Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Pension - Social Security
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #451  
Old 09-23-2019, 03:27 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 90,283
Blog Entries: 6
Default

CHILE

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2019/09...&utm_term=tadv
Quote:
Be Careful With Chile's Annuity Market: Economists
About 60% of eligible retirees in Chile now buy private annuities.

Spoiler:
Poorly designed efforts to improve Chile’s retirement system could break the country’s individual annuity market, economists warn.

The economists — Gastón Illanes of Northwestern University and Manisha Padi at the University of California at Berkeley — look in a new working paper at efforts to replace Chile’s current system, which simply limits drawdown of retirement assets, with mandatory partial annuitization.
Sign Up for the Daily Wire Newsletter
Get the latest best practices, relevant stats and industry trends - quickly and easily.

Sign Up Now More Newsletters
(Related: Latin America’s Pensioners Are Getting Greedy)

A working paper is a research paper that has not yet been through a full, formal peer review process.

Under the current rules, the economists write, about 60% of eligible retirees buy private annuities, and the prices for the annuities are low.

Requiring the retirees to annuitize and removing asset drawdown limits “causes the private annuity market to partially unravel,” the economists write.

The changes could increase retirees’ welfare by the equivalent of about $4,000 each, but the effects could be very uneven, and some retirees could end up being much worse off than under the old system, the economists say.

“Our results highlight the importance of considering the impact of policy reforms on the equilibria of related markets,” the economists say.

Resources
A link to a copy of the article, which may be behind a paywall, is available here.


https://www.nber.org/papers/w26285
Quote:
Retirement Policy and Annuity Market Equilibria: Evidence from Chile
Gastón Illanes, Manisha Padi
NBER Working Paper No. 26285
Issued in September 2019
NBER Program(s):The Program on Aging, The Industrial Organization Program
Retirement policy has indirect effects on its beneficiaries, through the “crowd-out” or “crowd-in” of insurance markets. We study how retirement policy in Chile, which limits the drawdown of retirement assets but otherwise does not provide or require fixed income in retirement, results in more than 60% of eligible retirees purchasing private annuities at low prices. We estimate a demand model to show that replacing this voluntary policy with partial mandatory annuitization and removing limits on drawdowns causes the private annuity market to partially unravel. Under our model, this reform leads to a welfare increase equivalent to US$4,000 of additional pension savings on average, but welfare effects are heterogenous and many retirees would be harmed due to the higher prices of private annuities. Our results highlight the importance of considering the impact of policy reforms on the equilibria of related markets.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 10-02-2019, 05:41 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 90,283
Blog Entries: 6
Default

BRAZIL

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKBN1WG45G

Quote:
Brazil Senate approves pension reform in first-round vote

Spoiler:
BRASILIA (Reuters) - Brazil’s Senate approved the main text of a pension reform bill in a first-round vote on Tuesday, clearing another key hurdle for the government’s bid to narrow its massive budget gap.

General view of Brazil's Senate during a session to vote on the pension reform bill in Brasilia, Brazil, October 1, 2019. REUTERS/Adriano Machado
The main text passed with a vote of 56 in favor - a comfortable margin above the 49 votes required - with 19 opposed and one abstention. Only 76 of 81 senators were present.

The Senate is expected to consider amendments to the bill on Wednesday before it heads to a second-round vote. Because the bill amends the country’s constitution, a second vote is required.

But the head of President Jair Bolsonaro’s political party in the Senate, Senator Major Olimpio, warned that the second vote on pension reform, scheduled for next week, may not take place if the government reneges on promises made to lawmakers in return for their support.

Olimpio told reporters that the majority view among senators at a meeting in Brasilia earlier on Tuesday is that the government must meet their demands if its main economic reform legislation of the year is to be enacted on schedule.

“It’s not a threat, it’s a warning. Most senators said ‘we are going to vote for Brazil today, but if there are no commitments made by the government, there will be no vote on the 10th,’” Olimpio said.

The concerns revolve around new proposals that will govern federal and state government finances, known as the “federative pact,” including whether regional demands will be met.

The landmark overhaul of Brazil’s costly social security system aims to save the government almost 1 trillion reais ($240 billion) over the next decade via a mix of unpopular measures like raising the minimum retirement age and increasing workers’ pension contributions.

It is being closely watched by investors worried about Brazil’s budget deficit and national debt. The government, central bank and many economists insist it is needed to boost confidence, investment and ultimately economic growth.

Senator Fernando Bezerra, the government’s leader in the upper house, was more upbeat. While admitting some senators are dissatisfied over “pending issues” and the federative pact, he said the second-round vote is still on track for Oct. 10.

“The timetable remains, but we need to talk a lot,” he said.

Senator Davi Alcolumbre, head of the upper chamber, had said last month that pension reform would clear the Senate and be ready for presidential signature by Oct. 10.


__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 10-07-2019, 05:16 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 90,283
Blog Entries: 6
Default

BRAZIL

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo.../#64a16bf11334
Quote:
Brazil President Bolsonaro’s Biggest Economic Win, Pension Reform, Expected This Week
Spoiler:
Brazil’s pension reform bill, which rewrites the rules on how and when public employees can retire, will finally be approved by the Senate on Wednesday. Expectations were for a vote today.

It looks like 66 Senators out of 81 will approve the bill, enough to give investors the security that this is a done deal and a sense of what is to come. Next up are desperately needed tax cuts. A proposal is supposed to be made public within the next two weeks, according to reports in the Brazilian press.

“There are structural impediments in Brazil even with pension reform passing, but this new government is giving us some light at the end of the tunnel,” says Pedro Zevallos, co-portfolio manager for Dalton Investments, a $3.4 billion asset manager. “If they can finally pass this, it will send a positive message to the market.”

