Tag Archives: Asset allocation

06.02.26
by

As Clara Would Ask: “Where’s the Beef?”

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

Clara Peller became famous as a result of her participation in the 1984 Wendy’s ad campaign in which she famously asks, “where’s the beef?”. Her comment was of course in reference to Wendy’s competitors whose burgers were less than impressive in size.

Yesterday, I produced a post highlighting the many benefits of cash flow matching (CFM), including providing ALL the necessary liquidity, creating an extended investing horizon, providing certainty and security, lower management fees, stable contributions/funded ratio, and the elimination of interest rate risk.

Despite the plethora of benefits, we occasionally receive push back from plan sponsors and their advisors on the use of CFM because some folks believe that they can identify a fixed income manager or group of bond managers that will “outperform” a CFM portfolio thus supporting the ROA target, as if that was the primary objective. As we’ve stated many times, the primary objective in managing a defined benefit plan is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is NOT a return objective.

But, let’s just say for argument’s sake that using bonds in your fund was for return purposes. The greatest risk in managing U.S. fixed income is interest rate risk. Yes, most of us grew up in this industry during the last 40+ years when interest rates declined from ridiculous levels (10-year Treasury yield was 15.1% on the day I entered this business (October 1981)) to the zero-rate environment created by Covid-19. Most core fixed income managers continue to use the Barclays Aggregate (formerly Lehman) Index as the benchmark. The YTW on that index is 4.67%. A yield that is certainly below most, if not all, ROA targets for DB pensions (certainly public and multiemployer plans). Moreover, the yield on the Ryan ALM CFM is over 5.00% since it is a portfolio of primarily A/BBB+ corporate bonds. Our CFM should outperform the Agg by the yield difference given the same or similar duration.

Furthermore, that core fixed income manager(s) will actively position exposures related to the types of bonds, including Treasuries, agencies, MBS/ABS/CMOs, corporates, duration, sectors, etc. relative to the index to try to capture some excess return. But is “active management” adding value and what is the annual volatility or standard deviation associated with that activity? Many bond investors benefited from the nearly 4 decade decline in rates, as bond prices rose when yields fell. However, most investors today weren’t around for the 28-years prior to 1981 when U.S. interest rates rose! Things were much different for bond managers then.

Do you know in which direction interest rates will travel during the next 1-, 3-, 5- or more years? We, at Ryan ALM, certainly don’t and we don’t need to know. Given that the greatest risk to an active core bond strategy is rates, why do you remain confident that your manager(s) will consistently meet or exceed the index’s return? With CFM, there is no guessing as to what rates will do. On the day that the CFM portfolio is created, asset cash flows of principal and interest are matched against the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. As rates move (either up or down), that careful match remains, which is how we can claim that both security and certainty (barring a default) is achieved. Your core manager can’t make that claim because the Aggregate index looks nothing like your unique liabilities.

By the way, the “Agg” is up only 0.17% for the 5-years ending May 31, 2026. On a YTD basis, the index has produced a 0.38% return. Do you think that those results are helping or hurting your fund? As Clara asked 42-years ago (oh, my!), “where’s the beef?” I can tell you. It is found in a CFM strategy and it is a whopper! 

06.01.26
by

What Do You Need?

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

We are now nearly through the first half of 2026. That doesn’t seem possible. Despite the very uncertain economic and geopolitical environment, U.S. equities continue to march higher, especially for stocks associated in any way with AI. As a result, I suspect that a number of plan sponsors/trustees will say that they only need for those good times to keep rolling. But is that possible given current valuations? On the other hand, perhaps you are a sponsor/trustee that believes that nothing grows to the heavens, and as a result you might be looking to take a little risk out of your current asset allocation. If so, I have a suggestion. But first, here are a few questions that I’d like you to consider:

