Tag Archives: Asset allocation

10.28.25
by

Uncertainty versus Change

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

Seems like we have a conflict within the management of defined benefit plans. On one hand, human beings (plan sponsors) despise uncertainty. But nearly all public DB pension plans are embracing uncertainty in how they are managed. How? Through a traditional asset allocation framework that focuses the fund’s assets on a performance objective – the return on asset assumption (roughly 7% for the average public plan). Each second that the capital markets are operating, uncertainty is abundant, as price movements are out of one’s control. So let’s change how plans are managed. Not so simple, as those same human beings hate change. Oh, boy.

I have the privilege of speaking at the NCPERS Fall conference tomorrow. The title of my presentation is “Bringing an Element of Certainty to Pension Management”. Folks should absolutely eat up this topic, but given the conflict cited above, it will be interesting to see if the trustees in the audience embrace the concept of achieving some certainty despite having to implement change to their current operating practices.

Given that both uncertainty and change are difficult for humans, what are we to do? Well, psychological research suggests that uncertainty is generally more challenging because it disrupts our ability to predict, control, and prepare for outcomes, and in the process it triggers more anxiety and stress than change itself. According to the research:

  • Uncertainty introduces ambiguity about outcomes, which activates heightened anxiety in the brain. When people lack information about what will happen (such as market movements), they tend to experience more stress and feelings of helplessness.
  • Change, while uncomfortable, becomes easier to adapt to when the outcome is known, even if it’s negative. Humans can plan, adjust, and find coping strategies if they know what to expect. As a result, predictable change is less stressful than unpredictable change.

Why is uncertainty more challenging? Again, according to the research:

  • The human brain is wired to seek patterns and predict the future; uncertainty undermines this process, making adaptation feel more difficult.
  • Studies show that people prefer even certain bad news to ambiguous situations, because they can prepare for and process what’s coming.
  • Chronic uncertainty can lead to anxiety disorders and impaired decision-making, while change tends to prompt growth and learning once people know what they’re facing.

Uncertainty is usually more psychologically challenging than change because it creates anxiety about the unknown, whereas change with a known outcome—though still difficult—allows people to adapt and regain control. Given this reality, it would seem that reducing uncertainty within the management of a DB pension plan would outweigh the changes necessary to accomplish that objective. BTW, the changes needed aren’t great. All one needs to do to bring some certainty to the process is to convert the current core fixed income allocation to a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy that will SECURE the promised benefits for as far into the future as that allocation will cover. In the process you improve the fund’s liquidity profile and extend the investing horizon for the residual assets. A win/win!

How nice would it be to communicate to your plan participants that no matter what happens in the markets (uncertainty) the promised benefits are protected for the next 5-, 7-, 10- or more years. Talk about a “sleep well at night” strategy! Now that’s certainty that even change can live with.

10.15.25
by

MV versus FV

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

There seems to be abundant confusion within certain segments of the pension industry regarding the purpose and accounting (performance) of a Cash Flow Matching (CFM) portfolio on a monthly basis. Traditional monthly reports focus on the present value (PV) of assets in marking those assets to month-end prices. However, when utilizing a CFM strategy, one is hoping to defease (secure) promised benefits which are a future value (FV). As a reminder, FVs are not interest rate sensitive. The movement in monthly prices become irrelevant.

If pension plan A owes a participant $1,000 next month or 10-years from now, that promise is $1,000 whether interest rates are at 2% or 8%. However, when converting that FV benefit into a PV using today’s interest rates, one can “lock in” the relationship between assets and liabilities (benefit payment) no matter which way rates go. To accomplish this objective, a CFM portfolio will match those projected liabilities through an optimization process that matches principal, interest, and any reinvested income from bonds to those monthly promises. The allocation to the CFM strategy will determine the length of the mandate (coverage period).

Given the fact that the FV relationship is secured, providing plan sponsors with the only element of certainty within a pension fund, does it really make any sense to mark those bonds used to defease liabilities to market each month? Absolutely, NOT! The only concern one should have in using a CFM strategy is a bond default, which is extremely rare within the investment grade universe (from AAA to BBB-) of bonds. In fact, according to a recent study by S&P, the rate of defaults within the IG universe is only 0.18% annually for the last 40-years or roughly 2/1,000 bonds.

