Pension Risk News & Analysis : Pension Governance, LLC : Pension Risk & Investment

Don't think there are no crocodiles because the water is calm.
...Malayan proverb

This blog's author (Dr. Susan Mangiero) joins internationally recognized leaders as part of the World Bank/IOPS 4th Contractual Saving Conference: Supervisory and Regulatory Issues in Private Pensions and Life Insurance. Nearly 200 regulators and practitioners convene in Washington, DC, hailing from countries such as the United States, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Mexico, Chile, Sweden and New Zealand.

Dr. Mangiero will address hidden risks from an implementation perspective. Other presentations similarly emphasize the message that risk mitigation is the sine qua non of modern asset-liability management. Without a dynamic and comprehensive process, fiduciaries leave themselves wide open to allegations of breach. Click to access the conference agenda.

Note: The International Organisation of Pension Supervisors (IOPS) is an "independent international body representing those involved in the supervision of private pension arrangements. The organisation currently has around 60 members and observers representing approximately 50 countries and territories worldwide."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Even British comic book hero Union Jack may not be able to save the day for some UK pension plans. According to data just released by the Pension Protection Fund, the net funding status for nearly 8,000 private defined benefit plans widened to 97.5 billion pound sterling. Worse than the 80.8 billion GBP gap reported for January 2008, this February 2008 number is deemed "highest since June 2003" and represents the fourth consecutive monthly gap. Another telling indicator of problems is the news that "In February 2008, the total surpluses of schemes in surplus fell to £32.6 billion from £37.3 billion1 at the end of January 2008." Twelve months ago, the "aggregate surplus of all schemes in surplus stood at £68.6 billion." Click to review the Pension Protection Fund data report.

Citing anemic equity performance and falling bond yields as the culprits, the report's authors add that lower bond yields resulted in a 8.1% rise in aggregate liabilities "while weaker equities have reduced assets by 1.5%." Noteworthy are the results of a survey commissioned by the PPF and carried out by KPMG that show that few respondents (defined benefit plans considered "large") employ liability hedging techniques. The chart that maps funding status to percent of liabilities seems to support a widely held belief that "where funding is severely low the schemes need to take a certain degree of investment risk to help get back to full funding, given the PPF is insuring a certain level of benefits."

Does this mean that regulatory subsidies discourage hedging? If so, the UK would not be unique in terms of a rational but perverse response to changed incentives. (The notion of unintended consequences is one of the free market economic arguments against regulation, especially when "innocents" end up paying the bill.)

Click to access the January 2008 survey entitled "Pension Protection Fund: Investment Strategy and LDI Survey."

On a related note, a survey of US and Canadian plan sponsors, focused on their pension risk management practices, is due out shortly. A collaborative effort on the part of the Society of Actuaries and Pension Governance, LLC, the results support those of the aforementioned UK survey with respect to lower than expected amount of hedging (of both assets and liabilities).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Despite colorful tales of medieval historians disputing its shape, most people then and now realize that the earth is not flat. We won't get to the end and fall off. Indeed, we're arguably more interconnected than ever before. So it's not surprising that a galaxy of international speakers convened in Sydney with many of the same problems, challenges and concerns as US peers. A recurring theme emerged for everyone in attendance at the Asset Allocation Summit 2008 - Investment management is all about risk. Identification, measurement and control are important,. regardless of plan design and country of origin. In fact, the similarities as to what keeps folks up at night are eerily striking, whether voiced by a plan sponsor from Europe, Asia, Australia or North America. Here are a few concerns that resonated with all in attendance.

1. How can investment fiduciaries minimize their liability exposure, especially when investment strategies are becoming more complex and diverse?

2. What is the responsibility to defined contribution plan participants, knowing that many will retire without ample means to maintain a particular lifestyle?

3. How can one avoid paying "excess fees" to managers?

4. What is the proper way to separate beta from alpha?

5. What is the role of infrastructure investing?

6. Should allocations to 130/30 strategies (and equivalents) come from equity or alternatives?

7. Will a recession be global in nature?

8. How much oversight is required by internal fiduciaries who delegate manager selection to consultants?

9. Is ESG (Environmental, Social, Corporate Governance) investing a plus or minus in terms of fiduciary duties?

10. How should derivatives be properly used and by whom (the plan, the money manager or both)?

Sound familiar? If so, perhaps we should be thinking about how to operate within a flat pension world. Credit Thomas Friedman for pointing out the oneness that pervades global thinking. In his best-selling "The World is Flat," he emphasizes the connections among seemingly disparate markets. Should we care about the governance of pension funds outside our borders? In a word, "yes." What is done elsewhere impacts an increasingly "flat" network of capital which in turn influences the investment opportunity set within our borders..

