Goldman Sachs wants your pension

It is time to look ahead. Not because there isn’t quite enough going wrong right now to occupy us all, but because I am tired of being taken by surprise. It is time to stop reacting to events and at least try to guess what consequences are going to unfold from what has already happened and what the financial class might be thinking of next.

In the past I have argued that securitization is the Undead Heart (plus part 2, part 3) of the present financial system. Even if you don’t buy my particular take on securitization there is no doubting its critical importance to modern banking and the broader financial system. Which does beg the question -what is happening to it now and where is it going?

Securitization, let us remember, is simply taking a flow of future payments from any debt agreement – mortgage, car purchase, corporate bond etc chopping it up into pieces and selling them on. Instead of having to wait for years to get back the money loaned out, the seller forfeits the stream of future income but gets a cash payment up front and gets rid of the risk of default. The buyers each get the right to part of the stream of future payments but also accepts the risk that what they paid for might default.

The buyer gets a ‘security’ which gives an income stream and which can be counted as an asset on his books. The seller gets his cash back so he can make more loans and do it all over again.

Until 2008 the feedstock of securitization was property. Mortgages provided the flow of debt and cash. It was a big market and got bigger as the banks expanded who they would lend to from prime to sub-prime mortgages. What is now clear, however, is that the mortgage market is not recovering as quickly as the banks and financial wizards thought and property is still broadly declining in value in the US in particular. Securitization needs a new food source. And it needs to be a big source. A debt everyone can be persuaded to take on. Buying a house was a great market, what could be as good?

The short answer is that the Big Banks are looking greedily at your pension as the way to re-start securitization and save themselves. I think they are planning to do for your pension what they did for your mortgage. To now move securitization into pensions would be the perfect outcome for the banks.

Pensions hold oceans of money. There are company pensions, private pension held by pension funds and Insurance companies and then there is the golden Valhalla of public pensions. The company pensions are almost universally in trouble. Almost all company pensions are underfunded – meaning they do not have enough money in them to cover the payments they are contractually liable to pay out. So they are looking for any suggestion that might save them.

Private Pensions in Pension company funds are solvent BUT, like the banks, they would love to offer more pensions and expand their business faster if they could. But like the banks, only more so, they are required by law to have plenty of assets and income to cover all their promises and payments. Added to which, because they must invest conservatively, they can only grow so fast.

But imagine if someone came along and bought from the pension companies, the pensions they had agreed and gave them cash in return. The Pension company would suddenly have a pot of cash with which it could offer more pensions. Which sounds rather attractive.

What would the buyer have? The buyer, a bank or insurance company, would have a stream of payments (your pension contributions) which is nice, but would also be liable to pay your pension when you retire, for as long as you live. Which sounds less attractive. So what’s in it for the banks?

The banks will have paid the pension company what the pension policy was worth to them. And what it was worth to the Pension company was what it could make by investing your contributions over the decades, minus how ever many years of payments you lived long enough to claim. Being a pension company it would have had to invest conservatively.

The banks will want the pension business because they will figure they can make much more money investing your money than the Pension companies ever would. How? Banks don’t have to invest as conservatively as Pension funds do. Banks get to take huge risks and yet still be counted as AAA. Which means the Pensions would transfer your pension to a bank that can take risks the Pension isn’t allowed to take, but still claim your pension is as safe as it ever was, being housed in a AAA rated bank.

The more money the banks make, the better deal they can offer the pension company and the more sparkling the ‘growth’ of the pension pot that the pension company can advertise. So it’s win, win win.

The key is the banks can do far riskier and potentially lucrative deals that the pension companies are either not allowed to do, would not dare to do because their customers might take fright or do not know how to do. By selling to the banks all the risks happen behind a curtain. Behind which the banks can happily make whoopee in the low tax, no tax world of off-shore banking and the regulation free world of the eurobond market.

And that is what I think is likely to happen. The banks will buy up the risk and income stream of contributions for a pension scheme – sometimes all of it, other times only the risk of having to pay out to those who live too long, and create from the income stream, securities it will either keep or sell on. Exactly as they did with mortgages.

