Category Archives: Uncategorized

04.04.25
by

Pension Asset Allocation

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

David Gates, of Bread fame, penned “If” in 1971. One of the more famous lyrics in the song is “if a picture paints a thousand words”. If the average picture paints 1,000 words, the image below paints about 1 million. I believe that the image of a rollercoaster is the perfect metaphor for traditional asset allocation strategies that have pension funds riding markets up and down and up and down until the plan fails. Failure in my opinion is measured by rising contribution expenses, the adoption of multiple tiers requiring employees to contribute more, work longer, and get less, and worse, the migration of new workers to defined contribution offerings, which are an unmitigated disaster for the average American worker.

As you know, Pension America rode markets up in the ’80s (following a very challenging ’70s) and ’90s, only to have the ’00s drive funded ratios into the ground. The ’10s were very good following the Great Financial Crisis. The ’20s have been a mix of both good (’23 and ’24) and bad markets (’20 and ’22). Who knows where the next 5-years will take us. What I do know is that continuing to ride markets up and down is not working for the average public pension plan. The YTD performance for US equities (S&P 500 -13.2% as of 2:30 pm) coupled with a collapse in the Treasury yield curve is damaging pension funded ratios which had shown nice improvement.

Riding these markets up and down without trying to install a strategy to mitigate that undesirable path is imprudent. Subjecting the assets to the whims of the market in pursuit of some return target is silly. By installing a discipline (CFM) that secures the promised benefits, supplies the necessary liquidity, buys time for the growth assets, while stabilizing the funded status and contribution expenses seems to be a no-brainer. Yet, plan sponsors have been reluctant to change. Why?

What is the basis for the reluctance to adopt a modified asset allocation framework that has assets divided into two buckets – liquidity and growth? Do you enjoy the uncertainty of what markets will provide in terms of return? Do you believe that using CFM for a portion of the asset base reduces one’s responsibility? Do you not believe that the primary objective in managing a pension is to secure the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk? The only reason that the DB plan exists is to meet an obligation that has been promised to the plan participant. Like an insurance company or lottery system, why wouldn’t you want to create an investment program that has very little uncertainty?

04.03.25
by

An Ugly Day For Pension America

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

Yes, today’s ugliness in the markets is only one day and how many times have we heard or read that you can’t market time or if you miss just the best performing 25-, 50-, or 100-days in the stock market, your return will resemble that of cash or bonds? Those facts are mostly correct. We may not be able to market time, but we can certainly put in place an asset allocation framework that gets DB pension plans off the rollercoaster of performance. We can construct an asset allocation that provides the necessary liquidity when markets may not be able to naturally. An asset allocation that buys time for the growth asset to wade through troubled markets. A framework that secures the promised benefits and stabilizes both funded ratios and contribution expenses for that portion of the fund that has adopted a new strategy.

Yes, today is only one day, but the impact can be significantly negative. See, it isn’t just the loss that has to be made up, as pension plans are counting on a roughly 7% return (ROA) for the year. Every negative event pushes that target further away. Equity values are getting whacked and today’s market activity is just exacerbating the already weak start to the year. While equity markets are falling, U.S. interest rates are down precipitously. The U.S. 10-year Treasury note’s yield is down just about 0.8% since early in January. As a reminder, the average duration of a DB pension is about 12 years or twice the duration of the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Index, which is the benchmark for most core fixed income mandates. So, your bond portfolios may be seeing some appreciation today and since the start of 2025, but those portfolios are not growing nearly as fast as your plan’s liabilities, which have grown by about 10.6% (12 year duration x 0.8% + income of 1.0% = 10.6%). As a result, funded ratios are taking a hit.

I wrote this piece back on March 4th reminding everyone that the uncertainty around tariffs and other factors should inspire a course change, an asset allocation rethink. I suspect that it didn’t. So, one can just assume that markets will come back and the underperformance will not have impacted the pension plan, but that just isn’t true. In many cases, equity market corrections take years to recover from and in the process contribution expenses rise, and in some cases dramatically so.

