Tag Archives: bonds

12.17.25
by

-56.1% – Really?

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

I truly relish getting feedback related to my blog posts. I wasn’t surprised that there was more activity, and a little skepticism, related to my recent post that discussed the output from a current project. You may recall the post titled, “Bond Math and A Steepening Yield Curve – Perfect Together”, in which I shared that one particular Cash Flow Matching (CFM) implementation resulted in a potential -56.1% reduction in the cost of the future promised pension benefits. A few folks questioned the math, while another made the comment that the “savings” or cost reduction was nothing more than the time value of money. But isn’t that the reason to have pension assets in the first place so you are not funding liabilities at 100 cents on the dollar (pay-as-you-go).

Well, here’s the thing, the use of bonds, the only asset class with a known cash flow (future value at maturity and contractual semi-annual interest payments), brings to the management of pensions an element of certainty not found elsewhere. Yes, it is conceivable that one could cobble together a group of investment strategies that might subsequently achieve a targeted return that would help pay those obligations, but the cash flow volatility associated with this approach may also lead to underperformance and higher contribution expenses in the process.

With CFM, the savings (cost reduction) gets locked in on day one of the assignment. Give us a 5-year, 10-year, or longer assignment to secure the benefits, and we’ll be able to give you the likely return for that entire period. Furthermore, CFM provides liquidity without forced selling or the sweep of dividends, interest, and capital distributions that should be reinvested in those higher returning strategies. In the process, the investing horizon for the plan’s assets is extended enhancing the probability that they will achieve the desired outcome.

In the example used in the previous Blog post, the -56.1% cost reduction was achieved with only 40% of the plan’s assets. By using a vertical slice approach, in which we secure a portion of the monthly obligations, we were able to extend the coverage period from 11-years to 30-years. That extension allowed us to use longer maturity bonds at substantially higher yields, which took advantage of bond math that proclaims that the longer the maturity and the higher the yield, the lower the cost. It’s true!

In today’s interest rate environment in which the average BBB corporate bond is trading at a yield close to 6%, a pension plan can capture roughly 89% of the target return (6.75% average ROA) with little to no volatility. How wonderful! Given that humans hate uncertainty, why don’t plan sponsors adopt the use of CFM to bring some certainty to their pension systems? Why do they choose to continue to ride the rollercoaster of returns provided by markets leading to increased contributions following down markets?

So, if you are still skeptical regarding our ability to provide significant cost reductions specific to your set of liabilities, allow us to provide you with a free analysis highlighting how CFM can support your pension plan and the plan’s participants. There may not be such a thing as a free lunch, but we can provide you with a sleep-well-at-night strategy.

12.11.25
by

Something Has Got to Give

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

Not surprisingly, the U.S. Federal Reserve’s FOMC lowered rates another 25 bps today. The new target is 3.75%-4.0%, down from 4.5%-4.75% during the last 3 meetings. Currently, the 10-year Treasury yield (4.145% at 3:21 pm EST) is only marginally greater than the median CPI (Latest reading from the Cleveland Fed is 3.5% annually).

Ryan ALM, Inc.’s Head Trader, Steve DeVito put together the following comparison.

Steve is comparing the 10-year Treasury note yield (blue) versus the Median CPI (red) since January 2016. The green line is the “real” yield (10-year Treasury – the median CPI). For this period of time, there has been very little real yield, as U.S. rates were driven to historic lows before inflation spiked due to Covid-19 factors. However, historically (1962-2025), the real yield has average 2%. With rates down and inflation remaining stubbornly steady to increasing slightly, the real yield that investors are willing to take is, and has been, quite modest (0.17% since 2008). Why? Were the historically low rates in reaction to covid-19 an anomaly, or has something changed from an investor standpoint? Given today’s fundamentals, one might assume that investors are anticipating a sudden reversal in inflation, but is that a smart bet?

The WSJ produced the graph in today’s edition highlighting the change in the U.S. Treasury yield curve during the last year. As one can clearly see, the yield curve has gotten much steeper with the 30-year Treasury bond yield 0.4% above last year’s level (at 4.81%). That steepness would indicate to me that there is more risk longer term from inflation potentially rising.

