GM, Verizon, and What's in the Pipeline

From aiCIO magazine's April issue: Behind the scenes of 2012’s two biggest pension deals—and why something even bigger is on the way. Kip McDaniel reports.

26-aiCIO413MEGA_ST_WAllsbrookTo view this article in digital magazine format, click here.

On the morning of June 1, 2012, General Motors announced to the market that it was planning to transfer $26 billion in pension assets to insurance-giant Prudential. The company’s stock rallied from $21.65 to $23.34 before closing slightly up for the day. Yet sharp observers of institutional investing knew that the deal had larger implications than minor movement in one particular security. To these observers, the GM dea—and the $7.5 billion Verizon deal that soon followed—signaled a new age in the corporate pension space.

But how did these deals get done? General Motors, Verizon, Prudential, Oliver Wyman, and others intimately involved have largely refused to speak about the deals. Until now.

“One thing we strongly believe is that when you’ve seen one pension plan, you’ve seen one pension plan,” Dylan Tyson warned me before agreeing to pull back the curtain on the two deals that he helped execute as part of Prudential’s Pension & Structured Solutions group, “That said, let me walk you through the steps.”

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

The deals actually originated far from Prudential’s Newark headquarters, Tyson noted. “These start as C-suite conversations with their closest advisers,” he said. “After they’d discuss it—it’s largely a discussion of what risks the corporation wants to retain and which ones it doesn’t—they will set up an annuity feasibility inquiry. The companies go to the marketplace and get an overall sense of capabilities from market participants. They get a ballpark in terms of price. Not a lot of data changes hands because this is an exercise in high-level economic data, not the fine details of a deal that will emerge later.”

By this point, other financial giants were already involved. In both GM and Verizon’s case, one such firm was Morgan Stanley—whose head of Corporate Strategies Group, Caitlin Long, was instrumental with both. The firm advised the plan sponsor in both transactions, and, according to a conference call with investors at the time of the deal, GM CFO Dan Ammann noted that it had been in the works for a year. It is understood that Long and Morgan Stanley had been working with Ammann in a traditional corporate finance role, which then focused on the pension risk transfer when the opportunity arose.

In both cases, senior executives decided that the marketplace could handle the size of the transaction and that the deals made sense from a corporate perspective. “At this point, there is more data sharing,” Tyson continued. “We start to look at plan data on a more detailed level. We’re using it for pricing purposes, to see if we could really underwrite the liability, and where the asset portfolio is currently positioned.”

And then it’s decision time. “At this point, the corporations are generally still considering whether there is a transaction to be had from the point of corporate shareholders,” Tyson said. “You’ve worked through the price discovery, you understand the broad contours of asset portfolio, and at that point there is a decision; Do we go forward?”

By this point, there were even more players involved, not least of which were the independent fiduciaries tasked with looking out for plan participants. For GM, this was State Street; for Verizon, Fiduciary Counselors. Oliver Wyman—lead by industry veteran Mick Moloney—advised both.

“Security—that’s their primary concern,” Moloney told me. “Their central role is to select annuity providers and negotiate on behalf of the plan participants. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and under guidance from the Department of Labor, they need to keep a keen eye on selecting the safest available annuity provider, and need to negotiate all aspects of the deal affecting participant security.” This comes in two forms, he said: the safety of the insurance institution itself, and the contract structure—particularly whether they put a separate account structure around the annuity itself, so assets will be ring-fenced. While the GM and Verizon deals were single-insurer structures with Prudential, Moloney expects to see multi-insurer structures emerge as the market evolves.

Tyson said that this is were they entered implementation mode. “At this point, you have a number of different work streams,” he said. “You have the transaction work stream—essentially, what it would look like at a high level. You have the liability work stream—finding the data you need to get to very best price for the specific liability. You have the asset work stream, which is figuring out where to move assets for the inevitable handoff to Prudential. You also have the fiduciary work stream, which meant us supporting the independent fiduciaries as they performed their due diligence.”

Then comes deal time. "What the companies and Prudential signed was a definitive agreement that committed the parties to the transaction," Tyson said. "The transaction ultimately facilitates a purchase of a group annuity contract—the technical term for pension risk transfer. From signing to close on both deals, the asset managers were preparing the assets that Prudential would receive to support the liabilities."

In GM's case, one of the key points of contact was Dhivya Suryadevara—the firm's managing director of investment strategy and fixed income (and a member of aiCIO's Forty Under Forty, see page 36). For the five months between the signing of the deal and the close, it was her job to manage the assets that would be handed off to Prudential—in effect, turn the GM portfolio into an insurance-like portfolio in what would be one of the largest transitions in history. "I was in charge of the asset side of the deal—organizing, in a five-month period, the assets to hand off to Prudential," she told me. "The harder part was managing the market and interest-rate exposure we had from the time we inked the deal until the time it was closed. But it was a team effort. It was like an orchestra that had to work perfectly—so it was really a huge, complex group effort."

