08.04.26
by

Really, WSJ?

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

The WSJ’s editorial board recently published an article based on a new report from Equable Institute highlighting AI’s positive contribution to public pension plans (public workers) and the taxpayers that fund the pensions. This assessment is based on the fact that the AI “market boom” specifically and NASDAQ’s performance generally have continued to generate outsized returns despite so much global uncertainty.

The market’s strong performance has boosted the funded ratios of government pension funds, which Equable estimates hit 85% nationwide this year—the highest level since 2007. Equable estimates that roughly 8% to 10% of government pension funds are benefiting from their investments in about 50 publicly traded AI-related companies. Their analysis doesn’t include investments in privately managed funds that own stakes in private AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic. 

Equable highlighted the fact that while AI is yielding positive returns for pension funds, the magnitude of the outperformance also bears a warning. They claim that nearly 32% of every $ going into a pension plan is paid by the employers (aka taxpayer), and that should the AI bubble burst, it could lead to significantly higher taxpayer contributions. The WSJ stated that some AI company valuations may be stretched in the current boom and could be in for a correction. They also mentioned that government policies that seek to slow AI including robot taxes and data-center moratoriums—could stifle the boom. 

If that correction becomes reality, taxpayers would be stuck paying much bigger pension bills, which could force worker layoffs as happened after the 2008-09 Great Financial Crisis. They claim that it would be better for governments to move workers to 401(k)-style plans that reduce the risk for taxpayers and give public workers a direct stake in the success of AI and other companies. 

So let me get this straight: the WSJ editorial board is concerned that a potential AI correction might just happen because of stretched valuations leading to greater taxpayer funded contributions, so to minimize that potential risk, it would be better to shutter public pension plans and force public sector workers into DC-like programs. If they are concerned that valuations are stretched perhaps leading to a correction, why would they want public workers to have a direct stake in the “success” of AI and other companies?

I’m sorry, have the folks at the Journal not seen the median account balances for those in DC-styled plans? Do they understand that asking workers – public or private – to fund, manage, and then disburse a “retirement” benefit with little disposable income, no investment acumen, and no crystal ball to help with longevity issues is just silly? Do they not also realize that the public sector workers (roughly 20 million) pay taxes, too. They also buy things which leads to economic activity and job growth. Do we really want our Senior population sitting on the economic sidelines because they can no longer afford to participate? We’ve already messed up retirement for a good portion of the private sector. Enough is enough!

08.03.26
by

ARPA Update as of July 31, 2026

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Welcome to August!

The PBGC remains busy implementing the ARPA pension legislation. Last week saw two funds submit revised applications for Special Financial Assistance (SFA), one receive approval of its revised application, and another fund withdraw their application.

Ironworkers’ Local 340 Retirement Income Plan, an Oak Brook, IL construction union, will receive $47.8 million in SFA plus interest for its 819 members. While Local 340 was celebrating, Local 1430 I.B.E.W. Pension Plan and International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers Local No. 79 Pension Fund were resubmitting their SFA applications. Collectively, they are hoping to secure $19.6 million in SFA for the 837 plan participants.

Seattle, WA-based Pension Plan of the Automotive Machinists Pension Trust will once again go back to the drawing board, as they’ve withdrawn an already revised application seeking SFA in the amount of $139.1 million for nearly 7,500 members.

As has been the case, no SFA recipients were asked to rebate a portion of their grant due to census errors. There has not been a request to do so since September 2025. In addition, no additional “Mss Withdrawal” applicants submitted an SFA application this week. Eighty plans remain as potential SFA recipients with only one fund currently going through the process.

Despite the slight pullback in U.S. interest rates due to a “pause” in the Middle East conflict, activity last week drove rates to highs not achieved since before the GFC. These elevated rates will help plan sponsors reduce significantly the cost to fund future benefits.

07.31.26
by

Why wait?

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Due to great uncertainty brought on by the conflict in the Middle East and the war’s potential impact on the price of oil ($85.63 at 10:01 EST) that could drive inflation higher, U.S. long-dated Treasury yields continue to rise. In fact, the U.S. 30-year Treasury yield has not been this high (5.26%) since July 6, 2007, when the yield was at 5.28%. Where yields go from here is anyone’s guess, but I will share that oil, as represented by WTI, has risen 24.9% since June 30, 2026. Given the exposure that oil or oil-derived inputs have in more than 6,000 products, the significant rise in the recent price could impact inflation for quite some time, even if oil soon began to flow more freely.