This will mean the pension company will keep lots of assets still on its books (remember the banks are buying only the income stream not any investment assets the pension scheme had accumulated) but far fewer risks and liabilities. Having a more attractive balance of fewer risks and more assets will allow the Pension Funds to recycle their cash faster and offer more pensions to more people and so grow faster. Just as the banks did with mortgages. The banks will have more liabilities but a whole new river of income from pension contributions, potentially even larger than mortgages would ever have provided.

If this securitization of pensions matures as it did for mortgages then the banks will retain some of the new pension backed securities as assets and income for themselves, while others they will sell on exactly as they did with mortgages backed securities. Pension backed securities will be spread into every institution. The banks will slice and dice them and sell different part of the risk and income to different people.

They will create derivatives which will bet on which pension securities will make money and which won’t. The securities and the derivatives will be traded on their own markets. The banks holding the pensions will be attracted to buy and bet on those derivatives themselves, as a way of making more profit. Trade in such derivatives will bring a volatility to pension backed paper that it has not yet seen. It will also move much of the pension money off shore and into lower regulatory regimes such as the Eurodollar market. There will indeed be greater returns, at least in the bubble years, but also far, far less regulation, less transparency and much less prudence, which will kill us all in the bust.

If pension securitization does happen then you and I would not even know our pensions had been securitized and sold on. Just as we didn’t know it had happened to our mortgages. Even if we did get to know, the bank would of course be AAA rated. So the bank would argue, as it did with our mortgages, that our pensions would be safe, because the banks risky deals are balanced by its conservative deals and so in the end your pension would be as safe as… houses?

If I am right then the first moves, which are already underway, will be for the banks to offer to buy company pensions. Already in 2009 the big British pension company RSA sold part of the income and risk on its pensions to Rothesay Life Insurers. Rothesay is owned by…Goldman Sachs. RSA paid Goldman..sorry Rothesay £1.9 billion. Rothesay took on the risk that people will live ‘too long’ and Goldman stands behind the deal.

Now, a new report quoted in the FT, from pensions and benefits experts Hymans Robertson predicts,

that around £20bn of pensions liabilities could be transferred to banks and insurance companies in the next 18 months, taking the total value of this market to £50bn.

The article quoted James Mullins, head of buy-out solutions at Hymans Robertson saying,

“Banks and insurers continue to offer new flexibility to make risk transfers accessible to all pension schemes….It is crucial that companies and trustees are aware of this flexibility and innovation to ensure that they do not miss excellent opportunities to reduce risk. In addition, schemes are increasingly keen to manage away as much risk as they can. “

So far, however, we have only looked at company and private pensions held by pension companies. But the gold Valhalla the banks want to open is public pensions. Will public pensions ever be given over to the banks and insurers? If I am even anywhere near the truth, then I think we will see, over the next three years, a huge pr push for privatization of public pensions or parts of them at least.

The argument I think the banks will use it this. Public pensions are almost universally insolvent in the sense that their liabilities greatly exceed their assets. The banks will argue that they could invest all that money far more ‘efficiently’ than a mere public service dullard ever could. Imagine, they’ll say, that you opened those pension pots to us, let us take on much of the risk and the payments in return for the cash flow (maybe you’ll have to sweeten the deal for us by filling up any black holes first and with an up front payment or two) but in so doing we banks would then take off your hands any nasty future liabilities or risk of more black holes appearing. You would not have to worry any more and not have potential losses looming over your slim budgets and because we, the banks, would make the profits your people couldn’t the pensions would be solvent going forward. Not only that, they would say, but there is another big PLUS for you. That money would re-capitalize the banks that still need to shore up their balance sheets and assure the recovery. TWO of your problems solved with one lot of money.

If I am right, then I would expect to see a growing pr effort in the newspapers saying how unaffordable public pensions are and how much more ‘efficient’ new bank innovations are. Stories about how this or that company pension has been ‘rescued’ by being transferred to a bank. And of course the stories will be true. Those who get in on a ponzi scheme do make the huge returns. It is only later, when the scheme becomes saturated and top heavy, that the utter disaster is revealed.

