05.13.24
by

ARPA Update as of May 10, 2024

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Another Monday brings the weekly update on the PBGC’s effort to implement the pension rescue under ARPA. As noted previously, activity has definitely slowed in recent weeks, and the week ending May 10, 2024 is no exception. I can report that the only activity on the PBGC’s ARPA spreadsheet is a withdrawal of a previously revised application. Employers’ – Warehousemen’s Pension Plan, a non-priority plan out of Los Angeles, was seeking $40 million in Special Financial Assistance (SFA) for just over 1,800 plan participants. The latest version of the application had been filed on March 4, 2024.

Unfortunately, there were no additional applications submitted or approved. At the same time, there were no additional applications withdrawn or denied. Lastly, no plans that might have received excess SFA have returned those excess assets at this tie outside of Central States. There remain 129 plans to still have their applications for SFA reviewed and approved.

Glen Eagle Trading reported the following in a recent email, that In 2023, a survey found that 78% of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck, up six percentage points from the previous year. Unfortunately, in yet another survey 29% of Americans don’t earn enough to cover basic living costs. The ability to fund a retirement is getting to be more challenging than ever, which is why DB pension systems need to be be protected and preserved. The ARPA pension legislation is going a long way to securing pensions for millions of American workers who were on the verge of losing most, if not everything, that they had earned and counted on for their “golden years”.

05.09.24
by

Kinda Silly Question

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

If you ask the average person the following questions, I suspect that most people would answer in the affirmative.

Are you handsome?

Are you intelligent?

Are you honest?

So, I found it somewhat humorous when I saw the headline from a recent conference that said, “Private Credit managers say their is more room for growth”. Are you surprised? How many investment management organizations turn down new business when it presents itself? Does it really matter that private debt has seen something like 10X asset growth in the last couple of decades? Perhaps these managers have such a unique niche that they honestly believe that their product can manage through any challenge, especially one as “trivial” as natural capacity. How many times have you heard the following: “Our maximum capacity that we previously cited was just a target amount. Now that we actually have assets under management, it is clearer that we have much more capacity than initially anticipated.” Seems convenient, doesn’t it?

I can recall a few difficult conversations with both sales and senior management when I was leading an investment team at a previous shop. Our research and portfolio management teams did an outstanding job of determining the appropriate capacity for each strategy, and we had 50+ optimizations that each represented a strategy/product. We were particularly cognizant of the capacity associated with our market neutral product, which was roughly $3 billion in AUM. We had to be most careful with shorting stocks given the borrowing rates being charged by our prime brokers. The size of trades were always a concern. Yet, it really didn’t matter to outside parties that just wanted to see assets flow into our products. It didn’t matter whether or not we would be able to generate the return/risk characteristics as previously defined by our investment team.

These awkward conversations occur all too frequently, especially for investment companies that are public and have quarterly earnings expectations that must be met. I’ve never understood how the investment management industry can claim to be “long-term” investors yet be driven by quarter-to-quarter earnings announcements that impact the investment teams when layoffs are announced. Has our industry just morphed into a number of large sales organizations? Do we have “investment” firms focused on generating appropriate return and risk characteristics? Do these firms truly understand the capacity based on trading metrics?

I don’t work for a company that participates in the Private Credit arena. I couldn’t tell you whether or not there remains adequate capacity to enable managers in that space to generate decent return and risk characteristics. But asking managers in that space whether or not they can take on more assets and generate more fees is kinda silly. I hope that the asset consulting community has the tools to evaluate capacity for not only this asset class, but any other being considered for use in a DB pension. Given that most “active” managers have failed over time to generate a return in excess of their respective benchmark, I would hazard a guess that the natural capacity for their strategy has been eclipsed. These excess assets lead to ever increasing trading costs of market impact and time delays (not commissions). Couple those costs with the fees that active managers charge and you create a hurdle that is difficult to overcome.

05.06.24
by

ARPA Update as of May 3, 2024

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Welcome to May! The PBGC has now been implementing the ARPA legislation since July 2021. Great strides have been made since Local 138 Pension Trust Fund received the first approval for the SFA grant ($112.6 million) on December 21, 2021. The grant proceeds were ultimately awarded on January 14, 2022. There have been another 71 funds to receive approval for their SFA applications ($53.8 billion in SFA) with another 129 currently awaiting action on their applications. Thats a huge effort to-date and a greater one to come.

That said, there must have been a big celebration at the PBGC for Cinco de Mayo this past weekend, as there were no new applications received, denied, approved, withdrawn, or excess proceeds repaid during the previous week. Furthermore, there were no pension systems looking to be added to the waitlist, which currently has 108 systems seeking approval from the original 114 on the list. Of course I’m being facetious about the PBGC’s celebration as they have already accomplished a lot, but there remains a ton to do before the legislation reaches its termination date.

