Dawid Konotey- Ahulu , one of the architects of LDI comments in today’s FT about last week’s events
“UK defined-benefit plans existed in a state of uncertainty . . . [they] simply didn’t know whether they had sufficient assets to pay the pensions of all their members as they fell due”
In this article , Con Keating and Iain Clacher question how such a state of affairs could have happened.
Systemic problems are not managed with a microscope.
An article in Friday’s Financial Times, entitled “UK watchdogs hold crisis talks to avert gilts cliff-edge”, informed us that “Pension sector regulators [are] concerned about end of BoE support”. The entire article should be read. It reports, albeit sourced from an unnamed ‘former policy maker’, that
“One option might be for the BoE to formalise its gilt-buying operation into a permanent facility that could be triggered in similar circumstances, without the need for emergency intervention or the backstop of taxpayer funds, a former policymaker said.”
This is an appalling idea. No matter how it is structured, such a facility could only impair the price mechanism of the most important (free) market in the UK financial system – permanently It would raise the cost of finance to the Treasury. It would also hold the prospect of deleterious ‘spill-over’ effects on many other important financial sectors, such as insurance and banking, which would also ripple through into the corporate sector via higher costs, all of which would be inflationary in anything but a benign environment.
For many years, we have written on the potential problems arising from UK DB pension funds employing the strategy known as ‘Liability Driven Investment’ (LDI). We wrote about this in early June of this year. Since this crisis emerged, we have published, on several websites, a blog (An Anatomy of a Crisis), which examines the root causes of the market instability we have been experiencing in recent days.
It is true that the market reaction to fiscal policy and political developments provided the trigger for this bout of turmoil; that was an exogenous shock and would, in the absence of an endogenous unstable arrangement (LDI) within the pensions system, have produced no more than a simple fall in prices, and markets would have continued functioning in a relatively smooth way.
The problem is the endogenous feedback loop operating within the gilt market arising from the investment strategies employed by many pension schemes. This strategy, known variously as LDI or ‘de-risking’, is mistakenly described as such and believed to be a sound risk management strategy for pension funds. In fact, it is no such thing; it actually introduces an interest rate risk into these funds where no interest rate risk exists – pension liabilities are a function of the extent of the pension promise, future price and wage inflation, and life expectancy.
Over the past decade and more, the Pensions Regulator (TPR) has zealously promoted the use of these strategies by pension funds. To quote a senior pension scheme trustee, the extensive use by schemes came about
“…because TPR was actively telling schemes to use leverage, which, along with threats to Trustees about their independence and suitability if they did not, created an unenviable place for Trustees.”
There is a natural experiment which indicates that the Pensions Regulator has, unfortunately, been very successful in ensuring the widespread embedding of LDI strategies in UK Defined Benefit pensions (and the associated value destruction on a grand scale). In the UK, there are two classes of defined benefit (DB) pension schemes which are functionally identical: private sector DB and local authority DB. Only the DB pension schemes in the private sector are regulated by the Pensions Regulator, those in local authorities are not. LDI is used extensively within the private sector – £1.5 trillion by some estimates. It is not used by local authorities. They follow investment strategies which seek to maximise returns consistent with their risk tolerance. Interestingly, they have far higher allocations to untraded, illiquid private investments, such as infrastructure, than the private sector does – and that of course has been an objective of government for a very long time.
In our blog, ‘An Anatomy of a Crisis’ we indicate that these strategies may in fact be ‘ultra vires’ for scheme trustees. We also point out that the transposition of a restriction on the use of derivatives from European law to UK law is incorrect. Under IORP Directive I Directive Article 18 (now the IORP II Directive Article 19) pension funds can only use derivatives for investment purposes, for example, hedging exchange rate risk on foreign listed stocks, but not for hedging discount rates used for valuing the current amount of future pension payments. It is instructive to quote the exact wording from what is now Article 19(1)(e):
“investment in derivative instruments shall be possible insofar as such instruments contribute to a reduction in investment risks or facilitate efficient portfolio management. They must be valued on a prudent basis, taking into account the underlying asset, and included in the valuation of an IORP’s assets. IORPs shall also avoid excessive risk exposure to a single counterparty and to other derivative operations;”
We also point out that by not understanding the restriction (or its purpose) and where it came from, we have a Pensions Regulator who does not understand what it is regulating (and promoting) despite having commissioned a survey in December 2019 entitled “DB Pension Scheme Leverage and Liquidity Survey” – here showing extensive repo and derivatives exposure.
Table 18.104.22.168 of this survey records £64.64 billion of gilts funded by repos. The survey reports total notional exposure of leveraged instruments as £498.5 billion and total assets for the sample of £697 billion.
There are also related issues with corporate accounting and scheme regulatory financial reporting which contribute to the use of these techniques.
The solution to the endogenous problem of LDI does not lie with interventions in the gilt market. It lies in correcting the comprehension and behaviour of the Pensions Regulator, who has clearly not taken a macro prudential view of the pensions system and the risks that were being embedded, and in the elimination of these strategies from defined benefit schemes’ management techniques. Systemic problems are not managed with a microscope.
Con – well done for having the foresight and now the bravery to call this out. I know this may come at a cost.
I love your use of the “natural experiment” – hopefully (for all our sakes) the LGPS schemes have avoided the easy alchemic route of LDI / synthetic gilts and – and it gives no one any joy in saying this – but at least it is only the plethora of private schemes that were dragged, lemming like, to the edge by under TPR dogma.
It will be interesting as ever watching the TPR press-machine in overdrive, trying to pitch the blame on Trustees (never their advisers) for not retaining liquidity and resilience.
How can it be in such an excessively regulated sector, that so so many DB schemes have led us to position of systemic failure? Either TPR was blind to what was happening, or, could it be that they were complicit in coercing Trustees and advisers into a one size fits all approach, without apparent due care or consideration for the potential for ruin to be wrought upon the economy at large? Treasury is equally culpable (well, no, not quite – this falls squarely off the shoulders of the ‘regulator’) for not having oversight of an unelected quango that had the capability to influence the investment allocations (although of course, synthetic gilts are not an investment) of c£3tn of the nation’s valuable investment capital.
The solution is not for BoE to bail out TPR, or to obfuscate its own failings in this. TPR should instead turn its focus to managing the PPF, which is well placed and is the right body to support those schemes affected through this turmoil, and the Schemes would be unshackled from the dogma so releasing that £3trn of investment and growth potential that we all need to pay the pensions. The juxtaposition of a Govt set on growth set against an unelected regulator advocating a directly opposing strategy of “de-risking”, will only entrench the problem. Currently such a huge store of potential wealth targeting very low (and in many case negative) returns, it’s no wonder we are shackled with such low productivity, when aspirations were being set so low. “
Pingback: In the eye of the storm | AgeWage: Making your money work as hard as you do
Pingback: Holding to Account: Analysis and Resolution of a Crisis . (Keating and Clacher) | AgeWage: Making your money work as hard as you do