Tag Archives: alm

09.11.24
by

Falling Rates – Not A Panacea For Pensions

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

Milliman has reported that pension funding for Corporate plans declined in August. The Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI) recorded its most significant decline of 2024, as the funded ratio fell from 103.6% to 102.8% as of August 31, 2024. No, it wasn’t because markets behaved poorly, as the month’s investment gains of 1.81% lifted the combined plans’ market value by $17 billion, to $1.347 trillion at the end of the period. It was the result of falling US interest rates that impacted the liability discount rate on those future promises.

According to Milliman, the discount rate fell from 5.3% in July to 5.1% by the end of August. That 20 basis points move in rates increased the projected benefit obligations (PBO) for the index constituents by $27 billion. As a result, the $10 billion decline in funded status reduced the funded ratio by 0.8%. The index’s surplus is now at $36 billion.

Markets seem to be cheering the prospects of lower US interest rates that may be announced as early as September 18, 2024 following the next FOMC. Remember, falling rates may be good for consumers and businesses, but they aren’t necessarily good for defined benefit pension plans unless the fall in rates rallies markets to a greater extent than the drop in rates impacts the growth in pension liabilities.

“With markets falling from all-time highs and discount rates starting to show declines, pension funded status volatility is likely in the months ahead, underscoring the prudence of asset-liability matching strategies for plan sponsors”, said Zorast Wadia, author of the PFI. We couldn’t agree more with Zorast. As we’ve discussed many times, Pension America’s typical asset allocation places the funded status for DB pension on an uncomfortable rollercoaster. Prudent asset-liability strategies can significantly reduce the uncertainty tied to current asset allocation practices. Thanks, Milliman and Zorast, for continuing to remind the pension community of the impact that interest rates have on a plan’s funded status.

07.26.24
by

Sometimes You Just Have To Shake Your Head

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

CIO Magazine recently published an article chronicling the trials and tribulations of the Dallas Police and Fire and Dallas Employees pension systems. This is not the first time that these systems have been highlighted given the current funded status of both entities, especially the F&P plan currently funded at 39%. The article was based on a “commissioned” study by investment adviser Commerce Street Investment Management, that compiled and in June presented its report to the city’s ad hoc committee on pensions. According to the CIO Magazine article, they were “tasked with assessing the pension funds’ structure and portfolio allocation; reviewing the portfolios’ performance and rate of return; and evaluating the effectiveness of the pension funds’ asset allocation strategy.” That’s quite the task. What did they find?

Well, for one thing, they were comparing the asset allocation strategies of these two plans with similarly sized Texas public fund plans, including three Houston-based systems: the Houston Firefighters’ Relief and Retirement Fund, the Houston Police Officers’ Pension System, and the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System. The practice of identifying “peers” is a very silly concept given that each system’s characteristics, especially the pension liabilities, are as unique as snowflakes. The Dallas plans should have been viewed through a very different lens, one that looked at the current assets relative to the plan’s liabilities.

Unfortunately, they didn’t engage in a review of assets vs. liabilities, but they did perform an asset allocation review that indicated that the two Dallas plans did not have enough private equity which contributed to the significant underfunding. Really? Commerce Street highlighted the fact that “Houston MEPS’ private equity allocation is 28.2%, and the average private equity allocation among the peer group is 21.3%, compared with the DPFP and Dallas ERF’s allocations of 12.2% and 10.5%, respectively.” How has private equity performed during the measurement period? According to the report, Dallas P&F’s plan performed woefully during the 5-years, producing only a 4.8% return, which paled in comparison to peers. Was it really a bad thing that Dallas didn’t have more PE based on the returns that its program produced?

Why would the recommendation be to increase PE when it comes with higher fees, less liquidity, little transparency, and the potential for significant crowding out due to excess migration of assets into the asset class? During the same time that Dallas P&F was producing a 4.8% 5-year PE return, US public equities, as measured by the S&P 500, was producing a 15.7% (ending 12/31/23) or 15.1% 5-year return ending 3/31/24. It seems to me that having less in PE might have been the way to go.