But then think, just for a moment, what would have been achieved for the banks. What has been the number one justification for knocking down any suggestion that the big banks could be made to accept their losses and not be bailed out? Hasn’t it been that to let the banks fail would destroy our pensions?

Well, if pensions were now fed into the securitization machine then this link between banks and pensions would become fact. They would become inseparable in a way they haven’t really been so far. The banks would have insinuated themselves in to every stage and facet of our lives. Tied not only to our savings and our houses but to our retirement as well. No aspect of our lives would be free of them. They really would be systemically far to big to ever be allowed to fail. And that is the game now.

For the banks there is no downside. They would get a vast new market with which to create a new bubble. And when the bust came, they would simply point out how even more systemically painful it would be to make them suffer losses. That is what Too Big To Fail is about. Zero risk no matter what happens.

But for us, in the bust, all the savings and benefits that we were promised would flow from handing them public pensions would be swept away and we would spend even more trillions bailing them out again. Once the banks are too big to fail they have a forever, ‘get out of debt and goal free’ card.

If we are not careful and do not watch for signs and stand ready to fight against it, this could be what hauls us along to an even greater financial collapse in a few years time.

22 thoughts on “Goldman Sachs wants your pension”

  1. Sorry to be a bit thick – but why would the existing pension funds need the cash from these policy sales to banks, in order to "sell" new pensions?

    Unlike a mortgage, the pension company doesn't need to part with a penny up front. There's nothing to stop them selling lots more pension policies anyway, without offloading existing ones. Isn't that what they try to do in the normal running of their business?

    Then:

    "Already in 2009 the big British pension company RSA sold part of the income and risk on its pensions to Rothesay Life Insurers. Rothesay is owned by…Goldman Sachs. RSA paid Goldman..sorry Rothesay £1.9 billion."

    Again, being, a bit thick here too, but if RSA sold parts of it's pension products to Rothesay, why did RSA have to *pay* Rothsay £1.9Bn. Surely it would have been the other way round?

    Certainly not trying to outsmart you, G – genuinely trying to keep up!

    Very alarming the possible threat of banks lobbying to operate public sector pensions, and even – heaven forbid- state pensions, the latter all in the name of relieving the taxpayers' "burden".

  2. Golem XIV - Thoughts

    Mr Shigemitsu,

    Hey please don't appologize for asking good questions. Pensions are a really technical area in which I am NOT an expert. I am simply thinking this through and putting up warning flares for people cleverer than me to think about.

    I will answer your questions as best I can later. Right now I have children to pick up. I may well have got some things wrong BUT I believe the central concern is absolutely true and is a real and present danger.

    Talk later.

  3. Ooh! I really hope you're wrong… but I fear you're not.

    We should never forget that "innovation" which we normally take to be a good thing (as in new drugs, new energy sources etc.) can just as well be toxic. In finance it is almost invariably toxic. In fact you have to search long and hard to find an example where it's not.

    The easiest way to make loadsa money is to find a new (aka "innovative") way of pulling the wool over your customers' eyes so they don't see how they are being ripped off until it's too late.

    Regulators like Paul Volcker, former head of the Federal Reserve, thinks so but don't always have the political support to rein in the banks.

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/177300-paul-volcker-atm-was-the-peak-of-financial-innovation

    The other thing that is relevant here is that risk is one end of a spectrum that runs to stability at the other end just like red and blue in a rainbow.

    So, the banks can make more money by taking higher risks in the good times but the dynamic of each trying to outdo the other is that risk increases until the whole system falls over (as we have seen). Stability pays no bonuses, risk does.

    I for one don't want my pension in the mad game. Nor do I want my neighbours in it.

  4. Golem XIV - Thoughts

    Hello again MrShigemitsu,

    As I see it the Pension companies major need is for fewer risks in relation to their assets. SO if they can off load some of the risks, but keep the assets then they meet the more stringent solvemncy regs that are being planned and would be able to take on new risks/business.