Brazil’s debt-to-GDP keeps trickling higher. That can be an impediment to any emerging market that needs credit to grow. Brazil’s budget spends heavily on public pensions, as well as on other social programs, including education, which are nondiscretionary spending items. It’s a tough balancing act for a relatively poor country. There’s a lot of money going out, not a heck of a lot coming in. Brazil is not China.

Moreover, the prior two-and-a-half-year recession was so brutal, demand collapsed and unemployed hovered over 14% consistently, quarter over quarter.

Weak demand kept inflation in check, so Brazil’s Central Bank has been able to cut interest rates. High costs of capital have been a perennial roadblock to domestic corporate investment and consumption in Brazil. Domestic credit is now cheaper than it has ever been.

Today In: Money
Brazil’s economy is moving in the right direction, on its own.

In the last 15 years, Brazil’s economic growth boomed thanks to the external factors of a commodity super cycle. A government-credit bonanza targeting everything from affordable housing to Amazon hydroelectric dams and shipping ports in Cuba also fueled Brazil’s GDP growth.

PROMOTED
Civic Nation BRANDVOICE
How Cutter Productions Worked To Uplift Women While Spreading The Mission Of It’s On Us
Grads of Life BRANDVOICE
Why Your Managers Should Become Opportunity Managers
Civic Nation BRANDVOICE
Here’s Proof That American Politics Isn’t Always Hatfields And McCoys
UN General Assembly
Bolsonaro addresses the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2019. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)ASSOCIATED PRESS
“If Brazil can take this first step in fixing all of its structural problems, and Bolsonaro brings local governments on board with it, then this will be very positive for Brazil,” says Zevallos, who is overweight Brazilian stocks.

“You’re starting to see the conversation of tax reform coming to the table, and you have privatization too. They are going in the complete opposition direction of where they’ve been going for the last 20 years,” Zevallos says.

Assuming pension reform passes tomorrow, Bolsonaro and his economic team, led by BTG Pactual co-founder Paulo Guedes, will get a much-needed confidence boost. Congress is on the same page. They hope it continues.

So should everyone else in Brazil.

Most companies, large and small, have complained for years about how hard it is to run a business in Brazil thanks, in large part, to its onerous tax system. Small and midsize family businesses are notorious for tax evasion because of it. The overhead companies need just to manage the tax liability impedes investment and job creation.

If Guedes can chip away at that, at least by unifying certain taxes, then Brazil will be an easier place to run a business. Some of these companies have grown despite all this red tape. Imagine less red tape.

Economic reforms like this come at an important time in global trade history. The U.S. is trying to decouple from China. Brazil is close by and would be a good spot to source part of the supply chain instead of China. But in order to be attractive, Brazil has to lower its government overhead so it can cut taxes like India did on Friday. Then it can improve its logistics in order to eradicate the bottlenecks that make exporting from Brazil much less efficient than it is in China. The U.S. wants to make it riskier to do business in China. Brazil is still much riskier and more costly than China. Pension reform means lower government spending, which allows for tax cuts, an important move to get Brazil on par with what multinational corporations are paying in corporate taxes in China and India.

For now, the only parties where a majority are against changes to the nearly bankrupt pension system are the Workers’ Party, once led by jailbird president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and Brazil’s miniscule environmental activist party, REDE.

Surprisingly, one REDE Senator is seen voting yes to the public pension cuts, based on a preliminary vote count conducted by political consultants in Brasilia.

All Workers’ Party senators will vote against the bill in hopes to sell the narrative that they are protecting poor people’s retirement money.

The Workers’ Party nearly bankrupted Petrobras during its last five years in power, sending its stock price to $3 a share at one point in February 2016. In 2008, Goldman Sachs had a price target of $60 on Petrobras.

Passing the law comes less than one year into Bolsonaro’s government. Bolsonaro has been governing over a powder keg, with scandals from the past, and some from the present, threatening to explode at any minute.

More people approve of Bolsonaro than disapprove, based on numerous polls.

The Brazilian president addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Tuesday. Bolsonaro said his government brought Brazil away from the precipice of “socialism”—telling attendees that it was a deranged supporter of the Socialism and Liberty Party that stabbed him on the campaign trail last year.

He also took shots at French president Emmanuel Macron, who blamed Bolsonaro for an increase in deforestation in the Amazon this year.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 10-08-2019, 10:02 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 90,283
Blog Entries: 6
Default

THE NETHERLANDS

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...-idUSKBN1WC0VL

Quote:
Netherlands' biggest pension fund calls for rule changes to avoid payout cuts next year: De Telegraaf
Spoiler:
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - The head of the Netherlands’ biggest pension fund, ABP, said Dutch pension rules should be changed to avoid an expected cut in pensions payouts next year due to low interest rates.

FILE PHOTO: Corien Wortmann-Kool, Chairman of ABP speaks at the Global Entrepreneurship Summit 2019 (GES 2019) in The Hague, Netherlands June 4, 2019. REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw
Several Dutch pension funds, including ABP - which oversees 464 billion euros ($506 billion) in assets - saw their coverage ratios fall below 90% for the first time in August as falling interest rates led to a sharp increase in their liabilities.

Under current Dutch rules, if funds’ coverage ratio is below 95% at the end of 2019 they must cut payouts, which means pensions will be cut for millions of retirees in 2020 unless there is a rule change.

Corien Wortmann, CEO of ABP, said in an interview with Dutch daily De Telegraaf that she thought payout cuts would be unfair, given that ABP has earned reasonable investment gains over the past decade.

“The rules of the game in the current contract are bankrupt, we need new rules quickly. Otherwise we’re making our pension(s) into a football,” she said in the interview published on Friday.

