2006 General Meeting, Chicago Illinois
IP-33: ERM & The Pension Actuary
Emily Kessler
2006 General Meeting, Chicago Illinois
IP-33: ERM & The Pension Actuary
Emily Kessler
Canadian Institute
of Actuaries
Canadian Institute
of Actuaries
L’Institut canadien desactuaires
L’Institut canadien desactuaires
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
ERM for Pension PlansERM for Pension Plans
• What is ERM?
• Why is ERM important? Why is ERM important for pension plans?
• Using ERM – To improve ALM – To design next generation plans
• Appendices
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Fundamental ERM tenetsFundamental ERM tenets
• Corporations exist to create value
• ERM processes help companies identify and manage risks to maximize value creation
• ERM can be thought of on three levels: Operational, Strategic and Catastrophic
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006OperationalOperational
• Objective: Control risk, by keeping risks within enterprise limits on an ongoing basis
• Identify, monitor, limit, offset and transfer all potential significant losses to a firm
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
StrategicStrategic
• Objective: Promote risk taking to maximize risk adjusted returns
• Integrate risk into pricing, planning and performance evaluation, using economic capital in pricing, capital budgeting and risk adjusted performance measurement
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006CatastrophicCatastrophic
• Objective: Protect limits or reduces the risk of firm failure
• Identify and prepare for potential catastrophic events that could threaten the success of the enterprise – Through trend analysis, stress testing, contingency
planning and catastrophic risk transfer/offset
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Why is ERM important? Why is ERM important?
• ERM is a framework to understand the risks to your enterprise and manage them
• If you don’t manage risk, it will manage you– Crisis management
– Not feasible to do in global economy (can be catastrophic)
• Real value: if you manage risk well, you can do a better job of growing your business
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Why is ERM important for pension Why is ERM important for pension plans?plans?
• The pension plan is not part of the core business, but represents a financial risk for corporation– Long-tailed liability
• Owe benefits to employees long since terminated or retired
– Sticky liability• Easier to dump a business than unwind a pension plan
– Call on cash• Mostly due to risks taken with plan investments
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
The fallacy of ongoing planThe fallacy of ongoing plan
• Plans have been viewed as having an infinite lifespan– In theory, they can infinitely take on risk
• Problem: plan doesn’t exist outside of plan sponsor– Plan must have source of cash: plan
sponsor– Plan can only take as much risk as the
enterprise can support
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Lifecycle conceptLifecycle concept
• One way to think about risk management & pension plans is as a lifecycle issue– Lifecycle of plan lifecycle of business
– Ability of sponsor to absorb plan risk varies over lifecycle
• This framework helps you understand– Why current statutory framework is failing
– Why managing to accounting doesn’t work
– Why we have hedge funds that own a few airplanes
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
A simplistic business lifecycleA simplistic business lifecycle
A business is born
grows
reaches maturity
experiences difficulties in maturity
and reaches a turning point
merger/ acquisition
bankruptcy (fast decline) slow
decline
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
A simplistic plan lifecycleA simplistic plan lifecycle
Freeze the plan
A plan is established
grows
and reaches a turning point Plan matures
with business
termination
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Plan and business cycle Plan and business cycle
?
A plan is born; negligible cost
core business growing rapidly
Plan matures; cost grows
core business grows faster
Business matures; Plan cost still growing
core business not growing
Business matures; Plan cost still growing core business declining
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
How is plan generated risk viewed How is plan generated risk viewed relative to core business risk? relative to core business risk?
?
None/ negligible
Moderate/ acceptable
Difficult: why do we have a plan?
