The butterfly effect: unearthing the intricate world of DC transitions

by

5 Jun 2014

Transitioning assets in defined contribution (DC) pension structures is an especially complex task. Yet, to date, transition management is a relatively unexplored area for both schemes and their providers. The challenges thrown up by unitisation and greater visibility require meticulous management, but few schemes currently give due consideration to the ability of their existing providers in this regard.

Features

Web Share

Transitioning assets in defined contribution (DC) pension structures is an especially complex task. Yet, to date, transition management is a relatively unexplored area for both schemes and their providers. The challenges thrown up by unitisation and greater visibility require meticulous management, but few schemes currently give due consideration to the ability of their existing providers in this regard.

Visibility means risk

Even with the most meticulous preparation, the risks associated with transitioning in DC are arguably greater than for DB, not least because of the complexity of unitised prices, but also because of the greater visibility to members of any errors or unmanaged risks. “In most cases, any risk or loss resulting from a transition instantly impacts the accounts being viewed by members,” explains Roger Mattingly, director of PAN Trustees and outgoing president of the Society of Pension Consultants.

Where the assets change a lot, out-of-market risk and transaction costs are inevitable without some management.

It is possible to mitigate out-of-market risk in DC transitions with the provision of prefunding, whereby a platform provider or investment manager effectively lends the target manager money to buy the new assets at the same time as the old assets are sold, but before the cash from the sale has settled. This depends on having a platform provider that is willing and able to provide up-front funding to the level required, something that may change as DC schemes grow and the size of any individual exposure increases.

Transaction costs can be managed where re- registration or in-specie transfer is accepted, but this is generally only for simple transitions and where the shape of the assets doesn’t change much. Even then the final costs may not be known until the transition is complete and they are factored into the unitised price.

“Where there is significant re-shaping, transaction costs, which include execution costs and variations in asset prices during the transition period, are harder to avoid,” Aspinall says.

Comments

More Articles

Subscribe

Subscribe to Our Newsletter and Magazine

Sign up to the portfolio institutional newsletter to receive a weekly update with our latest features, interviews, ESG content, opinion, roundtables and event invites. Institutional investors also qualify for a free-of-charge magazine subscription.

×