A CFM portfolio must reflect the actuaries latest forecast for projected benefits (and expenses), which means that perhaps once per year a small adjustment must be made to the portfolio. However, most pension plans receive annual contributions which can and should be used to make those modest adjustments minimizing turnover. As a result, most CFM strategies will purchase bonds at the inception of a mandate and hold those same issues until they mature at par. This low turnover locks in the cost reduction or difference in the PV vs. FV of the liabilities from day 1 of the mandate. There is no other strategy that can provide this level of certainty.

To get away from needing or wanting to mark all the plan’s assets to market each month, segregate the CFM assets from the balance of the plan’s assets. This segregation of assets mirrors our recommendation that a pension plan should bifurcate a plan’s asset allocation into two buckets: liquidity and growth. In this case, the CFM portfolio is the liquidity bucket and the remaining assets are the growth or alpha assets. If done correctly, the CFM portfolio will make all the necessary monthly distributions (benefits and expenses), while the alpha assets can just grow unencumbered. It is a very clean separation of the assets by function.

Yes, bond prices move every minute of every day that markets are open. If your bond allocation is being compared to a generic bond index such as the Aggregate index, then calculating a MV monthly return makes sense given that the market value of those assets changes continuously. But if a CFM strategy can secure the cost reduction to fund FVs on day 1, should a changing MV really bother you? Again, NO. You should be quite pleased that a segment of your portfolio has been secured. As the pension plan’s funded status improves, a further allocation should be made to the CFM mandate securing more of the promised benefits. This is a dynamic and responsive asset allocation approach driven by the funded status and not some arbitrary return on asset (ROA) target.

I encourage you to reach out to me, if you’d appreciate the opportunity to discuss this concept in more detail.

10.08.25
by

An Alternative Pension Funding Formula

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

I’ve spent the last few days attending and speaking at the FPPTA conference in Sawgrass, Florida. As I’ve reported on multiple occasions, I believe that the FPPTA does as good a job as any public fund organization of providing critical education to public fund trustees. A recent change to the educational content for the FPPTA centers on the introduction of the “pension formula” as one of their four educational pillars. In the pension formula of C+I = B+E, C is contributions, I is investment income (plus principal appreciation or depreciation), B is benefits, and E represents expenses.

To fund B+E, the pension fund needs to contribute an annual sum of money (C) not covered by investment returns (I) to fully fund liability cash flows (B+E). That seems fairly straightforward. If C+I = B+E, we have a pension system in harmony. But is a pension fund truly ever in harmony? With market prices changing every second of every trading day, it is not surprising that the forecasted C may not be enough to cover any shortfall in I, since the C is determined at the start of the year. As a result, pension plans are often dealing with both the annual normal cost (accruing benefits each year) and any shortfall that must be made up through an additional contribution amortized over a period of years.

As a reminder, the I carries a lot of volatility (uncertainty) and unfortunately, that volatility can lead to positive and negative outcomes. As a reminder, if a pension fund is seeking a 7% annual return, many pension funds are managing the plan assets with 12%-15% volatility annually. If we use 12% as the volatility, 1 standard deviation or roughly 68% of the annual observations will fall between 7% plus or minus 12% or 19% to -5%. If one wants to frame the potential range of results at 2 standard deviations or 19 out of every 20-years (95% of the observations), the expected range of results becomes 31% to -17%. Wow, one could drive a couple of Freightliner trucks through that gap.

Are you still comfortable with your current asset allocation? Remember, when the I fails to achieve the 7% ARC the C must make up the shortfall. This is what transpired in spades during the ’00s decade when we suffered through two major market corrections. Yes, markets have recovered, but the significant increase in contributions needed to make up for the investment shortfalls haven’t been rebated!

I mentioned the word uncertainty above. As I’ve discussed on several occasions within this blog, human beings loathe uncertainty, as it has both a physiological and mental impact on us. Yet, the U.S. public fund pension community continues to embrace uncertainty through the asset allocation decisions. As you think about your plan’s asset allocation, is there any element of certainty? I had the chance to touch on this subject at the recent FPPTA by asking those in the room if they could identify any certainty within their plans. Not a single attendee raised their hand. Not surprising!

As I result, I’d like to posit a slight change to the pension formula. I’d like to amend the formula to read C+I+IC = B+E. Doesn’t seem that dramatic – right? So what is IC? IC=(A=L), where A are the plan’s assets, while L= plan liabilities. As you all know, the only reason that a pension plan exists is to fund a promise (benefits) made to the plan participant. Yet, the management of pension funds has morphed from securing the benefits to driving investment performance aka return, return, and return. As a result, we’ve introduced significant funding volatility. My subtle adjustment to the pension formula is an attempt to bring in some certainty.

