Brightwell ponders implications of shake up in UK pension scheme surpluses

Up until very recently, ‘DB pension schemes’ and ‘surplus’ were not phrases often heard in the same sentence, says Morten Nilsson, chief executive of investment manager Brightwell which manages the assets of the £47 billion British Telecom Pension Scheme, BTPS, one of the largest private sector defined benefit schemes in the UK

But thanks to rising interest rates making it cheaper for these schemes to meet the costs of their pension obligations, recent figures from The Pensions Regulator (TPR) reveal that out of around 5,000 defined benefit (DB) schemes in the UK, over 3,750 are now in surplus on a low dependency basis with a further 950 schemes approaching surplus.

Writing in a recent posting on Brightwell’s website, Nilsson calls the aggregate surplus totals of £250 billion, roughly 17 per cent of total DB assets, “staggering.”

“With such eye watering figures, it’s not surprising that the government is consulting with the industry on how to put this money to use. HMRC analysis shows that just £180 million in surplus has been successfully extracted between March 2018 and March 2023. This is largely because most schemes are unable to access surplus except at ‘wind up’.”

During wind-up, employers offload their pension schemes to insurers who promise to pay employees’ retirement payments at a fixed level under so-called bulk annuity arrangements.

As schemes seek to complete a transaction with an insurer, they typically move out of riskier assets such as equities and into bonds.

Sponsored Content

But he believes the rationale of such large value transfers of returns and surplus from a pension scheme to an insurance company, when pension funds could stay in control, benefiting their sponsor, is under more scrutiny. “Many schemes are questioning whether buy-out is in fact the ‘gold standard’ or whether they risk ‘selling the family silver.’”

Nilsson continues that buyouts mean pension funds are taking money away from sponsors that could otherwise be invested in the UK economy – or wherever they operate. The new laws could allow pension funds to share the surplus subject to the “appropriate funding levels,” encouraging schemes to “invest for surplus in productive asset allocations.”

Still, barriers to any change of mindset are high, some of which are outlined in research by Mallowstreet which gathered analysis from 27 pension schemes with over £1 billion AUM. Like the fact surplus generation is not an objective for trustee boards. Schemes argue they are run to meet the promised benefits to members and protect their outcomes, not to increase the return to the sponsor.

Another challenge lies in the fact a surplus can swiftly change to deficit. Schemes could find themselves paying out surplus one year, and being underfunded the next.

“Scheme funding is only ever a snapshot in time and the recent volatility shows that some unhedged schemes can easily swing from deficit to surplus in a relatively short period of time,” he warns.

Moreover, the fact the majority of UK DB schemes are closed and mature means few want to introduce greater investment risk. They are largely adopting a cash flow matching strategy that reduces dependency on their sponsors and the DB funding regime has historically encouraged schemes to de-risk and focus on cashflow matching as they mature.

Nilsson concludes that if the government wants to increase pension scheme’s investment in “productive assets,” changing the rules around surplus is unlikely to make a difference. But he says providing more flexibility around surplus intuitively feels like a good thing.

Using the surplus to enhance DB or DC benefits, or as a volatility buffer, could be attractive. Making it easier for surplus to be returned to sponsors may be helpful in giving them greater comfort on avoiding risks of overfunding. It could also allow greater investment in their own business priorities – productive finance in a more direct way. From the trustee perspective, it could provide the ability to make discretionary one-off payments to members.

Leave a Comment

Why NYC pensions CIO hasn’t drunk the ‘TPA Kool-Aid’

Why NYC pensions CIO hasn’t drunk the ‘TPA Kool-Aid’

Three decades of investing have given Monte Tarbox sharp eyes for recognising risk and opportunities, and he’s putting it to use as the new permanent chief investment officer of the $306 billion NYC Bureau of Asset Management. In an interview with Top1000funds.com, Tarbox outlines his vision for the fund, why he’s bullish on infrastructure but “nervous” on PE, and why he hasn’t drunk the TPA “Kool-Aid”.

Sort content by

Asset owners adapt and respond to COVID

The Responsible Asset Allocator Initiative finds that 25 leading public pension and sovereign wealth funds, with assets of $6 trillion, are investing tens of billions of dollars in COVID-19 solutions and in funds to support stricken companies. Here they look at what the leading asset allocators around the world are doing to respond to the pandemic.

NY Common’s sustainability integration

Andrew Siwo is the first director of sustainable investments and climate solutions at the $200 billion New York State Common Retirement Fund (CRF). Here he talks about the fund’s approach to ESG integration.

Investors continue to align with SDGs

Five years on since the SDGs were launched, an increasing number of investors are putting capital to work to earn returns alongside helping solve global scourges like the climate crisis, poverty and inequality. Sarah Rundell looks at New York Common Fund and Denmark's PKA among others.

IMCO uses nimbleness to advantage

Meticulous planning for the next market crash, and an eye on liquidity, meant IMCO was well positioned to invest, particularly in credit, when the opportunity arose. The fund continues to use its agility to its advantage and is now looking for opportunities in private markets.

A more thoughtful private equity model

Responsible investors need to take into account how fund management and investment structures may be exacerbating wealth and income disparities, as well as systemic market risk. Raphaele Chappe and Delilah Rothenberg from the Predistribution Initiative have some suggestions for how PE could be adjusted in this regard and how building back better post-COVID-19 requires a more thoughtful model.

AP4’s future: nimble and low cost

The Swedish buffer fund AP4’s high allocation to equities has meant its record annual return in 2019 has come tumbling down to a first half result of -2.5 per cent. But its very low cost and nimble nature positions it well for the future.

Previous