Unacceptable
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
The lifecycle challengeThe lifecycle challenge
• Plan and core business have antithetical lifecycles – Plan grows initially more slowly than
business• Plan improvements granted during this period
magnify future difficulties
– Plan matures after core business peaks– Plan continues to mature as core business
declines
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
The lifecycle challengeThe lifecycle challenge
• Position in lifecycle considers size, stage, industry
• Size – Market capitalization (not ratio of actives to
retirees)
• Stage– Growth, maturity, retooling (e.g. Eastman Kodak
in the age of digital cameras)
• Industry– Globalization– Other industry specific, e.g. deregulation
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Risk management, financial Risk management, financial economics & lifecycleeconomics & lifecycle
• Risk management can tie together financial economics & lifecycle issues – Financial economics gives you the answer to “how
do shareholders perceive the risk, and what’s the best way to mitigate risk from plan”
– Lifecycle can help you understand level of acceptable risk
– Risk management helps sponsor make decisions about whether to accept, mitigate or avoid risk
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Investment Strategy & ERM Investment Strategy & ERM
• Consider ALM consulting from ERM POV
• Goal: evaluate plan investment strategy relative to how well the enterprise can sustain the effects of those risks
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
ERM ALM FrameworkERM ALM Framework
• Risk mitigation baseline (100% government bonds)
• Aggressive investments could drive down cost of plan, allowing company to create value in core business (move into equities)
• Can company take the downside risk – the 99th percentile event – should the investment strategy fail without core business suffering?
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Letting the tail wag the dogLetting the tail wag the dog
• Traditional ALM: Sponsor’s decision based on whether asset mix allows it to use a discount rate/expected return on asset assumption that is competitive with peer group
• Accounting standard (reporting) drives investment strategy (risk)
• Accounting, by its nature, is backward looking – Risk monitoring not risk management– Can’t drive looking backwards
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Letting the dog wag its tailLetting the dog wag its tail
• ERM ALM: Use knowledge of pension finance to drive a risk management discussion – The perfect hedge strategy, to indemnify
shareholders, is 100% bonds– But, can your shareholders take additional risk? – Where are you on the lifecycle?
• What is the size of your plan relative to your market capitalization?
• Where is your business today?• What specific issues is your industry facing or are just
down the road?
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Letting the dog wag its tailLetting the dog wag its tail
• The answer may be that 70% equities/30% bonds is OK because the corporation can sustain the investment risk without hurting core business– It probably wouldn’t be for most large, established
companies
– Caveat: From a pension finance point of view there are still issues around which generation of shareholders pays and benefits, and tax arbitrage issues
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Letting the dog wag its tailLetting the dog wag its tail
• Statutory framework puts everyone into same risk paradigm – That may not be the right place for this plan
sponsor
• Risk management means evolving thinking – Failed risk management: hedge fund that owns a
few airplanes
– Successful risk management: airline with a very large but secure pension fund.
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
ERM & the Pension PractitionerERM & the Pension Practitioner
• Today, ERM is a state of mind– ALM study example: letting the dog wag its tail
(ERM frame of mind)
– Considering plan within the core business
– Financial economics (immunizing risk)
• DB plans under fire presents opportunities to design new retirement systems– That better meeting economic, demographic needs
of 21st century
– That incorporate ERM principles
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
ERM & Pension PractitionerERM & Pension Practitioner
• Benefits of ERM frame of mind– Thinking differently about how we do our
jobs today – Using the lessons of risk management and
DB failure to design better systems for 21st century
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Thinking differently about risk todayThinking differently about risk today
• Many plans, industries are mature: catastrophic risk is real – What is the risk of the plan to the business? – What is the risk of the business to the plan?
• Manage the plan dynamically – Beyond the statutory/accounting framework– Consider how the plan and company may
grow (and may grow at different rates)
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Thinking differently about risk today Thinking differently about risk today
• Consider the risk the plan puts on the enterprise – Size of plan relative to market
capitalization– How close is the plan to fully funded?
(more variation at the edge of full funding)– What happens when market shocks?
Interest rate shocks? Demographic shocks?
