Category Archives: Uncategorized

08.15.25
by

What might SS Recipients Get in 2026’s COLA

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

With the demise of the defined benefit plan for many workers in the US private sector, Social Security benefit payments become ever more important for a greater percentage of the American retirees and those with disabilities. There have been several stories recently about Social Security and what the “average” recipient might receive in 2026 and worse, what their benefit reduction might be should the forecast of a “lockbox” shortfall in 2033 come to pass. We’ll get the official word on the 2026 COLA sometime in October, but early estimates are forecasting a 2.5% increase for next year. This potential increase barely matches headline CPI and it falls short of the current Core and Sticky inflation #s.

Social Security’s average monthly benefit among all retired workers is $2,006 in 2025, according to a recent AARP article. If the 2.5% increase turns out to be correct, checks will increase $50 / month. If my math is correct, that equates to an average monthly check of $2,056. The maximum Social Security benefit for a worker retiring at full retirement age is $4,018 in 2025. A 2.5% COLA will bring that figure to $4,118 in 2026. For those retiring at 62-years-old the maximum benefit in 2025 is $2,831, while the maximum benefit for a worker retiring at age 70 is $5,108 in 2025. Those numbers will be adjusted accordingly.

As we celebrate Social Security’s 90th anniversary, we need to understand that the on-going rhetoric about SS running out of money is a fallacy. There DOES NOT exist an “operational constraint on the government’s ability to meet all Social Security payments in a timely manner. It doesn’t matter what the numbers are in the Social Security Trust Fund account, because the trust fund is nothing more than record-keeping, as are all accounts at the Fed.” (Warren Mosler, “Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy”) He continues, “When it comes time to make Social Security payments, all the government has to do is change numbers up in the beneficiary’s accounts, and then change numbers down in the trust fund accounts to keep track of what it did. If the trust fund number goes negative, so be it. That just reflects the numbers that are changed up as payments to beneficiaries are made.”

What we should fear is that Congress does not understand this concept and acts rashly to address the impending “crisis” that doesn’t exist. Recent estimates target a possible reduction in “benefits” at 23% to 24% in 2033. Try telling the nearly 70 million Americans, many relying on SS for most of their retirement assets, that they will see a dramatic reduction in a promised benefit that they themselves helped to fund. With 50% of retirees using SS for more than 50% of their retirement income and another 25% in which SS makes up 90% or more of their retirement income, the economic impact from these potential benefit cuts would be cruel and absolutely unnecessary.

08.14.25
by

Are Investors About to Get Their Comeuppance?

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

As we’ve discussed in this blog on many occasions, the U.S. interest rate decline from 1982 to 2022 fueled risk assets well beyond their fundamentals. During the rate decline, investors became accustomed to the US Federal Reserve stepping in when markets and the economy looked dicey. There seems to be a massive expectation that the “Fed” will once again support those same risk assets by initiating another rally through a rate decline perhaps as soon as September. Is that action justified? I think not!

Recent inflation data, including today’s PPI that came in at 0.9% vs. 0.2% expected, should give pause to the crowd screaming for lower rates. Yes, employment #s published last week were very weak, and they got weaker when Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was fired after releasing a jobs report that angered President Donald Trump. In addition, we have Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, demanding rates be cut by as much as 150-175 bps, claiming that all forecasting “models” suggest the same direction for rates. Is that true? Again, I think not.

You may recall that I published a blog post on July 10, 2025 titled “Taylor-Made”, in which I wrote that the Taylor Rule is an economic formula that provides guidance on how central banks, such as the Federal Reserve, should set interest rates in response to changes in inflation and economic output. The rule is designed to help stabilize an economy by systematically adjusting the central bank’s key policy rate based on current economic conditions. It is designed to take the “guess work” out of establishing interest rate policy.

In John Authers (Bloomberg) blog post today, he shared the following chart:

Calling for a roughly 2.6% Fed Funds rate in an environment of 3% or more core and sticky inflation is not prudent, and it is not supported by history. Furthermore, the potential impact from tariffs will only begin to be felt as most went into effect as of August 1, 2025.