The Commerce report recommended that “to improve the pension funds’ returns and funded ratios, the city should: analyze what top performing peers have done; collaborate to find new investment strategies; improve governance policies and procedures; and provide recommendations for raising the funds’ investment performance.” Well, there you have it. How about returning to pension basics? Dallas is going to have to contribute significantly more in order to close the funding gap. They are not going to be able to create an asset allocation that will dramatically outperform the ROA target. Remember: if a plan is only 50% funded, achieving the ROA will result in the funded status deteriorating even more. They need to beat the ROA target by 100% in order to JUST maintain the deficit.

I’ve railed about pension systems needing to get off the asset allocation rollercoaster to ruin. This recommendation places the Dallas systems on a much more precarious path. So much for bringing some certainty to the management of pension plans. No one wins with this strategy. Not the participant, sponsor, or the taxpayers.

07.15.24
by

Milliman: Improved Corporate Pension Funding Continues

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

Milliman has once again produced its monthly update of the Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), which analyzes the 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans. Thank goodness they can still find 100 corporate plans to evaluate. Despite my snarkiness, it is good to read that Milliman is reporting improved funding for the sixth consecutive month in 2024, with a slight increase in the funded ratio from 103.6 to 103.7. The surplus remained the same at $46 billion.

June’s investment return of 1.22% matched the $9 billion increase in liabilities as the discount rate fell 7 bps to 5.46%. “The first half of 2024 has seen nothing but funded ratio improvements,” said Zorast Wadia, author of the PFI. “However, with markets at all-time highs and concerns that discount rates may eventually fall, the forecast for the second half of 2024 may not be as sanguine, and liability-matching portfolios will continue to be prudent strategies for plan sponsors.”

We absolutely agree with Zorast’s assessment of what may transpire in 2024’s second half. There has clearly been a slowing in economic activity as seen by the GDP in Q1’24 (1.4%) and Q2’24 is not looking much more robust, as the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model presently forecasts a 2.0% real GDP annualized return for the second quarter. If economic weakness were to develop, as a result of the Fed’s campaign to stem inflation by raising the Fed Fund’s rate (presently 5.25% – 5.5%), US interest rates could fall, while equities could also cool off as a result of the economic weakness. A combination such as this would be quite detrimental to pension funding.

In related news, FundFire has published an article highlighting the fact that “fixed income products now make up about 54% of defined-benefit portfolios, according to Mike Moran, senior pension strategist at Goldman Sachs Asset Management. He is obviously speaking about corporate plans, as both public and multiemployer exposures to fixed income are much more modest. Happy to see that Moran was quoted as saying that he “urges pension managers to act quickly to de-risk.” He went on to say, “This is a period of strength, a position of strength, for plan sponsors, and history shows us that the position of strength can sometimes be fleeting,” We absolutely agree.

We’ve been encouraging plan sponsors of all types to act to reduce risk and secure the promised benefits before the Fed or market participants reduce rates from these two-decade high levels.

06.14.24
by

Ryan ALM, Inc. Celebrates 20th Anniversary!

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

Congratulations to Ron Ryan, a true visionary, and the Ryan ALM, Inc. team as they (we) celebrate the 20th anniversary of the firm. Ryan ALM was incorporated in Delaware on June 15, 2004. Ronald J, Ryan, founder, says that “we created our company to be dedicated to asset liability management (ALM) as our name suggests. We are quite proud of our progress and achievements in ALM. We have built a turnkey system of products that are quite unique in the ALM industry”.

We strive every day to protect and preserve defined benefit plans for the American worker. We continue to believe that the primary objective in managing a pension is to SECURE the promised benefits at low cost and with prudent risk. We thank all of our clients and their advisors who have provided us with the opportunity to support their efforts on a daily basis. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to us. We’ll work with you to find a unique solution to your specific issue(s).

Here’s to the next 20!

