IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2110.14290.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The USS Trustee's risky strategy

Author

Listed:
  • Neil M Davies
  • Jackie Grant
  • Chin Yang Shapland

Abstract

How much risk, and what types of risk, is the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) taking? This is a critical question for universities across the UK and many of their employees. Will the fund have enough money to pay for all our pensions? Will it run out? Or is there a significant risk that we are collectively overpaying? In September 2021, David Miles and James Sefton, from Imperial College Business School, stepped into this vacuum, publishing 'How much risk is the USS taking?'. The paper presents important, accessible and highly readable analysis which estimates how likely the USS is to default over time. Their work is particularly relevant to the current UCU dispute with 69 employers over the benefit cuts that Universities UK (UUK) is planning to implement on the basis of the 2020 USS valuation. In this Brief, we assess the assumptions, replicate the results, explore further their model and consider potential extensions. We demonstrate that for a cautious model with reasonable assumptions for assets and asset growth, the fund has a less than 7% chance of defaulting for the duration that pensions promises are due, but a greater than 80% chance of being over funded by at least {\pounds}100bn, and nearly 50% chance of having over {\pounds}400bn. We offer warm thanks to David Miles and James Sefton for sharing their code and data, for their helpful conversations and clarification. Their analysis is infinitely clearer, better and more credible than anything the USS has produced. We hope this paper will be the beginning of more work in this area. All errors are our own.

Suggested Citation

  • Neil M Davies & Jackie Grant & Chin Yang Shapland, 2021. "The USS Trustee's risky strategy," Papers 2110.14290, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2110.14290
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.14290
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2110.14290. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.