Pensions funds and insurers around the globe saw their solvency slide in August. The Dutch private pension system, one of the world’s largest, was shocked by the slide of government bonds yields into negative rates 20 years in the future.

A large share of pension premiums are now being invested at negative rates, locking in losses on day one.

Wortmann dismissed the argument that low interest rates were the sole driver of funds’ good performance.

“We have a varied investment portfolio of bonds, shares, infrastructure, real estate and private equity,” Wortmann told the paper. “Experience tells us that sometimes one or another does well, so it’s not true to say we have had our good returns due to low interest rates.”

The Netherlands’ central bank president, Klaas Knot, and other experts have called for pensions cuts to be carried out according to the existing rules, to avoid even more dramatic cuts in the future.

“I think we have no other choice but to accept that the low and negative rates will be with us for a long time, and so we have to change our pension system to accommodate that. We are late, we should have done that 10 years ago,” Knot told Dutch lawmakers on Monday.

($1 = 0.9163 euros)


__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 10-08-2019, 07:45 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 90,283
Blog Entries: 6
Default

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKBN1WH229

Quote:
Brazil senate approves pension reform in first-round vote after savings hit
Spoiler:
BRASILIA (Reuters) - Brazil’s Senate on Wednesday approved a landmark pension reform bill in a first round of voting, in a relief for far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, although senators voted down an amendment in a move that dilutes the reform’s projected savings.

FILE PHOTO: Senator Fernando Bezerra looks on during a session to vote on the pension reform bill at the Federal Senate in Brasilia, Brazil, October 1, 2019. REUTERS/Adriano Machado
The bill will now pass to a second and final voting round. Senate President David Alcolumbre said the process is likely to be completed by Oct. 10, or perhaps slightly later in the month.

On Tuesday, senators had easily approved the bill’s main text but rejected a key amendment, which reduced bonus salary payments to low-paid workers, diluting the bill’s overall fiscal impact by 76 billion reais ($18 billion).

Bolsonaro on Wednesday urged senators to approve the legislation, which requires two rounds of voting in the upper house because it will change the constitution.

“Reform is necessary. If it doesn’t come, Brazil will be bankrupt in two years. Sorry, you have to approve it, there’s no alternative,” Bolsonaro said in a video on his Facebook page.

“There is no plan B ... other governments have tried to do it but failed. That’s the reality.”

Lower house Speaker Rodrigo Maia was sanguine about the cuts to the bill’s potential savings.

“The fundamental part is guaranteed, it’s approved,” he said.

Overhauling the costly social security system is Bolsonaro’s economic priority this year. Through a mix of unpopular measures such as an increase to the minimum retirement age and to workers’ pension contributions, the bill aims to save the public purse more than 900 billion reais over the next decade.

The head of Bolsonaro’s political party in the Senate, Senator Major Olimpio, warned on Tuesday that the second-round vote scheduled for next week might not take place if the government reneges on promises made to lawmakers in return for their support.

The government, central bank and many economists insist that pension reform is needed to boost confidence, investment and ultimately economic growth.


__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 10-17-2019, 12:39 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 90,283
Blog Entries: 6
Default

UNITED KINGDOM

https://www.ai-cio.com/news/uk-high-...paign=CIOAlert
Quote:
UK High Court Rules Women Not Entitled to Pension Compensation
Justices say they are ‘saddened’ by case but that their role ‘is limited.’
Spoiler:
The UK’s High Court has ruled that nearly 4 million women born in the 1950s will not be compensated for the money they lost when the pension age was raised from 60 to 66. The ruling will be appealed.

Two claimants, Julie Delve and Karen Glynn, sued the UK’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) arguing that raising the pension age “unlawfully discriminated against them on the grounds of age, sex, and age and sex combined.”

The claimants are women born in the 1950s who are affected by legislation implemented between 1995 and 2014, which raised the pension age and made it the same for men and women.

The women argue that although the legislation was intended to equalize pensions for both men and women, it exacerbated women’s inequality. They also argue that women were given inadequate notice of the changes which was procedurally unfair.

However, the claim has been dismissed on all grounds. Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs. Justice Whipple, the presiding judges on the case said that the court’s hands were tied from a legal perspective and the issue had to be resolved through legislation. “We are saddened by the stories we read in the evidence lodged by the claimants,” said the justices in their ruling. “But our role as judges in this case is limited. The wider issues raised by the claimants, about whether these choices were right or wrong or good or bad, are not for us; they are for members of the public and their elected representatives.” Campaign group BackTo60, which was created by the women said they would appeal the decision.
“We are deeply disappointed by this decision,” said Marcia Willis Stewart of Birnberg Peirce, which represented the claimants. Stewart told The Guardian that the purpose of the “arduous legal process” was “to rectify a substantial and far-reaching injustice.”

The ruling was also criticized by UNISON, the UK’s largest trade union.
“This is a terrible blow for the millions of women who will have been hoping for a very different outcome,” UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis said in a statement. “It seems perverse that the Department for Work and Pensions had no obligation to inform these women of this significant change. But despite today’s decision women born in the 1950s will not give up their campaign to get back what they are rightly owed.”
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 10-21-2019, 11:12 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 90,283
Blog Entries: 6
Default

UNITED KINGDOM

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...retirement-age
Quote:
This brutal judgment on pensions is blind to the reality of older women’s lives
Polly Toynbee
Polly Toynbee
The sweeping decisions made by politicians about retirement age ignore the harsh consequences for millions of women


Spoiler:
quality for women is not always a victory. Women and men’s entitlement to a state pension was equalised by law back in 1995, so women retire at 65 now, at 66 next year – just the same as men. Sounds fair? Not to women born in the 1950s whose lives were hard work and slim savings, with no chance to build up pensions: they expected to retire at 60 and draw their state pension.

