We just completed an analysis for a DB pension plan in which we were able to defease the fund’s liabilities for 30-years at a YTW of 6.09%. That is an incredible yield, especially given the fact that the YTW is basically what a pension plan will earn over the life of the cash flow matching (CFM) program. While core fixed income strategies are highly interest rate sensitive, defeasing pension liability cash flows (benefits and expenses) with asset cash flows of bond interest and principal eliminates interest rate risk, as future benefits are not interest rate sensitive.
The more extraordinary aspect of this analysis is the fact that the cost to fund FV benefits (and expenses) will be reduced by 70.5% versus the present value of assets needed to fund those liabilities, if the 30-year assignment is fully implemented. You read that correctly: there is a 70.5% reduction in the cost to fund those future value benefits given today’s interest rate environment.
Are you thinking that we must be injecting significant risk into the bond portfolio in order to achieve that level of interest? Well, the average quality rating on our 100% investment grade corporate bond portfolio is an A-. Furthermore, we have as an internal risk control prohibiting purchasing bonds rated below BBB+.
The rates below are from the WSJ as of 9:52 am on 9/10/26
We don’t know where U.S. interest rates are headed, but the beauty in building CFM portfolios is the fact that we don’t need to forecast rates. Once the asset cash flows are matched against the liabilities, the relationship is maintained whether rates rise or fall.
Few pension plans took advantage of the last de-risking opportunity back in 2020. Please don’t waste this chance to SECURE the promises made to your participants, while protecting the plan’s funded status and contribution requirements.
Bonds enjoyed a nearly 4-decade bull market as U.S. interest rates plummeted from historic highs to an environment of negative real rates. It was unprecedented. As a result, bonds were perceived to be performance drivers. But are they?
We are often told by plan sponsors or their advisors that they can’t invest in a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy because de-risking the portfolio will negatively impact the fund’s ability to achieve the annual return on asset (ROA) assumption. Is that reality?
Facts:
The Aggregate bond index has produced a -0.29% annualized return for the 5-years ending August 31, 2026!
A CFM portfolio would have generated a return commensurate with its YTW (or YTM) during that 5-years. Shorter maturity (1-5-year defeasement) CFM portfolios were yielding about 1.6% at that time. That equates to a nearly 2% per year return advantage. Still think that CFM is a drag on performance?
U.S. inflation remains elevated. A CFM portfolio is the perfect pension inflation hedge since it is fully funding liabilities that have inflation in the projected benefits to be funded.
The direction of U.S. rates is uncertain, although rates have been trending higher, putting more strain on core fixed income strategies that tend to underperform when rates rise.
For the 28-years prior to the bond bull market (1953-1981), U.S. rates rose. Are we in a secular long-term rising rate environment?
Bonds should only be used for their cash flows of interest and principal upon maturity, which can be modeled to match and FUND a pension plan’s liabilities (benefits and expenses), with certainty barring any defaults.
Plan sponsors have not had this level of U.S. interest rates in roughly 20-years, providing them with a wonderful opportunity to protect the improved funded status, while securing the liquidity necessary to meet those pesky monthly obligations. Will this opportunity go unheeded just as the one presented in 2000 did? We know that failing to protect and preserve DB plans in 2000 was followed by two major equity market corrections that crushed pension funding and caused contributions to skyrocket. Do you think that sponsors of DB plans have the financial wherewithal to see contributions escalate once more? I don’t!
We recommend converting your current core fixed income allocation, with all of its interest rate risk, to a cash flow matching bond portfolio, that will carefully match and fund all of the monthly obligations as they come due. A CFM portfolio matches interest and principal against future obligations, and in doing so, eliminates interest rate risk as future values are not interest rate sensitive. If you owe a plan participant $2,000 in benefits next month, it is $2k whether interest rates are at 2% or 10%. The higher rates reduce the future value cost of the promised benefits in present value $s. We are seeing roughly 6% YTMs in our recent 30-year assignments and a >50% reduction in the cost of those future benefit payments.
You could continue to use a core fixed income allocation with all of its uncertainty or you could create certainty within a portion of your plan that doesn’t exist today. I suspect that your participants would appreciate knowing that the promised benefits are secure no matter what transpires in global markets.