We recently saw the average 30-year BBB+ bond trading at 110 bps above the prevailing 30-year Treasury. If that relationship is maintained, pension plans could potentially cover most of their desired return on asset (ROA) annual target (average public pension plan has a 6.75% ROA) through bonds. Should inflation spike once again, there is no telling how high U.S. interest rates could rise. Despite domestic equity’s apparent immunity to market fundamentals and geopolitical risks, there will come a time when higher U.S. yields become too attractive to ignore leading to the potential for rebalancing out of equities into fixed income. That action will likely lead to lower equity prices and falling bond yields.

So, I ask, why wait? Why wait to take risk from your current asset allocation before the markets act? Why not SECURE your benefit promises through cash flow matching (CFM) well into the future and reduce the volatility related to returns, contributions, and funded status? Why not take advantage of very attractive bond yields? As a reminder, core, active fixed income strategies are highly interest rate sensitive. Rising yields negatively impact bond prices, as seen in the performance of the Aggregate Bond Index, which is up only 0.1% annually for the 5-years ending June 30, 2026. However, a CFM strategy, which secures benefits that are future values, eliminates interest rate risk, as future values are not interest rate sensitive.

Public pension plans have done a good job of improving their funded ratios since bottoming after the Great Financial Crisis but remain only one market crash away from repeating this vicious cycle. Get off the performance rollercoaster. Secure your promises chronologically for some period into the future (your plan’s funded status should dictate the allocation). You and your participants will sleep much better knowing that the promises made will be kept.

07.30.26
by

Milliman Provides Public Pension Funding Update

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Milliman released the latest results of its monthly Public Pension Funding Index (PPFI). As a reminder, Milliman analyzes and reports on data from the nation’s 100 largest public DB pension plans.

For June, Milliman’s PPFI constituents produced an estimated aggregate return of -0.1%, which when incorporated with the anticipated benefit accruals reduced the collective funded status by $30 billion. As a result of the -0.1% return, assets for the index declined during the month from $6.129 trillion as of May 31 to $6.116 trillion. Concurrently, the PPFI plan liabilities rose to $6.894 trillion during the period, resulting in a funded ratio of 88.7% as of June 30, a -0.4% decline from 89.1% as of May 31.

“While June’s slight investment decline caused the PPFI funded ratio to slip from the indexes all-time high, public pension plans have enjoyed strong returns so far in 2026, with plan assets up 6.2% from January 1 to June 30,” said Ryan Falls, co-author of the Milliman PPFI. Falls also reported that “half of the 100 largest public pensions continue to have funded ratios eclipsing 90%, unchanged from the end of May, while only 10 plans are less than 60% funded”. Despite recent improvement in the overall funded status/ratio of public pension defined benefit plans, they are still significantly below levels achieved in 2000 prior to two costly equity market corrections.

You can access the monthly report below.

View the Milliman 100 Public Pension Funding Index.

07.29.26
by

There Is No “One Size Fits All” Asset Allocation

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

I recently attended a public pension conference in which the following question was asked by the moderator: Should public pension funds once again adopt a 60%/40% asset allocation framework? As a reminder, there may be an average exposure that results from a review of all public fund data, but there is NO such thing as an appropriate or standard asset allocation. Given that every defined benefit plan has its own unique liabilities, funded status/funded ratio, different workforces, ability to contribute, etc., how could there be a standard exposure to any asset class, let alone a standard 60% equity/40% fixed income allocation.

I’m sure that this question originates through the belief that the pension objective is to achieve a return on asset (ROA) assumption, as if there is some magic combination of assets and weightings that will enable the pension plan to achieve the return target. However, as regular readers of this blog know, we, at Ryan ALM, think that the primary objective when managing a DB pension plan is NOT a return objective but it is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk.

Pursuing a return objective guarantees volatility – volatility of returns, contributions, and funded status. It does not guarantee success! Regarding the volatility of returns, the annual standard deviation for a pension plan’s asset allocation is roughly 12%-15%. Refocusing on the plan’s unique liabilities secures, through cash flow matching (CFM), the monthly promises (benefit payments) from the first month out as far as the allocation will cover. Through this process the necessary liquidity is provided each month, while also providing the additional benefit of extending the investing horizon for the remainder of the assets that are no longer needed as a source of liquidity. We refer to these residual assets as the alpha or growth assets that now can grow unencumbered.

These growth assets can be invested almost anyway that you want. You can decide to just buy the S&P 500 index at low fees or construct a more intricate asset allocation with exposures and weightings of your choice. Again, there is no one size fits all solution. We do suggest that the better the funded ratio/status of your plan, the greater the allocation to the CFM strategy. If your plan is less well funded today, start with a more modest CFM allocation, and expand it as funding levels improve. In any case, you are bringing an element of certainty to what has been historically a very uncertain process.

