus Prime]

It's interesting that the dramatic decrease in the number of plans, yet the subtle increase in the number of covered participants. Also the same on the Multiemployer plans, but the decrease in plans is not as dramatic.

Has there really been that much merger activity going on? Seems as if there are much more mergers than plan terminations, since the number of participants isn't going down as well. Weak pension plan ~ Weak company ~ easy to buy/take over?

[Lane Meyers]

Weak pension plan ~ Weak company ~ easy to buy/take over?

It's not unusal these days for a company's biggest expense to be it's DB pension plan. A company that has very large required contributions and/or difficulty making such contributions may easily find itself as a takeover target.

[Malik Shabazz]

That's one reason the Big Three US automakers are sometimes referred to as insurance companies that happen to make cars. Their employee benefit costs are their largest manufacturing cost (more than the cost of steel :o ).

[American Psycho]

I find it hard to believe that benefit costs exceed direct payroll costs.

[Malik Shabazz]

I find it hard to believe that benefit costs exceed direct payroll costs.
You're right -- if you only consider employees. The problem is that the Big Three have outrageous legacy costs (pension and post-retirement benefit costs related to retirees).

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Has there really been that much merger activity going on?
Oh yeah. In ten years, most of my publicly-traded clients have either merged or been acquired, sometimes multiple times. End result is usually either a plan merger or a plan termination. Oddly, my employer (a large consulting firm) cheers each wave of M&A activity, saying it creates more work for us. Um, yeah, if we keep the business. :roll:

[sayhey]

4. Mark-to-market accounting reforms that would push pension volatility onto the balance sheet much faster.

Where can I find more info on this? I have searched the FASB website and can't find a mention of it.

[Malik Shabazz]

4. Mark-to-market accounting reforms that would push pension volatility onto the balance sheet much faster.
Where can I find more info on this? I have searched the FASB website and can't find a mention of it.
You won't find anything there because FASB hasn't taken up the issue yet.

The International Accounting Standards Board and the UK Accounting Standards Board require mark-to-market accounting for pension plans (IAS 19 and FRS 17, respectively).

FASB is on the record in support of "convergence" between US accounting standards and international standards. Most observers believe that it is only a matter of time before FASB requires mark-to-market accounting for pension plans.

Note: International pension accounting is not my specialty. This message is based on information I have read. I don't know the specific provisions of IAS 19 or FRS 17.

[sayhey]

Most observers believe that it is only a matter of time before FASB requires mark-to-market accounting for pension plans.


Thanks for your quick reply, do you have any idea on how long that matter of time might be? 2006? 2010? 2100?

[Malik Shabazz]

Most observers believe that it is only a matter of time before FASB requires mark-to-market accounting for pension plans.

Thanks for your quick reply, do you have any idea on how long that matter of time might be? 2006? 2010? 2100?
That's the $64,000 question. I don't think anybody knows for sure, but I would pick 2010 over 2006 or 2100.

[paranoid]

It's interesting that the dramatic decrease in the number of plans, yet the subtle increase in the number of covered participants. Also the same on the Multiemployer plans, but the decrease in plans is not as dramatic.

Has there really been that much merger activity going on? Seems as if there are much more mergers than plan terminations, since the number of participants isn't going down as well. Weak pension plan ~ Weak company ~ easy to buy/take over?

I was thinking it had more to do with small plans terminating due to big, ugly rules making these plans very expensive to administer. This burden is less for large plans, so the drop in people covered isn't as dramatic.

[Guerilla poster]

4. Mark-to-market accounting reforms that would push pension volatility onto the balance sheet much faster.
Where can I find more info on this? I have searched the FASB website and can't find a mention of it.
You won't find anything there because FASB hasn't taken up the issue yet.

The International Accounting Standards Board and the UK Accounting Standards Board require mark-to-market accounting for pension plans (IAS 19 and FRS 17, respectively).

FASB is on the record in support of "convergence" between US accounting standards and international standards. Most observers believe that it is only a matter of time before FASB requires mark-to-market accounting for pension plans.

Note: International pension accounting is not my specialty. This message is based on information I have read. I don't know the specific provisions of IAS 19 or FRS 17.

IAS 19 does not yet require it. They allow it as an option.

[exactuary]

http://www.haskayne.ucalgary.ca/research/centres/cpia/research/centres/cpia/media/pauljoss

[24fan]

Exact-actuary, Good work if you were a part of it.

I've always thought that the pension actuarial field was in need of theoretical research and guidance.

There is (or there should be) more to our profession than calculating minimums, maximums and expense.

