Tag Archives: Asset allocation

03.04.26
by

Here’s Another Example – Why, Oh Why?

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

In October 2022, I wrote the following: “I believe that we have overcomplicated the management of DB pension plans. If the primary objective is to fund the promised benefits in a cost-efficient manner and with prudent risk, why do we continue to waste so much energy buying complicated products and strategies that often come with ridiculously high fees and little alpha?”

I still believe that our industry continues to build complicated asset allocation structures unnecessarily. In a recent P&I article, the following was reported: that a public pension system will adjust their asset allocation to reflect new targets including a 4% allocation to hedge funds and 3% to opportunistic credit, alongside increases in private equity to 13.5% from 8% and private debt to 8% from 6.5% — funded by reductions in domestic equities, international equities, and infrastructure.

This action is occurring after the investment consultant ABC recommended the changes following an asset-liability study, with the goal of enhancing protection against volatility and drawdowns while maintaining sufficient liquidity. Can you get more complicated? Are they really claiming that this structure will maintain sufficient liquidity? Sure, there may be a reduction in “volatility” because these strategies are not marked-to-market, as opposed to the public markets, but claiming that sufficient liquidity will be maintained is a joke!

I’ve been arguing for quite some time that the private markets are overbought. As assets continue to flow into these strategies, liquidity has dried up with little capital flowing back to the investor, which is why the secondary markets have flourished. Too many assets in any strategy deflate future returns, which we have witnessed. Regarding hedge funds, which are not aligned with the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan which is a relative objective (assets versus pension liabilities and NOT the ROA) they continue to be extremely expensive offerings that have produced subpar returns for the better part of the last two decades.

If the objective is to maintain sufficient liquidity look no further than cash flow matching (CFM) which will ensure that the necessary liquidity to meet benefits and expenses is available each month of the assignment as far out as the allocation goes without a need for a cash sweep of growth assets. Furthermore, one doesn’t have to pay hedge fund fees to get that “liquidity”. You can get a CFM strategy for 15 bps or less. While your liquidity needs are being met, the CFM portfolio will also extend the investing horizon for the remainder of the fund’s assets enhancing the probability that those less liquid, highly opaque offerings have time to produce the forecasted returns.

Afraid that you are going to give up “return” by using a CFM strategy? We recently completed an analysis for a large public pension system that believed they were <50% funded. We proved that we could fully fund and SECURE the NET liabilities (after contributions) of benefits and expenses (B&E) through 2059! Yes, a CFM portfolio with a YTM of 5.4% was able to fully fund the net B&E for 33-years. In addition, we were able to produce a surplus in excess of $4 billion, which can now just grow and grow and grow. In fact, investing that surplus in an S&P 500 index fund would grow those assets at a 6.5% annual return (the fund’s target ROA) to $35.3 billion by 2059. If the index produced an 8% nominal return for that period those surplus assets grow to >$75 billion that can be used to reduce future contributions, meet future liabilities, and perhaps enhance benefits.

Oh, wait, it gets even better. By investing in just the CFM strategy and the S&P 500 index fund, this plan can reduce annual investment fees from nearly $50 million per year to <$4 million, a reduction of 93%. Those fee savings add another $1.5 billion to the surplus before any return is generated on those savings. As Ripley would say, “BELIEVE IT OR NOT”!

Again, the management of a DB plan is not rocket science. Fund the annual required contributions, focus on the primary objective to SECURE the promised benefits at low cost and prudent risk, and you have a program that is neither complicated nor expensive to administer. When will we learn?

02.25.26
by

New Jersey’s Pension System’s “High” Investment Return

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

As a taxpaying resident in New Jersey and a huge supporter of defined benefit plans who has a daughter in the system, I was happy to read that NJ’s pension systems generated strong investment returns in fiscal year 2025, reporting a nearly 11% return. Terrific. Yet, despite the above target return (7.0% ROA), the impact on the system’s funded status was negative. Yes, the funded ratio improved (assets/liabilities), but the funded status further deteriorated (funding gap in $s). Since the system is striving for 7% and the combined funded ratio of the various plans is <50%, a system like NJ’s would need to double the annual return on asset target just to keep the $ deficit stable.