Adopting a new asset allocation framework doesn’t mean changing the entire portfolio. A restructuring can be as simple as converting your highly interest rate sensitive core bond portfolio into a cash flow matching (CFM) portfolio that secures the promised benefits from next month out as far as the allocation can go. In the process you will have improved the plan’s liquidity, extended the investing horizon for the alpha assets, stabilized the funded status for that segment of your plan, and mitigated interest rate risk, as those benefit payments are future values which aren’t interest rate sensitive. You’ll sleep very well once adopted.

04.02.25
by

What Happened to… Reversion to the Mean?

By: Ronald J. Ryan, CFA, Chairman, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Most asset allocation models use the historical mean average for each asset class as the basis for predicting future average returns… in particular, the Return On Assets (ROA) forecast. Currently, most ROAs are in the 6.50% to 7.00% range. A discipline commonly used is the “reversion to the mean”. This principle suggests that any current annual returns that deviate from the historical mean return (outliers) would be corrected over the near-term to conform or revert to the mean. Perhaps that is what is happening in 2025 to the stock market.

The historical (beginning 12/31/69) mean returns for the S&P 500 as of 03/31/25 are as follows:

Q1’25     2024      2023      5 years    10 years    20 years    30 years

-4.3%    25.0%    26.3%    11.3%       11.4%        11.2%         11.3%

Noticeably, the years 2024 and 2023 seem to be outliers or way above average returns suggesting that they are due for a near-term correction. This pattern was evident in 2022 when the S&P 500 had a correction of -18.1% after the prosperous years of 30.9% (2021), 18.4% (2020) and 31.5% (2019). For 2025 returns to revert to the 20-year mean for the last three years it would need a return of -14.77% in 2025. So far 2025 has produced a return of -4.3% as of March 31 for the S&P 500. So, the question remains… will the S&P 500 continue to revert to the mean?

Thought for the day:  Trees do NOT grow to the sky!

04.01.25
by

The Buying Of Time Can Reap Huge Rewards

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

When we present the list of benefits associated with using Cash Flow Matching (CFM), one of the benefits that we highlight is the buying of time a.k.a. an extended investing horizon. Our pension community tends to fall prey to short-termism despite claiming to be long-term investors. Quarterly observations are presented through the consultants regular performance reviews and managers are often dismissed after a relatively short period of “underperformance”. Actuarial reports tend to be annual which dictate projected contribution expenses. Yet, by extending the investment horizon to something more meaningful like 10-years or more, the probability of achieving the desired outcome is dramatically improved.

I recently played around with some S&P 500 data dating back to 12/31/69 and looked at the return and standard deviation of observations encompassing 1-10-year moving averages and longer periods such as 15-, 20-, 30-, and even 50-year moving averages for the industry’s primary domestic equity benchmark. Living in a one-year timeframe may produce decent annual returns, but is also comes with tremendous volatility. In fact, the average one-year return from 12/69 to 2/25 has been 12.5%, but the annual standard deviation is +/- 16.6%, meaning that 68% of the time your annual return could be +29.1% to -4.1%. Extending the analysis to 2 standard deviations (95% of the observations) means that in 19 out of 20 years the range of results can be as broad as +45.7% to -20.7%.

However, extend out your investing horizon to 10-years, and the average return from 12/69 dips to 11.4%, but the standard deviation collapses to only 5.0% for a much more comfortable range of +16.4% to 6.4%. Extend to 2 standard deviations and you still have a positive observation in 19 out of 20 years at +1.4% as the lower boundary. Extend to 30-years and the volatility craters to only +/-1.2% around an average return of 11.25%.

We, at Ryan ALM, were blessed in 2024 to take on an assignment to cash flow match 30+ years of this plan’s liabilities. We covered all of the projected liability cash flows through 2056 and still had about $8 million in surplus assets, which were invested in two equity funds, that can now just grow and grow and grow since all of the plan’s liquidity needs are being covered by the CFM strategy! So, how important is a long investing runway? Well, if this plan’s surplus assets achieve the average S&P 500 30-year return during the next 30-years, that $8 million will grow to >$195 million.

