sli® – benchmarking study 2011 filesli® swiss pension plan benchmarking study 2011 index •...

March 2012

Study SLI® – Benchmarking Study 2011

SLI® Swiss pension plan benchmarking study 2011

Index • Executive summary, page 3 • Key findings, page 3 • SMI® and SLI® in overview, page 4 • Features of plan design, page 4 • Quantitative assessment of benefit and contribution levels, page 8

• Survey methodology, page 13

Executive summaryThis report summarises the research carried out by our firm in autumn 2011 into the Swiss pension plans provided by the 30 companies that make up the Swiss Leaders Index (SLI®) and subgroup of 20 companies in the Swiss Market Index (SMI®). Of the 30 SLI® companies, 28 companies par-ticipated. The purpose was to look at the plan designs in use as well as the resulting benefit levels on offer. Other elements of compensation are not included.

In this report we will look at some of the main fea-tures of these companies’ pension plans, as well as a comparison of actual benefit levels. Where companies sponsor more than one pension plan – for example, a main pension plan that covers all employees and a supplemental plan covering only the managers – we include all of these together when comparing benefits.

Key findingsThe pension benefit levels provided by participating employers vary significantly. Retirement benefits at the highest-ranking company are roughly double those provided by the lowest-ranking company for a given level of cash compensation. This is consist-ently the case at various employee pay levels. There is, however, little variation between the companies making up the SMI® and the remaining SLI® com-panies. Moreover, all companies provide benefits that significantly exceed the BVG/LPP legal mini-mum requirements.

Employers have been reducing the rates used to convert retirement account balances into annui-ties. Almost 70 % of the companies reviewed currently have conversion rates below 6.8 % at

age 65, and are thus below the BVG/LPP rate that applies on legal minimum benefits. The aver-age conversion rate is 6.44 %, compared with 6.6 % in 2009. Higher earners, especially, will not be expected to reach the target pension envisioned by the Federal Council whereby pensions (from the first and second pillars combined) should replace some 60 % of their final salary.

Most of the companies sponsor cash balance pension plans, with only a small number still sponsoring traditional defined benefit plans. But even within these categories, there are substan-tial differences: some companies take variable pay into account for determining insured salary, while others do not. Some coordinate their ben-efits or salaries with first pillar (AHV/AVS or social security) benefits; others do not, or do so only partially. And some companies provide flexibility to their employees in allowing them to vary their contribution (and benefit) levels, whereas others provide the same fixed set of benefits to all.

Despite a few significant plan changes (such as changes from defined benefit to cash balance plans and reductions in annuity conversion rates), there has been only a minor shift in overall plan benefit levels since the last such study was run in 2009.

Our findings show that there is no significant differ-ence in benefit levels by gender, as all plans in the study provide the same benefit accruals for males and females. However, there were variations in some plans between the genders in the conversion rates used at retirement, a practice that reflects the gap in life expectancies between the two genders.

SLI® – Benchmarking Study 2011 3

SMI® and SLI® in overviewThe SMI® and SLI® consist respectively of the 20 and 30 largest companies on the Swiss stock exchange. This list can and does change over time. We have based the analysis on those com-panies that were in the indices at the beginning of 2011. The companies in the SMI® group for our analysis are:

• ABB • Actelion • Adecco • Credit Suisse • Holcim • Julius Bär • Lonza • Nestlé • Novartis • Richemont • Roche • SGS • Swatch Group • Swisscom • Swiss Re • Syngenta • Synthes1

• Transocean • UBS • Zurich Financial Services

The SLI® companies are those shown above plus:

• Balôise • Clariant • Geberit 2

• Givaudan • Kühne + Nagel • Logitech • Nobel Biocare • Sonova • Swiss Life • Weatherford

Section A: Features of plan designPension plans in use in Switzerland fall into two main categories: those where the benefit at retire-ment is defined using a formula typically referenc-ing the employee’s last salary and years of service (defined benefit, or “DB”, plans), and those where the benefit at retirement is based on the employ-ee’s accumulated account balance at the time (“cash balance” plans).

In Figure 1 we present a summary of the plan types for the main pension plans at the compa-nies in the SMI®and SLI® groupings, with the 2009 SMI® study results shown for comparison:

A trend towards cash balance is visible, and indeed has been observed for many years now. In 2011, only two of the companies in the study (both are in the SMI®) provided DB pension plans to their mem-bers; in 2009 there were four.

