Tag Archives: cfm

02.04.25
by

Not Crunch Time, But the Program is Nearing Its End

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

I frequently get terrific questions following the publishing of one of my blog posts. Today’s question of the day was related to the ARPA pension legislation. I was asked, “Russ when does this legislation expire and when is the final date that a plans application must be submitted?” Terrific question. I’ve been meaning to provide this information as part of one of my weekly ARPA updates. Thanks for the prompt.

According to the final language in the Bill, ‘‘(f) APPLICATION DEADLINE.—Any application by a plan for special financial assistance under this section shall be submitted to the corporation (and, in the case of a plan to which section 432(k)(1)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 applies, to the Secretary of the Treasury) no later than December 31, 2025, and any revised application for special financial assistance shall be submitted no later than December 31, 2026.

Furthermore, “The corporation (PBGC) shall not pay any special financial assistance after September 30, 2030.” As an aside, I’m not quite sure how a “revised” application that must be filed by 12/31/26 would not be paid before 2030 is beyond me, especially given the 120-day window to have an application acted on.

As reported in yesterday’s blog post, of the potential 202 applications, 109 have been approved, 21 are currently under review, while another 21 plans have withdrawn the applications. That leaves 51 plans that have yet to file (remember the 12/31/25 deadline) including a Priority Group 1 fund.

So, despite the terrific effort to date, the PBGC clearly has its work cut out for it. Currently, the eFiling portal to submit applications is closed. The PBGC has been opening and closing access to the filing portal based on its ability to meet the 120-day deadline. They may need to accelerate the pace of submissions and approvals in the coming months in order to complete the process by 12/31/26. Obviously, more to come from the PBGC. Also, keep your questions coming!

01.29.25
by

20+ Years in the Making!

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

For the first time since the dot.com bubble burst, the equity risk premium on the S&P 500 has fallen below 0. If you are concerned that U.S. large cap equities are looking frothy, this graph certainly supports that sentiment. Is now the time to take some equity profits and migrate those assets to bonds? We believe that the time is right to protect your enhanced funded status from the uncertainty as to where inflation and U.S. interest rates are going and the potential impact on traditional core fixed income strategies that are based on generic market indices instead of funding liability cash flows.

If you are like us (Ryan ALM, Inc.), and prefer not to make one’s living forecasting events that one can’t control, like interest rates, inflation, geopolitical events, etc., we suggest that you don’t engage in fixed income strategies that could be harmed by an upward movement in U.S. interest rates. Take those equity profits and invest in a cash flow matching strategy (CFM) that will secure your fund’s promised benefits, while eliminating interest rate risk since the process defeases future benefit payments that are not interest rate sensitive. A $1,000 monthly benefit payment is $1,000 whether rates are at 2% or 10%. In addition, you’ll be extending the investing horizon for the portfolio’s remaining growth (alpha) assets. CFM is the bridge over potentially troubled waters!

01.29.25
by

What A Challenging Job!

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

I’m going to divert from my normal focus on cash flow matching (CFM) and the defeasing of pension liabilities to write about a subject that I love and one that doesn’t get nearly the air time that it should. I was reminded of this topic at the FPPTA’s latest TLC program in Orlando, which I’ve thoroughly enjoyed participating. If you aren’t aware of the TLC (Thought Leadership Council) this is the FPPTA’s newest advanced educational program for experienced pension trustees. The program is limited to 20-25 trustees who get to roll up their sleeves with highly experienced coaches/mentors. I’m grateful to be included.

On Monday, one of the discussions centered on active managers, particularly US domestic equity managers, who have an incredibly challenging job trying to outperform their respective benchmarks, especially given the concentrated nature of the U.S. equity stock market during the last couple of years. Asset consultants have an even more challenging job trying to figure out which of those active asset managers will actually provide alpha NET of fees. As mentioned during one particular session, there are many aspects of the investment management process that are evaluated by consultants in an attempt to try and identify those few outperformers. These screening criteria may include the depth and consistency of staff, overall experience in managing the strategy, AUM in the product, and of course, performance. However, just because a manager outperformed (provided an excess return vis-a-vis the benchmark) an index at one point doesn’t mean it will happen again. Was the outperformance the result of skill or luck or a little of both?