Getting back to the Taylor Rule, Authers also provided an updated graph suggesting that the Fed Funds rate should be higher today. In fact, it should be at a level about 100 bps above the current 4.3% and more than 270 bps above the level that Bessent desires.

Investors would be wise to exit the lower interest rate train before it fuels a significant increase in U.S. rates as inflation once again rises. The impact of higher rates will negatively impact all risk assets. Given that a Cash Flow Matching (CFM) strategy eliminates interest rate risk through the defeasement of benefits and expenses that are future values and thus not interest rate sensitive, one could bring an element of certainty to this very uncertain economic environment before investors get their comeuppance! Don’t wait for the greater inflation to appear, as it might just be too late at that point to get off the lower interest rate train before it plummets into a ravine.

08.12.25
by

Corporate Pension Funding – UP!

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

I was out of the office last week, and as a result I am trying to play catch-up on some of the stories that I think you’d be interested in. Happy to report that Milliman released its monthly Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), which, as you know, analyzes the 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans. Importantly, the news continues to be good for corporate pension funding.

For July, a discount rate increase of 3 bps helped stabilize corporate pension funding, lowering the Milliman PFI projected benefit obligation (PBO) by $6 billion to $1.213 trillion as of July 31. Anticipated investment returns were marginally subpar at 0.38%. After taking into consideration a higher discount rate, marginal investment gains, and net outflows, overall corporate pension funding increased by $4 billion for the month.

The Milliman 100 PFI funded ratio now stands at 105.3% up from June’s 105.7%. For the last 12-months, the funded ratio has improved by 2.8%, as the collective funded status position improved by $32 billion. “July marks four straight months of funding improvement, with levels not seen since late 2007, before the global financial crisis,” said Zorast Wadia, author of the PFI. “In order to preserve funded status gains, plan sponsors should be thinking about asset-liability management strategies to help mitigate potential discount rate declines in the future.” We couldn’t agree more with you, Zorast!

As highlighted below, overall corporate pension funding has improved dramatically. A significant contributor to this improvement has been the rise in U.S. interest rates which significantly lowered the present value of those future benefits. Let’s hope that the current funding will encourage plan sponsors to maintain their DB pension plans for the foreseeable future. You have to love pension earnings as opposed to pension expense!

Figure 1: Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index — Pension surplus/deficit

View the complete Pension Funding Index.

08.12.25
by

ARPA Update as of August 8, 2025

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

I hope that you continue to enjoy a terrific Summer.

Regarding ARPA and the PBGC’s effort to implement this critical legislation, last week was rather tame in terms of obvious activity. There were a couple of applications submitted and that’s about it. According to the PBGC’s website, the e-Filing portal is now temporarily closed, as they work through 27 applications that are in various stages of review.

Squeezing through that narrow portal window were Teamsters Local 210 Affiliated Pension Plan and Local Union 1710 I.B.E.W. Pension Trust Fund. Local 210, a non-priority group member, submitted a revised application seeking SFA support of $129.2 million for their 7,588 plan participants, while Local 1710 submitted an initial application looking to support its 1,930 members with a potential SFA grant of just $4.7 million.

As a result of this little activity, we can report that there were no applications approved, denied, or withdrawn. There were also no multiemployer plans added to the waitlist and none of those currently on the list decided to lock-in the valuation date. Based on the information in the chart below, the PBGC has a ton of work left to be done, with roughly 118 pension plans still to be reviewed and hopefully approved for SFA assistance.

While equity markets remain frothy and US interest rates remain at a lofty level relative to recent history, defeasing promised benefits through a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy remains the most prudent approach to securing those benefits with certainty. As we’ve stated in the past, the SFA received is a gift that won’t be replicated. The sequencing of returns is so critical. If your SFA grant gets whacked through market action early in the process, the potential coverage period will be adversely impacted. There is no reason to take that risk.

08.04.25
by

ARPA Update as of August 1, 2025

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

Talk about jumping out of the frying pan into the fire! I left New Jersey’s wonderful heat and humidity only to find myself in El Paso, TX, where the high temperature is testing the limits of a normal thermometer. Happy to be speaking at the TexPERS conference this week, but perhaps they can do an offsite in Bermuda the next time.

