Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
    • Moody's - Climate Risk Insurers series
    • Webinars
    • Podcasts
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • August 2017
08

Is de-risking in members' best interests?

Open-access content Monday 7th August 2017 — updated 5.50pm, Wednesday 29th April 2020

Traditional asset-liability modelling for defined benefit pension schemes ignores covenant risk. Integrating this risk may suggest that a higher allocation to return-seeking assets makes sense, say Robert Waugh, Nic Barnes and Robert Chestnutt

2

—


While a defined benefit pension scheme has insufficient assets to secure its liabilities with an insurance company (a buy-out or solvency measure), the scheme is exposed to the risk of sponsor default, or covenant risk. 

In spite of this risk being key to members, most industry asset-liability models simulate funding levels by modelling the assets and liabilities only and ignore covenant risk. We have developed a stochastic model with Legal & General Investment Management to analyse members' outcomes in different scenarios incorporating the impact of sponsor default. We modelled schemes until 'death', where death was defined as the earlier of when the last benefit payment is made or the sponsor defaults.

Covenant risk was simulated in parallel with a scheme's assets and liabilities in a similar way to the default risk of a corporate bond. The sponsor's credit rating was evolved stochastically based on the historic probabilities of default and change in credit rating of corporate bonds, with the probabilities changed (via re-calibration) in line with market conditions. 

On default of the sponsor we assumed that the scheme would be forced to wind up and buy out benefits with an insurance company.

No account was taken of the potential security provided by external sources, such as the Pension Protection Fund, or a regulated apportionment arrangement. 


Measures of success

For each simulation, we calculated the Proportion of Benefits Met (PBM). This is the sum of the pensions paid divided by the sum of the pensions promised. As a simplified example, suppose the trustees have promised payments of £100 per year for the next 20 years, the scheme pays benefits in full for the first 10 years but then the sponsor defaults, the scheme winds up and the remaining assets are sufficient to purchase only 50% of the remaining benefits. In this instance the PBM value would be (10 x 100 + 10 x 50)/(20 x 100) = 75%.

Ensuring that all member benefits are paid is clearly the ultimate success. The chance of success, calculated as the proportion of simulations where PBM equals 100%, is one possible metric. However, there are a number of near successes that might be acceptable. The extent of any shortfall in the event of failure is also important. Table 1 shows various metrics based on the distribution of PBM.

table 1

We observed that ignoring covenant risk overstates success on every metric. For example, the probability of paying all benefits is around 5% lower once covenant risk is included for our example scheme (key characteristics below). For schemes where the sponsor has a worse credit rating, the impact of covenant risk can be substantially larger.

Example 1

How much risk is required?

We calculated the four metrics for many different possible investment strategies. Chart 1 shows the asset allocations that maximise these metrics if covenant risk is ignored. 

However, when covenant risk is incorporated - reflecting the reality that trustees are less than 100% confident of the sponsor remaining solvent - the optimised portfolios change as shown in Chart 2. 

A key observation is that all of the optimised allocations, other than for metric 4 (which focuses on risk in the tail), have higher equity allocations when covenant risk is allowed for than when it is not. The reason for this is that the possibility of earlier windup (the assumed event upon sponsor default) has been factored into the optimisation. 

There are many factors taken into account in the optimisation, including sequence of return risk (the risk of poor returns in the early years), the length of time the scheme is exposed to sponsor risk, and the correlation between sponsor default and poor market returns. However we believe that the key reason the model encourages holding more in return-seeking assets on allowing for covenant risk is to help close the larger funding gap of buyout sooner. Buying out benefits is the most expensive way of securing benefits.

We also re-ran the analysis on an ongoing basis, when in the event of sponsor default, the scheme would be able to run as a so-called 'zombie' scheme, without a covenant and with a low-risk investment strategy. Again, the analysis suggests strategies with more investment risk are likely to result in better member outcomes. 


