We need to explain £127k.
Policyholder says £127k difference. He gets this from comparing the figures quoted for projected fund at age 65:-
£215,577-£88270.93 = £127,306.07
However this is not comparing like with like as the £88k is in current money terms. Comparing at 1.2.20 the difference would be:
£215,577-£88270.93*1.03^5 = £113,246.80.
That explains the £14,000 in the question. We have £113k left to explain.
The £60k in the question got calculated as:
£25,000 * [1.09^20 - 1.06^20] = £59,932.
i.e. the shortage in fund value by 1.2.15 due to disappointing investment returns.
This leaves £53k to explain.
So, what is the £53k?
Referring to the examiners report, it says :
Recent changes in legislation require that a return of 5% a year is used for future projections. The 2015 projection therefore is based on returns at this level, which is much lower than the 9% assumed in 1995. This accounts for around £53,000 of the difference between the two projections.
I don't believe this communication of the £53k is correct.
Even a basic reasonableness check here would suggest something is wrong: projecting £80k over 5 years at 5% instead of 9% would not cause you to miss out on £53k. Actuaries should know things like that. A policyholder would be suspicious of such a claim.
Back to the £113k, expanding out this formula we get
£25,000*[1.09^25 - (1.06^20)*(1.05^5)] = £113,246.80
Changing the projection rate from 5% to 9%:
£25,000*[1.09^25 - (1.06^20)*(1.09^5)] = £92,213.
This accounts for around £21k, not the £53k stated in the Examiners report.
Therefore £53k seems to be incorrectly described in the question & the examiners report.