Tag Archives: cash-flow-matching

05.01.26
by

Is Now Really the Time to Buy Stocks?

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

U.S. equity markets enjoyed a robust April despite myriad economic and geopolitical inputs that might have given investors pause. Should equity investors remain bullish at this time? The graph below caught my attention primarily because of the recent disconnect between the two lines related to the Shiller Excess Cape Yield (ECY) and subsequent 10-year Real Return for equities. There are many, many valuation tools that claim to provide clues about the future direction of stocks, and this is such an example. Those tools can be short-, medium-, and long-term in nature. The ECY happens to be one valuation metric that provides “guidance” for longer time frames. The current reading of 1.60% certainly looks rich relative to its long history.

In case you don’t know, the Shiller excess CAPE yield is a valuation measure that compares the stock market’s earnings yield with the “real” yield on the 10-year Treasury note. In simple terms, it asks how much extra return stocks may offer over inflation-adjusted government bonds.

How it is calculated

  • Take the inverse of the CAPE ratio, which is the market’s “earnings yield.”
  • Subtract the real 10-year Treasury yield.

So, ECY=(1/CAPE)−10-year real Treasury yield

A higher excess CAPE yield suggests stocks might look more attractive relative to bonds. A lower reading suggests the equity risk premium is thinner, meaning stocks offer less return versus bonds. As mentioned above, current readings show the S&P 500 Shiller Excess CAPE Yield around 1.60% for April 2026, which is well below its long-term average of 4.60%. Another data source put it at 1.41 as of April 30, 2026.

Investors have historically used the ECY as a long-term asset allocation tool, especially when comparing stocks with Treasury bonds. It is not a short-term trading signal, but rather a rough guide to whether equities look cheap or expensive relative to real bond yields. A CAPE yield below 2% has generally signaled subdued future equity returns over the next 5 to 10 years, providing a valuation warning sign, and not an exact measure.

As a reminder, there are many valuation techniques used to identify opportunities and risk when investing in U.S. equities. Depending on a pension plan’s liquidity needs, funded ratio, willingness to take risk, etc. today’s current environment may be providing an opportunity to reduce risk by trimming equities and using the proceeds along with core fixed income assets to establish a cash flow matching mandate. In the process, the plan’s liquidity is improved, promised benefits secured, and the investing horizon extended for the residual assets. Give us a call. We are always willing to provide a free analysis showcasing how CFM can help your fund.

04.16.26
by

Pension Game: Find the Liabilities?

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

I can remember as a child playing the games hide-and-seek and manhunt among myriad activities with my friends in Palisades Park. We would play for hours. It was particularly exciting as daylight waned just before we were beckoned home when the streetlights flicked on.

Those games were innocent and most of the time no one got hurt. However, Ron Ryan, Ryan ALM’s Chairman, has written about another game. In this competition, he’s challenging pension professionals to “find the liabilities”. Why? Unfortunately, most of the effort put forth by pension professionals (outside of actuaries) is focused on assets: the allocation, manager selection, and performance. But is that the correct approach? Of course not.

The only reason that a pension plan exists is because of a promise that has been made to the plan participant. Pre-funding that promise through a pension system is a most effective approach to meeting those future obligations. As a result, that promise needs to be the focal point of pension management, but it rarely is. Unfortunately, most folks think that managing a pension is all about returns. How has the fund performed relative to the return on asset (ROA) assumption.

As Ron points out in this excellent piece, if all the investment managers/strategies outperform their generic asset specific benchmarks, but the total fund underperforms its liability growth rate, has the fund won? Of course not. That’s why we believe that the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan should be to SECURE the promises at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk.

As I mentioned earlier, the games that I engaged in as a child in New Jersey were innocent. Failure to understand what a plan’s liabilities look like could be much more harmful. We’ve seen that scenario play out many times and with significant consequences. Don’t let your fund become the victim of an assets-only approach.

03.25.26
by

What is My Funded Ratio? Who Cares!

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

The funded ratio of a DB pension plan gets a lot of attention, especially if it is perceived to be weak. But does the funded ratio truly tell you the whole story as to the financial health of a DB pension plan? We, at Ryan ALM, Inc. don’t think so.

So, how is the funded ratio calculated:

Funded ratio = MV of plan assets / plan liabilities earned to date X 100

The market value of assets is a present value (PV) calculation. The market value of liabilities is the future value of liabilities earned to date discounted back to a PV calculation based on a discount rate. For public and multiemployer plans the discount rate tends to be the fund’s return on asset assumption (ROA), while it is an AA corporate blended rate for private pensions. In today’s interest rate environment, the discount rate for private plans will be roughly 1.5% less than the discount rate based on the average ROA. That means that liabilities for private funds will have a greater current value than the value of liabilities calculated based on the discount rate using the ROA. Oh, okay, so the choice of a discount rate can change my funded ratio. That’s interesting. So that tells me that if I wanted to improve my funded ratio, all I’d have to do is increase my discount rate to lower the PV of my liabilities. That’s very interesting.