By carefully matching assets to liabilities (A=L) we’ve created an element of certainty (IC) not currently found in pension asset allocation. By adding some IC to the C+I = B+E, we now have brought in some certainty and reduced the uncertainty and impact of I. The allocation to IC should be driven by the pension plan’s funded status. The better the funding, the greater the exposure to IC. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to create a sleep-well-at-night structure in which I plays an insignificant role and C is more easily controlled?

To begin the quest to reduce uncertainty, bifurcate your plan’s assets into two buckets, as opposed to having the assets focused on the ROA objective. The two buckets will now be liquidity and growth. The liquidity bucket is the IC where assets and liabilities are carefully matched (creating certainty) and providing all of the necessary liquidity to meet the ongoing B+E. The growth portfolio (I) are the remaining plan assets not needed to fund your monthly outflows.

The benefits of this change are numerous. The adoption of IC as part of the pension formula creates certainty, enhances liquidity, buys-time for the growth assets to achieve their expected outcomes, and reduces the uncertainty around having 100% of the assets impacted by events outside of one’s control. It is time to get off the asset allocation and performance rollercoaster. Yes, recent performance has been terrific, but as we’ve seen many times before, there is no guarantee that continues. Adopt this framework before markets take no prisoners and your funded status is once again challenged.

09.24.25
by

You Can’t Manage What You Don’t Measure!

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

Nearly 10 years ago, before joining Ryan ALM, I wrote an article about the idea that plan sponsors need to focus on their fund’s liabilities, as much as, if not more than, their plan’s assets. It shouldn’t be a shocking statement since the only reason that the plan exists is to fund a promise (benefit) that has been granted. Yet I would often get strange looks and frowns every time that concept was mentioned.

Why? Well, for over 50 years, pension sponsors and their consultants have been under the impression that if the return on assets (ROA) objective is achieved or exceeded, then the plan’s funding needs shall be sated. Unfortunately, this is just not true. A plan can achieve the ROA and then some, only to have the Funded Ratio decline and the Funded Status deteriorate, as liability growth exceeds asset growth.

We place liabilities – and the management of plan assets versus those liabilities – at the forefront of our approach to managing DB plans. Pension America has seen a significant demise in the use of DB plans, and we would suggest it has to do, in part, with how they’ve been managed. It will only get worse if we continue to support the notion that only the asset side of the pension equation is relevant. Focusing exclusively on the asset side of the equation with little or no integration with the plan’s liabilities has created an asset allocation that can be completely mismatched versus liabilities. It is time to adopt a new approach before the remaining 23,000 or so DB plans are all gone!

Our Suggestion

As this article’s title suggests, to manage the liability side of the equation, one needs a tool to measure and monitor the growth in liabilities, and it needs to be more frequent than the actuarial report that is an annual document usually available 3-6 months following the end of the calendar or fiscal year.

Such a tool exists – it is readily available, yet under-appreciated and certainly under-utilized! Ryan ALM has provided this tool to DB plan sponsors; namely, a Custom Liability Index (CLI), since 1991. This is a real time (available monthly or quarterly) index based on a plan’s specific projected liabilities. Furthermore, the output from this index should be the primary objective for a DB plan and not asset growth versus some hybrid index. Importantly, the CLI will provide to a plan sponsor (and their consultant) the following summary statistics on the liabilities, including:

  • Term-structure, Duration and Yield to Worst
  • Growth Rate of the Liabilities
  • Interest Rate Sensitivity
  • Present Value based on several discount rates

Different discount rates are used depending on the type of plan. GASB allows the ROA to be used as the discount rate for public pension plans, while FASB has a AA Corporate blended rate (ASC 715) as the primary discount rate for corporate plans. Having the ability (transparency) to see a plan’s liabilities at various discount rates with projected contributions is an incredible tool for both contribution management and asset allocation. Don’t hesitate to reach out to us for more information on how you can get a Custom Liability Index for your pension plan.

09.19.25
by

Dear Plan Sponsor: Please ask Yourself the Following Questions

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

Do you believe that your pension plan exists to meet (secure) a promise (benefit) that was given to the plan’s participants?

Are you factoring in that benefit promise when it comes to asset allocation?

Do you presently have exposure to core fixed income, and do you know where U.S. interest rates will be in the next day, month, year, 5-years?

Has liquidity to meet benefits and expenses become more challenging with the significant movement to alternatives – real estate, private equity, private debt, infrastructure, etc.?

Do you believe that providing investment strategies more time is prudent?