  • How is your fund’s current liquidity profile?
  • If raising the necessary monthly liquidity is challenging, how would you like a strategy that provides the liquidity you need, net of contributions, each month chronologically as far out as the strategy’s allocation will take you?
  • Given current equity valuations, how would you like an extended investing horizon that buys time for your fund’s alpha assets to wade through potentially choppy near-term markets without fear of forced selling to meet benefits and expenses?
  • How does reducing investment management fees sound?
  • How would you like to stabilize contribution costs and the funded ratio?
  • The investment strategy that I am referring to brings an element of certainty to the management of pensions that sorely lack that today. How does that sound?
  • How do you think your participants would appreciate knowing that their promised benefits are SECURED for the period that your new strategy covers?
  • Interest rates are the greatest threat to a fixed income (bond) investment program. How would you like a strategy that is not impacted by changes in U.S. interest rates?

Come on Kamp, is there really an investment strategy that can secure the benefits, buy time for the residual assets to just grow unencumbered, lower investment fees, eliminate interest rate risk, and provide the liquidity that I’ll need to pay my monthly bills? There sure is! For regular readers of this blog, you likely know that I’m referring to Cash Flow Matching (CFM) as the investment strategy.

This bond product carefully matches the asset cash flows of principal and interest with the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. By doing so, the benefits are secured for the length of the program. We have assignments from 3-years to 30-years. We’ve just bought time for the assets not engaged in CFM to wade through any ugliness in markets without fear of liquidation to meet monthly payouts. Furthermore, we are matching future values which are not interest rate sensitive. A $1,000 benefit payment next month is $1,000 whether rates are at 2% or 10%. Finally, we provide our investment management services at attractively low rates.

We also provide a free analysis to any sponsor who’d like to know how CFM could benefit their fund. We’ll produce a CFM portfolio that will help you understand the potential cost reduction in the value of those future benefit promises. In today’s rate environment, we can produce portfolios that reduce the future cost of providing benefits by roughly 2% per year. Ask us to cover the next 10-years and the savings becomes very attractive and meaningful. We are ready when you are!

05.22.26
by

The Benefit of Higher U.S. Interest Rates

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

Rising interest rates can often create stresses in an economy and within the capital markets. They certainly make financing big ticket items more painful. They can destabilize equity markets, although it seems as if the current equity market is immune to any risk at this time. They harm most fixed income managers/strategies, as rising rates lower the present value of their bonds.

However, rising rates are GREAT for cash flow matching (CFM) strategies, as the higher rates reduce the cost of those future pension promises (benefit payments). We were recently asked by a public pension fund to provide them with an analysis of what CFM could potentially do for them in this environment. They provided us with the requisite data – projected benefits, expenses, and contributions as far into the future as possible – which we then ran through our cost optimization model that we call the Liability Beta Portfolio (LBP).

The output is compelling! We can secure this fund’s net (after contributions) liabilities (all of them!) through September 30, 2053. The future value (FV) of those liabilities is $86.2 million. However, the plan needs to set aside only $50.1 million in present value (PV) assets to defease those liabilities with certainty. The $36.1 million cost reduction is locked in on the day that the portfolio is created. That “savings” equates to a cost reduction of 41.9%!

So, this plan sponsor can now SECURE pension payments for 27-years. The residual assets not needed in the CFM portfolio can now grow unencumbered. If I were them I’d just buy a S&P 500 ETF creating considerable savings from lower management fees and far less complexity. Furthermore, the plan sponsor now knows what contributions will look like for the next nearly three decades. They won’t have to be alarmed should markets suffer a deep and extended correction, as the assets AND liabilities will move in lockstep.

By the way, these benefits were achieved without taking substantial risk, as our process only uses investment-grade corporate bonds rated BBB+ or better. Defaults, which are the only risk within the strategy, have been 0.2% (2/1000 bonds) annually for the last 40-years according to S&P.

Why use CFM? The benefits are incredible, including; certainty, security, all the necessary liquidity, an extended investing horizon, lower management fees, stable contributions, and improved sleep! If these benefits sound attractive to you, provide us the same info that our public fund prospect did (see above) and we’ll provide you with a free analysis, too. We are confident that you’ll be as blown away as they were and the many clients that we are proud to support.