I am attending and speaking at the IFEBP’s legislative conference in Washington DC beginning today, and I hope to gather some intel on anything related to ARPA’s pension reform and future actions. I’ll report back on any interesting tidbits. Have a great week.

05.03.24
by

He Said What?

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

I’d like to thank Bill Gross for his honest assessment that he just provided on the likely failure of “Total Return” bond products going forward. Here are his thoughts that were summarized in a Bloomberg Business email:

Bill Gross says his “total return” strategy—the one that revolutionized the bond market— “is dead”! Instead of just picking up steady interest payments like his peers did at the time, the co-founder of Pacific Investment Management created the firm’s Total Return Fund in 1987 to take active positions in duration, credit risk and volatility. The idea is that, more than just clipping coupons, bond investors can also benefit from capital appreciation as bond prices rise and yields fall. But in an outlook published Thursday, Gross noted what’s different now is that yields are much lower than when he first coined the concept, leaving investors with less room for price appreciation. 

We’ve been stressing this point for a long time now. Bonds should be used for the certainty of cash flows that they produce of interest and principal. Those cash flows are known and can be modeled with certainty (barring no defaults) to meet the liability cash flows of a pension plan (benefits) or foundation (grants). As Gross rightly points out, given the current level of US interest rates and inflation, just how much appreciation can be achieved, if an investor is on the correct side of a duration bet.

Capital market participants benefited tremendously during the nearly four decades decline in rates from 1981 to 2021. That move down in rates was certainly great for “total return” bond programs, but it also acted as rocket fuel for risk assets. What most market participants have either forgotten or don’t know is the fact that US interest rates trended higher for 28 years prior to the peak achieved in 1981. They are used to the Fed stepping into the fray every time there was a wiggle or wobble in the markets. Well, those days might be behind us.

Yes, US employment came in light this morning with 175k jobs being created in April when the forecast was for 240k, but that is one data point. We certainly witnessed an aggressive move down in rates during 2023’s fourth quarter only to see most of that move reversed to start 2024. Was your bond program able to get both directions correct or did your portfolio get whipsawed? Wouldn’t it be more comforting to know that you can install a cash flow matching portfolio that will SECURE the promises that have been made to the plan participants without having to guess the direction of rates? Even if one were to guess correctly, just how far will rates fall given that inflation remains sticky? Are you likely to see negative real yields?

The US economy remains robust. Fiscal policy remains easy with excessive Government spending and in direct competition with monetary policy. The labor market continues to be strong, as is wage growth. The stock market’s performance continues to support the economy. Given these realities, why should US rates plummet, which is what it would take to create an investing horizon that would be supportive of “total return” fixed income products.

05.01.24
by

CFM: Buy Time and Reduce Risk

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

A traditional DB plan’s asset allocation comes with a lot of annual volatility (see the graph below). That volatility gets reduced as one extends the investing horizon, but it is still quite uncertain until you extend sufficiently, such as 10 or more years. However, as plan sponsors and investment managers, we have been living in a quarter-to-quarter measurement cycle for decades. In that environment, a 1 standard deviation (1 SD) measurement for a 1-year time frame (Ryan ALM asset allocation model since 1999) is +/- 10.5%. In the example below, 68% of the observations (1 SD) will fall between 16.5% and -4.5%. A 2 SD measurement would have the range for 95% of the observations between 27% and -15%. That gap, or should I say canyon, is a 1-year observation. Extend the measurement period to 5-years and the range of results is still wide but less so at +/- 9.8% for 2 SDs. It isn’t until you get beyond 10 years that the volatility associated with a fairly traditional asset allocation gets to a reasonable level.

Is there a way to bring more certainty to the asset allocation process that would allow for longer observation periods and less volatility? Absolutely! A plan sponsor and their advisors can adopt a bifurcated asset allocation in which a liquidity bucket is created that will fund and match the plan’s liability cash flows of benefits and expenses chronologically from the next month as far out as the allocation will cover (10+ years) allowing for the remainder of the alpha assets (all non-bond assets) to now grow unencumbered. The task for those assets is to meet future liabilities.

As the graph below highlights, a carefully constructed cash flow matching (CFM) portfolio can help plan sponsors wade through the volatility associated with shorter timeframes. The CFM portfolio will consist of investment grade bonds whose cash flows of interest and principal will be matched to the liability cash flows. This process now ensures (absent defaults) that the necessary liquidity is available when needed as those future promises have been SECURED. The remaining assets can now be managed as aggressively as the plan’s funded status dictates.

