Key Takeaways
- • Corporate pensions with funded status of 110–115% can modestly increase equity allocations without compromising full-funding targets, according to Rick Ratkowski, director of investment strategies at $483 billion NISA Investment Advisors.
- • Pension plans have substantially de-risked over the past 25 years, moving from pre-Global Financial Crisis allocations of roughly 70% equities and 30% bonds to more conservative positioning, creating capacity to rebalance toward return-seeking assets.
- • Plans with funded-status volatility maintained around 5–6% could withstand a two-standard-deviation market move and remain fully funded even with increased equity exposure.
- • Elevated long-term interest rates allow sponsors to increase liability hedges simultaneously without reducing equity positions, providing a dual-pronged de-risking and return-enhancement strategy.
- • Pension sponsors considering plan reopenings need not replicate original structures; alternative vehicles such as cash-balance arrangements offer flexibility in redesigning retirement obligations.
Summary
Corporate pension plans have emerged from the 2008 financial crisis in materially stronger financial condition, prompting investment strategists to reassess asset allocation frameworks. As funded status has improved markedly—with most plans now positioned well above pre-crisis levels—and liability management has tightened through higher hedge ratios and reduced pension obligations relative to sponsoring company size, a consensus is forming that some of these plans possess sufficient capital cushion to reintroduce return-seeking assets, particularly equities.
Rick Ratkowski of NISA Investment Advisors contends that plans maintaining funded status between 110% and 115% can prudently tolerate modest increases in equity exposure without jeopardizing full-funding status. The key constraint is maintaining funded-status volatility within a 5–6% band. Under this discipline, even a two-standard-deviation adverse market movement would leave such plans fully funded. This analysis reflects the substantial de-risking that has occurred over the past quarter-century; prior to the Global Financial Crisis, typical corporate pension allocations consisted of approximately 70% equities and 30% bonds, whereas current allocations are considerably more conservative.
The current interest-rate environment provides an additional tactical advantage. With long-term rates elevated, sponsors can strengthen liability hedges—typically through increased fixed-income duration exposure—without simultaneously reducing equity allocations. This dual approach allows plans to enhance downside protection while maintaining or increasing upside participation.
For sponsors evaluating plan reopenings, Ratkowski emphasizes that such decisions need not be constrained by historical plan designs. Alternative structures, such as cash-balance arrangements, offer sponsors flexibility in redesigning pension obligations while maintaining plan continuation. This optionality underscores a broader shift in pension governance: well-funded plans increasingly have the financial latitude to optimize their overall retirement liability strategy, not merely manage within existing parameters.
Rick Ratkowski of NISA Investment Advisors contends that plans maintaining funded status between 110% and 115% can prudently tolerate modest increases in equity exposure without jeopardizing full-funding status. The key constraint is maintaining funded-status volatility within a 5–6% band. Under this discipline, even a two-standard-deviation adverse market movement would leave such plans fully funded. This analysis reflects the substantial de-risking that has occurred over the past quarter-century; prior to the Global Financial Crisis, typical corporate pension allocations consisted of approximately 70% equities and 30% bonds, whereas current allocations are considerably more conservative.
The current interest-rate environment provides an additional tactical advantage. With long-term rates elevated, sponsors can strengthen liability hedges—typically through increased fixed-income duration exposure—without simultaneously reducing equity allocations. This dual approach allows plans to enhance downside protection while maintaining or increasing upside participation.
For sponsors evaluating plan reopenings, Ratkowski emphasizes that such decisions need not be constrained by historical plan designs. Alternative structures, such as cash-balance arrangements, offer sponsors flexibility in redesigning pension obligations while maintaining plan continuation. This optionality underscores a broader shift in pension governance: well-funded plans increasingly have the financial latitude to optimize their overall retirement liability strategy, not merely manage within existing parameters.
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.