It is great to see that NJ is finally bringing some financial discipline to the management of its pensions, with contributions at least matching the Actuarial Determined Contribution (ADC), but after decades of failing to do so (I think since Washington slept here), the systems are in need of significant funding improvement. Trying to generate outsized gains through a riskier asset allocation is not a long-term winning formula, often leading to greater annually required contributions when markets behave badly and assets get whacked.

The management of DB pension plans is not rocket science if the basics of sound pension management are followed. For instance, plans receiving the full ADC have on average an 80% funded ratio, while those not receiving the full ADC sit with funded ratios <70% (NCPERS study). Plans sitting with funded ratios below 50% are not likely to create enough excess return relative to the annual ROA to be able to close the funding gap. This often leads to plans making difficult decisions such as creating plans with multiple tiers, which I really despise.

Plans should focus on meeting the ADC, securing the promised benefits in the near-term, which buys time for the growth or alpha assets to perform, and reduce costs of administration, including management fees. DB plans are critical to the creation of a dignified retirement. Having a significant percentage of our seniors lacking the financial wherewithal to remain active in our economy is a major problem with long-term implications.

01.30.26
by

“Everybody’s looking under every rock.” Jay Kloepfer

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

Institutional Investor’s James Comtois has recently published an article that quoted several industry members on the near-term (10-years) return forecast for both public and private markets, which according to those asked are looking anemic. No one should be surprised by these forecasts given the incredible strength of public markets during the past three years and the fact that regression to the mean tendencies is not just theory.

An equally, if not greater, challenge is liquidity. As the title above highlights, Jay Kloepfer, Director of Capital Markets Research at Callan, told II that “Liquidity has become a bigger issue,” He went on to say that “Everybody’s looking under every rock.” Not surprising! Given the migration of assets from public markets to private during the last few decades. The rapid decline in U.S. interest rates certainly contributed to this asset movement, but expectations for “outsized” gains from alternatives also fueled enthusiasm and action. The Callan chart below highlights just how far pension plans have migrated.

I’ve written a lot on the subject of liquidity. Of course, the only reason that pension plans exist is to fund a promise that was made to the participants of that fund. Those promises are paid in monthly installments. Not having the necessary liquidity can create significant unintended consequences. No one wants to be a forced seller in a liquidity challenged market. It is critical that pension plans have a liquidity policy in place to deal with this critical issue. Equally important is to have an asset allocation that captures liquidity without having to sell investments.

Cash flow matching (CFM) is such a strategy. It ensures that the necessary liquidity is available each and every month through the careful matching of asset cash flows (interest and principal) with the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. No forced selling! Furthermore, the use of CFM extends the investing horizon for those growth assets not needed in the CFM program. Those investments can just grow unencumbered. The extended investing horizon also allows the growth assets to wade through choppy markets without the possibility of being sold at less than opportune times.

So, if you are concerned about near-term returns for a variety of assets and with creating the necessary liquidity to meet ongoing pension promises, don’t rely on the status quo approach to asset allocation. Adopt a bifurcated asset allocation that separates plan assets into liquidity and growth buckets. Your plan will be in much better shape to deal with the inevitable market correction.

01.29.26
by

What Topics Would You Pick?

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

I’m hopefully attending the FPPTA conference in Orlando beginning on Sunday, February 1, 2026. My attendance will be very much dependent on the path of the next winter storm takes as it migrates up the East coast. I’ve been asked to speak on a couple of occasions at this event for which I’m always very appreciative to be given the opportunity to share my perspectives on a variety of pension subjects.

The first opportunity is straightforward in that I will be addressing the importance of cash flow in managing defined benefit pension plans. In my opinion, there is nothing more important than generating and managing cash flow to meet ongoing plan liabilities of benefits and expenses. As pension plans have pursued a more aggressive asset allocation utilizing significantly more alternatives – private equity, private credit, real estate infrastructure, etc. – liquidity has become more challenging. As a result, some of the strategies that have been adopted to raise the necessary cash flow are not in the best interest of the plans longer term. I’ll be happy to share my thoughts on those issues if you want to reach out to me.

