How Higher Interest Rates Are Changing Focus of Fully Funded Pension Funds

Many corporate pension fund leaders are re-evaluating their liability-driven managers and allocations.

Fully funded due to higher discount rates and investment performance, many corporate defined benefit pension funds are shifting their investment goals to maintaining that funding progress, from their prior focus of maximizing investment returns.

While many have had significant assets dedicated to liability-driven investing in recent years, they are finding it is time to acknowledge the higher-yield, better-funding environment. As a result, a common approach among the cohort is to examine “overlap in plan holdings, inadequate hedging of liabilities and insufficient downside protection in their LDI manager lineup” to secure their funded status gains, according to a paper authored by Todd Glickson, head of North America investment management at Coalition Greenwich, a division of CRISIL, an S&P Global company.  

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

“These pension plans that are now more than fully funded have to think about managing the plans a bit differently than they did X, Y years ago,” Glickson says. “[Funded] DB plans [are] moving to a different phase in that life cycle.”

Rising interest rates have driven 70% of corporate pensions plan sponsors to review their liability-driven investment manager selections, because of their gains in funded status, to ensure they can reach plan goals, found the study, “Corporate DBs Move to Secure Funded Status Gains and Begin Endgame,” based on a report commissioned by Franklin Templeton.

Almost three-quarters of the 30 institutional investors at corporate DB plans taking part in the study reported funding ratios of 100% or greater, 23% of plans reported funding ratios greater than 110% and only 27% of plans reported funding less than 100%.

According to the Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index, which tracks the average funded status of the 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans, funded ratios surpassed 103% in September, as compared with just 88% at the end of 2020.

Funded pension plans “[are] more focused on things like risk management or downside protection, where before they were trying to get to the [funded status] goal,” Glickson says. “You’ve reached the promised land, so to speak; how do you stay there?”

Consequently, DB plan managers are “contemplating changes,” he adds.

Corporate DB plans that have moved from “underfunded to fully funded” may seize on this time to change course and re-evaluate their current LDI manager lineups because there may be allocations that overlap or allocations with “higher correlation among those LDI managers,” advises Glickson.

“The changes they’re contemplating are about adjusting the duration to more closely match liabilities, improving downside risk protection, increasing manager diversification, [and] all of those things to really go from one stage to another stage,” he adds.

The survey asked respondents what changes they are contemplating—if the institutional investors answered “yes” to the question, “Have you/are you contemplating changes within your LDI program?” according to a Coalition Greenwich spokesperson. From a list of options, respondents were asked to select all options that apply, and the changes investors said they are contemplating included:  

  • Adjusting duration to match liabilities more closely (56%);
  • Improving downside risk protection (44%);
  • Entering into either a hibernation or pre-PRT mode (22%);
  • Increasing manager diversification (11%);
  • Lowering fees (11%);
  • Hiring an LDI completion manager (11%); and
  • Other changes (22%).

The qualities DB plans are examining when selecting LDI managers for the next phase of their pension investment focus included:

  • Risk management (96%);
  • Fees (70%);
  • Knowledge and understanding of key pension risk management elements (70%);
  • Diversifying current lineup (33%);
  • No, or limited, style drift (26%); and
  • High alpha (15%).

Fully funded pensions are “evaluating if they need to diversify their portfolios by adding new managers with investment philosophies and styles less reliant on credit beta,” Glickson wrote in his paper. “For example, integrating advanced portfolio construction techniques as a primary source of alpha can provide both enhanced diversification and downside risk mitigation to an existing multi-manager liability-hedging portfolio.”

The risks most cited for the current LDI manager lineup included:

  • Substantial overlap in holdings among managers (43%);
  • High correlation between fixed-income LDI managers (29%);
  • Inadequate hedging of liability due to off-benchmark exposures such as high-yield, emerging market debt and others (29%);
  • Inadequate downside protection when markets sell off (29%);
  • Portfolios not sufficiently seeking alpha (19%); and
  • Most managers tend to be “risk on” at all times (10%).

Coalition Greenwich conducted 30 interviews with institutional investors targeting key decisionmakers at corporate DB plans based in the U.S. from August through October to understand how they manage diversification and plan/funding risk, select an LDI manager and navigate overall risks on the economic horizon. As part of the study, Coalition Greenwich also held in-depth discussions with investment consultants. The study is based on a report commissioned by Franklin Templeton in August.

What Happens to George Santos’ Pension?

The New York representative was expelled for fraud and other offenses on Friday and did not meet the minimum service requirement for the benefit.

Former Congressman George Santos, R-New York, was expelled from the House of Representatives Friday for a wide range of offenses, including using campaign funds for personal expenses and lying about his qualifications during his campaign.

The House Committee on Ethics published its report on Santos in November, and it alleges he “blatantly stole from his campaign.” Santos was expelled by a vote of 311 to 114, with 105 Republicans voting to expel.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

In response to Santos’ expulsion, Representative Zachary Nunn, R-Iowa, proposed on Monday the Congressional Pension Accountability Act.

The bill would make any expelled member of Congress ineligible to collect a federal pension in connection with their Congressional service. It would also revoke the employer contributions made for the member into the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. It would also refund contributions made by the member and would not require them to pay back any part of their pension that they may have already collected, though it would count against any refund of their own contributions they may still be owed.

Under current law, a member of Congress must serve for at least five years to be vested in a federal pension, though service in other parts of the federal government, including the military, may be counted toward that requirement.

Since Santos served for about 11 months, he would not qualify anyway, but Nunn emphasizes the bill is primarily about general accountability, not Santos specifically.

The Nunn legislation was also made with an eye toward Senator Bob Menendez, D-New Jersey, as Nunn noted in a press release: “Senator Robert Menendez, who is currently under indictment for accepting bribes from foreign governments, has been in office since 2006.”

According to a Congressional Research Service Report from July, members of Congress were required to participate in Social Security starting in 1984, and in 2003, they were required to also participate in the Federal Employee Retirement System (though they had been permitted to participate in it since 1984). The FERS is an annuity that is combined with Social Security and the TSP. A member with five years of service receives the full annuity from FERS at age 62; a member with 20 years of service can collect at age 50; and a member with at least 25 years of service can collect at any age.

According the report, as of October 2022, there were 358 retired members of Congress collecting an average of $45,276 annually under FERS.

Members only completely forfeit their annuity in cases of treason or espionage. If convicted of various felonies, they have to discount their service in Congress toward their five-year vesting, though not necessarily other federal service.

Since Santos was charged in October with 23 offenses, including wire fraud. If he were convicted, he would likely have been disqualified even without Nunn’s legislation. Menendez, charged with bribery in September, could likewise be disqualified from nearly 18 years of annuity credits under current law if convicted.

A timetable has not yet been set to vote on Nunn’s bill. New York’s 3rd Congressional District will hold a February 13 special election to replace Santos.

 

«