So, it seems as if something has to give. If inflation remains at these levels, the yield on the 10-year Treasury note should be about 1.25% greater than today. If in fact, yields were to rise to that level, active core fixed income managers would see significant principal losses. However, cash flow matching managers and their clients would see the potential for greater cost reduction in the defeasing of pension liabilities, especially for longer-term programs. Bond math is very straight forward. The longer the maturity and the higher the yield, the greater the cost savings.

Managing a pension plan should be all about cash flows. That is asset cash flows versus liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. Higher yields reduce the future value of those promises. Remember, a CFM strategy is unique in that it brings an element of certainty (barring a default) to the management of pensions which live in a world of great uncertainty. Aren’t you ready for a sleep-well-at-night strategy?

10.17.25
by

Remember: NO Free Lunch!

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

In 1938, journalist Walter Morrow, Scripps-Howard newspaper chain, wrote the phrase “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”. The pension community would be well-served by remembering what Mr. Morrow produced more than eight decades ago. Morrow’s story is a fable about a king who asks his economists to articulate their economic theory in the fewest words. The last of the king’s economists utters the famous phrase above. There have been subsequent uses of the phrase, including Milton Friedman in his 1975 essay collection, titled “There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch”, in which he used it to describe the principle of opportunity cost.

I mention this idea today in the context of private credit and its burgeoning forms. I wrote about capacity concerns in private credit and private equity last year. I continue to believe that as an industry we have a tendency to overwhelm good ideas by not understanding the natural capacity of an asset class in general and a manager’s particular capability more specifically. Every insight that a manager brings to a process has a natural capacity. Many managers, if not most, will eventually overwhelm their own ideas through asset growth. Those ideas can, and should be, measured to assess their continuing viability. It is not unusual that good insights get arbitraged away just through sheer assets being managed in the strategy.

Now, we are beginning to see some cracks in the facade of private credit. We have witnessed a significant bankruptcy in First Brands, a major U.S. auto parts manufacturer. Is this event related to having too much money in an asset class, which is now estimated at >$4 trillion.? I don’t know, but it does highlight the fact that there are more significant risks investing in private deals than through public, investment-grade bond offerings. Again, there is no free lunch. Chasing the higher yields provided by private credit and thinking that there is little risk is silly. By the way, as more money is placed into this asset class to be deployed, future returns are naturally depressed as the borrower now has many more options to help finance their business.

In addition, there is now a blurring of roles between private equity and private credit firms, which are increasingly converging into a more unified private capital ecosystem. This convergence is blurring the historic distinction between equity sponsors and debt providers, with private equity firms funding private credit vehicles. Furthermore, we see “pure” credit managers taking equity stakes in the borrowers. So much for diversification. This blurring of roles is raising concerns about valuations, interconnected exposures, and potential conflicts of interest due to a single manager holding both creditor and ownership stakes in the same issue.

As a reminder, public debt markets are providing plan sponsors with a unique opportunity to de-risk their pension fund’s asset allocation through a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy. The defeasement of pension liabilities through the careful matching of bond cash flows of principal and interest SECURES the promised benefits while extending the investing horizon for the non-bond assets. There is little risk in this process outside of a highly unlikely IG default (2/1,000 bonds per S&P). There is no convergence of strategies, no blurring of responsibilities, no concern about valuations, capacity, etc. CFM remains one of the only, if not the only, strategies that provides an element of certainty in pension management. It isn’t a free lunch (we charge 15 bps for our services to the first breakpoint), but it is as close as one will get!

09.23.25
by

Buy on the Rumor…

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

After 44-years in the investment industry I’ve pretty much heard most of the sayings, including the phrase “buy on the rumor and sell on the news”. I suspect that most of you have probably heard those words uttered, too. However, it isn’t always easy to point out an example. Here is graph that might just do the trick.

There had been significant anticipation that the U.S Federal Reserve would cut the Fed Funds Rate and last week that expectation was finally realized with a 0.25% trimming. However, it appears that for some of the investment community that reduction wasn’t what they were expecting. As the graph above highlights, the green line representing Treasury yields as of this morning, have risen nicely in just the last 6 days for most maturities 3 months and out, with the exception of the 1-year note. In fact, the 10- and 30-year bonds have seen yields rise roughly 10 bps. Now, we’ve seen more significant moves on a daily basis in the last couple of years, but the timing is what has me thinking.

