Institutional policy starts with the liability and sponsor

Learning goals

• Compare institutional objectives, governance and constraints.
• Assess pensions, endowments, sovereign funds, banks and insurers in context.

Draft · approximately 90 minutes, excluding further revision.

Decision case · fictional facts

A fictional defined-benefit plan has assets 90 million and liabilities 100 million. Its sponsor is cyclical and employs a maturing workforce. The plan holds substantial sponsor-sector equity. A separate university endowment targets 4% real spending, while a bank holds assets against short-term deposits. The committee must avoid applying one return target to all three.

Mandates are shaped by stakeholders and obligations

Institutional investors often have large scale, formal delegation and long horizons, yet liquidity and regulation can be immediate. Pension beneficiaries, sponsors, trustees, donors, policyholders, depositors and the public have different claims. An IPS should connect objectives, risk capacity, eligible assets, liquidity, legal/tax rules and reporting authority. Verify jurisdiction-specific requirements rather than inventing a universal rule.

A DB plan’s capacity depends on funding, sponsor strength, workforce, plan design and the correlation between sponsor business and investments. An underfunded weak sponsor should not assume risk capacity rises merely because a higher return would help. Mature plans face near-term payments; favorable accounting smoothing does not remove economic risk.

Different balance sheets need different policies

Endowments and foundations link spending and purchasing-power preservation, donor restrictions and fundraising uncertainty. Sovereign funds can stabilize fiscal revenue, save for generations or fund development, requiring explicit separation of purposes. Concentration in the domestic revenue source may reduce diversification exactly when withdrawals rise.

Banks and insurers manage assets with funding/liability duration, liquidity, credit and capital requirements. Deposit outflows and claims require cash even when a long-run asset forecast is attractive. Evaluate the enterprise balance sheet and stress interactions rather than maximizing isolated portfolio return.

Evaluate institutions through legal and economic balance sheets

Identify each institution’s beneficiaries, sponsor, liability timing and liquidity. A mature DB pension can face payments as sponsor contributions weaken; an endowment may have perpetual real spending but donor restrictions; a sovereign fund can face withdrawals linked to commodity revenue. Regulations, prudence rules, taxes and permitted assets vary by institution and jurisdiction and must be verified rather than assumed uniform.

DB capacity depends on funded ratio, sponsor finances, sponsor–portfolio correlation, benefit design and workforce maturity. A weak underfunded sponsor cannot manufacture capacity by choosing a higher target return. Review the IPS and holdings jointly: concentrated sponsor-sector stock can reduce both asset value and contribution ability in the same downturn.

Banks face deposit outflow, capital and liquidity limits; insurers face claim timing, underwriting and guarantees. Asset duration, quality and currency must match the enterprise funding context. An endowment’s illiquid growth allocation cannot simply be copied to a bank funded by runnable deposits. Stress cash needs and governance before judging isolated portfolio performance.

Manage the funded ratio rather than asset volatility alone

A separate simplified pension stress starts with assets 90 m and liabilities 100 m. Asset modified duration is 5; liability modified duration is 12. Both are measured against the same annual yield change. Approximate the funded ratio after a parallel 50 bp decline, ignoring convexity and cash flows. A proposed contribution of 5 m is available only if the cyclical sponsor remains solvent.

Show why a bond portfolio can post a positive return while the funded position deteriorates. Distinguish the sponsor’s willingness to contribute, its financial capacity and an already enforceable funded payment. Do not put a conditional sponsor contribution in the immediately available liquidity balance.

Model reasoning, sensitivity and self-check

Assets rise approximately 90×5×0.005 = 2.25 m to 92.25 m. Liabilities rise 100×12×0.005 = 6 m to 106 m. Funded ratio becomes 92.25/106 = 87.0283%, below the original 90%; the deficit rises from 10 m to 13.75 m despite positive asset performance.

Initial liability money duration is 1,200 m-years and asset money duration 450 m-years. The first-order gap is 750 m-years. A liability hedge must address this currency sensitivity, not merely set both percentage durations to the same value without checking position sizes. Derivative hedges introduce collateral and basis risks; cash-flow matching or additional contributions may also be evaluated.

Self-check: calculate both sides, reconcile the deficit and mention the unhedged discount-curve and sponsor risks. This is a first-order exercise; benefit inflation, mortality, accounting conventions and non-parallel movements could alter the actual result. A 5 m contribution, if actually received after this shock, would improve the ratio to 97.25/106 = 91.7453%.

Formula and assumptions

Funded ratio=plan assets/liability PV; deficit=liability PV−assets

Errors to catch

• Raising risk solely to close an accounting deficit.
• Applying endowment assumptions to deposit-funded banking.

Write, compare, then self-assess

Your writing stays in this page’s memory and is lost on reload. Export includes self-assessment totals only.

Original knowledge check

Answer every question before checking. Review explanations after submitting; retry starts a new attempt.

Sources and coverage status

These original lessons are drafts. Public outlines are used to check scope; the official learning-outcome text and proprietary question banks are not reproduced here. Follow the source for exam-year requirements and updates.

• Reference · www.cfainstitute.org