With this process, short-term market dislocations will no longer impact the plan’s ability to meet its obligations. There will be no forced selling to meet benefit payments. The alpha assets can now grow without fear of being sold at an unreasonable level. The CFM program takes care of your needs while establishing a buffer (longer investing horizon) from market corrections that happen on a fairly regular basis. This structure should also lead to less volatility related to contributions and the plan’s funded status.

Given the elevated US interest rate environment, now is the time to engage in this process. CFM will provide a level of certainty that doesn’t exist in a traditional asset allocation. This is a “sleep well at night” strategy that should become the core holding for DB pensions. As I mentioned in an earlier blog post today, bonds should only be used for the cash flows they produce. They should not be used as total return-seeking instruments. Leave that task to the alpha assets that will benefit from a longer investing period.

05.01.24
by

Another Challenging Month for US Fixed Income

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

S&P Dow Jones is out with its monthly “Dash Board” on a variety of benchmarks, both domestic and foreign. April proved challenging for both US equities and bonds. With regard to stocks, the S&P 500 was down -4.1% bringing the YTD performance to +6.04%. It was a tougher environment for both mid cap (-6.0%) and small cap (-5.6%). Small caps (S&P 600) continue to be pressured and the index is now down -3.3% YTD. As US interest rates continue on a course higher, US equities will continue to be challenged.

The higher US rates are also continuing to pressure US fixed income. The Aggregate Index produced a -1.8% April, and the index is now down -2.4% since the start of 2024 despite the rather robust YTM of 5.3%. As we’ve discussed on many occasions, bonds are the only asset class with a known cash flow of a terminal value and contractual coupon payments. As a result, bonds should be used for the certainty of those cash flows and specifically to defease pension liabilities. As a reminder, pension liabilities are bond-like in nature and they will move with changes in interest rates. Don’t use bonds as a total return strategy, as they will not perform in a rising rate environment. Sure, the nearly 40-year decline in rates made bonds and their historical performance look wonderful, but that secular trend is over.

Use the fixed income allocation to match asset cash flows of interest and principal to the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. As a result, that portion of the total assets portfolio will have mitigated interest rate risk, while SECURING the promised benefits. Having ample liquidity is essential. Using bonds to defease pension liabilities ensures that the necessary liquidity will be available as needed. The current US interest rate environment may be pressuring total return-seeking fixed income managers, but it is proving cash flow matching programs with a very healthy YTM that dramatically reduces the cost of those future value payments. Don’t waste this golden opportunity.

04.30.24
by

Healthier Than Ever? Nah!

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

P&I produced an article yesterday titled, “Corporate Pension Funds Are Fully Funded, Healthier Than Ever. Now What?” According to Milliman, corporate pension plans are averaging roughly a funded ratio of 106%. This represents a healthy funded status, but it is by no means the healthiest ever. One may recall that corporate plans were funded in excess of 120% as recently as 2000. In what might be more shocking news, public pension plans were too when using a market discount rate (ASC 715 discount rate). Today, those public pension plans have a funded status of roughly 80% according to Milliman’s latest public fund report.

The question, “Now what”? is absolutely the right question to be asking. Many corporate plans have already begun de-risking, as the average exposure to fixed income is >45% according to P&I’s asset allocation survey through November 2023. Unfortunately, public pension systems still sit with only about 18% exposure to US fixed income, preferring a “let it ride” mentality as equities and alternatives account for more than 75% of the average plan’s asset allocation. Is this the right move? No. The move into alternatives has dried up liquidity, increased fees, and reduced transparency. Furthermore, just because a public plan believes that its sponsor is perpetual, does that make the system sustainable? You may want to be reminded about Jacksonville Police and Fire. There are other examples, too.

Whether the pension plan is corporate, multiemployer, or public, the asset allocation should reflect the funded status. There is no reason that a 60% funded plan should have the same asset allocation as one that is 90% or better funded. All plans should have both liquidity and growth buckets. The liquidity bucket will be a bond allocation (investment grade corporates in our case) that matches asset cash flows to liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. That bucket will provide all of the necessary liquidity as far into the future as the pension system can afford. The remaining assets will be focused on outperforming future liability growth. These assets will be non-bonds that now have the benefit of an extended investing horizon to grow unencumbered. Forcing liquidity in environments in which natural liquidity has been compromised only serves to exacerbate the downward spiral.

Pension America has the opportunity to stabilize the funded status and contribution expenses. They also have the chance to SECURE a portion of the promises. How comforting! We saw this movie a little more than 20 years ago. Are we going to treat this opportunity as a Ground Hog Day event and do nothing or are we going to be thoughtful in taking appropriate measures to reduce risk before the markets bludgeon the funded status? The time to act is now. Not after the fact.

