Actuary GeoƯ Ashbrooke’s Scaremongering and

Political Interference
Response to GeoƯ Rashbrooke ’s Op Ed.
It is appalling that quotes and claims made by GeoƯ Rashbrooke (a FNPF paid actuary) that
contracted pension payments were subsidized (or will need to be subsidized) by current
members. They are not verified by FNPF financial data or by World Bank, ILO or other consultant
reports that have been made public (so that we can assess the basis of the projections – many
of which are projected and based on FNPF’s poor investment returns, incorrect mortality rates,
bad/low performing investments and ineƯective management of the provident fund business).
I and other pensioners have asked for these reports to be made public, but FNPF has refused. Is
it because FNPF and a few of their consultants have made claims that are not in the reports or
that they have interpreted them to fit their agenda, e.g. consultants had recommended the
termination of contracted pensions because current members were subsidizing pension
payments as their funds had run out?
I have over 23 Years’ experience in executive and operational resort management and over 18
Years in financial management.
All claims and data in this paper are derived from FNPF’s annual financial reports from 1975 to
2012, and 2022 and 2023 that I have examined. They can be verified as to its authenticity and
correctness.
A. Not a single cent of members’ money was ever used to pay contracted
pensions or will be used to subsidize restitution to pensioners.
The pension scheme was and is sustainable – see item C, D and E below.

B. Restitution to Pensioners must be Funded by FNPF – not by taxpayers
or current members. An illegal profit of $255m was made by FNPF when pensioners
were terminated and investment income continues to be made from the profit – some $258m.
FNPF has the financial capacity, so, it must make restitution to pensioners with compound
interest (not funded by taxpayers or current members). See C and D above.
C. FNPF has the Financial Capacity to:
I. Honor Contracted Pension Payments in 2011
Refer to Appendix 7 page 67, note 30. FNPF net assets of $3.768m were suƯicient to
meet liabilities to members and pensioners leaving an excess of $123m.
II. To Make Restitution to Pensioners Now.
Refer to Appendix 8, page 51. After making provisions for liabilities due to current
members and pensioners, the FNPF General Reserve account balance stands at

2
$2.001 billion. After providing for the Reserve Bank’s solvency reserve guideline of
$884m, there is still a net General Reserve of $1.117 billion. FNPF’s strong financial
position is partly due to illegal profits from pensioners! There is no need for funding
by taxpayers or current members.
FNPF and the Government of Fiji have a moral responsibility to compensate
pensioners and correct the bullying and illegal actions taken by the FNPF and the
illegal Fiji First government that deprived pensioners of their hard-earned pensions.
D. Usual/Standard Practice of Pension Funds.
Here are quotes by GeoƯ Rashbrooke that have been debunked:
I. “It should not have come as a surprise then that the reserves for making pension
payments would run out, once the tap of contributor subsidy was turned oƯ.
He intentionally omits to state that pension funds should also be supported with
investment income on annuitants’ monies – FNPF’s Pension BuƯer Fund Reserve
account was not credited with investment income – $821m based on 6%
compounded yearly). There would be suƯicient funds in the account. Deceitful? Refer
to Appendix 1.
II. Decree 51 says that annuity liability should be met from annuitants’ conversion sums
plus investment returns.
Quote from Part 2, Article 4, (2) c:
“the Board’s annuity liability for current annuitants cannot continue to be met from the
annuitants’ conversion amounts plus investment returns, and so must be met by
applying a proportion of FNPF member contributions to that purpose (including by way
of reserving against these liabilities.
BUT FNPF did not pay Investment Returns on Pensioners’
Monies.
Despite the FNPF and the Fiji First government statement in Decree 51 that investment
income should be considered in deciding sustainability, FNPF did not credit any
investment income to the Pension BuƯer Fund Reserve (PBFR) account for some 36
Years.
Proof. I have examined the PBFR account in the FNPF financial statements from 1975 to
2011 (this is where FNPF records pensioners monies, i.e., pensioners’ conversion
money to purchase pensions and pension payments). There were no credits for
Investment Income. Refer to Appendix 1.
Adding investment returns to annuitants’ conversion amounts is international best
practice for pension funds! FNPF neglected to do this. FNPF has not upheld one of its
core values, i.e. integrity!
Could FNPF please explain?