Regarding the ARPA legislation and the PBGC’s implementation of this critical pension program, we continue to see the PBGC ramp up its activity level. This past week witnessed five multiemployer plans submitting applications of which four were initial filings and the fifth was a revised offering. Another plan received approval, while one fund added its name to the waitlist. Finally, two funds have locked-in the measurement dates (valuation purposes).

Now the specifics: The four funds submitting initial applications were Colorado Cement Masons Pension Trust Fund, Iron Workers-Laborers Pension Plan of Cumberland, Maryland, Cumberland, Maryland Teamsters Construction and Miscellaneous Pension Plan, and Exhibition Employees Local 829 Pension Fund that collectively seek $50.8 million in SFA for their 1,260 plan participants. This week’s big fish, UFCW – Northern California Employers Joint Pension Plan, a Priority Group 6 member, is seeking $2.3 billion for its 138.5k members.

The plan receiving approval of its application for SFA is Laborers’ Local No. 130 Pension Fund, which will receive $33.3 million in SFA and interest for its 641 participants. In an interesting twist, Laborers’ Local No. 130 Pension Fund, has added the fund to a growing list of waitlist candidates. If the Laborers name seems to resemble the name of the recipient of the latest SFA grant you wouldn’t be wrong. I was as confused as you are/were until I realized that these entities have different that there are two different EIN #s.

Happy to report that there were no applications withdrawn, none denied, and no SFA recipients were asked to return a portion of the proceeds due to incorrect census information. However, there are still 119 funds going through the process. There is a tremendous amount of work left to be done at this time. This comes on the heels of 131 funds being approved for a total of $73.4 billion in SFA and interest supporting the retirements for 1.77 million American workers/retirees. What an incredible accomplishment!

07.31.25
by

When Should I Use CFM?

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

Good morning. I’m currently in Chicago in the midst of several meetings. Yesterday’s meetings were outstanding. As you’d expect, the conversations were centered on DB pension plans and the opportunity to de-risk through a Cash Flow Matching strategy (CFM) in today’s economic environment. The line of questioning that I received from each of my meeting hosts was great. However, there does seem to be a misconception on when and how to use CFM as a de-risking tool. Most believe that you engage CFM for only the front-end of the yield curve, while others think that CFM is only useful when a plan is at or near full funding. Yes, both of those implementations are useful, but that represents a small sampling of when and how to implement CFM. For instance:

As a plan sponsor you need to make sure that you have the liquidity necessary to meet you monthly benefits (and expenses). Do you have a liquidity policy established that clearly defines the source(s) of liquidity or are you scurrying around each month sweeping dividends, interest, and if lucky, capital distributions from your alternative portfolio? Unfortunately, most plan sponsors do not have a formal liquidity policy as part of their Investment Policy Statement (IPS). CFM ensures that the necessary liquidity is available every month of the assignment. There is not forced selling!

Do you currently have a core fixed income allocation? According to a P&I asset allocation survey, public pension plans have an average 18.9% in public fixed income. How are you managing that interest rate risk, which remains the greatest risk for an actively managed fixed income portfolio? As an industry, we enjoyed the benefits of a nearly four decades decline in U.S. interest rates beginning in 1982. However, the prior 28-years witnessed rising rates. Who knows if the current rise in rates is a blip or the start of another extended upward trend? CFM defeases future benefit payments which are not interest rate sensitive. A $2,000 payment next month or 10-years from now is $2,000 whether rates rise or fall. As a result, CFM mitigates interest rate risk.

As you have sought potentially greater returns from a move into alternatives and private investments, not only has the available liquidity dried up, but you need a longer time horizon for those investments to mature and produce the expected outcome. Have you created a bridge within your plan’s asset allocation that will mitigate normal market gyrations? A 10-year CFM allocation will not only provide your plan with the necessary monthly liquidity, but it is essentially a bridge over volatile periods as it is the sole source of liquidity allowing the “alpha” assets to just grow and grow. That 10-year program coincides nicely with many of the lock-ins for alternative strategies.

