04.01.26
by

March Proves Challenging for Core Fixed Income

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

March was a difficult month for active core fixed income managers, as the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Index fell -1.8%. Uncertainty related to the impact of the Iran War on oil prices and subsequently inflation, pushed rates higher across the Treasury yield curve. The U.S. 10-year Treasury note saw yields rise 38 bps to 4.31%.

Agencies fell -1.7% in line with Treasuries, while the Corporate sector declined -2.0%. Corporate spreads ended March with an option adjusted spread (OAS) of 88.6 bps. The best performing Corporate sector was Financials (-1.7%), while Utilities performed worst at -2.2%.

The greatest risk managing bonds is interest rate risk. Given both geopolitical (Iran, Taiwan, Ukraine) and economic risks (oil, inflation, interest rates), now is the time to significantly reduce risk within your fund, whether that be a DB pension or E&F. Why continue to ride active fixed income through these uncertain markets? One can use a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy to SECURE and fund net liabilities chronologically well into the future. In the process, interest rate risk is eliminated as future benefits and expenses are not interest rate sensitive.

Furthermore, by securing near-term liabilities, the non-bond assets can now grow unencumbered providing more time to wade through these challenging times. I have no idea how long this conflict will last. I also don’t know how much damage has occurred and that which might still happen to oil production in the Middle East. Implementing a strategy that doesn’t rely on forecasting U.S. interest rates should be a high priority today.

Making the switch is easy. Rotate your current core fixed income assets from an active investment strategy to a CFM portfolio. There isn’t a need to revisit the fund’s asset allocation. We’ll even look for opportunities to take-in-kind some of your existing holdings. You’ll appreciate not having to search each month for the liquidity to meet the monthly promises that have been made to your participants, as the CFM strategy will provide all the liquidity that you need. Moreover, the Ryan ALM CFM model is skewed to A/BBB+ corporate bonds which should outyield most generic bond indexes that are skewed to Treasuries (e.g. the AGG).


03.31.26
by

Trouble Paying the Bills?

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

“The worst thing that can happen,” Andrew Junkin, CIO, Virginia Retirement System says, “is that you’re a forced seller in any market.”

That quote appeared in a Chief Investment Officer article from March 4, 2026. We couldn’t agree more with Mr. Junkin. Despite improved funding, public funds are being challenged to find adequate cash flow to meet the monthly benefits and expenses. Two factors are at play: 1) improved funding leads to lower annual contributions, and 2) much heavier allocations to alternatives have dried up liquidity, as expected capital distributions fail to materialize.

According to a report by NIRS, from 2001 to 2023, public pension plans shifted roughly 20% of public equity and fixed income into alternatives such as private equity, real estate, and private credit. These are illiquid investments. Despite the “wisdom” of the pension crowd, illiquidity is a RISK and not an alpha generator. As more assets shifted into these illiquid investments, the trades became ever more crowded reducing liquidity further. That is, unless one was willing to take a significant haircut through the secondary markets.

As a reminder, public pension funds are designed to become cash-flow negative over time. Contributions into these funds exceed benefits in earlier decades, building a corpus to be used to fund retirements down the road. They are designed to have the last $ pay the last promised benefit. There is no inheritance waiting for the last few beneficiaries.

You want to have adequate liquidity that isn’t forcing the sale of assets at inopportune times? Develop an asset allocation strategy that bifurcates your assets into two buckets – liquidity and growth – and stop the focus on the ROA as if it were the Holy Grail. It isn’t! Use a cash flow matching (CFM) investment strategy to ensure that abundant liquidity is available from next month as far into the future as your allocation goes. The remainder of the assets go into the growth bucket. If you still want to maintain a heavy allocation to alternatives, they can now grow unencumbered as they are no longer a source of liquidity.

The allocation should be driven by the pension plan’s funded ratio and ability to contribute. We recently provided a large fund with an analysis that showed a plan with <50% funding could still secure the promised NET benefits for the next 33-years, while creating a substantial surplus that could now be managed as aggressively as members of that Board could withstand. Not only are the promised benefits secure, but so are the participants who can now sleep well at night knowing that myriad risks won’t sabotage their golden years.

