By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.
As I’ve mentioned before, I like getting responses to the many blog posts that I publish. A recent response to the possible use of Cash Flow Matching (CFM) was “My plan has a 10+-year duration. We are not close to using CFM”. Thanks for the observation. Here’s what I’d say to that:
I wouldn’t view a 10+-year duration for a pension plan as either unique or one that is “not close” to using cash flow matching. Duration strategies and CFM address two very different purposes. A plan’s duration tells us something about the interest-rate sensitivity and timing of the pension plan’s liabilities. It doesn’t tell us whether those promised benefits should begin to be secured today, especially given the higher interest rate environment.
For Ryan ALM, the more important question is “What is the plan’s funded status/funded ratio”? If a plan has sufficient assets to secure a meaningful portion of its future benefit payments, why would a pension plan wait simply because the liability duration is 10+-years? Importantly, CFM DOESN’T require matching the entire liability stream or waiting until a plan is closed, frozen, or very mature. A plan can establish a CFM portfolio today that secures, for example, the next 5-, 10-, 15-, or more years of projected benefits and expenses, while the remaining assets continue to pursue growth to meet future liabilities. As an FYI, we have multiple 30+-year assignments.
Furthermore, many pension plans have negatively impacted the liquidity available to meet the monthly obligations through asset migration to non-public investments. CFM dramatically improves a plan’s liquidity profile. A duration strategy doesn’t provide liquidity!
We’d suggest that the better funded a plan becomes, the stronger the argument may be for taking some risk off the table, especially during these highly uncertain times. Funding improvement/security represents progress toward fulfilling the pension promise. CFM allows the sponsor to secure and monetize some of that progress by converting assets into contractual bond cash flows designed to meet those future benefit payments.
Finally, if the desire of the pension plan sponsor is to mitigate interest rate risk, CFM provides a superior duration match since every month of the assignment is duration matched. So, a 10-year CFM mandate would have 120 bespoke duration matches as opposed to an “average” duration or a few key rates matched along the Treasury yield curve.
Rather than observing that a pension plan with a 10+-year duration means that plan isn’t ready for CFM, I would counter with; “Why wouldn’t a plan sponsor want to secure a portion of the promises where a plan could improve liquidity, secure benefits, reduce the cost of those future benefits, and extend the investing horizon for the residual assets to grow unencumbered?”
Keep the questions and observations coming. Thank you.