05.21.26
by

Pension Plans are NO Place for Cookie Cutter Solutions!

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

I was recently asked by a member of our investment/pension community if there was a common thread that linked my various roles during my 45-years in this business. After some thought, I said YES. For my nearly 20-years in consulting, or as the CEO for Invesco’s quant business or now at Ryan ALM, Inc. my roles have been highlighted by finding unique solutions to client or prospect challenges. I never believed that there existed an off-the-shelf-solution for my client’s unique requirements.

I continue to be motivated by this belief. I find it disconcerting that pension plans funded at quite different levels (60% vs. 90%) could have the same asset allocation. It makes no sense, yet we see that all the time. EVERY pension plan has a unique set of liabilities and asset allocation decisions should reflect those characteristics.

As an example, I attended a client’s quarterly meeting recently and listened to a consultant’s presentation regarding a new variable plan. We manage money for the legacy DB pension fund. The consultant explained that the new fund had a 5% annual return target. Yet they went on to say that the asset allocation was 60% equity, 35% fixed income, and 5% alternatives. WHY?

In today’s environment of much higher interest rates, investment grade corporate bonds of basically any maturity would provide a 5+% interest rate. Equities will likely get you more than 5% over time, but given the fund’s annual target and narrow corridor, why live with investments that come with far greater annual volatility, especially given today’s valuations, which are quite stretched by most measures?

Again, it appears to me that a 60%/35%/5% asset allocation is more of an off-the-shelf approach than one developed specifically for this client. For many plans today, the ability to meet the annual required contribution (ARC) is proving problematic. As we witnessed during the decade of the oughts, major market dislocations can have a profound impact on the sponsoring organization through ever increasing contributions. Furthermore, liquidity to meet ongoing monthly benefit payments, especially for negative cash flow plans, is proving to be difficult. These challenges need to be solved on an individual fund basis and not through a general approach.

We, at Ryan ALM, Inc., believe that the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is not a return objective. Since every plan has a unique set of liabilities, no generic index or “traditional” asset allocation could ever replicate those liabilities. Managing a pension plan needs to start with understanding the client’s objective.

05.07.26
by

Unique Liabilities Require A Unique Solution

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

Most pension plans have exposure to fixed income. Perhaps not as much as they did prior to 2000, but today’s common thinking is that the current exposure is enough to act as a buffer should equity markets not continue along this momentum fueled path, and finally, to support the monthly liquidity needs of the fund. But are those the right reasons to use bonds and what type of fixed income should be used to accomplish those objectives?

We observe that most funds use a variety of investment grade bonds (Treasuries, Agencies, Corporates, etc.) and they have that collection benchmarked to a generic index such as the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Index (a.k.a. the Agg). As a reminder, the Agg was created by Ron Ryan when he was Head of Research at Lehman Brothers a few years ago. But, again, is this the right approach? We at Ryan ALM, Inc. believe that bonds should only be used for their cash flows (principal and interest) and not as a performance driver. Bonds are perhaps the only asset class with a known cash flow equal to the value at maturity (PAR) and contractual interest payments. Those known cash flows can be modeled to meet the plan’s ongoing liability cash flows (benefits + expenses). 

Which brings me to the point that every pension plan’s liabilities are unique, and as such, no generic index such as the Agg could possibly match a plan’s liabilities. If the asset cash flows don’t match and fund the liability cash flows (benefits and expenses), the plan is subject to unnecessary interest rate risk. Again, given that every pension plan has a unique set of liabilities this would suggest that each pension plan needs to have an investment strategy created specifically for their cash flow needs. Cash Flow Matching (CFM) is an investment strategy with a very long and successful history. An appropriately crafted CFM portfolio will meet and fully fund chronologically the liability cash flows as far into the future as the allocation to the CFM strategy lasts.

