Employee benefits and retirement plan solutions Trends and Insights Navigating market volatility in DB plans: Comparing those with and without a de-risking strategy

Navigating market volatility in DB plans: Comparing those with and without a de-risking strategy

Discover how de-risking can help DB plans better withstand market volatility and protect funded status, using a recent market event as a case study.

Two men standing in a conference room looking at a tablet computer.
4 min read |

Recent equity and bond market volatility reminds us that the market cycle persists. But so do the benefits that defined benefit (DB) plans offer to employers and their workforce, including tax advantages, risk pooling, investment quality, and cost structure. One key to maintaining these valuable benefits is to be prepared for a market cycle. Plans that are fully funded, close to fully funded, or even overfunded should consider re-allocating before the next time assets sink and liabilities surge.

The difference de-risking can make

When markets move sharply, the gap between assets and liabilities can widen quickly—especially for plans not aligned in terms of asset duration and related liability exposure. One effective way to help protect the DB plan funding is to de-risk—re-allocate the investment strategy to better reflect plan liabilities.

Here’s an example using the recent market volatility to illustrate the difference a de-risking strategy can potentially make.

In early April 2025, global equity markets experienced significant volatility. Over just three trading days starting April 2, the S&P Index fell by 10.5%. Simultaneously, U.S. Treasury yields dropped, with the 10-year falling nearly 20 basis points (bps) and the 30-year down 13 bps, pushing liabilities higher for many DB plans.

Consider a hypothetical DB plan with:

  • A 104% funded status (mirroring the corporate plan average at the time)
  • $104M in plan assets
  • A 60/40 equity-to-fixed income allocations
  • A liability duration of 12 years

During this short period, the plan’s funding status deteriorated sharply losing $12.4 million in assets and dropping its funded status into a deficit of 96%.

What if instead, the plan implemented a de-risked allocation prior to April 2: shifting to a 20/80 stock/bond portfolio, using duration-matching fixed income? The plan could have weathered the market drop much better. In this scenario, the plan would have only lost $2 million in net funding position and its funded level would still be in surplus (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Matching asset and liability duration could have protected the plan from extreme losses
Funding ratio
Graph showing the decrease in funding ratio in a non-de-risked plan from 104% to 96% and in a de-risked plan from 104% to 102%.
LDI Hedging
Traditional

For illustrative purposes only

Assumptions:

  • Starting asset: $104 million
  • Starting liability: $100 million
  • Liability duration: 12
  • LDI Hedging: 20% equity/80% duration matched bond
  • Traditional: 60% equity/40% core bond

In the above scenario, a plan that had de-risked could have only lost $2 million in a net funding position while the return-seeking portfolio could have seen a $12.4 million loss. By simply de-risking, the plan sponsor would have prevented $10 million in lost net funding position.

Staying disciplined through market highs

More than 15 years have passed since the financial crisis shocked capital markets, which was particularly hard for DB pension plans. Asset values had dropped, the era of ultra-low interest rates began, liabilities increased, and funding ratios suffered. Since then, strong equity returns, and rising bond yields helped many plans get back to fully funded status. The average corporate plan in the U.S. is now overfunded at 104% (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Average funding ratio of corporate pensions suffered after the Global Financial Crisis
Line chart showing the funded ratio of corporate pensions from the years 2000 to 2024.

Many plan sponsors benefited by staying invested in equities through the recovery. As funding levels gradually improved, it made a lot of sense to continue to ride the boost being provided by those returns. However, the improvements in funded ratios to current levels have generally reduced the need to aggressively pursue net returns. Recent volatility is a reminder that the gains can quickly reverse and improvements in funded status can be lost. This can be especially true for plans exposed to market downturns without liability alignment.

A de-risking approach: One size doesn’t fit all

Defined benefit plans may offer the most efficient way to deliver a retirement dollar, but the most efficient way to invest these assets may be to de-risk so that assets better reflect plan liabilities. There’s no single de-risking blueprint for every DB plan, but it will likely include some level of customization that can:

  • Reflect the plan’s specific funded status
  • Consider participant demographics and expected benefit payouts
  • Align asset duration with liability characteristics
  • Account for broader business and risk tolerance
What’s next? Consider being prepared before the cycle turns

It’s anyone’s guess as to when markets will turn. Timing may not be everything when it comes to adopting liability-driven strategies, but it is important. As markets recover, the expectation is that there will be opportunities again to de-risk.

Taking steps now, while your plan may be fully funded or in surplus, can help protect those funding gains and help ensure your pension remains a strategic asset for your organization.

Talk to a trusted financial professional

It’s important to work with a qualified consultant who can help navigate the complexities of a de-risking strategy. Reach out to your Principal representative if you’re considering the next step in a de-risking strategy or want to understand your options. We’re here to help support your plan’s long-term financial health.