USS’s valuation rests on a large and demonstrable mistake

When corrected there is no deficit as at 31 March 2018 and no need for detrimental changes to benefits or contributions

[UPDATE: I have posted a more accessible and succinct explanation of USS’s ‘large and demonstrable mistake’ in this subsequent blog called ‘Test 1 de-risking is dead, long live de-risking!’, which is in response to this reply from USS to my blog below.]

1. Introduction and overview

USS has thereby provided ‘new material evidence’ which confirms the key figure underpinning Marsh’s analysis that, on a proper understanding of Test 1 — in fact, as I show below, USS’s own understanding — no de-risking of the DB portfolio is called for. If, moreover, such de-risking is cancelled, then the scheme is nearly fully funded on a prudent basis as at March 2017. Given the subsequent improvement in funding position (see Annex 9 of the Joint Expert Panel’s report), the scheme would almost certainly be in surplus on a prudent basis as at March 2018. It is also very unlikely that any increase beyond the current 26% level of contributions would be required in order to continue to prudently fund existing DB and DC benefits.

In other words, when USS’s mistake with regard to Test 1 is corrected, there is no deficit as at 31 March 2018 and no need for detrimental changes involving any decrease in pensions benefits or increase in contributions.

In four words: No Deficit! No Detriment!

This is the key message of this blog post. In what follows, I provide a more detailed and technical defence of the points above. (Those who would like to skip over the technical details should jump now straight to the Conclusion in Part 3 and the Addendum below it.)

2. How exactly did USS get things so wrong?

Image for post
Image for post
Sheffield Working Group’s draft submission to UUK’s JEP consultation

As noted above, USS maintains that Marsh’s column 1 calculations of asset values overstate things, but by less than 5%. (See this tweet for Marsh’s explanation of the discrepancy between his figures and USS’s.) Even if, however, we reduce the row 1, column 1 figure by 5% (from £78.2bn to £74.3bn), the value of the assets remains sufficiently high so as not to trigger any Test 1 mandated ‘de-risking’ of the assets in the DB portfolio. It does not trigger any de-risking even under USS’s current highly restrictive interpretation of the test. This is because, even under this restrictive interpretation, the gap between the level of the assets (column 1) and the self-sufficiency liabilities (column 3) remains within the £10bn ‘reliance on the employer covenant’ that is now permitted by Test 1 (see p. 30).

2.1. USS’s failure to calculate figures for column 1

They did not initially seek to confirm these figures, since they simply assumed that they would be equivalent to the figures in column 2:

2.2. Mind the gap

2.3. How columns 1 and 2 might diverge

2.4. Why Test 1 mandates application of column 1 rather than column 2 when the two diverge

This underlying rationale is as follows: that the value of the assets held by the scheme 20 years from now be high enough that purchase of a self-sufficiency portfolio 40 years from now be affordable via a +7% increase in employer contributions from year 20–40. (See this blog post and this blog post for further explanation of this underlying rationale for Test 1.)

Moreover, as I show in this tweet and the ones surrounding it, USS’s own statements affirm a measure of reliance on the employer covenant in terms of differences in asset values:

3. Conclusion

Had the Joint Expert Panel received Marsh’s analysis in time to influence their report, they would have been provided with strong grounds to recommend further adjustments to the valuation, which bring contribution rates all the way back down to the current 26%, rather than merely down to 29.2%.

Had USS provided Marsh and other members of the University of Sheffield USS Working Group with the column 1, row 1 figure they had requested way back in September 2017, USS’s error over Test 1 would have come to light much sooner. The case would have been made in the autumn of 2017 that Test 1 does not mandate any further de-risking of the pension fund beyond the considerable de-risking that has already occurred during the past decade. This error would have been corrected before it provided Universities UK employers with a rationale for endorsing deep cuts to pensions that prompted industrial action of historic proportions.

Now that this further, serious problem with the valuation has come to light, above and beyond those identified by the Joint Expert Panel, USS must, at the very least, embrace all of the JEP’s recommended adjustments to the valuation in full. The governing majority of UCU and UUK trustees must instruct their executives and the scheme actuary to go at least that far, now.

Addendum: further diagnosis of USS’s mistake

Test 1 triggers false alarms

This is because the test is blinkered in measuring only whether the following gap is so large that it cannot be bridged by +7% contributions over 20 years: the gap between (i) the liabilities discounted at the low rate of return of a low-risk self-sufficiency portfolio and (ii) the liabilities discounted at the higher (prudently adjusted to 67% chance of success) rate of return x of the actual assets.

This is blinkered because it fails to acknowledge that this gap might be reduced by the scheme’s being in surplus in 20 years’ time because returns of the same prudent rate x on the actual assets generate a level of assets that is higher than the liabilities that have been discounted at that prudent rate x. Such a surplus might boost the level of assets to the point where a self-sufficiency portfolio is within affordable reach via +7% contributions over 20 years.

Marsh’s calculations, as confirmed by USS, establish that there would be just such a surplus, which would be great enough to place a self-sufficiency portfolio within affordable reach. There would be such a surplus in the absence of any de-risking of the current portfolio or changes to the current level of contributions or benefits.

USS’s mistake was in falsely assuming that there would not be such a surplus, but rather that the value of the assets would equal that of the liabilities. Having made this false assumption, its Test 1 sets off a false alarm that the safe harbour of a self-sufficiency portfolio is beyond affordable reach when it is, in fact, within reach.

[UPDATE 29 Oct: Here I provide further documentation, via reference to statements and a graph in a May 2018 video by their Chief Risk Officer, that USS has made a large and demonstrable mistake regarding Test 1.]

Written by

Professor, Dept. of Philosophy, Logic & Scientific Method, LSE

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store