There are still many who believe that this cut is the first of several between now and the end of 2025. However, there is also some trepidation on the part of some in the bond world given the recent rise in inflation after a prolonged period of decline. As a reminder, the Fed does have a dual mandate focused on both employment and inflation, and although the U.S. labor force has shown signs of weakening, is that weakness creating concerns that dwarf the potential negative impact from rising prices? As stated above, there may also have been some that anticipated the Fed surprising the markets by slicing rates by 0.50% instead of the 0.25% announced.

In any case, the interest rate path is not straight and with curves one’s vision can become obstructed. What we might just see is a steepening of the Treasury yield curve with longer dated maturities maintaining current levels, if not rising, while the Fed does their thing with short-term rates. That steepening in the curve is beneficial for cash flow matching assignments that can span 10- or more years, as the longer the maturity and the higher the yield, the greater the cost reduction to defease future liabilities. Please don’t let this attractive yield environment come and go before securing some of the pension promises.

09.11.25
by

U.S. Rates Likely to Fall – Here’s the Good and Bad

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

Unfortunately, there exists weakness in the U.S. labor force, as a notable deterioration in job creation, initial jobless claims, and job openings is taking place at this time. This weakness will likely lead the Federal Reserve to lower U.S. interest rates at the next FOMC, which takes place next week with an announcement on the 18th. The current consensus is for a 0.25% reduction in the Fed Fund’s Rate to 4.0%-4.25%. There is also a rising expectation that the “cut” could be larger. That might be more hope than reality at this time, given the CPI’s 0.4% posting today.

So, if rates were to be lowered, who benefits and who gets hurt? Well, individuals seeking loans – mortgages, cars, student loans – certainly benefit. But individuals hoping to generate some income from savings and retirement assets get hurt, especially since these rates tend to be shorter maturity instruments. Who else is impacted? Fixed income asset managers will benefit if they are holding coupon bonds, as falling rates drive bond prices upward. However, those holding bonds with adjustable yields won’t benefit as much.

How about DB pension funds? Yes, those pension funds invested in U.S. fixed income will likely see asset appreciation. However, both public and multiemployer plans have dramatically reduced their average exposure to this asset class. According to P&I’s annual survey, multiemployer plans have 18.2% in U.S. domestic fixed income, while public plans have roughly 18.7% of plan assets dedicated to U.S. fixed income. As a point of reference, corporate plans have nearly half of the plan’s assets dedicate to fixed income (45.4%). As rates fall, these plans will see some appreciation providing a boost in their quest to achieve the desired ROA. Great!

However, let us not forget that pension liabilities will be negatively impacted by falling rates, as they are bond-like in nature and the present value of those liabilities will grow. This is what crushed DB pensions during the massive decline in interest rates from 1982 until 2021. A move down in rates will directly benefit less than 50% of the assets, if we are talking about a corporate plan, and <20% of the assets for multiemployer and public funds. However, 100% of the liabilities will be impacted! Doesn’t seem like a good trade-off. As a result, funded ratios will decline and funded status shortfalls will grow, leading to greater contributions.

Given the mismatch identified above, I’d recommend that you not celebrate a potential decline in rates if you are a plan sponsor or asset consultant, unless you are personally looking for a loan. I would also recommend that you align your plan’s asset cash flows (principal and income from bonds) with your liability cash flows (benefits and expenses) while rates remain moderately high. As I’ve stated many times in this blog, Pension America had a great opportunity to de-risk DB pensions in 1999 but failed to act. Please don’t let this opportunity slip by without appropriate action.

07.31.25
by

When Should I Use CFM?

