Tag Archives: cash-flow-matching

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.

01.14.25
by

Hey, Pension Community – We Have Liftoff!

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

Not since October of 2023 have we seen long-dated Treasury yields at these levels. Currently, the 30-year Treasury bond yield is 5% (12:47 pm EST) and the 10-year Treasury Note’s yield has eclipsed 4.8%. Despite tight credit spreads, long-dated (25+ years) IG corporate bond yields are above 6% today (chart in the lower right corner).

Securing pension liabilities, whether your DB plan is private, public, or a multiemployer plan, should be the primary objective. All the better if that securing (defeasement strategy) can be accomplished at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. The good news: the current rate environment is providing plan sponsors with a wonderful opportunity to accomplish all of those goals, whether you engage in a cash flow matching (CFM) for a relatively short period (5-years), intermediate, (10ish-years) or longer-term (15- or more years) your portfolio of IG corporate bonds will produce a YTM of > 5.5%. This represents a significant percentage of the target ROA.

Furthermore, as we’ve explained, pension liabilities are future values (FVs), and FVs are not interest rate sensitive. Your portfolio will lock in the cost savings on day one, and barring any defaults (about 2/1,000 in IG bonds), the YTM is what your portfolio will earn throughout the relationship. That is exciting given the fact that traditional fixed income core mandates bleed performance during rising rate regimes. In fact, the IG index is already off 1.2% YTD (<10 trading days).

Who knows when the high equity valuations will finally lead to a repricing. Furthermore, who knows if US inflation will continue to be sticky, the Fed will raise or lower rates, geopolitical risks will escalate, and on and on. With CFM one doesn’t need a crystal ball. You can SECURE the promised benefits for a portion of your portfolio and in the process you’d be stabilizing the funded status and contribution expenses associated with those assets. Don’t let this incredibly attractive rate environment come and go without doing anything. We saw inertia keep plans from issuing POBs when rates were historically low. It is time to act.

10.23.24
by

That’s Not Right!

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

I’ve recently had a series of terrific meetings with consultants, actuaries, and asset owners (mostly pension plans) about cash flow matching (CFM). I believe that most folks see the merit in using CFM for liquidity purposes, but often fail to see the benefit of bringing certainty to a portfolio for that segment that is defeasing asset cash flows relative to liability cash flows (benefits and expenses). I’m not entirely sure why that is the case, but one question comes up regularly. Question: If I use 30% of my assets on lower yielding fixed income, how am I supposed to meet my ROA objective? I guess that they believe that the current 4.75% to 5% yielding investment grade corporate portfolio will be an anchor on the portfolio’s return.

What these folks fail to understand is the fact that the segment of the portfolio that is defeasing liability cash flows is matched as precisely as possible. The pension game has been won! If the defeased bond portfolio represents 30% of the total plan, the ROA objective is now only needed to be achieved for the 70% of assets not used to SECURE your plan’s liabilities. The capital markets are highly uncertain. Using CFM for a portion of the plan brings greater certainty to the management of these programs. Furthermore, we know that time (investing horizon) is one of the most important investment tenets. The greater the investing horizon the higher the probability of achieving the desired outcome, as those assets can now grow unencumbered as they are no longer a source of liquidity.  It bears repeating… a major benefit of CFM is that it buys time for the growth assets to grow unencumbered.

Plan sponsors should be looking to secure as much of the liability cash flows (through a CFM portfolio) as possible eliminating the rollercoaster return pattern that ultimately leads to higher contribution expenses. As mentioned above, capital markets are highly uncertain. The volatility associated with a traditional asset allocation framework has recently been calculated by Callan as +/-33.6% (2 standard deviations or 95% of observations). Why live with that uncertainty? In addition, Goldman Sachs equity strategy team “citing today’s high concentration in just a few stocks and a lofty starting valuation” forecasts that the S&P 500 “will produce an annualized nominal total return of just 3% the next 10 years, according to the team led by David Kostin, which would rank in just the 7th percentile of 10-year returns since 1930.” (CNBC)

Given that forecast, I wouldn’t worry about the 5% fixed income YTW securing my pension liabilities. Instead, I’d worry about all the “growth” assets not used to secure the promises, as they will likely be struggling to even match the YTW on a CFM corporate bond portfolio.

09.04.24
by

Pension Myth #1: Earn the ROA…All is Well!

