Hymans Robertson Predicts Record UK Pension Derisking in Q2

With $7.2 billion (£4.5 billion) of risk transfer deals completed over last year, the second quarter of 2011 looks to be a record quarter for the number of buyin and buyout deals completed in the UK, according to consultancy Hymans Robertson.

(May 23, 2011) — Corporate pension funds in the UK plan to offload about $32 billion (£20 billion) in defined benefit liabilities over the next 18 months, pension consultancy Hymans Robertson has shown.

According to the consultant firm, pensions will transfer their risk to banks and insurers, leading to a record number of deals to complete buyouts, buyins, or longevity swaps. James Mullins at Hymans stated in a release that by the end of 2012, one in four FTSE 100 companies would have completed either a buyout or a buyin.

“Our analysis illustrates that it won’t be long before £50 billion of pension scheme risk has been transferred to insurance companies and banks,” Mullins said. “2010 was the third successive year during which £8 billion of pension scheme risks were transferred via buy-ins, buy-outs and longevity swap deals. 2011 is likely to see a substantial increase above these levels.”

He added: “Banks and insurers continue to offer new flexibility to make risk transfers accessible and more affordable to all pension schemes. It is crucial that companies and trustees are aware of this flexibility and innovation to ensure that they do not miss excellent opportunities to reduce risk. In addition, schemes are increasingly keen to manage away as much risk as they can.”

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

Hymans Robertson’s research described the environment of pensions offloading liabilities as a snowball effect. “The more schemes that tackle risk, the more pressure there is on others to follow suit,” Mullins stated. “The raft of final salary closures over the last two years, and the impending restrictions on tax relief for high earners’ pension contributions, are raising serious questions for companies over the merits of continuing to run significant risk within their DB pension schemes.”

A March report by Hymans Robertson provided further evidence that UK pension buyouts are becoming more and more prevalent.

“An increase in mergers and acquisitions activity is driving this,” Mullins told the Financial Times. “Any potential purchaser will welcome a company that has already done a deal to transfer risk to an insurer. There is less to worry about,” he said, noting that concerns over longevity risk coupled with a greater number of closures and part-closures of defined benefit pension schemes have fueled the trend.

A recent example illustrating the growing popularity of risk transfer deals is the Pension Insurance Corporation’s (PIC) decision in February to reinsure $799 million of longevity risk to better manage risk and more effectively compete for new business.

Similarly, in January, Swiss Re, the giant European-based reinsurer, decided to transfer $50 million in longevity risk. The investors in the Swiss Re deal were largely pension funds and other insurers.



To contact the <em>aiCIO</em> editor of this story: Paula Vasan at <a href='mailto:pvasan@assetinternational.com'>pvasan@assetinternational.com</a>; 646-308-2742

BNY Mellon Counters Accusations That It Cheated Pensions Over Forex

An analysis by the Wall Street Journal shows that BNY Mellon Corp. violated it fiduciary duties by taking advantage of clients while trading currencies.

(May 23, 2011) — BNY Mellon is accused of giving a large pension fund — the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association — unfavorable foreign exchange rates.

According to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal, which investigated more than 9,400 trades during the past decade, the bank priced more than half of the transactions, or a total of 58%, within the 10% of each day’s trading range that was least favorable to the fund. In a letter to BNY Mellon in January, the pension claimed that the bank should have maintained its fiduciary responsibility to the fund by offering it the best possible prices.

Nevertheless, while BNY Mellon confirmed the analysis, it told the newspaper that there was nothing wrong about its behavior, noting that clients like the Los Angeles pension fund either knew or should have known that the bank doesn’t act in their interests when pricing the trades, the WSJ reported.

Clamor around custody banks cheating public pension funds for trading in the $4 trillion-a-day the foreign-exchange market has heightened in recent months. In early March, in an effort to recover allegedly unlawfully obtained proceeds from foreign-exchange transactions, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA) sued BNY Mellon. The lawsuit against BNY Mellon came on the heels of two whistle-blower cases filed against the bank in Florida and Virginia.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

Similarly, Boston-based State Street, which has faced allegations of forex manipulation, revealed in a filing this month that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was investigating the bank’s currency transactions for pensions.

In February, State Street was sued by the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System over an investigation into whether banks overcharged public pensions for foreign-exchange transactions. Filed in the US district court in Boston, the suit claimed that State Street, the custody bank for more than 40% of US public pension funds, violated state law by overcharging customers for currency trades. The suit alleged that the bank generated as much as $500 million in profits annually — a rate of profit that accounts for about 50% of State Street’s foreign exchange profits over the last decade, according to Reuters. In response, State Street said the company is “firmly committed to providing its clients with quality service and transparency in meeting their FX needs. We will vigorously defend the allegations made in the complaint and we stand by our business practices.”



To contact the <em>aiCIO</em> editor of this story: Paula Vasan at <a href='mailto:pvasan@assetinternational.com'>pvasan@assetinternational.com</a>; 646-308-2742

«