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

Good morning. I’m currently in Chicago in the midst of several meetings. Yesterday’s meetings were outstanding. As you’d expect, the conversations were centered on DB pension plans and the opportunity to de-risk through a Cash Flow Matching strategy (CFM) in today’s economic environment. The line of questioning that I received from each of my meeting hosts was great. However, there does seem to be a misconception on when and how to use CFM as a de-risking tool. Most believe that you engage CFM for only the front-end of the yield curve, while others think that CFM is only useful when a plan is at or near full funding. Yes, both of those implementations are useful, but that represents a small sampling of when and how to implement CFM. For instance:

As a plan sponsor you need to make sure that you have the liquidity necessary to meet you monthly benefits (and expenses). Do you have a liquidity policy established that clearly defines the source(s) of liquidity or are you scurrying around each month sweeping dividends, interest, and if lucky, capital distributions from your alternative portfolio? Unfortunately, most plan sponsors do not have a formal liquidity policy as part of their Investment Policy Statement (IPS). CFM ensures that the necessary liquidity is available every month of the assignment. There is not forced selling!

Do you currently have a core fixed income allocation? According to a P&I asset allocation survey, public pension plans have an average 18.9% in public fixed income. How are you managing that interest rate risk, which remains the greatest risk for an actively managed fixed income portfolio? As an industry, we enjoyed the benefits of a nearly four decades decline in U.S. interest rates beginning in 1982. However, the prior 28-years witnessed rising rates. Who knows if the current rise in rates is a blip or the start of another extended upward trend? CFM defeases future benefit payments which are not interest rate sensitive. A $2,000 payment next month or 10-years from now is $2,000 whether rates rise or fall. As a result, CFM mitigates interest rate risk.

As you have sought potentially greater returns from a move into alternatives and private investments, not only has the available liquidity dried up, but you need a longer time horizon for those investments to mature and produce the expected outcome. Have you created a bridge within your plan’s asset allocation that will mitigate normal market gyrations? A 10-year CFM allocation will not only provide your plan with the necessary monthly liquidity, but it is essentially a bridge over volatile periods as it is the sole source of liquidity allowing the “alpha” assets to just grow and grow. That 10-year program coincides nicely with many of the lock-ins for alternative strategies.

There has been improvement in the funded status of public pension plans. According to Milliman, as of June 30, 2025, the average funded ratio for the constituents in their top 100 public pension index is now 82.9%, which is the highest level since December 2021. That’s terrific to see. Don’t you want to preserve that level of funding and the contribution expenses that coincide with that level? Riding the rollercoaster of performance can’t be comforting. Given what appears to be excessive valuations within equity markets and great uncertainty as it relates to the economic environment, are you willing to let your current exposures just ride? By allocating to a CFM program, you stabilize a portion of your plan’s funded status and the contributions associated with those Retired Lives Liability. Bringing a level of certainty to a very uncertain process should be a desirable goal for all plan sponsors and their advisors.

If I engage a CFM mandate, don’t I negatively impact my plan’s ability to meet the return objective (ROA) that we have established? NO! The Ryan ALM CFM portfolio will be heavily skewed to investment-grade corporate bonds (most portfolios are 100% corporates) that enjoy a significant premium yield relative to Treasuries and agencies. As mentioned previously, public pension plans already have an exposure to fixed income. That exposure is already included in the ROA calculation. By substituting a higher yielding CFM portfolio for a lower yielding core fixed income program benchmarked to the Aggregate index, you are enhancing the plan’s ability to achieve the ROA while also eliminating interest rate risk. A win-win in my book!

So, given these facts, how much should I allocate to a CFM mandate? The answer is predicated on many factors, including the plan’s current funded status, the ability to contribute, whether or not the plan is in a negative cash flow situation, the Board’s risk appetite, the current ROA, and others. Given that all pension systems’ liabilities are unique, there is no one correct answer. At Ryan ALM, we are happy to provide a detailed analysis on what could be done and at what cost to the plan. We do this analysis for free. When can we do yours?

07.18.25
by

AI Needs An Education Regarding ALM/CFM!

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

I asked an AI tool that I use the following: Asset/Liability Management (ALM) is an effective tool for pensions. What strategies are currently being deployed?

As usual, the response was nearly instantaneous, but was it correct? Here is what I got:

Overview

“Asset/liability management (ALM) remains central to pension fund sustainability, aiming to balance expected pension liabilities with optimal asset growth. In 2025, pension funds deploy a range of strategies to ensure their ability to meet long-term obligations while managing risk efficiently.” No argument there. However, here is a list of the strategies. This is where I have an issue.