Regarding my second opportunity to share some perspective, I am one of four individuals who were asked to identify three pension related topics for a session called “Around the Pension World Discussion”. There will be six randomly selected topics from the original list of 12 that will be covered in 15-minute increments. It is a really interesting concept, and hopefully as we lead the conversation will get great input from the attendees.

The three topics that I chose are:

  1. Liquidity – it is being challenged through the migration of assets to alternative strategies.
  2. Uncertainty – Human beings hate uncertainty as it has both a physiological and psychological impact on us. Yet little to none of our current practices managing pensions brings certainty.
  3. The Primary Pension objective – managing a DB pension is about securing the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is not a return objective.

Clearly, there are tons of topics covering investments/asset allocation, risk management, governance, actuarial assumptions, plan design, etc. It shouldn’t be surprising why I chose the topics that I did based on my focus on securing pension promises through cash flow matching (CFM). We provide the necessary liquidity to meet those ongoing expenditures, while securing the promises given to the plan participants. In addition, CFM is a “sleep-well-at-night” strategy that brings certainty to the management of pension plans that engage in very uncertain practices.

What topics would you have chosen? Please reply to this post. I’d like to share your topics and the rationale behind choosing them in a follow-up blog. Have a great day!

12.30.25
by

Pension Reform or Just Benefit Cuts?

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

According to NIRS, at least 48 U.S. states undertook significant public pension reforms in the years following the global financial crisis (GFC), with virtually every state making some form of change to its public pension retirement systems. I’ve questioned for some time that those “reforms” were nothing more than benefit cuts. When I think of reform, I think of how pension plans are managed, and not what they pay out in promised benefits. However, this wasn’t the case for those 48 states which mostly asked their participants to contribute more, work for more years, and ultimately get less in benefits.

Equable Institute released the second edition of its Retirement Security Report, a comprehensive assessment of the retirement income security provided to U.S. state and local government workers. The report evaluated 1,953 retirement plans across the country to determine how well public employees are being put on a path to secure and adequate retirement income. Unfortunately, the reports findings support my view that pension reforms were nothing more than benefit cuts. Here are a couple of the points:

“Retirement benefit values have declined significantly: The expected lifetime value of retirement benefits for a typical full-career public employee has dropped by more than $140,000 since 2006, primarily due to policy changes after the Great Recession such as higher retirement ages, longer vesting, and reduced COLAs.“

“Only 46.6% of public workers are being served well by their retirement plans.“

Yes, newer plan designs are allowing for greater portability through hybrid and defined contribution plans, but as I’ve discussed in many blog posts, asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “benefit” without the necessary disposable income, investment acumen, and a crystal ball to help with longevity issues is poor policy. We have an affordability issue in this country and it is being compounded by this push away from DB pensions to DC offerings.

Pension reform needs to be more than just benefit adjustments. We need a rethink regarding how these plans are managed. As we have said on many occasions, the primary objective in managing a pension plan is not one focused on return, which just guarantees volatility in outcomes. Managing a pension plan, public or private, should be about securing the promises that were given to the plan’s participants. That should be accomplished at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk.

Regrettably, most pensions are taking on more risk as they migrate significant assets to alternatives. In the process they have reduced liquidity to meet benefits and dramatically increased costs with no promise of actually meeting return projections. Furthermore, many of the alternative assets have become overcrowded trades that ultimately drive down future returns. Higher fees and lower returns – not a great formula for success.

It is time to get off the performance rollercoaster. Sure, recent returns have been quite good (for public markets), but as we’ve witnessed many times in the past, markets don’t always cooperate and when they don’t, years of good performance can evaporate very quickly. Changing one’s approach to managing a pension plan doesn’t have to be revolutionary. In fact, it is quite simple. All one needs to do is bifurcate the plan’s assets into two buckets – liquidity and growth – as opposed to having 100% of the assets focused on the ROA. Your plan likely has a healthy exposure to core fixed income that comes with great interest rate risk. Use that exposure to fill your liquidity bucket and convert those assets from an active strategy to a cash flow matching (CFM) portfolio focused on your fund’s unique liabilities.

