• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

Benefit outgo > Cashflow into scheme

a.begdai

Keen member
The investments chapter state the following,

"if the liabilities involve a high level of benefit outgo relative to cashflow into the scheme, it may be appropriate for the scheme to hold higher-yielding investment".

Higher-yielding assets will inevitably generate higher returns but these will be highly risky. So, if the scheme is already running into liquidity/solvency issues, then why it would be appropriate for it to hold highly risky assets? Is it because that holding highly risky assets will give some probability of turning around the fortunes (as the last resort available and nothing to lose)?

Should the scheme not focus on a balance between both high and low yield assets to at least able to secure a part of payouts and look for alternative strategies; such as additional funding to bridge the gap gradually?
 
The investments chapter state the following,

"if the liabilities involve a high level of benefit outgo relative to cashflow into the scheme, it may be appropriate for the scheme to hold higher-yielding investment".

Higher-yielding assets will inevitably generate higher returns but these will be highly risky. So, if the scheme is already running into liquidity/solvency issues, then why it would be appropriate for it to hold highly risky assets? Is it because that holding highly risky assets will give some probability of turning around the fortunes (as the last resort available and nothing to lose)?

Should the scheme not focus on a balance between both high and low yield assets to at least able to secure a part of payouts and look for alternative strategies; such as additional funding to bridge the gap gradually?
This is a good question. I think the key word in the quoted text is 'may'. You are right to be cautious: as you imply, a view would need to be taken on the high-yielding investment on a risk-adjusted basis.

The reality given in the question is that the cash inflows are insufficient to meet the benefit outgo and the 'issue' is what to do about it. In practice, you would need to consider all possible options: and investing higher-yielding investment could be one option. Other things to think about / consider might be the ability to increase employer and or employee contributions, optimising the investment strategy (e.g. of immediate & deferred members) etc.
 
This is a good question. I think the key word in the quoted text is 'may'. You are right to be cautious: as you imply, a view would need to be taken on the high-yielding investment on a risk-adjusted basis.

The reality given in the question is that the cash inflows are insufficient to meet the benefit outgo and the 'issue' is what to do about it. In practice, you would need to consider all possible options: and investing higher-yielding investment could be one option. Other things to think about / consider might be the ability to increase employer and or employee contributions, optimising the investment strategy (e.g. of immediate & deferred members) etc.

Thank you for your response. It is indeed critical to keep an open mind while reading most of these open ended subjects. Obviously, the book has its limitations on the amount of content it can capture and rest depends upon the wide imagination of the readers.
 
Back
Top