Tag Archives: alm

03.07.25
by

Reminder: Pension Liabilities are Bond-like

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

Milliman has released the results for their corporate pension index. The Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), which tracks the 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans showed deterioration in the funded ratio dropping from 106.0% to the 104.8% as of month-end. This was the first decline following four consecutive months of improvement. It was the fall in the discount rate from 5.60% to 5.36% during the month that lead to growth in the combined liabilities for the index constituents. As a reminder, pension liabilities (benefit payments) are just like bonds in terms of their interest rate sensitivity. As yields fall, the present value of those future promises escalate.

Milliman reported an asset gain of $18 billion during the month, but that wasn’t nearly enough to offset the growth in liabilities creating a $13 billion decline in funded status. “Gains in fixed income investments helped shore up the Milliman 100 pension assets, but were not strong enough to counter the sharp discount rate decline,” said Zorast Wadia, author of the PFI. Given the uncertain economic and capital markets environments, it is prudent to engage at this time in a strategy to effectively match asset and liability cash flows to reduce the volatility in the funded ratio. Great strides have been made by America’s private pensions. Allowing the assets and liabilities to move independently could result in significant volatility of the funded status leading to greater contribution expenses.

You can view the complete pension funding report here.

01.08.25
by

Corporate Funding Improved Significantly in 2024!

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

Milliman is out with the year-end report on corporate pension funding and it tells a beautiful story. The Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), is reporting an average 105% funded ratio at the end of 2024 compared to 99.5% at the end of 2023. But wait, assets for the top 100 plans only grew by 4.2%, which must have been below the stated ROA. Furthermore, total assets declined by $26 billion after accounting for benefits and expenses. How is that possible? Oh, I get it, the growth in liabilities matters.

Milliman is reporting that the discount rate used to value corporate pension liabilities increased 59 bps during the year from 5.0% at 12/31/23 to 5.59% as of year-end 2024. That significant move up in rates drove the present value of those pesky liabilities down by -$94 billion creating a $68 billion improvement in the asset/liability relationship and a significantly improved funded ratio! Congrats corporate America and the participants that you serve!

I was recently asked by an industry reporter if the “underperformance” of corporate plans versus other sponsoring groups – public and multiemployer – should be a concern. I, of course said NO, that managing a DB plan is all about the relationship of assets to liabilities. Both could have negative or positive growth rates, but if asset growth exceeds liability growth the plan wins! It is really a simple concept.

Now, I would suggest that corporate America get even more conservative at this time, as we live in an environment of stretched valuations, stubborn inflation, the prospect of higher rates, etc. Congrats on your collective victory. Secure those promises through a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy that will not only provide you with the security that the benefits are protected, but the enhanced liquidity and lengthened investing horizon for any residual growth assets will also be realized.

As always, thanks to Zorast Wadia and the Milliman organization for taking the time to produce this important analysis. Without good data, it is difficult to know how to play the game – assets versus liabilities is the name of the pension game!

10.23.24
by

That’s Not Right!

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

I’ve recently had a series of terrific meetings with consultants, actuaries, and asset owners (mostly pension plans) about cash flow matching (CFM). I believe that most folks see the merit in using CFM for liquidity purposes, but often fail to see the benefit of bringing certainty to a portfolio for that segment that is defeasing asset cash flows relative to liability cash flows (benefits and expenses). I’m not entirely sure why that is the case, but one question comes up regularly. Question: If I use 30% of my assets on lower yielding fixed income, how am I supposed to meet my ROA objective? I guess that they believe that the current 4.75% to 5% yielding investment grade corporate portfolio will be an anchor on the portfolio’s return.

What these folks fail to understand is the fact that the segment of the portfolio that is defeasing liability cash flows is matched as precisely as possible. The pension game has been won! If the defeased bond portfolio represents 30% of the total plan, the ROA objective is now only needed to be achieved for the 70% of assets not used to SECURE your plan’s liabilities. The capital markets are highly uncertain. Using CFM for a portion of the plan brings greater certainty to the management of these programs. Furthermore, we know that time (investing horizon) is one of the most important investment tenets. The greater the investing horizon the higher the probability of achieving the desired outcome, as those assets can now grow unencumbered as they are no longer a source of liquidity.  It bears repeating… a major benefit of CFM is that it buys time for the growth assets to grow unencumbered.

Plan sponsors should be looking to secure as much of the liability cash flows (through a CFM portfolio) as possible eliminating the rollercoaster return pattern that ultimately leads to higher contribution expenses. As mentioned above, capital markets are highly uncertain. The volatility associated with a traditional asset allocation framework has recently been calculated by Callan as +/-33.6% (2 standard deviations or 95% of observations). Why live with that uncertainty? In addition, Goldman Sachs equity strategy team “citing today’s high concentration in just a few stocks and a lofty starting valuation” forecasts that the S&P 500 “will produce an annualized nominal total return of just 3% the next 10 years, according to the team led by David Kostin, which would rank in just the 7th percentile of 10-year returns since 1930.” (CNBC)

Given that forecast, I wouldn’t worry about the 5% fixed income YTW securing my pension liabilities. Instead, I’d worry about all the “growth” assets not used to secure the promises, as they will likely be struggling to even match the YTW on a CFM corporate bond portfolio.

