By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

It appears that the “Summer doldrums” may have settled in as it relates to the PBGC and ARPA. The last couple of weeks have seen little action. Now, I don’t mean to be snarky toward the PBGC given the tremendous energy that has been expended to date (46 initial applications approved and $47.4 billion allocated), but there is little to show recently. In this most recent week, there were no new applications filed, approved, or denied (fortunately). There was, however, one application withdrawn. The Legacy Plan of the UNITE HERE Retirement Fund, a Priority Group 6 applicant, withdrew the initial application on June 8th seeking $1.025 billion in SFA for their 91,744 plan participants.

The only other notable event during the prior week was the addition of District Council 37 Local 389 Home Care and Professional Employees Pension Fund to the waiting list. This brings to 110 the number of multiemployer plans that now reside on this list hoping to have the opportunity to file an SFA application. This most recent addition did not “lock in” a valuation date, yet. With 110 plans sitting on this waitlist, there is no doubt that the PBGC still has a tremendous effort before them.

As always, we welcome your comments and questions. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me if you have any questions related to how to appropriately invest the SFA proceeds to maximize the potential coverage of benefits and expenses. The higher US interest rate environment is a blessing for plans looking to defease their pension liabilities. Have a great week.

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

I’ve had the great pleasure of speaking at a number of industry events so far in 2023. I usually begin my portion of the talk or panel discussion by asking a very simple question: Was 2022 a good or bad year for pensions? That question often generates a response from the audience that makes it appear that I have 3 eyes and have suddenly turned green. I say that because most people in the US pension industry, especially among public and multiemployer plans, focus almost exclusively on the asset side of the pension equation since the return on asset (ROA) assumption is their primary objective. They understand that rising US rates led to declining valuations for both stocks and bonds, and likely many if not all alternative investments, but since those don’t get marked-to-market one never really knows. They’ve seen that the S&P 500 was down -18%, while Bloomberg Barclays declined an unprecedented -13% for the year.

What they failed to understand is the impact of rising rates on the present value of the pension plan’s liabilities, which are bond-like in nature. In a rapidly rising rate environment, long-duration pension liabilities’ present values fell rather dramatically. In fact, the decline in the present value of those liabilities dwarfed the decline in assets. This relationship is more obvious in pension accounting for corporations, but it is still true for public and multiemployer pension plans despite the GASB accounting standards that permit the ROA to be used as a liability discounting mechanism.

So how good was 2022 for Corporate America? According to the Milliman study (thanks to Zorast and team) “the funded ratio of the Milliman 100 pension plans increased during FY2022 to 99.3% from 96.3% at the end of FY2021.” Furthermore, “the 245 basis point increase in liability discount rates was sufficient to overcome the plans’ average -18.6% investment return, allowing the private single-employer DB plans of the Milliman 100 companies to reduce the multibillion-dollar pension deficits for the second straight year, falling just short of full funding in 2022.”

Corporate pension funding has only been in better shape twice before going back to 1999. Regrettably, Pension America failed in both cases to secure the promised benefits through a defeasement strategy preferring a gambler’s mentality of “let it ride”! Well, we know what followed previous funding peaks in 2000 and 2007. No one should be comfortable leaving chips on the table at this time. The current US interest rate environment is enabling Ryan ALM to produce investment-grade bond portfolios with a YTW of >5.5%. The present value of assets is able to secure substantial future value benefits and expenses. Our objective in managing pension assets has never been a return focus. It is our goal to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. Let us help you secure the promises that you’ve made to your employees. They will certainly appreciate your effort.

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

We are pleased to provide the weekly update on the PBGC’s activity related to the ARPA legislation. There were no new applications submitted for review or approved for SFA payment. However, there was one plan, the New England Teamsters Pension Plan, a Priority Group 6 fund, that withdrew its initial application on May 30, 2023. They are seeking nearly $5.5 billion to help support the 72,141 plan participants.