We take great pride in our proprietary CFM optimization modeling, which we began using at Ryan ALM’s founding in 2004. Having the ability to tailor unique solutions to client specific issues/requests is a hallmark of our firm, and this capability is being recognized throughout the industry. In fact, we recently received this feedback from an ALM expert at a large asset/liability consulting firm, who stated that I’m “impressed with the team’s ability to build portfolios for such non-standard cashflow streams.” Thank you!

We’d be happy to demonstrate our capability and we’re always willing to provide a free analysis highlighting how your fund could benefit through CFM and Ryan ALM’s expertise. Just call us.

05.04.26
by

Why Wouldn’t You Prefer a SD of +/-0%?

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

I continue to be surprised that more pension plans don’t embrace greater certainty in the management of their funds. The Iran War is leading to great uncertainty related to inflation, interest rates, and economic growth. Yes, U.S. equities have enjoyed a healthy recovery following the initial outbreak in the Middle East, but is that sustainable?

Callan does a good job of providing a regular review of what asset allocation would be necessary to achieve a 7% return and the risk (measured as standard deviation) to achieve that return objective. Callan indicated that it was very easy to achieve a 7% return all the way back in 1994 when U.S. interest rates were higher than they are today. In fact, an allocation of 85% to fixed income and small allocations to L.C. equity, SC equity, and int’l stocks would have produced a 7% return with only a 5.6% annual standard deviation.

However, in the most recent update from 2024, Callan suggests the following asset allocation is necessary to achieve a 7% return:

This means that 68% of the time, a plan sponsor should expect an annual return of 7% +/- 8.6%. At two standard deviations (95% of the observations or 19/20 years), the annual return will fall between +/- 17.2% of the 7% target. Would you be comfortable knowing that your fund could generate an annual return of -10.2%? Think about the impact a return like that would have on contributions?

What if I said that cash flow matching (CFM) a portion of your pension fund would result in those assets having an annual SD of 0% barring a default which occurs at a rate of 0.18% annually among investment grade corporate bonds for the last 40-years. How’s that possible? When CFM is implemented, the plan’s asset cash flows and matched agains the plan’s liability cash flows (benefits and expenses). They mover in lockstep with each other no matter where rates go. Today’s U.S. interest environment is attractive and getting more attractive as I write this post, as the 30-year Treasury bond yield has topped 5% (5.02% at 11:47 am DST). Higher rates are great for CFM, as they lower the present value of those future promises.

Furthermore, the use of a CFM portfolio secures the pension promises, dramatically improves plan liquidity, eliminates interest rate risk for the portion of the plan, extends the investing horizon for the residual plan assets, and reduces the cost of those future pension promises. Again, why wouldn’t you embrace an element of certainty?

I’m not sure what the Callan team would identify as the proper allocation to achieve a 7% return today, but I suspect that the annual standard deviation is greater than the 8.6% from 2024. Every time a pension plan falls short of the annual ROA, contributions must increase to make up for the shortfall. Greater investment certainty, like that associated with using CFM, reduces the likelihood that the pension plan sponsor with suffer from a negative surprise associate from increased contributions.

05.01.26
by

Is Now Really the Time to Buy Stocks?

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

U.S. equity markets enjoyed a robust April despite myriad economic and geopolitical inputs that might have given investors pause. Should equity investors remain bullish at this time? The graph below caught my attention primarily because of the recent disconnect between the two lines related to the Shiller Excess Cape Yield (ECY) and subsequent 10-year Real Return for equities. There are many, many valuation tools that claim to provide clues about the future direction of stocks, and this is such an example. Those tools can be short-, medium-, and long-term in nature. The ECY happens to be one valuation metric that provides “guidance” for longer time frames. The current reading of 1.60% certainly looks rich relative to its long history.

In case you don’t know, the Shiller excess CAPE yield is a valuation measure that compares the stock market’s earnings yield with the “real” yield on the 10-year Treasury note. In simple terms, it asks how much extra return stocks may offer over inflation-adjusted government bonds.