Some companies provide supplemental pension plans, for example covering the portion of salary that exceeds the maximum covered in their main plan, or pay (such as incentive pay) which may not be insured in the main plan. All such plans offered by companies in this group are cash balance in design. Further, benefits in those plans are usually of lower value than in the main plan relative to the level of salary covered. For example, benefits at retirement may only be available as a lump sum, with no pension option. Similarly, the benefits in case of death or disability in a supplemental plan might typically be a lump sum, rather than a dis-ability pension or surviving spouse pension under the main plan, and usually of lesser value.

1 Synthes is currently being acquired by Johnson & Johnson, and declined to participate in this report. 2 Geberit did not participate in this report.

Figure 1: Types of pension plans (% of companies)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

SMI® 2009 SMI® 2011 SLI® 2011

Defined benefit Cash balance

4 towerswatson.com

Insured salaryThe pension plans covered in the study have different approaches for determining what sal-ary is to be insured. At some companies this is base salary only, whereas at others the definition includes incentive pay. Some companies reduce the insured salary to coordinate with AHV/AVS, others do not. This makes it impossible to com-pare employee or employer contributions on the basis of headline contribution percentages alone. Later, we will compare insured salary and contri-butions for different employee profiles.

Further, many of the companies cover different por-tions of salary within different plans. Some com-panies cover base salaries in one plan and bonus payments in another. Other companies set a limit for salaries to be covered in the main plan, with salaries above that level covered in a supplemental plan.

Components of pay covered We begin with an analysis of the components of pay that are included in covered salary. The deci-sion whether or not to cover incentive pay is often a philosophical one. Some companies believe that incentive pay is to be taken into account when measuring the employee’s overall standard of living. For these companies, an adequate replace-ment of income at retirement, death or disability needs to factor in the level of incentive pay as well. Other companies believe that incentive pay is by its nature variable and is not something that employees should rely on for their standard of liv-ing or that the company should be insuring.

We see in Figure 2 that most of the companies in the study cover incentive pay within their pension plans. Interestingly, some companies reflect only a fraction of the bonus (e.g. 75 % of target bonus) as covered salary, while others make no such adjust-ment. The proportion of companies in each category is relatively unchanged compared with 2009.

Coordination offset Many companies reduce the covered salary for pen-sion purposes by an amount intended to approxi-mate the effect of Swiss social security (AHV/AVS) benefit levels. This amount is referred to as a “coor-dination offset”. The Swiss social security benefit for an individual varies by pay level but is capped at CHF 27’840 (in 2011). For the legal minimum BVG/LPP benefits, the coordination offset is 7/8 of this value, or CHF 24’360 in 2011. The inclusion or exclusion of a coordination offset tends to affect the benefits for lower-paid employees the most.

There is a significant variation in the amount of coordination offset actually taken into account by companies for insured salary purposes. Also, many companies moved away from using the full AHV/AVS offset several years ago when the defini-tion for BVG/LPP minimum benefits changed. However, approaches seem relatively unchanged during recent years, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2: Bonus included in covered salary (% of companies)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

SMI® 2009 SMI® 2011 SLI® 2011

none portion 100 %

Figure 3: Maximum coordination offset in base plan (% of companies)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

SMI® 2009 SMI® 2011 SLI® 2011

none less than 87.5 % AVS

87.5 % AVS 100 % AVS


Salary limits Swiss law limits the total salary that can be covered for a single member for pension purposes to CHF 835’200 (in 2011). Companies are free to choose a lower salary limit if desired. However, as shown in Figure 4, most companies in the SMI® and SLI® do not restrict the total covered salary much below this limit, if at all.

Conversion rates at retirementThere is a substantial disparity seen in the level of conversion rates at retirement. This is the rate at which a member’s accumulated retirement account balance is converted into a pension. This is only relevant for cash balance plans since DB plans are defined in terms of a pension. Conver-sion rates are typically communicated in terms of the annual pension as a percent of total account balance; e.g., 7 % means that the annual pension would be equal to 7 % of the account balance the member had at the time of retirement (thus for an account balance of CHF 100’000 the annual pen-sion would be CHF 7’000).

