02.04.26
by

How Do You Know?

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

I’m on my way home from another terrific FPPTA conference. The only issue I have is with the weather Gods. How is it that Orlando had weather similar to what New Jersey experiences during January? Yes, I was in a conference room from dawn to dusk, but it still wasn’t fair, especially since temps are set to hit 70+ today, while I’m now sitting at the airport. 

Okay, enough of my complaining. As mentioned, I just attended FPPTA’s Winter Trustee meeting in Orlando. They continue to do an excellent job providing critical education for trustees of all experience levels. As I’ve written, they have also developed a higher-level program for a select group of pension trustees that truly want to roll up their sleeves and like Dorothy and her friends, get behind the curtain. I’ve been fortunate to be a part of the first two TLC classes. As the FPPTA continues to develop their use of AI and the self-contained bot currently under construction, Florida public pension trustees will have critical information at their fingertips that few other states, if any, can provide. Great job!

Despite the robust curriculum, there is still much more that needs to be covered and comprehended by the trustees. For instance, there was a lot of discussion surrounding hiring and firing of managers during a particular case study. As I’ve observed over the years, the fortunate investment manager that gets hired usually has the best performance and a reasonable fee that doesn’t offset the performance advantage. Do pension trustees truly understand what they are buying? Often the manager selected is large and likely growing in terms of AUM. But are those advantages?

Worse, when a manager underperforms, which they will eventually do, whether that underperformance is related to a style rotation or something specific to that managers process, a decision must be made as to that manager’s fate. Do you keep the manager or let them go? On what basis are you making that decision? Again, you hired a manager because they had good performance. Did you understand their security selection process (insights) and how those insights were working? Did recent strong AUM growth fuel a positive response in the stocks that they owned? As we know, cycles in the investment industry are driven by cash flows, both positive and negative. More money chasing a few ideas drives up returns, while an exodus from those same ideas can tank an investment manager’s performance.

During one exchange of ideas, I asked the TLC participants if any of their funds were using performance fees for their long-only assignments. Only one trustee said that they had – too bad. We’ll discuss that issue in another post. Regarding the one affirmative response, they initiated a performance fee after an extended period of underperformance. Was that action correct? Paying asset-based fees with no promise of delivery on forecasted alpha is wrong, but retaining an underperforming manager may be just as bad whether they are on a performance fee or not. How did this trustee and his fellow board members know whether the manager had skill or if they once did, were their insights still robust?

Investment managers choose their portfolio holdings based on certain insights, and those insights can be measured as to their predictive ability (information coefficient or IC). An information coefficient is the correlation between predicted returns (or rankings of one stock versus another) and the subsequent results (realized returns). If an advisor is a growth manager, they likely swim in a subset of the U.S. equity universe. They then apply their insights to that subset of equity stocks. Each month they can array their portfolio holdings with the balance of the names in the universe that they did not select to see how their ideas stacked up.

You might be surprised to read that a monthly IC above 0.05% is considered fairly strong. An IC from 0.05% to 0.15% would be very strong and likely lead to consistent alpha generation. However, even the best investment ideas can go through challenging times when market dynamics are just out of whack with historic observations and relationships. But there are also times when ideas can get arbitraged away either by that managers growth or the broader investment community latching onto the same insight rendering it less effective or in some cases a negative forecaster/predictor.

So, I ask, when your manager is underperforming, do you know whether it is a market dynamic that is rendering the insight temporarily weak or has that manager’s forecasting ability been diminished? In the case of the manager who maintains strong forecasting ability, but the insight is just out of favor, you would likely want to retain them after a period of underperformance and maybe give them more assets to manage, but I would not recommend putting them on a performance fee (regression to the mean tendencies). However, if after your careful analysis you identify that the manager in question has seen their insights arbitraged away, that should lead you to terminate the manager, whether you like them or not! Let me know if you’d like to discuss his concept in greater detail.

02.02.26
by

Financial Leverage – A Double-edged Sword

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

As I recently reported in a blog post titled “Another Cockroach!”,  BlackRock TCP Capital, a business-development company (BDC), reported that it would be slashing the net asset value of its shares by 19% for the Q4’25. I wrote this post because I’ve been concerned about the incredible growth in AUM committed to this asset class. Adding to my concerns is the use of financial leverage to “boost” returns, but as we all know, the impact of leverage can be a double-edged sword.