Key ALM Strategies Currently in Use

1. Liability-Driven Investing (LDI)

  • Matching Asset Duration to Liabilities: Many corporate pension plans invest in high-quality bonds with durations closely matching those of plan liabilities to mitigate interest rate risk. This ensures that both assets and liabilities react similarly to interest rate changes, stabilizing the funded status from year to year.
  • Glidepath Strategies: Plans gradually shift the asset mix towards more fixed-income securities as funded status improves or as the plan matures, further reducing risk and aligning assets with near-term liabilities.

2. Dynamic Asset Allocation

  • Strategic Shifts in Asset Mix: Pension funds adjust allocations based on changing liabilities, market conditions, and funding status. For instance, U.S. public pension plans have recently shifted asset allocations to maintain return expectations and recover from volatility.
  • Scenario-Based Modeling: Funds use forward-looking models to stress-test outcomes under varying economic scenarios, reviewing assumptions about returns, inflation, and participant demographics.

3. Risk Transfer Solutions

  • Pension Risk Transfer (PRT): Many sponsors employ annuity purchases and lump-sum windows to reduce long-term liability, transferring obligations to insurers. In 2024, settlement payouts (such as annuity buyouts) remained a significant tool for risk management among major pension plans.

4. Liability Modeling Innovations

  • Member-Level Simulation: Advanced models project individual participant cash flows, account for currency exposure, and enable granular liability projections. Such approaches allow more precise matching of assets to future obligations, improving ALM decision-making.
  • Regular Reviews and Assumption Updates: ALM programs, such as those at CalPERS, involve systematic reviews of demographic and financial assumptions (e.g., life expectancy, inflation), with revisions made every four years to incorporate emerging trends.

5. Use of Custom Benchmarks

  • Liability-Mimicking Portfolios: Funds create tailored portfolios (“benchmark” portfolios) that track the liability profile as closely as possible, often blending nominal bonds, inflation-linked bonds, and equities according to the plan’s specifics (such as maturity and inflation sensitivity).

That’s it? Where is Cash Flow Matching (CFM)? In each of these scenarios, liquidity needed to fund benefits and expenses is missing. Duration strategies minimize interest rate risk, but don’t produce timely liquidity to fully fund B+E. Furthermore, duration strategies that use an “average” duration or a few key rates don’t duration match as well as CFM that duration matches EVERY month of the assignment.

In the second set of products – dynamic asset allocation – what is being secured? Forecasts related to future economic scenarios come with a lot of volatility. If anyone had a crystal ball to accomplish this objective with precision, they’d be minting $ billions!

A PRT or risk transfer solution is fine if you don’t want to sustain the plan for future workers, but it can be very expensive to implement depending on the insurance premium, current market conditions (interest rates), and the plan’s funded status

In the liability modeling category, I guess the first example might be a tip of the hat to cash flow matching, but there is no description of how one actually matches assets to those “granular” liability projections. As for part two, updating projections every four years seems like a LONG TIME. In a Ryan ALM CFM portfolio, we use a dynamic process that reconfigures the portfolio every time the actuary updates their liability projections, which are usually annually.

Lastly, the use of Custom benchmarks as described once again uses instruments that have significant volatility associated with them, especially the reference to equities. What is the price of Amazon going to be in 10-years? Given the fact that no one knows, how do you secure cash flow needs? You can’t! Moreover, inflation-linked bonds are not appropriate since the actuary includes an inflation assumption in their projections which is usually different than the CPI.  

Cash Flow Matching is the only ALM strategy that absolutely SECURES the promised benefits and expenses chronologically from the first month as far out as the allocation will go. It accomplishes this objective through maturing principal and interest income. No forced selling to meet those promises. Furthermore, CFM buys time for the residual assets to grow unencumbered. This is particularly important at this time given the plethora of assets that have been migrated to alternative and definitely less liquid instruments.

As mentioned earlier, CFM is a dynamic process that adapts to changes in the pension plan’s funded status. As the Funded ratio improves, allocate more assets from the growth bucket to the CFM portfolio. In the process, the funded status becomes less volatility and contribution expenses are more manageable.