BackTo60 took their case to court for compensation and today they lost. BackTo60 and Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) are implacable campaigners for the pension rights of nearly 4 million women born in the 1950s. Waspi turn up at every political event and tail each Department for Work and Pensions secretary relentlessly to protest about pension changes that left many in penury. Politicians groan inwardly when they see them coming, but these women never give up.

Two campaigners, with the help of BackTo60 and crowdfunding, sought a judicial review but today were turned down. They don’t oppose an equal pension age: their complaint is the speed with which women’s pension age has been raised, to 65 last year, to 66 next year, giving many no chance to build up a pension. The law was changed in 1995 and was intended to be phased in between 2010 and 2020 – but in 2011, the coalition government speeded up the change, implementing it in 2018. Many women were only warned by letter 16 years after the initial legislation was passed.

This isn’t pension equality. This is a clear injustice to older women
Anne Perkins
Anne Perkins
Read more
This group are losing four to six years’ worth of state pension – life-changing individual sums of some £47,000, while the treasury saved £30bn.

The government’s case was bluntly put by Sir James Eadie QC: “Parliament has no substantive, freestanding obligation of fairness,” he told the court. There you have it, no duty to fairness and the court agreed, though claimed to be “saddened by the stories”. As we know, courts regard parliament as sovereign and parliament had passed it into law. Nor did it matter that the government had failed to warn the women: “There is precisely no obligation on parliament to notify those affected by its judgments,” Eadie said, and the court agreed.

Here’s what stands out: governments have been slow to pass laws and slower still to enforce equality for women in every other field. When the equal pay and sex discrimination acts were passed by Barbara Castle in the 1970s, we who had campaigned thought it was all done and dusted, job done. Yet the pay gap yawns wide, while women’s promotion to higher jobs lags behind and fair treatment in essential services that give women an equal chance are a matter of political whim – from childcare, which is the most expensive in Europe, to refuges for victims of domestic violence. The one and only equality for women imposed with a rod of iron was the equalisation of pension ages, because it saved the Treasury a fortune.

The court case was never against equalising the pension age – indeed, more women are in work and for longer. Since the abolition of the compulsory retirement age, the number of people continuing to work past the age of 65 has risen to 1.2 million. But introducing this “equality” at draconian speed was in effect a retrospective act. These older, poorer women’s lives were very different from younger women now. Many left school at 14 and 15 to work in hard manual jobs that took a toll on their health. Few had further education opportunities, and more of them are unskilled. They were paid less than men, and still are. In researching a book on work, I found trade union agreements in the car industry that demanded women be paid less, for fear they would take men’s jobs, hence the famous Dagenham women machinists’ strike. Part-timers, almost all women, were excluded from company pension schemes until 1989. Women back then had total responsibility as carers: there was no subsidised childcare nor nurseries until the Blair/Brown government.


Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
Had they been clearly told, some could have planned working lives to last longer, though many couldn’t. Discrimination against older women applying for work is even worse than it is for older men. Michael Mansfield, representing the women, gave the court government documents proving ministers knew there was “widespread ignorance” among many women that they were about to lose their pensions. Informing people about pensions is notoriously difficult, hence the success of the recent automatic enrolment scheme requiring people to opt out – it relies on most people staying clueless.

Pensioners have been better off since Labour’s pension credit took a million out of poverty and the coalition government introduced a triple lock on state pensions, guaranteeing an increase of whichever is the highest – 2.5%, the inflation rate or the rise in average wages. Pensioners are now less likely to be poor than the rest of the population. But that’s not saying much, since almost 4.5 million children have fallen into poverty.

A recent Financial Conduct Authority report says the state pension is the main source of income in retirement for 44% of people. How can people save when that report finds 31% of adults with no private pension provision and nearly six in 10 (57%) with savings of less than £5,000 or no cash savings at all?

Those on high who make sweeping decisions about the lives of others screen out these brutal facts, as if they are beyond their comprehension. A large slice of the population they govern has nothing – no safeguards, no protection from even the smallest buffets in their lives. Poverty and living on the verge of poverty is widespread, and means a life of constant anxiety. Waspi describes how many of their number – unable to work until 66, and unable to draw a pension – are reduced to food banks to survive.

With his usual empty bravado, when asked on the leadership hustings if he would help the stranded women, Boris Johnson promised to “commit to doing everything I possibly can to sorting out” the issue if he became prime minister. Now Johnson is in No 10, how many of those hasty promises of everything to everyone will he fulfil?

• This article was amended on 4 October 2019 to clarify that the BackTo60 case is separate from a similar, still ongoing case brought by Waspi.

• Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist


https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/state...women-20393934
Quote:
State pension age: What today's ruling means and how we got here
For years a group of women have been campaigning about pensions changes that will force them to work up to six years longer before they can retire - but today they were defeated in the High Court
Spoiler:
In 1995 the Government changed the rules on retirement ages.

Rather than becoming eligible for a state pension at 60, they said women would have to keep working until 65 like men.

This pensions equality was brought into force last year, with another rise next year meaning women and men born after October 6, 1954, will not get their pension until they are 66.

It's part of a much wider effort to bring the cost of the state pension down as people stay healthier for longer, and the number of people claiming pensions increases.

There's just one problem, a lot of the women affected didn't know their state pension age had changed until the date they thought they were going to retire.

Understandably, this came as a shock, with retirement plans thrown into chaos and huge gaps in how they will fund their life without an income they thought they were going to get.

Large numbers of them fought back. A lage-scale campaign called Backto60 has brought all the pressure it could on the Government to reverse the change and compensate the women born in the 1950s for the money they have lost out on.