Recently, Eric Jacobson, Morningstar, wrote an article highlighting the recent travails of the BlackRock BDC with an emphasis on financial leverage. He pointed out that as of September 2025, borrowing within the BDC had increased the market exposure of TCPC’s portfolio to more than 230% of what it would have been without leverage. By Eric’s calculations, the leverage translated into roughly $740 million of net assets alongside nearly $1 billion of borrowed money—a practice that turns uncomfortable valuation adjustments into a painful net asset value drop. According to Jacobson, had the same portfolio been unlevered, its NAV write-down might have a more modest 8% loss. Not great but not nearly as damaging.

Importantly, Jacobson highlights that private direct lending is not a natural substitute for a conventional bond portfolio. We couldn’t agree more. Use investment-grade bonds for their cash flows, as managing a pension plan is all about cash flows. The careful matching of asset cash flows (principal and interest) with benefits and expenses (liability cash flows) SECURES the promised benefits for the period that the allocated assets cover. How comforting!

Another Cockroach!
02.02.26
by

ARPA Update as of January 30, 2026

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

So much for escaping the bitter cold in New Jersey by flying to Orlando, FL. The reality is that Orlando is sitting at 25 degrees this morning (Sunday 2/1). Someone is playing a nasty trick on all those snowbirds. It is a good thing for me that I’ll be spending most of my time in a conference room until Wednesday (FPPTA). I hope that you have a great week.

Regarding ARPA and the PBGC’s continuing implementation of this critical legislation, there was activity last week, and some of it was surprising. As I’ve mentioned on several occasions, the ARPA legislation specifically states that all initial applications seeking special financial assistance (SFA) needed to be submitted to the PBGC by 12/31/25. Revised applications could be resubmitted after that date and until 12/31/26. That said, there were three initial applications filed with the PBGC during the week ending January 30th. What gives?

In other news, Cincinnati-based Asbestos Workers Local No. 8 Retirement Trust Plan received approval for SFA. They will get $40.1 million to support their 451 plan participants. In other news, Local 1814 Riggers Pension Plan, withdrew its initial application which had been filed through the PBGC’s e-Filing portal last October. They are hoping to secure a $2.5 million SFA grant for their 65 members.

Fortunately, there were no previous recipients of SFA asked to repay a portion of the grant due to census errors nor were any applications denied due to eligibility issues. Lastly, no new pension plans asked to be added to the waitlist which currently numbers more than 80 systems.

The U.S. Treasury yield curve remains steep, with 30-year bond yields exceeding the yield on the 2-year note by 1.34% as of Friday’s closing prices. This steepening provides plan sponsors and grant recipients with attractive yields on longer maturity cash flow matching programs used to secure the promised benefits.

01.30.26
by

“Everybody’s looking under every rock.” Jay Kloepfer

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

Institutional Investor’s James Comtois has recently published an article that quoted several industry members on the near-term (10-years) return forecast for both public and private markets, which according to those asked are looking anemic. No one should be surprised by these forecasts given the incredible strength of public markets during the past three years and the fact that regression to the mean tendencies is not just theory.

An equally, if not greater, challenge is liquidity. As the title above highlights, Jay Kloepfer, Director of Capital Markets Research at Callan, told II that “Liquidity has become a bigger issue,” He went on to say that “Everybody’s looking under every rock.” Not surprising! Given the migration of assets from public markets to private during the last few decades. The rapid decline in U.S. interest rates certainly contributed to this asset movement, but expectations for “outsized” gains from alternatives also fueled enthusiasm and action. The Callan chart below highlights just how far pension plans have migrated.

I’ve written a lot on the subject of liquidity. Of course, the only reason that pension plans exist is to fund a promise that was made to the participants of that fund. Those promises are paid in monthly installments. Not having the necessary liquidity can create significant unintended consequences. No one wants to be a forced seller in a liquidity challenged market. It is critical that pension plans have a liquidity policy in place to deal with this critical issue. Equally important is to have an asset allocation that captures liquidity without having to sell investments.

Cash flow matching (CFM) is such a strategy. It ensures that the necessary liquidity is available each and every month through the careful matching of asset cash flows (interest and principal) with the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. No forced selling! Furthermore, the use of CFM extends the investing horizon for those growth assets not needed in the CFM program. Those investments can just grow unencumbered. The extended investing horizon also allows the growth assets to wade through choppy markets without the possibility of being sold at less than opportune times.

So, if you are concerned about near-term returns for a variety of assets and with creating the necessary liquidity to meet ongoing pension promises, don’t rely on the status quo approach to asset allocation. Adopt a bifurcated asset allocation that separates plan assets into liquidity and growth buckets. Your plan will be in much better shape to deal with the inevitable market correction.