06.11.24
by

Corporate Pension Funding Improves Once More – Milliman

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

Milliman is reporting improvement in the funded status for the largest corporate plans. According to the Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), corporate funding improved from 103.1% to 103.4% during May, marking the fifth consecutive monthly improvement to start 2024. Milliman attributed the improved funding to asset gains driven by the year’s best month at 2.29% driving the indexes assets up by $22 billion to $1.3 trillion. With the decline in the discount rate of 15 bps, pension liabilities grew by $18 billion and now stand at $1.25 trillion. According to Zorast Wadia, the discount rate used by Milliman is the FTSE Pension Liability Index, which is similar to ASC 715 rates. As a reminder, Ryan ALM, Inc. has produced ASC 715 rates since 2007. The $4 billion difference between pension assets and plan liabilities produced the 0.3% funding improvement.

Milliman’s monthly reporting also includes scenario testing. In the latest work, Milliman forecasts 2024 and 2025 interest rates and asset returns. In the optimistic case they forecast the discount rate at 5.88% at the end of 2024 and 6.48% at the end of 2025, while assets grow at 10.4% per annum during that time. If achieved, the funded status for the Pension Funding Index would ratchet up to 110% at the end of 2024 and 123% by 2025’s conclusion. These levels would rival what we had at the end of 1999, when Pension America should have defeased the liabilities.

A pessimistic forecast has the discount rate falling to 5.18% by the end of 2024 and 4.58% by December 31, 2025. Assets under this scenario produce only a 2.4% annualized return. If this forecast were to become reality, the PFI funded status would be 98% by the end of 2024 and 89% by the end of 2025. Since most of us have no clue where rates are going in the next couple of years, why play the game. Defease your plan’s liabilities at the current level of rates. We’ve seen too often greed creep into the equation instead of sound risk management. Use this opportunity to substantially reduce risk by matching and funding benefits and expenses with asset cash flows of interest and principal.

05.29.24
by

What A Ride!

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

In 1971, Bread produced the song If. The song starts off with David Gates singing the lyrics, “if a picture paints a thousand words”. Looking at the graph below, I think that Bread and David could have used a number far greater than 1,000 to describe the impact that this picture might produce.

It never ceases to amaze me how momentum builds for an idea driving perceptions to depths or altitudes not supported by the underlying fundamentals. We see it so often in our markets whether discussing bonds, equities, or alternatives. In the case above, the “Street” became convinced that the US Federal Reserve was going to have to drive US interest rates down as our economy was about to collapse. A “please do something” cry could almost be heard from market participants who thrived on nearly four decades of Fed support. They were so accustomed to the Fed stepping in anytime that there was a wobble in the markets that it became part of the investment strategy.

It got so silly, that fixed income managers drove rates down substantially from the end of October to the end of 2023. In the process, they created an environment that was once again very “easy” and supportive of economic growth. But, that wasn’t the end of the story. I can recall a near unanimous expectation that there was going to be anywhere from 4-6 cuts in the Fed Funds Rate and perhaps more during 2024. We had analysts predicting 250 – 300 bps of rate cuts. Was the world ending?

I’ve produced more than 40 blog posts since March of 2022 that used the phrase “higher for longer” in describing an economic and inflationary environment that I felt was to robust for the Fed to reduce rates. Of course, there were many more posts in which I questioned the wisdom of the deflationary and lower rates crowd where I didn’t precisely utter those three words. Well, fortunately for pension America and the American worker, the US economy has held up in far greater fashion than predicted. The labor market remains fairly robust keeping Americans working and spending.

While inflation remains sticky and elevated, US rates have remained at decade highs providing defined benefit sponsors the opportunity to take substantial risk from the plan’s asset allocation framework through asset/liability strategies (read Cash Flow Matching) that secure the promises at substantially lower cost. As the chart above highlights, expectations for rate cuts have fallen from 4-6 or more to fewer than 2 at this point, as only a -31 bps decline is currently priced in. We’ve seen quite a repricing in 2024, and I suspect that we might need to see more, as “higher for longer” seems to be the approach being taken by the Fed.

While this is the case, plan sponsors would be wise to secure as many years of promised benefits as possible. Plan sponsors and their advisors let 2000 come and go without securing the benefits only to see two major market declines sabotage the opportunity and your plan’s funded status. Riding the asset allocation rollercoaster hasn’t worked. Is the car that you are riding in nearing the peak at this time?