Swiss law requires a minimum conversion rate to apply to the legal minimum benefits. Pension funds are free to define a different conversion rate as long as at least the legal minimum benefit is provided in the end. These BVG/LPP minimum conversion rates at normal retirement age (2011: 6.95 % for men, 6.90 % for women) are gradually decreas-ing to 6.80 % by 2014. The minimum conversion

rates are currently a significant topic of discussion since among experts they are widely seen as too high, due to increases in life expectancy and lower expected available returns for plan assets. However, a Swiss-wide referendum in March 2010 to amend them was soundly defeated.

Five of the 28 companies analysed in this study apply different rates to the BVG/LPP minimum ben-efits vs. the above-mandatory portion. The others do not make any distinction and apply the same rate to the entire benefit. However, as we will see later, all of the SLI® companies provide benefits that exceed the legal minimum. They are all thus in a position to further lower their conversion rates without much concern for that threshold.

Figure 5 shows the range of conversion rates for males at age 65 in the main pension plans of each company. It is clear that, despite the failure of the referendum, there is a clear trend towards lower conversion rates. Whereas in 2009, only 40 % of SMI® companies had conversion rates below 6.6 %, in 2011 almost 60 % did, with a similar percentage for the 2011 SLI® group.

Figure 4: Limit on covered salary (% of companies)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

SMI® 2009 SMI® 2011 SLI® 2011

Less than CHF 350’000

CHF 350’000 to 749’000

Above CHF 750’000

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 SMI® 2009

Figure 5: Conversion rate, males, age 65 (above mandatory portion of balances) (% of companies)

SMI® 2011 SLI® 2011

5.80 % to 5.99 % 6.00 % to 6.19 %

6.20 % to 6.39 % 6.40 % to 6.59 %

6.60 % to 6.79 % 6.80 % to 6.99 %

7.00 %

6 towerswatson.com

Employee contribution flexibilitySince 2006, pension plans have been allowed to offer employees a choice of up to three different contribution rates. This means that the employee can choose how much to contribute to the plan, and benefit levels are adjusted accordingly. Where this choice is provided, plans generally allow the employee to modify their choice regularly (e.g. at least once per year). The company’s own contri-butions to the plan cannot vary, however, under Swiss law.

For example, an employee might be able to choose to contribute 3 %, 6 %, or 9 % of insured salary in a plan. The company’s contribution would not vary (for example, at 15 % of insured salary). As a result, in this example the employee would receive total savings credits to their account balance of 18 %, 21 %, or 24 % of insured salary, depending on the choice made.

This flexibility for employees can make the plan more attractive as they can then adjust their contri-butions according to their personal circumstances, with plan benefits being adjusted accordingly. This arrangement can also be tax-advantageous, as extra contributions are generally tax-deductible for the employee.

A further advantage of this design feature is that this can increase the scope for the employee to make one-off additional voluntary contributions to the plan, since a higher contribution level creates a larger gap between the plan’s overall target level of benefits and what he or she has today. This may be of significant interest to employees close to retirement who are looking to make up for gaps in their retirement benefits.

Figure 6 shows that there seems to be a gradual trend towards offering employees more contribu-tion flexibility. However, only about 40 % of SLI® companies currently are providing this choice.

Survivor benefitsPension plans are required to offer pensions to surviving spouses and dependent children upon the death of an active member. No additional lump sum death benefit is necessary. Despite this, all of the companies in the SLI® group provide one.

However, as Figure 7 shows, there are wide dif-ferences in amounts provided. Some provide only a refund of the voluntary contributions paid by the employee towards early retirement. Others pay out the account balance, typically reduced by the value of surviving spouse and dependent children pensions that will be payable. Still others provide a lump sum death benefit that is independent of employee savings, such as a percentage of insured salary.

Figure 6: Employees have contribution choice (% of companies)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0SMI® 2009 SMI® 2011 SLI® 2011

yes no

Figure 7: Lump sum death benefits (number of companies)

Death benefit independent of account balance

Only refund of purchases for early retirement

Account balance (sometimes reduced by value of survivor benefits)

6

17

5


Further, there are substantial differences in the treatment of surviving spouse pensions. Most (almost 80 %) of the companies reduce the pen-sions if the surviving spouse is significantly younger than the participant, usually if the age difference is 10 or 15 years or more. This is to reflect the longer payout period for the younger spouse. And more than 90 % of the companies will end payment of the pension if the surviving spouse remarries, often with a one-time payment (three times the annual pension is a common amount).

