How should plans think about allocation decisions, including sizing and manager selection?
In general, we think an IG private credit allocation of at least 5% – 10% of liability-hedging assets may be appropriate. Plans may need that level at minimum to reap the potential benefits, and those with more liquidity flexibility, such as plans with longer liability durations, could consider allocating above that range.
We think the choice of manager can be critical in this negotiated asset class. We encourage plans to dig into managers’ underwriting and deal structuring capabilities, especially with respect to experience through cycles. In addition, plans should evaluate managers’ ability to source a diversified funnel of deals and pursue opportunities selectively. We also think a differentiated outcome rests on a manager’s ability to deliver on the specific investment needs of a client. This makes it critical to explore any competing areas of focus for a manager, carefully consider their client relationship servicing and reporting capabilities, and assess their ability to manage exposures holistically across public and private allocations.
What are the potential trade-offs of a broadly diversified IG private credit portfolio versus a more sector-specific approach (e.g., IG corporates only)?
While some investors focus on specific segments of the market, such as corporate, asset-backed finance, or infrastructure debt, we believe access to a broader investment universe provides greater flexibility to construct portfolios that complement public fixed income exposure and enhance the overall liability-hedging allocation.
Unsecured corporate transactions remain a significant portion of IG private credit issuance, but opportunities are growing across corporate-backed project finance, infrastructure, and asset-backed structures. Although these investments may differ in legal form, many ultimately derive their credit strength from operating businesses, contracted cash flows, or essential-use assets.
Accordingly, we believe investors should look beyond a transaction’s legal structure or sector classification. Evaluating these investments requires an understanding of not only the underlying collateral and source of repayment, but also the contractual protections, the financial strength of any affiliated operating company or enterprise supporting the transaction, and other credit fundamentals.
Broad access to the investment-grade opportunity set also gives managers flexibility as transactions evolve throughout the deal underwriting and negotiation process. This broad perspective may also help managers identify similar exposures across financing channels or legal structures, supporting relative value decisions and potentially limiting unintended portfolio concentration.
Some investors gravitate toward corporate-only portfolios because they may offer closer alignment with the IG index and liability discount rate. However, as noted, we think this approach could overlook opportunities with corporate-like characteristics that can help enhance return potential and diversification. Alternatively, an exclusive focus on higher-spread sectors, such as asset-backed or structured issues, might have higher return potential but with less diversification and fewer opportunities for managers to make relative value decisions.
What are some of the key implementation considerations?
Successfully implementing an IG private credit allocation requires consideration of several interconnected factors, including vehicle structure, portfolio construction, liquidity management, and the operational infrastructure needed to access and manage private investments. The appropriate approach will depend on an investor’s objectives, time horizon, liquidity needs, and broader portfolio considerations.
An essential part of that implementation is aligning the liquidity profile of the underlying investments with both the investment vehicle and the needs of its investors. As noted, IG private credit is typically viewed as a long-term, buy-and-hold asset class, and historically the market has been supported by a predominantly institutional investor base with long investment horizons and relatively predictable liquidity requirements. Many DB plans share these traits, so they may be well aligned with the asset class.
As IG private credit becomes accessible through a broader range of vehicles and to a broader investor base, thoughtful structuring becomes increasingly important. Recent attention to liquidity management in certain retail-oriented private credit vehicles has highlighted the challenges that can arise when the liquidity offered to investors is not well matched with that of the underlying assets. For institutional investors, we believe this reinforces a longstanding principle: Vehicle structure, portfolio construction, and liquidity terms should be designed with the needs of the intended investor base in mind.
Implementation also requires specialized operational infrastructure and expertise. Private transactions can involve bespoke documentation, physical settlement, and ongoing administrative requirements that differ from those in public fixed income markets. Managers with established infrastructure, dedicated resources, and experience navigating these complexities may therefore be better positioned to source, execute, and manage investments efficiently across a range of vehicles and customized solutions.
Ultimately, we believe the relevant consideration is less about whether investors access the market through an open-end fund, closed-end fund, or separately managed account, and more about whether the overall solution has been thoughtfully designed and supported for the strategy and its investors. Depending on the structure, managers can employ a range of liquidity management tools, including contractual cash flows, amortizing investments, laddered maturities, dedicated liquidity allocations, and appropriately designed redemption frameworks. Combined with the necessary investment and operational capabilities, these tools can help managers deliver access to IG private credit across a range of structures while preserving the long-term return and liability-matching characteristics that potentially make the asset class attractive.
What are some other considerations or trade-offs that DB plans should factor into their decision?
One consideration is the duration target. IG private credit issuance spans maturities, enabling large investors with separately managed accounts to build custom portfolios aligned with their duration targets. Commingled vehicles, however, might be more accessible for many corporate DB plans and often have a core-like duration profile, although approaches may vary. This duration may be a fit for plans migrating their hedging portfolio into intermediate or full maturity credit, but could require supplementing duration — for example, via long STRIPS or an overlay — in hedging portfolios with longer durations.
Plans likely to conduct an annuity buyout in the near term may want to inquire about how an IG private allocation could affect pricing, timing, and the ability to transact. Insurer practices vary as to the conditions under which they accept IG private credit in an asset-in-kind (AIK) transfer; for those that do, additional time may be required to conduct proper due diligence of the securities. That said, our experience suggests that it’s possible to effectively sell down an illiquid private credit portfolio via a planned liquidity glidepath, close monitoring of the plan’s evolving liquidity needs, and an ability to successfully transact in the IG private credit secondary market.
What about strategies/funds that allocate across public and private IG?
Corporate DB plans are increasingly evaluating public and private investment-grade credit as complementary components of a single liability-hedging portfolio.
From an investment standpoint, pairing public and private credit allows managers to evaluate opportunities across the full investment-grade universe and allocate capital based on relative value, issuer fundamentals, and portfolio objectives, while potentially taking advantage of the complementary characteristics of each market. Public credit may provide liquidity and efficient implementation, while private credit may offer enhanced spread potential, differentiated issuer exposure, and negotiated structural protections.
An integrated approach may also simplify implementation, removing the need to oversee separate public and private mandates. By sharing portfolio insights and maintaining a certain level of visibility across public and private exposures, managers can evaluate opportunities in the context of the overall liability-hedging portfolio while managing liquidity, the pacing of private investments, and relative value opportunities across both markets.