So, if you believe that securing benefits, driving asset allocation through a liability lens, improving liquidity, eliminating interest rate risk, and buying-time are important goals when managing a defined benefit plan, how are you accomplishing those objectives today?

Cash Flow Matching (CFM) achieves every one of those goals! By strategically matching asset cash flows of interest and principal from investment-grade bonds against the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses, the DB pension plan’s asset allocation becomes liability focused, liquidity is improved from next month as far out as the allocation covers, interest rate risk is mitigated for the CFM portfolio, the investing horizon is extended for the remaining assets improving the odds of a successful outcome, and most importantly, the promises made to your participants are SECURED!

How much should I invest into a CFM program? The allocation to CFM should be a function of the plan’s funded ratio/status, the ability to contribute, and the level of negative cash flow (contributions falling short of benefits and expenses being paid out). Since all pension plans need liquidity, every DB pension plan should have some exposure to CFM, which provides the necessary liquidity each month of the assignment. There is no forced liquidation of assets in markets that might not provide natural liquidity.

Again, please review these questions. If they resonate with you, call me. We’ll provide you with a good understanding of how much risk you can remove from your current structure before the next market crash hits us.

09.09.25
by

A Peer Group?

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

Got an email today that got my heart rate up a little. The gist of the article was related to a particular public pension fund that eclipsed its “benchmark” return for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. Good job! However, the article went on to state that they failed to match or exceed the median return of 10.2% for the 108 public pension funds with asset >$1 billion. What a silly concept.

Just as there are no two snowflakes alike, there are no two public pension systems that are the same, even within the same state or city. Each entity has a different set of characteristics including its labor force, plan design, risk tolerance, benefit structure, ability to contribute, and much more. The idea that any plan should be compared to another is not right. Again, it is just silly!

As we’ve discussed hundreds of times, the only thing that should matter for any DB pension plan is that plan’s specific liabilities. The fund has made a promise, and it is that promise that should be the “benchmark” not some made up return on asset (ROA) assumption. How did this fund do versus their liabilities? Well, that relationship was not disclosed – what a shocker!

Interestingly, the ROA wasn’t highlighted either. What was mentioned was the fact that the plan’s returns for 3-, 5-, and 10-years were only 6.2%, 6.6%, and 5.4%, respectively (these are net #s), and conveniently, they just happened to beat their policy benchmark in each period.

I’d be interested to know how the funded ratio/status changed? Did contribution expenses rise or fall? Did they secure any of the promised benefits? Did they have to create another tier for new entrants? Were current participants asked to contribute more, work longer, and perhaps get less?

I am a huge supporter of defined benefit plans provided they are managed appropriately. That starts with knowing the true pension objective and then managing to that goal. Nearly all reporting on public pension plans focuses on returns, returns, returns. When not focusing on returns the reporting will highlight asset allocation shifts. The management of a DB pension plan with a focus on returns only guarantees volatility and not success. I suspect that the 3-, 5-, and 10-year return above failed to meet the expected ROA. As a result, contributions likely escalated. Oh, and this fund uses leverage (???) that gives them a 125% notional exposure on their total assets. I hope that leverage can be removed quickly and in time for the next correction.

09.05.25
by

I’m Concerned! Are You?

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

I’ve been concerned about the U.S. retirement industry for many years, with a particular focus on traditional pensions. The demise of DB pensions is a major social and economic issue for a significant majority of American workers, who fear that their golden years will be greatly tarnished without the support of a traditional DB pension plan coupled with their inability to fund a supplemental retirement vehicle, such as a defined contribution plan.

I recently had hope that the rising U.S. interest rate environment would bring about a sea change in the use of DB pensions, but I haven’t seen the tidal wave yet. That said, the higher rate environment did (could still) provide plan sponsors with the ability to take some risk off the table, but outside of private pensions, I’ve witnessed little movement away from a traditional asset allocation framework. You see, the higher rate environment reduces the present value cost of those future benefit payments improving both the funded ratio and funded status of DB pensions, while possibly reducing ongoing contributions. Securing those benefits, even for just 10-years dramatically reduces risk.

But, again, I’ve witnessed too few plans engaging in alternative asset allocation strategies. That’s not the same as engaging in alternative strategies, which unfortunately continues to be all the rage despite the significant flows into these products, which will likely diminish future returns, and the lack of distributions from them, too. An alternative asset allocation strategy that Ryan ALM supports and recommends is the bifurcation of assets into two buckets – liquidity and growth – as opposed to having all of the plan’s assets focused on the return on asset (ROA) assumption.