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

We are pleased to share with you a recent white paper produced by Ron Ryan, Ryan ALM’s CEO. In this excellent piece, Ron reminds us of the fallacy that achieving the ROA as an underfunded DB pension system will make everything good – it won’t! As he correctly points out, the funded ratio may remain the same, but the funded status will continue to deteriorate. If the pension plan is 60% funded, at a market value of $100, that system has a funded status deficit of $40. If that 60% funded plan achieves the 7% ROA, assets will grow by $4.20. However, liabilities at that same discount rate will grow at $7. After 5 years, the funded status will have deteriorated by >40% and the deficit will now be >$56.

DB Pension systems that are poorly funded need to work extra hard to keep pace with the growth in the promised benefits or contribute significantly more to close the funding gap. There aren’t many plan sponsors in a position to contribute whatever is necessary to keep the plan in good funded status. Ron also discusses the need for plan sponsors to produce an Asset Exhaustion Test (AET), which is a requirement under GASB 67/68. It is a test of solvency. Ryan ALM modifies the AET to accurately determine the required ROA to fully fund the liability cash flows. Has your actuary produced the AET for your plan? If not, would you like Ryan ALM to calculate the ROA needed to fully fund your plan?

Please don’t hesitate to reach out to us with any questions that you might have regarding this white paper. Also, don’t hesitate to go to RyanALM.com for all the research that we’ve produced throughout the years. We look forward to being a resource for you.

07.29.24
by

ARPA Update as of July 26, 2024

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

The “dog days” of summer don’t seem to be impacting the activity level at the PBGC, as we had a plethora of activity last week. As mentioned on the PBGC website, the e-filing website is open, but limited. “The e-Filing Portal is open only to plans at the top of the waiting list that have been notified by PBGC that they may submit their applications. Applications from any other plans will not be accepted at this time.” That’s interesting, as there are still 16 pension plans in Priority Groups 1-6 that have potential applications that are not currently being reviewed. Are they excluded, too?

During the week, three funds that had been on the waitlist submitted applications, including, Local 810 Affiliated Pension Plan, the Upstate New York Engineers Pension Fund, and the Alaska Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Pension Plan. They are seeking a total of $282.1 million for the 9,620 plan participants. This is each plan’s initial submission. As always, the PBGC has 120 from the filing date to conclude the review.

In other news, two plans received approval of their applications, including the Pension Plan of the Moving Picture Machine Operators Union Local 306, a Priority Group 5 member, and the New England Teamsters Pension Plan, that was a Priority Group 6 member. The Moving Picture machinists will receive $20.7 million to support its 542 members, while the NE Teamsters get a whopping $5.7 billion for just over 72k participants. With these latest approvals, the PBGC has now granted through ARPA $67.7 billion in Special Financial Assistance (SFA) that will support the financial futures of 1.34 million American retirees.

On July 23, the Production Workers Pension Plan was added to the waitlist, becoming the 115th member on that list, with 47 having seen some activity (approved, under review, or withdrawn) regarding their applications. In other news, there were no applications denied or withdrawn. Furthermore, none of the previous SFA recipients were asked to repay a portion of the grant due to overpayment. Have a great week, and don’t hesitate to reach out to us if we can provide any assistance to you as you think through your investment strategy as it relates to the SFA grant.

07.15.24
by

ARPA Update as of July 12, 2024

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

Not only has the weather heated up, but so has the activity at the PBGC as it relates to the implementation of the ARPA pension legislation. During the past week two non-priority group plans submitted applications. In the case of the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund – Detroit & Vicinity, it was a revised application seeking nearly $600 million in Special Financial Assistance (SFA), while the Laborers’ Local No. 265 Pension Plan put forward its initial filing seeking $55.6 million. In total, more than 24,000 plan participants would enjoy a more secure retirement with the approval of these applications.

In other ARPA news, the American Federation of Musicians and Employers’ Pension Plan finally received approval. This fund had multiple filings throughout the process, which began on March 10, 2023 with the initial filing followed by two other applications. The wait was certainly worth it, as they will receive >$1.5 billion to reinforce the pensions of nearly 50,000 eligible participants.

There were no applications denied during the past week, but one fund, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Plan, withdrew its application that had been seeking $638.3 million in SFA for 29+k members. There were no plans that were forced to repay excess SFA assets and no new plans added to the waitlist.

