06.30.26
by

As a Fiduciary, Would you…

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

Regrettably, the investment industry has trained pension fiduciaries to think in terms of returns:

  • “Can we earn 7.25%?”
  • “Can we outperform the benchmark?”
  • “Should we own more equities?”
  • “How about alternatives?”

But we at Ryan ALM, Inc. believe chasing returns is NOT the economic objective of a defined benefit plan. Pursuing a return objective only guarantees volatility and not success. Volatility of returns, volatility of the Funded Ratio, and volatility of contributions! We believe that the objective is much simpler:

Deliver every promised benefit at the lowest sustainable COST to the sponsor.

Given that objective, we help pension plans reduce the cost of delivering every pension promise through our turnkey pension sustainable solutions. Reducing cost and SECURING the promised benefits is what every stakeholder should desire from trustees, to sponsors, and most importantly, plan participants.

As a pension Fiduciary what would you do if given this choice?

Imagine two pension funds that both owe retirees $100 million over the next 30 years. One fund invests with the goal of earning the highest possible return, while the other invests with the goal of meeting every payment at the lowest expected long-term cost.

Which strategy sounds more prudent? We believe that most trustees will immediately recognize that the second action better aligns with their responsibilities as Fiduciaries.

Here’s another example to consider. Lets think about funding your pension like you would a 30-year mortgage on your home.

Would you rather:

  • Put all your money in the stock market and hope it’s there when each payment comes due?

Or:

  • Structure your cash flows so each payment is already funded when it’s due?

I believe (hope) that most people would choose the second option for a monthly obligation they cannot afford to miss. Funding your monthly benefits is the exact same thing. Why not ensure that those benefits have been secured and the liquidity available as far into the future as possible through a cash flow matching (CFM) portfolio. It is absolutely time to get off the performance rollercoaster. Bring some certainty to a very uncertain process.

In conclusion, the primary pension objective is to pay every promised benefit at the lowest sustainable cost. Everything we do at Ryan ALM follows from that premise.

06.29.26
by

ARPA Update as of June 26, 2026

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

New Jersey’s current weather is like standing in front of a blast furnace, and it will only get worse, so I flew to Orlando, FL to “cool” off at the FPPTA annual conference (42nd annual event). We live in strange times!

Regarding ARPA and the PBGC’s implementation of this critical legislation, things are heating up a bit, too. There was one application approved for SFA by the PBGC and another resubmitted. Columbus, Oh-based Bricklayers Local No. 55 Pension Plan, a non-priority group member, had its revised application approved that will award the fund with $7.2 million in SFA and interest for its 483 members.

In other news, Pension Plan of International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local #15 Pennsylvania, an Allentown-based construction fund, has filed a revised application seeking $5.6 million in SFA for its 165 plan participants.

No pension funds were denied the opportunity to file based on eligibility and no funds withdrew applications. There were also no systems added to the waitlist. There remains one non-Mass Withdrawal plan on the waitlist that has yet to file an initial application.

There are 38 funds that could still receive SFA considerations exclusive of the 80 Mass Withdrawal funds residing on the waitlist. Three Priority Group members have yet to file an initial application, which seems strange to me, while 35 others have either applications currently before the PBGC (9) or have withdrawn previously submitted applications.

We will not be providing another ARPA update until after the Fourth of July. We wish for you and your family a wonderful long weekend. Stay safe and happy 250th.

06.26.26
by

Will You Be Wearing A Bathing Suit?

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

I’m not asking about your plans for America’s 250th celebration come this Fourth of July. 

I read a very interesting email yesterday that referenced the tragic events in Venezuela by saying that the “earthquake doesn’t write the verdict. It audits the books.” My initial reaction: that’s harsh given the significant deaths and injuries that resulted, but upon reflection the author is correct. It wasn’t the fact that an earthquake of that magnitude hadn’t occurred in 125-years. It was the fact that poor planning, weak building codes, inferior construction, and poor maintenance well before the event created the tragic outcome.

As I contemplated the authors words, I began to reflect on what Warren Buffet had said in his 2001 annual letter to shareholders. He stated, “only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.” Bringing this post back to investing and the impact on pension plans;

  • Rising markets make almost every strategy appear successful.
  • Cheap credit, abundant liquidity, and investor optimism hide poor decisions and weak fundamentals.
  • Excessive leverage, weak business models, and speculation can all seem to work (think SPCX).

But when the “tide goes out” (markets decline) we are left with the truth, and it can be pretty ugly.

  • Companies with too much debt struggle.
  • Investors who relied on leverage are forced to sell.
  • Weak business models fail (Dot Com bubble).
  • Investment managers, pension plans, and their advisors that took hidden risks are exposed.