There has been improvement in the funded status of public pension plans. According to Milliman, as of June 30, 2025, the average funded ratio for the constituents in their top 100 public pension index is now 82.9%, which is the highest level since December 2021. That’s terrific to see. Don’t you want to preserve that level of funding and the contribution expenses that coincide with that level? Riding the rollercoaster of performance can’t be comforting. Given what appears to be excessive valuations within equity markets and great uncertainty as it relates to the economic environment, are you willing to let your current exposures just ride? By allocating to a CFM program, you stabilize a portion of your plan’s funded status and the contributions associated with those Retired Lives Liability. Bringing a level of certainty to a very uncertain process should be a desirable goal for all plan sponsors and their advisors.

If I engage a CFM mandate, don’t I negatively impact my plan’s ability to meet the return objective (ROA) that we have established? NO! The Ryan ALM CFM portfolio will be heavily skewed to investment-grade corporate bonds (most portfolios are 100% corporates) that enjoy a significant premium yield relative to Treasuries and agencies. As mentioned previously, public pension plans already have an exposure to fixed income. That exposure is already included in the ROA calculation. By substituting a higher yielding CFM portfolio for a lower yielding core fixed income program benchmarked to the Aggregate index, you are enhancing the plan’s ability to achieve the ROA while also eliminating interest rate risk. A win-win in my book!

So, given these facts, how much should I allocate to a CFM mandate? The answer is predicated on many factors, including the plan’s current funded status, the ability to contribute, whether or not the plan is in a negative cash flow situation, the Board’s risk appetite, the current ROA, and others. Given that all pension systems’ liabilities are unique, there is no one correct answer. At Ryan ALM, we are happy to provide a detailed analysis on what could be done and at what cost to the plan. We do this analysis for free. When can we do yours?

07.28.25
by

ARPA Update as of July 25, 2025

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

Welcome to the last update for July. I don’t know how you feel, but it certainly seems as if Summer 2025 has been a blur. Based on last week’s activity, it doesn’t appear that the excessive heat and humidity has negatively impacted the PBGC’s activity. Good for them.

With regard to the ARPA legislation, the week ending July 25th saw one new application filed, another three approved (yes!), one more repayment of excess SFA funds, and another two multiemployer plans added to the waitlist, which continues to grow despite a deadline for action on the applications that is drawing near.

Distributors Association Warehousemen’s Pension Trust, a non-priority group member, has filed a revised application seeking nearly $30 million in SFA for their 3,358 plan participants. The PBGC has until November 21, 2025, to act on the application.

Pleased to announce that the PBGC has approved the SFA applications for United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Participating Employers Pension Plan, the Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union (Independent) Pension Fund, and the Bricklayers Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania. Each of the applications were the initial filings. In total, these funds will receive $303 million in SFA plus interest for the 15.3k participants.

As previously mentioned, Pension Plan of the Printers League – Graphic Communications International Union Local 119B, New York Pension Fund has agreed to return $1.4 million in SFA or 1.34% of the $106.7 million in SFA and interest received.

Finally, Teamsters Local 264 Van Drivers Pension Fund and UFCW Local 2013 Pension Fund have been added to the waitlist, which has ballooned to 160 members of which 76 are still waiting to file an SFA application with the PBGC.

07.25.25
by

Milliman: Public Pension Funding Rises

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

Milliman released the latest results of its Public Pension Funding Index (PPFI), which analyzes data from the nation’s 100 largest public defined benefit plans. 

Milliman is reporting that for a second consecutive month above average returns powered asset growth of $115 billion for the constituents of the PPFI for June. The strong asset growth equated to a roughly 2.3% gain during the month, with results for members of the index ranging from 1.5% to 3.6%. As a result, plan assets for the index rose from $5.327 trillion as of May 31 to $5.457 trillion as of June 30.

With the substantial growth in assets, the estimated deficit between plan assets and liabilities declined from $1.242 trillion at the end of May to $1.127 trillion at the end of June, resulting in an improved funded ratio for the index of 82.9% as of June 30, from 81.1% as of May 31. This marks the highest level for the aggregate funded ratio since December 31, 2021. Importantly, 37 of the plans are more than 90% funded, which is an improvement of seven funds since the end of May, while 11 plans remain less than 60% funded.

To view the report, click on this link: View the Milliman 100 Public Pension Funding Index.