So, please remember that every DB plan is unique. Don’t let anyone tell you that your fund needs to have X% in asset class A or Y% in asset class B. Securing the benefits should be the most important decision. How you build the alpha portfolio will be a function of so many other factors related specifically to your plan and its governance.

07.26.26
by

ARPA Update as of July 24, 2026

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

I hope that you are enjoying a wonderful summer weekend. I’m currently writing this post from an Amtrak train on my way to the Opal Public Fund Forum in Newport, RI. What a beautiful day for a train ride.

There is some very exciting news to report in this week’s update following several ho hum weeks with little to disclose. I’m pleased to report that a “Plan Terminated by Mass Withdrawal before 2020 Plan Year” has been invited to submit an application seeking Special Financial Assistance (SFA). As a reminder, there are 80 such plans on the “waitlist”. Could this be the crack in the dam that opens the flood gates?

Retirement Plan of Local 1102 Retirement Fund, the first mass withdrawal applicant, is seeking just over $3.7 million for 220 plan participants. I’ll be following this story closely and reporting as information becomes available. In addition to 1102, four other pension funds were permitted to submit revised applications, including America’s Family Benefit Retirement Plan, a Priority Group 1 member. They are one of just three members from that cohort that have not yet received SFA. They are hoping to secure $186.7 million for its 3,109 members.

The other three plans resubmitting applications are UFCW, Local 23 and Giant Eagle Pension Plan, Plasterers Local #1 Pension Plan, and Colorado Cement Masons Pension Trust Fund, who collectively are trying to secure $37.1 million for just under 7.5k plan members.

There is little to report this week beside the activity associate with the resubmission of four applications and the one initial application, as there were no applications approved, denied, or withdrawn.

U.S. interest rates (based on the Treasury yield curve) continued to rise last week as inflationary concerns escalated primarily due to uncertainty in the Middle East and its impact on the price of oil. Given the higher rates, new and future SFA recipients will be able secure those future benefits at a reduced cost. We’re pleased to provide you with a free analysis on just what those cost savings could be and how far into the future those benefits could be secured.

07.22.26
by

A “Joe Friday” Moment

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Jack Webb, who portrayed Joe Friday in the 1950s crime drama “Dragnet”, was famous for saying in season two “all we want are the facts, ma’am.” The catchphrase eventually morphed into a shorter phrase with the help of comedian, Stan Freberg, who released his parody “St. George and the Dragonet” in which he stated, “just the facts, Ma’am”. That phrase has been carried forward in Dragnet remakes. But, I digress.

Today, I present to you a Joe Friday moment. Here are the facts: Oil prices have risen by 27% since July 6th. U.S. Treasury yields are rising across the yield curve, and the 30-year Treasury yield is within 6 bps of this cycle’s high of 5.2%. The 10-year Treasury yield is currently 4.66% as of 10:24 am on 7/22/26. Investment grade corporate bond spreads have finally started to widen although slowly. According to Morgan Stanley, the “average” yield on a BBB+ corporate is 6.23% or roughly 1.1% higher than the yield on the comparable 30-year Treasury bond. Inflation, which moderated in June, is likely to spike higher given the current direction of activity in the Middle East and its impact on shipping lanes.

These are the facts. They suggest to me, and hopefully you, that the current U.S. interest rate environment is ripe for de-risking activities through cash flow matching (CFM). Why continue to live with the uncertainty surrounding oil, inflation, rates, etc., when you can SECURE your fund’s promises in the near-term?

I wish that I had a crystal ball to help me forecast the future but alas I don’t, and I suspect that you don’t either. Given the lack of clarity related to future events, I suggest that we live in the moment. We have an environment in which the cost of those future promises (benefit payments) can be cut dramatically. An environment that brings an element of certainty to a very uncertain process. An environment in which U.S. interest rates are providing plan sponsors with a significant portion of the annual return on investment target.

We’ve seen this scenario before. At the start of the 2000s, we had pension plans extremely well-funded and contribution expenses well-controlled. That opportunity went unheeded. The result of that inaction proved to be disastrous as we saw DB pension funding get pounded by two major equity market corrections. Are you confident that another major correction isn’t around the corner?

Like Joe Friday, I rely on the facts, which I’ve now presented to you. Ignore them at your peril.

07.21.26
by

Today’s Question

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

As I’ve reported in this blog several times, we frequently get replies/comments to our many blog posts (now >1,820 posts). In fact, we encourage the exchanges, so please keep them coming. Here is an example of a recent question from a public fund DB pension plan sponsor, but it could be from anyone involved in the management of pension assets:

Trustee: “If cash flow matching (CFM) is such a great idea, why isn’t every consultant recommending it?”