In addition to the activity cited above, there was one new plan added to the waitlist for SFA consideration. The UFCW Local 23 and Giant Eagle Pension Fund was added to the list marking the 109th multiemployer pension system to be added at this time. They also decided to lock in a valuation date of April 30, 2023. Joining UFCW Local 23 were two other plans that decided to lock in 4/30/23 as their valuation date – Retail Food Employers & UFCW Local 711 Pension Trust Fund and the Communications Workers of America Local 1109 Pension Plan.

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

We are pleased to provide you with this ALM-related “pop quiz”.

Q: Can a Generic Bond Index Replicate Pension or OPEB Liabilities?

A:  Never… Mission Impossible!

Pension and OPEB liabilities are unique to each plan sponsor. Each has a different labor force, salary structure, mortality profile, plan amendments, actuarial assumptions, etc. It is impossible for a generic bond index to replicate the unique liability cash flows and risk/reward behavior of any pension and OPEB liability for several additional reasons:

Problems:

1. Generic bond indexes use coupon bonds while liabilities are to be priced and viewed as zero-coupon bonds. Coupon bonds are less interest rate sensitive than zero-coupon bonds with the same maturity as they have a shorter duration, especially on longer bonds. 
2. Generic bond indexes have a maximum duration of about 15 years today vs. much longer liability cash flows.
3. Pension and OPEB liabilities are a term structure or yield curve of monthly liability cash flows which tend to be rather linear through time.

A generic bond index is weighted based on corporate new issues which rarely, if ever, are issued as a term structure. This creates gaps between the index term structure.

4. Long generic bond indexes usually have no maturities shorter than 10 years. This leaves out a major portion of liability cash flows.
5. The Durations of generic bond indexes are interest rate sensitive and can change significantly through time. In the early 1980s, the longest duration bonds were around 8 years. After 1982, durations began to extend as interest rates were in a secular decline.

A 30-year maturity 20 years later (2002) had a duration of around 16 years or twice as long as in 1982. Liability durations do not change radically and tend to be rather stable for active plans and open groups. Even closed groups will have durations that change slowly.

Ryan ALM Solutions:

1. Only a Custom Liability Index (CLI) could replicate liability cash flows and monitor their risk/reward behavior. The CLI is based on the unique actuarial projections of each plan sponsor. 

Since contributions are the initial source to fund benefits and expenses (B+E), current assets fund net liabilities after contributions. Moreover, B+E are monthly liability payments. The actuary does not calculate net and monthly B+E payments. The CLI will calculate net monthly liability payments. The CLI produces monthly reports that include summary statistics (yield, duration), liability growth rate, interest rate sensitivity, present value, and future value.

2. Accounting rules require the pricing of liabilities at a AA corporate zero-coupon yield curve. Since these bonds do not exist in the marketplace, they have to be manufactured. Ryan ALM is one of few ASC 715 discount rate vendors providing four distinct yield curves (top 10% yielding, top 33% yielding, top 50% yielding, full curve). Such pricing determines all of the present value summary statistics and liability growth rate.
3. The true objective of any pension and OPEB plan is to fund liabilities in a timely and cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. It is all about asset cash flows versus liability cash flows. The most prudent and efficient way to achieve this objective is through cash flow matching. The Ryan ALM model (Liability Beta Portfolio™ or LBP) is a cost optimization model that will fund and match liability cash flows monthly at a cost savings of about 2% per year. If Ryan ALM was your asset manager for the 1-7 year liabilities, we could reduce the cost to fund benefits and expenses by about 14%. This is a significant cost saving and allows plan sponsors time for their other assets to grow unencumbered without a cash sweep.

“Where is the knowledge we have lost in information” T.S. Eliot

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Regular readers of this blog will know to whom I am referring when I mention the name, Carol. I started following Carol’s saga from late 2017 to early 2018 and first wrote about her in June 2018, when I was asked to participate in the development of the Butch Lewis Act (BLA) Legislation (thanks, Ron). Getting involved in this effort has been one of the highlights of my career to date.