We’ve all heard the phrase with uncertainty comes opportunity, and that may very well be true, but the uncertainty comes with a certain level of risk, too. Given all of the uncertainty in the economic and political spheres at this time, is the opportunity greater than the risk? We would encourage plan sponsors of all plan types to look to reduce some of the risk in their funds, especially given the elevated multiples on which the equity markets are currently trading. The higher US interest rates are providing a unique opportunity not available to us in the past two decades. Secure some of the promises (benefits) by defeasing your liabilities through a cash flow matching strategy. We are happy to discuss this suggestion in far greater detail or you can go to RyanALM.com to read myriad research articles and blog posts on the subject.

07.15.24
by

Milliman: Improved Corporate Pension Funding Continues

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

Milliman has once again produced its monthly update of the Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), which analyzes the 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans. Thank goodness they can still find 100 corporate plans to evaluate. Despite my snarkiness, it is good to read that Milliman is reporting improved funding for the sixth consecutive month in 2024, with a slight increase in the funded ratio from 103.6 to 103.7. The surplus remained the same at $46 billion.

June’s investment return of 1.22% matched the $9 billion increase in liabilities as the discount rate fell 7 bps to 5.46%. “The first half of 2024 has seen nothing but funded ratio improvements,” said Zorast Wadia, author of the PFI. “However, with markets at all-time highs and concerns that discount rates may eventually fall, the forecast for the second half of 2024 may not be as sanguine, and liability-matching portfolios will continue to be prudent strategies for plan sponsors.”

We absolutely agree with Zorast’s assessment of what may transpire in 2024’s second half. There has clearly been a slowing in economic activity as seen by the GDP in Q1’24 (1.4%) and Q2’24 is not looking much more robust, as the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model presently forecasts a 2.0% real GDP annualized return for the second quarter. If economic weakness were to develop, as a result of the Fed’s campaign to stem inflation by raising the Fed Fund’s rate (presently 5.25% – 5.5%), US interest rates could fall, while equities could also cool off as a result of the economic weakness. A combination such as this would be quite detrimental to pension funding.

In related news, FundFire has published an article highlighting the fact that “fixed income products now make up about 54% of defined-benefit portfolios, according to Mike Moran, senior pension strategist at Goldman Sachs Asset Management. He is obviously speaking about corporate plans, as both public and multiemployer exposures to fixed income are much more modest. Happy to see that Moran was quoted as saying that he “urges pension managers to act quickly to de-risk.” He went on to say, “This is a period of strength, a position of strength, for plan sponsors, and history shows us that the position of strength can sometimes be fleeting,” We absolutely agree.

We’ve been encouraging plan sponsors of all types to act to reduce risk and secure the promised benefits before the Fed or market participants reduce rates from these two-decade high levels.

07.09.24
by

The Proof’s in the Pudding!

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

Not sure why I used the title that I did, but I recently had pudding (vanilla) over the holiday weekend, so maybe that inspired me, and boy, was it good! That said, we, at Ryan ALM, Inc., are frequently challenged about the benefits of Cash Flow Matching (CFM) versus other LDI strategies, most notably duration matching. There seems to be singular focus on interest rate risk without any consideration for the need to create the necessary liquidity to meet monthly benefit payments. Given that objective, it isn’t surprising that duration matching strategies have been the dominant investment strategy for LDI mandates. But does that really make sense?

Are duration matching strategies that use an average duration or several key rate durations along the Treasury curve truly the best option for hedging interest rate risk? There are also consulting firms that espouse the use of several different fixed income managers with different duration objectives such as short-term, intermediate, and long-term duration mandates. Again, does this approach make sense? Will these strategies truly hedge a pension plan’s interest rate sensitivity? Remember, duration is a measure of the sensitivity of a bond’s price to changes in interest rates. Thus, the duration of a bond is constantly changing.

We, at Ryan ALM, Inc., believe that CFM provides the more precise interest rate hedge and duration matching, while also generating the liquidity necessary to meet ongoing benefits (and expenses (B&E)) when needed. How? In a CFM assignment, every month of the mandate is duration matched (term structure matched). If we are asked to manage the next 10-years of liabilities, we will match 120 durations, and not just an “average” or a few key rates. In the example below, we’ve been asked to fund and match the next 23+ years. In this case, we are funding 280 months of B&E chronologically from 8/1/24 to 12/31/47. As you can see, the modified duration of our portfolio is 6.02 years vs. 6.08 years for liabilities (priced at ASC 715 discount rates). This nearly precise match will remain intact as US interest rates move either up or down throughout the assignment.