    The payment to Goldman – here I think I have been confusing. The Goldman deal was a Longevity Swap. Like all swaps – currency, or rates, a swap it is a kind of hedging/insurance. Basically the deal was that RSA bought insurance from Rothesay. The deal is Rothesay buys/insures the risk of longevity. This makes it quite a different thing to a simple buy-out of business. But nevertheless it gives Rothesay a securitzable income stream.

    In the article I glossed over this so that I wouldn't get bogged down in explaining teh different ways of buying Pensions – buy-in, buy-out and swaps, both longevity and mortality. But perhaps by glossing over it I have caused more confusion? Certainly I did for you. Sorry.

    As I said, it is quite possible I have not quite understood some of this and I hope some of the City people who read here regularly might drop me a line to let me know.

    But the main point, the danger I point to, that Pensions will be securitized and become the basis of a new financial securitization bubble – that I have checked with some academics who have been concerned with this for a year or more and they agree it is potentially a very serious concern.

  5. richard in norway

    this is so strange

    some years ago i was stopped by some Cambridge media students doing a docu and they asked me what i thought about private pensions

    my answer was that we would end up paying for our pensions three times over, once paying for today's pensioners, twice for are own, and the third time to bail out the pension companies

    they told me it could never happen, HA

  6. Whistleblower IRL

    On the subject of pension funds, I strongly recommend reading Kathleen Barrington's article in last Sunday's Business Post:

    Are private pensions up for grabs?

    "The focus on the enormous holes in the balance sheets of our banks has distracted attention from some of the alternative solutions being adopted by other EU countries to help resolve their financial crises.

    These solutions are of interest to investors in private pension funds, as the crisis measures have included seizing private pension assets to plug the gaping holes in both bank and government balance sheets.

    …The Hungarian and Danish governments’ moves serve as yet another reminder that the financial crisis in Europe is now so deep that EU governments are giving consideration to measures which were unthinkable only a few short years ago."

    Regards,
    WhistleblowerIRL
    UniCredit Ireland's EX Risk-Manager

  7. Golem XIV - Thoughts

    Richard,

    I think it looks interesting too. Thank you for the link. Some very good articles there as well!

  8. I think that if Wall Street could have securitized pension plan revenues in America they would have done so long ago. Under the American 401k system you are essentially your own pension company. The joke is that they became 201k plans after Wall Street had used them for play money. In many cases they became 000k plans.

    The really big bucks are (were) in the public sector defined benefit plans. They too have been hollowed out by Wall Street. Our San Diego city pension fund for example dropped over $1 billion to Wall Street in one year. A few months later our brilliant pension plan investment manager left on early retirement at almost $300,000 per annum.

    The larceny that has taken place in America is above all comprehension. The bank bailouts are only part of the problem. Wall Street has hollowed out just about every American repository of wealth and left only scraps of worthless paper in its place. Hollowing out home equity was more obvious because it hit people personally. Unfortunately San Diego City's $3 billion unfunded pension liability has little meaning for the average San Diegan.

    The big Wall Street securitization target in American cities is now municipal service revenues. Virtually every revenue stream has already been securitized, sold and resold on Wall Street as municipal tax-free bonds. Want to buy a San Diego parking fee bond?

    Here in San Diego and elsewhere around the country, the Wall Street "suits" have taken up residence showing city administrators and politicians how to create securitizable (is that a word?) revenue out of thin air. In San Diego for example the Wall Street "security" drug dealers showed our corrupt politicians how to "sell" our police stations for $1 each to a specially created city-owned corporate entity that then "leased" the police stations to the City at exorbitant rents. That "revenue" was then securitized for large hunks of cash (after exhorbitant fees) which cash was in turn used to "balance" the city budget – 65% of which is salaries.

    It is easy to see why the Wall Street gangsters are eagerly entertained by city staff – they create money to pay bloated city salaries and benefits. And so it goes on.

