OTPP - Ontario Teachers Defined Benefit Pension Plan

Preparing for life after work. RRSPs, RRIFs, TFSAs, annuities and meeting future financial and psychological needs.
George$
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2612
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 20:46
Location: Toronto

OTPP - Ontario Teachers Defined Benefit Pension Plan

Post by George$ »

I'm starting this thread as the OTPP 2007 Annual Report just came out.
And the nespapers have picked up on it -
Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan faces $12.7B shortfall

A 'Deficit' or 'Surplus' in a DB plan is all about assumptions about the future. Any DB plan can claim a 'deficit' OR a 'surplus' - either way - depending upon the actuarial and financial assumptions made by that plan.

Good on OTPP for only assuming a 2.95% real rate of return for their future investments (see page 17 in the 2007 annual report).
This is lower and more realistic than any other DB plan I've seen!

In general - I find the OTPP reports more informative than any other DB report I've read - and I find their issues and assumptions discussed in a helpful and transparent manner. They also have a remarkable record for being first in key investment decisions (eg, use of derivatives to circumvent the old 20% Canadian content rule, first to realize that the 4% RRB were a steal, etc )
“The search for truth is more precious than its possession.” Albert Einstein
WynnQuon
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 403
Joined: 04 Oct 2006 15:39
Contact:

Re: OTPP - Ontario Teachers Defined Benefit Pension Plan

Post by WynnQuon »

George$ wrote: Good on OTPP for only assuming a 2.95% real rate of return for their future investments
Even that might be a little aggressive. With an inflation rate of 1.8%, that's a nominal return of 4.75%.

The dividend yield of BCE at their takeover price of ~$42 is around 3.4% nominally.
George$
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2612
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 20:46
Location: Toronto

Re: OTPP - Ontario Teachers Defined Benefit Pension Plan

Post by George$ »

WynnQuon wrote: .. Even that might be a little aggressive. With an inflation rate of 1.8%, that's a nominal return of 4.75%.

The dividend yield of BCE at their takeover price of ~$42 is around 3.4% nominally.
I agree.

On page 16 in the OTPP annual report they write:
Real rate of return assumptions are based on the yield of Government of Canada Real-Return Bonds (plus 0.5% or 1.0%) ....
With the current RRB yield of 1.69% - clearly OTPP are clearly outside their own guidelines. They should be in the range of 2.19% to 2.69%.

It is painful march back to reality for all DB pension plans - and I do think OTPP is doing more than most to face up to it.
“The search for truth is more precious than its possession.” Albert Einstein
DanH
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2174
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 14:25
Contact:

Post by DanH »

IIRC, Teachers' previous target rate of return was 4.0% to 4.5% real. So, they've lowered it as prices have risen. Most others raise return targets are prices rise. :shock:
George$
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2612
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 20:46
Location: Toronto

Post by George$ »

I think OTPP is slowly trying to get its members to realize that a fully indexed plan with a generous rule of 85 is not sustainable with the current contribution rate and low risk future return expectations.

Benefits must be reduced and or contributions increased. Otherwise they are proceeding with an inter-generalational liability transfer of many billions of dollars. I take their low assumption rate to be a sign they don't want to do that.

just my opinion
“The search for truth is more precious than its possession.” Albert Einstein
Nortel'd
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 138
Joined: 29 Oct 2007 11:04
Location: Ontario's black fly country

Re: OTPP - Ontario Teachers Defined Benefit Pension Plan

Post by Nortel'd »

“Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail” Ralph Waldo Emerson
lystgl
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 1642
Joined: 06 Apr 2006 17:44
Location: Alberta

Re: OTPP - Ontario Teachers Defined Benefit Pension Plan

Post by lystgl »

WynnQuon wrote: .. Even that might be a little aggressive. With an inflation rate of 1.8%, that's a nominal return of 4.75%.
Are you sure?
My calc = 4.67?
x-1.8=2.95/1+.018?
Then again, like Dennis Miller used to say, "I could be wrong".
WynnQuon
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 403
Joined: 04 Oct 2006 15:39
Contact:

Re: OTPP - Ontario Teachers Defined Benefit Pension Plan

Post by WynnQuon »

lystgl wrote:
WynnQuon wrote: .. Even that might be a little aggressive. With an inflation rate of 1.8%, that's a nominal return of 4.75%.
Are you sure?
My calc = 4.67?
x-1.8=2.95/1+.018?
Then again, like Dennis Miller used to say, "I could be wrong".
I could be wrong too!

