Home > News > Asset Management Culture > Pension Buyouts a Relative Bargain, Says Mercer

Asset Management CultureSeptember 23, 2020

Pension Buyouts a Relative Bargain, Says Mercer

Tweaking of Pension Buyout Index shows annuity buyouts cost less than accounting liabilities.

Now may be a good time for companies looking to de-risk their defined benefit (DB) pension plans to consider an annuity buyout, according to new data from consulting firm Mercer, which shows a hypothetical retiree buy-out transaction costs an estimated 97.7% of a plan’s accounting obligations.

Mercer said the new data is a result of recent tweaking the company made to its US Pension Buyout Index, which tracks the relationship between the accounting liability for a defined benefit plan and two estimated costs: the cost of transferring the pension liabilities to an insurance company, and the cost of retaining the pension obligations on a company’s balance sheet.

The changes were made to the index after Mercer research revealed several key changes to market conditions, such as a doubling since 2012 of the number of insurers that compete for annuity and buyout transactions. Mercer also said insurer pricing is generally influenced by the ability of insurers to source higher yielding, less liquid assets such as private credit and commercial mortgages, which are not typically held by pension sponsors but are “a natural fit to back illiquid annuity buy-out liabilities held on the insurer’s balance sheet,” Mercer said.

Additionally, Mercer said it also made the changes as insurers have adapted their mortality underwriting methods to better assess mortality risk at the individual participant level. The firm said this often leads to lower pricing, particularly for deals with smaller benefits and/or where benefit accruals have been frozen for years.

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

Mercer said the revised methodology put the index more in line with the experience of the majority of its clients, which it says have executed retiree buyouts with a transaction price near or often below the accounting liability.

As of the end of June, Mercer’s new Pension Buyout Index was at 97.7%, while the estimated long-term costs of maintaining pension liabilities was 105.2%, which reflects costs not included in accounting liabilities such as Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) premiums, investment management and administration fees, and the risk associated with fixed-income defaults and downgrades.

This spread between the estimated cost of a buyout and the estimated cost of maintaining pension liabilities indicates potential economic savings from a buyout of 7.5% compared with holding liabilities for the long term.

“Over the past several years, pension plan sponsors have shown a strong appetite for purchasing buyout annuities to reduce their liabilities, with transaction volumes growing more than 700% since 2013,” Jay Dinunzio, principal in Mercer’s US Financial Strategy Group, said in a statement. “As the COVID-19 pandemic has led many organizations to prioritize cost savings during this time of economic instability, we are confident that this trend will continue into the future.”

Just Minor Adjustments to Portfolio Are the Smartest Move, 3 Key CIOs Say

A trio of investment chiefs overseeing a half-trillion dollars are preparing their funds for low interest rates without drastically overhauling portfolios.

By Sarah Min

Three investment chiefs, who hold $500 billion in combined assets, are preparing their funds to handle continuing low interest rates but otherwise expect to make just incremental alterations to their asset allocations.

“I don’t see us fundamentally changing the allocation,” Dan Bienvenue, interim CIO at the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), said during a Monday webinar held by the Council of Institutional Investors (CII).

That sentiment was echoed by Jonathan Grabel, CIO at the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (LACERA), and Hershel Harper, CIO at the UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust.

Still, the fund leaders are considering sharpening investment strategies in the face of historically low interest rates, and concerns over the Federal Reserve’s continued asset purchases. CalPERS CIO Bienvenue said he’s considering taking leverage on the portfolio.

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

The strategy was proposed to board members this summer at the $400 billion fund, which CalPERS’s then-CIO Ben Meng contended would help the portfolio meet its expected 7% rate of return—a tall order.

“It’s got to be diligent and it’s got to be prudent, but that’s certainly something that we’re thinking about,” Bienvenue said. “Strategically taking leverage on the portfolio.”

Bienvenue is specifically considering using leverage to invest more in private equity, private debt, and real assets. By contrast, the fund is steering clear of fixed income.

LACERA’s CIO Grabel also acknowledged that portfolios are becoming increasingly complex to meet higher return thresholds. The investment chief said his fund is checking asset categories to ensure there are no unintended exposures in the $56 billion portfolio. The Los Angeles fund is also drilling down on fees and custodial relationships.

By contrast, UAW’s CIO Harper said his fund does not have the same challenges as the other two public pension funds, given that the portfolio is not required to meet steep return assumptions. The medical benefits trust for auto retirees keeps a heavy allocation in fixed income, about 60% to 70% of the portfolio.

But Harper does worry about any increasing health care inflation in the future, which, without any buffer, could challenge the portfolio going forward. Interest rates that continue to stay low over the next decade or so could also force the fund to rethink its overall asset allocation.

The investment head plans to increase his allocation to investment grade credit and structured products, as well as other alternative strategies that “have a lot less connectivity or correlation back to the market.”