01.29.26
by

What Topics Would You Pick?

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

I’m hopefully attending the FPPTA conference in Orlando beginning on Sunday, February 1, 2026. My attendance will be very much dependent on the path of the next winter storm takes as it migrates up the East coast. I’ve been asked to speak on a couple of occasions at this event for which I’m always very appreciative to be given the opportunity to share my perspectives on a variety of pension subjects.

The first opportunity is straightforward in that I will be addressing the importance of cash flow in managing defined benefit pension plans. In my opinion, there is nothing more important than generating and managing cash flow to meet ongoing plan liabilities of benefits and expenses. As pension plans have pursued a more aggressive asset allocation utilizing significantly more alternatives – private equity, private credit, real estate infrastructure, etc. – liquidity has become more challenging. As a result, some of the strategies that have been adopted to raise the necessary cash flow are not in the best interest of the plans longer term. I’ll be happy to share my thoughts on those issues if you want to reach out to me.

Regarding my second opportunity to share some perspective, I am one of four individuals who were asked to identify three pension related topics for a session called “Around the Pension World Discussion”. There will be six randomly selected topics from the original list of 12 that will be covered in 15-minute increments. It is a really interesting concept, and hopefully as we lead the conversation will get great input from the attendees.

The three topics that I chose are:

  1. Liquidity – it is being challenged through the migration of assets to alternative strategies.
  2. Uncertainty – Human beings hate uncertainty as it has both a physiological and psychological impact on us. Yet little to none of our current practices managing pensions brings certainty.
  3. The Primary Pension objective – managing a DB pension is about securing the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is not a return objective.

Clearly, there are tons of topics covering investments/asset allocation, risk management, governance, actuarial assumptions, plan design, etc. It shouldn’t be surprising why I chose the topics that I did based on my focus on securing pension promises through cash flow matching (CFM). We provide the necessary liquidity to meet those ongoing expenditures, while securing the promises given to the plan participants. In addition, CFM is a “sleep-well-at-night” strategy that brings certainty to the management of pension plans that engage in very uncertain practices.

What topics would you have chosen? Please reply to this post. I’d like to share your topics and the rationale behind choosing them in a follow-up blog. Have a great day!

01.26.26
by

ARPA Update as of January 23, 2026

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

I hope that those of you that were in the path of Fern, a storm that impacted 220 million folks in 36 states, have safely dug out at this time. I’m five shoveling expeditions in and I’m still not done! If you are still digging, but safe!

Regarding ARPA, the week ending January 23rd was relatively quiet, as the only activity had one plan withdrawing an application. Ironworkers’ Local 340 Retirement Income Plan pulled its initial application. This non-priority group member is seeking $44.7 million for the 819 plan participants.

Since that was the only activity on the latest spreadsheet, it means that no applications were received through the PBGC’s eFiling portal, no applications were approved or denied, no pension funds were asked to redeem portion of the SFA grant due to census errors and no multiemployer plans sought to be added to the waitlist.

Regarding the waitlist, I am still trying to understand why one still exists since the legislation made it clear that funds not submitting an initial application seeking SFA by December 31, 2025, would not be permitted to do so following that date. Not only does one still exist, but there are more than 80 funds residing on it.

Again, we hope that everyone is staying warm and dry. Be careful shoveling the snow. It doesn’t seem like we are going to get a heat wave anytime soon to help with that task! Finally, who will it be: Seattle or New England?

01.26.26
by

Another Cockroach!

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

As most folks were focused on the massive snowstorm that crippled a large swath of the U.S., BlackRock was disclosing another significant loss in one of their private debt funds. In this case, BlackRock TCP Capital, a publicly traded middle-market lending fund, expects to mark down the net value of its assets 19 per cent after a string of troubled loans weighed on results, marking the latest sign of pressure in the private credit market.

BlackRock’s vehicle is a business development company (BDC), which pools together private credit loans and trades like a stock. According to multiple reports, the fund has struggled in part because of its exposure to e-commerce aggregators which are companies that buy and manage Amazon sellers. Furthermore, BDC shares have been hit over the past year. There are currently 156 active BDCs, of which 50 are publicly traded. BDC Investors have concerned over private credit returns, underwriting standards and increased regulatory scrutiny. FINALLY!

Of course, this is not an isolated incident for either private credit/debt in general or specifically BlackRock. As you may recall, BlackRock was forced to reprice a private debt holding from par to zero last November, when Renovo Home Partners, a Dallas-based home-remodeling roll‑up that collapsed into Chapter 7 bankruptcy, triggering a roughly $150 million total loss on a private loan largely held by BlackRock.

