Strategy Spotlight

Pension Risk Management: Could Plan Sponsors Get Their (Risk‑Frosted) Cake and Eat It Too?​

A strategy taps equity potential while reducing liability risk.

Following the significant drop in funding ratios in 2014, corporate defined benefit (DB) plan sponsors might consider re-risking their asset allocation as dictated by their glide path or in an attempt to shore up the plan’s funded status. As tempting as this may seem, the incremental funding ratio risk that would result may be too much for many plan sponsors to handle, especially after the roller coaster ride of the last few years. But what if plans could re-risk while maintaining their exposure to liability hedging assets to achieve the dual objective of managing funding ratio risk and increasing expected returns?

Despite strong equity returns in 2014, the combination of lower interest rates and new mortality tables (which extended projected life spans and boosted liabilities) decreased the funding ratio of many U.S. corporate plans by 8% to 12% on average during that year. Unless sponsors had locked-in the 2013 gains from favorable equity markets and higher discount rates, their funded status is now likely back to the level experienced right after the 2008 financial crisis (see Figure 1).

The primary justification for investing plan assets in equities lies in the expectation that over the long run equity returns will outperform liabilities and therefore improve a plan’s funded status. But the lack of improvement in funding ratios despite last year’s 14% jump in the S&P 500 suggests that corporate plans must adjust their approach to equity investing to better fit the asset-liability context.

Smart equity investing for pension plans
Historically, the contribution of equity allocations to funding ratio improvements has been disappointing. However, this is not necessarily due to weak equity returns, but instead because equity returns have not kept pace with liabilities (see Figure 2).


A potential remedy would be to earn equity performance on top of a return that is commensurate with the rate of growth of the plan’s liability – in other words, overlay equity performance on top of liability returns. To achieve this, plan sponsors can gain exposure to equity markets using derivatives instruments, which require little capital commitment. The capital freed up by not purchasing physical equities can then be invested in long duration bonds that serve as collateral for the synthetic equity exposure. This approach should enable sponsors to realize their equity returns on top of long duration bond returns (minus the financing rate embedded in the equity derivatives position). To the extent that long duration bonds are a good proxy for long-dated pension liabilities, the plan sponsor would effectively earn equity returns over its liabilities (minus the financing rate). In 2014, this approach would have enabled plan sponsors to realize the full benefit of strong equity markets and have funding ratios move in the right direction.

Simple is beautiful
With the structural use of derivatives, collateral management requirements and the need to frequently rebalance the equity overlay and underlying bond exposures, the implementation of the strategy may appear intimidating.

However, PIMCO’s StocksPLUS LDI Strategy is designed to bring the concept of an equity overlay to an LDI (liability-driven investing) framework while streamlining and simplifying its implementation. The strategy combines synthetic equity exposure and underlying, actively managed long duration bonds in a single portfolio where PIMCO handles all aspects of collateral management. Beyond the simplified implementation for plan sponsors, StocksPLUS LDI provides many other potential benefits:

  • Improved duration and credit spread match with liabilities while maintaining an allocation to the equity market (i.e., injecting duration beneath equities)

  • An underlying long bond portfolio that should more or less match liabilities, enabling the plan to earn equity market returns over the liability return

  • Potential for higher long-term expected return with reduced risk relative to liabilities:

Expected equity market return

+ Expected long bond return

– Financing cost

= StockPLUS LDI expected return

  • More efficient and quicker glide path implementation (with the potential to dial down the size of the equity overlay when a trigger is met, as opposed to a coordinated sale of equities and purchases of bonds across several managers in a short period of time)


StocksPLUS LDI: an illustration
As an example, let’s explore the framework for StocksPLUS LDI further by using a hypothetical corporate pension plan and an LDI equity overlay model. The plan has the following characteristics:

  • $1 billion in liabilities with $800 million in assets (80% funded)
  • Closed to new entrants
  • Approximately 14 years of duration

The plan is reviewing the options laid out in Figure 4:


Let’s assume that our plan sponsor seeks to maintain its current fixed income/equity mix. In this case, the introduction of the LDI equity overlay model for half the equity exposure would enable the plan sponsor to almost double its duration hedge ratio (from 33% to 59%), leading to a reduction in surplus risk of 17% (from 14.1% to 11.7%). This would all be accomplished while maintaining the same 60% allocation to return-seeking assets (equities in this case). Note that the expected return also would likely go up as the collateral long bond portfolio has the potential to outperform the short-term financing rate built into the pricing of the equity derivatives contract. Ultimately the plan sponsor would probably have a significantly higher hedge ratio, meaningfully lower surplus risk and a higher return expectation.

Next, let’s look at a scenario where our hypothetical plan sponsor is contemplating re-risking the plan in the hope of offsetting the recent funding ratio decline through more significant outperformance of assets relative to liabilities in the medium to long term. Under the traditional re-risking framework the plan would increase its return-seeking allocation by 10 percentage points (and reduce its fixed income LDI portfolio exposure by 10 percentage points). While this strategy would produce a slightly higher return expectation, it comes at a steep price: Incremental risk as surplus volatility increases by 15% (from 14.1% to 16.2%). The return-to-risk ratio of 0.1 (+0.2% return/+2.1% risk) for such a strategy is unappealing at best.