But isn't nominal rate = real rate + inflation rate
i.e. real-rate = nominal rate - inflation rate.

(no need to apply a discounting factor)
lystgl
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 1642
Joined: 06 Apr 2006 17:44
Location: Alberta

Re: OTPP - Ontario Teachers Defined Benefit Pension Plan

Post by lystgl »

WynnQuon wrote:
lystgl wrote:
WynnQuon wrote: .. Even that might be a little aggressive. With an inflation rate of 1.8%, that's a nominal return of 4.75%.
Are you sure?
My calc = 4.67?
x-1.8=2.95/1+.018?
Then again, like Dennis Miller used to say, "I could be wrong".
I could be wrong too!

But isn't nominal rate = real rate + inflation rate
i.e. real-rate = nominal rate - inflation rate.

(no need to apply a discounting factor)
?
http://www.economica.ca/ew01_1p3.htm
FinEcon
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 1306
Joined: 03 Aug 2005 13:41

Re: OTPP - Ontario Teachers Defined Benefit Pension Plan

Post by FinEcon »

You are correct (Fisher identity) that i = r + pi. The 'real rate' is the 'discount rate'

WynnQuon wrote:
lystgl wrote:
WynnQuon wrote: .. Even that might be a little aggressive. With an inflation rate of 1.8%, that's a nominal return of 4.75%.
Are you sure?
My calc = 4.67?
x-1.8=2.95/1+.018?
Then again, like Dennis Miller used to say, "I could be wrong".
I could be wrong too!

But isn't nominal rate = real rate + inflation rate
i.e. real-rate = nominal rate - inflation rate.

(no need to apply a discounting factor)
WynnQuon
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 403
Joined: 04 Oct 2006 15:39
Contact:

Re: OTPP - Ontario Teachers Defined Benefit Pension Plan

Post by WynnQuon »

lystgl wrote:
WynnQuon wrote:
lystgl wrote:
Are you sure?
My calc = 4.67?
x-1.8=2.95/1+.018?
Then again, like Dennis Miller used to say, "I could be wrong".
I could be wrong too!

But isn't nominal rate = real rate + inflation rate
i.e. real-rate = nominal rate - inflation rate.

(no need to apply a discounting factor)
?
http://www.economica.ca/ew01_1p3.htm

ARGH! My brain is exploding :)

Okay, now I think you might be right that you need to apply a discount factor. But is 4.67 correct, shouldn't the final nominal rate be slightly > 4.75?
lystgl
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 1642
Joined: 06 Apr 2006 17:44
Location: Alberta

Re: OTPP - Ontario Teachers Defined Benefit Pension Plan

Post by lystgl »

WynnQuon wrote:[ But is 4.67 correct, shouldn't the final nominal rate be slightly > 4.75?
If you divide a number by less than 1 the result will be a higher number, no?
If you divide a number by more than 1, the result will be lower?

2.95+1.8=4.75
----------------- = 4.666
1+.018 (1.8%)

ah, what the hell, (4.67 - 4.75) close enough!(':)')

I guess that real issue is their inability to continue funding teachers' retirement going forward. And they're buying BCE? Literally putting, not all, but many eggs in one basket. Prudent?
WynnQuon
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 403
Joined: 04 Oct 2006 15:39
Contact:

Re: OTPP - Ontario Teachers Defined Benefit Pension Plan

Post by WynnQuon »

lystgl wrote:
WynnQuon wrote:[ But is 4.67 correct, shouldn't the final nominal rate be slightly > 4.75?
If you divide a number by less than 1 the result will be a higher number, no?
If you divide a number by more than 1, the result will be lower?