09.18.24
by

POB Discussions Back on the Table?

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

Cash Flow Matching (CFM) has enjoyed a renaissance within the pension community since US interest rates began rising in March 2022. The expanded use has not been limited to the beneficiaries of the Special Financial Assistance (SFA) paid through grants as a result of the ARPA pension reform being passed in March 2021. As a reminder, SFA proceeds are to be used exclusively to fund benefits (and expenses) as far into the future as the allocation will go. Protecting the precious grant proceeds has led to multiemployer pension plan sponsors and their advisors mostly using the 67+% in fixed income in defeasement strategies. We, at Ryan ALM, have certainly benefitted from this trend and applaud them for this decision.

In addition to multiemployer plans, both public and private (corporate) pension plans, as well as E&Fs have used CFM to bring an element of cash flow certainty (barring any defaults) to the management of pension assets and the generation of liquidity without being forced to sell assets, which can be very painful during periods of great uncertainty/volatility. These entities join insurance companies and lottery systems that have engaged in CFM activities for decades.

However, there remains a belief that CFM strategies only work during periods of high interest rates. We disagree, since liquidity is needed on a continuous basis. We believe that the use of CFM should be dictated by a number of factors, such as the entities funded status, ability to contribute, and the current fixed income exposure, as well as those liquidity needs. Unfortunately, it appears that interest rates have peaked for the time being. During the Summer of 2023, we were constructing CFM portfolios with a 6+% YTW, capturing most of the average ROA with little volatility. It was a wonderful scenario that unfortunately was not taken advantage of by most sponsors.

Today we are still able to build through our investment grade corporate bond focus portfolios with a YTW around 4.6%. Given the aggressive move down in Treasury yields during the last few months, we think that bond investors have gotten ahead of the Fed at this point as they are discounting about 150 bps of Fed rate cutting. Despite progress in the inflation fight, “sticky” inflation remains in excess of 4%. The US labor market’s unemployment rate is only 4.2%. Wage growth remains above 4%, while initial jobless claims remain at modest levels. Furthermore, the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is forecasting growth for Q3’24 at 3.0% as of September 17, 2024. None of these metrics signal recession to me. How about you?

If you are of the mindset that a 4.6% YTW isn’t providing you with enough return, just think what you’d get from traditional active fixed income portfolios should rates rise once more. Please remember 2022’s -13% total return for the BB Aggregate Index. We frequently write about the need for plan sponsors to think outside the box as it relates to the allocation of assets. We believe that your plan’s assets should be bifurcated into two buckets – liquidity and growth. While the CFM portfolio is providing your plan with the necessary liquidity on a monthly basis, the growth assets can now grow unencumbered. These assets will be used at a later date to meet future benefits and expenses. With a CFM portfolio, plan sponsors can reduce or eliminate the need to do a “cash sweep” that takes away reinvestment in the growth portfolio.

In addition to believing that CFM is still a viable strategy in this environment, the decline in US Treasury yields is once again opening a door for sponsors to consider a pension obligation bond (POB). The 10-year Treasury Note yield is only 3.66% as of 6 pm EST (9/17) or roughly slightly more than half of the average public fund ROA. Estimates place the average funded ratio for public plans at 80%. For a plan striving for 7%, an 8.4% annual return must be created, or the plan’s funded status will continue to deteriorate unless contributions are increased to offset the shortfall. For plans that have funded ratios below the “average” plan, it is imperative that the deficit is closed more quickly. Issuing a POB and using the proceeds to close that gap is a very effective strategy. Corporate plans frequently issue debt and use the proceeds for a number of purposes, including the funding of pension funds.

We’d recommend once again that the proceeds received from a POB be used in a defeasement strategy to meet current liquidity needs and not invested in a traditional asset allocation framework with all of the uncertainty that comes from investing in our capital markets. Why risk potential losses on those assets when a CFM strategy can secure the Retired Lives Liability? It is truly unfortunate that most plan sponsors with underfunded plans didn’t take advantage of the historically low interest rates in 2020 and 2021. Cheap money was available for the taking. It is also unfortunate, that those plans that did take advantage of the rate environment likely invested those proceeds into the existing asset allocation. As you might recall, not only did the BB Aggregate decline -13% in 2022, the S&P 500 fell -18% that year, too.

Managing a DB pension plan comes with a lot of uncertainty. At Ryan ALM, we are trying to bring investment strategies to your attention that will provide certainty of cash flows, which will help stabilize the fund’s contributions and funded status. Don’t be the victim of big shifts in US interest rate policy. Use bonds for their cash flows and secure the promises for which your plan exists in the first place. A defeasment strategy mitigates interest rate risk because the promises (benefits and expenses) are future values, which are not interest rate sensitive. That should be quite comforting. Let us know how we can help you. We stand ready to roll.

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?