Yesterday, there appeared a P&I article with the headline: “Ohio State Teachers says beating peers isn’t the point — paying benefits is”
YESSSSS! The only reason that a defined benefit pension plan exists is to fund a promise given to the participant. Managing a pension plan isn’t about achieving an ROA or beating a hybrid total fund index or eclipsing the performance of a peer group (silly concept). It is truly only about SECURING the liquidity necessary to match and fund benefits (and expenses) when they come due!
The pursuit of a return objective has only guaranteed volatility and NOT success. That is volatility of returns, contributions, and funded status. It is time to get off the performance rollercoaster.
The higher U.S. interest rate environment is providing plan sponsors with a great opportunity to de-risk and enhance liquidity through cash flow matching (CFM), which is designed to secure the liability cash flows (benefits and expenses) through the careful matching of asset cash flows (principal and interest) from bonds.
An opportunity such as this hasn’t existed since 2000, when the average pension plan was well-overfunded and contribution expenses well-contained. It has been 26-years since the first market crash of the aughts began and public pension funds have only clawed back to an average funded status of 88% (Milliman). They can’t afford another crash that will only lead to a deterioration in the funded status and an escalation in contributions.
No one knows when that next correction may be just around the corner. Given that reality, don’t leave your pension plan vulnerable to this uncertainty. Put in place today a CFM strategy that will SECURE the promised benefits with certainty (barring an IG default), while buying time for the return-seeking assets to wade through the next market crisis. The time to act is now and not after the next market correction.
Welcome to the last full week of August. How is that possible? What does the final third of 2026 have in store for us? Equity investors will hope that the good times roll, while active fixed income managers/investors hope that something changes to stabilize U.S. rates and their near-term prospects. Let’s not forget the mid-terms. The next four months should be quite interesting.
Regarding the PBGC’s implementation of the ARPA pension legislation, last week proved to be busy, as 6 pension funds submitted applications seeking special financial assistance (SFA). One of the five, Bindery Industry Employers GCC/IBT Pension Plan, a Priority Group 1 plan, submitted a revised application. Bindery first submitted an application back in February 2023. They are seeking $18.8 million for 686 members of its plan. The other five applicants are all listed as having been impacted by mass withdrawal prior to 2020. Collectively they are requesting $128.4 million for 3,272 participants. As reported previously, the PBGC is accepting applications from those plans located in the Second Circuit (NY, CT, and VT), and each of these five plans are domiciled in NY.
In other news, there were no plans receiving approval, but there were also no plans being denied based on ineligibility. Furthermore, there were no plans withdrawing an application in the prior week, too.
There remains plenty of work for the PBGC as they currently sit with 19 applications in front of them. The good news for those potential SFA recipients: U.S. interest rates remain inflated providing those plans with the potential to significantly reduce the cost of those future benefits that they will be covering. I implore those plans to secure the promises through a cash flow matching (CFM) implementation. There is so much more downside risk to potential reward by choosing to go active with allocations to both core fixed income and equities.
I hope that you’ve had a great week. I very much enjoyed my three days at the NCPERS Funding Forum in Chicago, where I spoke about bringing certainty to pension plans through cash flow matching (CFM) in an investment landscape providing abundant uncertainty.
As I mentioned during my talk, the only certainty in most pension plans today are the benefit payments that are due each month. How are plans managing that responsibility? Unfortunately, not well, as most cobble together liquidity through a cash sweep of bond interest, dividends, capital distributions, and sales of securities. The only contributor to that liquidity pot that makes sense is bond interest, as dividends and capital distributions should be reinvested in their potentially higher earning strategies, while sales of securities don’t always occur at advantageous times.
But can a pension plan generate enough interest income from their bonds to cover the necessary liquidity? NO! Following my talk on Wednesday morning, an experienced trustee questioned my promotion of CFM based on his math that would have the entire pension plan’s corpus needing to be in bonds for the YTM to produce enough interest (liquidity) to meet his fund’s monthly obligations. He did not realize that a properly constructed CFM portfolio would use both interest and principal from maturing bonds (no sales). The combination of interest and principal will be used to meet those pesky obligations each month (chronologically) when due without any collective deficits.
We often recommend that a pension plan convert their current active core bond portfolio from a benchmark focused strategy to a CFM portfolio now focused on meeting the monthly promises. But the allocation to CFM should really be a function of the plan’s funded status. Better funded plans don’t need to take as much risk as weaker funded plans. Negative cash flow plans, of which most public funds are today, especially need reliable cash flow to meet liquidity challenges. Again, the last thing any pension plan should be doing is forcing sales of securities to meet on-going cash needs.