Isolationism is over for most everyone. What about you?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In "Chile set to boost foreign investment," Financial News reporter Johanna Symmons (January 28, 2008) describes a proposed law that increases maximum international holdings from the current 40 percent to 80 percent. This means that the half dozen authorized private fund administration companies will have more latitude in how they manage the country's mandatory individual savings accounts. When approved, non-Chilean holdings could rise as much as USD 50 billion. In addition, reform will add to retirement plans of impoverished citizens, "funded by windfalls from copper production." Credit goes to President Michelle Bachelet who identified the need for change as "her administration's most important task."

This blogger is proud to say that she worked as a financial risk management expert on an official fact-finding team in early 2006. Led by Dr. Roberto Rocha (World Bank), colleagues and report co-authors included Mr. Graeme Thompson (former Australian regulatory chief and now pension consultant) and Dr. Eduardo Walker (Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile). If you are interested in learning more, know that pension professionals from around the world will be presenting at The 4th Contractual Savings Conference: Supervisory and Regulatory Issues In Private Pensions and Life Insurance. Hosted by the World Bank and occurring on April 2 through 4, 2008, the discussions will emphasize the "brave new world" of pension risk management. Yours truly is presenting a session entiled "Risk Management of Pension Funds: A Practitioners View."

If you are unable to join us in Washington, DC, I invite you to read about what other countries are doing in the area of pension reform for different types of plans. Chile is a particularly interesting case inasmuch as politicians and public policy leaders often reference this Latin American system as a noteworthy and innovative model. Think of it as a national 401(k) plan of sorts. While not perfect (no system is), many people like having their own account rather than being part of a "pay as you go" system. For more information, visit the site for the Superintendency of Pension Fund Administrators and click on the English overview.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the original thirteen colonies of an infant America, Massachusetts has a special place in history books. In an about face with respect to economic freedom, lawmakers are making it difficult for state pension officials to do their job. According to The Boston Globe, attempts by both the state House and Sentate (and efforts by the governor) would force liquidation of investments in companies that do business with countries such as Sudan, Iran and North Korea. 

Journalist April Simpson quotes Michael Travaglini, as saying that $1.1 billion would be impacted, roughly two percent of total assets. Executive director of the Pension Reserves Investment Management Board, Travaglini adds that "The rule of thumb for investments is you sell the stocks that aren't performing well and run with the funds that are. This type of legislation runs counter to that. There's a very real potential to negatively impact the investment returns of the pension funds." Click here to read "Pension divestment effort gets complicated" (August 31, 2007).

As this blog's author pointed out just a few months ago on CNBC, there are potential fiduciary consequences. While no one in their right mind supports terrorism, fallout is inevitable.

"First, selling stocks because of statehouse mandates could cost taxpayers and plan participants in the form of "unexpected" transaction costs. This would in turn exacerbate funding problems for any states already in the red. Second, trustees would have to decide how to invest the proceeds of disposed equities, possibly earning less than before. Third, there could be a conflict for fiduciaries in terms of duty. Do they follow new rules that require divestiture, even if it forces them to violate state trust laws that demand careful analysis before deciding on an "appropriate" strategic asset allocation? Fourth, plan fiduciaries will likely need to spend considerable time and money in order to identify which companies offend, now and regularly thereafter." Click here to read the rest of "Is There Fiduciary Liability Attached to Divestment?" (June 15, 2007). 

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to Wall Street Journal reporter Craig Karmin, some legislators want public pension funds to shun companies that invest in terrorist countries such as Iran. Citing efforts by Missouri State Treasurer, Sarah Steelman, Karmin lays out the pros and cons of forced liquidation. (See "Missouri Treasurer's Demand: 'Terror-Free' Pension Funds," June 14, 2007.)

As part of a June 14 interview with CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, I offer four considerations (as much as I could say in a short on-air appearance). First, selling stocks because of statehouse mandates could cost taxpayers and plan participants in the form of "unexpected" transaction costs. This would in turn exacerbate funding problems for any states already in the red. Second, trustees would have to decide how to invest the proceeds of disposed equities, possibly earning less than before. Third, there could be a conflict for fiduciaries in terms of duty. Do they follow new rules that require divestiture, even if it forces them to violate state trust laws that demand careful analysis before deciding on an "appropriate" strategic asset allocation? Fourth, plan fiduciaries will likely need to spend considerable time and money in order to identify which companies offend, now and regularly thereafter.