I’m not sure why CFM isn’t the #1 strategy highlighted by this AI tool given its long and successful history in SECURING the benefits and expenses (B&E). Once known as dedication, CFM is the ONLY strategy that truly matches and fully funds asset cash flows (bonds) with liability cash flows (B&E). Again, it is the ONLY strategy that provides the necessary liquidity without having to sell assets to meet ongoing obligations. It doesn’t use instruments that are highly volatile to accomplish the objective. Given that investment-grade defaults are an extremely rare occurrence (2/1,000 bonds), CFM is the closest thing to a sure bet that you can find in our industry with proven performance since the 1970s.

So, if you are using an AI tool to provide you with some perspective on ALM strategies, know that CFM may not be highlighted, but it is by far the most important risk reducing tool in your ALM toolbox.

07.16.25
by

Really Only One Significant Influence

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

Managing fixed income (bonds) can be challenging as there are a plethora of risks that must be evaluated including, but not limited to, credit, liquidity, maturity/duration, yield, prepayment and reinvestment risk, etc. within the investment-grade universe. But the greatest risk – uncertainty – remains interest rate risk. Who really knows the future direction of rates? As the graph below highlights, U.S. interest rates have moved in long-term secular trends with numerous reversals along the way. Does that mean that we are headed for a protracted period of rising rates similar to what was witnessed from 1953 to 1981 or is this a head fake along the path to historically low rates?

When rates are falling, it is very good for bonds as they not only capture the coupon, but they get some capital appreciation, too. However, when rates rise, it is a very different game. Yes, rising interest rates are very good for pension funds from a liability perspective, as the present value (PV) of those future benefit payments (I.e. liabilities) is reduced, but the asset side may be hurt and not only for bonds but other asset classes as well.

No alternative text description for this image

This is the primary reason why bonds should be used for their cash flows of interest and principal and not as a performance generator. The cash flows should be used to meet monthly benefits and expenses chronologically through a cash flow matching strategy (CFM). Unfortunately, Bonds are frequently used for performance and perhaps diversification benefits while compared to a generic index, such as the BB Aggregate index, which doesn’t reflect the unique characteristics of the pension plan’s liabilities.

U.S. interest rates are presently elevated but aren’t high by historic standards. However, the current level of rates does provide the plan sponsor with a wonderful opportunity to take risk from their traditional asset allocation by defeasing a portion of the plan’s liabilities from next month out as far as the allocation will cover. While the bond portfolio is funding monthly obligations, the remaining assets can just grow unencumbered.

Given the uncertainty regarding the current inflationary environment, betting that U.S. rates will fall making a potential “investment” in bonds more lucrative is nothing short of a crapshoot. Investing in a CFM strategy helps to mitigate interest rate risk as future values are not interest rate sensitive.

06.25.25
by

Problem/Solution: Generic Indexes

By: Ronald J. Ryan, CFA, Chairman, Ryan ALM, Inc.

We challenge you to find Pension Liabilities in any Generic Bond Index. We’re confident that you won’t. As a result, we’ve developed an appropriate solution, which we call the Custom Liability Index (CLI).

Pension liabilities (benefits and expenses (B+E)) are unique to each plan sponsor… different workforces, different longevity characteristics, different salaries, benefits, expenses, contributions, inflation assumptions, plan amendments, etc. To capture and calculate the true liability objective, the Ryan team created the first CLI in 1991 as the proper pension benchmark for asset liability management (ALM). We take the actuarial projections of (B+E) for each client and then subtract forecasted Contributions since contributions are the initial source to fund B+E. This net total becomes the true liability cash flows that assets have to fund. We then calculate the monthly liability cash flows as (B+E) – C. The CLI is a monthly report that includes the calculations of:

  • Net future values broken out by term structure
  • Net present values broken out by term structure
  • Total returns broken out by term structure
  • Summary statistics (yield, duration, etc.)
  • Interest rate sensitivity 

We recommend that the Ryan ALM CLI be installed as the index benchmark for total assets, as well as any bond program dedicated to matching assets and liabilities. This action should be the first step in asset allocation. The CLI can be broken out into any time segment that bond assets are directed to fund (i.e. 1-3 years, 1-10 years, etc.). Moreover, total assets should be compared versus total liabilities to know if the funded ratio and funded status have improved over time. If all asset managers outperform their generic index benchmarks but lose to liability growth rate the pension plan loses and must pay a higher contribution.   

