Tag Archives: assets-and-liabilities

02.06.25
by

Interesting Insights From Ortec Finance

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

PensionAge’s, Paige Perrin, has produced an article that referenced recent research from Ortec Finance. The research, which surveyed senior pension fund executives in the UK, US, the Netherlands, Canada, and the Nordics, found that 77% believe that risk will be elevated, either dramatically or slightly, in 2025. That’s quite the stat. It also follows on reporting from P&I that referenced heightened uncertainty by U.S. plan sponsors. As regular readers of this blog know, I’ve been suggesting to (pleading with) sponsors that they don’t need to live with uncertainty, which is truly uncomfortable.

Among several risks cited were interest rates, inflation, and market volatility. I can’t say that I blame them for their concerns. Who among us are able to adequately forecast rates and inflation? Seems like most fixed income professionals and bond market participants have been forecasting an aggressive move down in rates. Some of these prognosticators were forecasting as many as 7 rate reductions in 2024 and several others in 2025. We didn’t get 2024’s tally. Who knows about 2025 given that inflation has remained fairly sticky.

There is an easy fix for those of you who are concerned about interest rates and inflation. Adopt a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy that will carefully match asset cash flows of interest and principal with liability cash flows (benefits and expenses). Because benefit payments are future values (FVs), they are not interest rate sensitive. Problem solved! Furthermore, the use of CFM extends the investing horizon for the remainder of the fund’s growth assets, so they now have the appropriate time to grow to meet future liabilities.

One other startling stat caught my attention, as “77 per cent of senior pension fund executives believe the increasing number of retirees relative to the number of new hires in defined benefit (DB) plans pose a “significant” or “slight” risk to the DB pensions industry.” That concern is misplaced. I just wrote a post earlier this week on that subject. DB Pension plans are not Ponzi Schemes. They don’t need more depositors than those receiving payments. It is truly frightening that a significant percentage of our senior plan sponsors don’t understand how these plans are actuarial determined and subsequently funded.

Lastly, I nearly jumped out of my chair with excitement when I read the following quotes from Marnix Engels, Ortec Finance’s managing director for global pension risk, who stated the following:

“We believe assessing the risks of both (the bolding is my emphasis) assets and liabilities in combination is crucial to get the full picture on the health of a pension fund,” he said.

“If the impacts of risk drivers are only understood for one side of the funding health equation, then it is possible to misrepresent the overall effect.”

“If a fund is not assessing both assets and liabilities, then it is difficult to conclude the overall impact of interest rate hikes on the plan’s funding ratio.”

YES!!

12.05.24
by

Another Example of the Games That Are Played

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

I continue to be involved in programs associated with the Florida Public Pension Trustees Association (FPPTA) for which I remain quite grateful. If you’ve been exposed to their conferences, you know that they do a terrific job of bringing critical education to Florida’s trustee community and have since its founding in 1984. I’m pleased to highlight an expansion of their program to include the Trustee Leadership Council (TLC). This program brings together a small collection of experienced trustees who want to delve more deeply into the workings of defined benefit pensions – both assets and liabilities. Furthermore, the instruction is mostly done through case studies that provide them with the opportunity to roll up their sleeves and really get into the nitty gritty of pension management. Great stuff!

I could go on for days about the FPPTA and their programming, but I want to raise another issue. During a recent conversation with the TLC leadership, information was shared from one particular case study (a non-Florida-based pension plan). This information was for a substantial public pension plan that has had a troubling past from a funding standpoint. We also had info shared from a much smaller Florida-based system. There appeared to be a stark difference in performance of these two systems, as measured by the funded ratios, with a particular focus on 2022’s results. Upon further review, the one actuarial report used a 10-year smoothing for the funded ratio, while the Florida plan highlighted the performance for just 2022 and the impact that had on that plan’s funded ratio. As you can imagine, given the very challenging return environment in 2022, funded ratios took a hit. Question answered!

However, in looking at the actuarial report for the larger system, I saw that 2023’s funded ratio dramatically improved from the depths of 2022’s hit. It seemed outsized given what I knew about the environment that year. Diving a little deeper into the report – is there anything drier than an actuarial report – I found information related to a change in the discount rate that had occurred during 2023. It seems that this system had come up with its own funding method, but that was going to lead to the system becoming insolvent relatively soon. As a result, they passed legislation mandating that future contributions were going to be determined on an actuarial basis. How novel!

As a result of the move from a 4.63% blended rate (used a combination of the ROA (7%) and a municipal rate) they have now adopted a straight 7% discount rate equivalent to the fund’s return on asset assumption. Here is the result of that action:

As one can see, the present value (PV) of those future promises based on a 4.63% blended rate creates a net pension liability of -$12.8 billion. Using a 7% discount rate creates a PV of those net liabilities of “only ” -$6.7 billion. The dramatic improvement in the funded status from 48.4% to 64.1% is primarily the result of changing the discount rate, as a higher rate reduces the PV of your promise to plan participants. It really doesn’t change the promise, just how you are accounting for it.

The trustees who will participate in the TLC program offered by the FPPTA will receive a wonderful education that will allow them to dive into issues as referenced above. Knowing the ins and outs of pension management and finance will lead to more appropriate decisions related to benefits, contributions, asset allocation, etc.