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
  • March 2022
General Features

On the road: Employer covenants in pension scheme modelling

Open-access content Thursday 3rd March 2022

Felix Mantz explains how employer covenant should be incorporated into defined benefit pension scheme modelling to plan the journey to the long-term end-state 

On the road: Employer covenants in pension scheme modelling

For years, actuaries have perfected techniques to model defined benefit pension scheme assets and liabilities, often using stochastic models to guide useful discussions about journey planning to a scheme’s long-term target (or end-state). Employer covenant is sometimes only given cursory consideration in this modelling, despite being the key driver for a scheme to deliver member benefits in full. 

There are three core aspects of UK defined benefit scheme covenant reliance:

  1. Fund any existing deficit and expenses
  2. Support unhedged financial, demographic, legal and operational risks
  3. Allow a scheme to continue as a going concern to reach its end-state

Even for well-funded schemes with ‘slow and steady’ plans to insurance buy-out, understanding covenant is crucial – while further contributions may not be needed, they rely on a solvent sponsor to run on. Should the sponsor go bust, schemes must crystallise their funding level on a solvency basis. In other words, a scheme’s journey may get cut short.  

What matters in journey planning
To set a scheme’s journey plan, trustees and sponsors should ensure the tools used can model assets, liabilities and covenant support. Only then can a journey plan be evaluated by its ‘relative risk’ characteristics – the scheme risks relative to the ability of the sponsor to support them, for example:

  • How does the chosen end-state compare relative to long-term covenant reliability?
  • How does the time to reach this end-state compare relative to covenant visibility and scheme maturity?
  • How do contributions compare relative to covenant affordability?
  • How does investment risk compare relative to the covenant’s risk capacity?

How might this work in practice?

Say a scheme is well funded and in surplus on its funding (or technical provisions) basis, and not particularly mature. The covenant is rated Strong, with high affordability, but its industry is in structural decline. The trustees consider three different journey plans:

  Plan A Plan B Plan C
Contributions Nil Nil Nil
Target returns Gilts + 1% pa Gilts + 2% pa Gilts + 3% pa
End-state Low-reliance basis Buy-out Buy-out
Years to end-state 6 8 6

Plan A.jpg

Plan B.jpg

Plan C.jpg

Using an integrated scheme-covenant model, the trustees can evaluate these journey plans based on their relative risks, and get the following results: 

Key: 
Green: Risks readily supportable
Amber: Risks potentially supportable
Red: Risks unsupportable

Plan A can be ruled out, as the target ‘low reliance’ state is inappropriate relative to the uncertainty that remains over the covenant’s long-term future, given its industry. Buy-out may be achieved in the same timeframe under Plan C, but this would require taking a level of investment risk that the covenant does not support. The trustees adopt Plan B, balancing all risks to a manageable level.

Modelling covenant
Integrating covenant into scheme modelling is key to assess these relative risk characteristics. Modelling covenant support is not straightforward, though, with two key characteristics needing to be captured:

  1. Single-name default exposure – Schemes are reliant on a single covenant and are fully exposed to its idiosyncratic risks. This makes it difficult to model the covenant stochastically, as these models are usually based on credit ratings and historical default probabilities of a large data set, typically assuming idiosyncratic risks are ‘diversified away’. Pension schemes reliant on a single-name covenant do not have this luxury. 
  2. Non-linear nature of covenant support – The payoff profile of the ‘covenant contract’ is typically negligible once a surplus is reached on a technical provisions basis as deficit repair contributions cease. At the same time, a scheme’s ability to run on is a step function that drops off when a sponsor becomes insolvent. These factors are difficult to reconcile in a single model, where the focus is often on insolvency.

Some market tools opt to model the scheme stochastically, then overlay an expected sponsor default based on credit ratings to estimate the proportion of benefits paid in different journey plans. While the simplicity of a single number is appealing, this does not fully capture the intricacies noted above. 

Modelling the covenant deterministically (for example borrowing from the corporate finance world and using a ‘three statement model’ of profit and loss, cash flow and balance sheet) can be more informative than scheme projections. It allows the covenant’s idiosyncratic risks to be assessed and captured, and the different non-linear aspects of covenant support to be fully considered. As illustrated in the example, this is especially the case where a ‘perfect’ journey plan doesn’t exist. It is ultimately a question for trustees to understand the trade-offs between the risks involved and plan accordingly.

Making educated decisions about a scheme’s journey plan requires an understanding of scheme risks relative to covenant support. Stochastic techniques used to model schemes are not always able to fully capture covenant support, so deterministic covenant projections can be more informative.

Felix Mantz is associate director at Cardano Advisory

Image Credit | iStock
Actuary Banner march6.png
This article appeared in our March 2022 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in
General Features

You might also like...

Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Life Actuarial Trainee

England
Up to £55000.00 per annum
Reference
145815

Catastrophe Manager - Top Performing Syndicate

England, London
£70000 - £94000 per annum
Reference
145814

Senior Pricing Analyst

London, England
£40000 - £80000 per annum
Reference
145813
See all jobs »
 
 

Today's top reads

 
 

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