Section B: Quantitative assessment of benefit and contribution levelsAs a rule, pensions in Switzerland are the largest element of compensation for employees aside from regular salary and bonus. However, it is extremely difficult to compare plan benefits and costs simply by reviewing the plan rules alone. The interaction of such factors as the inclusion or exclusion of variable pay, the existence or not of supplemental plans and the varying levels of conversion rates at retirement means that the relative generosity of the different companies’ plans cannot be readily assessed. We therefore compare plans by calculating the level of benefits earned for three different employee profiles after various periods of service at each of the companies included.

These three fictitious employee profiles are as fol-lows (all treated as newly-hired employees at each company):

• Male, age 25, base salary CHF 60’000. We assume he receives no incentive pay and starts with no initial vested benefits

• Male, age 35, base salary CHF 120’000. We assume he has a target bonus equal to 10 % of base salary, and that he joins with initial vested benefits of CHF 60’000 (of which CHF 30’000 is the legal minimum portion)

• Female, age 45, base salary CHF 200’000. We assume she has a target bonus equal to 20 % of base salary, and that she joins with initial vested benefits of CHF 300’000 (of which CHF 75’000 is the legal minimum portion)

Insured salaryWe discussed in the prior section that compa-nies have different definitions for what pay is to be covered for pension benefits. As a result, the insured pay will vary by individual depending on their base pay level, bonus and occasionally their position within the company (e.g. management vs. non-management). In Figure 8 we compare the insured salaries for the three fictitious profiles described above.

Noteworthy is the wide disparity. For the first pro-file, some companies insure only 54 % of base pay while others insure 100 %. This in itself doesn’t say anything about overall plan benefit levels, as the contribution percentages could be much higher in the first case than in the second. Nonetheless, it shows why one should not simply look at contri-bution percentages alone when comparing plans.

Equally noteworthy for the latter two profiles is that the minimum legal insured salary level is only a small fraction of the base salary. All of the SLI® companies insure salary levels that are consider-ably higher.

Top 7 companies Third 7 companies Average – All BVG Minimum

Second 7 companies Lowest 7 companies Average – SMI®

Figure 8: Insured salary (as % of base pay)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0Age 25

Base CHF 60’000, no bonus

Age 35 Base CHF 120’000, bonus CHF 12’000


8 towerswatson.com

Employee contribution ratesFor all of the companies analysed, employees are asked to contribute towards the plan benefits. These contributions may vary by age or salary level. Figure 9 shows how the employee contribution rates compare for a typical career and against the minimum legal level.

It is notable that for the first profile, employee contributions at some companies are actually less than the BVG/LPP minimum levels. This is fine as long as the employer makes up at least the difference. Likewise, it is fine for employee contributions to exceed BVG/LPP minimum levels, as long as the employer contribution is at least as high.

Employer plan costsEmployer contributions are often very difficult to compare. Swiss law requires that they must be in aggregate at least as high as the employee contribu-tions. Aside from this, however, there is substantial flexibility as to how these are set for each company.

For example, a few pension plans differentiate between “regular” and “extraordinary” contribu-tions, where regular contributions are paid each year and extraordinary contributions are only required in special cases, such as when a mem-ber retires early. In such a case the company’s contributions are relatively low at first and later increase. A similar situation occurs when extra contributions are required under a DB plan each time the employee’s salary increases. The cover-age level of the pension fund may also influence contribution levels: in some plans, the company can benefit from a reduction in contributions (“contribution holidays”) when funding levels meet certain thresholds; alternatively, additional “recapi-talisation” contributions may be needed in case of underfunding.

Figure 9: Employee contribution rate over assumed career (as a % of future base salaries)

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 Age 25







Figure 10 shows this comparison for the three fictitious profiles over their assumed careers. This shows the regular contributions as defined in the plan rules (including extraordinary contributions) but does not take into account recapitalisation contributions or contribution holidays.

Even where pension plans foresee only fixed contributions without the extraordinary elements described above, deficits can arise because contri-butions may be structurally too low relative to the benefits provided. One example of this is providing pension conversion rates in excess of those that

can be actuarially justified. If appropriate adjust-ments to contributions are not made over time (and if investment gains are not forthcoming), pension plan funding levels will tend to deteriorate.

