03.02.26
by

Eliminate the Uncertainty

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

There are many benefits to using Cash Flow Matching (CFM) for your pension plan, endowment or foundation. The obvious benefit is the liquidity that is created to meet ongoing expenditures, whether benefit payments or grants. That liquidity comes at a premium today for many entities that have migrated significant financial resources to alternative investments, which are having a difficult time providing their investors with capital distributions.

The other significant benefit is the certainty that comes from using CFM. I’ve appreciated the opportunity to speak at NCPERS, IFEBP, LATEC, and OPAL in the last few months and in each case, I asked the audience if there was any investment strategy within their fund that brought certainty? Not a single hand was raised. They could have mentioned cash reserves as an example, but that is an expensive long-term strategy because of the low short-term yields available today.

The cloud of uncertainty under which we live is not comfortable! Yes, both pension funds and E&Fs are long-term investors, but the riding of markets up and down often leads to a significant increase in the contributions necessary to maintain their funding. That activity is not helpful to anyone. Who knows what will transpire as our country navigates through several potential geopolitical landmines. Combine that reality with uncertain economic growth, weaker labor markets, sticky inflation, and equity valuations that seem stretched, and markets could be in for a rocky period.

Wouldn’t it be a blessing to have CFM in place that not only provides the necessary liquidity so that assets aren’t forced to be sold at less than opportune times, but a strategy (service) that provides certainty since your obligations (liability cash flows) are matched with asset cash flows of bond principal and interest income for as far out as the bond and cash allocation will provide. It isn’t often that we are presented with an investment strategy that is truly a sleep-well-at-night offering for the long term. 

As a reminder, humans hate uncertainty, as it impacts us in both psychological and physiological ways. Yet, in the management of pensions and E&Fs, sponsors have wholeheartedly embraced uncertainty. The disconnect is quite surprising. Again, I don’t know what will transpire in markets today, tomorrow, or next year. I don’t know how the Iran situation will impact shipping lanes and the price of oil and inflation or worse, destabilize the entire region by bringing into the conflict Iran’s friends, such as Russia and China. I’m not a gambler and I don’t believe that managers of pension assets should be either.

I think it is critically important to SECURE the promises given to your plan’s participants and to achieve that objective with low cost and prudent risk. Riding the asset allocation rollercoaster accomplishes neither objective. Now’s the time to act. Not after markets have been rocked.

03.02.26
by

ARPA Update as of February 27, 2026

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

Welcome to March and all the “madness” that comes with it!

Regarding ARPA and the PBGC’s implementation of this critical pension legislation, last week proved to be fairly quiet, and I imagine it will continue to be so, as the PBGC works through the remaining applications currently under review (14) and those that will likely be resubmitted (25). Quiet, unless some action is taken on the 80 plans sitting on the waitlist that were terminated by mass withdrawal prior to 2020.

During the past week there were no applications approved or denied, no pension plans were asked to repay a portion of their SFA and no pension funds asked to be added to the waitlist.

In other news, there was one revised application filed. Bricklayers Local No. 55 Pension Plan, a non-priority group member, is seeking $6.4 million for its 483 members. The PBGC has 120-days to review and approve the application before it is automatically accepted. The only other news of note related to two pension funds that withdrew applications. Non-priority group member, Retail Bakers’ Pension Trust Fund of St. Louis, withdrew its initial application. They’d been seeking $5.7 million for 566 plan members. Warehouse Employees Union Local 169 and Employers Joint Pension Plan, another non-priority group member, withdrew an already revised application in which they were hoping to secure $77.8 million for 3,609 plan participants.

The uncertainty related to action in Iran has U.S. Treasury yields rising across the Treasury yield curve as inflation concerns once again come into focus. Rising rates are challenging for bond investors unless a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy has been used. As a reminder, CFM will secure the promised benefits (and expenses, if desired) for as long as the SFA allocation lasts. As a reminder, those B&E are future values which are not interest rate sensitive. Importantly, higher interest rates will create more cost savings related to those future promises for pension plans still waiting to receive their SFA.

02.27.26
by

Oh, Canada!