By dividing the assets into two buckets, one can achieve multiple goals simultaneously. The liquidity bucket, constituting investment grade bonds, will be used to defease the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses, while the growth or alpha assets can grow unencumbered with the goal of being used to defease future liabilities (current active lives). One of the most important investment tenets is time. As mentioned above, defeasing pension liabilities for even 10-years dramatically enhances the probability of the alpha assets achieving the desired outcome.

So why am I concerned? The lack of risk mitigation is of great concern. I’m tired of watching pensions ride the rollercoaster of returns up and down until something breaks, which usually means contributions go up and benefits go down! Given the great uncertainty related to both the economy and the labor force, why would anyone embrace the status quo resulting in many sleepless nights? Do something, and not just for the sake of doing something. Really do something! Embrace the asset allocation framework that we espouse. Migrate your current core bond allocation to a defeased bond allocation known as cash flow matching (CFM) to bring an element of certainty to the management of your plan.

Listen, if rates fall as a result of a deteriorating labor force and economy, the present value of pension liabilities will rise. Given that scenario, it is highly likely that asset prices will fall, too. That is a lethal combination, and not unique given how many times I’ve seen that play out during my 44-year career. Reach out to us if you aren’t sure how to start the process. We’d be pleased to take you through a series of scenarios so that you can determine what is possible. Perhaps you’ll sleep like a baby after we talk.

08.27.25
by

Not So Fast

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

In addition to publishing my thoughts through this blog, I frequently put sound bites out through LinkedIn.com. The following is an example of such a comment: Given Powell’s statement about “balancing dual mandates”, it seems premature to assume that the Fed’s next move on rates is downward. Tariffs have only recently kicked in and their presence could create a very challenging situation for the Fed should inflation continue on its path upward. Market reaction seems overblown. September’s CPI/PPI numbers could be very interesting.

As a follow-up to that comment, here is a graph from Bloomberg highlighting the recent widening in the spread between 5-year and 30-year Treasuries, which is at its widest point in the last 4 years.  This steeping of the yield curve would suggest that inflation is being more heavily anticipated on the long end.

As I mentioned above, the reaction to Powell’s comments from Wyoming last Friday seemed overblown given the rethinking about “dual mandates”. Inflation has recently reversed the downward trajectory and with the impact of tariffs yet to be truly felt, it is doubtful that we’ll see inflation fall to levels that would provide comfort to the U.S. Federal Reserve policy makers. Yes, there may be a small (25 bps) cut in September, but should inflation continue to be a concern the spread in Treasury yields referenced above could continue to widen. President Trump’s goal of jumpstarting the housing market through lower mortgage rates would not likely occur.

From a pension perspective, higher rates reduce the present value of those future promised benefits. They also provide implementers of cash flow matching (CFM) strategies, such as Ryan ALM Advisers, LLC, the opportunity to defease those pension liabilities at a lower cost (greater cost savings). Bond math is very straight forward. The higher the yield and the longer the maturity, the greater the cost savings. Although higher rates might not be good for U.S. equities, especially given their current valuations, the ability to reduce risk at this time through a CFM strategy should be comforting.

Bifurcate your asset allocation into two buckets – liquidity and growth. The liquidity bucket will house the CFM strategy, providing all the necessary liquidity to meet ongoing monthly obligations as far into the future as the allocation will cover. The remaining assets (all non-core bonds) in the growth or alpha portfolio will now have more time to just grow unencumbered, as they are no longer a source of liquidity. Time is a critical investment tenet, and with more time, the probability of meeting the expected return is enhanced.

There is tremendous uncertainty in our markets and economy currently. One can bring an element of certainty to the management of pensions, live with great uncertainty.

08.22.25
by

Confusing the Purpose!

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

There recently appeared in my inbox an article from an investment advisory firm discussing Cash Flow Driven Investing (CDI). Given that CDI, or as we call it Cash Flow Matching (CFM), is our only investment strategy, I absorb as much info from “competitors” as I can.

The initial point in the article’s summary read “There is no one-size-fits-all approach for cashflow driven investment strategies.” We concur, as each client’s liabilities are unique to them. Like snowflakes, there are no two pension plan liability streams that are the same. As such, each CDI/CFM portfolio needs to reflect those unique cash flows.