In Figure 11 we show a measure of the structural underfunding (“unfunded benefits”) provided by the plan. This is the value of benefits to be provided, less the value of employee and employer contribu-tions (including initial vested benefits brought by new hires). For younger employees, this tends to be negative (i.e. the plan makes a gain) – typically because the contributions for risk benefits are

Figure 10: Employer contribution rate over assumed career (as a % of future base salaries)

Age 25 Base CHF 60’000,

no bonus



25

20

15

10

5

0



Figure 11: Value of unfunded future benefits (expressed as a % of expected future base salaries)

Top 7 companies Third 7 companies

Second 7 companies Lowest 7 companies

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

−2

−4 Age 25 Male

Base CHF 60’000, no bonus,

Vested benefits: none

Age 35 Male Base CHF 120’000, bonus CHF 12’000,

Vested benefits: CHF 60’000

Age 45 Female Base CHF 200’000, bonus CHF 40’000,

Vested benefits: CHF 300’000

10 towerswatson.com

higher than needed for this group, and solidarity exists between the members. For older employees, the opposite is true. Further, older employees are more likely to stay with the company until retire-ment and benefit from subsidised conversion rates. There are also differences by gender – according to the BVG/LPP 2010 assumption set, females tend to have higher costs of risk benefits than males.

Most of the companies in the SLI® provide benefits that increase with age. Thus, older employees tend to have higher pension costs than younger ones sim-ply because the plans are designed that way. This may have implications for the companies’ willing-

ness to hire or retain older workers, as their pension costs may be significantly higher than for a younger employee at the same salary level. Further, as com-panies mature (i.e. the average age of their employ-ees increases) their average costs tend to rise.

We next look to the projected level of pensions at retirement. Figure 12 shows the pension benefits available at retirement (age 60 and 65/64) for the same three profiles described above. Benefits at all companies substantially exceed BVG/LPP minimum levels. Further, we note that there is not much dis-crepancy in the average benefits of the entire SLI® group and those of the SMI® subset.

Figure 12: Pension levels at retirement (as a % of base salary at retirement)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0Retirement at 60 Currently age 25

earning CHF 60’000

Retirement at 65 Currently age 25












These levels do not include the first-pillar benefits from AHV/AVS. First-pillar benefits are much more significant for lower-paid members, as the maximum pension payable from the first pillar is CHF 27’840 (in 2011); for higher-earners, they replace only a small portion of their overall compensation. For example, first-pillar benefits would represent less than 10 % of the income at retirement of the age 45 profile member above, so such a member would fall short of the target 60 % replacement envisioned by the Federal Council.

Also, as seen earlier, employee contributions are not identical for each company, so there is some varia-tion in how much of the benefit has been financed by the employee versus the employer.

Nonetheless, what is most striking is that, by age 65, the benefits earned in the most generous pension plans are roughly twice as high as those earned in the least generous plans. This is the case whether one looks at benefits paid as a lump sum or as a pension.

Thus, if we have two individuals matching the first profile, where one works at the company with the most generous pension provisions and the other at the company with the least generous, the former would retire at age 65 with pension benefits of 65 % of last base salary (excluding AHV/AVS), and the latter with only 30 %. The range for the other two pro-files is less pronounced but nonetheless significant.

Figure 13: Comparison of retirement pensions between 2009 and 2011 studies for a member currently age 25 earning CHF 60’000 (as a % of base salary at retirement)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Top 7 companies Third 7 companies BVG Minimum

Second 7 companies Lowest 7 companies

Retirement at 60 SMI® 2009


Retirement at 60 SLI® 2011


Retirement at 65 SLI® 2011


Figure 14: One-year term value of risk benefits (as % of base pay)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 Age 25






12 towerswatson.com

In Figure 13 we look at how these figures have changed since our prior study in 2009 for a single employee profile. For many companies, projected pensions have decreased, which we ascribe mainly to reductions in conversion rates. However, for a small number of companies, benefits have increased since 2009. The results for the SMI® group and the SLI® group in 2011 are very consistent with one another.

Risk benefitsThe level of risk benefits (those payable in case of death or long-term disability) also vary. Minimum levels are required by law; however, all of the SLI® companies provide benefits that are considerably more generous.

Figure 14 shows the estimated value of risk benefits for each of the three employee profiles over a one-year period. This takes into account both the likeli-hood of becoming disabled or dying, and the value of the resulting benefits that would then become payable. As noted previously, the average value of risk benefits tends to increase with age and salary and varies by gender.