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

There were significant trade developments announced yesterday between the U.S. and Canada, which don’t seem to be getting the attention that they deserve. I wish that these developments were driven by Canada in retaliation for both the women’s and men’s gold medal performances in Italy, but it seems as if the U.S. is being a sore winner in this situation.

So, what happened yesterday? U.S. under President Trump has reclassified Canada from a Tier 1 allied trading partner to a Tier 3 restricted commerce nation through an executive order.​ Oh, boy, that sounds onerous. It seems as if this escalation follows tensions brought about by new U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods such as steel, lumber, and energy products prompting Canada to diversify partnerships with China, Mexico, and others. Previously, Canada ranked as the U.S.’s top export market and second-largest trading partner overall, with highly integrated supply chains in autos and energy. The move to tier 3 immediately increases tariffs to 35% on ALL Canadian goods – ouch! Furthermore, this classification places Canada in the same trading bucket as countries such as Belarus and Venezuela.

Not surprisingly, Canada, led by Prime Minister Mark Carney, is countering by pursuing deeper relations with China, Ecuador, Indonesia, and India to reduce U.S. reliance, which still accounts for nearly 70% of its exports. According to various press reports, the White House announced the order approximately two hours before it became public, automatically imposing a 35% tariff on all Canadian goods, financial restrictions, and a freeze on joint military contracts. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney responded within 90 minutes by announcing countermeasures in Parliament, including export controls on critical minerals, such as potash, and withdrawal from NORAD data sharing.​

This move is highly disruptive to integrated North American supply chains. The decision followed escalating U.S. tariffs and was defended in Trump’s recent State of the Union address.​​ Canada now faces sharp export declines to its largest market, potentially worsening its trade balance and likely depreciating the Canadian $. Business investment drops due to higher costs for US machinery, leading to layoffs, reduced GDP growth, and sustained inflation from tariff pass-throughs. The potential for retaliatory measures like export controls on minerals will further strain relations between these two long-term allies.

Please don’t think that this development only strikes at Canada’s economy. US consumers and industries will see higher input costs such as steel, which estimates suggest could be as high as $7.5B+, leading to inflation and eroding competitiveness in batteries, clean energy, and defense. Canadian retaliation reduces US exports, impacts GDP, and exacerbates supply chain vulnerabilities with no quick domestic substitutes.

Higher inflation will impact interest rates, leading to higher costs of borrowing, and depending on the significance of these developments could lead to a bear market environment and an economic slowdown concurrent with existing labor force concerns. So, why isn’t this getting more attention?

02.25.26
by

New Jersey’s Pension System’s “High” Investment Return

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

As a taxpaying resident in New Jersey and a huge supporter of defined benefit plans who has a daughter in the system, I was happy to read that NJ’s pension systems generated strong investment returns in fiscal year 2025, reporting a nearly 11% return. Terrific. Yet, despite the above target return (7.0% ROA), the impact on the system’s funded status was negative. Yes, the funded ratio improved (assets/liabilities), but the funded status further deteriorated (funding gap in $s). Since the system is striving for 7% and the combined funded ratio of the various plans is <50%, a system like NJ’s would need to double the annual return on asset target just to keep the $ deficit stable.

It is great to see that NJ is finally bringing some financial discipline to the management of its pensions, with contributions at least matching the Actuarial Determined Contribution (ADC), but after decades of failing to do so (I think since Washington slept here), the systems are in need of significant funding improvement. Trying to generate outsized gains through a riskier asset allocation is not a long-term winning formula, often leading to greater annually required contributions when markets behave badly and assets get whacked.

The management of DB pension plans is not rocket science if the basics of sound pension management are followed. For instance, plans receiving the full ADC have on average an 80% funded ratio, while those not receiving the full ADC sit with funded ratios <70% (NCPERS study). Plans sitting with funded ratios below 50% are not likely to create enough excess return relative to the annual ROA to be able to close the funding gap. This often leads to plans making difficult decisions such as creating plans with multiple tiers, which I really despise.

Plans should focus on meeting the ADC, securing the promised benefits in the near-term, which buys time for the growth or alpha assets to perform, and reduce costs of administration, including management fees. DB plans are critical to the creation of a dignified retirement. Having a significant percentage of our seniors lacking the financial wherewithal to remain active in our economy is a major problem with long-term implications.