Two women even took the Government to court, claiming it “unlawfully discriminated against them on the grounds of age, sex, and age and sex combined”.

They just lost.

The case they brought

Anne Taylor (left) and Patsy Franklin from the campaign 'Back to 60' outside the Royal Courts of Justice in central London (Image: PA)
READ MORE
Women lose landmark High Court fight against state pension age rise for millions

The Government had argued it gave plenty of notice of the changes, and that bringing the retirement age for women back down to 60 would cost the Treasury as much as £181 billion.

The women affected disagreed, saying they'd already spent their working lives being discriminated against in the workplace, and now were being denied the retirement they had been promised.

Patsy Franklin, 65, from Chesham, who worked in schools for her carer, told the Mirror: “The Government has sold me short”.

“I promised my children I would help care for my seven grandchildren when I retired so they could go to work. I packed up my job so I could help then I found out I wasn’t going to get it.

“Then I couldn’t go back.”


Many women faced real hardship as a result of the changes (Image: PA)
READ MORE
The odds are never in your favour - The system is against women saving at every life stage, so this is how to beat it

Meg Van Kuyk, 65, said she had been forced to live in her van for two years between the ages of 62 and 64 after losing her home in Hastings.

She was forced to retrain as a carer after being told at 59 she wouldn’t be able to retire at 60.

The judges dismissed the claims brought by Julie Delve and Karen Glynn that the Government acted unlawfully in raising the state pension age the way they did.

They said said there was “no discrimination based on age” and “no direct discrimination on grounds of sex".

They added: “This legislation does not treat women less favourably than men in law, rather it equalises a historic asymmetry between men and women and thereby corrects historic direct discrimination against men.”

And the judges said the Government, and previous Governments, had “engaged in extensive consultation with a wide spread of interested bodies”.

They concluded: “The court was saddened by the stories contained in the claimants evidence. But the court’s role was limited.

"There was no basis for concluding that the policy choices reflected in the legislation were not open to Government. In any event they were approved by Parliament.”


https://www.ft.com/content/8e12e9b4-...3-db5a370481bc
Quote:
Women born in 1950s lose legal battle on state pension
Judges rule change in retirement age is not a matter for the courts
Spoiler:



A campaign group representing women who lost out on thousands of pounds in pension payments when the state retirement age was raised from 60 to 66 has lost a legal case against the government that claimed age and gender discrimination.

BackTo60 supported two women to bring a judicial review challenge against the Department of Work and Pensions, arguing that the increase in the state pension age for women directly discriminated against those born in the 1950s. Julie Delve, 61, and Karen Glynn, 63, claimed the government had given insufficient notice of the changes so women could not alter their retirement planning.

About 4m women are affected by changes made in 1995 to equalise the women’s pension age with that of men, at 65. A subsequent alteration by the coalition government in 2011 accelerated the pace at which the women’s pension age rose to match men’s to 2018, from the original timetable of 2020.

On Thursday two High Court judges rejected the legal challenge from the women and said that, while they were “saddened” by the stories of hardship, the issue was not a matter for the courts and the changes had been approved by parliament.

“The wider issues raised by the claimants, about whether these choices were right or wrong or good or bad, are not for us; they are for members of the public and their elected representatives,” Lord Justice Stephen Irwin said, adding that “successive governments engaged in extensive consultation” about the changes. It is not known if the women will appeal against the decision.

During the High Court hearing in June, the judges were told that women born in the 1950s had suffered workplace discrimination and pay inequality and had also spent their adult lives believing that the women’s state pension age was 60. Many women had taken time out of the workforce to care for children and the failure to receive a pension at 60 had a disproportionately harsh effect on them, the High Court heard.

Michael Mansfield QC, representing the claimants, told the High Court that the women born from 1953 onwards had in some cases had four to six years of state pension contributions taken away from them. “We’re dealing with very serious sums: £37,000 to £47,000. I think any citizen would be concerned by that withdrawal,” he told the court.

However James Eadie QC, the government’s barrister, argued that the case should be dismissed as the government had consulted extensively to notify women about the changes.

Recommended

Paul Lewis
#BackTo60 and unanswered questions on state pensions
On Thursday the High Court was packed with dozens of women with some wearing lilac and white sashes with the words Waspi (Women Against State Pension Inequality). There was an audible gasp in court when Lord Justice Irwin announced the decision. Some women were in tears after the ruling. Sandy Gregson from Manchester, one of the women campaigners, said afterwards: “It is so disappointing — we had a real glimmer of hope with this case. We want to keep fighting on.”

A DWP spokesperson welcomed the judgment, saying the changes to the retirement age followed “extensive communications that [the] DWP made to publicise these changes over many years”.

Pension experts said the ruling would result in more political pressure on the government to implement a change for women affected.

“Before coming to power, the prime minister did indicate it was an issue he was keen to sort out,” said Jon Greer, head of retirement policy at Quilter, a wealth management company.

“As such, with a general election around the corner, and the issue not going away anytime soon, this could become a key battleground to attract votes from a disaffected demographic.

Dave Prentice, general secretary of Unison, a union that has supported the campaign, called the ruling a “terrible blow” and said the changes “left many women on lower incomes really struggling to make ends meet”.



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9135961.html
Quote:
Women lose landmark High Court fight against pension changes that caused homelessness and destitution
‘The worst affected have suicidal thoughts. They have sold properties and borrowed money. Some of them are homeless,’ says campaigner
Spoiler:
Women affected by controversial adjustments made to the state pension age, which campaigners say unlawfully discriminates against women born in the 1950s, have lost their landmark High Court battle against the government.

Nearly four million women have been affected by the changes which increased the state pension age from 60 to 66.

Women hit by the overhaul have lost their homes and some have even been forced into homelessness.




