Banks start tapping pensions for liquidity
It would appear  to be a marriage made in heaven. On one side there are the banks, which  – in the wake of the credit crisis – are desperate to secure ready  access to liquidity. On the other side are pension schemes, which hold  plenty of liquid securities on which they are earning meagre returns  because interest rates are so low.
     The idea of pension savings being used to  fund investment banking deals and corporate transactions may raise  eyebrows in some corners. But so-called “collateral upgrade  transactions” – whereby schemes lend government bonds to banks for a  fixed period – allow pension funds worried about their long-term  solvency to put money away for a rainy day by boosting returns from  their assets.
Dawid Konotey-Ahulu, co-chief executive of consultant Redington,  said: “Cash is the lifeblood of any bank, and the current shortfall is  providing pension schemes with an opportunity to use their capital to  step into the breach.”
Pension schemes are also accessing the repo  market by selling government securities that they agree to buy back in  the future. They use the cash they raise to hedge liabilities or gear up  by increasing their bond exposures. 
They are lending cash to companies directly. A  corporate loan fund set up by M&G Investments nearly two years ago  has a capacity of £1.6bn and has so far lent out £430m, following a slow  start. An M&G spokesman confirmed increased interest in floating  rate corporate loan funds as a result of fears that higher inflation  would lead to higher interest rates. 
Consultant Cardano  has come across opportunities to provide short-term funding for real  estate and mining companies that can earn double-digit yields. Often  this involves approaching companies directly. Last week, the UK’s  Federation of Small Businesses confirmed that its members were weary of  bank spreads and keen to look elsewhere for funds. Chris DeMarco of  consultant Aon Hewitt agreed many schemes have robust cashflows. He  said: “Liquidity is an asset that can be used by pension schemes to  maximise returns.” 
Both DeMarco and Konotey-Ahulu have advised  schemes on collateral upgrade transactions. It works by banks borrowing  government bonds from pension schemes and putting up illiquid bonds of  equal value as collateral. They need to add margin if the collateral  falls in value. The bank would still gain the income earned on the  illiquid bond. The pension scheme would get the yield on its bonds and  earn a fee, which ranges between 35 and 85 basis points: the riskier the  collateral the higher the spread. If pension schemes agree to hold  risky residential mortgages as collateral they can earn 150 basis  points.
Through the swap, banks temporarily get  illiquid, risky assets – for which they may have to set aside capital –  off their books. By ‘parking’ assets they would hope to benefit from a  subsequent ire in the value. In return, the banks get sovereign bonds  that can be used to fund loans.
Consultants say there are a growing number of  insurers and large European pension schemes that are interested in these  deals. Konotey-Ahulu believes the business is already worth “several  hundred million pounds”. According to DeMarco, one upgrade consisted of a  bank offering a pool of loans with export credit guarantees attached.  The loans were good quality, but could not easily be sold under the  terms of the guarantee. A swap was soon arranged.
A less attractive transaction involved a  mortgage using a securitisation of its residential loans as collateral  for a swap. According to DeMarco: “A spread of 150 basis points was on  offer, but it was unattractive. For one thing, it was complex deal. For  another, there was too much correlation between the mortgages being  swapped and their originator.”
Collateral upgrade transactions expose pension  funds to additional counterparty risk. One pension scheme manager said  he was reluctant to participate, for fear of a bank defaulting. He  added: “Nor am I convinced it is easy to get transparency on pricing out  of the banks.” One bank trader said: “You are typically working off a  market price, so that would not be a problem.”
But DeMarco argues that illiquid bonds do not  necessarily have a reliable price: “After Lehman went bust, the lid was  lifted on the value of collateral used in catastrophe bond transactions.  They bore no relationship with reality whatsoever.
“You need to satisfy yourself that the price  being put on an illiquid security is based on open market transactions,  or is independently verified. The last thing you want is banks  optimising prices.” 
Phil Page, client manager with Cardano,  said: “The trouble with collateral upgrade swaps is they have been  dreamed up by banks to solve their problems, rather than for the benefit  of pension schemes.” He argued schemes could fare better by seeking  opportunities to negotiate short-term finance with companies. 
Andrew Connell, head of liability investment at Schroders,  said banks had started to market a range of transactions. He added:  “It’s always worth looking at new opportunities, although you would need  to go into any transaction with your eyes wide open.”
Towers Watson consultant Alasdair MacDonald  was more positive: “The devil is in the detail. Only the most  sophisticated schemes will be able to assess the risks. But these  funding trades can be interesting. Schemes already have an exposure to  bank default risk through 40% of their European corporate bond  portfolio, and you can argue that similar risks in these deals are safer  because they are backed by collateral.”
Name - Rakesh prasad
PGDM 2nd
This entry was posted on at 1:51 AM. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can