02.23.26
by

ARPA Update as of February 20, 2026

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

Good morning and welcome to another update related to the PBGC’s implementation of the ARPA pension legislation. I wish good luck to those of you in the Northeast corner of the U.S., as we are getting rocked by another massive snowstorm. Hard to believe that the Mets open their regular season at home in 31 days! Good luck!

Thankfully, the PBGC continues to churn through applications that included two approved applications in the past week – both funds are Priority Group 1 members. Participants in these funds have waited a long time for this day. As you may recall, Priority Group 1 members began submitting applications back in 2021. Bricklayers Union Local No. 1 Pension Fund of Virginia and U.T.W.A. – N.J. Union – Employer Pension Plan will collect $25.7 million for their combined 844 members.

In other ARPA news, two funds withdrew applications. These initial applications had been submitted to the PBGC back in October and were coming up on the 120-day deadline for acceptance. Because they were submitted prior to December 31, 2025, they will be permitted to submit a revised application until 12/31/26. Good luck!

The PBGC’s e-Filing portal remains temporarily closed. As such, there were no new applications submitted last week. Fortunately, there were no applications denied nor were any funds asked to repay a portion of the Special Financial Assistance (SFA) due to census errors. Finally, there were no new pension funds seeking to be added to an already crowded waitlist.

To date, the PBGC has awarded SFA to 157 pension funds totaling $75.3 billion in grants and covering the promised benefits for 1,877,277. Amazing!

02.20.26
by

The Median Account May Not Be <$1k, But It Is Still A Crisis!

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

There has been some debate within the investment industry related to National Institute on Retirement Security’s (NIRS) recent release of their report titled, “Retirement in America: An Analysis of Retirement Preparedness Among Working-Age Americans”. A report that claimed that “across all workers (21-64), including those with no savings, the median amount saved was only $955.”

Those complaining about the findings cited as issues the inclusion of young workers, while also citing that the information used in the analysis was self-reported. Furthermore, there was mention of the fact that there is an impending massive wealth transfer from both the Silent and Baby Boomer generations to Millennials that will act to mitigate retirement savings shortfalls. Really? Let’s explore.

Including young workers will skew the results, as most haven’t had the chance to establish households and begin to save. Let’s focus on more mature workers, such as those age 55-64. How are they doing? According to Vanguard, the median (I hate averages) 401(k) balance for participants in that age cohort is only $95,642, as reported in Vanguard’s How America Saves 2025 report. That certainly doesn’t seem like a significant sum to carry one through a 20+ year retirement.

Furthermore, >30% of eligible DC participants are not contributing at all, while only 2% (according to Fidelity) have account balances exceeding $1 million. If one applies the 4% rule to an account balance with only $95,642, that participant can “safely” withdraw $3,826 per year to fund their retirement. That coupled with an average Social Security payout ($24.8k annually) is not going to get you too far. Heck, my property taxes in Midland Park are >$32k per year.

How about the impact of the great wealth transfer? Millennials must be set to receive a significant windfall – right? Not so fast, as the typical millennial can expect little or nothing from the “great wealth transfer”. For those who do receive something, amounts in the low five figures are a reasonable estimation: that certainly is not a life‑changing windfall. But aren’t the estimates regarding the transfer ranging from $84-$90 trillion with some estimates as significant as $100 trillion? Where is all that wealth going?

  • Fewer than one‑third of U.S. households receive any inheritance at all; 70–80% inherit nothing.​
  • Inheritances are disproportionately a feature of affluent families: in one analysis, inheritances are passed in about half of top‑5% households versus only 12% in the bottom 50%.​
  • Wealthier boomers are more than twice as likely to leave inheritances as poorer Americans, implying the transfer will largely reinforce existing inequalities.​
  • Across all households that receive something, the average inheritance is about $46,000, but this is heavily skewed by very large bequests at the top.
  • For the bottom 50% of households that receive an inheritance, the average is around $9,700.
  • For those in the broad “middle” (roughly the next 40% by wealth), the average inheritance is around $45,900.