03.30.26
by

Up >50%!

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

Crude Oil WTI is up 53.2% (as of 12:57 pm on 3/30) since the outbreak of the war in Iran. As I wrote in the post below, it isn’t just the shock at the pump that one should be focused on, but the 1,000s of U.S. manufactured goods and industrial processes that contain and use oil and its many derivatives. The U.S. economy will be dealing with the aftermath of supply disruptions and rapid price increases for quite some time. I can’t see a near-term scenario in which U.S. interest rates get cut by the Federal Reserve. Can you?

It’s Not Just the Price of Gasoline!
03.30.26
by

ARPA Update as of March 27, 2026

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

The PBGC isn’t quite down to the wire as UConn was in yesterday’s incredible game with Duke, but they still have a lot to do before December 31, 2026. It doesn’t seem like they’ll have to throw up a prayer to win, but I guess that depends on the outcome related to the 80 or so plans currently on the waitlist related to mass withdrawal prior to 2020.

In last week’s activity, no applications were submitted through the PBGC’s eFiling portal which remains temporarily closed. There were also no applications approved or denied, but there were three applications withdrawn. UFCW, Local 23 and Giant Eagle Pension Plan, District Council 37 Local 389 Home Care Employees Pension Fund, and Bricklayers and Stonemasons Local Union #2 Pension Plan, each withdrew its initial application seeking SFA support. Collectively, they were looking to secure $89.9 million in SFA for their 15,195 members. They can resubmit those applications up until year-end.

In other news, none of the plans that were previously awarded SFA were asked to rebate a portion of that allocation due to census errors. As we’ve previously reported, it has been more than six months since the last rebate occurred. As a reminder, of the 67 plans that were audited, four were shown to have correct census data. For the 63 plans that rebated a portion of the SFA, $261 million or 0.49% of the $53.5 billion was rebated.

The waitlist continues to reveal just one non-mass withdrawal fund that hasn’t seen any activity on its potential application. There have been 113 waitlist SFA candidates that have seen action on applications. Only Plasterers Local 79 Pension Plan, added to the list in March 2025, still waits its turn.

03.25.26
by

What is My Funded Ratio? Who Cares!

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

The funded ratio of a DB pension plan gets a lot of attention, especially if it is perceived to be weak. But does the funded ratio truly tell you the whole story as to the financial health of a DB pension plan? We, at Ryan ALM, Inc. don’t think so.

So, how is the funded ratio calculated:

Funded ratio = MV of plan assets / plan liabilities earned to date X 100

The market value of assets is a present value (PV) calculation. The market value of liabilities is the future value of liabilities earned to date discounted back to a PV calculation based on a discount rate. For public and multiemployer plans the discount rate tends to be the fund’s return on asset assumption (ROA), while it is an AA corporate blended rate for private pensions. In today’s interest rate environment, the discount rate for private plans will be roughly 1.5% less than the discount rate based on the average ROA. That means that liabilities for private funds will have a greater current value than the value of liabilities calculated based on the discount rate using the ROA. Oh, okay, so the choice of a discount rate can change my funded ratio. That’s interesting. So that tells me that if I wanted to improve my funded ratio, all I’d have to do is increase my discount rate to lower the PV of my liabilities. That’s very interesting.

So, it appears that the funded ratio calculation can be manipulated to some extent. As we think about the formula above, is there anything missing? Yes, where are the future contributions, which can be significant. Why are future payment liabilities in the calculation, but projected contributions, which are future assets of the fund, not included? Common thinking suggests that those future contributions aren’t guaranteed, which is why they aren’t factored into the funded ratio calculation. However, is that a correct assumption? In doing some research, it appears >80% of DB pension funds receive 100% of the annual required contribution (ARC). Even NJ’s public pension system is making the ARC and then some.