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Thinking differently about risk todayThinking differently about risk today
• Look forward, not backward– Help your clients talk to shareholders about
plan costs and risks going forward • Percent of payroll, variation in percent of
payroll
• How you’ve considered the investment strategy and how that’s projected to benefit shareholders
– Does your plan design best manage risk? • Consider eliminating options that add risk to
plan
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Thinking differently about risk todayThinking differently about risk today
• All plans aren’t infinite– Companies have a beginning, middle and end, and
so do their pension plans– Plan for the end, but don’t dwell on it
• Long-lived liabilities will have extreme events– Can the plan sustain a 99th percentile event?– Long-tail liabilities will have a 99th percentile
event: there will always be a perfect storm • September 2004, Pension Section News, “Defined
Benefit Plans are More Successful with Bonds,” Mark Ruloff
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Using ERM to Answer 21Using ERM to Answer 21stst Century Century ChallengesChallenges
• Pension Systems under stress, in US, Canada and other countries
• Use ERM to design better systems – Transparent, hedgable risks – Risk pooling versus risk transfer– Understanding needs, risks and roles
• SOA Pension Section’s Retirement 20/20 effort– www.retirement2020.soa.org
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Using ERM to Answer 21Using ERM to Answer 21stst Century Century ChallengesChallenges
• Don’t be afraid to understand why DB broke– DB met 20th century needs for retirement
system– DB clearly doesn’t meet 21st century needs
for retirement system– If we understand why, we can design better
systems …
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Learning from DB FailureLearning from DB Failure
• NY Times interview of Dr. Henry Petroski, engineer:
• “From [Dr. Petroski’s] vantage point, failures in design and construction present perfect teaching opportunities. They are object lessons in the history and practice and beauty of engineering. ‘Failure is central to engineering … [e]very single calculation that an engineer makes is a failure calculation. Successful engineering is all about understanding how things break or fail.’”
NY Times, 02 May 2006 “Engineering a Safer, More Beautiful World, One Failure at a Time” emphasis added
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Learning from DB FailureLearning from DB Failure
• “Successful engineering is all about understanding how things break or fail.”– Break: operational risk, fail: catastrophic
risk
• What can we learn about DB plan risk management from the perceived “brokenness” and “failure” of DB plans?
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Learning from DB FailureLearning from DB Failure
• “Success masks failure. The more a thing operates successfully, the more confidence we have in it. So we dismiss little failures … as trivial annoyances rather than preludes to catastrophe”
• DB risk taking in 70s/80s/90s masked risk in plans
• Risk grew but strategies to mitigate it didn’t
• Individual years of bad performance were dismissed
NY Times, 02 May 2006 “Engineering a Safer, More Beautiful World, One Failure at a Time”
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Learning from DB FailureLearning from DB Failure
• “Systems that require error-free performance are doomed to failure”
• Error-free performance – Ongoing plan– Company’s ability to
provide cash to plan
• Lifecycle model – Plan will grow relative
to size of company– Company always fails/
shrinks before plan
NY Times, 02 May 2006 “Engineering a Safer, More Beautiful World, One Failure at a Time”
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Learning from DB FailureLearning from DB Failure
• “Computer simulations and other methods of predicting whether components will fail are themselves vulnerable to failure.”
• ALM studies based on assumptions– Limit on long bonds
• Ignore lifecycle, change in company over time
• In our presentations, do we consider 99th percentile events
NY Times, 02 May 2006 “Engineering a Safer, More Beautiful World, One Failure at a Time”
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Learning from DB FailureLearning from DB Failure
• “Devices can be made foolproof, but not damn-fool-proof …”
• Agency issues• “DB plans are for
adults only”• Lifecycle
– Benefit levels may not always be sustainable
– Risk tolerance may change over time
NY Times, 02 May 2006 “Engineering a Safer, More Beautiful World, One Failure at a Time”
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Learning from DB FailureLearning from DB Failure
• “Today’s successful design is tomorrow’s failure, in that expectations for technology are continually on the rise.”
• Global competition • Increasing
shareholder expectations– Not interested in
long term
NY Times, 02 May 2006 “Engineering a Safer, More Beautiful World, One Failure at a Time”
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Learning from DB FailureLearning from DB Failure
• “A device designed for one purpose may fail when put to another use. (Is it fair to call that a failure? Dr. Petroski smiled. ’Good question,’ he said.)”