[Gareth]

don't go into pensions, they are dying... a good example is Hewitts and Mercer are opening valuation centers in place like India, where non-actuarial staff will be doing most of the work previously done by actuarial trainees. everyone i know from pensions is trying to get out...

[Malik Shabazz]

Enrolled Actuary (http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/actuaries/) - an actuary who has satisfied the requirements of ERISA (see below) to practice before the IRS and sign certain government filings

ERISA (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode29/usc_sup_01_29_10_18.html) - Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974, the comprehensive legislation that governs pension plans

DC - Defined contribution - A pension plan, such as a 401(k) plan, in which each participant has an account, the amount of the contributions are fixed (e.g., 4% of pay), and the benefits are variable (because they depend on investment performance). Many DC plans allow participants to choose how their accounts are invested. Administration of a DC plan does not require an actuary.

DB - Defined benefit - A pension plan in which the amount of the benefits are fixed (e.g., 1% of pay x years of employment). The contributions to a DB plan must be calculated by an actuary, and will depend on investment performance (among many other factors).

Hybrid plans are plans that incorporate features of both DB and DC plans. There are a few hybrid DC plans, but you rarely see them. Mostly you see hybrid DB plans, the most common of which are cash balance plans. In a cash balance plan, a fictional account is established for each participant to which a percentage of pay and interest is credited periodically (e.g., annually). A cash balance plan is a DB plan because the accounts don't actually exist - the funds to pay participants' benefits are held in a single trust, and contributions to the plan are calculated by an actuary.

[Judge Dredd]

Mercer are opening valuation centers in place like India,
If by "India" you mean "Lexington, KY" then yes, you are correct.

Otherwise, I do not think you know what you are talking about.

[Gareth]

a friend at Hewitts said they have opened a valuation centre in Bangladesh, and i've heard rumours Mercer are planning something similar

[WWSituation]

Not to be a nit, as this IS the internet, but this is a professional discussion. The following are not the same.

a good example is Hewitts and Mercer are opening valuation centers in place like India

a friend at Hewitts said they have opened a valuation centre in Bangladesh, and i've heard rumours Mercer are planning something similar

Either way, does it really matter whether they do it in Bangladesh or Lexington, KY? Both fall under the category "Places I will likely never visit, live or work" for most people, and it is the separation of the labor that is the key point.

[Gareth]

apologies if i have misled in any way. my point was simply that if actuarial roles in pensions are being relocated to these locations, then perhaps pensions is not a good area to be working in going forward...

[Judge Dredd]

apologies if i have misled in any way. my point was simply that if actuarial roles in pensions are being relocated to these locations, then perhaps pensions is not a good area to be working in going forward...
yes, well sorta.

And WWSituation was right...the point remains the same.

Obviously this topic has been all over the place on this board, and the answer lies in the middle. Pensions aren't what they used to be, and to be honest they probably will not be ever again. But they won't die completely. These things are cyclical. Soon enough, people will realize that 401(k)s are only as good as the people in them, and that if you don't save, you have no safety net. So pensions will come around again...and, just as predictably, they'll stick around, and then lose favor again, and so on and so forth.

The world will still need pension actuaries, so they sky isn't falling. But the demand will be decreasing, and soon enough, the market place will have more pension actuaries than pension actuary jobs. The question is.....are you (if you are a pension professional) at a firm that is ready for this? New students coming out of school wanting to be a pension actuary should think about this before wanting to go to a Hewitt or Mercer type place if they are hearing those types of places do outsourcing.

Consider a firm like Fidelity. They offer complete administration type packages to their clients, so they bundle their DB actuarial work with the adminstration. That is the market for firms wanted to "get rid of" their pension plans. They can't fully get rid of them, but they don't want the hastle of them. They'd rather just pay a flat fee and hand if off to someone else.

So in the short term, I see firms like that having the competitive advantage over the Hewitts of the world. On top of that, you have the added benefit of flexibility, because there are so many things to do at a place like that.

Disclaimer: I do not work for, recruit for, or in any way represent Fidelity. I am just using them as an example.

[zeus1233]

Not to be a nit, as this IS the internet, but this is a professional discussion. The following are not the same.





Either way, does it really matter whether they do it in Bangladesh or Lexington, KY? Both fall under the category "Places I will likely never visit, live or work" for most people, and it is the separation of the labor that is the key point.