How it is calculated

  • Take the inverse of the CAPE ratio, which is the market’s “earnings yield.”
  • Subtract the real 10-year Treasury yield.

So, ECY=(1/CAPE)−10-year real Treasury yield

A higher excess CAPE yield suggests stocks might look more attractive relative to bonds. A lower reading suggests the equity risk premium is thinner, meaning stocks offer less return versus bonds. As mentioned above, current readings show the S&P 500 Shiller Excess CAPE Yield around 1.60% for April 2026, which is well below its long-term average of 4.60%. Another data source put it at 1.41 as of April 30, 2026.

Investors have historically used the ECY as a long-term asset allocation tool, especially when comparing stocks with Treasury bonds. It is not a short-term trading signal, but rather a rough guide to whether equities look cheap or expensive relative to real bond yields. A CAPE yield below 2% has generally signaled subdued future equity returns over the next 5 to 10 years, providing a valuation warning sign, and not an exact measure.

As a reminder, there are many valuation techniques used to identify opportunities and risk when investing in U.S. equities. Depending on a pension plan’s liquidity needs, funded ratio, willingness to take risk, etc. today’s current environment may be providing an opportunity to reduce risk by trimming equities and using the proceeds along with core fixed income assets to establish a cash flow matching mandate. In the process, the plan’s liquidity is improved, promised benefits secured, and the investing horizon extended for the residual assets. Give us a call. We are always willing to provide a free analysis showcasing how CFM can help your fund.

04.16.26
by

Pension Game: Find the Liabilities?

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

I can remember as a child playing the games hide-and-seek and manhunt among myriad activities with my friends in Palisades Park. We would play for hours. It was particularly exciting as daylight waned just before we were beckoned home when the streetlights flicked on.

Those games were innocent and most of the time no one got hurt. However, Ron Ryan, Ryan ALM’s Chairman, has written about another game. In this competition, he’s challenging pension professionals to “find the liabilities”. Why? Unfortunately, most of the effort put forth by pension professionals (outside of actuaries) is focused on assets: the allocation, manager selection, and performance. But is that the correct approach? Of course not.

The only reason that a pension plan exists is because of a promise that has been made to the plan participant. Pre-funding that promise through a pension system is a most effective approach to meeting those future obligations. As a result, that promise needs to be the focal point of pension management, but it rarely is. Unfortunately, most folks think that managing a pension is all about returns. How has the fund performed relative to the return on asset (ROA) assumption.

As Ron points out in this excellent piece, if all the investment managers/strategies outperform their generic asset specific benchmarks, but the total fund underperforms its liability growth rate, has the fund won? Of course not. That’s why we believe that the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan should be to SECURE the promises at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk.

As I mentioned earlier, the games that I engaged in as a child in New Jersey were innocent. Failure to understand what a plan’s liabilities look like could be much more harmful. We’ve seen that scenario play out many times and with significant consequences. Don’t let your fund become the victim of an assets-only approach.

04.14.26
by

Pension Plan Sponsor: “I Wish that I could…”

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

In October, I will celebrate my 45th year in the pension/investment industry. I’ve been truly blessed, but also frustrated by activities that I deem detrimental to the successful management of DB pension plans.

First and foremost, I believe that a majority of folks think that achieving the return on asset assumption (ROA) is the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan. This is an incorrect assumption! Creating an asset allocation targeted at a return only guarantees annual volatility, and NOT success.

Second, meeting monthly liquidity through the sweeping of interest, dividends, capital distributions, and worse, the selling of investments harms the long-term return of your fund.

Third, using core fixed income as a return generator is not a sound strategy, as bonds are highly interest rate sensitive, and who knows the future direction of rates.

That being said, if I were a pension plan sponsor, I’d wish that I could find an investment strategy that provided: All of the plan’s liquidity needs, certainty for a portion of that plan, and a longer investment horizon for my alpha generating assets (non-bonds) so that I enhance the probability of achieving the desired outcome.