No one supports terrorism but this "solution" might invite more problems. There is never a free lunch. Someone, somewhere pays.

Click here to watch the interview.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With all due respect to Gordon Gekko, replace the "d" (as in "Greed") with an "n" (as in "Green") and we end up with a way to both belately celebrate Earth Day and acknowlege an emerging trend in pension funds' allocation to Socially Responsible Investments (SRI).

Click here to access a nice primer from the UK. Checklists and case studies make it useful to anyone interested in knowing more about the topic. 

Stateside, Mercer Consulting's survey of U.S. pension funds about SRI suggests continued growth. Click here to access the survey.

By the way, it's not just Ayn Rand who rejects altruism. Institutional investors say that opportunities to reduce risk, enhance returns or better align economic interests with socially-oriented values are key drivers behind their decision to invest in SRI funds.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

February 18, 2007 marks the Chinese New Year (the Year of the Boar). Also known as the Spring Festival or Lunar New Year, it is the "most important of the traditional Chinese holidays." Interestingly, Chinese New Year's Eve is known as the eve of change and indeed, China is on the verge of significant change.

According to a new study, co-authored by Reuters and KMPG, the demographics are compelling. "By 2050 the number of people aged 60 or over is expected to rise to more than 430 million, or 31 percent of the population, from just 147.8 million, or 11 percent today. This would put it well above the projected world average. More worryingly, the percentage of China’s population that is working is expected to peak in 2010, with the ratio of workers to retirees declining from six to one in 2000 to two to one by 2040." Click here for a copy of the study.

"The heavenly mandate: Winning a piece of China’s pensions market" describes a 401(k) look-alike known as enterprise annuities. Fixed fees and a local investment requirement are two notable features. Asset allocation constraints are another. Equity investments are limited to no more than 30 percent of assets under management, 20 percent in money market instruments, and up to one half to be invested in fixed-income securities "but at least 20 percent must be kept in government bonds."

Asset allocation is touted by many experts as THE most important of all investment decisions, leading one to ponder. Will an arguably "conservative" mix require yet additional change? People can't pay bills with rates of returns and depend instead on having sufficient cash on hand. What happens if (when) people come up short?

From the "glass is half full" camp, reform comes none too soon. As an anonymous Chinese sage suggests: "Do not fear going forward slowly; fear only to stand still."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In response to "Retirement for Three Hundred People", a colleague wrote the following. I publish it here because it is (a) thought-provoking and (b) reminds us that global integration of capital is here to stay.

<< The interesting thing will be the cross-border wealth transfer. As we in the US begin to liquidate investments after retirement, there will be an upsurge in demand from India and China, where the general level of wealth is rising rapidly and the population is growing. Combine that with a probable higher marginal propensity to save and you will see more and more US companies taken over by Chinese and Indian companies. >>

What happens in one country necessarily influences what occurs elsewhere. Migration of capital across borders is a snap in an era of lightning speed information transmission, consolidation of global exchanges and continued deregulation of financial rules.

In the spirit of this notion about one global marketplace, a 2006 book entitled The New Capitalists: How Citizen Investors Are Reshaping the Corporate Agenda makes a compelling case for the power of the institutional investor. Authors Stephen Davis, Jon Lukomnik and David Pitt-Watson chronicle "milestones in the owner revolution", in the United States and abroad. While they concede that shares alone do not guarantee a particular outcome, the trend is unmistakable. Investor clout is on the rise.

Consider these examples.

1. "In 2002 three U.S. state pension funds took steps to squeeze conflicts and misalignments out of the investment chain. The 'Investment Protection Principles' commit funds to require money managers to report on conflicts, how they pay their portfolio managers, and what they do to act as real owners of citizen capital."

2. "In October 2004 a group of big European funds founded the Enhanced Analytics Initiative (EAI), which commits each member to steer 5 percent of broker commission fees to stock research firms that analyze extra-financial factors affecting corporations."

3. "Coalitions of funds are forming within and across national frontiers to address overlooked long-term investment risks. Forums in the United Kingdom, North America, Australia, and New Zealand now focus on climate change as a portfolio issue."

Spending and saving patterns around the world influence what goes on in corporate boardrooms. Regardless of your view about nationalism versus globalization, one fact is undeniable.

Investors reign supreme.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link