TOP ARTICLES
1/5
READ MORE
Japan vs South Africa LIVE: Rugby World Cup
2019 latest scores, results, fixtures and schedule

The UN committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has said the rise in the pension age has added to “poverty, homelessness and financial hardship among the affected women”.


Two claimants took the Department for Work and Pensions to court – arguing raising their pension age “unlawfully discriminated against them on the grounds of age, sex, and age and sex combined” and they were not given adequate notice to adjust.




TOP ARTICLES
1/6
READ MORE
Boris Johnson news – live: Bid to bring back
Brexit deal vote may be scuppered by Bercow as PM faces court challenge over 'childish' letters sent to EU

UK news in pictures
Show all 50
15 October 2019
14 October 2019
13 October 2019
12 October 2019
Joanne Welch, founder of Backto60, which took the government to court over the issue, told The Independent: “The worst affected have suicidal thoughts. They have sold properties and borrowed money. Some of them are homeless. The list goes on.”


The state pension age has been increased by successive governments in a bid to ensure “pension age equalisation” – so that women’s state pension age matches that of men.

In a summary of the court’s decision, Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice Whipple said: “The court was saddened by the stories contained in the claimants’ evidence.

“But the court’s role was limited. There was no basis for concluding that the policy choices reflected in the legislation were not open to government. In any event they were approved by parliament.


Read more

Why are 1950s women so angry about the state pension age change?
“The wider issues raised by the claimants about whether the choices were right or wrong or good or bad were not for the court. They were for members of the public and their elected representatives.”

Around 100 supporters attended the handing down of the judgment at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Thursday.

Independent news email
Only the best news in your inbox

Enter your email address
Continue
Register with your social account or click here to log in


I would like to receive morning headlines
Monday - Friday plus breaking news alerts by email
There were some gasps at the back of the courtroom as Lord Justice Irwin announced the court’s decision.

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott tweeted: “Disappointed to hear about today’s decision regarding the WASPI women. I will continue to support the WASPI-Campaign in their fight against pension inequality.”

Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Marcia Willis Stewart of Birnberg Peirce, which represented the claimants, said: “We are deeply disappointed by this decision.”

She added that the aim of the “arduous legal process” was “to rectify a substantial and far-reaching injustice”.

Read more

Warnings over women’s state pension age ‘went ignored’
Up until 2010, women received their state pensions at the age of 60 but that has been increasing since then. The retirement age of both men and women will increase steadily to 67 by 2028.

Prime minister Boris Johnson’s official spokesperson said they welcomed the High Court’s judgement – adding it has “always been our view” the changes made were “entirely lawful and did not discriminate on any grounds”.

“Government decided in 1995 it was going to make the state pension age the same for men and women as a long-overdue move towards gender equality,” the spokesperson said. “Today the court recognised the extensive communications that the Department for Work and Pensions made to publicise these changes over many years. We are all living longer and we need to raise the age at which we draw the state pension to make it sustainable for now and for future generations.”

After the ruling, Ms Welch said: “Where do we go from here? Well, where will the government go from here is the better question.”

She referred to Mr Johnson’s pledge during the Tory leadership campaign to look at the state pension age issue with “fresh vigour”, adding: “We will be holding you to that undertaking.”

As Ms Welch finished a brief statement, supporters outside the Royal Courts of Justice chanted: “The fight goes on.”
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 10-21-2019, 09:15 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 90,283
Blog Entries: 6
Default

THE NETHERLANDS

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...-idUSKBN1WX0IU
Quote:
Going Dutch? Low interest rates rattle 'world's best' pension system
Spoiler:
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - When Frans Kolkman hung up his police badge in 2017, he was looking forward to a comfortable retirement. Two years later he’s among millions of Dutch pensioners facing a cut and fearing there may be worse to come.

FILE PHOTO: A Dutch flag in the port of Volendam near Amsterdam, Netherlands February 11, 2017. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir/File Photo
The planned reductions, due to take effect from January 2020, have shaken a country renowned for having one of the world’s strongest pension systems, and are an early warning to others about the impact of record low interest rates.

Kolkman, who spent 43 years in the police force, hastens to add he will still be well-off but “if I live another 20 years, and there’s cut after cut after cut, then I really don’t know anymore.”

The European Central Bank’s (ECB) stimulus policies, which have helped drive interest rates into negative territory, are blamed in part for the impending cuts in the Netherlands and have triggered a fierce debate over how the funding of pensions should be calculated.

ECB President Mario Draghi said last month that the central bank was “very concerned” about the side effects of negative rates, but maintained they were required for economic growth.

RELATED COVERAGE
Factbox: Dutch pension pots stand out among global retirement funds
At the heart of the Dutch debate is a technical question over how to calculate the cost of future pension payouts while the ECB helps keep rates low.

Actuaries make assumptions about how long pensioners will live, count up the future payments that have been promised to them and then use an assumed interest rate to “discount” how much must be put away to pay them.

The lower this interest rate, “rekenrente” in Dutch, the more conservative the accounting, and the more it costs to meet future liabilities.

The rekenrente is derived from government bond yields — which have turned negative across Europe as interest rates steadily fell this summer.

Each 1% fall in interest rates has led to roughly a 12% fall in the coverage ratio between assets and liabilities in pension pots, the Dutch central bank says. As a January deadline approaches, cuts appear inevitable.

That has led several funds and some experts to argue that the rekenrente, which is around 0.3%, should be raised instead. Many blame ECB policy and see its effects as temporary.

Increasing the rekenrente to 2% or 3% would restore the funds to full solvency. Corien Wortmann-Kool, the chairwoman of the 456 billion euro ABP civil servants fund, told Reuters she opposes pension cuts as “unnecessary” for now.