We recently had a conversation with a large plan sponsor who thought that their fund was <50% funded based on the formula above. Not surprisingly, they were very focused on this ratio and looking for investment strategies that could potentially enhance it. As an FYI, this plan’s future contributions as forecasted by their actuary were significant. In fact, future contributions were so large that they were equal to 73% of the forecasted liabilities! Yes, without including the pension fund’s current assets, this plan was 73% funded, provided those projected contributions were met which they have been for more than a decade.

So, given these forecasted contributions is that pension fund really <50% funded?

In another example, the same fund that thought that they were poorly funded, could defease net pension liabilities for the next 33-years. How is it possible that a plan that believes it is <50% funded able to significantly reduce risk, enhance liquidity, and SECURE pension promises for 33-years? Furthermore, this fund was going to establish a $4.4 billion surplus on the day that those benefits and expenses were defeased for 33-years. If it just earned the projected ROA, that $4.4 billion would grow to $34.2 billion during that 33-year period. Wow! 

So, I ask once more, does that sound like a plan in financial distress, which a funded ratio of <50% might suggest? NO!

The funded ratio is but one measure of a pension plan’s health. Unfortunately, many in our industry would look at that # and say that more risk needs to be taken to achieve “full funding” down the road, when in fact reducing risk through a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy is the appropriate approach. It is past the time to get off the scary asset allocation rollercoaster. 

03.24.26
by

ARPA Update as of March 20, 2026

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

I’m sure that folks were very (perhaps bitterly) disappointed not to get my weekly update yesterday on the PBGC’s implementation of the ARPA pension legislation. I was traveling for business yesterday, but unlike many travelers, my experience at Newark Airport was shockingly positive. I have heard of 4-6 hour waits to get through security and planes that are forced to leave the gate with as few as 5 passengers. Various estimates put the daily impact of these disruptions at $285 million to $580 million once a 10% reduction in flights occurs.

What about ARPA? As regular readers know, the PBGC has worked through a significant majority of non-mass withdrawal applicants. There remains just one fund – Plasterers Local 79 Pension Plan – that hasn’t gotten to submit an initial application form those on the waitlist. There are still a few pension funds from the original Priority Groups that haven’t filed an initial application seeking SFA.

During the prior week, Cumberland, Maryland Teamsters Construction and Miscellaneous Pension Plan received approval of its revised SFA application. They will receive $9.5 million for their 101 plan members. Congrats!

In other news, there is no other news, as there were no new applications submitted, as the PBGC’s eFiling portal remains temporarily closed. Also, there were no applicants denied, no plans were asked to repay a portion of the SFA, and no applications were withdrawn or added to the waitlist.

The treatment of the 80 plans (from potentially 131) currently on the waitlist that fall under the category of plans suffering mass withdrawal prior to 2020 is the last remaining significant issue that the PBGC must still work through.

U.S. Treasury yields have risen sharply since the beginning of the Iran conflict. As challenging as that development is on existing bond funds, the entry point for SFA recipients wanting to use CFM to secure the benefits and expenses is as good as it has been in more than 1-year. As a reminder, higher yields reduce the cost of those future promises.

03.19.26
by

Don’t Look Down – That Yield Curve is Steep!

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

One year ago today, the 2-year Treasury note was trading at a yield of 3.99% and the 30-year Treasury bond had a yield of 4.55% for a very tight 56 basis points spread. What a difference a year makes. Coming into trading this morning, the 2-year Treasury note yield had fallen 0.21% during the last 12-months, while the yield on the 30-year Treasury Bond had risen by 34 bps. The spread between 2s and 30s is now 1.11%!

The steepness of the yield curve is hugely advantageous for cash flow matching (CFM) assignments going out 20- to 30- years. As Ron Ryan likes to point out, BOND math is pretty straightforward: the longer the maturity and the higher the yield, the lower the cost of those future promises. We’ve regularly been producing portfolios with YTMs of between 5.25% and 5.40%. This despite significant tightening within the investment grade corporate bond universe.

For funds (pension and E&F) searching for liquidity and hoping to secure the next 5-years of benefits or grants (and expenses), the YTM on your mandate would be closer to 4%. Geopolitical risk is keeping U.S. interest rates at or slightly above long-term levels. It doesn’t appear that the Fed’s FOMC is in any hurry to reduce rates given the recent and continuing oil shock. While uncertainty reigns, don’t hesitate to reach out to us for a free analysis to highlight how CFM could help bring an element of certainty to your fund and a great night’s sleep for you and the participants.