We often speak with prospects about the importance of bifurcating one’s asset base into two buckets – liquidity and growth. It is critically important that the plan’s liquidity be covered through the asset cash flows of interest and principal produced by bonds since they are the only asset with a known future value. CFM eliminates the need for a cash sweep which would severely reduce the ROA of growth assets. This practice will allow the growth or alpha assets to wade through choppy markets, such as the one we are currently witnessing, without fear that liquidity must be raised to meet benefits at a less than opportune time.

The plan sponsor highlighted above was fortunate to have a well-funded plan, but even plans that are less well-funded need liquidity. Ensuring that benefits and expenses can be met monthly (chronologically) without forcing liquidity that might not naturally exist is critical to the successful operation of a pension plan. CFM can be used over any time frame that the plan sponsor desires or the plan can afford. We believe that extending the investment horizon out to 10-years should be the minimum goal, but every plan is unique and that uniqueness will ultimately drive the decision on the appropriate allocation to CFM.

04.01.25
by

Misleading Indicators

By: Ron Ryan, Chairman, Ryan ALM, Inc.

The Commerce Department reports with some glee that sales and income figures show an easing up of the rate of which business is easing off, which is taken as proof that there is a slow down as well as a noticeable slowing up of a slowdown.

In order to clarify the cautious terminology of the experts, it should be noted that a slowing up of the slowdown is not as good as an upturn in the down curve, but it is a good deal better than either a speedup of the slowdown or a deepening of the down curve, and it does suggest that the climate is about right for an adjustment to the readjustment.

Turning to unemployment, we find a definite decrease in the rate of increase, which clearly shows that there is a letting up of the letdown. Of course, if the slowdown should speed up, the decrease in the rate of increase of unemployment would turn into an increase in the rate of decrease of unemployment. In other words, the deceleration would be accelerated.

But the indicators suggest a leveling off, referred to on Wall Street as a bumping along rock bottom. This will be followed by a gentle pickup, then a faster pickup, a slowdown of the pickup, and finally a leveling off again.

It is hard to tell, before the slowdown is completed, whether a particular pickup is going to be fast. At any rate, the climate is right for a pickup this season, especially if you are about twenty-five, unmarried, and driving a red convertible.

It’s April 1… don’t be fooled!

03.31.25
by

DC Participants: “Just Say No”

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

Most everyone who lived through the ’80s will remember the slogan “Just Say No”. The slogan was created and championed by Nancy Reagan during her husband’s presidency. As you’ll recall, the slogan was part of the U.S.-led war on drugs.

I’d like to reuse the slogan of JUST SAY NO as it relates to using alternatives, especially private equity and credit in defined contribution (DC) plans. DC plans are proving to be a failed model for the vast majority of participants given the anemic median balances, as asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “retirement” benefit with little to no disposable income, investment acumen, or a crystal ball to help with longevity is just silly policy. Trying to push alternatives onto these folks is maddening! They don’t need more offerings providing complicated structures, little transparency, high fees, and poor liquidity.

Importantly, what happened to being a “qualified or accredited” investor? As you may recall, private investments are restricted in most cases to individuals who meet certain financial thresholds that have been established by regulatory authorities. These considerations included minimum income levels (>$200k for some period of time and sustainable), net worth considerations at >$1 million not including your primary residence, and finally, investment knowledge, in which individuals need to demonstrate sufficient knowledge and experience in financial and business matters to evaluate the risks and merits of a prospective investment. Do you honestly think that the average 401(k) participant qualifies under any of these considerations?

The alternative suite of product offerings is proving to be challenging for many institutional investors/boards, often requiring the retention of a specialist consultant to support the plan’s generalist advisor. Given that reality, does it really make sense that an untrained individual will truly understand the potential risk and reward characteristics? Furthermore, these investments are NOT the magic elixir that they are made out to be. Performance results range far and wide and liquidity (capital distributions) is proving illusive. Do providers of these products really believe that more assets are needed at this time given how difficult it is to invest the current dry powder?

