Sir, keep it simple please

Sir, in “Undead Pensions”, September 30, you describe well the risks that a higher than expected longevity could have for any pension plan, but be careful though that this does not turn into the perfect useful excuse that hides the much more serious consequences of too much optimism with respect to the estimated return rates. Now after rightly mentioning the role of the “real insurance company” you thereafter go into some not easily understood sophistications asking for “a market in longevity” and that if I read it correctly seems like a proposal for hedge funds that trade in longevity derivatives and cover themselves by going long in avian flu risks and look to settle their trades within their own lifetime. Financial Times in its great knowledge should never forget that there is also some wisdom and some value to keeping things simple, especially in such certain things as death and taxes.