WhatsApp 📞 Call : 9892124323 ✅Call Girls In Chembur ( Mumbai ) secure service
Zanders seminar pensioenfondsen - Jules Koekkoek
1. Moving away from Defined Benefit
Implications on the investment policy
March 2014
Citi Institutional Client Group
2. Overview
Moving away from DB to (C)DC
Asset allocation - hedging interest rates?
An example from Denmark: removing guaranteed returns
Other regulatory developments: impact from central clearing
Conclusion
4. From defined benefit to defined contribution
- Collective investments
- No guarantees
- Intergenerational risk
sharing?
Defined Benefit Collective Defined Contribution Individual Defined Contribution
- Collective investments
- Defined pension benefit
(guaranteed)
- Intergenerational risk sharing
- Individual investments
- No guarantees
- No risk sharing
Individual
Pension
fund Investment risk and technical risk
Is the current Dutch system effectively a collective defined contribution system?
Defined benefit works well if at least one of the following two conditions is met:
- Sufficient buffer capital in relation to the investment strategy (e.g. insurance companies
and certain pension plans)
- Recourse to a well capitalised employer
5. Asset allocation – comparing pension funds and insurance companies
Insurance companies typically provide a minimum guaranteed return (plus upside) on their traditional life
policies which is effectively a defined benefit plus upside
Dutch pension funds aim to provide a defined benefit at retirement as a percentage of the participant’s
average salary
In general: both seem to use a very different asset allocation to achieve their broadly similar objective
Credit
risk
Equities
and
Rates
1 Risk versus the liabilities, i.e. fixed income investments reduce ALM risk
Key risk1 Key risk1
6. Defined benefit – what is the problem with the current system?
Low pension fund coverage ratios
Restrictions on investment risk due to FTK required buffer capital
No or limited ability to pay indexation (or even forced to reduce pensions)
Insurance companies as the third pillar are deemed an inefficient alternative due to conservative
investment strategies and high costs
Perceived problem: pension funds can not take enough investment risk to generate sufficient returns to
provide a “good” pension
……low returns resulting in expensive pensions
Change the defined benefit pension to a defined contribution (like) system and allow
pension funds to take more investment risk to achieve a good pension
7. Solution - Moving to some form of defined contribution
The debate focuses on the expected / average outcome from taking more investment risk. BUT higher risk
does not guarantee a higher return. It provides a higher expected return and in the worst case returns will
be substantially lower than under less risky investment strategies
In the graph below the solid lines represent a hypothetical base case investment strategy (2.5% worst case,
average and 97.5% best case) and the dotted lines a more risky strategy with a higher expected return
……but higher expected returns also means taking more risk
Objective:
increase the
expected future
coverage ratio
Higher expected
return means
more risk0
50
100
150
200
250
0 5 10
EconomicCoverageRatio
Time
97.5% percentile Average 2.5% percentile
97.5% percentile Average 2.5% percentile
8. Individual defined contribution – shifting the risk to the individual
IndividualPension
fund
Investment risk and technical risk
At retirement: buying an annuity
……but the individual will most likely shift the risk to an insurance company at retirement
The main risks from individual DC plans compared to collective pensions are:
- Investment risk:
- Investment skill and resources
- Scale to access certain opportunities or run certain investment strategies
- Timing of retirement – no intergenerational risk transfer
- Longevity risk: very large risk for an individual which can only be managed practically by
buying an annuity at retirement
Insurer
9. Defined contribution – removing the pension liabilities
No more mark-to-market of liabilities
No FTK buffer capital requirement
……and allowing pension funds to reduce fixed income investments and invest in risky assets
Interest rate risk is shifted from pension fund to the individual members, but is still present.
The individual won’t be able to manage his interest rate risk if the pension fund invests the
pension assets
Interest rate risk of liabilities is shifted to the
individual participant:
– Value of annuity at retirement or
– Return on (fixed income) investment
portfolio once retired
Pension fund perspective Pension fund participant
10. Alternative for moving to full (C)DC – lower guaranteed pension
……give a lower guaranteed pension and invest the surplus in risky assets
Key issue is the required transparency to pension fund participants that their guaranteed
pension will be lower than previously communicated
Assets
105
Pension
Liabilities
100
Liability
matching
portfolio
70
Pension
Liabilities
70
Return
portfolio
35
Pros
Improves pension fund coverage ratio and
stability of coverage ratio (due to reduction in
liabilities)
Allows risk taking in return portfolio
Cons
Significant part of investments tied up in
liability matching portfolio (depending on the
guaranteed pension)
12. Asset allocation
……depends on objectives and constraints set by various stakeholders
Asset
Allocation
Regulatory
Constraints
ALM
Objectives
Current
Coverage
ratio
A key question is how much allocation to fixed income / liability hedging
13. Managing the duration gap – to hedge or not?
……depends on view on interest rates and risk appetite / ability to take risk
View on Rates
Down Unchanged Up
Risktolerance
Low Receiver swap Receiver swap Receiver swaption
High Receiver swap
No hedge (or sell payer
swaptions)
No hedge
Risk tolerance: ability to take interest rate risk from a regulatory perspective (FTK) and from an economic
risk perspective based on ALM objectives
View on interest rates: implement a view on interest rates to generate returns and improve coverage ratio
Moving away from DB allows more risk taking and will require less hedging
DB
DC
14. Interest rates are too low, aren’t they?
……when there is more opportunity to take risk, the decision to hedge rates can become more an
investment view
To hedge Or not?