I put a similar comment to this post on LinkedIn.com earlier today. Somebody commented that a simple NO without exploration perhaps would violate my fiduciary responsibility. My answer: Someone needs to be the grown up in the room trying to keep our industry’s greedy hands off DC plans. I believe that I am acting very much in a fiduciary capacity.

I could apply the “Just Say No” slogan to so many practices within our pension industry, but for now I’ll restrict it to this one area of concern. This one rant!

03.31.25
by

ARPA Update as of March 28, 2025

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

Welcome to the last update of March. If you are a fan of both Men’s and Women’s college basketball, there wasn’t as much “madness” as usual during the respective tournaments, as all #1 seeds made the men’s Final Four, while only teams seeded either #1 or #2 made the woman’s Final Four. However, these teams should make for a very exciting and competitive games as they conclude. I’m still waiting for Fordham to get there one day.

Now onto the task at hand. Regarding ARPA and the PBGC’s implementation of this critical legislation, last week was fairly busy. Three non-priority group funds, including United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Participating Employers Pension Plan, Roofers Local 88 Pension Plan, and Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union (Independent) Pension Fund, filed initial applications seeking a total of $241.7 million in Special Financial Assistance (SFA) that will support the promised benefits for 14,769 workers. There are 22 funds that currently have an application before the PBGC.

In addition to the new fillings, Oregon Processors Seasonal Employees Pension Plan, received approval of its revised application. They will receive $19.9 million in SFA and interest to help cover the promised pensions for 7,279 members. There were no applications denied during the previous week, but there were a couple of initial applications from non-priority group members withdrawn. Distributors Association Warehousemen’s Pension Trust and Alaska Teamster – Employer Pension Plan were seeking $206.6 million in SFA for nearly 12,200 participants.

In other ARPA news, the PBGC recouped  $994,701.30 or 1.55% in excess SFA paid by The Newspaper Guild International Pension Plan. The PBGC has now recouped $202.2 million in excess SFA from grants totaling $47.5 billion or 0.42% of the proceeds. These funds, including another 4 that didn’t receive any excess proceeds, were among the roughly 60 that received awards before they were given access to the Social Security’s Master Death File.

Lastly, there was one more multiemployer fund added to the waitlist. The Plasterers Local 79 Pension Plan becomes the 117th plan to be placed on the waitlist. Fortunately, the PBGC has begun the process on all but 45 of those.

03.28.25
by

What’s Better For A Pension Plan?

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

I’m pleased to share with you the latest thought piece from Ron Ryan, Chairman, Ryan ALM, Inc. Ron shares his wisdom regarding what is the better outcome for a pension plan. Is it a 20% asset growth or a 20% reduction in the cost of liabilities? As you’ll see, he (and I) firmly believe that a 20% cost reduction is the more preferred outcome given the near certainty that the cost savings will be realized, as opposed to the very uncertain outcomes around asset performance.

Plan sponsors focused on the return on asset (ROA) assumption as the primary objective in managing a DB pension continually ride the performance rollercoaster leading to excessive volatility in the funded status and contribution expenses. That makes the process of managing these critical entities and their outcomes so uncertain. Defeasing a portion of the liabilities with the purpose of securing the promised benefits is a sleep-well-at-night strategy that should be adopted by every plan sponsor. As Ron points out, there are many benefits to this approach with enhanced liquidity being just one.

The current U.S. interest rate environment is providing plan sponsors with opportunities to secure the benefits that they haven’t had since the Great Financial Crisis. Don’t let this environment come and go without locking in some cost savings and certainty.

03.26.25
by

An Element of Certainty Can Be Achieved

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

I’ve spent the last few days attending my first GAPPT conference in Braselton, GA. The conference has been terrific as the venue is beautiful, the attendees/trustees delightful, and the speakers/topics topnotch. Senior, highly experienced members of our pension community have been sharing their insights on a variety of subjects. For those addressing the current state of our capital markets and pension asset allocation, the common theme has been uncertainty. Uncertainty as to the direction of equity markets, inflation, and interest rates. Furthermore, given that uncertainty, it should not be surprising that when asked about the direction of asset allocation trends going forward that the speaker would again claim that they don’t know. Of course not.

