• Home
  • Admin/Tech
  • Benefits
  • Buzz
  • DB
  • DC
  • Diversity
  • Investment
  • Law & regulation
  • Risk reduction
  • Events
  • Whitepapers
  • Spotlights
  • Digital Edition
  • PPTV
  • Newsletters
  • Sign in
  •  
      • Newsletters
      • Account details
      • Contact support
      • Sign out
     
    •  

      You are currently accessing ProfessionalPensions via your Enterprise account.

      If you already have an account please use the link below to sign in.

      If you have any problems with your access or would like to request an individual access account please contact our customer service team.

      Phone: +44 (0) 1858 438800

      Email: [email protected]

      • Sign in
  • Follow us
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
    • Newsletters
    • YouTube
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • Events
    • Upcoming events
      event logo
      Investment Conference

      This two part Investment Conference will bring you the latest updates from economists, asset managers and pension consultants. We will be taking a look at the outlook for the 2021 economy, alternatives, cashflow strategies and global equity markets to name a few, assessing how they fared through the volatility and what we can expect for the year ahead.

      • Date: 20 Jan 2021
      • Digital Conference
      event logo
      Webinar: Using passion for ESG to unleash member engagement

      This webinar will look at how pension schemes can harness their members’ interest in ESG to engage them more broadly with their pensions. In particular, it will look at exclusive research showing how members are reacting to ESG; their propensity to act versus their actual behaviour; and the expectations they have of providers in this regard.

      • Date: 26 Jan 2021
      • Webinar
      event logo
      Webinar: What to put on your GMP Equalisation project roadmap for 2021

      This webinar will bring together views from actuaries, lawyers, administrators, trustees and data experts to look at the pragmatic, collaborative solutions that are open to schemes to solve the GMP equalisation challenges in 2021. It will assess the individual challenges schemes face with equalisations and provide some practical options that are available to resolve these issues.

      • Date: 02 Feb 2021
      • Webinar
      event logo
      Webinar: Will the world return to normal in 2021?

      In this webinar, PP editor Jonathan Stapleton will be joined by BMO’s chief economist Steven Bell and director of fiduciary management, Christy Jesudasan, alongside PTL trustee director Melanie Cusack and Isio’s head of fiduciary management oversight Paula Champion to discuss the significant impact of these themes on the pensions sector.

      • Date: 04 Feb 2021
      • Webinar
      View all events
      Follow our Professional Pension Events

      Sign up to receive email alerts about our events

      Sign up

  • Whitepapers
    • How DC schemes can gain exposure to different asset classes in a low-return environment

      So far, DC plans have largely been focused on the onset of auto-enrolment and changes to the regulatory framework - be it the ‘charge cap,' ‘pension freedoms' or consultations around ‘value for money', says Annabel Tonry, Executive Director at J.P. Morgan Asset Management (JPMAM).

      Download
      Pension freedoms three years on

      In 2015 George Osborne, then the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, decided that those age over 55 could take much more of their pension in cash. This has since opened up a range of possibilities for DC scheme members in the world of pensions.

      Download
      Find whitepapers
      Search by title or subject area
      View all whitepapers
  • Spotlights
  • Digital Edition
Professional Pensions
Professional Pensions
  • Home
  • Admin/Tech
  • Benefits
  • Buzz
  • DB
  • DC
  • Diversity
  • Investment
  • Law & regulation
  • Risk reduction
 
    • Newsletters
    • Account details
    • Contact support
    • Sign out
 
  •  

    You are currently accessing ProfessionalPensions via your Enterprise account.

    If you already have an account please use the link below to sign in.

    If you have any problems with your access or would like to request an individual access account please contact our customer service team.

    Phone: +44 (0) 1858 438800

    Email: [email protected]

    • Sign in
 

alt=''

  • Risk Reduction

Pension consolidator vehicles: an insurer's perspective

  • Russell Lee and Tom MacAulay
  • 16 May 2019
  • Tweet  
  • Facebook  
  • LinkedIn  
  • Send to  
0 Comments

In the second of a two-part series, Russell Lee (left) and Tom MacAulay (right) from Legal & General's Pension Risk Transfer business look at pension consolidation vehicles (PCVs) from an insurance perspective

Since our first article there have been a number of publications and comments on PCVs. Indeed the battle lines seem to be drawn: pension advisors declare, "pensions is not insurance" (even though the pension promises are the same) and insurers shout, "regulatory arbitrage" (even though lower cost for lower protection is not). 

Can we improve the quality of the debate?

The sponsor insolvency risk for scheme members is very real: a sponsor insolvency would lead to a reduction in benefits for virtually all UK pension schemes, because of their funding levels compared to current buyout pricing. 