As I explained to the TLC participants, stock selection factors (indicators or ideas) used to “pick” stocks to be included in the manager’s portfolio have an information content that can be measured. The “value-added” from an idea/factor can ebb and flow depending on a number of factors. Is the “deterioration” in the information coefficient (IC) an indication that the factor is losing it’s forecasting ability or is it just currently out of favor? As investment management firms get larger, the AUM that they control can overwhelm those insights diminishing the forecasting ability of that idea. Other investment management firms have bright people looking for an edge, too. They might just capture the same or similar insights rendering everyone’s use of that idea less robust, which I witnessed first hand in 2007’s quant manager meltdown. Below are two posts that touch on this topic. I hope that my ideas prove useful to you. 

Change Is Good – Really!

and,

If it is That Good, Why Disclose it?

In a previous life, I was the CEO of Invesco’s quant business, which featured roughly 50 incredibly bright team members located both here and abroad and we managed about $30 billion in AUM. During our time together, we developed roughly 55 different strategies (optimizations), mostly U.S. equity mandates for which we had specific return/risk characteristics such as our Structured Core Equity product that was designed to achieve a 2% return for a 3% tracking error or a 0.67 information ratio versus the S&P 500.

We also thought that it was critically important to determine what we believed was the natural capacity of each strategy, as we didn’t want to arbitrage away our own insights. For instance, our Small Value product’s capacity was <$500 million, while many of the larger cap offerings had abundant capacity equal to billions of $s. Trustees should ask their managers what they believe is the natural capacity of the strategy(ies) that they are invested in and how they determined it.

Lastly, I would ask each manager to discuss a stock selection idea (factor / indicator) that they once used, but no longer do and why. Furthermore, I’d ask them to discuss an idea that they are now using to help them choose their portfolio constituents that they might not have been using 3-5 years ago. I’d make sure to understand how often they review every aspect of their investment management process. If that isn’t a normal part of their process, I’d be very concerned. For standing pat means that you are likely falling behind. It will be interesting to hear the replies.

Given how challenging it is to identify value-added managers as a consultant or consistently add value as an investment manager, I’m glad that Ryan ALM focuses on defeasing pension liability cash flows of benefits and expenses with asset cash flows from bonds (principal and interest). There is little uncertainty in our process. It is truly a sleep well at night strategy for all involved.

01.23.25
by

That Step Isn’t Necessary!

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc

I recently stumbled over a brief article that touched on LDI. I’m always interested in absorbing everything that I can on this subject. I was particularly thrilled when the author stated, “since LDI was recognized as best practice for defined benefit (DB) plans…” – YES! I’m not sure where that proclamation came from, but I agree with the sentiments. The balance of that sentence read, “…sponsors have implemented investment strategies as a journey.”

The initial steps on this journey were for plan sponsors to “simply extend the duration of their fixed income using longer duration market-based benchmarks.” Clearly, the author is referencing duration matching strategies as the LDI product of choice during that phase. According to the author, the next phase in this LDI journey was the use of both credit and Treasuries to better align the portfolio with a plan’s liability risk profile.

Well, we are supposedly entering a third phase in this LDI journey given the improved funded status and “outsized” allocations to fixed income. The question they posed: “How do we diversify the growing fixed income allocation?” Their answer, add a host of non-traditional LDI fixed income products, including private debt and securitized products, to the toolkit to add further yield and return. No, no, and no!

As mentioned previously, funded status/ratios have improved dramatically. According to this report, corporate plans have a funded ratio of 111% at the end of 2024 based on their firm’s Pension Solutions Monitor. Given that level of funding, the only thing that these plans should be doing is engaging a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy to SECURE all the promises that have been given to the plan participants. You’ve WON the pension game. Congratulations! There is no reason for a third phase in the LDI journey. There likely wasn’t a need for the second phase, but that’s water over the dam.

