- Multi-Asset Strategist
- About Us
- My Account
The views expressed are those of the author at the time of writing. Other teams may hold different views and make different investment decisions. The value of your investment may become worth more or less than at the time of original investment. While any third-party data used is considered reliable, its accuracy is not guaranteed. For professional, institutional, or accredited investors only.
With the rapid growth in funded ratios over the past year, a growing number of US corporate defined benefit (DB) plans have been contemplating their investment approach for the “end state” — the point at which a plan moves from being underfunded to being fully funded or even having a surplus. Once a plan arrives at the end state, its goal will typically transition from improving its funded ratio to maintaining (or spending down) its surplus.
This transition has a number of investment implications, which we explore in this paper through a hypothetical case study. We begin with the process of setting an objective for the surplus return, our preferred return metric for the end state. We then consider how to align a plan’s asset allocation with that objective.
Among our key conclusions:
Finally, we conclude with our views on the evolution of the glidepath during the end state and, recognizing that some plans are contemplating whether an annuity buyout should be part of their end-state strategy, on developing a lower-risk investment strategy that may be a viable alternative to a buyout.
We began our case study with the assumptions shown in Figure 1. We assume our hypothetical plan is a frozen plan and, therefore, that there are no new benefit accruals. However, the plan is paying expenses (e.g., PBGC premiums, actuarial, and legal fees) out of plan assets, amounting to 0.35% of the liability. The plan’s objectives are to continue to pay those expenses, maintain the current surplus, and limit the risk of falling back into an underfunded position. (Open plans that aim to cover service cost accruals via investment returns would follow a similar framework but add the ratio of service cost to liability to the plan’s expenses. Please see the glidepath section on page 10 for additional thoughts.)
Next, we translated the plan’s objectives into dollar terms. Beginning with the plan’s $100,000 liability, we assumed a liability return of 3.8% (based on our Investment Strategy Group’s capital market assumptions; see related details and assumptions at the end of the paper), giving us liability growth of $3,800 over one year. Combining that with the $350 in plan expenses (0.35%), we were left with the sum of $4,150, which represents the asset growth (net of investment expenses and fees) the plan will require to maintain its current surplus level.
We then divided that target dollar return ($4,150) by the plan’s total assets ($105,000), which gave us the rate of return required to keep up with the liability growth plus expenses: 3.95%, as shown in the dark blue bars in Figure 2 (Plan B). Of course, a less-well-funded plan would have a higher required rate of return (Plan A) and a better-funded plan (Plan C) would have a lower required rate of return.
Plan sponsors are conditioned to think in liability-relative terms, so we have also included the required funded-ratio return (light blue bars), which is simply the difference between the required asset return and the projected liability return. But while the funded-ratio return is an important metric when the objective is growing a plan’s funded ratio, we think that when the objective shifts to…
To read more, please click the download link below.