My USS Log in | Register
My USS Log in | Register
Site map

Help us make USS better for everyone; join our research community

Retirement Income Builder investment performance

A review of the Retirement Income Builder performance against the investment balanced scorecard

Assessing the investment performance of the Retirement Income Builder

An investment balanced scorecard was introduced for the Retirement Income Builder, the defined benefit (DB) part of USS, in July 2022. This is the second year of assessing USSIM's performance against the scorecard. 

The balanced scorecard tracks quantitative and qualitative performance. It provides a structured approach to bring together performance across different categories.

Our scorecards allow the Investment Committee to assess the investment and advisory performance of our in house investment manager, USSIM, independently and holistically. It covers six important categories:

  1. Investment return
  2. Investment risk
  3. Active management
  4. Portfolio resilience
  5. Responsible Investment
  6. Investment advice

The output from the scorecard is a rating on a scale of Very Good, Good, Average, Poor and Very Poor.

The metrics within it are calculated or overseen by the performance and investment risk teams who are independent from the investment team. They are provided to the Investment Committee, who assess the performance of USSIM against the scorecard each year. 

In 2023, the Committee concluded on a score of Good for the Retirement Income Builder. It noted USSIM’s strong investment advice, clear progress on responsible investment, good timing and positive pricing achieved for the sale of some private market investments, and well managed counterparty risk. While there were no areas of the scorecard where the committee felt that USSIM was underperforming, it did not believe that performance in the active management category was at the level achieved in the other five categories. 

Below are the metrics used in the DB investment balanced scorecard:

Below you’ll find an analysis of some of the metrics within the scorecard that contributed to this rating. All the data is for the year to 31 December 2023. 

1. Investment return

In this category, we look at the return of our DB assets versus a range of different return targets and how the funding level evolves.

We believe that USSIM’s performance should be assessed against a range of factors. So, we look at various metrics like how our assets have performed in relation to our liabilities (the benefits promised to members). These metrics include our technical provisions and self-sufficiency funding ratios on the 2020 valuation monitoring basis, which both improved during the year.

The Committee agreed that DB returns relative to the Liability Proxy and the funding improvements were both strong. While the latter was materially assisted by gilt yields changes, USSIM managed these impacts well.

  •  Retirement income builder performance

    The DB fund is the Retirement Income Builder fund
    The Liability Proxy is an investible representation of the scheme’s liabilities, built from gilts. This allows us to track the performance of our liabilities alongside movements in interest rates.

    • The technical provisions funding ratio is 113%  
      Technical provisions is a measure of the scheme’s DB liabilities. It’s the value of assets we seek to hold to fund our liabilities. It considers our investment strategy and the support provided by the covenant of the employers. The funding ratio compares the value of assets we currently hold with this technical provisions amount. The scheme’s funding position has improved further over the year.
    • Self-sufficiency funding ratio is 98% 
      Self-sufficiency reflects the value of assets required to pay, with a high probability, all the benefits members have built up so far while demonstrating a high funding ratio (more than 90%). This would be using a low-risk investment strategy without any further contributions. This funding ratio compares the value of assets we hold with this self-sufficiency amount. This funding ratio also improved over the year.

2. Investment risk

In this category, we look at several investment risk metrics to measure the scheme’s asset versus liability risk.

Different investment assets will carry different types and levels of risk. Metrics in this category focus on what might happen if our investment portfolio underperforms expectations and how they might perform in relation to movement in our liabilities.

  • Projected downside reliance
    A 1-in-20 downside measure of how much reliance the scheme may need to place on employers, as a percentage of payroll. A downside is a negative movement of an economy or market. This is observed quarterly and, over the year, remained within appetite.
  • The interest rate hedge ratio is 47%

  • The inflation hedge ratio is 47%
    Interest rate and inflation risks are the most significant financial risks to the scheme's liabilities and funding ratio. We added hedging assets during the year to maintain the hedge ratios at broadly the same level.
  • The self-sufficiency Value at Risk (VaR) is £16.7bn
    This looks at how much the self-sufficiency deficit – the excess of self-sufficiency liabilities over scheme assets – could grow (with a 95% confidence level) over the next year if markets move against us. Over the year, this metric remained within appetite.

3. Active management

In this category, we assess USSIM’s asset allocation and actively managed mandates by comparing the return of the Retirement Income Builder to a suite of market comparator benchmarks.

These comparator benchmarks are intended to be alternative theoretical investment strategies that are investible. However, they may not always be within the risk appetite set by the trustee.

While the Committee didn’t feel that USSIM underperformed in this category, it didn’t believe that performance was at the level achieved in the other categories this year. Private markets lagged behind their public market counterparts, influenced by strong public market performance over the year.

While the Committee recognised the significant effort expended in managing the minority of under-performing investments, in particular Thames Water, it acknowledged that these had a negative impact on scheme performance. Despite this, the Private Markets Group were able to achieve positive pricing on private asset sales that were completed to rebalance the overall portfolio and maintain the desired asset allocation.

The three scorecard categories below are more qualitative assessments. We have therefore provided some commentary on how USSIM has been measured.

4. Portfolio resilience

In this category, we assess the investment portfolio’s resilience to liquidity and counterparty events.

For liquidity we look at the probability of the scheme running out of cash or collateral. For counterparty events we consider the probability of a material loss from a counterparty default, i.e. if someone else involved in the investment doesn’t fulfil their obligations.

We therefore assess how cash, collateral and counterparty risks have been managed. The metrics below that we use to assess these risks were all rated green as they were within our agreed thresholds:

• Probability of running out of cash in one week

• Probability of running out of collateral in 12 months

• Probability of losing 0.5% of scheme NAV from any single counterparty default in a 12-month period (assuming a 50% loss given default)

5. Responsible investment

In this category, we assess USSIM’s progress towards our net zero ambition and its integration of wider Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) risks into its investment decision-making.

The scorecard provides a framework for integrating financially material ESG factors into our governance. While these issues have always been important in the assessment of USSIM’s performance, they are now factored in, in a more systematic way under the investment balanced scorecard approach.

The Investment Committee noted that USSIM had:

• Made distinct and clear progress on responsible investment

• Made significant progress towards the scheme’s net zero ambition

• Delivered industry leading and award-winning work with the University of Exeter to develop new climate scenarios

6. Investment advice

In this category, we assess the quality of the investment advice provided by USSIM.

USSIM provides investment advice to the Investment Committee on a range of issues. The committee meets regularly to consider investment issues on behalf of the trustee.

It agreed that USSIM provided high quality investment advice, particularly around the scheme valuation process and the role USSIM played in engaging with stakeholders.

When the above metrics are assessed, they’re also considered against several counterfactuals. These counterfactuals illustrate the impact of different investment decisions and were considered when assessing USSIM’s performance.

  • Further information

    View our Report and Accounts for more information on our investment performance.

    Report and Accounts