So, it appears that the funded ratio calculation can be manipulated to some extent. As we think about the formula above, is there anything missing? Yes, where are the future contributions, which can be significant. Why are future payment liabilities in the calculation, but projected contributions, which are future assets of the fund, not included? Common thinking suggests that those future contributions aren’t guaranteed, which is why they aren’t factored into the funded ratio calculation. However, is that a correct assumption? In doing some research, it appears >80% of DB pension funds receive 100% of the annual required contribution (ARC). Even NJ’s public pension system is making the ARC and then some.

We recently had a conversation with a large plan sponsor who thought that their fund was <50% funded based on the formula above. Not surprisingly, they were very focused on this ratio and looking for investment strategies that could potentially enhance it. As an FYI, this plan’s future contributions as forecasted by their actuary were significant. In fact, future contributions were so large that they were equal to 73% of the forecasted liabilities! Yes, without including the pension fund’s current assets, this plan was 73% funded, provided those projected contributions were met which they have been for more than a decade.

So, given these forecasted contributions is that pension fund really <50% funded?

In another example, the same fund that thought that they were poorly funded, could defease net pension liabilities for the next 33-years. How is it possible that a plan that believes it is <50% funded able to significantly reduce risk, enhance liquidity, and SECURE pension promises for 33-years? Furthermore, this fund was going to establish a $4.4 billion surplus on the day that those benefits and expenses were defeased for 33-years. If it just earned the projected ROA, that $4.4 billion would grow to $34.2 billion during that 33-year period. Wow! 

So, I ask once more, does that sound like a plan in financial distress, which a funded ratio of <50% might suggest? NO!

The funded ratio is but one measure of a pension plan’s health. Unfortunately, many in our industry would look at that # and say that more risk needs to be taken to achieve “full funding” down the road, when in fact reducing risk through a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy is the appropriate approach. It is past the time to get off the scary asset allocation rollercoaster. 

03.17.26
by

What Would You Do?

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

Happy St. Paddy’s Day to my Irish friends (I’m 1/2 Irish) and those that would like to be. May the luck of the Irish embrace you today.

As many of you know, we are always willing to provide to the pension and E&F communities a free analysis to highlight how a Cash Flow Matching (CFM) mandate could secure the promised benefits/grants for your fund and importantly, provide the necessary liquidity to meet future promises. In many cases, we will produce multiple runs covering a variety of periods usually 5-years to 30-years. Often the sponsor of the fund is shocked by the potential cost reduction of those future obligations.

We recently provided a large pension plan with several potential implementations, as they try to improve the fund’s liquidity profile, while also desiring to secure those future promises. Here are three scenarios that we provided to them and I’d welcome your feedback on what you would do.

Scenario #1 – Provide a CFM portfolio using the core fixed income allocation ($3 billion/15% of total assets) to match and fund the NET (after contributions) liability cash flows of benefits and expenses (B&E). In this scenario, we can cover the next 6-years of B&E through 6/30/32, covering $3.44 billion in FV benefits and expenses for $3.0 billion (a cost reduction of $443.3k or 12.88%). The YTM on the portfolio is 4.09 and the duration 3.09 years, with the average quality being A-. The remaining assets can continue to be managed as they currently are, but they now benefit from a 6-year investing horizon in which they are no longer providing any liquidity to meet monthly obligations.

Scenario #2 – Provide a CFM portfolio using the same $3 billion (only needed $2.96 billion) or 15% of the fund’s total assets, but implement the strategy using a vertical slice of the liabilities going out 30-years. In this example, we can cover 22% of the liability cash flows for the next 30-years. The FV of those liabilities are $6.3 billion (as opposed to the $3.44 billion using 100% CFM for 6-years). We can reduce the FV cost by $3.33 billion or 53%. The remaining 85% of the fund’s assets can be managed as they presently are, but they don’t benefit from the longer investing horizon, as they will be called upon to provide liquidity to meet the residual B&E.

Scenario #3 – 100% CFM covering net liabilities through 6/30/59. In this case we showed that we can cover 100% of the NET B&E for $9.9 billion in assets, while providing the plan with a $4.4 billion surplus. The FV of those B&E through 2059 are reduced by about $13 billion or 56%! The surplus assets now have a 33-year investing horizon to just grow and grow! A modest 6.5% annualized return for that period produces a surplus of $34.2 billion that can be used to fund B&E after 2059, enhance benefits, and/or reduce future contributions. An 8% annualized return produces a surplus >$75 billion. Oh, my! Also, in this scenario, the organization ONLY needs an annual 2.56% return on the remaining assets to fully fund ALL projected B&E well beyond 2059, as determined by our Asset Exhaustion Test (AET).

Importantly, these scenarios only work if the sponsoring entity provides the forecasted contributions, which in this case they have consistently done for the past 10+ years.