04.29.24
by

How “Real” Will the Fed Get?

By: Ronald J. Ryan, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Chairman Powell and the Fed have consistently said they want real rates. The Fed primarily focuses on the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as their gauge of inflation. Currently the PCE is at 2.7%. What the Fed has not said is the target level of real rates. Historically, real rates as measured by the St. Louis Fed have averaged about 3.0% although the trend line has decreased steadily since the 1980s (see graph below). With the PCE at 2.7% today a 2% to 3% real rate would suggest a 4.70% to 5.70% 10-year Treasury nominal rate. With the 10-year Treasury at 4.66% today, it would seem that there is no reason for any cut in rates by the Fed. In fact, there may be more reason to increase rates.

The question remains… where will inflation (as measured by the PCE) level off? Who knows since there are too many factors to consider. The major causes of inflation today seem to be:

  1. Excessive Government Spending

Biden 2025 budget of $7.3 trillion is 12.3% higher than the 2024 budget of $6.5 trillion. Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, warns that excessive deficit spending is inflationary and that interest rates could spike up to 8%. The Biden Administration Student Loan forgiveness package could increase the deficit by $430 billion if successful.

  • Oil Prices

       West Texas Intermediate (WTI) Crude oil prices are up over 19% in 2024.

  • Red Sea Attacks

About 12% of global trade goes through here to the Suez Canal. Ships now have to be rerouted around southern tip of Africa creating a delay of about two weeks at a cost of $3,786 per vessel or about $1 million per week. According to Drewry World Container Index costs are up over 90% YoY.

  • Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapse

One of the largest ports in America handling $80 billion in cargo annually. Estimated closure costs = $15 million per day with closure expected for two to three years.

As always, the motto “let the buyer beware” (Caveat Emptor) seems to apply here.

04.29.24
by

ARPA Update as of April 26, 2024

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Can you believe that a 1/3 of 2024 will soon be behind us? It is finally feeling like Spring in NJ today.

There is not much to discuss regarding the PBGC’s implementation of the ARPA pension legislation. According to the latest update, there were no new applications filed, approved, denied, or withdrawn. However, there was one fund that received the SFA. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 152 Retail Meat Pension Plan, a Mount Laurel, NJ, plan received SFA and interest in the amount of $279.3 million for the more than 10k plan participants.

There currently are 114 names on the waitlist. Of those, 27 have been invited to submit applications. As the data above reflects, 8 of those applications have been approved, 12 are currently under review, while another 7 have been withdrawn presumably to have the submission corrected and resubmitted. In addition to that activity, 112 of the 114 funds have locked-in a valuation date for SFA measurement (discount rate). Ninety-two percent of those chose 12/31/22, while 2 have no lock-up and the other 9 have chosen dates between December 31, 2022 and November 30, 2023. As a reminder, the SFA is based on a series of discount rates. The lower the rate, the greater the potential SFA. Using the 10-year Treasury yield as a proxy for the discount rate, those plans locking in an evaluation date as of year-end 2022 have done alright, as the yield at the end of 2022 was 3.88%, while it currently stands at 4.63% (4/29 at 3:39 pm).

We’ll have to see if the others have faired as well. In the meantime, the higher US interest rates have certainly helped from an investment standpoint, as the current environment is providing 5%+ YTM investment grade bond portfolios. The higher rates reduce the cost of those future promises while extending the coverage period to secure benefits through a cash flow matching investment strategy.

04.24.24
by

Milliman Reports Improved Funding For Public Fund Pension Plans as of March 31, 2024

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Milliman recently released results for its Public Pension Funding Index (PPFI), which covers the nation’s 100 largest public defined benefit plans.

Positive equity market performance in March increased the Milliman 100 PPFI funded ratio from 78.6% at the end of February to 79.7% as of March 31, representing the highest level since March 31, 2022, prior to the Fed’s aggressive rate increases. The previous high-water mark stood at 82.7%. The improved funding for Milliman’s PPFI plans was driven by an estimated 1.7% aggregate return for March 2024. Total fund performance for these 100 public plans ranged from an estimated 0.9% to 2.6% for the month. As a result of the relatively strong performance, PPFI plans gained approximately $85 billion in MV in March. The asset growth was offset by negative cash flow amounting to about $9 billion. It is estimated that the current asset shortfall relative to accrued liabilities is about $1.271 trillion as of March 31. 

In addition, it was reported that an additional 4 of the PPFI members had achieved a 90% or better funded status, while regrettably, 15 of the constituents remain at <60%. Given that changing US interest rates do not impact the calculation for pension liabilities under GASB accounting, the improvement in March’s collective funded status may be underreported, as US rates continued the upward trajectory begun as the calendar turned to 2024.