We, at Ryan ALM, believe that CFM is a superior offering within the array of LDI strategies, as it not only provides the necessary liquidity to meet monthly liability cash flows, but it duration matches each and every month of an assignment. Ask us to CFM the next 10 years, we will have 120 duration matches. Most duration matching strategies use either an average duration or a few key rates along the yield curve. Since duration is price sensitive, it changes constantly.  In addition, yield curves do not move in parallel shifts making the management of duration a difficult target.

With CFM you can use STRIPS, Treasuries, investment grade corporates or a combination of these highly liquid assets. You don’t need to introduce less liquid and more complex products. A CFM strategy is all you need to accomplish the pension objective. A CFM strategy provides certainty of the cash flows which is a critical and necessary feature to fully fund liabilities. This feature does not exist in private debt and securitized products. As a reminder, the pension objective is not a return target. It is the securing of the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. Don’t risk what you’ve achieved. Lock in your funded status and secure the benefits. This strategy is designed as a “sleep well at night” offering. I think that you deserve to sleep like a baby!

01.22.25
by

It May Not Be the Iron Gwazi, But…

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

I was fortunate to enter the investment industry in October 1981. The 10-year Treasury note’s yield was around 15% at that time. U.S. interest rates would fall (collapse?) for most of the next four decades until they bottomed during the beginning of Covid-19. Oh, it was great to be a bond manager during those decades. You could basically be long duration relative to the Aggregate index with little worry that rates would rise. It was a time to “mint” money in fixed income. Then, it wasn’t!

The beginning of Covid-19 brought about a substantial reaction to the collapse of our economy through major federal stimulus programs. The historic infusion of financial support created excess demand for goods and services at the same time that many of those services were temporarily restricted. The result was the worst inflation shock since the 1970s, which led to the double digit yields mentioned above.

It wasn’t surprising that inflation would appear after decades of it being well contained. It was perhaps the magnitude (9.1% inflation at the peak) of the move that grabbed everyone’s attention. For bond managers, the revival of inflation created an environment that forced the U.S. Federal Reserve to initiate the most aggressive policy shift in quite some time beginning in March 2022. As a result of the Fed’s action, bond managers suffered their worst year ever as represented by the BB Aggregate Index (-13%). The average fixed income manager faired only slightly better than the index according to eVestment’s database, as the median core bond manager produced a -12.8% result for all of 2022.

The following two years have been incredibly volatile for U.S. bond managers. Calendar year 2023 was looking to be a very poor year until the investing community was certain that the Fed had accomplished its objective by the end of that year, and as a result, interest rates fell. For the year, the median fixed income manager was up 6.1%, or a little bit less than 1/2 what they had lost in the previous year. This past year was no better, except that markets were rosier to begin 2024, only to have a challenging conclusion to the year as inflation proved much stickier. The median manager produced only a 2% return for the year, holding on to <1/2 the income while seeing principal losses. Given the topsy turvy nature of the bond market during the last three years, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the median manager has only generated a -1.9% 3-year annualized result.

The rollercoaster of fixed income returns observed during the last several years may not be as extreme as those we witness in other asset classes, mainly equities, but it is not helpful to the long-term funding of pension plans or endowments and foundations. As most know, changes in interest rates are the greatest risk to fixed income strategies. The 4-decade decline in rates was preceded by a nearly 3-decade rise in rates beginning in the early 1950s. Does the significant rise in rates starting in 2022 mark the beginning of another long-term secular upward trend or is this just a head fake? I wouldn’t want to have to bet on the future of interest rates in order to manage a successful program and you shouldn’t either.

Cash flow matching (CFM) mitigates interest rate risk. The defeasing of benefit payments, which are future values, are not interest rate sensitive since a $1,000 monthly payment in the future is $1k whether rates rise or fall. Furthermore, the cost savings that are produced on the day that the CFM portfolio is built will be maintained whether rates rise or fall. We are seeing at least a -2% reduction in cost per year in our model. Ask us to defease your benefit payments for 10 years and you’ll see a roughly 20% reduction. Longer-term programs (such as 30-years) can see substantial cost savings and annual reductions >-2%/year.