Unfortunately, Carol was a member of Local 805 that became victim to the legislation known as the Kline-Miller Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA). Under MPRA, her plan was given permission to slash promised benefits, which had a horrendous impact on the lives of retirees through absolutely no fault of their own. Carol candidly shared how she was being impacted by the 61% cut to her benefits. She said, “I received a letter from the Teamsters in March stating their intention to cut my pension from $2,600.00 a month to $1,022.00 a month….that’s 61%. It is supposed to happen in January 2019. If they get away with this, I will lose my house. I am a 64-year-old widow who can hardly afford to pay my mortgage without the cut.” In addition, she shared that “I have been under doctor’s care for the past 18 years for depression and anxiety, and I was doing fine until 2 years ago. I was forced to give up my prescription plan because I could no longer afford it.” So tragic!

Regrettably, the BLA legislation was never taken up by the Senate following passage in the House in July 2019. However, soon after President Biden’s inauguration, a similar pension bill to that of BLA was attached to ARPA. Fortunately, that legislation was signed into law in March 2021, and it is being implemented by the PBGC. The Local 805 Pension and Retirement plan, a MPRA Suspension and Partition Priority Group 2 plan, had its initial application approved for $136 million in Special Financial Assistance on May 3, 2022, and paid out on May 31, 2022. These proceeds are to be used to reinstate the benefits as they were originally established and to make participants “WHOLE” for lost benefits following those onerous cuts. On January 9, 2023, Local 805 received a Supplemental payout of $40.3 million to further support the 2003 participants in the plan.

I recently reached out to Carol to see if she benefited as the legislation intended. Here is her update:

“Hi, Russ! So nice to hear from you. I hope you’re doing well. Regarding my pension and the reinstatement, everything went very smoothly. I got my 1st reinstated check on April 1, 2022, and Every month going forward on the same day. My retroactive check was sent around the same time as my 1st reinstated check. I was able to pay back some of the money I borrowed to get by which felt really good. Unfortunately, that couldn’t make up for the loss of my house and the stress on my mind and body, but with all the help I was given, my future is bright once again. Your articles really helped my voice be heard and I thank you for that. The first thing I wanted to do when I got my pension back was to go and see Karen Ferguson (Pension Rights Center). I wanted to thank her and Terry in person for all the help they gave me. Unfortunately, when I tried contacting her, I found out I was a month too late. A while before the reinstatement kicked in, I cut myself off the Facebook pages because the stress was really getting to me. For that reason, I wasn’t aware of Karen’s passing until I tried to email her. I will always remember the sadness I felt. She pulled me through many dark moments and introduced several people into my life whose help was absolutely priceless. Because of her, I survived. Anyway, I am getting my promised pension, Russ, but I have to admit, the fear of losing it again lingers in the back of my mind. Carol

I’ve produced more than 1,240 posts on my blog since I began writing in 2014. This one is one of my favorite posts to date. It is incredibly fulfilling to know that Ryan ALM played a small part in getting Carol’s and all the other MPRA plan participants their benefits reinstated and their lost benefits repaid. I have stated before that I thought that it was outrageous what was done to these hard-working union members who suffered for years with the stress and anxiety of not knowing if they were going to survive in retirement let alone enjoy a dignified retirement.

Ron and I continue to be crusaders for the preservation of defined benefit plans. Asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “benefit” with little knowledge is criminal! The consequences will be quite negative and far-reaching. If you have a DB pension benefit, you are extremely lucky. Do everything that you can to protect it. It will keep your golden years from being tarnished.

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

We hope that you enjoyed a nice long weekend. Here is the weekly ARPA legislative update. Despite the holiday weekend, the PBGC continued to focus on the task at hand. During the prior work week, one plan, the Paper Handlers’ – Publishers’ Pension Plan, submitted a revised application. This Priority Group 5 plan is seeking nearly $20 million to help secure the promised benefits to 244 plan participants. The PBGC has until September 22, 2023, to act on the application.