As U.S. interest rates continue to rise, the YTM on CFM portfolios continues to rise. Longer-term CFM assignments, such as a 30-year period, are seeing YTMs in the 6%+ range. Given the average public fund ROA is roughly 6.6%-6.75%, pension plans can cover a significant percentage of their return target through a strategy providing certainty, barring any defaults (a rare IG event). Please don’t let this opportunity to secure the pension promises pass you by. We’ve seen this happen before and the outcome isn’t pretty.
This post is being produced on my flight to Chicago, where I will be speaking at the NCPERS conference on Wednesday. Importantly, I will once again be talking about cash flow matching (CFM), but in the context of a successful implementation of the strategy for a defined benefit pension plan. As many recipients of the Special Financial Assistance (SFA) have found, CFM SECURES the promised benefits, while providing the necessary monthly liquidity to meet ongoing benefits (and expenses) chronologically. I hope that you have a great week.
This past week saw revised applications submitted by Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania and Iron Workers’ Pension Trust Fund for Colorado. They are seeking a combined $55.7 million in SFA for their 5,573 participants.
Non-priority group member, Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania, withdrew its revised application. They’d been seeking $39.7 million in SFA for the 3,907 members of their plan.
Happy to report that there were no pension funds denied the opportunity to file an SFA application and none required to refund a portion of the SFA due to census errors. I think that it is safe to assume that we’ve seen the last of the census problems that plagued initial application filers.
You may recall that I mentioned Retirement Plan of Local 1102 Retirement Fund as being the first of the “Mass Withdrawal” plans to be allowed to submit an application. I now have a better understanding of the likely direction that the PBGC will be taking thanks to Rich Hudson, First Actuarial. According to Rich, the PBGC will only allow multiemployer plans located in the Second Circuit (VT, CT, and NY) to submit applications since it was the Second Circuit that ruled that the Plans Terminated by Mass Withdrawal before 2020 Plan Year were eligible to seek SFA provided that met the other requirements. It appears that plans located in the other Circuits – there are 13 U.S. federal Courts of Appeal, including the D.C. Circuit and the Federal Circuit – will not get the opportunity to file before the ARPA legislation concludes at the end of 2026. I’m sure that there will be more on this issue to discuss.
Question from a pension plan sponsor: I often hear you espousing the use of Cash Flow Matching to replace the pension fund’s core fixed income mangers. Is it prudent to only have one manager in that space?
As always, thank you for that question. We are often asked to respond to this question. Simply put, YES! it is quite prudent and recommended to have one cash flow matching manager to represent the liquidity assets. This is because there is one single liability cash flow schedule. If you had multiple CFM managers, their cash flows could potentially conflict with each other and not know what liabilities they are funding. Please remember that the primary objective in managing a pension plan is to secure the promises (benefits) at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is NOT a performance objective.
If it were a performance objective than you might be right to want multiple fixed income managers, each representing an uncorrelated skill that when combined might be able to add alpha relative to a generic asset-focused index, but the only index that truly matters is your plan’s specific liabilities and the payment of those benefits when due.
In a CFM implementation, asset cash flows (principal and interest) from investment-grade bonds are carefully matched against the present value (PV) of those future liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. Our proprietary optimization process constructs a portfolio that matches your monthly liquidity needs at the lowest cost chronologically as far out as the mandate is funded. CFM is an exercise in bond math, which states that the longer the maturity and the higher the yield, the greater the cost reduction. We are not looking to produce an alpha relative to your liabilities, but we will because of the bias in our portfolio to A and BBB rated bonds that come with greater yields than the discount rate.
Investment-grade bonds are perhaps the safest investment one can make given that the frequency of defaults, which is <0.2% annually (2/1,000 bonds) as determined by S&P for the last 40+-years. It is only the possibility of a default that keeps this process from being absolutely certain.
Once a CFM portfolio is constructed, the cash flow relationship between assets and liabilities is locked in. It doesn’t matter if interest rates rise or fall because cash flows are future values and not interest rate sensitive. The YTW on day one of the portfolio is the likely return over the duration of the assignment – today we are constructing 30-year assignments with YTWs in excess of 6%. Can you expect that from your “active” fixed income managers, especially given the uncertain interest rate environment? For context, core fixed income managers benchmarked to the Aggregate index have likely delivered little to no return during the last five years, as the index was up 0.1% for the 5-years ending June 30, 2026. Using those managers to fulfill your liquidity needs opens up the possibility that you are locking in losses when bonds are traded to meet monthly benefit payments. There is no forced liquidity in a properly constructed CFM portfolio.