The overall value of risk benefits is between 15 % and 20 % of the value of total plan benefits; this range is quite consistent for various salary levels.

In closing…This study reflects the pension arrangements provided by each company, and ignores other ele-ments of compensation. If these other elements were included, the results of the comparison might look quite different.

We are extremely grateful to all of the participat-ing SLI® companies for their assistance with this survey.

Survey methodology For the purposes of this study, we have looked only those plan benefits that are available to new hires at each company. Special benefits (or “grandfather-ing”) for existing groups were not considered.

In order to review the cost and value of benefits, we have made a number of assumptions. Key among these are the following:

• Salary increases of 2.5 % per year • Interest credits in cash balance plans of 3.5 % per year

• BVG 2010 turnover, disability, and generational mortality rates

• Retirements would be from age 60 at the rate of 10 % per year until latest 65/64 (men/women)

• Members are assumed to prefer a pension at retirement to a lump sum if such a choice is available

• Members contribute at the “standard” rate as defined by each plan if such a choice is available

• Where plans provide only for lump sum benefits, insurance company tariffs have been assumed to apply for conversion to pensions (e.g. 5.197 % at age 65 for men)

• In some charts, comparisons are made against a hypothetical BVG/LPP Minimum plan. For this purpose, the account balance was projected at the same interest credit noted above.

The salary increase and interest credit assump-tions are the same as were assumed in the 2009 study in order to provide comparable results.

Confidentiality Information on individual companies’ plans is held strictly confidential.

DisclaimerThis report was prepared as a summary of Towers Watson’s research. Unless otherwise specifically agreed in writing we assume no responsibility, duty of care or liability to those who may gain access to a copy of this document and any such reliance that they place on it is entirely at their own risk.

This report does not purport to be and is not a substitute for specific professional advice. Specific advice should be taken on the circumstances in question before any action is taken.

Further informationIf you would like further information, please contact:

David Pauls +41 43 488 44 35 [email protected]

Nathalie Munaretto +41 43 488 44 63 [email protected]

March 2012


Towers Watson is a leading global professional services company that helps organizations improve perfor-mance through effective people, risk and financial management. With 14’000 associates around the world, we offer solutions in the areas of employee benefits, talent management, rewards, and risk and capital management.

Benefits

Whether you offer a defined benefit pension or a defined contribution plan, we can work with you to deter-minate the right approach to design, funding, investing, governing and amployee engagement. We take into account the nature of your business, the composition of your workforce and your goals for the benefit adequacy, competitiveness and cost management.

We approach your pension plan as a financial subsidiary that can significantly affect earnings, cash flow and the balance sheet. Our sophisticated tools, reasearch and thinking lead to a tailored solution that bal-ances your retirement programme risks and costs with plan objectives and opportunities.

Towers Watson – Switzerland

Overview of various Towers Watson Studies Pension Liability StudyAnalysis of the pension plan data disclosed in company financial statements from 2007 to 2010 of the 30 largest Swiss multinational companies which make up the Swiss Leader Index (SLI®)

Global Pension Finance WatchQuarterly analysis tracking the financial position of a hypothetical pension plan in each of the most prominent pension economies around the world

Global Pension Asset StudyThis is a study of the 13 largest pension markets in the world analysing the development of pension assets and liabilities

Investment MattersAn annual publication covering topical pension and investment issues including new trends in pension plan investment risk management

Global Market OverviewMonthly overview of global developments based on a long-term investment perspective

Global Alternatives SurveyThis study aims to track the movements of alterna-tive assets managed on behalf of pension funds by the world’s largest alternative investment managers and to produce authoritative rankings

Global Workforce StudyThe Towers Watson Global Workforce Study is one of the largest global studies of the main drivers of employee engagement and the related attractive-ness of companies

14 towerswatson.com

towerswatson.com

The information in this publication is of general interest and guidance. Action should not be taken on the basis of any article without seeking specific advice.

LausanneTowers WatsonAvenue Gratta-Paille 21018 LausannePhone: +41 21 641 55 40Fax: +41 21 641 55 45E-Mail: [email protected]

ZürichTowers WatsonTalstrasse 628021 ZürichPhone: +41 43 488 44 00Fax: +41 43 488 44 44E-Mail: [email protected]

Copyright ©2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.TW-EU-CH-0010 March 2012

sli® – benchmarking study 2011 filesli® swiss pension plan benchmarking study 2011 index •...

Documents