Once that simple task has been done, you will now have SECURED a portion of your plan’s promises (benefits) chronologically from next month as far into the future as that allocation will take you. In the process the growth assets now have a longer investing horizon that should enhance the probability of achieving the desired outcome. Contribution expenses and the funded status will become more stable. As your plan’s funded status improves, allocate more of the growth assets to the liquidity bucket further stabilizing and securing the benefits.

This modest change will get your fund off that rollercoaster of returns. The primary objective of securing benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk will become a reality and true pension reform will be realized.

12.02.25
by

Do the Analysis! Remove the Guess Work.

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

I am truly blessed working for an organization such as Ryan ALM, Inc. I am awed by the folks that I get to work with and the product/strategy that I get to represent. As a reminder, we’ve created a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy that brings an element of certainty to the management of pensions that should be welcomed by pension plan sponsors and their advisors far and wide. What other strategy can inform you on the day that the portfolio is constructed what the performance of that strategy will be for the full-term of the assignment (barring any defaults within investment grade bonds)? Name another strategy that can lay out the liquidity with certainty for each month (chronologically) of that assignment.

Given that liquidity is becoming a challenge as pension plans (mostly public) adopt a more aggressive asset allocation favoring alternative investments, using a CFM strategy that provides ALL the liquidity to meet ongoing benefits and expenses should be a decision that is easily embraced. Yet, our conversations with key decision makers often stall as other parties get involved in the “review”. To this day, I’m not sure what is involved in most of those conversations.

Are they attempting to determine that a traditional core fixed income strategy benchmarked to a generic index such as the BB Aggregate is capable of producing the same outcome? If so, let me tell you that they can’t and it won’t. Any fixed income product that is not managed against your plan’s specific liabilities will not provide the same benefits as CFM. It will be a highly interest rate sensitive product and performance will be driven by changes in interest rates. Do you know where U.S. rates are headed? Furthermore, the liquidity provided by a “core” fixed income strategy is not likely to be sufficient resulting in other investment products needing to be swept of their liquidity (dividends and capital distributions), reducing the potential returns from those strategies.  Such a cash sweep will reduce the ROA of these non-bond investments. Guinness Global’s study of S&P data for the last 85 years has shown that dividends and reinvestment of dividends account for 50% or more of the S&P returns for rolling 10- and 20-year periods dating back to 1940.

Are they trying to determine if the return produced by the CFM mandate will be sufficient to meet the return on asset assumption (ROA)? Could be, but all they need to realize is that the CFM portfolio’s yield will likely be much higher than the YTM of a core fixed income strategy given CFM’s 100% exposure to corporate bonds versus a heavy allocation to lower yielding Treasuries and agencies in an Agg-type portfolio. In this case, the use of a CFM strategy to replace a core fixed income mandate doesn’t impact the overall asset allocation and it certainly doesn’t reduce the fund’s ability to meet the long-term return of the program.

Instead of trying to incorporate all these unknown variables/inputs into the decision, just have Ryan ALM do the analysis. We love to work on projects that help the plan sponsor and their advisors come to sound decisions based on facts. There is no guess work. Importantly, we will construct for FREE multiple CFM portfolios, if necessary, to help frame the decision. Each plan’s liabilities are unique and as such, each CFM portfolio must be built to meet that plan’s unique liability cash flows.

All that is required for us to complete our analysis are the projected liability cash flows of benefits and expenses (contributions, too) as far into the future as possible. The further into the future, the greater the insights that we will create for you. We can use the current allocation to fixed income as the AUM for the analysis or you can choose a different allocation. We will use 100% IG corporates or you can ask us to use either 100% Treasuries/STRIPS or some combination of Treasuries and corporate bonds. We can defease 100% of the plan’s liabilities for a period of time, such as the next 10-years or do a vertical slice of a % of the liabilities, such as 50%, which will allow the CFM program to extend coverage further into the future and benefit from using longer maturity bonds with greater YTMs. Isn’t that exciting!

