Better Risk Management Required to Sustain DB Plans

DB plan sponsors need to change risk management strategies to accommodate changing demographics and increasing longevity.

(October 14, 2013) — Defined benefit (DB) plan sponsors should develop new methods to better manage investment, longevity, and inter-generational risk for future sustainability, according to research.

Risk Budgeting and Longevity Insurance: Strategies for Sustainable Defined Benefit Pension Funds,” by Amy Kessler of Prudential Retirement, outlined a modern approach for DB plans to handle changing demographics and increasing longevity.

The paper suggested a midway approach between the insurance model and the conventional pension model.

This method incorporated “managing just below fully funded status without any reserves or capital behind the risk, maintaining a low volatility asset strategy that is heavy in fixed income and absolute return with a modest allocation to risky assets to benefit from diversification of asset classes, and hedging the longevity risk of their retirees to ensure sustainability even in the face of longer life.”

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

Kessler said the right combination of the two models would allow pension funds to improve moderation of risk and reduce potential losses to a manageable scope.

In order to implement such an approach, plan sponsors need to understand the extent of impact longevity risk will have on pension funds, the paper concluded.

“While longer life is a welcome development, it is also a significant financial obligation for pension plan sponsors, particularly where the retirement age has remained the same for decades,” Kessler said. “This raises questions about sustainability and fairness, particularly where pension deficits are acute, the credit quality of the plan sponsor is weak, and life expectancy is underestimated.”

The effects of these risks will be amplified particularly by today’s low interest rates and low growth, the study reported.  

To resolve further complications of risk, Kessler said plan sponsors should first re-budget risk by identifying areas in which risks are compounded.

Such risk budgeting would include establishing “a targeted level of potential risk of loss from which the plan and its sponsor could recover over the medium term.”

After proper budgeting, plan sponsors should recognize unrewarded risks, such as interest rate risks, and discover opportunities to take risks that are rewarded, such as credit and exposure to equities and alternatives, Kessler explained.

To create a lower risk and lower volatility portfolio, sponsors would also incorporate liability-driven investing, alternative fixed income, and absolute return strategies, the study found. The result would allow sponsors to allocate to assets that were intended to support liabilities.

DB plan sponsors also need to involve longevity insurance to guarantee their obligations will be met regardless of future liabilities concerning longevity.

Kessler said most US public pension plans are “short duration” plans—with risky assets of no duration and liabilities with long duration. This “mismatch” will also add to the challenges DB plan sponsors face, contributing to the underfunded status of most pension funds.

“It is clear that the current standard practice of leaving longevity risk out of pension risk analysis will lead to an underestimate of total risk,” Kessler said. “This is particularly acute for inflation-liked liabilities and deferred liabilities, where their longer duration makes them significantly more sensitive to adverse outcomes.”

Read the full paper here.

Related content: The Middle Ground Between DB and DC, Almost 25% of Irish DB Funds Will Be Gone by Next Year, Market Improvements Not Enough to Retire Comfortably in DC

The Upside of Managing DC Like DB

Better performance can be achieved when aligning investment approaches for DB and DC plans, a study has found.

(October 11, 2013) — Harmonizing investment approaches for defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) plans may well lead to improved performance, according to a paper.

Russell Investments’ report stated that while sponsors often share managers between DB and DC plans, many utilize different tactics and strategies in terms of asset types, investment vehicles, and governance.

This discrepancy could lead to questions about the fiduciaries’ policies and possible negligent governance practices.

“Harmonization doesn’t require that DB and DC plans be managed in exactly the same way—in union—but the plan sponsors should at least look to apply a consistent set of investment beliefs and, where practical, to directionally align their investment approaches across both DB and DC plans,” the report said.

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

The big problem? DC plans are still not getting the level of attention that DB plans have been receiving for decades, the study concluded, particularly as DC plans are overtaking retirement plans for future generations.

To align approaches across plans, Russell recommended that DC plans be diversified and managed by multiple managers, not by a single record keeper with various products.

The paper also said many sponsors of DC plans adopt passive management due to lower fees and its reputation as a safer option—in contrast to DB plans with a variety of active managers across asset classes. However, Russell pointed out that passive management offers “no opportunity to outperform.”

Fiduciaries should be more diligent in managing DC plans particularly due to the participants’ relative inexperience.

“Most are really looking to their plan sponsor fiduciaries to provide prudent, appropriate investment options that give them the best chance of meeting their retirement income needs,” Russell said.

Looking specifically at investment vehicles, the paper suggested DC plan sponsors to move away from mutual funds and more towards separate accounts and commingled funds—vehicles generally used by DB plans.

These diversified funds could reduce costs for sponsors and fees for participants as assets grow, the report said.

Regarding governance processes, Russell argued plan sponsors need to spend more time and internal resources in managing DC plans, especially as DB plans are progressively diminishing.

“Harmonizing your investment approach across plans may lead to improved outcomes and a more defensible fiduciary position,” the report concluded.

Related content: The Middle Ground Between DB and DC, Active Management: The McDonald’s of Investing?

«

 

You’re viewing the second of three free articles.

 Subscribe to a free PW Newsletter! 

…subscribing gets you free access to PW’s online content!

If you’re a subscriber, please login.

Close