15. A nominal hedge can become a “real” problem…
For a hypothetical fund with the below characteristics we look at the economic coverage ratio sensitivities:
– Nominal coverage ratio: 105%
– Real coverage ratio: 75%
– Nominal hedge ratio: 70% (no inflation hedge)
– Duration of nominal (real) liabilities: 16 (21)
Nominal Coverage Ratio (Initial ratio: 105%)
Interest Rates
Inflation
-100bps +100bps
-100bps
100% 112%
+100bps
100% 112%
Real Coverage Ratio (Initial ratio: 75%)
Interest Rates
Inflation
-100bps +100bps
-100bps
83% 116%
+100bps
58% 67%
In a real framework high interest rates and inflationary scenarios are a risk to the economic
coverage ratio as opposed to low interest rates (in the current nominal framework)
……when aiming for inflation linked pensions
16. How to keep the upside open in high interest rates scenarios
Linear interest rates hedges can jeopardise the real coverage ratio
Secondly, interest rate swaps may pose a liquidity problem due to collateral requirement under CSAs (or
clearing) if rates rise substantially
Strategies to keep upside in high interest rates (and inflation) scenarios
Pros Cons
1. Reduce nominal
interest rates hedge
Full upside when rates (and
inflation) rise
Risk in low interest rates scenarios
2. Buy inflation linked
bonds
(or inflation swaps +
additional receiver swaps)
Effective hedge for inflation linked
liabilities in all rates and inflation
scenarios
Full inflation hedge requires a high
initial coverage ratio
3. Replace receiver swaps
with receiver swaptions
(or keep receiver swaps
and add a payer swaption)
Protection in low interest rates
scenarios and full upside when
rates (and inflation) rise
Requires option premium
18. Denmark – Moving from a guaranteed rate to DC without guarantee
Lower liabilities
Lower capital requirements
Upfront compensation for giving up guarantee (fair
value of guarantee?)
Ability to take more investment risk and
(potentially) achieve higher return
Minimum
guaranteed rate
on contributions
Defined
contribution
without
guarantee
Transfer policyholders to new DC product
and pay them an upfront compensation
amount
Old system New system
Impact on pension / insurance company Impact on policyholder
Impact on asset allocation: less interest rate hedging / shift away from fixed income investments
19. Comparing investment strategy – ATP versus Dutch pension funds
Main differences: interest rate hedging policy and Solvency II based risk model
• Avoid risks for which we cannot obtain
compensation – hedge interest rate risk
• Efficient risk diversification
• Hedging against very negative events –
use options to hedge tail risk
• Appropriate risk level – Internal Model /
Solvency II (voluntarily adopted)
ATP – Investment Strategy1 Typical Dutch Pension Fund
• Run a duration gap (to a certain
extent)
• Diversified investment portfolio
• Limited use of options / hedging
• FTK required capital
1 Source: www.atp.dk
21. Impact of central clearing on liquidity and asset allocation
Central clearing will increase the liquidity required for margining purposes
Mitigate risk
of liquidity
shortfall from
clearing
Increase
liquidity
Adjust
duration
exposure
Swaps
Government bonds
Overlay with payer
swaptions
Collateral switch /
upgrade
Option on repo
Sell assets to raise cash
when needed
Contingent funding
Repo
Receiver swaptions
Replace swaps with
alternatives to gain
duration
Keep swaps OTC
23. Conclusion
An important reason to move away from the current DB pension system seems to be the desire to
allow pension funds to take more investment risk to generate a better pension over the long term.