“We believe we can achieve good returns, now and in the future,” she said, estimating a 4% return over time is achievable despite low interest rates.

ABP’s coverage ratio first fell through a 95% “critical” level, below which pensions should be cut to ensure a fund has enough assets to meet its liabilities, in July. It fell to 88.6% in August before recovering to 91% in September.

But Dutch Central Bank President Klaas Knot, the country’s top pension regulator, says the rekenrente is “integral” to the system.

“We will continue to adhere to the risk-free rate of interest,” Knot told journalists this week.

His approach is supported by a group of 10 academics who this week wrote to parliament arguing against a change.

“Imagine you took the risk free rate of return and raised it by 2%. Then the coverage ratio would increase at a typical fund by up to 30%. It sounds too good to be true — and it is. Pensioners get that money paid out now, but the assets pot will be a little more empty each year, and that would go on each year for years,” the letter said.

SIGN OF THE TIMES
One reason the Dutch system is considered so strong is its rigorous accounting. Another is its reliance on several different sources of pensions. Its first tier is the basic state pension that is funded by current workers on the “pay as you go” basis that is the heart of systems in France, Italy and Germany.

The Dutch system relies more heavily than most on a second tier, supplementary employer-run pension funds, the ones preparing cuts. The Dutch fight will be closely watched in the United States and Britain, which have similar tiered systems but funds sometimes use less stringent accounting rules.

Even after the cuts, Dutch workers would still receive more generous pensions than employees in other rich countries. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) calculates that Dutch retirees get about as much, all told, as their after-tax income while they were working.

FILE PHOTO: ECB board member Klaas Knot appears at a Dutch parliamentary hearing in The Hague, Netherlands September 23, 2019 REUTERS/Eva Plevier/File Photo
But for Kolkman and other pensioners, cuts estimated at up to 8% next year make no sense, given assets in Dutch pension funds have doubled since 2008 to more than 1.5 trillion euros.

This represents the most of any major industrialized nation as a percentage of GDP, as up to 90% of Dutch workers are enrolled in funds to which they and their employers contribute.

“It’s an amazing amount of money,” said Henk Krol, leader of the 50Plus political party, which represents older voters. “Now the problem is: how much must there be in the pot to pay everyone the share that he or she deserves?”

Krol expects some rule change will ultimately be agreed to avert the cuts, given the prospect of national elections in 2021.

For those running the pensions, however, the reality is that cuts are coming.

“At the current coverage ratio of 92.2% we must cut pensions in 2020,” said Peter Borgdorff, fund director of the 238 billion euro PFZW fund, which covers healthcare workers, on Thursday.

And central bank chief Knot sees no wiggle room.

“It’s not so relevant why rates are so low, what’s relevant is that they are going to stay at this level and then the consequences for the housing market and for pensions must be faced. ... We will enforce the rules,” said Knot.

Kolkman knows that he is lucky: his private pension will cover 40% of his “generous” final salary. But he says cuts seem wrong, especially given that Dutch pensions have already not been indexed for inflation for years.

“What gets me is now we’re retired we can’t really fight back. We can’t go on strike. We could demonstrate, I guess, but they aren’t going to lose sleep over that.”


__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 10-23-2019, 06:52 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 90,283
Blog Entries: 6
Default

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/...Q#3eaead1149b6
Quote:
What Does It Take To Build The World’s Best Pension Systems? Ask The Netherlands And Denmark

Spoiler:
The Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index 2019 edition has been published (full report here), and the United States has been given a rank of C+ in this comparison of pension systems of 37 rich and middle-income countries, with a score of 60.6, slightly above the average of 59.3. Also in the C+ category were the UK and France; among the C countries were Spain, Austria and Italy; B countires included Canada, Ireland, and Germany.

Which countries were at the top of the rankings?

Why the Netherlands and Denmark, of course.

Regular readers will recall that I profiled Denmark’s retirement system back in September, in “Bernie Sanders Wants A Scandinavian-Model Social Insurance System. Sure, Why Not? (For Retirement Anyway).” It’s a three-part system, with a flat “basic retirement income” benefit for all residents and prorated for short residency in the country, a modest statutory flat-contribution benefit (literally flat contributions - everyone pays the same amount - not merely a level percentage of income), and high prevalence (90%) of employer provision of Defined Contribution retirement savings accounts, which protect plan participants from investment risk not by means of employers providing guarantees but through conservative investments.

Today In: Money
The system is much the same in the Netherlands: a basic retirement benefit prorated for residency (see “Let’s Talk ‘Basic Retirement Income’ Social Security Reform: What Would It Look Like?”) combined with widespread prevalence of employer retirement benefit provision, traditionally in the form of traditional defined benefit plans sponsored by individual employers or industry-wide but now more commonly through defined contribution or “collective defined contribution,” which are characterized by risk-sharing among participants and potential benefit cuts if fund assets don’t meet investment return targets. Again, these plans are commonly invested in low-risk products such as deferred annuities.

So how is it that this type of system – a flat state-provided benefit paired with near-universal DC (or at any rate, employer-guarantee-less) benefits – finds its way to the top of Mercer’s ranking?

PROMOTED
First Republic Bank BRANDVOICE
How One Bay Area Hospice Is Reimagining Care For Terminally Ill Children And Their Families
U.S. Bank BRANDVOICE
Rethink A Long-Term Buy-And-Hold Investment Strategy
Grads of Life BRANDVOICE
More Than What’s On Paper: Dedication Has Its Rewards
The index evaluates retirement systems with three criteria:

Adequacy asks, straightforwardly enough, whether the system provides benefits that are adequate both to poor retirees and, as a percentage of pre-retirement income, middle-class workers as well. In terms of private-sector pensions, in addition to the benefit level itself, the study asks whether favorable tax treatment provides incentives to save, whether laws prohibit early withdrawals of retirement accounts, whether benefits vest and are portable upon leaving an employer, whether their are mandates or tax incentives for annuitizing retirement accounts, whether divorced spouses receive protection, and whether there are provisions to continue to accrue retirement benefits while temporarily out of the workforce such as when receiving disability benefits. This criteria also looks at the general household savings rate and the degree to which investments in retirement accounts are held in “growth assets.”