Importantly, bear markets don’t create weakness—they expose weakness that was already there.

We witnessed what happened following the go go 1990s, when it seemed as if every investment made money, pension funded ratios were at or near all-time highs, and contributions were well contained. It was that prolonged bull market that made almost any pension investment strategy look successful. But then the piper came calling! By the time the tide had rolled out, we witnessed the crushing impact on America’s pension system that hadn’t done anything to secure the promised benefits, improve liquidity, and reduce risk in very aggressive asset allocations.

So, I ask once more, will you be wearing a bathing suit when the next market crash/event occurs? Have you done enough to protect the promises made to your plan participants? If you are concerned that you haven’t, let us perform the audit before the event occurs. Our turnkey system will:

  • Properly measure your fund’s liabilities and cash flow needs.
  • Generate and maintain sufficient liquidity chronologically.
  • Avoid excessive risk.
  • Manage interest-rate risk.
  • Buy-time for the growth assets to perform.
  • Stabilize the funded status and contribution expenses.

Those plans that prepare ahead of the “event”, will be the ones that are healthy when the tide begins to rise again. Prudent risk management matters much more than chasing returns. The real test of an investment strategy for a pension system isn’t during bull markets—it’s during highly uncertain ones, when hidden vulnerabilities become impossible to ignore. Will your fund pass an audit?

06.25.26
by

The Great Decoupling!

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

No, I am not referring to some A-lister’s divorce. 

Unfortunately, for many American workers, inflation and a lack of real wage growth is killing the “American Dream”. Recent increases in consumer inflation, no matter how you measure it, has forced the average worker to cut back on consumption. But is this really a tale of recent inflation eclipsing wages or is there something more earth shattering that has created this situation?

The answer just may be productivity. As a reminder, productivity measures how much output a worker produces per hour worked. Economists generally expect that if workers produce more value, workers should receive a corresponding increase in compensation. From 1948 to 1973, productivity and worker compensation moved nearly in lockstep. This is the era when workers benefitted from greater unionization, healthcare and retirement coverage (DB pension plans) was expanding, and as a result, median household incomes rose rapidly.

Unfortunately, something dramatic occurred during the mid-1970s that broke down this correlation. There was a “great decoupling”, in which productivity rose dramatically while median wage growth failed to keep pace. The exact numbers vary depending on methodology, but virtually every major study finds a significant gap between productivity gains and compensation/wages. As an example:

Since 1973Increase
Productivity+80% to +90%
Median hourly compensation+15% to +30%
Median wagesEven less

Given this reality, who benefitted from these productivity gains?

It appears that a larger share of economic output now goes to corporate profits, shareholders, and business owners instead of workers. This is particularly important because not surprisingly stock ownership is concentrated among higher-income households. Furthermore, CEO pay increased dramatically relative to average worker pay. For instance, in the 1960s CEO pay was roughly 20–30 times worker pay. Today, a CEO’s pay can exceed 300 times worker compensation at large corporations.

The effects of globalization and technology have also impacted wage gains. American workers have been asked to increasingly compete with lower-cost foreign workers which has weakened their bargaining power in many sectors/industries. Technology has certainly increased productivity, but it has a tendency to tamp labor demand thus increasing shareholder value. Lastly, I believe that the fall in union membership from roughly 25% in the 19702 to around 6% today has had a profound impact on real wage growth, as workers generally have less collective bargaining power than in earlier decades.

Why this matters for retirement/retirees

A worker in 1965 had a pretty good chance of participating in a defined benefit pension plan, while also getting employer-paid healthcare, and possibly education support. A worker today is living with slower wage growth concurrent with being asked to fund a “retirement” through a defined contribution account with little disposable income, no investment acumen, and no crystal ball. Today’s workers own all the investment and longevity risk!

As a result, even though the economy is vastly more productive, many (most?) workers do not feel that they are sharing proportionally in that increased prosperity. Yes, the stock market may be at or near all-time highs, but that alone won’t make most Americans feel prosperous until wages truly reflect the output being produced by the average American worker.

06.25.26
by

The Ryan ALM, Inc. Blog

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

Are you a recent subscriber (thank you) to the Ryan ALM, Inc. blog? Here’s a little history. I began writing this blog in 2013. I’ll never forget my elementary school friend, Tony, who helped me set up the blog, saying that I shouldn’t start one if I wasn’t going to be consistent in producing content. Well, 13-years later and there are now 1,800+ mostly pension-related posts and more than 600k words. When I joined Ryan ALM, Inc. in the summer of 2019, I was extremely grateful to Ron Ryan for supporting this effort and that support continues to this day, while also being a contributor of important content.