In addition to that action, two plans, the Bindery Industry Employers GCC/IBT Pension Plan and the Paper Handlers’ – Publishers’ Pension Plan each withdrew their initial applications seeking SFA support. The Bindery Industry Employers Fund is seeking $18.8 million for their 686 participants, while the Paper handlers would like to see the PBGC deliver $20.7 million for its 244 participants. There were no applications denied and no new filings approved during the last week. In addition, no plans were added to either the waiting list or requested a valuation date lock-in.

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Just got an email with the above title. I was intrigued, as I suspect that you might be, too. It was for an upcoming webinar that was being conducted by a mega investment shop. The webinar will focus on a few primary points, including the attractive valuations of the risk factor Quality and non-US investments, pro- and counter-cyclical exposures, and a deep dive into a potential recession with a discussion as to the depth and duration of such an event. All of this leading eventually to a discussion on how to position your portfolio to “Generate Income and Minimize Risk!”

Boy, that all sounds nice, but how much will the performance needle be moved by adopting some or all of these investment ideas? Each one of these ideas comes with an annual standard deviation that in some cases is quite volatile (non-US investing). Are these long-term sustainable ideas or dynamic opportunities that must be acted on quickly in order to maximize the potential reward? Do US pension plans have the ability to move substantial assets around in an attempt to add incremental gains after transaction costs? I don’t believe that they do.

In addition, we know that “value” is in the eye of the beholder. We are witnessing that right now. What looks like an over-valued situation (mega-tech) may continue to see incredible momentum pushing share prices higher and higher despite valuations that are stretched. According to the folks at Glen Eagle Trading, Technology and other growth stocks without dividends have risen by 10% this year, while stocks with high dividend yields have decreased by 6%. Think valuation matters in this example?

Risk is best measured and defined as the uncertainty of achieving the objective. For DB pensions, the true objective is funding liabilities in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. As a result, pension risk is best defined and measured as the asset growth deviation from liability growth. This is best measured by a Custom Liability Index (CLI). Pensions should be all about cash flows. As a result, you want asset cash flows to match or exceed liability cash flows.

If you truly want to get off the asset allocation roller coaster, while pursuing a strategy that generates income and minimizes risk, convert your current core return-seeking fixed income into a cash flow matching portfolio that defeases pension liabilities through the cash flows created by interest and principal upon maturity. Your “savings” are locked-in on day one. Importantly, interest rate risk is eliminated as future values (benefit payments) are not interest rate sensitive, while “buying time” for those value stocks to finally become appreciated by the marketplace.

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Not sure if it was a case of Spring fever or the PGA golf event in Rochester, NY, (how about Michael Block?), or just an overwhelming array of applications to get through, but the week ending May 19th didn’t produce a lot of “results” for the PBGC and their implementation of the ARPA legislation. In fact, there were only two reported actions during the week and both involved the same pension plan, and I’m confused as to the actual events. Plasterers and Cement Masons Local No. 94 Pension Fund submitted and withdrew their application on the same day – May 15th. In somewhat of a chicken-and-egg scenario, did this fund submit and then withdraw its application or did it withdraw an application that had already been submitted, made the appropriate edits, and then resubmit? I’ll have to do some further research to see if I can determine the path that this application traveled.

In any case, this MPRA Suspension and Partition Priority Group 2 plan is only seeking $3.2 million for its 108 plan participants. Priority Group 2 plans began submitting applications way back at the end of 2021. It certainly has taken some time for this plan to get the application to a point that meets the PBGC’s needs. As a reminder, MPRA Suspension and Partition plans had seen benefits cut under 2014’s legislation. These plan participants have waited a long time to get the promised benefits reinstated, while also being made whole for the previously lost pension earnings. Let’s hope that their wait isn’t much longer.

