Denmark’s ATP defends risk parity despite worst loss ever

Denmark’s largest pension fund, the DKK 732.6 billion ($98 billion) ATP, has just posted its worst loss ever, shedding nearly DKK 58 billion ($8.2 billion) mostly in its investment portfolio. Rising interest rates and falling equity markets hit the allocation, impacting investments in government and mortgage bonds and listed equities particularly.

The return-seeking fund, run on a risk-parity basis since 2005, introduced four risk factors in 2016 based on equity, interest rates, inflation and other risk factors – namely illiquid risk factors and an allocation to long/short hedge funds or alternative risk premiums. The strategy has always sold itself on an ability to function well in almost any market environment due to its perfect balance between different asset classes.

Despite the latest results and other investors losing faith  with risk parity, ATP’s CIO Mikkel Svenstrup tells Top1000Funds he is sticking with the approach.

“ATP’s long-term strategy for the investment portfolio is to follow a balanced risk strategy in our four factors,” he says. “That hasn’t changed just because this year the rates factor has underperformed equity. A more traditional 60/40 portfolio would only have done slightly better.”

Svenstrup continues that in today’s stagflationary world, where central banks are fighting inflation by rising rates, none of the three main factors will perform. The largest positive contributions in the recent results came from the holdings of inflation-related instruments.

It means the most important decision lies around whether to increase or reduce the risk level, and during the first six months of 2022,  Svenstrup says ATP reduced the level of risk in the investment portfolio. Levels published at the end of 2021 marked market equity factor at 47 per cent, interest rate factor at 32 per cent, inflation factor at 14 per cent and other factors at 7 per cent.

Sponsored Content

Risk parity experts say that when interest rates are rising, risk parity can open the door to hidden interest rate risk seeping into other factors and upsetting the balance. For example, high interest rates can convert into lower equities. Rising inflation is another source of disruption because of its impact on interest rate risk. In short, the different factors may end up throwing off the same cashflows and stack up the same exposures. It can leave risk parity investors struggling to diversify and reduce risk – or running more risk than they thought they had.

Positives

Svenstrup  stresses that despite the losses, the basic security of ATP’s guaranteed pension is unchanged because of its large hedging programme.  “ATP protects its pension guarantees by hedging the interest rate risk allowing us to ensure that all our members – more than 5 million in Denmark – receive the pensions promised regardless of interest rates rising or falling. ATP will maintain its disciplined approach to risk management as a long-term investor.”

The funded ratio is secure, he continues. “ATP started 2022 with a funding ratio of 120 per cent after paying 4 per cent general bonus to all our members and now the funding ratio has dropped to 117.4 per cent which is in line with the historical levels.”

“No doubt we have had a large loss in the investment portfolio. However, given that the returns the last three years were 44.2 per cent, 23.3 per cent and 35 per cent – a half year return of -36.4 per cent is a poor outcome but not at all inconsistent with our high risk strategies,” he concludes.

Asset Owner:ATP

Leave a Comment

The twin forces rewriting the rules of investing

The twin forces rewriting the rules of investing

Portfolios built for the old world will be severely tested as emerging forces rewrite the rules of investing. The Fiduciary Investors Symposium heard that geopolitical and macroeconomic upheaval, together with the disruption wrought by AI, should force asset owners to rethink the structure and composition of portfolios.

Sort content by

PKA ups the risk; builds out infrastructure

PKA, one of Denmark’s largest pension service providers, is exploring whether to increase its risk budget by 10 per cent to boost returns. Michael Flycht, deputy director of equities and liquid alternatives at PKA, outlines why the fund is achieving this objective via leverage rather than direct exposures, and where it's allocating towards in hedge funds and infrastructure.

NPS raises hedging ratio as Korea’s capital outflows weigh on won

South Korean investors’ pursuit of offshore investments has become a significant source of won weakness and triggered a shift in hedging rules for the $1 trillion National Pension Service. With an overseas asset exposure greater than Korea’s national foreign reserves, NPS’ move demonstrates the scale of impact FX risks can have on portfolios.

Balancing act: How investors can navigate pressure to invest more at home

As pension funds face growing pressure to invest more at home, investors face a balancing act between supporting long-term national interests and their fiduciary duties to beneficiaries. Investors call for policy incentives, not mandates, and transparency, not constraints.

‘AI-washing’ risk grows as tech due diligence on managers lags

The pace of change in AI models poses a significant challenge to the due diligence frameworks employed by asset owners, whose own ability to adapt is being outstripped by the technological advancements they’re being asked to assess.

NY Common joins allocator push on company AI transparency

The $273 billion New York State Common has upped the pressure on portfolio companies to report on how artificial intelligence usage is contributing to layoffs, as AI governance becomes a growing focus in the proxy voting and engagement activities of asset owners.

Chicago Teachers leans into diverse managers; exceeds targets

Chicago Teachers is bullish on allocating to diverse managers, more than doubling its target allocation to more than half of the fund's AUM. Its CIO explains how the strategy adds value through access to differentiated strategies and competitive fee structures.

Previous