As always, we are happy to conduct a free analysis of what your cash flow needs look like and how CFM can help you secure those promises.
Dallas, TX voters may be asked to approve nearly $1 billion in debt this fall to help the city deliver a long-promised new police academy, while also providing financial flexibility ($500 million) for ongoing contributions into the city’s police and fire pension fund. Jack Ireland, the city’s chief financial officer, told the council that voter approval of pension obligation bonds (POB) wouldn’t trigger the issuance of new debt, but would “give the City Council the financial flexibility to approve its usage if interest rates improved in the future.”
However, not everyone is in agreement regarding the potential POB issuance. Councilman Adam Bazaldua said “asking voters to support another bond package, including the conditional approval of pension obligation bonds, sends the wrong message”. “It’s hard enough for us to decipher and educate our voters with the language that is required by state law, that will tell them their tax rates will go up with these bonds, but now we have to explain to them we’re asking you to approve half a billion dollars that we may not ever even touch or use,” Bazaldua said. “I’m adamantly opposed to this.”
A City Council vote is set for Aug. 12. If approved, any bond proposals would appear on the general election ballot on Nov. 3.
What would you do? Unfortunately, conventional thinking would have the City issue the bonds and contribute the proceeds into the P&F fund, where trustees and their advisors would apply those funds to the current asset allocation. The conventional POB strategy essentially says:
Borrow at X% → put the proceeds into the pension → invest in the existing portfolio expecting Y% → hope Y > X%.
That process is exactly the arbitrage framework that makes POBs controversial. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) explicitly identifies the possibility that invested proceeds fail to earn more than the bond interest rate as a principal POB risk—and recommends against POB issuance largely because of risks such as this. I ran around the country in 2020-2021 arguing that historically low interest rates made the issuance of POBs sound but only if the proceeds were used to defease the plan’s liabilities – not invest them in traditional markets. What followed was 2023’s -18% return for the S&P 500 and a -12% return for the Aggregate index. Just what I and the GFOA warned against.
We believe that using cash flow matching (CFM) for the proceeds makes ultimate sense. At only 36% funded, this fund is facing insolvency due to significant negative annual cash flow and annual contributions that fall short of the ADC. This fund needs an economic boost and putting $500 million to work immediately and securing the next couple of years of benefits will buy some time for the growth assets to perform. Actually, they need significantly more than $500 million to get back on the right footing, but anything is better than nothing. As a reminder, a pension plan that is roughly only 1/3 funded and striving for a 6.5% return, actually needs to generate a nearly 20% annual return just to maintain the funding deficit.
I would describe our process as creating two portfolios: A liquidity bucket consisting of the CFM strategy and a growth buck that contains all non-core bonds. Furthermore, I would add any existing core bonds from the legacy assets into the liquidity bucket to be used to further build out the CFM portfolio. Here are the roles for the two portfolios/buckets:
Cash Flow Matching
Legacy / Growth Portfolio
Secure pension benefits
Generate long-term growth
Provides needed liquidity
Market-dependent relative returns
Uses bond principal + interest
Contains equities/alternatives/etc.
This portfolio is Liability-focused
Total return-focused
Creates cash flow roadmap
Creates uncertain cash flows
Eliminates a cash sweep
Can withstand market risk
Buys time
Uses that time
With a pension as poorly funded, it is impossible for traditional pension management to perform two conflicting jobs simultaneously: generate high returns and provide liquidity to pay benefits.
I know that our recommendation goes against the traditional approach, but CFM brings an element of certainty to the management of pension assets that is desperately in need of some certainty. Dallas needs a dramatic improvement in the plan’s funding. Why should they continue to ride the rollercoaster of returns, which only guarantees volatility and may lead to further funding erosion? Use the POB proceeds, but only if near-term liabilities can be secured.
Uncertainty abounds! That uncertainty continues to drive expectations for oil, inflation, and interest rates up and down like a Yoyo. However, recent inflationary trends suggest that U.S. interest rates could continue higher. The U.S. 30-year Treasury bond’s yield is only 4 basis points off it’s cyclical peak since rates began rising aggressively in March 2022.