Since the CLI is a monthly report, plan sponsors can compare assets versus liabilities monthly. Furthermore, we suggest that there should never be an investment update of just assets versus assets (generic index benchmarks), which unfortunately is common practice today. It is hard to understand in today’s sophisticated finance world why liabilities are missing as a pension index. It should be clear that no generic bond index could ever properly represent the liability cash flows that assets are required to fund. It is apples versus oranges, at a minimum. 

“Given the wrong index benchmark… you will get the wrong risk/reward”

For more info on the Ryan ALM CLI please contact Russ Kamp, CEO at  rkamp@ryanalm.com

06.19.25
by

Ryan ALM: Problem/Solution

By: Ronald J. Ryan, CFA, Chairman, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Problem:  Pension Liabilities… MIA

Solution:  Cash Flow Matching (CFM)

The true objective of a pension is to secure and fully fund benefits (and expenses) in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. Although funding liabilities (benefits and expenses (B+E)) is the pension objective, it is hard to find liabilities in anything that pertains to pension assets. Asset allocation is more focused on achieving a ROA (return on assets target return), and performance measurement compares assets versus assets, as the asset index benchmarks are void of any liability growth calculations. If you outperform your index benchmark does that mean asset growth exceeded liability growth? Perhaps NOT.

Pension liabilities behave like bonds since their discount rate is most similar to a zero-coupon bond yield curve (especially ASC 715 discount rates which are a AA corporate yield curve). Yes, public and multiemployer pension plans use the ROA as the discount rate to price their liabilities but even then it is not shown in any performance measurement reports. In fact, what shows up in the CAFR annual report is the GASB requirement of an interest rate sensitivity test by moving the discount rate up and down 100 basis points to determine the volatility of the present value of liabilities and the funded ratio. But a total return or growth rate comparison of assets versus liabilities seems to be MIA.

Ryan ALM solves this problem through our asset liability management (ALM) suite of synergistic products:

  1. Custom Liability Index (CLI) – The management of assets should actually start with liabilities. In reality, assets need to fund NET liabilities defined as (benefits + expenses) – contributions. Contributions are the first source to fund B+E. Assets must fund the net or residual. This is never calculated so assets start with little or no knowledge of what there job really is. Moreover, B+E are monthly payments, which are also not calculated, as the actuary provides an annual update. The CLI performs all of these calculations including total return and interest rate sensitivity as monthly reports.
  1. ASC 715 Discount Rates – Ryan ALM is one of very few vendors who provide ASC 715 discount rates, and we’ve done so since FAS 158 was enacted (2006). We provide a zero-coupon yield curve of AA corporate bonds as a monthly excel file for our subscribers including a Big Four accounting firm and several actuarial firms.
  1. Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP) – The LBP is the proprietary cash flow matching model of Ryan ALM. The LBP is a portfolio of investment grade bonds whose cash flows match and fully fund the monthly liability cash flows of B+E. Our LBP has many benefits including reducing funding costs by about 2% per year (20% for 1-10 year liabilities). The intrinsic value of bonds is the certainty of their cash flows. That is why bonds have always been chosen as the assets for cash flow matching or dedication since the 1970s. We believe that bonds are not performance or growth assets but liquidity assets. By installing a LBP, pensions can remove a cash sweep from the growth assets, which negatively impact their growth rates. We urge pension plan sponsors to use bonds for their cash flow value and transfer the bond allocation from a total return focus to a liquidity allocation. Moreover, the Ryan ALM LBP product is skewed to A/BBB+ corporate bonds which should outyield the traditional bond manager who is usually managing versus an index which is heavily skewed to Treasuries and higher rated securities that are much lower in yield. The LBP should enhance the probability of achieving the ROA by the extra yield advantage (usually 75 to 100 basis points). The LBP should also reduce the volatility of the funded ratio and contributions. In fact, it should help reduce contribution cost by the extra yield enhancement. 

For more info on the Ryan ALM product line, please contact Russ Kamp at  rkamp@ryanalm.com.