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

First recognized by the United States Congress on May 15, 2006, Endangered Species Day falls every year on the third Friday in May. The day is intended to raise awareness about protecting endangered species and their habitats. Endangered species not only include mammals, such as the African elephant or panda bear, but all living things including animals, birds, insects, plants, and other organisms.

I think that this is a critical effort, and it should be given as much consideration as possible. That said, I am not trying to trivialize it when I suggest adding to this list defined benefit (DB) plans, which have seen a tremendous decline in their use since the 1980s. As recently as the late 1980s, there were an estimated 114,000 DB plans within the private sector covering more than 40% of the private sector workforce. Regrettably, the number of companies offering DB plans is down to just over 43,000 as of 2021 with many of those no longer accruing benefits for participants or accepting the enrollment of new employees. Fortunately, DB plans are still being used to a greater extent among public sector sponsors (roughly 5,400 covering 80+% of public sector employees) and unions where there are approximately 1,400 multiemployer plans.

The private sector participation in DB plans has been replaced by defined contribution (DC) plans, where companies are asking untrained employees to fund, manage, and then disburse a “retirement” benefit with little ability to execute that responsibility. As of 2021, there were roughly 638,000 employer-sponsored DC plans. Yet, not every worker is covered by a retirement plan, as there are about 33 million small businesses in the country with a significant percentage employing 10 or fewer workers. As we’ve previously reported, the median balance for those that are covered was a measly $24,503 (2020). Given that reality, providing workers with the means to achieve a dignified retirement is what is truly endangered.

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc. and Ron Ryan, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Plan Sponsors and their advisors need to focus on the economic value of the pension plan’s liabilities, which are a yield curve or term structure of actuarial projections of benefits and expenses. Pension liabilities are not a single maturity or duration on a liability yield curve. Anyone who knows the Ryan ALM organization knows that we espouse cash-flow matching (CFM) for that very reason. With CFM you get not only the liquidity to fund monthly benefits and expenses, but you also get duration matching for each and every month that the CFM portfolio covers. Unfortunately, with duration matching, you are only able to “match” the interest rate risk sensitivity of assets to liabilities at a single point in time (average duration) or a handful of points (key rate duration of 5 to 7 average maturity spots on the liability yield curve).

The objective of duration matching is to have the market value or PV changes (growth rate) in the bond portfolio match the market value or PV changes (growth rate) in liabilities for a given change in interest rates. Many fixed-income managers attempt to match the average duration of the bond portfolio to the average duration of a generic bond market index with a similar duration to liabilities (i.e., Bloomberg Barclays long Corporate index). They use the generic bond index as a proxy for liabilities.

Unfortunately, there are many issues with this approach, including:

1. A generic bond index cannot replicate any client’s unique liability cash flows. A client’s liabilities are like snowflakes: different labor force, salaries, mortalities, plan amendments, etc.
2. Average durations give erroneous information because there is an infinite number of combinations of maturities for a bond portfolio that can all have the same average duration, but they will not have the same risk/reward profile.
3. Duration matching is only accurate for small parallel shifts in the yield curve. But the yield curve rarely moves an equal number of basis points at every point along the curve.

Speaking of the yield curve, just look at how the shape of the US Treasury yield curve has changed in the last 14 months, as the Federal Reserve has tightened monetary policy as they aggressively fight inflation. Has the Treasury yield curve moved both incrementally and in parallel? Absolutely not! The short-end of the curve has seen a dramatic rise, as 1-month T-bills are up nearly 5.5% since the Fed ended its zero-interest rate policy, while longer-term US Treasury note and bond yields have only ratcheted up marginally, in most cases < 80bps during that time frame.

If you are an asset consultant or plan sponsor that wants to truly address interest rate risk while enhancing the fund’s liquidity to meet the promised monthly payouts then cash flow matching is the strategy that should be used and not duration matching. For more information on this subject please go to Ryanalm.com where Ron Ryan and the team have produced a plethora of research on these concepts.