The sustainability metric looks at a number of factors: demographics (the old age dependency ratio and labor force participation rates for older workers), government policy that responds to aging populations such as increases in retirement age and phased retirement, the level of advance funding in public and private pensions, and the level of government debt. It evaluates (funded) private pension plan participation, which contributes to sustainability, as well as the extent to which public pension contributions are invested rather than directly paid out to pensioners.

And the integrity sub-index measures a number of factors related to ensuring “that the community has confidence in the ability of private sector pension providers to deliver retirement benefits over many years into the future” (report p. 16). These include “the role of regulation and governance, the protection provided to plan members from a range of risks and the level of communication provided to individuals,” and asks specifically about private-sector plan funding requirements. The value also incorporates broader metrics of governance through the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators, and evaluates the administrative and other costs of the systems, to evaluate whether plan participants are getting their money’s worth.

In addition to external data sources, Mercer compiled further data by using their international network of consultants, and the report further observes that they did not try to incorporate other factors impacting the well-being of retirees, financial or otherwise (e.g., cost and provision of healthcare or long-term care).

In the adequacy category, the US score of 58.8 is slightly below the average of 60.6, and places is it at a ranking of 24 out of 37. Its sustainability subscore of 62.9 (vs. an average of 50.4) places it 7th, and its integrity subscore of ranks 29th.

What accounts for these scores?

In the adequacy category, it ranks 21st in its provision of benefits for low-income workers (median would be 19th), 15th in its provision of benefits for a range of middle-income workers, and 18th in its overall savings rate (remember, this is out of 37, so the median score is 19), but last in a measusure based on annuization requirements/incentives. Denmark, in contrast, ranks 1st in overall replacement rate and 2nd in benefit provision for low earners, but dead last in the savings rate metric, which brings it to a rank of 5th overall. The Netherlands is also among a cluster of high-scoring systems with respect to overall benefit provision and does well on the index’s supplementary metrics, for an overall ranking of 3rd.

In the sustainability category, the US ranks 11th in terms of the proportion of workers participating in private sector pension plans, but does well in measures of actual pension assets and demographic sustainability. The Netherlands and Denmark tie for first in these first two measures, and are middle-of-the-pack on the third, for ranks of second and first, respectively, when combined with other components of this sub-index.

And in the integrity subindex, Denmark and the Netherlands (and 26 other countries) have tighter regulations of employer-sponsored plans in a variety of ways: stricter funding requirements for defined benefit plans, greater regulatory oversight of plan reporting, restrictions on assets, independence of pension fund trustees, access to a complaints tribunal, and the like. The index also gives points to systems in which large pension funds hold a relatively larger share of assets, because these have economies of scale.

So the bottom line is this: I’m a big fan of pension systems like those of the Netherlands and Denmark, so it’s always nice to see them do well in the rankings. But this report is equally useful in gaining an understanding of what a leading expert in the study of retirement systems has to say about the question, “what makes for a top retirement system?” and the answer is far more complex than either a generous Social Security system or an equally generous mandatory employer-provided pension system.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 10-27-2019, 07:23 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 90,283
Blog Entries: 6
Default

https://www.ai-cio.com/news/netherla...paign=CIOAlert

Quote:
Netherlands, Denmark Top Global Pension Ranking
US retirement systems ranked 16thout of 37 countries.
Spoiler:
The Netherlands and Denmark have the strongest pensions systems in the world, while Thailand and Argentina have the worst pension systems according to a recent study released by professional services firm Mercer.

The study analyzed 37 retirement income systems representing more than 63% of the world’s population and found a wide gap among systems around the world, with scores ranging from a high of 81.0 for the Netherlands to a low of 39.4 for Thailand.

“Systems around the world are facing unprecedented life expectancy and rising pressure on public resources to support the health and welfare of older citizens,” David Knox, author of the study, said in a release. “It’s imperative that policy makers reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of their systems to ensure stronger long-term outcomes for the retirees of the future.”

As the top ranked systems, the Netherlands and Denmark were also the only countries to receive a score above 80. The study graded any country with an 80 or above as an A grade, and defined these systems as “first class and robust” systems that deliver good benefits, are sustainable, and have a “higher level of integrity.”

The US ranked 16th out of 37, and was a little above the overall average of 59.3 with a score of 60.6, which was slightly better than France’s 60.2, and tied with Malaysia. Rounding out the top five retirement systems after the Netherlands and Denmark were Australia, Finland, and Sweden, which scored 75.3, 73.6, and 72.3 respectively. The only other countries to score above a 70 were Norway (71.2), New Zealand (70.1), and Singapore (70.8).

In addition to ranking the world’s retirement systems, the study also found a “strong correlation” between the levels of pension assets and net household debt. Its analysis showed that growth in household debt in developed economies paired with the growth in assets held by pension funds. The study said growth in pension funds assets allows households to feel more financially secure in having future income from their nest egg, which leads them to borrow more to improve their living standards.

“As the wealth of an individual grows, whether it be in home ownership, investment portfolios or their retirement savings, so does their comfort with amassing debt,” said Knox. “The evidence suggests on a global basis, for every extra dollar a person has in pension assets, their net household debt rises by just under 50 cents.”


__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.17374 seconds with 9 queries