On the other hand, sponsors of plans where some or all workers were still accruing benefits (open and closed plans) moved toward riskier investments, including equities, private equity, real estate, and hedge funds.

Larger plans were also more prone to take advantage of such investments as alternatives, while putting less into public equity; in fact, the study said, "[a]s asset amounts increased, public equity allocations declined," while allocations of larger plans to "other return-seeking investments—real estate, private equity and hedge funds—were more than double those of small plans."

Funded status played a prominent role, too, in determining how assets were allocated. "Sponsors with better-funded pensions held less in public equities and more in debt than their less well-funded counterparts," the study said. In addition, it anticipated that "an adverse macroeconomic environment and a greater appetite for reducing funding volatility should interest more sponsors (especially those with frozen plans) in a glide path type of strategy."

In following a glide path strategy, the analysis explained, "future target allocations are based on the plan's funded status, with the sponsor shifting assets from equities to debt as funding levels climb. This enables pension funds to reduce risk and safeguard gains (albeit reducing the opportunity for more-than-moderate future gains as well)."