PCVs could, in some circumstances, allow schemes to run on safely after sponsor insolvency, until they can afford buyout, but only if the risk framework and level of capital support are well set. Otherwise, trustees will be exchanging one weak sponsor for another. As we discussed in our first article, even a small one-year risk of failure can compound over the lifetime of pension liabilities to something large. 

So, in order to develop a safe regulatory framework, the question is: do we start with a pensions' framework and add things, or start with the insurance framework and take things away? 

To have a proper debate on this, we need to: (i) acknowledge the shortcomings in the current pension framework; and (ii) understand the build-up of insurer pricing under Solvency II - and what could be revised in order to provide a price improvement.

We also need to critique PCV pricing and compare it against buyout, noting that buyout becomes cheaper as duration shortens. Then we can assess whether schemes might be better to adopt a very low-risk strategy and wait, rather than increase the level of investment risk for the benefit of the PCV capital providers. 

The problem with the current pensions' valuation framework is that it is built on the presupposition that there is a sponsor with independent sources of revenue. Trustees and their advisors assess the sponsor covenant and factor this into the amount of prudence they adopt for longevity, inflation, and discounting. It is a highly subjective process, and for PCVs it doesn't work! A PCV's financial strength (covenant) is based on how much greater than scheme liabilities the scheme assets plus capital buffer are. But you can't: (i) assume a strong financial covenant, (ii) set prudence accordingly, (iii) value the liabilities, (iv) produce a large surplus, and demonstrate that you have a strong covenant! This would be entirely circular.

Insurance, on the other hand, is fundamentally about the ability to withstand losses of a certain severity - and a 1-in-200-year event is standard. This might sound extreme, but in fact only equates broadly to a BBB rating.

Insurers typically hold more capital than this minimum level so are higher rated, but the important point is that capital to cover a 1-in-200-years loss is not extreme, it is just safe: nobody wants to buy insurance from a junk-rated insurer. Many proponents of PCVs have claimed that while insurance is a Gold standard, PCVs are Bronze - cheaper but still safe. However, unless they are able to withstand a 1-in-200-year event, we struggle to see how they can be described as such.

PCV Pricing

One aspect of PCVs that is poorly understood is how little difference there is between their pricing and buyout. Originally billed as 15% cheaper, it is now clear that the real difference is more likely to be mid-single digits. If the pricing of a PCV that co-mingles assets and liabilities is gilts + 25bps, plus 5% to break the sponsor link - an assumption that is reasonable on the basis of publically available information - then for a scheme with a 17-year duration this equates to gilts - 5bps. The equivalent buyout pricing is likely to be in the order of c. gilts - 25bps. That is a difference of c. 3%. 

A scheme this well-funded could invest solely in gilts and still expect to buyout in five or six years. Alternatively it could enter a co-mingled PCV where asset risk is taken for the benefit of capital providers, putting members permanently in the position where they retain the risk of a cut to benefits - long after capital providers have made a healthy return. This seems manifestly unfair. The concept of sharing profits with members sounds great until you remember that, in a co-mingled fund, funding levels are continuously diluted by adding additional schemes.

An alternative approach

It is helpful to illustrate what can be achieved under an insurance-like framework. At L&G we have developed a solution that is based on insurance principles with respect to both governance and ability to withstand loss, and has a strong price improvement compared to buyout (more than 10%). It is not a PCV because it does not break the sponsor link, but it: 

  • Protects against sponsor insolvency;
  • Delivers a safe route to buyout;
  • Provides a 1-in-200 year level of financial strength at inception; and
  • Aligns interests between the scheme, the investment manager and the insurance provider.

We do not advocate breaking the sponsor link - it seems unnecessary - but if schemes wanted to do so then L&G's Insured Self Sufficiency framework would work fine. It provides insurance-like protection and is cheaper than the commercial PCVs currently available. 

Summary

To date, the public debate on PCVs has focused too often on point scoring, and a number of the points do not stand up to closer analysis. As Nobel Laureate Richard Feynmann said, "you need to be careful not to fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool". The critical principle that should guide the debate is simple: members' interests first!  

If you would like to discuss any aspect of this article please email us at: [email protected] or [email protected]

  • Tweet  
  • Facebook  
  • LinkedIn  
  • Send to  
  • Topics
  • Risk Reduction
  • Industry Voice
  • Legal & General
  • L&G
blog comments powered by Disqus
Back to Top
Trustpilot

 

  • Contact Us
  • Marketing solutions
  • About Incisive Media
  • Terms and conditions
  • Policies
  • Careers
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Newsletters
  • YouTube

© Incisive Business Media (IP) Limited, Published by Incisive Business Media Limited, New London House, 172 Drury Lane, London WC2B 5QR, registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 09177174 & 09178013

Digital publisher of the year
Digital publisher of the year 2010, 2013, 2016 & 2017
Loading