As a new subscriber, what should you expect to read among the plethora of posts? I believe the dominant themes are:

  1. DB Pensions exist to secure promised benefits, not maximize returns.
  2. Pension Liabilities should drive investment decisions and not the ROA.
  3. Funded status matters much more than asset returns.
  4. Cash Flow Matching (CFM) is the most prudent way to secure benefits.
  5. Custom Liability Indexes (CLI) are essential for measuring pension success – good governance.
  6. Reducing uncertainty through fully funding benefits is the true definition of pension risk management.
  7. Defined benefit plans should be protected and preserved.

As a reminder, Ryan ALM, Inc. is an independent pension risk management and SEC registered investment firm that helps defined benefit plans improve funded status, reduce liability risk, enhance liquidity, and secure retirement promises through custom liability measurement, cash flow matching, actuarially informed investment strategies, and ongoing monitoring.

Don’t hesitate to reach out to us with your questions and/or comments. They are always welcome on this blog, which can be found here.

06.23.26
by

Source Ryan ALM, Inc.

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

At Ryan ALM, Inc., we pride ourselves on being a resource for our clients beyond providing our three products – Cash Flow Matching (CFM), Custom Liability Index (CLI), and our ASC 715 Discount Rates. As regular readers of this blog will recall, we are always highlighting our willingness to provide a free analysis on how any of our products can be used to support your pension fund or E&F, especially if the goal is to secure the promised monthly benefits or grant payments.

These insights have been put to practical use three times in the last week by our clients. In the first case, we were asked to price a possible extension of an existing CFM portfolio by 6-months and 12-months using only investment grade bonds in one case while including high yield in the second scenario.

In the second example, we manage a CFM portfolio for a plan where we have defeased 100% of the net liabilities out to 2056. This plan is scheduled to make contributions until 2048. We were asked to evaluate the impact on the CFM portfolio (and the pension fund) using two new contribution rates equal to 75% and 50% of the current annual payment.

In the third example, we currently manage a significant portion of an E&F’s total fund. They inquired as to what the impact would be on the current CFM portfolio if they expedited grant payments during the next four years. We currently cover future grant payments out to 2036.

In each of these cases, we produced an analysis that will help them come to a decision that is in the best interest of the fund. We encourage our clients, and those that would like to be, to use our services to think through critical issues, such as ongoing liquidity needs, which has become a challenge for many plans/funds as alternative assets have become a bigger share of the asset allocation. Please don’t hesitate to SOURCE Ryan. We suspect that you’ll be quite pleased by what our services can do for you, your fund, and most importantly, your beneficiaries. Try us. I’m certain that you’ll like us!

The Ryan ALM mission is to solve liability driven problems through low-cost, low-risk solutions.

06.22.26
by

ARPA Update as of June 18, 2026

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

I hope that all the Dads who may stumble onto this post had a wonderful Father’s Day.

Welcome to the latest update on the ARPA pension legislation. Following a couple of weeks without obvious activity, the PBGC received one revised application from Local 1814 Riggers Pension Plan. This Staten Island, NY-based ILA fund is requesting $2.5 million in Special Financial Assistance (SFA) for its 65 members. The PBGC now has until October 10, 2026 to act on the application or they will automatically receive the SFA proceeds plus interest.

There is no other activity to report outside of this one fund resubmitting its application, as no current applications in front of the PBGC have been approved nor denied. No applications withdrawn and no new funds added to the waitlist. There are currently nine revised applications before the PBGC. There remain >25 applications that have been withdrawn that will likely be resubmitted prior to year-end.

I’m still waiting to learn the fate of the 80 pension funds residing on the waitlist that are Mass Withdrawal casualties prior to 2020. Will they be given the opportunity to file an application or will further legal activity deem them unworthy candidates? In any case, this legislation has been a huge success for American workers promised a benefit that may not have been received. To date, 2,017,527 participants have received $77.9 billion in SFA to support those promises. Yes!

06.17.26
by

Just Another Value Stock???

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

Sometimes you just have to laugh at the insanity in our industry. After publishing the post below today, I saw an article that said that Schwab has added a small allocation (0.012%) of SpaceX (SPCX) to their U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF. Now, I realize that SPCX is trying to capture our collective imaginations about space, but there is no way that a Value fund can justify these other worldly valuations. So much for style purity.

