Session 14 Flashcards
Common characteristics of institutional investors
1/ Scale (size) 2/ LT investment horizon 3/ Regulatory FM 4/ Governance FM 5/ Principal- agent issues
Scale (size) of institutional investors
- small < $25M → may be unable to access certain investments that require a minimum investment
- more likely to rely on external managers and investment consultants
- large → scale benefits → access to investments can attract internal asset managers
- very large > $10B → diseconomies of scale
- unable to access niche investments
- positions would be too small (VC/PE, sm. cap. growth)
- typically pushed into private assets, infrastructure assets
Long term investment horizon of institutional investors
- long inv. horizons + low liquidity needs allow for holdings of alternative investments
- banks/insurance → perpetual horizon but typically short maturity holdings
Regulatory frameworks of institutional investors
➝ legal, regulatory, tax, accounting
– differ by national jurisdiction
Key drivers: investor protection, safety/soundness of financial institutions, integrity of financial markets
The governance framework of institutional investors
→ BoD + investment committee establish investment policy (SAA), define risk appetite, set investment strategy, monitor investment performance
- banks/insurance implement investment internally
Principal-agent issues of institutional investors
- agents may be internal or external
e. g. → high base fee interests regardless of performance - managed through highly developed performance governance models, high levels of accountability
Implementation approaches of Investment Policy
1/ Norway model
2/ Endowment model
3/ Canada model
4/ Liability- driven investing (LDI) model
Norway Model
- traditional style, 60/40 equity/FI allocation, very few AI, largely passive, tight error tracking limits
+/ low cost, transparent, suitable for large scale, easy to understand
–/ limited value-added potential
Endowment Model
- high AI exposure, active mgmt., outsourcing
(externally managed assets) - suitable for: long-term inv. horizon, low liquidity needs, skill in sourcing AI
+/ high value-added potential
–/ expensive, difficult to implement for very large funds/small funds
Canada Model
- high AI exposure, active mgmt., insourcing
+/ high value-added potential, development of internal capabilities
–/ potentially expensive, difficult to manage
Liability- driven investing (LDI) model
- focus on hedging liabilities and interest rate risk by using duration-matched FI exposure
- may also include a growth component
+/ explicit recognition of liabilities as part of the investment process
–/ certain risks (longevity, inflation) may not be hedged
Benefit payments, Contributions, Investment Decision making, Investment Risk, Mortality/Longevity risk of DB
- benefit payments: defined by the contract
- contributions: mainly employer, sometimes employee
- investment decision making: pension fund determines how much to save and what to invest in
- mortality/longevity risk: employer/sponsor
- mortality risk is pooled
- employee has no longevity risk
Benefit payments, Contributions, Investment Decision making, Investment Risk, Mortality/Longevity risk of DC
- benefit payments: depends on how well the investments did
- contributions: - primarily employee (may involve employer also)
- investment decision making: - employee determines how much to save and what to invest in
- investment risk - employer bears the risk
- mortality/longevity risk: employee
Stakeholders of DB
- employer (plan sponsor) - benefits are the company’s liabilities
- employees and retirees (plan’s beneficiaries)
- CIO and investment staff - must make decisions for the plan’s beneficiaries
- governments
- unions
- shareholders –> shortfalls are liabilities, contributions reduce net income
Stakeholders of DC
- plan beneficiaries
- the employer who still has the fiduciary responsibility (offer suitable investments, employer contributions, education)
- the board, who select the default investment option
- gov’t
Liabilities of DB
- PV of the future obligation/payments for the pool (depends on the age of service, salary, life expectancy)
- also requires a discount rate: typically, a market-rate
e. g./ gov’t. yields, IG corporate yields, swap rates (LIBOR) - most pensions use a liability-driven investing approach
- in cases where increases in expected returns (taking on higher risk) will result in a higher discount being used
- main objective is to have sufficient assets to cover benefit payments
- shortfall = BS liability (encourages more risk-taking)
- surplus = BS asset
Liabilities and Investment Horizon of DC
Liability → equal to the contribution (for the sponsor/employer)
Investment horizon: each beneficiary will be at a different life stage
∴ given different risk tolerance & time horizon
- provide life-cycle options or target-date options
Liabilities need of DB is driven by
1/ proportion of active to retired - more mature, higher liquidity needs
2/ participant switching/withdrawals
- if allowed, higher liquidity needs
3/ age of the workplace - if older, sooner liquidity needs/higher liquidity needs
4/ plan funded status - surplus, means fewer contributions will be made, thus higher liquidity needs
Funded ratio formula
= FV (plan assets)/PV (benefit obligation)
The investment horizon for DB
- proportion of the plan assets and liabilities to the BS
- if small, higher risk tolerance, longer IH
- correlation between the company’s business and the plan assets
- if low, higher RT, longer IH
- avg age of the workforce
- if young, higher RT, longer IH
- volatility of contributions tolerable → longer IH
- active/retired mix → lower retired portion → longer IH
How is the DB funded?
- funded from two sources - employer/employee contributions and return on plan assets
- employer contributions vary depending on funded status
- may want to minimize contributions, minimize the volatility of the surplus
External Constraints of DB and DC
Legal & Regulatory/ varies by country - similar themes: ➝ reporting & transparency ➝ funding requirements ➝ discount rates Tax & Accounting/ restrictions on plan design, governance, and investment activities in order to qualify for favourable tax treatment DB/ – typically tax exempt DC/ – typically tax-deferred (contributions are pre-tax)
Risk Considerations for DB
1/ Plan Funded Status of DB 2/ Sponsor Financial Strength 3/ Sponsor and pension fund common risk exposures 4/ Plan design 5/ Workforce characteristics
Expand on plan Funded Status of DB
→ higher funded status → greater risk tolerance
if (fully-funded)
•LDI, duration-mgmt., cash-flow matching
if (under-funded)
• grow assets at a higher rate than liabilities - involves more investment risk
• invest in more defensive assets to reduce
funded status variability – plan sponsor is willing to make higher contributions over time