At Ryan ALM, we recently completed a cash flow matching (CFM) analysis for a public fund in which we were able to defease the pension plan’s liabilities out to 2100. The portfolio that we created to accomplish that objective had a YTM of 6.03%. Barring any defaults (occur at <0.2% in IG space), that is what the plan sponsor should expect to receive over the life of the program. Unlike a broadly diversified pension asset allocation striving to hit an ROA target and all of its standard deviation, there is NO volatility associated with that long-term return and cash flows. There is no potential for a major drawdown impacting future contributions and the plan’s funded status.
Just how has the bond market changed? This morning, our head trader, Steve Devito, shared with us the characteristics for a couple of bonds that had been shown to him. Here is an incredible example of where rates have gone: $2mm par value of ORCL 6.70 maturing in 2056 @ +245 above the comparable Treasury offered at a 7.70% YTM (quality:Baa2 / BBB-). WOW! Here you have an investment-grade corporate bond trading at a yield of 7.7%. The average ROA for a public pension plan is roughly 6.75%. In another example, Steve shared: $2mm GOOGL 6.50 maturing in 2066 @ +124 above the comparable Treasury at a YTM of 6.50% AA (40-year maturity). Google is offering a AA credit 40-year bond at a YTM of 6.5%!
I suspect that there are many other examples of high quality corporate bonds trading at yields greater than 6%. So, I ask: At what level of rates do U.S. corporate bonds become too much competition for U.S. equities and all their uncertainty? As a pension plan sponsor, wouldn’t you prefer to have the certainty of a CFM portfolio securing your pension liabilities from next month chronologically as far into the future as your allocation goes? In the meantime, your residual alpha assets have just been granted a longer investing horizon allowing them to wade through today’s uncertainty without being encumbered with a cash sweep of dividends and capital distributions.
As we regularly write, we are always willing to showcase how CFM can positively impact your plan by providing a free analysis. You will get a better understanding of your plan’s cash flow requirements and an understanding of the potential cost reduction of the future benefit payments. You’ll also have a greater appreciation for the possible significant reduction in asset management fees that is achieved through the use of CFM. Now is the time to act before the markets negatively react to these rising U.S. interest rates.
We are happy to share with you Ron Ryan’s latest thoughts related to asset allocation and how it should be responsive and not strategic. We at Ryan ALM, Inc. have witnessed many investing cycles during our decades in the pension industry. We have seen well-funded defined benefit pension plans witness their funded status/ratio deteriorate quickly as markets retrenched. As Ron highlights in his latest thoughtful piece, public pension plans have made terrific strides to improve funding from roughly 71% to a recent high of 88.7% according to Milliman.
Given the improved funding, are U.S.-based pension plans de-risking? Unfortunately, no. They continue to operate with an objective to maximize the return on the assets and not with the more appropriate objective to SECURE the promises made to their members. The former objective continues these plans on a rollercoaster of returns. Regrettably, a return focus only guarantees volatility: volatility of returns leading to volatility of contributions and ultimately the funded status of the plan. It makes little sense.
Adopting an objective that is focused on securing the pension promises creates an element of certainty within the management of pensions not often found, if at all. By securing the promises, one dramatically improves the liquidity needed to meet those monthly obligations. It also creates a longer investing horizon for the assets not used to meet the plan’s liquidity.
We believe that Cash Flow Matching (CFM) is the only strategy that creates the necessary liquidity with certainty, as the asset cash flows of principal and interest are matched to the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. There is no sweeping of the dividends and capital distributions, which should be reinvested in the products with higher potential returns and NOT used for distributions to beneficiaries.
As your plan’s funded status improves, respond by allocating more of the plan’s assets to CFM. Don’t let your winnings ride. Take risk form the plan’s asset allocation in a responsive way to positive changes in the plan’s funded status. Markets have been producing outsized positive returns, but standard deviations measure both upside and downside possibilities. Is your plan’s sponsor able to withstand a major market correction similar to what we’ve seen previously (2000-’02 and 2007-’09)? Will the likely increase in contributions be crushing?
Who knows what is going to happen with interest rates, inflation, the price of oil, equity markets, etc. Bringing some certainty to pension management should be everyone’s objective. If done correctly, everyone will be able to sleep well at night knowing that your future promises have been secured no matter what transpires in markets that remain out of our control.
Ryan ALM Blog 