However, combining re-risking and the LDI equity overlay model framework has the potential to achieve surprising results. In the example above, increasing the return-seeking exposure by 10 percentage points while implementing half of the overall equity exposure through the LDI equity overlay model would enable our hypothetical plan sponsor to meaningfully increase return expectations while keeping surplus risk in line with the initial allocation (and actually slightly lower).

Seeking returns, hedging risks
As plans consider re-risking in an attempt to bolster their funded status, they should be careful not to add more risk than they can tolerate. The StocksPLUS LDI approach seeks to harmonize the return-seeking goal of equity investing with the goal of managing surplus risk.

If that is not having your (risk-frosted) cake and eating it too, then it is as close as one can get.

For a discussion on using the current low interest rates and potential tax benefits to fund plans by borrowing, please review December 2014’s Featured Solution, “Rising Insurance Premiums: A New Impetus for Voluntary Funding of Corporate Defined Benefit Plans.”

The Author

Rene Martel

Product Manager, Pension and Insurance Solutions

Chantal Manseau

Account Manager, Corporate Team



Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. Investing in the bond market is subject to risks, including market, interest rate, issuer, credit, inflation risk, and liquidity risk. The value of most bonds and bond strategies are impacted by changes in interest rates. Bonds and bond strategies with longer durations tend to be more sensitive and volatile than those with shorter durations; bond prices generally fall as interest rates rise, and the current low interest rate environment increases this risk. Current reductions in bond counterparty capacity may contribute to decreased market liquidity and increased price volatility. Bond investments may be worth more or less than the original cost when redeemed. Equities may decline in value due to both real and perceived general market, economic, and industry conditions. Derivatives may involve certain costs and risks such as liquidity, interest rate, market, credit, management and the risk that a position could not be closed when most advantageous. Investing in derivatives could lose more than the amount invested. Diversification does not ensure against loss. There is no guarantee that these investment strategies will work under all market conditions or are suitable for all investors and each investor should evaluate their ability to invest long-term, especially during periods of downturn in the market. Investors should consult their investment professional prior to making an investment decision.

This material contains a hypothetical simulation. No representation is being made that any account, product, or strategy will or is likely to achieve profits, losses, or results similar to those shown. Hypothetical and forecasted performance results have several inherent limitations. Unlike an actual performance record, these results do not do not reflect actual trading, liquidity constraints, fees, and/or other costs. There are numerous other factors related to the markets in general or the implementation of any specific investment strategy, which cannot be fully accounted for in the preparation of simulated or forecasted results and all of which can adversely affect actual results. In addition, references to future results should not be construed as an estimate or promise of results that a client portfolio may achieve.

PIMCO has historically used factor based stress analyses that estimate portfolio return sensitivity to various risk factors. Essentially, portfolios are decomposed into different risk factors and shocks are applied to those factors to estimate portfolio responses.

Because of limitations of these modeling techniques, we make no representation that use of these models will actually reflect future results, or that any investment actually will achieve results similar to those shown. Hypothetical or simulated performance modeling techniques have inherent limitations. These techniques do not predict future actual performance and are limited by assumptions that future market events will behave similarly to historical time periods or theoretical models. Future events very often occur to causal relationships not anticipated by such models, and it should be expected that sharp differences will often occur between the results of these models and actual investment results.

Stress testing involves asset or portfolio modeling techniques that attempt to simulate possible performance outcomes using historical data and/or hypothetical performance modeling events. These methodologies can include among other things, use of historical data modeling, various factor or market change assumptions, different valuation models and subjective judgments.

We employed a block bootstrap methodology to calculate volatilities. We start by computing historical factor returns that underlie each asset class proxy from January 1997 through the present date. We then draw a set of 12 monthly returns within the dataset to come up with an annual return number. This process is repeated 25,000 times to have a return series with 25,000 annualized returns. The standard deviation of these annual returns is used to model the volatility for each factor. We then use the same return series for each factor to compute covariance between factors. Finally, volatility of each asset class proxy is calculated as the sum of variances and covariance of factors that underlie that particular proxy. For each asset class, index, or strategy proxy, we will look at either a point in time estimate or historical average of factor exposures in order to determine the total volatility.

Barclays Long Term Government/Credit Index is an unmanaged index of U.S. Government or Investment Grade Credit Securities having a maturity of 10 years or more. The S&P 500 Index is an unmanaged market index generally considered representative of the stock market as a whole. The index focuses on the Large-Cap segment of the U.S. equities market. LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) is the rate banks charge each other for short-term Eurodollar loans. It is not possible to invest directly in an unmanaged index.

This material contains the opinions of the author but not necessarily those of PIMCO and such opinions are subject to change without notice. This material has been distributed for informational purposes only and should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission. PIMCO and YOUR GLOBAL INVESTMENT AUTHORITY are trademarks or registered trademarks of Allianz Asset Management of America L.P. and Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, respectively, in the United States and throughout the world. ©2015, PIMCO.