AstraZeneca to End Its US Corporate Pension Plan

Terminating the $1.3 billion plan is significant because the pharmaceutical industry is one of the few strongholds for DB plans, according to a Willis Towers Watson report.



AstraZeneca, a British–Swedish biopharmaceutical company responsible for developing one of the world’s most widely distributed COVID-19 vaccines, announced on January 25 that it will be transferring its pension assets to an insurance company.

“This is a common practice, achieved via a process known as ‘plan termination’ and ‘buy-out.’ This action does not impact any participant’s eligibility to receive the benefit earned under the pension plan,” AstraZeneca representatives wrote in a statement explaining the transition.

AstraZeneca’s US pension initially began struggling with its funded status in 2017, and the company made the decision to freeze benefit accruals that year. This move ended up making a significant difference, bringing funded status from 80% in 2017 up to 99.19% by the end of 2018. The plan currently has $1.3 billion in assets under management (AUM) and serves approximately 7,000 employees, according to its Form 5500.

AstraZeneca’s move is particularly noteworthy given that the corporate pension plan was no longer in trouble. In fact, on top of achieving a healthy funded status, the corporation had also seen its stock price jump 16.5% over the course of 2021 due to its successful vaccine.

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

The move is part of a larger trend of corporations switching to 401(k)-style defined contribution (DC) plans from pension plans over the past few decades. DC plans, which do not guarantee any additional payments beyond the investment returns of the principal amount contributed, are considered by many experts to be significantly less risky than pensions. That’s because there’s no chance of overconfident return projections forcing pensions to pay more to beneficiaries than the amount plan members paid in. However, some recent research has also suggested that pension plans can be more efficient when compared to equally generous 401(k) plans.

Pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies have been some of the slowest to transition to 401(k) plans. According to a Willis Towers Watson report, pharmaceutical and insurance companies sponsored 44% of all corporate pension plans offered in the US circa 2017. A recent Bloomberg Law article speculated that AstraZeneca’s exit from its pension plan may prompt other pharmaceutical companies to follow suit.

Related Stories:

DB Plans Far More Cost-Efficient Than DC Plans, Research Finds

US Corporate Pensions’ Funded Status Surges in 2021

Report: Fat From Funding, Corporate Pensions May Want to Hibernate

Tags: , , , , , ,

Stop Buying on the Dips, Says Evercore—It’s Not Safe

The market has more to fall, so investing now makes no sense, according to the firm’s technical analyst, Rich Ross.



In recent years, another adage has been added to hoary Wall Street favorites such as “buy low, sell high.” To wit, “buy on the dips.” And, indeed, whenever stocks have slipped, investors have scarfed up temporarily cheaper shares, knowing they would come back and then some.

But the dips advice is a bad idea lately, according to investment advisory firm Evercore. Reason: It figures that stocks have a lot more to fall. After a rough January and a nasty Thursday, when Facebook parent Meta Platforms’ stinko results pulled down the market, that position sounds eminently reasonable.

In fact, says Evercore technical analyst Rich Ross, an S&P 500 descent to 3,800 is likely, in light of the index’s testing and falling short of a “resistance level” of 4,500 to 4,650. The index could fall as much as another 15.5% from now under that scenario.

“I have bought every dip for almost two years and 2,000 S&P points, but on Jan. 21, I stopped buying them,” Ross wrote in a note. “I’ll be back at 3,800 (or 4,800).” Presumably, the higher level would betoken the beginning of a new downdraft. As of Friday, the index stood at 4,501, which is 6.2% less the Jan. 3 record close of 4,797.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

Ross marshalled a number of factors to support this market-drop thesis. For one, commodities are rising, which provides alternatives to stocks, amid a strengthening US dollar (in which most commodities are priced). Another: widening credit spreads, meaning bonds are becoming more attractive. Ross forecasts a 2.6% yield for the benchmark 10-year Treasury by year-end. That’s up from 1.9% now, which marks a dramatic hike from 1.3% in December, the most recent low.

These higher interest rates, linked to surging inflation, have a lot to do with the Federal Reserve’s decision to tighten. Or as Ross put it, to “release the Kraken” of loftier yields after “a 40-year slumber.” (The Kraken reference is to a sea monster, last seen in the 2010 film Clash of the Titans.)

Many on Wall Street have taken to buying on what they believe are the current dips. JPMorgan advises to do so. There are some other naysays out there, though, including Goldman Sachs, which thinks dip-buying is too risky because the firm finds valuations still too high and the overall environment too unsettled.

Despite his pessimistic take, Ross added that some stocks are worth buying now, as they probably are on the way up: oil and gas, utilities, consumer staples, real estate investment trusts (REITs), and “the highest quality” tech.

One area to avoid, he warned was Cathie Wood’s Ark Innovation exchange-traded fund (ETF), composed of disruptive tech companies that often are unprofitable and whose stocks have tumbled a lot. Her flagship ETF plunged 23% last year and has skidded by a similar amount in 2022. In another cultural allusion, Ross characterized the fund as “the sum of all fears” about tech stocks—harking back to the 1991 Tom Clancy book and 2002 movie centered on an imminent nuclear war.

Related Stories:

Stock Market’s Lousy January Gets Year Off to a Blah Start

Why the 2022 Market Might Be Low-Growth

The Case Against a Bear Market, Per Ned Davis

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

«