Corporate CIOs Know Liabilities (But Not Longevity)

A MetLife poll of plan sponsors showed CIOs are more liability-aware than ever--except regarding how long those liabilities will stick around.

(June 6, 2013) -- US corporations got the memo about defined benefit plan liabilities, according to MetLife's fifth annual pension risk behavior survey. 

Respondents-126 of them in all-ranked underfunding of liabilities as the single most important factor in managing pension risk. When MetLife first did this survey in 2009, underfunding came in third place, behind asset allocation and meeting return goals. Five years later, return goals do not even make the top five, and asset allocation comes in behind accounting impact.

"It appears that the days of an asset-centric, total-return approach to mitigating risk are truly behind plan sponsors, and the practice of managing assets in the context of liabilities has firmly taken hold," the report said.  

Liabilities were both an area of focus and achievement for the plan sponsors surveyed. More respondents reported success with liability measurement than any other area. Plan governance came in second, and inappropriate trading in third.

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

The factor fewest plan sponsors felt they were managing effectively was longevity risk, which has stubbornly remained low on the survey's success ranking. In total, 18% of respondents felt they had a reasonable probability of failing at managing longevity risk. Early retirement risk was the next-poorest managed factor, while none of those surveyed saw a risk of inappropriate trading occurring or failure with plan governance.

 MetLife concluded that overall, however, US corporate CIOs and their teams were on top of the risks facing pension funds. "Many plan sponsors are already acting, or planning to take action, to reduce, mitigate and/or transfer risks affecting their plans. This movement from awareness to intent to action-in a five-year time span-is particularly noteworthy" in an industry where change in perspective is typically slow to come, the report said.

Most (80 out 126, or 63%) of the senior investment staff who responded to the poll represented plans with more than $1 billion in liabilities. 

CalSTRS Votes on Portfolio Risk Factors

The Sacramento pension fund is set to vote on which risk factors it prefers—and how its investment policy will change.

(June 6, 2103) — The investment committee of the $164 billion California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) is to vote today on the risk factors that will determine the direction of the pension fund’s portfolio.

In October last year, Chris Ailman the fund’s CIO, announced CalSTRS would consider this method of assessing its needs, and the most efficient way of finding investment returns to meet them.

At a monthly meeting in Sacramento today, each member of the committee will be given a free vote on how to weight a choice of four factors, which were chosen at a previous meeting.

The move is part of a shift by large institutional investors to base their investment decisions on risk factors, rather than arbitrary-and often inefficient-portfolio diversification models.

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

CalSTRS’ pre-determined decision factors are:

Return-oriented: Seek relative improvement to the projected funded status path over next 30 years
Return-oriented: Seek to maximize the 20-year geometric real return
Protection-oriented: Avoid significant asset drawdowns within next 10 years
Protection-oriented: Minimize likelihood of PAYGO status beyond 10 years

After deciding on these factors, the committee had requested to see a series of potential policy portfolios and their behaviour under two separate state-level funding scenarios: keeping the status quo or increasing contribution levels by 3%.

Today, committee members will be given a series of likely outcomes to consider before making their decision, which will be done anonymously.

The purpose of the exercise is to “develop a consensus risk philosophy/risk tolerance through deliberation and prioritizing major plan risk issues,” according to an agenda pack published ahead of the meeting. The meeting agenda warns: “Emphasizing one or more of the decision factors versus others can alter policy significantly.”

The panel will be given the option to discuss the weighting decisions and reconsider their initial view after all the votes have been cast. By the end of the 90 minute meeting, the committee should have a clear risk philosophy, the agenda says.

“In light of the final risk philosophy, the investment committee will then discuss the merits of the resulting policy portfolio; Investment committee and staff may choose to modify the policy portfolio based on qualitative and implementation considerations,” the document states.

By the end of the day, CalSTRS could have an entirely new investment direction.

To read the agenda document with full detail on scenarios and asset class assessments, click here.

For an in-depth look at the evolution of risk-factor investing, don’t miss the next edition of aiCIO, published later this month.

Related content: Is Risk-Factor Investing the Future for Institutional Portfolios?

«