Conservative investment strategies with large fixed income portfolios are deemed expensive over
the long term
However a higher expected return over the long term will also mean higher risk which will
ultimately be born by the pension fund participants
Removing pension fund liabilities (and interest rate risk) from the pension fund balance sheet
transfers the risk to the individual who can not practically manage this risk
From a pension fund perspective interest rate risk will become more an investment decision as
opposed to a risk management decision
The introduction of central clearing will require more liquidity for interest rate swaps which will be
an additional drag on investment returns from liability hedging. This is assuming the amount
posted as collateral could be invested elsewhere at higher levels
However funded alternatives to manage duration (i.e. bonds) tie up much more liquidity for the
same amount of interest rate sensitivity, so they are not a good alternative from that perspective
24. Disclaimer (I)
This communication has been prepared by individual sales and/or trading personnel of Citigroup Global Markets Limited (CGML) or its subsidiaries or affiliates (collectively Citi). In the United
Kingdom, CGML is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority (together, the UK Regulator) and has
its registered office at Citigroup Centre, Canada Square, London E14 5LB. This communication is directed at persons (i) who have been or can be classified by Citi as eligible counterparties or
professional clients in line with the rules of the UK Regulator, (ii) who have professional experience in matters relating to investments falling within Article 19(1) of the Financial Services and Markets
Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 and (iii) other persons to whom it may otherwise lawfully be communicated. No other person should act on the contents or access the products or
transactions discussed in this communication. In particular, this communication is not intended for retail clients and Citi will not make such products or transactions available to retail clients. The
information contained herein may relate to matters that are (i) not regulated by the UK Regulator and/or (ii) not subject to the protections of the United Kingdom’s Financial Services and Markets Act
2000 and/or the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
All material contained herein, including any proposed terms and conditions, is indicative and for discussion purposes only, is subject to change without notice, is strictly confidential, may not be
reproduced and is intended for your use only. It does not include a number of terms and conditions that will be included in any actual transaction and final terms and conditions are subject to further
discussion and negotiation nor does it purport to identify all risks (direct or indirect). This communication is not a commitment to deal in any product, offer financing or enter into any transaction
described herein.
Citi is not acting as your agent, fiduciary or investment adviser and is not managing your account. The provision of information in this communication is not based on your individual circumstances and
should not be relied upon as an assessment of suitability for you of a particular product or transaction. It does not constitute investment advice and Citi makes no recommendation as to the suitability
of any of the products or transactions mentioned. Even if Citi possesses information as to your objectives in relation to any transaction, series of transactions or trading strategy, this will not be
deemed sufficient for any assessment of suitability for you of any transaction, series of transactions or trading strategy. Save in those jurisdictions where it is not permissible to make such a statement,
we hereby inform you that this communication should not be considered as a solicitation or offer to sell or purchase any securities, deal in any product or enter into any transaction. You should make
any trading or investment decisions in reliance on your own analysis and judgment and/or that of your independent advisors and not in reliance on Citi and any decision whether or not to adopt any
strategy or engage in any transaction will not be Citi’s responsibility. Citi does not provide investment, accounting, tax, financial or legal advice; such matters as well as the suitability of a potential
transaction or product or investment should be discussed with your independent advisors. Prior to dealing in any product or entering into any transaction, you and the senior management in your
organisation should determine, without reliance on Citi, (i) the economic risks or merits, as well as the legal, tax and accounting characteristics and consequences of dealing with any product or
entering into the transaction (ii) that you are able to assume these risks, (iii) that such product or transaction is appropriate for a person with your experience, investment goals, financial resources or
any other relevant circumstance or consideration. Where you are acting as an adviser or agent, you should evaluate this communication in light of the circumstances applicable to your principal and
the scope of your authority.
The information in this communication, including any trade or strategy ideas, is provided by individual sales and/or trading personnel of Citi and not by Citi’s research department and therefore the
directives on the independence of research do not apply. Any view expressed in this communication may represent the current views and interpretations of the markets, products or events of such
individual sales and/or trading personnel and may be different from other sales and/or trading personnel and may also differ from Citi’s published research – the views in this communication may be
more short term in nature and liable to change more quickly than the views of Citi research department which are generally more long term. On the occasions where information provided includes
extracts or summary material derived from research reports published by Citi’s research department, you are advised to obtain and review the original piece of research to see the research analyst’s
full analysis. Any prices used herein, unless otherwise specified, are indicative. Although all information has been obtained from, and is based upon sources believed to be reliable, it may be
incomplete or condensed and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Citi makes no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of the information, the reasonableness of any
assumptions used in calculating any illustrative performance information or the accuracy (mathematical or otherwise) or validity of such information. Any opinions attributed to Citi constitute Citi’s
judgment as of the date of the relevant material and are subject to change without notice. Provision of information may cease at any time without reason or notice being given. Commissions and other
costs relating to any dealing in any products or entering into any transactions referred to in this communication may not have been taken into consideration.
Any scenario analysis or information generated from a model is for illustrative purposes only. Where the communication contains “forward-looking” information, such information may include, but is not
limited to, projections, forecasts or estimates of cashflows, yields or return, scenario analyses and proposed or expected portfolio composition. Any forward-looking information is based upon certain
assumptions about future events or conditions and is intended only to illustrate hypothetical results under those assumptions (not all of which are specified herein or can be ascertained at this time). It
does not represent actual termination or unwind prices that may be available to you or the actual performance of any products and neither does it present all possible outcomes or describe all factors
that may affect the value of any applicable investment, product or investment. Actual events or conditions are unlikely to be consistent with, and may differ significantly from, those assumed.
Illustrative performance results may be based on mathematical models that calculate those results by using inputs that are based on assumptions about a variety of future conditions and events and
not all relevant events or conditions may have been considered in developing such assumptions. Accordingly, actual results may vary and the variations may be substantial.