Our services in the selected country:
  • No services available for your region.
Select Country:
Remember my selection
Your browser is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites

November 2017 | Pension Solutions

Utility Pensions: What's Past is Prologue

EMAIL THIS

Note: Separate multiple email address with a comma or semicolon.

SEND
Send me a copy

EMAIL THIS

Note: Separate multiple email address with a comma or semicolon.

Your Name:

Your Email Address:

OPEN EMAIL TO SEND
Send me a copy

As US pension plans move towards de-risking through liability driven investing, utility pension plans continue to fall behind. This is due, in part, to regulators that allow recovery of losses through a rate setting mechanism which, in turn, drives unnecessary allocation to equities and passes on investment losses to ratepayers. In this report, we provide key findings and recommendations based on a comprehensive analysis we performed on the financial statements of 47 publicly traded utilities from fiscal year-end 2007 to 2016.1   By examining this past, Utilities can write a new prologue of prudent risk reduction for their pensions.

  • Defined benefit (“DB”) pension exposure for the utilities industry is material. The 47 utilities we analyzed have a combined Pension Benefit Obligation2  of approximately $173 billion, equal to 25% of the industry’s aggregate market capitalization. Utility DB pension liabilities are only 83% funded, equal to a dollar deficit of $29 billion, despite contributions in excess of $41 billion since 2008 (Exhibit 1).3
  • In an effort to close the pension funding deficit, utility DB plans continue to maintain significant risk exposure to equities and unhedged interest rate risk. Based on our analysis, utilities' average equity allocation is 46%, much larger than the 35% average equity allocation for companies in the S&P 500 with DB pension plans. Utilities also maintain a smaller allocation to fixed income (40% versus 44% for the S&P 500 company plans).
  • These risks are no longer desirable. Changing pension legislation has increased the penalties associated with both plan surpluses and deficits. Many DB plans have also reduced their expected return on assets. These factors have contributed to a broad de-risking trend among US DB plans. Utilities have lagged this trend, largely due to regulatory concerns about the potential impact on ratepayers.
  • With the support of state regulators, we recommend that utility DB plans implement a fund and de-risk program to pass on lower and more stable costs to ratepayers, secure DB plans, and improve the industry’s financial health.

EXHIBIT 1: DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION EXPOSURE IS A MATERIAL RISK FOR UTILITIES

Utility DB assets and liabilities (left) and funded status levels (right)

Utility-Pension-Study_Exhibit1

Source: GSAM, Bloomberg and 10-K (2007-2016).

Learn more about Goldman Sachs Asset Management's Pension Solutions.


MORE INSIGHTS

October 2017 | Pension Solutions
FASB Pension Change: Nudging Sponsors Towards Additional De-Risking?

Earlier this year, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB or Board) issued a new rule regarding how plan sponsors present net periodic benefit cost in their income statements. In this piece, we discuss the key changes and potential investment implications.

July 2017 | Pension Solutions
Corporate Defined Benefit Mid-Year Update

Michael Moran, Chief Pension Strategist at GSAM, discusses some of the frequently asked questions we have received on the impact of the US corporate tax reform on corporate defined benefit ("DB") plans.

March 27, 2017 | Pension Solutions
2016 Pension Review "First Take"

Listen to Michael Moran, CFA, Senior Pension Strategist, GSAM, as he provides insights on key pension trends from our 15th annual Pension Review First Take.

Contact Us

For More Information
Online Request