Key Takeaways
- • Pension funds across 34 OECD countries maintain an average illiquid assets allocation of 15%, with the seven largest pension markets (Australia, Canada, Japan, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, USA) increasing allocations from 4% in 1997 to 25% in 2017, reflecting a structural shift in portfolio strategy.
- • Defined benefit pension funds invest in illiquid asset classes—including real estate, mortgages, private equity, hedge funds, and infrastructure—primarily for liquidity premiums, portfolio diversification, and liability hedging benefits.
- • Liquidity and capital constraints materially influence pension fund allocation decisions to illiquid assets, with regulatory requirements and funding ratios representing key determinants of investment policy that have received limited academic attention until recent research.
- • Pension funds' extended investment horizons position them as natural investors in illiquid asset classes, enabling them to capture return premiums and diversification benefits unavailable to shorter-duration investors.
Summary
Pension funds have substantially increased their exposure to illiquid asset classes over the past two decades, reflecting both demographic trends and evolving asset allocation strategies. According to data from the OECD and Willis Towers Watson Global Pension Asset Study, the seven largest pension markets globally—representing Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—have grown their average illiquid assets allocation from 4% in 1997 to 25% in 2017. Across a broader universe of 34 OECD countries, the average illiquid assets allocation stands at 15%, indicating that this shift toward alternative assets is neither anomalous nor concentrated among outlier funds.
The primary driver of this reallocation stems from structural advantages that illiquid assets offer to pension funds with long-dated liabilities. Defined benefit pension funds pursue illiquid asset investments for three distinct rationales: liquidity premiums (the additional return available for bearing illiquidity risk), portfolio diversification benefits that reduce overall portfolio volatility, and liability hedging—the ability to match long-duration liabilities with long-duration asset cash flows. Illiquid asset classes encompass real estate, mortgages, private equity, hedge funds, and infrastructure investments, each offering different risk-return profiles and correlation characteristics relative to traditional equity and fixed-income holdings.
Recent academic research has begun systematically examining how regulatory constraints shape pension fund allocation decisions to illiquid assets. While prior literature has extensively studied pension fund risk-taking behavior as a choice between risk-free assets (government bonds) and risky assets (equities), limited scholarly attention had been directed toward understanding the determinants of illiquid asset allocation specifically. Empirical assessment of liquidity constraints and capital requirements reveals that regulatory and funding conditions materially influence the strategic allocation decisions of defined benefit pension funds, suggesting that policy frameworks play a more consequential role in shaping asset allocation than previously documented. This research addresses a critical gap in understanding pension fund investment behavior, particularly as regulatory environments and capital adequacy standards continue to evolve globally.
The primary driver of this reallocation stems from structural advantages that illiquid assets offer to pension funds with long-dated liabilities. Defined benefit pension funds pursue illiquid asset investments for three distinct rationales: liquidity premiums (the additional return available for bearing illiquidity risk), portfolio diversification benefits that reduce overall portfolio volatility, and liability hedging—the ability to match long-duration liabilities with long-duration asset cash flows. Illiquid asset classes encompass real estate, mortgages, private equity, hedge funds, and infrastructure investments, each offering different risk-return profiles and correlation characteristics relative to traditional equity and fixed-income holdings.
Recent academic research has begun systematically examining how regulatory constraints shape pension fund allocation decisions to illiquid assets. While prior literature has extensively studied pension fund risk-taking behavior as a choice between risk-free assets (government bonds) and risky assets (equities), limited scholarly attention had been directed toward understanding the determinants of illiquid asset allocation specifically. Empirical assessment of liquidity constraints and capital requirements reveals that regulatory and funding conditions materially influence the strategic allocation decisions of defined benefit pension funds, suggesting that policy frameworks play a more consequential role in shaping asset allocation than previously documented. This research addresses a critical gap in understanding pension fund investment behavior, particularly as regulatory environments and capital adequacy standards continue to evolve globally.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.