3
Nor did it pay any interest to pensioners that was normally paid to current members
each year – discriminatory against pensioners according to the 2013 Constitution.
After the reform in 2011/2012, I note from the FNPF financial statements (from 2013 to
2023), that it has since made payment of investment income to the Retirement Income
Fund Reserve account. See Appendix 9 note 34, (b). Why did FNPF not do this prior to
the reform in 2011? It is further proof of discrimination against pensioners by FNPF.
Instead, FNPF stealthily credited investment returns earned on annuitants’ monies into
the General Reserve account. Hence, a sizable portion of the General Reserve
account belongs to pensioners.
E. The Contracted Pension Scheme was more than Sustainable –
Surplus for Current Members.
The value of investment return on pensioners’ monies at 6% (lower than the rate used to pay
interest to members annually) compounded annually from 1975 to 2011 amounts to
approximately $821m ($0.8210 billion)! GeoƯ Rashbrooke, who was FNPF’s actuary in 2011,
had valued the liability owing to pensioners was $565m till they all passed away; there would
be a substantial surplus $337m after including investment income ($821m + $81m PBFR
account balance = $902m – $565 pensioners’ liability = $337m)! See Appendix 1.
So current members were not subsidizing pensioners; in fact, pensioners were and are
continuing to subsidize current members!
F. GeoƯ Rashbrooke Alleges Need for Subsidy from members.
Several times, he has referred to the need for subsidy for pension payments – by current
members. He has made hollow claims without providing any proof from FNPF financial
statements. I have provided evidence that pension payments did not require any subsidy.
(see C, D and E above).
Scaremongering?
It appears that he is trying to create fear with current members and taxpayers as he has
alleged the need for subsidy so many times. Is he trying to influence public opinion against
pensioners – a repeat of what FNPF and the Fiji First government did prior to the 2011/2012
reform with false, deceptive and unsubstantiated claims?
He is asserting that the contracted pension scheme was unsustainable and needed subsidy
from current members.
Quotes made by Geoff Rashbrooke that subsidy was made or would be required:
i. Quote: “Without reforms, it would become necessary to take money from
contributors to maintain pensions at past levels.

4
a. Pensioners’ liabilities were valued by GeoƯ Rashbrooke at $565m in 2011 financial
statements. The statement shows there were adequate assets to meet the future
liabilities of pensioners. See Appendix 7, page 67 Item 30.
There was no need to take any money from current members. It was not the reason
for reforms.
There is no evidence that reputable organizations or actuarial consultants have
recommended termination of contracted pensions; he (a paid FNPF consultant) may
be the only exception. I have asked for proof from the FNPF CEO, but no proof was
given and FNPF has refused to make these and other reports publicly available.
b. The real reason for the reform was the FNPF board and management’s inability to
eƯectively manage the pension business during changing and adverse operating
conditions.
c. The eƯects of global and Asian financial crises, repeated military coups, the $378m
impairment on loans and investments (including Natadola), the increased number of
members taking pensions and the termination of the two cent contribution were the
main reasons.
d. The above caused low returns on investments – 4.5% to 5.8% to sustain the business.
e. FNPF board and management were too slow in reacting to these changing
conditions. The developers of the original augmented pension scheme had
recommended that PCRs be reviewed periodically. It was not done in time.
This augmented social pension scheme (approved by law, employers and
employees) was a novel one and not based solely on usual practice. The above
surplus of $337m proves that it was a successful model.
ii. “Even now, any degree of reinstatement of former pensioners by FNPF as some have
been urging, could only be at the expense of ordinary members.”
Not true and no statistical proof – It can be funded by FNPF. See items C, D and E
above.
iii. “The World Bank (2007 Report) was very firm that the FNPF pension business was
insolvent, and that pensions needed reduction. The liability for future pensions was
demonstrably higher than the funds available once provision had been made to
safeguard members.”.
Not True. The FNPF was solvent in 2007 with Capital Reserve of $703m.There was a
need to reduce new pension contracts from 25% to 15% for long term sustainability
as the FNPF was making very low investment returns.
Quotes from the World Bank, ILO and consultant reports should only be made if they
are made available for public scrutiny.