    I hope you in the UK and Ireland immunize yourselves against the next deadly wave of the American "securitization" disease.

  9. P.S. the best way to immunize yourselves is to "burn the bondholders" NOW.

    So long as these worthless pieces of paper called bonds are protected by governments and made good with real taxpayer money, will this terrible "securitization" disease spread until it rivals the Black Death of the Middle Ages.

  10. Thanks for your time G, I think i am way out of my depth here, but applaud all here for shedding some light on the financial esoterica that eats away at our well-being, esp. @Pat Flannery 22.26, exposing truly predatory activities.

  11. This is indeed very scary.

    Securitisation is just a means for extracting income in fees for the banks, whilst transferring the long term risk issues to gullible counter parties and the tax payer.

    A key test for the UK is which way the Independent Commission on Banking leans. They are producing their interim report on the 11th April.

    So far, the mood music from the ICB and Mervyn King is towards separation of retail & investment banking.

    But the argument is not so much about whether institutions are primarily Retail or Investment bank (this distinction is currently irrelevant), as the issue is actually about the way that they operate. My ICB submission chose to analyse banking through a functional perspective (i.e. what banks actualy do), not their notional institutional form.

    Flaws in modern banking

    "To accept that securitisation is necessary for modern banking is to implicitly condone the continued growth of debt levels of potentially deteriorating quality. Not only are they a risk in themselves to banking stability but it is clear that they pose a more substantial systemic risk to the nation by providing the means for even further debt expansion as well as the obfuscation of risk ownership and exposure levels."

    A mass media and general public that is ignorant of the way banks function will just let the debate descend into lazy rhetoric and bickering.

  12. The latest report from NEF, pulling no punches on how the UK drags regulatory reform down:

    http://www.neweconomics.org/press-releases/uk-holding-back-progress-on-global-financial-stability-says-nef

    "The risk is that by engaging in a race-to-the-bottom on financial reform, the UK undermines global financial stability with potentially devastating consequences for the global economy."

    Also, a bit of notice this time for those who can make another NEF event in London on Monday 4th April:

    http://www.neweconomics.org/events/2011/03/25/where-did-our-money-go-and-what-can-we-do-about-it

  13. Golem

    Please do not do yourself down. I have just read two risable articles in the Telegraph (surely from the same press release) about HSBC and Barclays leaving the UK.

    Exactly as you predicted in July 2010 in the toxic debt wasteland. I knew you'd done i just took a few minutes to find it. The only financial suprises I have is when it has been so long since you ptredicted it I have ogotten it.

    Keep telling the truth, their world is tumbling down. God alone knows what further damage they will do before violent uprisings occur.

  14. richard in norway

    when the banks have bought the pensions, diced and sliced, and the repackaged, who are they going to sell these pension sercurities to? surly not to pension funds? or am i not understanding how this works

  15. @ Pat Flannery

    Thanks for your excellent contribution and I think it is true the USA has already done the pensions, although there is still room for expansion. If the UK and EU followed suit it would keep up the ponzai scheme for another 30-40 years… Unless the SA collapsed then we'd all go down with it.

    @ richard in norway

    The market would be enourmous. They would sell to each other,hedge funds,other countries,rich individuals,corporations…. get in at the start and the pickings are rich.

    But as we learned with mortgages when the game of pass the toxic parcel ceases we get the bill.

  16. Golem XIV - Thoughts

    richard,

    sadly the pension funds would end up buying the stuff. Albeit the AAA senior tranche. Which would be fine because it would be…AAA. Feeding cows to cows and pension securities to pension funds. It's all good.

  17. And once they have the pensions it's game over. Cradle to grave we will be merely the playthings of money.

    Thanks for the heads up Hawkeye – I seem to have slipped off the NEF mailing list.

    I'll be there – I would also like to draw attention to this UKuncut action:

    http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/actions/490

  18. Fungus FitzJuggler III

    I am not sure that they could get away with it. But they may well try, slowly, no fanfare.

    Radiation releases now begin to look like a business plan if they reduce pension payouts….

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.