07.24.25
by

A few Observations from Newport

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

As I mentioned in my ARPA update on Monday, I had the pleasure of attending the Opal Public Fund Forum East in beautiful Newport, RI, and neither the conference nor Newport disappointed. I don’t attend every session during the conference, but I do try to attend most. In all honesty, I can’t listen to another private equity discussion.

As always, there were terrific insights shared by the speakers/moderators, but there were also some points being made that are just wrong. With this being my first day back in the office this week, I don’t have the time to get into great detail regarding some of my concerns about what was shared, but I’ll give you the headline and perhaps link a previous blog post that addressed the issue.

First, DB pension plans are not Ponzi Schemes that need more new participants than retirees to keep those systems well-funded and functioning. Actuaries determine benefits and contributions based on each individual’s unique characteristics. If managed appropriately, systems with fewer new members can function just fine. Yes, plans that find themselves in a negative cash flow situation need to rethink the plan’s asset allocation, but they can continue to serve their participants just fine. Remember: a DB pension plan’s goal is to pay the last benefit payment with the last $. It is not designed to provide an inheritance.

Another topic that was mentioned several times was the U.S. deficit and the impending economic doom as a result. The impact of the U.S. deficit is widely misunderstood. I was fortunate to work with a brilliant individual at Invesco – Charles DuBois – who took the time to educate me on the subject. As a result of his teaching, I now understand that the U.S. has a potential demand problem. Not a debt issue. I wrote a blog post on this subject back in 2017. Please take the time to read anything from Bill Mitchell, Warren Mosler, Stephanie Kelton, and other disciples of MMT.

Lastly, the issue of flows into strategies/asset classes seems not to be understood. The only reason we have cycles in our markets is through the movement of assets into and out of various products/strategies. Too much money chasing too few good ideas creates an environment in which those flows can overwhelm future returns. It is the same for individual asset management firms. Many of the larger asset management firms have become sales organizations in lieu of investment management organizations as they long ago eclipsed the natural capacity of their strategies. In the process, they have arbitraged away their insights which may have provided the basis for some value-added in the past. I believe that too much money is chasing many of the alternative/private strategies. In the process, future returns and liquidity will be negatively impacted. We’ve already seen that within private equity. Is private debt next?

Again, always enjoy seeing friends and industry colleagues at this conference. I continue to learn from so many of the presenters even after 44-years in the industry. However, not everything that you hear will be correct. It is up to you to challenge a lot of the “common wisdom” being shared.

07.21.25
by

ARPA Update as of July 18, 2025

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

I have the pleasure of drafting this post from beautiful Newport, RI, where I’m attending and speaking at the Opal Public Fund Forum East. The West forum’s location wasn’t too shabby either as it took place in Scottsdale last January! Business travel isn’t as glamorous as those who don’t travel think, but there are some nice perks, too. As they say in real estate: location, location, location!

With regard to ARPA, since you likely didn’t decide to open post this to find Waldo or Russ, the PBGC was fairly busy during the previous week, as there was one new application, one approved application, two new additions to the waitlist and two funds that locked-in their measurement date. Now the details.

I’m pleased to report that the Roofers Local 88 Pension Plan, a Canton OH-based fund, has filed a revised application seeking $9 million for their 484 participants. As usual, the PBGC has 120-days to act on the application or it is automatically approved. In addition, Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico Local 901 Pension Plan, a San Juan, PR-based fund, a Priority Group One member will receive $49 million in SFA and interest for the 3,397 members.

In other news, Local 400 Food Terminal Employees Pension Trust Fund and the Textile Processors Service Trades Health Care Professional and Technical Employees International Union Local No. 1 Pension Fund (that name is a mouth full) have both added their funds to the PBGC’s waitlist for the submission of an SFA application. Good luck. There were also two funds from the waitlist, Iron Workers Local 473 Pension Plan and Greenville Plumbers and Pipefitters Pension Fund have locked in their measurement date and both chose April 30, 2025.

Lastly, there were no applications denied or withdrawn, and none of the previous SFA recipients were asked to rebate a portion of their proceeds due to census errors. As reported previously, the PBGC has their work cut out for them, as all of the outstanding applications need to be filed by year-end.