It's a shame you'd never visit Lexington. It's actually quite a nice city. It's a much better place to live than something like Des Moines, yet that is an insurance hub. Actuaries will go places in the US where jobs are, especially the jobs that are close to them. Lexington is close enough to places like Ohio State that it shouldn't be that hard for them to recruit.

To suggest that Lexington, KY is equivalent to Bangalore is downright silly. To say that you are speaking for "most actuaries" is rather irrelevant--all they need are enough actuaries to fill the jobs they have available.

[WWSituation]

It's a shame you'd never visit Lexington. It's actually quite a nice city. It's a much better place to live than something like Des Moines, yet that is an insurance hub. Actuaries will go places in the US where jobs are, especially the jobs that are close to them. Lexington is close enough to places like Ohio State that it shouldn't be that hard for them to recruit.

To suggest that Lexington, KY is equivalent to Bangalore is downright silly. To say that you are speaking for "most actuaries" is rather irrelevant--all they need are enough actuaries to fill the jobs they have available.

The whole conversation is irrelevant. My point wasn't to slander the fine city of Lexington, but to point out that pension actuarial valuation has been relegated to unskilled work, not different from a call center. Whether that work ends up in Kentucky, Bangladesh, or my basement makes no difference - the people doing it will be borderline college educated. See the connection?

It used to be the bread and butter of EAs and now you can't bill squat for the work. You can't bill for it because clients don't see value in it anymore because investment providers now give it away for free to get the assets to invest.

[Lane Meyers]

The only problem with getting that service for free is you often get what you pay for.

[Gareth]

my perspective is from the uk, where i've seen the number of pension actuarial trainees decrease significantly over the last 3 years.

mercer took the approach of setting up dedicated valuation centres in less costly areas when i still worked there several years ago, and they took the factory line approach to valuations, where one trainee would just do data checking, another would setup the valuation basis, etc, etc. they also started employing non-actuarial staff to perform some of the functions.

the general feeling in the uk, is that once the short term work of catching up with some legislation changes (tax simplification), there will be a cut back of staff once again.

it will probably be ok, for qualified actuaries in the 40's, but for a new joiner out of university, it is unclear whether a full career in actuarial pensions will be possible.

there are very very few open DB schemes in the uk today, and most surveys show employers plan to close them in the next 5 years. DB is not going to be an option for new employer schemes, due to the heavy amount of statutory requirements (PPF valuation - which can affect a companies ability to pay dividends etc if underfunded, FRS17, etc etc). also the perceived risk of db is seen to be too great these days.

So one view to take is that once all the closed DB schemes have run off (or been bought out), there will be a large number of pension actuaries looking to move into life / GI / investment. I decided to get ahead of the crowd and moved into GI recently...

perhaps things look brighter in the US though.

[Incredible Hulctuary]

When I was at Watson Wyatt, they tested this hypothesis. What they found was surprising:

Workers in the 1980s and '90s didn't change jobs more frequently than workers did in the 1950s and '60s when the results were adjusted for age.I'd like to see that study. I've read otherwise ... not only do people change jobs more often nowadays, they change careers more often.

[wooHoo]

my perspective is from the uk, where i've seen the number of pension actuarial trainees decrease significantly over the last 3 years.

mercer took the approach of setting up dedicated valuation centres in less costly areas when i still worked there several years ago, and they took the factory line approach to valuations, where one trainee would just do data checking, another would setup the valuation basis, etc, etc. they also started employing non-actuarial staff to perform some of the functions.

the general feeling in the uk, is that once the short term work of catching up with some legislation changes (tax simplification), there will be a cut back of staff once again.

it will probably be ok, for qualified actuaries in the 40's, but for a new joiner out of university, it is unclear whether a full career in actuarial pensions will be possible.

there are very very few open DB schemes in the uk today, and most surveys show employers plan to close them in the next 5 years. DB is not going to be an option for new employer schemes, due to the heavy amount of statutory requirements (PPF valuation - which can affect a companies ability to pay dividends etc if underfunded, FRS17, etc etc). also the perceived risk of db is seen to be too great these days.

So one view to take is that once all the closed DB schemes have run off (or been bought out), there will be a large number of pension actuaries looking to move into life / GI / investment. I decided to get ahead of the crowd and moved into GI recently...

perhaps things look brighter in the US though.

I work in the UK and feel the exact opposite. Yes, the valuation work for trustees is drying up but there is much work on the corporate side. (Consulting dealing with PPF Levy, Scheme funding, multi-employer regs, corporate transactions, etc). PM me if you are interested in this type of work. Our group has grown at least 50% in the past 18 months.

[colby2152]

I wonder what the feelings are post-PPA?