03.17.26
by

What Would You Do?

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

Happy St. Paddy’s Day to my Irish friends (I’m 1/2 Irish) and those that would like to be. May the luck of the Irish embrace you today.

As many of you know, we are always willing to provide to the pension and E&F communities a free analysis to highlight how a Cash Flow Matching (CFM) mandate could secure the promised benefits/grants for your fund and importantly, provide the necessary liquidity to meet future promises. In many cases, we will produce multiple runs covering a variety of periods usually 5-years to 30-years. Often the sponsor of the fund is shocked by the potential cost reduction of those future obligations.

We recently provided a large pension plan with several potential implementations, as they try to improve the fund’s liquidity profile, while also desiring to secure those future promises. Here are three scenarios that we provided to them and I’d welcome your feedback on what you would do.

Scenario #1 – Provide a CFM portfolio using the core fixed income allocation ($3 billion/15% of total assets) to match and fund the NET (after contributions) liability cash flows of benefits and expenses (B&E). In this scenario, we can cover the next 6-years of B&E through 6/30/32, covering $3.44 billion in FV benefits and expenses for $3.0 billion (a cost reduction of $443.3k or 12.88%). The YTM on the portfolio is 4.09 and the duration 3.09 years, with the average quality being A-. The remaining assets can continue to be managed as they currently are, but they now benefit from a 6-year investing horizon in which they are no longer providing any liquidity to meet monthly obligations.

Scenario #2 – Provide a CFM portfolio using the same $3 billion (only needed $2.96 billion) or 15% of the fund’s total assets, but implement the strategy using a vertical slice of the liabilities going out 30-years. In this example, we can cover 22% of the liability cash flows for the next 30-years. The FV of those liabilities are $6.3 billion (as opposed to the $3.44 billion using 100% CFM for 6-years). We can reduce the FV cost by $3.33 billion or 53%. The remaining 85% of the fund’s assets can be managed as they presently are, but they don’t benefit from the longer investing horizon, as they will be called upon to provide liquidity to meet the residual B&E.

Scenario #3 – 100% CFM covering net liabilities through 6/30/59. In this case we showed that we can cover 100% of the NET B&E for $9.9 billion in assets, while providing the plan with a $4.4 billion surplus. The FV of those B&E through 2059 are reduced by about $13 billion or 56%! The surplus assets now have a 33-year investing horizon to just grow and grow! A modest 6.5% annualized return for that period produces a surplus of $34.2 billion that can be used to fund B&E after 2059, enhance benefits, and/or reduce future contributions. An 8% annualized return produces a surplus >$75 billion. Oh, my! Also, in this scenario, the organization ONLY needs an annual 2.56% return on the remaining assets to fully fund ALL projected B&E well beyond 2059, as determined by our Asset Exhaustion Test (AET).

Importantly, these scenarios only work if the sponsoring entity provides the forecasted contributions, which in this case they have consistently done for the past 10+ years.

So, I ask once again, what would you do? Scenario 1 ($3 billion/15% of total assets) provides a 100% coverage for 6-years while reducing cost by 13%. Scenario 2 reduces the cost of FV B&E by 53% or $3.4 billion, but covers only 22% of the liabilities, while Scenario 3 reduces the FV cost by 56%, while securing the net promises through 2059 for a cost of $9.9 billion resulting in a surplus of $4.4 billion.

I guess that there is a fourth scenario which is to do nothing, but why would you want to continue to ride the proverbial performance rollercoaster that only guarantees volatility and not success when you can secure a portion of the liabilities, significantly reduce the cost of those future promises, improve liquidity, and “buy time” for the residual assets to just grow unencumbered?

As the Irish say – “May the most you wish for be the least you get“.

03.16.26
by

Unfortunately, the Joke Was On Us!