03.08.24
by

A Contrarian Approach That is Becoming More Common?

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

I suspect that some (perhaps) many folks in our industry are becoming a little tired of my constant drum beat requesting a change in how pension plans are managed. I’m sorry if that is the case, but I have a reason to speak out often, if not loudly. My goal/mission, and that of Ryan ALM, Inc., is to protect and preserve defined benefit plans for the masses. I believe wholeheartedly that DB plans are superior to any other retirement program since they provide the monthly promise with little involvement from the participant, who may have particularly wonderful skills used in their day-to-day lives, but investing isn’t likely one of them.

By espousing Cash Flow Matching (CFM) as an important investment strategy, particularly in this period of attractive interest rates, we are bringing pension management generally and asset allocation strategies specifically back to its roots. The SECURING of the pension promise must be the primary objective for plan fiduciaries. Better yet, it should be accomplished at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. As I’ve discussed before, a CFM strategy brings an element of certainty to the management of pensions that have embraced uncertainty through asset allocation strategies that are subject to the whims of the markets.

The riding of the asset allocation rollercoaster in pursuit of a performance objective does little to secure the pension promise, but it certainly adds to annual volatility of both the funded status and contribution expenses. Is that the outcome that the sponsors of these plans and the participants want? Heck no! Are we at Ryan ALM tilting at or own windmills? I sure hope not.

I’ve been heartened recently to read several articles favoring a return to pension basics, including the focus on the pension promise to drive asset allocation through a CFM implementation. I’m not afraid to be a lone wolf, and nearly 1,400 blog posts support that claim, but it is comforting to have some company, as being a contrarian outside of the “herd” has been described as being as painful as chewing off one’s left arm – OUCH! In one specific instance, Stephen Campisi, recently posted his article on LinkedIn.com, in which he espoused a similar bifurcated approach – liquidity and growth buckets – to pension asset allocation. He also reminded everyone that “aiming” at the correct objective was essential. In this case, he correctly cited that the objective was the promise that had been given to the participant.

Nothing would please me more than to have the entire industry once again realize the significant importance of the defined benefit plan and its role in securing a dignified retirement. Eliminating the rollercoaster cycles of performance will go a long way to preserving their use. Adopting a CFM strategy that secures the monthly promises at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk is the first step in the process. I look forward to you jumping on our bandwagon.

02.29.24
by

Willingness and Ability to Customize

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

Coalition Greenwich, a division of CRISIL, has released a report on the top trends in asset management for 2024. Among the categories discussed was the establishment of “Strategic Partnerships” among one’s clients. There were four categories in which 499 respondents to the survey were asked to rate from most influential when hiring an investment management organization to least influential. The categories included willingness to provide customization, fees, commitment to knowledge transfer, and finally brand recognition.

Not surprising, the willingness to provide customization achieved the top ranking in importance, with 72% indicating that it was either the most or very influential in the decision to bring on a manager and that product. We often read about a manager’s willingness to customize a solution, but what does that mean in reality? Ironically, Ron Ryan produced, just today, an article on the importance of creating custom liability indexes for LDI assignments. This was written primarily in response to a series of LDI-related research pieces that discussed “custom benchmarks” but used generic indexes.

In order to successfully implement an LDI strategy, especially one using Cash Flow Matching (CFM), the benchmark needs to be a custom solution that uses the client’s specific liabilities, as each pension plan has a unique set of liabilities, like snowflakes. The liabilities are future values that need to be priced at some discount rate(s) into present values (market values) similar to the plan’s assets. It is only then that an appropriate LDI strategy can be implemented.

Every client of Ryan ALM, Inc. gets a custom solution. There are no “off the shelf” products. Fees, which received the second highest ranking in importance, had 68% of the respondents rating this category as most or very influential. Despite the highly customized products, we at Ryan ALM, Inc. provide our services at low fees. We believe that the primary objective in managing a defined benefit plan is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. Everything that we do as an investment firm is focused on that belief. Custom solutions and low fees – that doesn’t seem like the norm in our industry. We are proud to be different!