So, in terms of expectation for the typical millennial, a large share will receive nothing, as their parents lack assets, too. Unfortunately, the “headline” trillions mostly reflect very large transfers to a relatively small share of already‑wealthy households. In short, the great wealth transfer is real in aggregate, but for the median millennial it looks less like a solution to a retirement shortfall!

The demise of defined benefit plans and the nearly exclusive use of defined contribution plans is creating a crisis. The current situation may not be as scary as the headline that the median amount saved is only $955, but $95,642 (or <$4k/year) is not going to help one navigate through a long retirement, especially as inflation associated with healthcare costs continues to rise rapidly.

Again, asking individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a retirement benefit without the necessary disposable income, investment acumen, and NO crystal ball to help with longevity issues, is poor policy, at best. Everyday expenses are overwhelming family finances. The prospect of a dignified retirement is evaporating. Debating whether to include private/alternative investments and cryptos in 401(k) offerings is certainly not the answer. We need real solutions to this crisis. Where are the adults in the room?

02.18.26
by

Good Question!

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

We occasionally post questions received in reaction to our blogs in new blog posts since many of our readers might have similar thoughts/ideas. In reaction to yesterday’s post, “All-time High Funded Ratio” a reader calling themselves LoudlyObservant (great name) stated the following:

Why wouldn’t such well-funded plans take steps to lock in the funding of their beneficiary payments through a cash flow matching portfolio? Isn’t the first fiduciary duty of loyalty expressed in controlling the relevant risk to the beneficiaries, which involves BOTH securing adequate assets and then actually funding the payments? Many of these plans have hit the first goal but are still exposed to funding risk. With a ready solution at hand, the plan sponsors open themselves to criticism for not acting on their second responsibility.

Thank you, Loudly! Great questions and observations. We often talk about the fact that pension plans at all funding levels need liquidity, not just well-funded plans, but when you have a universe of plans that on average are fully funded, why not dramatically reduce risk. We witnessed what happened to DB pension plans at the end of 1999, when most plans were well overfunded only to see the funded status plummet and contribution expenses explode following two major market corrections.

I’m neither smart enough nor is my crystal ball better than anyone else’s to know if a major market correction is on the horizon but why take the chance unnecessarily. We’ve seen a significant percentage of Special Financial Assistance (SFA) recipients engage in cash flow matching to secure the SFA assets and the benefits that they will protect. Why not adopt CFM for the legacy assets, too? As we’ve mentioned, we are providing a service to you and your plan participants. It isn’t just another product. Time to get off the proverbial rollercoaster of returns and secure the promises and your plan’s funded status.

02.17.26
by

All-time High Funded Ratio!

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

Milliman released the 2025 output for its Multiemployer Pension Funding Study (MPFS), which analyzes the funded status of all U.S. multiemployer DB pension plans. The analysis incorporates the assumptions and data from each fund’s Form 5500 filing.

As of December 31, 2025, Milliman estimated the aggregate funded ratio reached a robust 103%, up significantly from 97% at year-end 2024. Milliman’s analysis finds that the rise in funding is largely due to strong asset gains during the year, but they also note that aggregate annual contributions have far exceeded the costs of benefit accruals and administrative expenses for several years, leading to the MPFS funding improvement.

Tim Connor, MPFS co-author, stated that “we’re seeing the results of proactive measures by many multiemployer plans to strengthen their funded status levels through increased contributions and benefit adjustments.” He went on to say that “over the past decade total contributions were approximately $331 billion, while total benefit expenses and admin costs were $212 billion.” The surge in contributions is not surprising given the injection of roughly $75 billion in Special Financial Assistance (SFA) granted through the ARPA legislation and implemented by the PBGC.

Milliman further reported that SFA totaling $5 billion (about 0.6% of all multiemployer assets) also contributed to the MPFS funding improvement during 2025. They calculate that $75 billion from an estimated $79 billion in SFA funding has already been distributed under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Click on the link below to view the entire report.

View the year-end 2025 Multiemployer Pension Funding Study.

02.17.26
by

ARPA Update as of February 13, 2026

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

The PBGC team must have been preparing for Valentine’s Day last week, as there is nothing to update this week. However, they continue to show very little love to the 80 pension plans currently on the waitlist and described as plans terminated by mass withdrawal before 2020 plan year. We’ve talked about this class of applicants before. Will these plans’ hope for SFA just wither on the waitlist or is there pending litigation that might break this stalemate?

