No return on closing DB plans

The July/August issue of FAJ has an intriguing article looking at empirical evidence of whether freezing DB pension plans would increase company value. Since cost and volatility impact on earnings are the justifications most often referred to for closing DB plans, the default expectation should be that it would. Yet, the authors cannot find any significant evidence of that.

They have been looking at the price reaction in four different event windows of 82 US announcements of frozen / closed DB plans between 2003 to 2007 in various industries. Interestingly, there seems to be a correlation between closure events and the generic business cyclicality of the firm's industry sector. Event firms exhibited stock market underperformance compared to their peers in the years leading up to the event.

Results indicate no systematic empirical evidence for positive abnormal returns associated with DB plan freezes / closes. Separating freezes and plan closures exhibits a small, yet unexpected diversion: Plan freezes generated a negative abnormal return, whereas the (small) sample of closures (for new employees) produced a more pronounced positive return.

In sum, it seems that DB pension plan closures / freezes tend to be short-term, ineffective measure adopted by managements to counter performance pressure.

BIS on the crisis and remedies

"And, in the future, a financial firm that is too big or too interconnected to fail must be too big to exist."

The Bank for International Settlements Annual Report is probably the only one that I read regularly for its content, rather than mine it for data. It contains authoritative interpretation of recent economic and financial developments, and is thus an important source of consensus narrative. This year's report is no exception.

Of particular relevance going forward is its chapter VII, outlining the current thinking about capital requirements by evaluating a Systemic Capital Charge and a Countercyclical Capital Charge. However, these capital charges appear to continue to rely on portfolio theory's (stable?) correlations, which is conceptually flawed, as we now know. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to see that countercyclicality is addressed not with perceptional placebos such as modified accounting standards, but with measures aiming at the economic heart of the matter, namely leverage and the capital base. Last, but not least: if Too Big to Fail were a victim of the crisis, it would have been worth it.

Victims IV: The real crisis

The Economist deserves praise for having featured a special report on the impact of ageing populations in this time of crisis, which overrides longer term requirements with its fiscal profligacy. The majority of industrialised countries were already on an unsustainable fiscal path before the crisis struck. It is difficult to see how government finances will ever be able to return to a trajectory that is stable longer-term.

It goes without saying that the foreseeable instability of public finances has a dramatic impact on capital funded retirement systems. At this juncture, the jury is still out on the prefix of instability, i.e. whether we will see inflation or deflation. Either way, the contradictory demands on the investment strategy of individual funds are anything but trivial and may need to be implemented consistently in very short order once the dust settles. Scenario analysis and preparation is the name of the game. I look forward to a workshop producing a Shell/Oxford-method scenario analysis on Switzerland 2030, to which I have been invited by the federal crisis management education unit.

A busy week of acronyms

Today, influential Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung NZZ has my article on XBRL. Which is perfect timing because of the forthcoming workshop that XBRL CH is organising next Monday. The subject matter of that event is the US SEC's new XBRL regulation, which is applicable for foreign filers as well - so, rather targeted. Back to back, but more generic, is the big XBRL show in Paris, beginning on Tuesday through to Thursday. Interactivity!

Impact of accounting and prudential regulation on pensions

"A long-term view involves short-term risk, whereas a short-sighted strategy involves increased risk over the long term."

EDHEC just released its impressive report Impact of Regulation on the ALM of European Pension Funds. Even though we disagree in some instances, we think this is mandatory reading for anyone in the pensions investment space because it highlights those areas of regulation which will be of increasing consequence for pension funds' investment strategies in the near future, as we have continued to stress over the recent past.

At the core of the report is the development of an asset allocation model in the presence of liability constraints. The solution involves the components cash, risky assets and the liability hedging portfolio. The state of the art model takes inflation and longevity risk management into account as well.

There is not enough space nor time for an in-depth review of this valuable piece. Nevertheless, I would like to mention two issues that have slightly moderated my enthusiasm for the report:

• There seem to be a few at least implicit factual inaccuracies in the parts describing the regulatory environment. The most glaring of which may be the assumption that the EU pensions directive is applicable in Switzerland - it is not.
• Accounting standards seem to be understood to effectively determine investment action. While it is not unheard of that managements structure transactions in such ways as to optimise their reporting, this clearly goes one step too far. We are well aware of the interdependence between perception (qua accounting standards) and (economic) reality, but at least in an academic report, the latter needs to retain some vestige of predominance over the former. Remember: pension funds' long-term time horizon, as accounting standards can and do change.