• DB plans are wholly-owned block of annuities
• Been treated like investment trusts (generating income)
• DB plans won’t fail if risk is managed
NY Times, 02 May 2006 “Engineering a Safer, More Beautiful World, One Failure at a Time”
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006AppendicesAppendices
• Appendix I: Objectives of Risk Management
• Appendix II: Failure of Statutory systems/Understanding DB under fire
• Appendix III: ERM in a DB/DC Consulting Framework
• Appendix IV: Resources
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix I: Objectives of Risk Appendix I: Objectives of Risk ManagementManagement
• Compliance
• Knowledge
• Culture
• Value added
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix I: Objectives of Risk Appendix I: Objectives of Risk ManagementManagement
• Compliance– E.g. Sarbanes-Oxley– Limitations
• Risk monitoring is not risk management• Can become bureaucratic
• Knowledge• Culture• Value added
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix I: Objectives of Risk Appendix I: Objectives of Risk ManagementManagement
• Compliance• Knowledge
– Understand the risks taken (transparency) – Risk
• Accept risk when there is a competitive advantage• Mitigate (e.g., hedging, reinsurance)• Avoid
• Culture• Value added
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix I: Objectives of Risk Appendix I: Objectives of Risk ManagementManagement
• Compliance• Knowledge• Culture
– Developing a risk management culture
• Value added– Determine risk appetite/tolerances– Prioritize risks and optimize risk/return profile– Provide incentives to take risk where it adds
marginal value
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix II: Failure of Statutory Appendix II: Failure of Statutory Framework Framework
• Statutory framework: Accounting standards, funding standards
• Today’s statutory framework fails, for most plans, the risk management goal
• Risk management goal: Manage to the appropriate level of risk based on position in lifecycle
• Current statutory/accounting standards work against this goal for majority of large plans
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix II: Failure of Statutory Appendix II: Failure of Statutory FrameworkFramework
• Current statutory/accounting standards developed when most plans in “growth/ maturity” stage – Plan risk relative to core business was smaller– A risk-taking model worked, at least in short-term
• Problem: didn’t encourage evolution of risk-taking to account for shifting size of risk– Stopped evolution of thinking around risk – Result: many companies taking risks they ought
not to be taking
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix II: Understanding Appendix II: Understanding DB Under FireDB Under Fire
• Statutory framework encourages one-size-fits-all risk taking. Results:– All DB plans have been taking the same
level of risk– In some critical industries, this is too much
risk (e.g. airlines, steel, auto)– As these industries fail, so do their DB
plans
• Markets now view all DB plans are viewed as too costly and too risky
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix II: Understanding Appendix II: Understanding DB Under FireDB Under Fire
• We can understand the failure of DB plans if we consider objectives of ERM – Compliance– Knowledge
• Understand the risks taken (transparency) • Risk
– Accept risk when there is a competitive advantage– Mitigate (e.g., hedging, reinsurance)– Avoid
– Culture– Value added
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix II: Understanding Appendix II: Understanding DB Under Fire DB Under Fire
• Lack of transparency is driving much of the discussion about pension plans– FAS 87/CICA 3461 type standard not adequate for
mature plans– “Traditional” funding rules spreading losses not
sufficiently transparent or secure for mature plans and declining industries
• ERM says eliminate risks that aren’t transparent– Mitigate or avoid
• Observation: in an ERM framework, transparent standards are in the best interest of DB plans
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix II: Understanding Appendix II: Understanding DB Under FireDB Under Fire
• Mitigate – Hedge, reinsure through bond, annuity purchase – Mitigation strategy has little attraction today
• FAS 87 EROA
– Hedging might be more attractive under FRS 17 style standard
• Problem: transition• Changes the cost I thought I understood; no one wants to
pay more for the same thing
• Avoid: get out of DB
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix III: ERM Consulting Appendix III: ERM Consulting FrameworksFrameworks
• DB only
• DB within company
• DB and DC
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix III: DB plan as stand-alone Appendix III: DB plan as stand-alone entityentity
• The pension plan as pension trust (investment advisor viewpoint)
• Risk management of trust as stand-alone entity is not an elegant or useful application – Works OK (actually fairly well) within an
operational framework
• Problem: DB plan does not exist within a silo
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix III: DB within companyAppendix III: DB within company
• Plan represents a catastrophic risk to company, and vice-versa – Strategic: plan has a call to cash of business – Catastrophic: If business can’t support plan, plan
fails, but plan underfunding can also drive business to bankruptcy
• Better: think about DB within the business framework of company– Lifecycle is one approach
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix III: ERM, DB and DCAppendix III: ERM, DB and DC
• ERM framework best applied to both DB and DC plans
• Many sponsors see DC as “risk free” because they don’t have some of the same risks as DB
• Reality: DC plans aren’t risk free – Lifecycle issue: most DC plans aren’t yet mature– Conventional wisdom doesn’t yet consider DC
risks
• ERM helps you identify risks before they are uncovered by time, events
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix III: ERM, DB and DC Appendix III: ERM, DB and DC
• Traditional risk management framework– Strategic– Operational– Financial– Hazard
Note: Some material taken from Towers Perrin (Canada) Perspective Are DC plans really risk-free for employers?