"We're lucky it went without any major hiccups," Suryadevara says. "You can't write everything into the contract on a deal like this, so we're lucky we had a phenomenal and flexible partner on the other side"

While many members of the corporate pension world will understand the processes behind the GM and Verizon deals, not all will appreciate it. Many corporate CIOs are not shy about the fact that they believe CFOs to be overpaying for Prudential's service. Gary Knapp, Prudential's head of LDI strategies, agreed that pricing in the current environment proves difficult for some CIOs. "I do get pushback from investment teams who balk at the current market price," he told me. "That's because the dollars needed to do pension risk transfer are a lot given current interest rates. So, because the absolute price feels high, they don't want to consider making a move until interest rates move higher."

The price may feel high, but few think that these two deals are outliers. The long-term trends are in Prudential's favor: Regulation, the improving health of corporate America combined with persistently low interest rates, and the trend toward de-risking have all aligned to make pension risk transfers enticing, if not entirely inevitable. As a result, many chief investment officers—even if they don't think the time or price is right—will likely be getting topic-specific visits from their CFOs in the coming years.

So who is next? In the GM and Verizon deals, both CIOs were on board, according to Morgan Stanley's Long. "Both Walter Borst and Ron Lataille were supportive of the deals," she said. "Interestingly, in both cases, you have two people who have not been career CIOs."

Therein lies a clue to future deals. All parties, naturally, were cagey about what lies ahead. The general consensus is that 2013 will be a learning year, and 2014 will bring with it a rush, if not a tidal wave, of transfers. However, in the meantime, another major pension-risk transfer deal is rumored to be in the hopper, although which plan sponsor is involved has yet to be revealed. But as one source told me, "Just think about a CIO who wants to become a CFO."

Is Lifestyling Dead?

From aiCIO magazine's April issue: Charlie Thomas on whether lifestyle funds are classics or anachronisms.

24-aiCIO413MEGA_ConCor_YShimizuTo view this article in digital magazine format, click here.

Across Europe, assets in defined contribution (DC) schemes are increasing. In the P7—the seven largest pension markets—the compound annual growth rate between 2002 and 2012 was 8% for DC assets, more than the rate of 7% for defined benefit (DB) assets, according to Towers Watson’s latest Global Pensions Assets Study, released in February. And in the UK, the continued decimation of final salary schemes combined with the introduction of auto enrollment has led JP Morgan to predict that DC assets will reach £829 billion by 2022.

This shift has forced employers and providers to consider what the outcomes of this DC provision will be for their members—and they’re worried. Lifestyle funds are falling out of favor after they produced disappointing results, leading to a wave of alternative default funds. So is this the death of lifestyle as we know it?

The high level theory of what a default fund should do hasn’t changed. What has changed are the schemes’ objectives—one size does not fit all.

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

By using a mechanistic process reliant on the member’s retirement age and having a constrained investment option due to the structure of the funds, lifestyle isn’t providing the flexibility members want, and need. “Lifestyling is better than doing nothing, but only just,” says Tom McPhail, head of pensions research at Hargreaves Lansdown. “The basic principle of de-risking on the run in to retirement clearly makes sense; the problem is that it is increasingly difficult to achieve this on a default basis. Individuals’ retirement plans are unique.”

This hits the nail on the head: The major problem is, and always has been, that this is not a homogenous group—members of pension schemes are from a variety of ages, have differing levels of existing assets and alternative pension provisions, and the clunkiness of traditional lifestyle funds doesn’t allow for different allocation strategies between those different groups of members.

The rise of target date funds (TDFs) in the UK market in particular has gained traction because of their ability to offer different strategies for different cohorts. This flexibility allows for different glide paths. Nigel Aston, head of DC at State Street Global Advisors (SSgA) explains: “If you know a section of your workforce also has a DB scheme, you could give them a steeper glide path, whereas those under 30 who don’t have a DB scheme would have a less steep one. It’s that degree of customization that you simply can’t do with lifestyle.”

Another major problem with lifestyle is that most take a cliff-edge approach at retirement age. “The danger is most people don’t retire at their expected retirement age. I’ve seen figures saying only 40% of men retire at their expected retirement age today,” says Dean Wetton, founder of Dean Wetton Advisory.