Furthermore, CFM is providing monthly cash flows, so the pension plan’s liquidity profile is dramatically improved as it eliminates the need to do a cash sweep of interest, dividends, and capital distributions or worse, the liquidation of assets from a manager, the timing of which might not be beneficial. Please also note that the cost savings (difference between FV and PV) of nearly 31% is realized on the day that the portfolio is constructed. Lastly, the securing of benefits for an extended time dramatically improves the odds of success as the alpha/growth assets now have the benefit of an extended investing horizon. Give a manager 10+ years and they are likely to see a substantial jump in the probability of meeting their objectives.

In this US interest rate environment, where CFM portfolios are producing 5+% YTMs with little risk given that they are matched against the pension plan’s liabilities, why would you continue to use an aggressive asset allocation framework with all of the associated volatility, uncertainty, and lack of liquidity? The primary objective in managing a pension plan is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is not an arms race designed on producing the highest return, which places most pension plans on the asset allocation rollercoaster of returns.

07.08.24
by

ARPA Update as of July 5, 2024

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

We hope that you had an enjoyable long holiday weekend. We once again provide you with an update on ARPA and the PBGC’s implementation of this key pension legislation. Following a busy June, in which nine multiemployer plans received Special Financial Assistance (SFA) approval for $6.4 billion for roughly 233k participants, the PBGC’s application portal has been reopened and three applications were filed during the past week. PA Local 47 Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Pension Plan, Local 111 Pension Plan, and Bricklayers Pension Fund of West Virginia have each filed its initial application seeking SFA. In total, these three smallish plans are requesting $25.7 million for 2,066 participants.

In other developments, there was little obvious activity during the holiday shortened week, as there were no plans receiving approval for SFA, no applications that were denied or withdrawn, and no plans agreed to repay excess SFA grant money. Finally, there were no additional plans added to the waitlist at this time. Currently, 37 non-priority plans, from a list of 114, have seen some action on their application – approved, submitted, or withdrawn.

There remains great uncertainty within the US economy. Is the US labor market weakening? Is inflation truly under control? With the recent fall in Q2’24 GDP growth estimates from 3.1% to 1.5% by the Atlanta Fed (GDPNow model), will the Fed finally have the information that they’ve been seeking to reduce US interest rates? Will these trends begin to weigh on US corporate profits? If so, elevated valuations for US stocks could begin to pressure US stock prices, which seem to have been immune to bad news in the last couple of years. It may be time to rebalance or reduce any exposure to stocks within the SFA bucket and lock in these higher US rates.

07.01.24
by

ARPA Update as of June 28, 2024 – A Time to Celebrate!

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

As we complete the first half of 2024 and get ready for the Fourth of July celebrations with family and friends, we believe that it is fitting to celebrate the success to date of the ARPA pension legislation and the PBGC’s implementation that has positively impacted so many Americans. Here are the highlights:

ARPA’s Special Financial Assistance has been awarded to 84 plans to date.

Those 84 pension plans are responsible for >1.2 million American Workers, who now have their promised retirement benefit secured.

The 84 multiemployer plans have received roughly $60.4 billion in SFA to date.

Furthermore, there are roughly another 115-120 pension plans that might be eligible to receive the SFA before the program comes to its end. Just think of all those hard-working Americans who might have lost a significant % of their benefit, if not the whole promise, through no fault of their own. Congratulations, to all involved in creating and implementing this incredible legislation.

Despite all of the success of this program to date, there is much still to be done. During the previous week, the PBGC allowed two pension plans to file applications for SFA grants, including I.B.E.W. Pacific Coast Pension Fund and Midwestern Teamsters Pension Plan, with each submitting its initial application. In total, these two funds are looking for about $91.7 million in SFA proceeds for just under 4,000 plan participants. The PBGC will now have 120 days to act on these requests.

In other ARPA news, the Kansas Construction Trades Open End Pension Trust Fund received approval of its revised application. They will receive $43.1 million for the 8,145 participants in their program. There were no applications denied or withdrawn, and no funds were forced to repay excess SFA grants. Lastly, no new funds have been added to the waitlist.

We wish for you a wonderful Fourth of July holiday. Please remember those that sacrificed so much so that we can celebrate the independence and freedom that we enjoy in this country. Stay safe.