The topic
of pension system reform, my hobby horse, will be keeping us company in the
coming weeks. The final decision on the future shape of the pension system in
Poland is bound to be taken and announced around the end of summer holidays.
Until then several consultations will be run in order to work out compromise on
the variant which will be chosen and pursued. Meetings have kicked off and
judging by what politicians and government-related economists declare, we are drifting
towards the second option, i.e. freedom to choose whether to still transfer
part of pension contribution which now goes to private-run pension funds there
or to move it to state-run social security fund.
A week ago
I mentioned the calculations presented in the government report, whose accuracy
has been called into question by independent (?) economists. I took the trouble
to download calculations presented by independent economists (in a spreadsheet)
and set about analysing them. I can only agree with independent economists that
money-weighted rate of return (actually in essence internal rate of return) is
a proper and more accurate tool for assessing investment performance that
geometric mean. I spent some half an hour poring over the complicated spreadsheet
to work out why specific formulas are in specific cells and find causations
between them. Then I began to verify assumptions on which calculation had been
made. I found a factual error in decreasing fees charged by pension fund
managers (not impacting substantially the upshots), but then gave up on further
exploration as it was before eleven, it was dark and my mind simply began to
drift away. Had I spent one more evening doing all the stuff, I would have
probably been able to tell whether the independent economists’ calculations
were correct. Third evening for verification of government’s calculations and I
would have been home. But in the first week of July when weather is perfect,
there are much more interesting things to do than taking apart the report, if
it is not going to change anything…
The
silver-mouthed politician of the week award goes to Leszek Miller, chief(tain)
of SLD. On Tuesday in the public radio he put forward calling parliamentary
investigating committee to track and bring to the light irregularities in
setting up and running pension funds. Having read the transcript of the interview I can say that:
1) There is
no need to call any committee to find out pension fund managing companies
charged over 17 billion PLN in fees from contributions paid by future
pensioners. They did it within the letter of law (because politicians allowed
them to do so), extensive reports on profitability and solvency of pension fund
industry are available on Polish Financial Services Authority’s website and
everyone (computer-literate) can easily find the numbers,
2) Personal
tie-ups of reform-authors with beneficiaries of the reform are disclosed to the
public. You may speak here about arrogance, lack of integrity, but not of
withheld tie-ups.
3) If
indeed it is true that powerful financial corporations lobbied for the reform
to secure for themselves risk-free business, they surely did not spare efforts
to efface all the traces of what could be found illegal and the committee would
not be able to track it.
4) If
Leszek Miller suggests pension fund managers were “pumping up” prices of some
shares and there were investors in the know of it and benefited from this and
he has evidence of such incidents, may he go to relevant supervision
authorities. What Mr Miller speaks of is an example of insider trading, which is a
(n easy to detect, difficult to prove) crime. Bodies which deal with such form
if criminality in Poland are Financial Services Authority (KNF) and
Prosecutor’s Office.
On Friday
Mr Miller announced his grouping would pass a resolution condemning bygone
prime minister Jerzy Buzek and bygone finance minister Leszek Balcerowicz for
the pension reform. I know there are thousands or even millions of people in
this country deeply convinced pension system reform, in particular creating
pension funds, was the biggest scam made in Poland after 1989. Mr Miller also
knows it (just as he knows there are millions of Poles hankering after Gierek’s
decade) and in his cynical game wants to score a point by speaking out what
those people have in minds. I shall refrain from explicit comments, this is
pure politics, not policy, something that adds no value to moving Poland
forward.
On Tuesday the runner-up,
Jarosław Gowin reasserted he thinks “in pension funds there are Poles’ private monies”
and insisted in case pension funds are scrapped, it would be best to give that money back to Poles (incidentally Mr Gowin failed to pin down what he actually
meant). Last week I outlined a scenario of freeing the assets accumulated in
pension funds, this week I will just paste a fictitious news item, thought out
by me and posted on my wall on facebook – dedicated to philosopher Gowin.
It does not
take a lawyer, nor the Supreme Court ruling, to come to the conclusion public
pension fund assets are not private savings, it is a matter of logic, you just
need to use your brains.
The
conclusions I reached after the last week are depressing. An average Pole knows
little of economics. Loads of useless stuff are taught at schools and except
for short course of “entrepreneurship” run in high schools, youngsters in
Poland are not educated in the workings of economy. I estimate 80% of Poles do
not understand what the whose fuss about OFE is about and hence are pliable -
one day can believe the government, the other they will believe Mr Balcerowicz
is right. Due to lack of education they have to take what they are told on
trust. Imagine how much room for misrepresentations, manipulations, populism
and propaganda it leaves.
Politicians
and journalists also lack proper knowledge and understanding of the topic.
Let’s take the example of a sentence “oszczędzać na emeryturę w ZUS-ie”, in
English ‘to save for pension in [state-run] Social Security Fund’, literally in
“Social Insurance Company”. Stare-run pillar of the pension system is an
insurance scheme. When you work you pay contributions and in fact take out
insurance from not having subsistence when you retire. It is an example of
endowment insurance policy with no payout before maturity. Get it? If not
imagine you take out non-compulsory car insurance. If your car is not damaged,
nor stolen, has the insurance stolen your premium. In state-run pension system
you buy protection, not benefit. Had it been the other way round, the system
would have collapsed, or contributions would have been raised.
The other
story is poor informational quality lack of clarity in public speaking. This
drawback of Polish public discourse is partly the effect of poor understanding
of complicated issues. The other, very rare ability most public figures lack,
is the aptitude to explain complex issue in simple words, intelligible for an
ordinary recipient. Even if somebody has knowledge, difficulties in putting it
across make it useless for the society!
Now let’s
move a level higher. Imagine the recipient is an educated graduate of
economics, who not just holds a diploma, but is familiar with the stuff and
avidly interested in it. If such person needs some six hours (maybe it is
little) to determine whether rates of return in the report were correctly
calculated, does the whole debate not move to another universe, completely out
of reach for ordinary people? Should an average citizen know whether geometric
mean, or money-weighted rate of return is apposite for comparing investment
results? Does this give politicians and economists right to deprive benighted
people of the right to decide how to secure their retirement? Thus I moved to
the realm of questions doomed to be unanswered which reminds me today’s writing
has come to an end.
1 comment:
Once again, this is the blog to turn to for understandable analysis of the OFE issues...
Post a Comment