Great news – there is such a strategy. Cash Flow Matching (CFM) is designed to use investment-grade bonds for their cash flows of interest and principal (upon maturity) to match liability cash flows of benefits and expenses for as far out as the allocation goes. Furthermore, it extends the investing horizon for the non-bond assets so that they can wade successfully through choppy markets without being a source of liquidity. Finally, there is an element of certainty (minus that rare occurrence of an IG bond default) absent in the management of DB pension plans outside of a pension risk transfer (PRT) or an annuity.

I believe that the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan is to SECURE the pension promise at low cost and with prudent risk. Does focusing on the ROA secure benefits – no. The “sweeping” of dividends, interest, and capital distributions to meet ongoing liquidity needs can negatively impact the plan’s long-term return. Guinness Global (U.K. investment shop) produced a study that said sweeping dividends and not reinvesting them reduced the return to the S&P 500 by 47% over 10-year periods back to 1940 and 57% for 20-year periods.

Finally, bonds are highly interest rate sensitive. After a nearly 40-year decline in U.S. interest rates which drove bond prices up and yields down, we have seen rates rise to more average levels where they are holding leading to very weak fixed income returns for recent performance periods. Matching asset cash flows with liability cash flows eliminates interest rate risk for that portion of the portfolio, as benefits and expenses are future values that are not interest rate sensitive. Furthermore, Ryan ALM’s approach is to use 100% IG corporate bonds to build the CFM portfolio. A 100% IG portfolio will outperform a core active fixed income portfolio by the yield differential given the core portfolio’s exposure to agencies and Treasuries.

Question: If you had the opportunity to bring some certainty to the management of pensions, why wouldn’t you do it? If not, please share with us why not.

03.31.26
by

Trouble Paying the Bills?

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

“The worst thing that can happen,” Andrew Junkin, CIO, Virginia Retirement System says, “is that you’re a forced seller in any market.”

That quote appeared in a Chief Investment Officer article from March 4, 2026. We couldn’t agree more with Mr. Junkin. Despite improved funding, public funds are being challenged to find adequate cash flow to meet the monthly benefits and expenses. Two factors are at play: 1) improved funding leads to lower annual contributions, and 2) much heavier allocations to alternatives have dried up liquidity, as expected capital distributions fail to materialize.

According to a report by NIRS, from 2001 to 2023, public pension plans shifted roughly 20% of public equity and fixed income into alternatives such as private equity, real estate, and private credit. These are illiquid investments. Despite the “wisdom” of the pension crowd, illiquidity is a RISK and not an alpha generator. As more assets shifted into these illiquid investments, the trades became ever more crowded reducing liquidity further. That is, unless one was willing to take a significant haircut through the secondary markets.

As a reminder, public pension funds are designed to become cash-flow negative over time. Contributions into these funds exceed benefits in earlier decades, building a corpus to be used to fund retirements down the road. They are designed to have the last $ pay the last promised benefit. There is no inheritance waiting for the last few beneficiaries.

You want to have adequate liquidity that isn’t forcing the sale of assets at inopportune times? Develop an asset allocation strategy that bifurcates your assets into two buckets – liquidity and growth – and stop the focus on the ROA as if it were the Holy Grail. It isn’t! Use a cash flow matching (CFM) investment strategy to ensure that abundant liquidity is available from next month as far into the future as your allocation goes. The remainder of the assets go into the growth bucket. If you still want to maintain a heavy allocation to alternatives, they can now grow unencumbered as they are no longer a source of liquidity.

The allocation should be driven by the pension plan’s funded ratio and ability to contribute. We recently provided a large fund with an analysis that showed a plan with <50% funding could still secure the promised NET benefits for the next 33-years, while creating a substantial surplus that could now be managed as aggressively as members of that Board could withstand. Not only are the promised benefits secure, but so are the participants who can now sleep well at night knowing that myriad risks won’t sabotage their golden years.