Funds managed by BlackRock (notably its TCP Capital Corp. BDC) provided the majority of roughly $150 million in private credit to Renovo, while Apollo’s MidCap Financial and Oaktree held smaller slices. As of late September 2025, lenders were still marking this loan at 100 cents on the dollar, implying expectations of full repayment. This shouldn’t have come as a complete surprise because earlier in 2025, lenders had already agreed to a partial write‑off and debt‑to‑equity swap, trying to stabilize Renovo’s capital structure.​

This unfortunate outcome highlights how “mark‑to‑model” valuations in private credit can keep loans at par until very late, then reprice suddenly when a borrower fails. This practice suggest that headline yields in private credit may understate true default and loss severity risk, especially for highly leveraged sponsor‑backed roll‑ups. Yet, it doesn’t seem to have rattled either the market or institutional asset owners who continue to plow significant assets into this opaque and potentially saturated market. It continues to amaze me the number of “searches” being conducted for private credit/debt. Asset classes can get overwhelmed driving down future returns. Do you know what the natural capacity is for this asset class and the manager(s) that you are hiring? Caveat emptor!

01.23.26
by

How Does One Secure A Benefit?

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

We hope that you’ll agree that going to Chicago in January demonstrates the lengths that Ryan ALM personnel will go to help plan sponsors and their advisors protect and preserve DB pension plans. We are just thankful that we left yesterday, as today’s temperature is not expected to get to 0. OUCH!

Ron Ryan and I spent the last couple of days speaking with a number of funds and consultants about the many benefits of cash flow matching (CFM), which is gaining incredible traction among pension sponsors of all types. Who doesn’t want an element of certainty and enhanced liquidity within their plans given all the uncertainty we are facing in markets and geopolitically.

The idea of creating an element of certainty within the management of pension plans sounds wonderful, but how is that actually achieved? This is a question that we often receive and this trip was no exception. We had been discussing the fact that the relationship between asset cash flows (bond principal and interest) and liability cash flows (benefits and expenses) is locked in on the day that the bond portfolio is produced. The optimization process that we created blends the principal and interest from multiple bonds to meet the monthly obligations of benefits and expenses with an emphasis on longer maturity and higher yielding bonds to capture greater cost reduction of those future promises.

However, to demonstrate how one defeases a future liability, my example below highlights the matching of one bond versus one future $2 million 10-year liability. In this example from 18-months ago we purchased:

Bond: MetLife 6.375% due 6/15/34, A- quality, price = $107.64

Buy $1,240,000 par value of MetLife at a cost = $1,334,736

Interest is equal to the par value of bonds ($1,240,000) times the bond’s coupon (6.375%)

As a result of this purchase, we Receive: 

  Interest =  $78,412.50 annually ($39,206.25 semi-annual payments)

                            Total interest earned for 10 years is $784,125

  Principal = $1,240,000 at maturity (par value)

Total Cash Flow = $2,024,125  – $2,000,000 10-year Liability  = $24,124.99 excess

                             ($24,124.99 excess Cash Flow)

Benefits:

Able to fund $2 million benefit at a cost of $1.335 million or a -33.25% cost reduction

Excess cash flow can be reinvested or used to partially fund other benefits

In today’s yield environment, our clients benefit to a greater extent asking us to create longer maturity programs given the steepness of the yield curve. If they don’t have the assets to fund 100% of those longer-term liabilities, we can defease a portion of them through what we call a vertical slice. That slice of liabilities can be any percentage that allows us to cover a period from next month to 30-years from now. In a recent analysis produced for a prospect, we constructed a portfolio of bonds that covered 40% of the pension plan’s liabilities out to 30-years. As a result, we reduced the present value cost to defease those liabilities by –42.7%!!

Reach out to us today to learn how much we can reduce the future value cost of your promised benefits. We do this analysis for free. We encourage you to take us up on our generous offer.

01.20.26
by

ARPA Update as of January 16, 2026

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

We hope that the continuing success of the ARPA pension legislation warms your heart despite ridiculously cold temperatures in New Jersey and elsewhere.

Regarding last week’s activity, pleased to report that two plans received approval for their SFA applications. Pension Trust Fund Agreement of St. Louis Motion Picture Machine Operators and Teamsters Local 837 Pension Plan, both non-priority group members, will receive a combined $19.9 million in SFA and interest for their 1,431 members. These approvals are the first for the PBGC in just under one month.