2.95+1.8=4.75
----------------- = 4.666
1+.018 (1.8%)

ah, what the hell, (4.67 - 4.75) close enough!(':)')
Not so fast! :) I've fried several hundred brain cells trying to figure it out with no luck. But now we have wiki to the rescue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_equation

rn = rr + i + rr*i , rn=rate nominal; rr=real rate, i=inflation.

rn in our example would then be:

rn = .0295 + .018 + (.018*.0295)
= .04803

So, the nominal rate required is actually 4.803%?
lystgl wrote: I guess that real issue is their inability to continue funding teachers' retirement going forward. And they're buying BCE? Literally putting, not all, but many eggs in one basket. Prudent?
Clean forgot about the real issue :D ...but I agree they've boxed themselves in tightly with the BCE purchase. The only way out would be if BCE can suddenly turn into a growth company despite the saturated markets for DSL and wireless, and the boat-anchor of debt they've taken on....
User avatar
Norbert Schlenker
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 7960
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 09:56
Location: An Argument Surrounded By Water
Contact:

Post by Norbert Schlenker »

Anyone looked at the OTPP 2008 report? Here's what jumped out at me.

Image

That's some underperformance in fixed income. Way bigger than my own. I feel much better now. :lol:
Nothing can protect people who want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29494
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Post by Bylo Selhi »

What fixed income benchmark returned 12% last year? (DEX Universe was 6.4% which is the same return that OTPP's bond portfolio achieved.)

See also: Performance by asset class starting at p. 37.
Benchmark underperformance is largely explained by losses incurred through credit market and hedge fund exposures... Consistent with our revised strategy for the fixed income asset class, we are reducing the risk allocation and are returning to more traditional fixed income investments.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
User avatar
NormR
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5234
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 11:19
Contact:

Post by NormR »

Norbert Schlenker wrote:Anyone looked at the OTPP 2008 report? Here's what jumped out at me.

Image

That's some underperformance in fixed income. Way bigger than my own. I feel much better now. :lol:

Highlighting 4-year returns also seems rather arbitrary/unusual to me. One wonders if the 3 & 5 year numbers weren't very good. I call shenanigans! :wink:

I also note that they changed their benchmarks in 2008. One wonders how they'd have done using the old benchmarks.
DanH
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2174
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 14:25
Contact:

Post by DanH »

NormR wrote:Highlighting 4-year returns also seems rather arbitrary/unusual to me. One wonders if the 3 & 5 year numbers weren't very good. I call shenanigans! :wink:
This is a focus of the traditional investment consultant. One of the four fatal flaws of managed asset programs I have identified is the performance-driven hiring and firing of managers.

Consultants can't choose one year because it's clearly too short. But they can't choose ten years beause nobody will wait that long to find out that somebody lacks investment skill. So, four years kind of shoots in the middle and is roughly the length of the average business cycle.

There is certainly nothing magical or significant about four year rolling risk-return numbers but it's what the consulting industry (i.e. Mercer, Russell, SEI, etc.) uses. And that explains the fous on on the four year figures.
User avatar
scomac
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 7788
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 09:47
Location: The Gateway to Wine Country

Post by scomac »

Norbert Schlenker wrote: That's some underperformance in fixed income. Way bigger than my own. I feel much better now. :lol:
Here's why.
We use absolute-return strategies, which are managed internally, and external hedge funds with the goal of generating positive returns regardless of movements in the broad markets. We include them in the fixed-income asset class because they normally provide steady income, similar to bonds, although with an additional risk allocation. However, these strategies were the main contributor to losses in the fixed-income asset class in 2008. We reduced our credit and hedge fund exposures in the year.
[Added] I had originally used OTPP as a sort of template for my IPS in designing an income producing portfolio that would be not only sustainable long term but one that would hedge inflation risk. That said, these guys have really ramped up the risk on their internal models IMO; hedge funds in place of fixed income, the bulk of equity exposure is now through the use of derivatives, an aborted failed attempt at privatizing BCE and God knows what manner of risky private equity they may have ventured into. They don't seem much like the model for prudent and conservative investment management that they once were. :?
Last edited by scomac on 03 Apr 2009 12:28, edited 1 time in total.
"On what principle is it, that when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"
Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1830
DanH
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2174
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 14:25
Contact:

Post by DanH »

Norbert Schlenker wrote:Anyone looked at the OTPP 2008 report? Here's what jumped out at me.

Image

That's some underperformance in fixed income. Way bigger than my own. I feel much better now. :lol:
The explanation is found in the content of what they call "Fixed Income". Let's just say it ain't your grandpa's bond portfolio. ;)
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Post by Shakespeare »

Let's just say it ain't your grandpa's bond portfolio
Perhaps it should be - as they themselves seem to realize.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29494
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Post by Bylo Selhi »

DanH wrote:The explanation is found in the content of what they call "Fixed Income". Let's just say it ain't your grandpa's bond portfolio. ;)
Yabbut their benchmark, which presumably held lots of stuff that grandpa and grandma wouldn't touch, returned a whopping 12% or double the DEX Universe.

That's quite some benchmark!

(I wonder if I can buy an index fund or ETF that tracks their benchmark. (Yeah, I realize that would be returns-chasing and unlikely to end well.))
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
George$
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2612
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 20:46
Location: Toronto

Post by George$ »

DanH wrote: .... The explanation is found in the content of what they call "Fixed Income". Let's just say it ain't your grandpa's bond portfolio. ;)

Dan, do you understand the details? I don't and I don't find the link that helpful. What are the details on this major hit?
They write:
We use absolute-return strategies, which are managed internally, and external hedge funds with the goal of generating positive returns regardless of movements in the broad markets. We include them in the fixed-income asset class because they normally provide steady income, similar to bonds, although with an additional risk allocation. However, these strategies were the main contributor to losses in the fixed-income asset class in 2008. We reduced our credit and hedge fund exposures in the year.
Details???? Was Madoff involved?
Last edited by George$ on 03 Apr 2009 14:02, edited 1 time in total.
“The search for truth is more precious than its possession.” Albert Einstein
brucecohen
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 13310
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 16:47

Post by brucecohen »

NormR wrote:Highlighting 4-year returns also seems rather arbitrary/unusual to me. One wonders if the 3 & 5 year numbers weren't very good. I call shenanigans! :wink:
Four years seems to be the pension industry norm. I don't know why. It was once explained to me but I don't remember. Teachers' and others base their investment mgr comp on average return over past 4 years.
BRIAN5000
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 9063
Joined: 08 Jun 2007 23:27

Post by BRIAN5000 »

They had 26.4 billion in fixed income and lost 21.1 billion of IT ?? WOW !

CMBS, CDS and other structured products worked for a while then tanked.
User avatar
NormR
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5234
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 11:19
Contact:

Post by NormR »

brucecohen wrote:
NormR wrote:Highlighting 4-year returns also seems rather arbitrary/unusual to me. One wonders if the 3 & 5 year numbers weren't very good. I call shenanigans! :wink:
Four years seems to be the pension industry norm. I don't know why. It was once explained to me but I don't remember. Teachers' and others base their investment mgr comp on average return over past 4 years.
Probably there's a good reason somewhere. :?

Anyway, give OTPP kudos, they have a good performance record vs. some simple benchmarks. Over 11 years, they beat a 25/25/25/25 Cdn Bond/Cdn Stock/US Stock/EAFE index portfolio. They also best a 34/33/33 Cdn Bond/Cdn Stock/US Stock index. Plus a more complicated 20/10/30/20/20 Cdn Bond/Cdn RRB/Cdn Stock/US Stock/EAFE portfolio which roughly fits their starting allocation 11 years ago.
Post Reply