So there is a place for illiquid asset classes in DC?
I think there is a realisation among pension schemes that illiquid assets do have a place, both in DB and in DC portfolios. Illiquid assets deliver higher yields and the potential for higher returns. DC funds are increasingly looking at such assets as real estate for greater yield and to benefit from greater diversification benefits.
Then there’s the cost versus value argument in DC. Do you think the cost of DC strategies such as diversified growth funds (DGFs) needs to come down?
Well the other key finding from our report was that cost is an important element but value is even more important. DGFs obviously involve more intensive work because you have more moving parts to the fund, so that is always going to be more expensive to run than a passive gilt part of the portfolio, for example. DC default funds are blending more costly DGF strategies with cheaper passive government bond strategies so that the overall cost remains reasonable but that the return potential is not compromised. The focus, I think, is more on the outcome rather than price. In the study, for example, one DC fund went from a cost base of 33bps to 76bps because it felt that the more expensive investment strategy would actually be more beneficial to members in retirement.
Comments