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?
"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?