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix III: DB and DC Operational Appendix III: DB and DC Operational RisksRisks
• Operational risk is the risk of not correctly implementing or running the program
• Compliance risk – Huge risk for both DB and DC– Outsourcing is one solution – only
incomplete and can often be a panacea
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix III: DB and DC Strategic Appendix III: DB and DC Strategic risksrisks
• Strategic risk is the risk of not being able to meet your business objectives
• Attraction and retention of employees – Are your benefit dollars being spent
wisely?– Does your plan design fit your business
image?
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix III: DB and DC Strategic Appendix III: DB and DC Strategic risksrisks
• Mature DB plans: – Is cost volatility affecting your core
business/shareholder value?– Do your plans push people out the door too
quickly?
• DC plans: are you spending enough today to ensure orderly retirement tomorrow?
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix III: DB and DC Financial Appendix III: DB and DC Financial RisksRisks
• Financial risk is the risk that the expected cost or benefit does not materialize, or proves too variable
• Financial risk very different for DB and DC– DB plans: my employees don’t know what this is
and I’m spending all this money • But, when times are bad, older workers will still retire
– DC plans: I can spend less and the employees appreciate it more
• But, when times are bad, my older workers won’t be able to afford to retire
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix III: DB and DC Hazard RisksAppendix III: DB and DC Hazard Risks
• Hazard risk is the risk of a sudden change in the landscape– Legislation– Litigation
• We haven’t yet seen litigation risk for DC plans (except in egregious circumstances) but we will …
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix IV: ResourcesAppendix IV: Resources
• Andrews, Doug “Extending ERM to Multi-Employer Pension Plans,” 2006 ERM Symposium Monograph – http://www.soa.org/ccm/content/research-publications/library
-publications/monographs/other-monographs/2006-enterprise-risk-management-symposium/
• Chan, Bosco “Pension Plan Life-Cycle Funding Approach ” The Future of Pension Plan Funding and Disclosure Monograph, – http://www.soa.org/ccm/content/research-publications/library
-publications/monographs/the-future-of-pension-plan-funding-and-disclosure-monograph/
• Choquet, Andre “From Pension Risk Management to ERM,” Risk Management July 2006 – http://library.soa.org/library-pdf/RMN0607.pdf– Note this is a reprint of the article that appeared in the CIA
Bulletin
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Appendix IV: ResourcesAppendix IV: Resources
• Murphy, Ray “The Risk of Declining Market Cap with Large Pension Obligations,” Pension Section News September 2006 – http://library.soa.org/library-pdf/PSN0609.pdf
• Financial Economics – Pension finance resources page
http://www.soa.org/ccm/content/areas-of-practice/special-interest-sections/pension/research-thinking-ahead/pension-finance/pension-finance-resources/
– Coming, Autumn 2006 “The Pension Actuary’s Guide to Financial Economics”
• Mailed to SOA Pension Section members.• Also available through SOA bookstore (hard copy)