That’s not to say TDFs are a panacea for the world’s default fund woes—far from it. The recent flight to quality has seen a rush into gilts, helping those heading toward the end of their lifecycle in traditional lifestyle funds outperform TDFs by 25%. But, some would argue, that outperformance isn’t the name of the game with TDFs, which focus on a steady, reliable income. So here we outline the debate: to TDF, or not?


Lifestyle Is Dead-Long Live TDFs

Rotating members out of riskier assets in preparation for an annuity purchase is not what’s now needed, argues the anti-lifestyle brigade.

“Members will need a more flexible, phased retirement addressing a need to continue working part-time, for example—and lifestyling is not really engineered to cope with that,” argues Simon Chinnery, head of UK DC at JP Morgan Asset Management. “Lifestyling has run its course. There’s a Darwinian requirement for natural evolution, and you need to define what you are going to evolve into. The UK DC market has made it on to the land and out of the trees, and now we are working out why we are here and what we want to do.”

The open architecture of TDFs is also a plus—early models restricted schemes to one underlying fund manager, but now schemes can use any fund manager's pooled vehicles as a component in building the TDFs. Indeed, the number of managers coming around to the TDF way of thinking has increased: A few years ago Alliance Bernstein was the only manager banging the TDF drum for default schemes; now SSgA and JP Morgan Asset Management, among others, are coming on board. 

AllianceBernstein's Tim Banks, head of DC sales, believes  customer demand, not managers joining the space, that is driving the interest in TDFs. "It makes sense to pro-actively manage the strategy throughout the 30- or 40-year savings journey," Banks says. "Trustees and plan sponsors understand this point and are slowly looking to adopt the new techniques available."

The other major plus cited by both schemes and providers is that TDFs are easier to understand. The theme was echoed by two mastertrust schemes that both recently decided to move away from lifestyling and into TDFs.

David Atkins, chief investment officer of the Pensions Trust—which only went live with its 41,000 DC members in March 2013—says TDF was attractive from a member's point of view because of the simplicity of the communications. "All of the detail is left under the bonnet; you don't get that with lifestyling as you have to talk about shifting asset allocations; you end up describing a product, instead of a vehicle to help you get to your retirement goals," he says.

BlueSky Pensions chief executive Paul Bannister tells aiCIO that the decision to move his £250m mastertrust into TDFs was driven by his feeling that lifestyling "wasn't doing the job" and because BlueSky wanted to take on more employers beginning in January 2014, when many of its target market will have their auto enrollment staging date.

"We know we're going to take on a lot more employers and a lot more members—we already knew the level of admin for switching in lifestyle funds was heavy," Bannister says.

 

Lifestyling Is Here to Stay

For a nation still obsessed by annuitizing, it's unsurprising that many believe lifestyle funds will remain part of the landscape for the foreseeable future, at least in the UK.

But asset managers need to start looking at whether people will put all of their DC pot into an annuity straight away. Stephen Bowles, head of institutional DC at Schroders, says: "For someone my age that won't be possible as it'll be too expensive. We might see more choosing to annuitize much later—so the question then becomes how do we manage the investment process before annuitization but after 65?"

Proponents of lifestyle funds say they are adapting to members' needs and are mindful of the fact that not everyone will want to annuitize.

"As DC pots grow larger and more people move into retirement, we'll see an element of people taking their annuity while saving into another pension pot. We're looking at flexible drawdown actively at the moment," says Ann Flynn, head of corporate marketing at Standard Life. "Lifestyling is more sophisticated than before—if something changes we can change the basis of the fund—for example, if the chancellor was to change the limit of tax free cash you can take at retirement, we could adopt the lifestyle strategy to adapt to that," Flynn says. She also stresses the levels of corporate governance are far greater than before, driven by providers' taking on more responsibility for members' outcomes.

Scottish Life was similarly bullish—90% of its pension clients opt for its lifestyle fund. Investment marketing manager Lorna Blyth says auto enrollment has raised the bar for default funds, meaning lifestyle managers have had to up their game. "The Department for Work and Pensions' guidance on default funds is clear on what a good default fund should look like; it should be appropriately named, take into account the retirement profile of members, use an appropriate and diversified asset allocation, be affordable, and include a review and communication process," Blyth says. "All of this can be delivered either through a TDF or a lifestyle strategy, so rather than focusing on one over the other, the focus should be 'what is the client trying to achieve?'"

It's not just providers who are in favor, however. Peter Dean, investment consulting director at Broadstone Corporate Benefits, remains adamant that rumors of lifestyle's death are premature. "While perhaps not ideal, lifestyling will continue to offer a pragmatic solution to the issues facing default strategy design and is likely to remain popular for some time to come." 

«