Actuarial Projections: Virus Might Cause ‘Meaningful’ Increase in Death Rate for Elderly

An extra 300,000 fatalities for seniors could raise the figure to 4.7% by year’s end. 


Since March, pension actuaries have been crunching the numbers on the coronavirus impact on mortality rates. Investors are wondering how the “observed” mortality rate, which includes excess deaths above what is typically expected during normal times, may impact defined benefit (DB) plans. 

The consensus on that is still murky, but getting clearer as the calendar year draws to a close, according to a brief from the American Academy of Actuaries. 

The number of deaths from the pandemic thus far has surpassed 200,000 total in the United States. But an additional 300,000 coronavirus-related deaths among seniors could increase the overall death rate to 4.7% for seniors by year’s end, according to a hypothetical scenario drawn up by researchers. 

That would be a “meaningful” increase from the 4.1% death rate figure in 2017, when the percentage rate translated to about 2.1 million seniors dying of a population of roughly 51 million people aged 65 and older in the US at the time, the brief said. 

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

If that scenario bears out, pension plans could see a “small” impact on the mortality rate, researchers said, meaning that liabilities for retirees would likely be reduced. The scenario with 300,000 additional deaths would result in a 21.3% population maturity ratio, which is defined as the portion of those aged 65 years and older to those adults over 20 years, versus a 21.4% population maturity ratio in a scenario without the excess tally. 

Broadly speaking, however, researchers specified that excess deaths from the coronavirus are not as likely to impact pension funds as the immediate financial repercussions of the pandemic, which have hurt the budgets of plan sponsors, as well as their workers, who have been furloughed or laid off. 

Even if normal annual mortality rates were to double in 2020, pension fund obligations are not likely to be reduced by more than 1%. Deaths in the latter part of the year may not even be processed until way into next year. 

But actuaries that include factors for plan beneficiaries such as the differences between blue-collar and white-collar workers, income levels, and ZIP codes may wind up with actuary rates that vary greatly from those of other funds. 

For example, plans that cover essential workers, such as grocery store workers or emergency responders, may find their actuary rates more immediately affected. About 10 million Americans are covered under the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)’s Multiemployer Insurance Program, according to the agency. 

Other changes are also in store for the assumed future mortality rate, which actuaries are eyeing as they determine whether the coronavirus will be a one-off event, or if it will continue to have financial and health repercussions down the road. Much like the rest of this year, how that turns out remains to be seen. 

Related Stories:

Dallas Pension Fund Sues Actuary for Malpractice

Tail Risk Hedges Are Vital for Investors Now, Argues Black Swan Theory Guy

Don’t Worry about an Election Outcome Delay, Goldman Says

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Virginia Pension Fund Returns 1.4% in 2020

Despite weak gains, $81.6 billion trust fund outperforms benchmark during fiscal year.


The Virginia Retirement System (VRS) achieved a 1.4% return, net of fees, on its investment portfolio for the fiscal year ending June 30, raising the value of the VRS Trust Fund to approximately $81.6 billion. Despite the meager gains, the fund outperformed its benchmark, which returned 1% for the year.

“During these challenging times with extreme market volatility, the fund performed well overall, especially the fixed-income portfolio,” CIO Ronald Schmitz said in a statement. “Although we did not achieve the projected rate of return for the one-year period, the fund did exceed the custom benchmark for this period, along with the benchmarks for the three-, five,- and 10-year periods.” 

The fund reported three-, five-, and 10-year annualized returns of 5.2%, 5.8%, and 8.1%, respectively, compared with its benchmark’s returns of 5.1%, 5.6%, and 7.6%, respectively, over the same time periods. Over the longer term, the fund had 15-, 20-, and 25-year annualized returns of 6.4%, 5.5%, and 7.8%, respectively. Long-term returns for the fund’s benchmark were not provided by the VRS.

Fixed income was the fund’s top-performing asset class, returning 9.5%, followed by real assets, which gained 1%, and private equity and credit strategies, which increased 0.8% and 0.3%, respectively. The worst performing asset class was private investment partnerships, which lost 6.4%, followed by multi-asset public strategies and public equity, which declined 3.2% and 0.7%, respectively.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

The fund’s asset allocation is 37.2% in public equity, 16.8% in fixed income, 13.8% in credit strategies, 13.8% in real assets, 12.5% in private equity, 3% in multi-asset public strategies, 1.5% in private investment partnerships, and 1.5% in cash.

VRS Board of Trustees Chairman O’Kelly E. McWilliams III said the board decreased the portfolio’s public equity exposure earlier this year, which “saved transaction costs and supported the long-term strategy of increasing exposure to private markets, believing the future yield to be higher in these areas.”

Related Stories:

Virginia Pension in Worse Shape to Weather Crash than in 2008

Virginia Retirement System Returns 7.5%

Virginia Will Lower Assume Rate of Return for Its Retirement Fund

Tags: , , ,

«