So, I ask again, why noodle over a bunch of unknowns, when you could have Ryan ALM provide you with a nearly precise evaluation of the benefits of CFM for your pension plan? When you hire other managers in a variety of asset classes, do they provide you with a portfolio up front? One that can give you the return that will be generated over a specific timeframe? No? Not surprised. Oh, and BTW, we provide our investment management services at a significantly lower fee than traditional core fixed income managers and we cap our annual fee once a certain AUM is reached. Stop the guess work. Have us do the work for you. It will make for a much better conversation when considering using CFM. Call me at 201/675-8797 or email me at rkamp@ryanalm.com for your free analysis. I look forward to speaking with you!

11.19.25
by

It Couldn’t Be Any Easier!

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

I participated this morning in a portfolio review for one of our Cash Flow Matching (CFM) clients. As usual, it couldn’t be any easier for us and the client. Following the Chair’s announcement that it was Ryan ALM’s turn, I stated that all benefits and expenses remain SECURED on a net of contributions basis through 2048 and gross of contributions through 2056. Any questions? That’s it!

There is no guessing as to the future. There is no hand-wringing or pondering regarding the Fed, and what they might do at their next meeting in December. No worries about equity valuations, the impact of AI, the increase in the use of PIKs in private credit portfolios, etc. We built this portfolio in the third quarter of 2024, and it continues to do exactly what it was designed to do. The combination of maturing principal and interest is providing the necessary asset cash flows to meet monthly distributions (liability cash flows of benefits and expenses) like clock-work. How comforting!

The only potential fly in the ointment is a default of an investment grade bond. But according to S&P, that happens at a 0.18% annual clip or roughly 2 / 1,000 bonds (last 40-years). Fortunately for us and our client this has not happened within their portfolio. So, as long as the monthly cash on hand remains greater than the required distribution, we are meeting the requirements of our mandate.

There is no anxiety associated with our management of pension assets. Only an element of certainty rarely found within pension management. How many of your other managers can provide a summary as concise as ours? How many of your managers have built a strategy where the performance for the length of the mandate (5-, 10-, or more years) is known on the day the portfolio is constructed? When we talk about CFM as a “sleep-well-at-night” strategy, this is precisely what we are talking about. Why wouldn’t you want some of this in your fund?

As a reminder, through CFM the liquidity is enhanced, the benefits (promises) SECURED, the investing horizon extended for the non-CFM assets, and certainty established for that portion of the portfolio. Seems like a no brainer.

11.19.25
by

I’m Confused??

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

I’ve had the great pleasure of speaking at a number of conferences and events this year. Thank you to those of you who provided me with these opportunities. Regular readers of this blog know that I’ve been discussing the concept of uncertainty and specifically how human beings really despise this state of being.

In the prior two weeks I’ve spoken at both NCPERS in Fort Lauderdale, FL, and at the IFEBP in Honolulu, HI, where I had the opportunity to discuss Cash Flow Matching (CFM) as part of a broader ALM conversation. In both cases I asked the audience, one primarily public fund sponsors (NCPERS) and the other multiemployer, if they could point to any part of their DB pension plan that brought certainty. Not surprisingly, not one hand was raised.

I then commented that if humans, including plan sponsors of DB pension plans, hated uncertainty, why were they continuing to live with the uncertainty imbedded in their current asset allocation structures? These asset allocations place plan sponsors and the plan’s participants on the performance rollercoaster driven by the whims of the markets, which shouldn’t be comfortable for anyone.

So, I ask once more: if folks hate uncertainty and they have the chance to bring a level of certainty into the management of pension plans through CFM, why haven’t they done so? Do they still believe that managing a pension plan is all about generating the ROA? Do they believe that their plan is sustainable (perpetual), so the swings in funded status don’t matter? Do they not worry about where liquidity is going to be derived despite the significant push into alternatives that are sapping plans of liquidity? These are just a few questions for which answers must be furnished. Without an appropriate answer the practice must stop.