5
iv. “It would seem the principle that pensions should not be subsidised was duly
recognized.”
It has always been recognized. Subsidies from members to pay pensioners were
never made. Refer to items C, D and E above. Pensioners are in fact subsidizing
current members!
v. “It should not have come as a surprise then that the reserves for making pension
payments would run out, once the tap of contributor subsidy was turned oƯ and
the PCR left well above the ILO’s 10 per cent.
False claim. With the addition of investment income on annuitants’ monies, the PBFR
account would have more than enough to pay pensions till all pensioners passed
away. Refer to items D and E above.
vi. “The reasoning behind this policy approach could certainly be reviewed, but any
adjustments would need to either be cost-neutral or paid for out of tax revenues.
Otherwise, the principle of protecting member accounts would be breached.”
 These suggestions are not the only options available.
 FNPF should fund restitution out of the General Reserve account – a significant
portion belongs to pensioners as investment income was credited to this
account. See B, C and D above.
 Pensioners do not agree that adjustments be funded out of tax revenue.
vii. “So, to sum up, pensions in 2012 had to be reduced. The actual method employed

might be reviewed, since it involved policy choices. But one way or another the much-
needed retirement savings of Fijian workers had to be safeguarded then, and

continue to be safeguarded now.”
GeoƯ Rashbrooke rationalizes that the termination of legal pension contracts in 2012
is acceptable to safeguard current members even though it breaches human rights
laws of Fiji and UN International Declaration of Human Rights. How unprofessional!
Pensioners totally agree that workers’ savings must be safeguarded. Not a cent of
workers’ savings was used to subsidize pension payments. See D and E above.
viii. “There was little left over after refunding the pensioners’ retirement sums, and this
was employed to boost the pensions of those who chose to re-invest.”

The “little left over” was not used to boost the pensions of those who chose to re-
invest. Again, GeoƯ Rashbrooke did not provide any proof.

The $255m profit ($565m actuarial certified pensioners’ liability less $310m refunded)
that FNPF made from the termination of legal pension contracts can hardly be
considered little.

6

FNPF used $100m for top-up but this is a government social issue that government
should fund – not by FNPF – it was done to reduce opposition to the 2011 reform.
A significant balance of $155m profit was stealthily credited to the General Reserve
account – not used to support the new pension scheme which was based on it being
sustainable and self-funding! Another false claim by GeoƯ Ashbrooke.
ix. “In relation to the assertion that pensions were protected by contract, entitlements
look to have arisen through statute, not business transaction. A legal case
therefore would seem unlikely to succeed. Taking into account the rights of
contributors to enjoyment of their own funds might also be relevant.”
He is again talking about the rights of contributors as if their savings were being
threatened when there is no such danger. Scaremongering again.
I cannot understand why GeoƯ Rashbrooke would predict a legal outcome when that
depends on the Fiji High court and the Coalition government and pensioners to
decide. Is he a legal expert to predict the outcome of our High Court. Ouster laws may
be challenged in court and disapplied.

It should be noted that he is a member of FNPF’s Board Audit & Risk Committee. I believe that he
is receiving a fee from FNPF as a committee member. Therefore, his opinion is not independent –
there is a conflict of interest slanted in favor of FNPF. He makes statements that are deceptive or
wrong without any proof.
As an experienced actuary contracted by FNPF from 2011 to 2018 and especially now, that he is
a member of the FNPF Board Audit & risk Committee, and he was the actuary that certified the
FNPF liability to contracted pensioners as $565m in 2011, he would have had access to FNPF
financial statements and would have full knowledge of the original pension scheme. He would
know that the Pension BuƯer Fund Reserve account did not include return on investment on
pensioners monies. But he never mentioned this.
His article is scaremongering to seek resistance from taxpayers and current members to interfere
in the coalition government’s role. FNPF conducted a huge publicity campaign prior to the
pension reform in 2011 making many false claims that were not used to empower Decree 51.
GeoƯ Rashbrooke is suggesting that funding for pension restitution should be cost neutral or paid
out of tax revenue, otherwise, the principle of protecting member accounts would be breached
– he is suggesting that current members would have to fund restitution if taxpayers did not.
As an actuary and a member of the FNPF Audit and Risk committee, he should know that FNPF is
in a strong financial position in 2023 with $2.001 billion in General Reserves available to fund
restitution.
He is interfering in the government’s responsibility and meddling in Fiji politics and court related
issues. I am wondering if his visa to enter and work allows him to do these things.

7
Some pensioners are asking if he should be reported to the NZ Society of Actuaries and to FICAC
as his article contains false statements, is unprofessional and may constitute misconduct,
political interference by a non- citizen and other malfeasance furthering the FNPF’s illegal profit
from terminating legal pension contracts. Pensioners ask that he makes a public apology to the
Coalition Government of Fiji and pensioners.
God bless Fiji, our coalition government and pensioners who have suƯered for over twelve years
because of illegal termination of their pensions.
Christopher Jackson Mar

Email: Jacksonmar9@gmail.com