In other ARPA news, there were no new applications filed, as the e-Filing portal remains temporarily closed. In addition, as we’ve been reporting, the window for initial applications to be submitted was to close on 12/31/25. From this point forward, only revised applications should be received by the PBGC. Despite that impediment, two more funds, NMU Great Lakes Pension Fund and UFCW Pension Fund of Northeastern Pennsylvania, added their names to the extensive waitlist seeking Special Financial Assistance. These plans and the others currently on the list must believe that the current deadline in place will be amended.

There was one application withdrawn during the prior week, as the Dairy Employees Union Local #17 Pension Plan pulled their initial application seeking $3.5 million in SFA for the 633 plan participants. Under the current rules, they have until 12/31/26 to resubmit a revised application.

Lastly, there were no applications denied nor were any of the previous recipients of SFA asked to rebate a portion due to census errors.

The U.S. interest rate environment is reacting to some of the global uncertainty. As a result, longer dated Treasury yields are marching higher. As of 9:51 am, the yield on the 30-year Treasury bond is 4.93%, while the 10-year Treasury note yield is at 4.29%. These yields are quite attractive for plans receiving SFA and wanting to secure benefits and expenses with the proceeds. Don’t miss this opportunity to significantly reduce the cost of those future benefits.

01.16.26
by

Is A “K” Truly Representative?

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

I recently attended the Opal Public Fund Forum in Arizona. I’ve always appreciated the opportunity to attend and speak at Opal’s pension conferences. This latest version was no exception. However, I found it interesting that there were two thoughts being expressed over and over again. First, many presenters talked about uncertainty. The other idea centered on the current economic environment, which was frequently described as being K-shaped.

Regarding uncertainty, we often write about the onerous impact of uncertainty on individuals, both from a psychological as well as a physiological standpoint. Yet the pension community continues to embrace uncertainty through implementation of traditional asset allocation approaches, which are potentially subject to significant market events. Why? I’m not going to dwell on this topic today as I’d rather focus some attention of the current economic environment, and I’ve covered many times how Ryan ALM can bring certainty, and a sleep-well-at-night approach, to pension management.

As the title above questions, is defining the current economic environment as a K appropriate? When I look at the letter K, it says to me that 50% of something is advancing while another 50% is declining. Is that what is happening in today’s economy? Are 50% of American workers showing strong economic gains, while 50% struggle? I would say, “NO”! No matter what metrics one reviews, indications are that a far greater percentage of the American workforce is struggling to meet basic living needs than a K would suggest. I’m not sure what letter truly represents today’s conditions, but when only 10%-20% of our households are seeing improved conditions that doesn’t conjure up a K in my mind.

The idea of American Exceptionalism is being challenged by today’s economic realities. It is so disappointing given the potential that we possess as a nation. However, our collective wealth continues to be concentrated among a small percentage of American households at the same time that expenses for basic needs – housing, medical coverage, education, childcare, food, insurance, utilities, and retirement – continue to challenge most budgets.

In a recent article by Adam Bonica, titled “The Wall Looks Permanent Until it Falls”, Adam highlights (lowlights perhaps) the significant differences in key metrics relative to a U.S. peer democracy group of 31 developed nations (OECD). For instance, he shows multiple stats in four broad categories, including Economy and Inequality, Family and Livelihood, Survival and Safety, and Institutions and Justice. It is not to say that these peers don’t have these issues – they do. They just experience them at much lower rates. The comparisons that Mr. Bonica focused on were just the averages for the peer group relative to the U.S., and they prove quite stark.

For instance, the peer average for the Top 1% of households by income is 12.8%, while in the U.S. it is 21%! If the Top 1% of earners just took 12.8%, every American household would get an additional $19k/year. If the Top 1% of Household wealth in the U.S. only had 23.2% of the country’s wealth instead of the 30.6% it currently has, every American household would have an additional $96k. A big expenditure every year for American households is healthcare. Our peers average 9.2% of one’s household spending while we average 17.1%. Just matching the rate of spending would reduce our annual expenditure for healthcare by -2.1T/year. Oh, and it isn’t like our “investment” in healthcare is reaping longevity rewards – it isn’t, as we average -4.1 years less than our average peer (78.4 years versus 82.5 years).

We can do a lot better as a society and economy. There are currently 15 million Americans working full-time that earn a level of income that is below the poverty line. Not acceptable. Only about 10% of the American workers are in DB pension plans. As I’ve stated many times, asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “benefit” without disposable income, no investment acumen, and no crystal ball to help with longevity is just poor policy. Again, we can do better. Ron and I and the Ryan ALM team are focused on protecting and preserving DB pension plans. I wish that we could do more!