- Andy
- Arun
I have some friends who have worked in Government, in the Treasury and DWP and who understand state first and second pensions better than me. There are many in the private sector , such as Steve Groves, who are asking the right questions from outside.
But none so succinctly , knowing the inside, as my friend Mr Andrew Young (who has not been to Arun’s presentations), Here are his questions to Arun over the weekend
Straight questions and here are the straight answers from Arun Muralidhar.
1) how are they priced?We take the current inflation-linked curve and use a Nelson-Seigel extrapolation for cash flows before and after the curve. In Brazil, the government published the pricing model before the launch and announce the bid-ask price thrice a day so you canbuy-sell.(2) I assume the proceeds are just part of government borrowing like National Savings So are not “funded”. No harm in that but not a big deal.These funds are like all other DMO proceeds. I wanted the IMF/OECD to monitor the usage, but they are useless. So maybe some academic group/think tank.(3) there is no longevity cover. Or of course risk to government – so that is fine in a sense.Not in this bond as hopefully it allows insurance companies to compete very simply by quoting how much you will get for life cover by turning in your 20-year SeLFIES. If Lloyd’s quotes you £4.75/year and Standard Life £4.80, you know who is more diversified. I also designed a Longevity Indexed Variable Expiration (LIVE) bond for folks who do not want to deal with insurance companies – https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3522653 (4) what % of Brazilians have opted in, which sections of society. Are they material?One issue; they did not want to upset private financial institutions until it was well entrenched. As of May 25, 320,415 had bought voluntarily (many repeat purchases) for an AUM of R$5bn and 150,000+ bought the education bond for AUM of R$1.5 bn. In other words, 10% of Treasury Direct purchases are in these bonds and rising.Have to start slow as DMOs are super conservative. In UK, between Nest, Self-Employed and regular DC, it could grow in a hurry.
If we are going to have a national debate over adequacy , it must start with those we are not providing enough for and work out how we get them putting away money – rather than just relying on benefits (pension credit). We had the second pension, which was linked to earnings, there has always been a link between incentivising people to save and helping them to work and earn, Here are the answers from Andrew to Arun late one Sunday night!
I couldn’t resist a Quick Look at your answers. Many thanks.I can see their merits. In the same way as National Savings and indeed gilts have merits.I am unclear – with the references to mark Fawcett and Nest as to whether they are intended as retail products, as I assumed was the idea, or institutional. Of course can be both.Whatever it is, I am not so sure that government is keen on having even more guaranteed future cash liabilities on its books – although there is always the counter argument that a bit more easy borrowing has merits!
It seems stupid to ignore the capacity of Nest as a retail brand. Nest is already open to the self-employed and has been 15 years since it opened its doors, the self-employed are even professional partners and look down on Nest (stupidly IMO) or they simply went self-employed to get away from the bureaucracy of the workplace (including the workplace pension).
There are two aspects to adequacy, for the DWP it is a means to move people of dependency on benefits and into self-sufficiency. For the Treasury it is about working out how to incentivise it without creating even more problems for the country’s finances.
Small wonder that Muralidhar has pointed his SeLFIES at the Treasury, they may need to have this kind of solution in place to get savings amongst those who do not save. They may be able to link the savings to products (water, power, travel etc) but bottom line, they will be borrowing more money to solve a problem which is here and is costing the Treasury a lot in pension credit bills.
My hope is that the jigsaw can be put together to produce a picture that makes sense. Arun thinks he has an image that other ideas can group around. He may be right, we need to have new ideas and what I have seen so far from sidecar saving has left me less than impressed.
Push on Arun, this blog will do what it can to give your idea a nudge toward centre stage.


Sorry about the formatting which can’t be fixed till I learn how to capture text from emails!
I posed the question yesterday (reproduced below) about longevity risk being placed on the individual.
Clearly these bonds may be of value for those who die on time at age 85. For the increasing number who make it beyond 85 ( currently 40% of the market and rising) there is doubt.
You might have asked what about those still living beyond 85. Possible answer suck it up..
Is the group really endorsing this product without an income warning?
The pensions industry is still planning for the boomer generations pension ( and failing) when it should be contemplating the 100 year life.
Comment on Sunday blog
Based on the search results for the UK:
In England and Wales, deaths among those aged 85 and over made up 15% of all deaths in 1971, and this increased to 39% by 2016.
In 2020, the most common age at death in England and Wales was 87.1 years for males and 89.3 years for females. The median age at death was 81.8 years for males and 85.5 years for females.
Life expectancy at age 85 in the UK for men was an average further 5.8 years of life remaining and for women 6.8 years, based on data from 2010-2012.
Mortality rates for females in their early 80s in the UK declined from about 120 per 1000 population in the 1950s to 75 by the 1990s.