The PBGC’s eFiling portal remains temporarily closed. This isn’t a big deal since Plasterers Local 79 Pension Plan is the only pension plan on the waitlist, not described as a mass withdrawal casualty, not to submit an initial application yet. It is after December 31, 2025, which was the filing deadline for initial applications, so it will be interesting to see if they do get the opportunity to submit one.

Despite some continuing uncertainties, this program has been a huge success in my opinion, with 155 multiemployer plans receiving Special Financial Assistance (SFA) totaling $75.2 BILLION which is supporting the promised benefits for 1,876,433 American workers/retirees. Congrats to all involved!

We wish for you a wonderful week. We’ll continue to monitor the situation related to the mass withdrawal funds and we’ll report on any news coming from Washington DC or the PBGC. Stay well.

02.12.26
by

It Should Be Relative and NOT Absolute

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

I was participating on a panel at the Opal/LATEC conference yesterday. The moderator asked a question about the importance of process. In my response, I mentioned a number of process elements that are critical to the successful management of pension plans. Here is one point that I made that doesn’t get the attention that it deserves. Many, if not most, defined benefit pension plans have created an investment policy statement (IPS) that specifically restricts certain investments and their respective weights within the pension fund. The plan sponsor and their consultant likely allow investments in public equities and certain styles of equity management (i.e. value and growth, large and small cap, etc.). However, in many cases they restrict the exposure to any one security by an absolute amount such as 5%. This is the wrong approach.

Limiting exposures does reduce the risk that any one stock could have an outsized impact on the pension plan’s return, but by doing so, the plan sponsor is potentially negatively impacting the investment manager. Not all U.S. equity benchmarks are the same and treating them as such is potentially damaging to the manager and fund.

If a large cap growth manager has been retained and they are asked to manage a portfolio relative to the Russell 1000 Growth Index, limiting exposure in a stock to 5% would mean forcing that manager to make a negative bet against any stock in the index that has a weight greater than 5%. As of today, there are three stocks – Nvidia (12.9%), Apple (11.6%), and Microsoft (8.8%) – that the manager couldn’t own at benchmark weight, let alone own them above the index weight. This index is cap weighted, and as the stocks perform well their weight in the index grows. Not being able to own the stock at its index weight is harmful.

Worse, if the investment manager wants to make a positive bet on the stock, they can’t, forcing them to potentially choose weaker companies to round out their portfolio. When a manager is chosen, they are often picked because of their past track record of producing an excess return for a level of risk (tracking error). Restricting exposures to an absolute weight may render those previous return/risk characteristics moot. Furthermore, the exposure to a single stock should be relative to the weight in the index +/- band, which would be very dependent on the amount of tracking error that is comfortable to the plan sponsor.

For instance, a good information ratio (excess return/tracking error) is 0.33%. Meaning that for every 1% excess return, the manager is taking 3% tracking error. If the manager is hoping to add 2% above the benchmark over a cycle, that manager is going to have a tracking error close to 6%. The relative weight of a stock in a portfolio must reflect that level of potential tracking error. Higher tracking error portfolios need more flexibility. In this case, it would make sense to allow the manager to invest in Nvidia at the index weight +/- 2%. For lower risk strategies such as an enhanced index that only has 1% tracking error, perhaps the index weight +/- 0.5% would be appropriate.

Now, the Russell 1000 Growth Index is one of the more concentrated indexes with nearly 60% of the weight of the index in just the top 10 holdings, but it isn’t the only one. Currently, the S&P 500 has the same three stocks (Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft) at weights greater than 5% and two others, Amazon and Alphabet, at weights >3%. If the manager wants to overweight a holding in the S&P 500 by +/- 2%, they would be restricted with a 5% absolute restriction and no ability to overweight.

I recommend that you review your IPS and make sure that your “risk control” objectives are not restricting your manager’s ability to produce an excess return. Remove any absolute constraint and replace it with a relative weighting based on the tracking error that the manager produces. Again, lower risk enhanced index managers will only need a +/- 0.5% to +/-1% restriction, while higher tracking managers will need greater flexibility.