A carefully constructed (optimized) CFM program established with IG bonds will SECURE the promises, enhance and provide the necessary liquidity (chronologically), extend the investing horizon for the non-bond assets that can now just grow, and in the process provide the plan sponsor and their members with a “sleep-well-at-night” strategy that is far more certain than anything that they are currently using. We recognize that change isn’t easy, but it is sure better than riding the proverbial performance rollercoaster with the accompanying unknown climbs and dramatic falls.

11.17.25
by

ARPA Update as of November 14, 2025

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

I hope that last week was great for you. I didn’t recognize anyone from the PBGC at the IFEBP in Honolulu last week, but I suspect that there must have been a few attendees. Why? Well, for the first time that I can recall since I began producing these weekly updates, there is nothing to report in terms of the PBGC’s implementation of the ARPA pension legislation. NOTHING!

Now, I’m sure that a lot is going on behind the scenes, especially given the announcement that Janet Dhillon has been confirmed as the 17th Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, but in the weekly update produced as of Friday, November 14th, there were no applications submitted, as the PBGC’s e-Filing portal remains temporarily closed. No pension plans received approval for SFA nor were any denied. There were no withdrawals of previously submitted applications. Lastly, there were no multiemployer plans asking to be added to the growing waitlist.

As we get closer to the legislation’s deadline for new applications to be submitted, we are down to about 6-7 weeks until December 31, 2025. Having a week in which nothing concrete was reported reduces the odds that most of those plans yet to file will actually be given that opportunity.

The graph above reflects the activity through November 7th. Despite the lack of activity last week, the PBGC deserves high praise for their handling of this critical legislation that has helped som many American workers and pensioners. Lastly, at the IFEBP was asked to touch on ARPA/SFA and how best to incorporate ALM strategies to mitigate risk. I’ve had the privilege to speak on this topic numerous times. In summation, the allocation of Special Financial Assistance (SFA) to multiemployer plans is truly of gift. That allocation is not likely to ever be repeated. As such, plans should take every precaution to ensure the maximum coverage of benefits (and expenses) while minimizing the risk through their investments. Call on us (ryanalm.com) if we can help you think through the use of Cash Flow Matching to SECURE those promises.

11.17.25
by

The Times They Are A-Changin’

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

Thank you, Bob Dylan, for the lyric that is just perfect for this blog post. I have just returned from the IFEBP conference in Honolulu, HI. What a great conference, and not just because it was in Hawaii (my first time there). If it wasn’t the location, then what made this one so special? For years I would attend this conference and many others in our industry and never hear the word liability mentioned, as in the pension promise, among any of the presentations.

So pleased that during the last few years, as U.S. interest rates have risen and defined benefit pension funding has improved, not only are liabilities being discussed, but more importantly, asset allocation strategies focused on pension liabilities are being presented much more often. During this latest IFEBP conference there were multiple sessions on ALM or asset allocation that touched on paying heed to the pension plan’s liabilities, including:

“Asset Allocation for Today’s Markets”

“My Pension Plan is Well-Funded – Now What?”

“Asset Liability Matching Investment to Manage the Risk of Unfunded Liabilities”

“Decumulation Strategies for Public Employer Defined Contribution Plans” (they highlighted the fact that these strategies should be employed in DB plans, too)

“Applying Asset Liability Management Strategies to Your Investments” (my session delivered twice)

“Entering the Green Zone and Staying There”

These presentations all touched on the importance of risk management strategies, while encouraging pension plan sponsors to stop riding the performance rollercoaster. Given today’s highly uncertain times and equity valuations that appear stretched under almost any metric, these sessions were incredibly timely and necessary. Chasing a performance objective only ensures volatility. That approach doesn’t guarantee success. On the other hand, securing the pension promise through an ALM strategy at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk does redefine the pension objective appropriately.

I know that human beings are reluctant to embrace change, but we despise uncertainty to a far greater extent. Now is the time to bring an element of certainty to the management of pension assets. By the way, that was the title of my recent presentation to public funds at the NCPERS conference in Fort Lauderdale. Again, understanding pension liabilities and managing to them is not new, but it has certainly been under a bigger and brighter spotlight recently. That is great news!