Russ: Some consultants do recommend CFM, but most consultants (and industry participants) have been trained over decades to invest pension assets with the goal to outperform generic asset class benchmarks in pursuit of achieving the annual return on assets (ROA). We, at Ryan ALM, don’t believe that is the primary objective when managing a pension plan.

We start with a different premise. We ask, ‘What is the purpose of these pension assets? If the purpose is to pay promised pension benefits, then the first responsibility in managing pension assets should be to use an investment strategy that produces the cash flow needed to make those payments without being forced to sell investments or sweep dividend income and capital distributions from a plan’s alpha or growth strategies. Once you’ve secured those benefit payments, the remaining assets can pursue growth with far less urgency, as they will have a much longer investing horizon in which to achieve the desired return and help meet future pension liabilities.

DB pension plans need to be protected and preserved. Continuing on a course solely focused on return only ensures volatility of the funded status and contributions. It doesn’t guarantee success. Using CFM brings an element of certainty to a very uncertain process.

Please keep your questions coming!

07.20.26
by

ARPA Update as of July 17, 2026

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Welcome to the middle of July. Canadian forest fires made for a hazy couple of days in New Jersey during the last week. That smog was somewhat representative of the cloud of uncertainty still hanging over the PBGC’s implementation of the ARPA pension legislation and the 80 Mass Withdrawal funds residing on the waitlist. There doesn’t seem to be any further news on how, or even if, they will be addressed by the PBGC.

What we do know, is that Chicopee, MA-based Roofers and Slaters Local No. 248 Pension Plan, received approval for its SFA application. They will receive $5.8 million in SFA and interest for its 211 plan participants. This is the 165th pension fund to receive SFA grants. To date, $77.9 billion in SFA and interest has gone to support >2 million American workers and retirees.

As the program is winding down, there isn’t much else to report on. There are currently seven revised applications before the PBGC. Esch one is from a non-priority fund. Pension Plan of the Automotive Machinists Pension Trust is the most likely to have action taken on its application next, as the PBGC must act by July 20, 2026 or the application is automatically approved. They are hoping to receive an SFA grant of $139.1 million for just under 7,500 participants.

We hope that you have a great week. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to us if you’d like to learn how cash flow matching (CFM) can secure your SFA and maximize the coverage of benefits.

07.17.26
by

DB Pension Plans: Only One Certainty

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

As you look at the landscape for defined benefit pension plans, it is readily apparent that there is only one CERTAINTY. Each month your fund must fulfill a promise. Benefit payments (and expenses) can’t wait to be paid. Like clockwork, B&E come due each month whether markets have behaved or suddenly made finding liquidity a challenge. What have you done to make sure that those obligations are met?

Pension plan management is primarily focused on the fund’s assets. Sponsors and their advisors put together an asset allocation framework that is singularly focused on the annual required return on assets (ROA). But those asset allocation frameworks come with a lot of volatility and uncertainty. Many factors contribute to market movements. Each one out of the control of the pension sponsor.

Do you know where stocks will be trading in 1-hour let alone 1-month, 1-year, or 1-decade? How about inflation? Interest rates? What about the Middle East, Ukraine, China, etc.? Why live with such uncertainty?

How comforting would it be to know what a pension fund’s annual contributions will be for the next 10-, 20- or 30+-years? No guessing, no budgeting woes, and no unfortunate spikes in annual contributions for public systems that harm one’s ability to support the social safety net. The process that can create this level of certainty has been used for decades: Cash Flow Matching (CFM).

As previously mentioned, current pension management approaches are return focused, which only guarantees volatility. Volatility in returns, contributions, and funded status! A CFM approach, which is the careful matching of asset cash flows (principal and interest) with the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses, will bring certainty (outside of a rare IG default) to the management of DB pensions. Importantly, liquidity is created and available when needed. There is no forced selling to fulfill those commitments. No scraping of dividend income which is detrimental to the long-term success of the equity program.

Importantly, a CFM program also “buys time” for the residual assets (presumably the alpha assets) to grow unencumbered with the goal to meet future liabilities. A longer investing horizon will dramatically enhance the probability of those assets meeting long-term return expectations.

Given that there is currently only one certainty (monthly obligations) for sponsors of DB pension plans, wouldn’t it be beneficial to create another level of certainty through the SECURING of the monthly promises? Why wait, especially given all the uncertainty facing market participants today? Ryan ALM, Inc. is always willing to provide you with a free analysis of what CFM could do for your fund. We’re ready to help you sleep better at night.