Regular readers of this blog know that I’ve addressed uncertainty in several blog posts. As human beings we despise uncertainty, yet the approach to pension management within the public sector has been to embrace uncertainty through a traditional asset allocation focused on a return on asset (ROA) target. We learned today that the ROA has fallen for the average public pension from 8% prior to the great financial crisis (GFC) to the current 6.9% today. Given the outsized returns provided by the public equity markets in recent years, funded ratios should have improved, but ironically, they are roughly at the same level they were at prior to the GFC. Yes, the lower discount rate increases the value of plan liabilities, which impacts the funded status, but it also increases contributions that should have offset some of that impact.

Instead of just accepting the fact that markets are uncertain, plan sponsors and their advisors should be seeking strategies to minimize that uncertainty, at least for a portion of the asset base. I know of only a couple of ways to bring certainty to the management of pension assets. One is through a pension risk transfer that shifts the liability from the plan sponsor to an insurance company. Given that public pension plans believe that they are perpetual, there is little appetite to terminate the DB plan. Furthermore, with funded ratios at roughly 75%, the cost to fully fund and then offload the liability would be prohibitive.

We, at Ryan ALM, want to see pensions protected and preserved. We don’t want our public workforce to be forced into managing their own retirements through a defined contribution offering. These vehicles have not worked for a significant majority of the private workforce, as asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “benefit” with little to no disposable income, investment acumen, or a crystal ball to help with distributions is just poor policy.

So, what can sponsors do? They can adopt a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy that will defease (SECURE) pension liabilities by matching asset cash flows of interest and principal from bonds with the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. This process is done chronologically from the first month of the assignment as far into the future as the allocation to the strategy will go. In the process of securing these promises, liquidity is enhanced allowing for the balance of the assets (alpha assets) to now grow unencumbered. As we all know, a long investing horizon enhances the probability of success for those alpha assets to achieve the expected outcome.

Isn’t it time to engage in a strategy that will provide the sponsors and their advisors with a better night’s sleep? Wouldn’t it be great if attendees at pension-related conferences learned that there is a strategy that can secure the promises given to plan participants? Given the elevated interest rate environment, CFM should become the core strategy within pension asset allocations. The allocation to CFM should be determined by multiple factors including the current funded status and the plan’s ability to contribute. We witnessed a failure on the part of sponsors back in 1999 to secure the promises when funded ratios were significantly > 100%. We aren’t at that level today, but an element of risk can be reduced and it should be. Let’s get these plans off the asset allocation rollercoaster and volatile funded status.

03.24.25
by

ARPA Update as of March 21, 2025

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

Welcome to the first update since Spring sprang last week. Given that snow was in the forecast for the Northeast, we have a way to go before it feels like baseball season in NJ.

Regarding the implementation of ARPA, the PBGC was fairly busy last week. It has been a while since we saw a Priority Group 1 member file an application. As of last week, there were 6 Group 1 members that had not gotten approval for SFA. The Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico Local 901 Pension Plan, from San Juan, PR, submitted a revised application seeking $37.5 million for its 3,397 members. The PBGC will have until July 18, 2025, to render a decision or the plan automatically receives the grant.

In other ARPA news, Alaska Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Pension Plan, a non-Priority Group member, received approval for their revised SFA application. They will receive $109.3 million for 1,722 plan participants. This is the 114 multiemployer plan to receive an SFA award. Grants now total $71.3 billion that support 1.54 million American workers.

Lastly, there were no applications denied or excess SFA repaid, but there were two applications withdrawn. Local 888 Pension Fund and Laborers’ Local No. 91 Pension Plan each withdrew their initial application. In total, these plans were seeking $177.9 million for just under 4,400 members.

There remains significant work ahead for the PBGC that must review and approve nearly 90 applications. It took the PBGC more than 3 1/2 years to approve the first 114. If I remember correctly, this legislation wraps up at the end of 2026. Let’s hope that the critical impediments that created fits and starts are now behind them and it is full steam ahead.