Monday, February 20, 2012 8:54:27 AM
Why Does Sun Chemical Outsource Its Pension? Because It’s a Chemical Company.
If there are two overriding trends amongst corporate
pensions, they are investment outsourcing and liability-driven investing (LDI).
Sun Chemical, choosing to focus on its core competency, is doing both.
“Managing the pension is technically a part-time job for
me,” says Jeff Berger, vice president finance and treasurer at New Jersey-based
Sun Chemical. “I have so many other things to do. Yet, the impact and weighty-ness
of the pension situation is so important that sometimes I feel like it’s 100%
of my role.”
Herein lies the most common refrain among corporate pension
managers—and, also, the most common justification for the outsourcing of
pension investment management.
Sun Chemical, like an increasing number of corporations in
America and overseas, has already taken steps to partner with external firms
for investment management of its defined benefit pension plan. For the firm’s
$320 million American plan (which is frozen), Sun Chemical has chosen JP Morgan
Asset Management’s Global Multi-Asset group; for its United Kingdom fund of
approximately the same size and status, it works with Mercer. The company has
been working “for years” to manage both the American and British plans in a
similar light.
Advertisement
“Over the past couple of years, a three-pronged strategy has
emerged that is focused around being more proactive, as opposed to reactive.
Our goal is to get both plans back to fully-funded status, but we found that we
had missed opportunities in the past to shore up the funding when market
conditions were favorable.”
The three-pronged approach consists of first, a de-risking
plan that utilizes pre-arranged triggers through liability-driven investing. As
the funded status gradually improves, the portfolio transitions away from
“riskier growth assets” into liability matching assets. Second, “because
interest rate exposure is really the biggest risk factor inherent in pension
portfolios, we wanted to execute some interest-rate hedging,” Berger says. “Third—and
we are not as far along with this one—we wanted some downside protection.”
“With JP Morgan, they’re the quarterback of the entire
strategy for our American plan,” Berger says, using a decidedly American sports
term to describe the outsourcing relationship—and one that is echoed by other
plans in a similar situation, including the Morgan
Stanley pension fund aiCIO featured
in its November 2011 issue. “We also use a consultant – Bellwether
Consulting—to help us develop and monitor the strategy, in conjunction with our
investment committee. It’s the idea of being proactive, as opposed to reactive,
which drove us to this. We are in an underfunded situation. We need to be better positioned to
lock-in improvements in funded status when they become available.”
It is unsurprising that the third prong—tail-risk
hedging—has caused the most consternation within Sun Chemical. In the trifecta
of LDI, interest-rate hedging, and tail-risk hedging, how to execute the latter
is by far the most contentious industry-wide.
“I can’t entirely sleep well at night because if there is
another capital markets meltdown, we aren’t totally protected against that,”
Berger says. “I’m worried about protecting against a complete meltdown, not a
10% drop. It’s very difficult to accomplish, however. The standard
approaches—buying puts, collar strategies—are very expensive or problematic. We
haven’t really found a solution yet—at least one that is exactly what I’d like
it to be.”
Berger says that the firm is looking potentially at a
“signal-based approach,” as well as considering switching a portion of the
growth segment of the portfolios out of equities into something traditionally
less correlated. This could be “alternatives; commodities, real estate, or
private equity so that you get a less-risky growth portfolio. You could
potentially recapture some of the forgone equity upside with call options,
which are more efficiently priced than puts.” Unlike LDI and interest-rate
hedging, however, the firm is still in the discussion phase with tail-risk, he
says.
“Look,” Berger says, “the lack of resources was the driver
here. We’re the sponsor of pension funds, but we’re a manufacturing company. We
produce specialty chemicals. There is not a lot of internal expertise or
resources for pension management. I am by no means a one-man shop, but there
are not many people focused on the investments side of things within the
company. So, for us, outsourcing and de-risking was the way to go.”
“Ideally, I would like (managing the pension) to be a small minority
portion of my job,” Berger concludes. “Now that we thought through the
long-term scenarios and chosen our partners—I don’t want to use the word
autopilot, as it requires constant diligence, but it certainly is easier. Will
the pension ever become 10% of my job? I’m not sure. But it won’t be 100%.”