4 minute read

Pension schemes will confront a different set of challenges as they mature, not least around cashflows. How these problems are managed now will affect the financial health of the schemes far into the future.

No two pension schemes are alike, and their paths towards delivering on their promises to members may not be either. Today, buy-ins, buy-outs and self-sufficiency are all distinct objectives.

Yet as closed pension schemes mature, many face common challenges: cash flows become more pertinent as income is needed to pay member benefits; if markets falter, these schemes may have less time to recover; and similarly, their fates become more dependent on factors outside their control, such as members’ expected lifespans and the health of their sponsors.

At our October UK institutional conference, ‘Adapting to thrive – inspiring future outcomes,’ we considered three paths that may help pension schemes to address these issues as they approach the endgame. (See the table below.)

Pension priorities

Three strategies for defined benefit pension schemes

Source: Aviva Investors, October 2018

Each has its merits and drawbacks. As we weighed the options through the lens of a hypothetical case study of the £1.2 billion Widget Pension Scheme, we made the following assumptions about the Widget scheme:

  • The asset allocation is divided with 30 per cent in an LDI portfolio designed to hedge 100 per cent of the assets, 30 per cent equities, 30 per cent buy-and-maintain credit and 10 per cent real estate long income.
  • Funding level is 80 per cent.
  • Sponsor contributions are £30 million per annum for five years.
  • Scheme is closed to new members and accrual.

The trustees of the Widget scheme are targeting fully-funded status in ten years, based on a government bond basis, a measure that assumes the scheme’s liabilities can be funded with existing assets by buying government bonds. As the scheme matures, trustees wanted to reduce risk and are changing the portfolio’s return target to gilts +150bps per annum from gilts +175bps per annum. A major concern is their sponsor covenant, which could deteriorate over the next few years if Brexit impacts the company’s ability to make its annual contribution.

With lowered targeted returns, increased sponsor covenant risk and higher cash flow requirements, the Widget scheme could benefit from implementing cashflow driven investing (CDI). One way of targeting a more predictable cashflow stream and therefore reduce their reliance on the sponsor is by increasing exposure to high-quality public and private debt, at the expense of public equities. While such a strategy is not likely to generate equity-like returns, it still can provide some growth potential while reducing downside risks. (See the chart below.)

In search of certain outcomes

Comparison of CDI versus a reduced equity allocation approach

Source: Aviva Investors, October 2018, for illustration purpose only

However, capital deployment in private markets could take time. Assets are less liquid, and the competition for deals is rising with investor demand. Extensive resources are needed to find, structure and monitor private assets, and a robust risk management framework is a must. Private debt strategies also take time to deploy, so an early start could be crucial to meet investment outcomes.

For others who are concerned about equity risks but may not wish to invest in private markets, multi-asset strategies with an absolute return benchmark may make more sense. In the case of the Widget scheme, about 30 per cent of the investment portfolio is invested in equities. Following ten years of positive equity market returns, trustees are concerned that more volatile markets could damage the scheme’s funding level. A 20% drop in equities, for example, could lead to a deterioration of 4.8 per cent in the funding level. This increases the risk of forced selling to meet cashflow needs, but more importantly may compound the funding shortfall if the scheme is cashflow negative.

Absolute return strategies that focus on a specific outcome may help to smooth returns during periods of heightened volatility, but investors also have been concerned over the underperformance of many strategies relative to equities. Some may use leverage and long-short positioning to target returns that are independent of market directions. Others follow long-only diversified growth process or are dependent on managed hedging programmes. In practice, investors need to be clear how each – or a combination of the above – can be tailored to meet their goals.

To have the best chances of delivering a targeted outcome, investors need to consider the following:

  • Does the asset manager have the analytical framework to identify opportunities and mispricing in a disciplined way?
  • Does the asset manager have dedicated resources to monitor these frameworks, propose action and then execute it in a cost-efficient manner?
  • Does the asset manager have the accountability and governance structure to ensure that the board can oversee and justify their investment decisions?

Both absolute return and CDI strategies address investment risks, which is rightly the focus for trustees. But harm to the health of the pension scheme also could be from other causes such as the sponsor covenant and/or longevity risks. For example, the Widget scheme’s sponsor could fail to make part or all of the expected £150 million contribution over the next five years due to the impact of Brexit on the company’s profitability. Equally longevity assumptions could be out, causing a surplus or shortfall of £100 million or more over a ten-year time horizon, based on assumptions that are in line with the level of prudence that insurers currently use. Without adequate considerations of these external risks, trustees may find that their endgame will not actually end where they thought it would.   