Chart 1
Chart 2

We believe this framework has broad applicability, in particular in helping trustees fulfil their duties in terms of Integrated Risk Management (which requires the consideration of funding, investment and covenant risks and how they interact). However, we note that in some extreme circumstances the metrics considered are likely to be inappropriate for investment strategy selection. If a scheme were significantly underfunded with a particularly weak covenant (a very high likelihood of insolvency over the next year) these measures would be inappropriate; they would not capture the risk aversion appropriate over a short time-horizon and it may be appropriate to have a much lower investment risk. 

The results indicate that, allowing for covenant risk, running more investment risk generally leads to better outcomes for members compared to an investment strategy optimised in the absence of covenant risk.


This article appeared in our August 2017 issue of The Actuary .
Click here to view this issue

You may also be interested in...

2

A nation divided?

Are there really differences in life expectancy between Scotland and the rest of the UK? If so, how should actuaries take account of these? Phil Caine and Susan Hanlon discuss
Monday 7th August 2017
Open-access content
2

Mortality improvements in decline

Jon Palin, on behalf of the CMI Mortality Projections Committee, reviews the growing evidence for a slowing down of mortality improvements in the UK, noting the trend for pension scheme members is less clear
Monday 7th August 2017
Open-access content
2

Changing world health

Dr John Schoonbee talks to Gemma Gregson and Richard Purcell about reinventing dietary guidelines, e-cigarettes and advances in diagnostic techniques
Monday 7th August 2017
Open-access content
2

Perfecting proxy models

Shaun Lazzari and Oliver Bentley look at managing sources of inaccuracy in Least Squares Monte Carlo proxy model fitting
Tuesday 8th August 2017
Open-access content
2

Book review: Insurance in Elizabethan England

Insurance in Elizabethan England – The London Code Cambridge Studies in English Legal History
Tuesday 8th August 2017
Open-access content
2

Are you a pusher or a puller?

Ally Yates explains how to use the right strategy for the right situation when negotiating and influencing
Tuesday 8th August 2017
Open-access content

Latest from August 2017

2

Government announces tough new measures to tackle pension cold calling

The UK government announced yesterday that it would ban cold calls and tighten protections against transfers to fraudulent schemes.
Friday 18th August 2017
Open-access content
2

British Steel Pension Scheme to separate from Tata Steel

The Pensions Regulator has today approved a proposal from Tata Steel UK (TSUK) to separate itself from the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS), to avoid the company becoming insolvent.
Friday 11th August 2017
Open-access content

Erratic expectations

I was interested to learn from Alex Waite’s July article (bit.ly/AnimalSpiritsAW) there is an Economic Modelling Group aiming at improving forecasting of economic outcomes. I wish this the best of luck, but would not be surprised if the results prove inconclusive. Honorary fellows are eminent individuals in business, academia and government.
Tuesday 8th August 2017
Open-access content

Latest from small_opening_image

2

COVID-19 forum for actuaries launched

A forum for actuaries has been launched to help the profession come together and learn how best to respond to the deadly coronavirus sweeping the world.
Wednesday 25th March 2020
Open-access content
2

Travel insurers expect record payouts this year

UK travel insurers expect to pay a record £275m to customers this year as coronavirus grounds flights across the world, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) has revealed.
Wednesday 25th March 2020
Open-access content
2

Grim economic forecasts made as countries lockdown

A sharp recession is imminent in the vast majority of developed and emerging economies as the deadly coronavirus forces businesses to shut down across the world.
Tuesday 24th March 2020
Open-access content

Latest from 08

2

Fail to prepare

Fail to prepare
Tuesday 8th August 2017
Open-access content

Paying LPI service to market prices

Robin Thompson and Andrew Kenyon look at how liabilities linked to Limited Price Indexation can create risk
Monday 7th August 2017
Open-access content
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Leading Insurer/Asset Manager – Pricing Actuary (Mortgages)

London (Greater)
Competitive
Reference
148750

Senior Consultant - Risk Settlement - Any UK Location - Up to £100,000 plus bonus

London / Manchester / Edinburgh / Remote
Up to £100,000 + Bonus
Reference
148832

Finance Transformation Actuarial student/Qualified Actuary

London (Central)
£50,000 - £75,000 depending on experience
Reference
148830
See all jobs »
 
 
 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2023 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive Media Group Ltd, 71-75 Shelton Street, London WC2H 9JQ