Just Another Meme Stock?
06.17.26
by

Pension Problem: Gross versus Net Liabilities

By: Ronald J. Ryan, CFA, Chairman, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Most pension plans are focused on gross liabilities as expressed by the funded ratio (total assets / total liabilities) and funded status (total assets – total liabilities). But the truth is plan assets are to fund NET liabilities after contributions. Contributions can be quite large especially for public pension funds. Pension assets need to know what they are funding… answer = NET liabilities. Unfortunately, actuaries do not calculate NET liabilities, nor do they include contributions as an asset to calculate the funded ratio / status. These oversights have an impact on asset allocation, especially if it is focused on the true economic funded status of solvency. The Ryan team created the first Custom Liability Index (CLI) in 1991 that has become a core product of Ryan ALM. Our CLI will calculate NET liabilities as a term structure, so assets and the plan sponsor know the liquidity needed and when to fund NET liabilities. 

GASB accounting requires a test of solvency (asset exhaustion test or AET) for public funds (which should be a requirement for all types of pensions) that includes contributions as a future asset to help fund the future liability cash flow schedule. Assets are grown at the return on asset assumption (ROA) to see if they can fully fund projected benefits – projected contributions (net liabilities). At the point that assets are exhausted, GASB requires a bifurcated discount rate using AA 20-year municipal rates. Ryan ALM modifies the GASB AET to calculate the ROA needed to fully fund net liabilities. We find that our calculated ROA is usually much lower than the ROA assumption currently being used. Our calculated ROA should be the hurdle rate for asset allocation instead of the common practice of choosing an ROA based on an asset only forecast of returns by asset classes. Our modified AET should be the first step in asset allocation after the CLI is built.

Bonds are the only asset class with the certainty of cash flows. That is why bonds have always been used to defease and immunize liabilities. Our Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP) is a cost optimization model that will fully fund NET liabilities at the lowest cost to the plan sponsor. We strongly believe that the bond allocation should be used to fully fund NET liabilities chronologically. In the process, an extended investment horizon is created buying time for the Alpha assets to grow unencumbered. We have found that converting the plan’s core fixed income allocation to a cash flow matching portfolio will normally cover the plan’s next 10+-years of benefit payments. Instead, some pension plans use a “Cash Sweep” to fund current liabilities which significantly damages the total return produced by those growth assets. Let bonds fund NET liabilities with certainty through our LBP… and sleep well at night.        

“Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” T.S. Eliot

06.17.26
by

Just Another Meme Stock?

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

Equity markets are partying like it’s 1999! Valuations be damned! Are the improved funded ratios for defined benefit plans going to be secured through de-risking strategies or are they going to once again be subjected to the whims of the capital markets? For plan sponsors benchmarking your equity exposure to the S&P 500, are you prepared for the volatility potentially associated with the great technology concentration (now roughly 50% of the index)? For those invested in the Nasdaq indexes, are you prepared for SpaceX’s impact, which should happen soon?

Come on, folks. Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past. Higher interest rates, higher inflation, crazy equity valuations, and geopolitical uncertainty have not seemed to tamp enthusiasm for U.S. stocks. What will? Will it take a stock like SpaceX – now valued at $2.75 trillion – to be the reason that stocks fall back to earth? SpaceX has been trading for three days. The action on the stock suggests that it is just another meme stock.

Can you believe that SpaceX has overtaken Amazon as America’s fifth-largest company? A closer examination of the fundamentals shows just how irrational our markets/investors have become. Let’s look at the current fundamentals of Amazon versus SpaceX.

Valuation

MetricSpaceXAmazon
Revenue$19.30B TTM $716.9B in 2025 
Earnings-$9.36B TTM $77.7B net income in 2025 
P/S137.7x about 3.5x 
P/E-284.2x about 34x normalized 

SpaceX’s valuation is being priced as an extraordinarily high-growth story, despite being a money-losing company, which is why its P/S is dramatically higher than Amazon’s. Amazon, by contrast, already has large-scale revenue and meaningful profitability, so its valuation looks much more grounded in current fundamentals, despite it carrying a rich valuation at 34x normalized earnings.

Profitability

Amazon is clearly ahead on earnings quality: it generated $80.0B of operating income and $77.7B of net income in 2025. SpaceX, on the other hand, reported a $9.36B trailing-twelve-month loss and a negative net margin.

Growth profile

Clearly, SpaceX’s case is mostly about future optionality: investors are paying for expected expansion in launch, satellite, and adjacent businesses rather than present-day profits. Amazon’s case is more balanced because it combines growth with profitability, especially from AWS and advertising, which support its margins.

SpaceX will need to increase sales by roughly 37x to match Amazons P/S of 3.5x. Nothing grows to the heavens – even a rocket company. Risks to pension funding seem to be skewed to the downside. It is time to take some profits and secure the promises that have been given to your plan participants. Please don’t waste another golden opportunity to fortify your plan’s funding.