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

I started raising alarm bells related to DB pension exposure to alternatives – mainly private equity and private credit several years ago, and have produced roughly a dozen blog posts that touch on this issue. You may recall some of the posts from 2024:

The Joke’s On Us!

Good Ideas are Often Overwhelmed!

Kinda Silly Question

Well, unfortunately it appears that it is time to pay the piper! As mentioned in the posts listed above, we as an industry don’t truly appreciate the idea that there is a natural capacity to EVERY investment. As an industry, we DO overwhelm good ideas and those funds that are late to the party are often left with just the crumbs in the chaffing dish.

I stumbled over a good, but scary, list of recent events within private credit. The list was compiled by Ignacio Ramirez Moreno, Host of The Blunt Dollar Podcast:

Cliffwater saw 14% redemption requests.

Morgan Stanley’s fund got 10.9%.

Blackstone hit a record 7.9%.

All three capped withdrawals below what investors requested.

Glendon Capital flagged concerns about Blue Owl’s valuations.

Pimco called it “a crisis of really bad underwriting.”

JPMorgan’s marking down loans and tightening lending to private credit funds.

Partners Group thinks defaults could double.

Pimco’s predicting a “full-blown default cycle.”

Apollo’s saying the pain could last 12-18 months.

Well, that is some list! In addition, I was always quite skeptical of the credit quality that was assigned to these companies, and I guess that I wasn’t too far off given that 43% of private credit borrowers have negative free cash flow. Furthermore, the U.S./Israel vs. Iran war won’t help either, as inflation expectations have ratcheted higher reducing significantly the prospects for Fed action leading to lower rates. In fact, it would not be surprising to see the Fed have to raise rates. If such an action occurs, the higher interest rates could exacerbate the current challenging environment for private debt borrowers and their income statements.

Let’s see how the pension plan sponsor community and their advisors deal with private credit’s first real crisis. It should be both interesting and likely painful.

03.16.26
by

ARPA Updated as of March 13, 2026

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

I’ll be wearing my green tomorrow. How about you? Perhaps the luck of the Irish will carry some weight with the PBGC during the upcoming week, but it didn’t have much sway last week.

The PBGC accepted two revised applications for Special Financial Assistance (SFA) for the week ending March 13th. Iron Workers Local No. 12 Pension Fund and the Iron Workers-Laborers Pension Plan of Cumberland, Maryland submitted revised applications. Together they are seeking a modest $24.2 million for their 1,413 plan participants. The PBGC will have 120-days to act on the applications.

According to the PBGC’s website, their e-Filing Portal remains temporarily closed. As discussed previously, there is one fund currently on the waitlist that hasn’t submitted an initial application that is not classified as a Plan Terminated by Mass Withdrawal before 2020 Plan Year.

In other ARPA news, there were no applications approved or denied in the past week, and none withdrawn. The PBGC currently has 15 applications under review, including nine that are an initial application. Fortunately, it seems as if any SFA recipient that might have had to repay a portion of the grant due to census issues has done so at this point. There have been no payments of excess funds since last September.

There has not yet been a public, plan‑by‑plan PBGC resolution of the mass‑withdrawal‑terminated plans on the SFA waitlist. As previously mentioned, the legal landscape has changed (2025) which puts pressure on the PBGC oversight. What changed from the original interpretation of “eligible plans” was the Second Circuit’s decision held that the SFA statute does not exclude multiemployer plans that had previously terminated by mass withdrawal, reversing PBGC’s denial of SFA to a fund that terminated in 2016. Furthermore, the court read ARPA’s “critical and declining” language to focus on status in the 2020–2022 window, and rejected PBGC’s position that lack of ongoing “zone status” or prior termination automatically barred eligibility.

As a result, the PBGC’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a 2025 risk advisory flagging that the appellate decision opens the door for 123 terminated plans to seek SFA (80 currently on the waitlist), 91 of which are terminated and insolvent and 32 that are terminated but not yet insolvent and have not received traditional financial assistance.​ The OIG estimates that if SFA is ultimately provided to that group, gross SFA exposure could be on the order of billions of dollars. But, just think about the American Workers that might eventually recoup their promised benefits.