So, I ask once again, what would you do? Scenario 1 ($3 billion/15% of total assets) provides a 100% coverage for 6-years while reducing cost by 13%. Scenario 2 reduces the cost of FV B&E by 53% or $3.4 billion, but covers only 22% of the liabilities, while Scenario 3 reduces the FV cost by 56%, while securing the net promises through 2059 for a cost of $9.9 billion resulting in a surplus of $4.4 billion.

I guess that there is a fourth scenario which is to do nothing, but why would you want to continue to ride the proverbial performance rollercoaster that only guarantees volatility and not success when you can secure a portion of the liabilities, significantly reduce the cost of those future promises, improve liquidity, and “buy time” for the residual assets to just grow unencumbered?

As the Irish say – “May the most you wish for be the least you get“.

02.18.26
by

Good Question!

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

We occasionally post questions received in reaction to our blogs in new blog posts since many of our readers might have similar thoughts/ideas. In reaction to yesterday’s post, “All-time High Funded Ratio” a reader calling themselves LoudlyObservant (great name) stated the following:

Why wouldn’t such well-funded plans take steps to lock in the funding of their beneficiary payments through a cash flow matching portfolio? Isn’t the first fiduciary duty of loyalty expressed in controlling the relevant risk to the beneficiaries, which involves BOTH securing adequate assets and then actually funding the payments? Many of these plans have hit the first goal but are still exposed to funding risk. With a ready solution at hand, the plan sponsors open themselves to criticism for not acting on their second responsibility.

Thank you, Loudly! Great questions and observations. We often talk about the fact that pension plans at all funding levels need liquidity, not just well-funded plans, but when you have a universe of plans that on average are fully funded, why not dramatically reduce risk. We witnessed what happened to DB pension plans at the end of 1999, when most plans were well overfunded only to see the funded status plummet and contribution expenses explode following two major market corrections.

I’m neither smart enough nor is my crystal ball better than anyone else’s to know if a major market correction is on the horizon but why take the chance unnecessarily. We’ve seen a significant percentage of Special Financial Assistance (SFA) recipients engage in cash flow matching to secure the SFA assets and the benefits that they will protect. Why not adopt CFM for the legacy assets, too? As we’ve mentioned, we are providing a service to you and your plan participants. It isn’t just another product. Time to get off the proverbial rollercoaster of returns and secure the promises and your plan’s funded status.

02.12.26
by

It’s Not A Product – It’s A Service!

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

Anyone who has read my blogs (>1,700 to date) knows that my personal mission and that of Ryan ALM, Inc. is to protect and preserve defined benefit pension plans. How is our collective mission pursued? It is through the implementation of unique client-specific cash flow matching (CFM) assignments. Since every pension plan has liabilities unlike any other fund, a unique solution must be created unlike most investment management products sold today.

Here is the reality: There are a lot of wonderful people in our industry, representing impressive investment organizations, tasked with introducing a variety of investment products. Plan sponsor trustees, with the help of their investment consultants, must determine which products are necessary for their plan to help reach the goal of funding the promised benefits. This is an incredibly challenging exercise if the goal is to cobble together a collection of investment managers whose objective is to achieve a return on asset assumption (ROA). This exercise often places pension funds on the proverbial rollercoaster of returns. The pursuit of a return as the primary goal doesn’t guarantee success, but it does create volatility.

On the other hand, wouldn’t it be wonderful if one could invest in strategy that brings an element of certainty to the management of pension plans? What if that strategy solved the problem of producing ALL of the necessary liquidity needed to fund monthly benefits and expenses without having to sell securities or sweep cash (dividends and capital distributions) from higher earning products? Wouldn’t it be incredible if in the process of providing the liquidity for some period of time, say 10-years, you’ve now extended the investing horizon for the residual assets not needed in the liquidity bucket? Impossible! Hardly. Cash flow matching does all that and more.

I recently had the privilege of introducing CFM to someone in our industry. The individual was incredibly curious and asked many questions. Upon receiving my replies, they instinctively said “why isn’t everyone using this”? That person then said you aren’t selling a product: it is a SERVICE. How insightful. Yes, unlike most investment strategies that are sold to fill a gap in a traditional asset allocation in pursuit of the “Holy Grail” (ROA), CFM is solving many serious issues for the plan sponsor: liquidity and certainty being just two.

Substituting one small cap manager for another, or shifting 3% from one asset class or strategy to another is not going to make a meaningful impact on that pension plan. You get the beta of that asset class plus or minus some alpha. None of these actions solve the problem of providing the necessary liquidity, with certainty, when needed. None of them are creating a longer investing horizon for the residual assets to just grow and grow. None of those products are supporting the primary pension objective which is to SECURE the promised benefits at low cost and with prudent risk.

So, Ryan ALM, Inc. is providing a critical service in support of our mission which is to protect and preserve your DB pension plan. Why aren’t you and others (everyone) taking advantage of this unique service?

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.