The second point in their summary of key points is where we would depart in our approach. They stated: “While most will have a core allocation to investment grade credit, the broader design can vary greatly to reflect individual requirements.” This is where I believe that the purpose in using CFM is confused and unnecessarily complicated. CFM should be used to defease a plan’s net outflows with certainty. At Ryan ALM, Inc. we use 100% of the bond assets to accurately match the liability cash flows most often through the use of investment-grade corporate bonds. Furthermore, It is a strategy that will reduce risk, while stabilizing the plan’s funded status and contribution expenses associated with the portion of the liability cash flows that is defeased. It is not an alpha generator, although the use of corporate bonds will provide an excess yield relative to Treasuries and STRIPS, providing some alpha.

As we’ve discussed many times in this blog, traditional asset allocation approaches having all of the plan’s assets focused on a return objective is inappropriate for the pension objective to secure and fully fund benefits in a cost-efficient manner despite overwhelming use. We continue to espouse the bifurcation of the assets into liquidity and growth buckets. The liquidity bucket should be an investment-grade corporate bond portfolio that cash flow matches the liability cash flows chronologically from the next month as far out as the allocation will cover. The remaining assets are the growth or alpha assets that now have time to grow unencumbered.

Why take risk in the CFM portfolio by adding emerging markets debt, high yield, and especially illiquid assets, when the purpose of the portfolio is to create certainty and liquidity to meet ongoing benefits and expenses? If the use of those other assets is deemed appropriate, include them in the alpha bucket. As a reminder, CFM has been used successfully for many decades. Plan sponsors live with great uncertainty every day, as markets are constantly moving. Why not embrace a strategy that gives you a level of certainty not available in other strategies? Use riskier strategies when they have time to wade through potentially choppy markets. CFM provides such a bridge. If you give most investment strategies a 10-year time horizon without the need to provide liquidity, you dramatically enhance the probability of achieving the desired or expected outcome.

Unfortunately, we have a tendency in our industry to over-complicate the management of pensions. Using a CFM strategy focused on the plan’s liabilities, and not the ROA, brings the management of pensions back to its roots. Take risks when you have the necessary time. Focusing the assets on the ROA creates a situation in which one or more assets may have to be traded (sold) in order to meet the required outflows. Those trades might have to be done in environments in which natural liquidity does not exist.

08.20.25
by

Hey Ryan ALM – What if…?

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

We hope that you are enjoying a wonderful summer season. Thanks for taking the time to visit our blog, where we’ve now produced >1,650 mostly pension-related posts.

I wanted to share the following email exchange from earlier this week. I received an email at 6:40 pm on Monday from a senior member of the actuarial community who is familiar with our work. He said that he had a client meeting on Wednesday and he was wondering if we could model some potential outcomes should the plan decide to take some risk off the table by engaging a cash flow matching strategy (CFM).

The actuary gave us the “net” liabilities (after contributions) for the next 10-years and then asked two questions. How far out into the future would $200 million in AUM cover? If the client preferred to defease the next 10-years of net liabilities, how much would that cost? We were happy to get this inquiry because we are always willing to be a resource for members of our industry, including plan sponsors, consultants, and actuaries.

We produced two CFM portfolios, which we call the Liability Beta Portfolio™ or LBP, in response to the two questions that had been posed. In the first case, the $200 million in AUM would provide the client with coverage of $225.8 million in future value (FV) liabilities through March 31, 2031 for a total cost of $196.3 million. Trying to defease the next 10-years of liabilities would cost the plan $334.8 million in AUM to defease $430 million in net liabilities.

 $200 million in AUM10-year coverage
End Date3/31/31 7/01/35
FV$225,750,000$430,000,000
PV$196,315,548$334,807,166
YTM  4.52%  4.75%
MDur  2.73 years  4.45 years
Cost Savings $-$29,424,452-$95,192,834
Cost Savings %  13.04%   22.14%
Excess CF$230,375$679,563
RatingBBB+  A-

As we’ve mentioned on many occasions, the annual cost savings to defease liabilities averages roughly 2%/year, but as the maturity of the program lengthens that cost savings becomes greater. We believe that providing the necessary liquidity with certainty is comforting for all involved. Not only is the liquidity available when needed, but the remaining assets not engaged in the CFM program can now grow unencumbered.

If you’d like to see how a CFM program could improve your plan’s liquidity with certainty, just provide us with the forecasted contributions, benefits, and expenses, and we’ll do the rest. Oh, and by the way, we got the analysis completed and to the actuary by 12:30 pm on Tuesday in plenty of time to allow him to prepare for his Wednesday meeting. Don’t be shy. We don’t charge for this review.