CDI vs. LDI?

Wilshire has a fairly interesting white paper out with the title Commitment-Driven Investing (CDI): LDI as We 'C' It. The paper's rather semantic focus on commitment rather than liability is probably a consequence of its US accounting context, so we are not going to hold that against it. The thrust is certainly correct, namely that CDI, i.e. the Wilshire variety of LDI is aimed at managing the true economic funding ratio of pension plans and is therefore inherently a risk management technique. 

Confusing at best however is the frequent reference to two equally important (but partially conflicting) goals of CDI, whereas the only correct objective (from the sponsor's perspective) must be to minimise the cost of running the plan at a given level of benefit security. Also, the authors seem to be struggling - quite fashionably, one might add - with the rationale behind marking-to-market of pension liabilities. The impending revision of IAS 19 will deal with that issue.

Their conceptual conclusion, nevertheless, is an intriguing one: The commitment discount rate is set to be a random variable described by the expected inflation characteristics of the individual plan's benefit stream. This is where the authors can start their optimisation engines, hopefully without being blinded by the light of past correlation stability. 

While we feel more comfortable with the more comprehensive approach recently proposed by Waring & Siegel, the authors deserve a prize for originality as this paper is the first that I know of to include the complete lyrics of a Springsteen song.

Pensions directive to be revised 2008

In its annual report, CEIOPS gives an overview (p. 47f) of its past & current activities. Its Occupational Pensions Committee (OPC) is working on putting together materials for the revision of the Pensions Directive that is scheduled by the Commission for next year. Areas of material legal uncertainty to be clarified are concepts such as fully funded, ring-fencing or the calculation of technical provisions.

The chocolate connection

Last Tuesday saw an interesting convention on the shores of lake Geneva at the sumptuous estate of Baron Rothschild and his company. The topic of the well attended conference was pan-European pensions in general and the Belgian incarnation thereof in particular. The list of speakers could not have been of higher calibre: The Prime Minister together with two cabinet ministers and high level representatives of the EU Commission and the Belgian pensions supervisor. Their objective was to introduce the Belgian legal framework for the newly created legal entity Organisation for Financing Pensions (OFP). They did this quite effectively, albeit on the only neutral territory in Europe where the Pensions Directive is not applicable.

The OFP seems to be a highly attractive entity to provide pan-European pensions with. It operates on zero (income, capital, VAT) tax, it can provide solidarity across several pension plans (which is attractive for efficient capital allocation), it reflects no other restrictions on asset management than the Directive's prudent person principle, it may rely on Belgium's extensive network of double taxation treaties, it takes advantages of Belgium's recent transition to EET, it is not encumbered by a Pensions Protection Fund levy and last, but by no means least, the valuation of its liabilities may be based on a discount rate that incorporates expected returns, thus may go as high as 6%. A word of caution may be in order here, though: It is not clear whether the long term consensus expected return used to derive that attractive discount rate takes into consideration recent literature on the proper calculation of expected rates of return.

Jean-Pierre Steiner of Nestlé Capital Advisers shed some cold water on participants' hopes that pan-European pension plans might fully replace local plans in the near future. In his view, this is an ambitious long-term objective reaching beyond his active lifetime. Nevertheless, he put Nestlé's considerable weight behind the support of Belgium as the currently most attractive location for pan-European pension funds.

Also of interest was Mr Van Hulle, the EU Commission's representative's comment that he wasn't opposed to supervisory shopping, which is of course tantamount to regulatory shopping - something that tends to be frowned upon elsewhere. Equally interesting to Swiss listeners was Mr Wymeersch's note that Belgian first pillar institutions may be falling under the Directive, which seems to be in direct contradiction to the Directive's scope and is of particular interest to Liechtenstein as well.

Funding requirements across EU15

IPE refers us to a new comparative study of the minimum technical provisions for DB pensions in the EU by GCactuaries. The paper's title is somewhat misleading as it only covers the EU15 at this point, even though it purports to be up to date, in fact looking into the future (31 December 2006 according to section 2). More likely though is that the results rely entirely on the pre-Directive transposition scenario of 31 December 2005. The study does explicitly not cover demographic assumptions.

It finds a very wide variation between countries in the methods and assumptions for assessing minimum technical provisions, and it expects that subsequent to the transposition in particular of Art. 15 of the Directive, there will be significant changes in the way discount rates and other assumptions are determined, especially where discount rates are not set with consideration to market rates, as is the case in the majority of countries.