Insurance solutions can help to reduce uncertainties that are not market-related. For example, surety bonds could provide an effective way of managing covenant risks and at the same time, potentially offset some or all of the cost of the Pension Protection Fund levy. Other insurance-based solutions including longevity pass-through structures can effectively help schemes to remove longevity risk. While these solutions can be a quick way to reduce big-picture risks, they require additional costs, specialist expertise and adequate governance.

Nevertheless, during October’s conference, 28 per cent of the attendees said they would explore insurance solutions to reduce endgame risks. The winning option, however, was CDI with 51 per cent of the votes, and the remainder chose to focus on the absolute return strategy for the growth portfolio as the most urgent option in the current environment. What is clear is each pension fund will have its own challenges and, more importantly, its own views and opinions as to how to solve them. Only by having a crisper picture of how far they are from the end goals can trustees plan their journey with more precision.

Important Information

Except where stated as otherwise, the source of all information is Aviva Investors Global Services Limited (Aviva Investors) as at 17 October 2018. Unless stated otherwise any views and opinions are those of Aviva Investors. They should not be viewed as indicating any guarantee of return from an investment managed by Aviva Investors nor as advice of any nature. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but has not been independently verified by Aviva Investors and is not guaranteed to be accurate. Past performance is not a guide to the future. The value of an investment and any income from it may go down as well as up and the investor may not get back the original amount invested. Nothing in this document, including any references to specific securities, assets classes and financial markets is intended to or should be construed as advice or recommendations of any nature. This document is not a recommendation to sell or purchase any investment.

In the UK & Europe this document has been prepared and issued by Aviva Investors Global Services Limited, registered in England No.1151805. Registered Office: St. Helen’s, 1 Undershaft, London, EC3P 3DQ. Authorised and regulated in the UK by the Financial Conduct Authority. Contact us at Aviva Investors Global Services Limited, St. Helen’s, 1 Undershaft, London, EC3P 3DQ. Telephone calls to Aviva Investors may be recorded for training or monitoring purposes. In Singapore, this document is being circulated by way of an arrangement with Aviva Investors Asia Pte. Limited for distribution to institutional investors only. Please note that Aviva Investors Asia Pte. Limited does not provide any independent research or analysis in the substance or preparation of this document. Recipients of this document are to contact Aviva Investors Asia Pte. Limited in respect of any matters arising from, or in connection with, this document.  Aviva Investors Asia Pte.  Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore with registration number200813519W, holds a valid Capital Markets Services Licence to carry out fund management activities issued under the Securities and Futures Act (Singapore Statute Cap. 289) and Asian Exempt Financial Adviser for the purposes of the Financial Advisers Act (Singapore Statute Cap.110). Registered Office: 1Raffles Quay, #27-13 South Tower, Singapore 048583.In Australia, this document is being circulated by way of an arrangement with Aviva Investors Pacific Pty Ltd for distribution to wholesale investors only. Please note that Aviva Investors Pacific Pty Ltd does not provide any independent research or analysis in the substance or preparation of this document. Recipients of this document are to contact Aviva Investors Pacific Pty Ltd in respect of any matters arising from, or in connection with, this document. Aviva Investors Pacific Pty Ltd, a company incorporated under the laws of Australia with Australian Business No. 87 153 200 278 and Australian Company No. 153 200 278, holds an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL 411458) issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Business Address: Level 30, Collins Place, 35 Collins Street, Melbourne, Vic 3000

The name “Aviva Investors” as used in this presentation refers to the global organization of affiliated asset management businesses operating under the Aviva Investors name. Each Aviva investors’ affiliate is a subsidiary of Aviva plc, a publicly- traded multi-national financial services company headquartered in the United Kingdom. Aviva Investors Canada, Inc. (“AIC”) is located in Toronto and is registered with the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”) as a Portfolio Manager, an Exempt Market Dealer, and a Commodity Trading Manager. Aviva Investors Americas LLC is a federally registered investment advisor with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Aviva Investors Americas is also a commodity trading advisor (“CTA”) and commodity pool operator (“CPO”) registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), and is a member of the National Futures Association (“NFA”).  AIA’s Form ADV Part 2A, which provides background information about the firm and its business practices, is available upon written request to: Compliance Department, 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2250, Chicago, IL 60606

RA18/1079/01102019