So, I ask, why invest in a core bond product, the success of which is predicated mostly on the direction of interest rates, when one can invest in a CFM strategy that provides the certainty of cash flows to meet benefit payments? Furthermore, CFM portfolios mitigate interest rate risk and extend the investing horizon for your plan’s alpha (growth) assets, while getting you off the rollercoaster of annual returns. Lastly, given the recent rise in U.S. interest rates, building a CFM portfolio with investment grade corporate bonds can produce a YTW of 5.5% or better. Seems like a sleep well at night strategy to me.

BTW, the Iron Gwazi is the world’s steepest and fastest hybrid rollercoaster found at Busch Gardens in Florida. It has a height of 206 feet and a 91 degree drop. It might just rival the feeling one got going through the Great Financial Crisis. That wasn’t any fun!

01.21.25
by

ARPA Update as of January 17, 2025

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

I hope that you enjoyed the long holiday weekend. For many of us on the East coast, the holiday’s days and nights were likely spent inside given the frigid temps. Unfortunately, the upcoming week is not going to provide any weather relief.

However, this should warm your heart, as the PBGC continued to be active implementing the ARPA legislation that is nearing its fourth anniversary (3/11/21). To date, the PBGC has approved the Special Financial Assistance (SFA) for 109 multiemployer plans. The grants have totaled $70.9 billion and 1,528,409 American workers/retirees have had the promised pension benefit protected, and in some cases, restored.

During the last week, the PBGC accepted one new application, as Greendale, WI based United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Pension Plan filed a revised application seeking $54.3 million for its 15,420 plan participants. In other news, two funds, Cement Masons Local No. 524 Pension Plan and Local 1922 Pension Plan each withdrew their initial application. The two funds were seeking just over $20 million for roughly 2k members. Finally, the Legacy Plan of the UNITE HERE Retirement Fund, a Priority Group 6 member, received approval of its revised application. They have been awarded $868.8 million in SFA and interest that will go to protecting the retirements for 91,744 participants. Congrats!

The PBGC’s eFiling portal is temporarily closed. According to the PBGC’s website, “the PBGC will accept as many applications as the agency estimates it can process within the statutory 120-day review period. When the number of applications under review reaches that level, the application e-Filing Portal will temporarily close until PBGC has capacity to receive more applications.” There are still an estimated 93 funds going through the process of filing applications SFA grants. 

01.07.25
by

Will You Do Nothing?

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

I recently read an article by Cliff Asness of AQR fame, titled “2035: An Allocator Looks Back over the Last 10 Years”. It was written from the perspective that performance for world markets was poor and his “fund’s” performance abysmal during that 10-year timeframe. His take-away: we can always learn from our mistakes, but do we? He cited some examples of where he and his team might have made “mistakes”, including:

Public equity – “It turns out that investing in U.S. equities at a CAPE in the high 30s yet again turned out to be a disappointing exercise”.

Bonds – “Inflation proved inertial” running at 3-4% for the decade producing lower real returns relative to the long-term averages.

International equities – “After being left for dead by so many U.S. investors, the global stock market did better with non-U.S. stocks actually outperforming”.

Private equity – “It turned out that levered equities are still equities even if you only occasionally tell your investors their prices”. When everyone is engaged in pursuing the same kind of investment there is a cost.

Private credit – “The final blow was when it turned out that private credit, the new darling of 2025, was just akin to really high fee public credit” Have we learned nothing from our prior CDO debacle?

Crypto – “We had thought it quite silly that just leaving computers running for a really long time created something of value”. “But when Bitcoin hit $100k we realized that we missed out on the next BIG THING” (my emphasis) “Today, 10 after our first allocation and 9 years after we doubled up, Bitcoin is at about $10,000.”

Asness also commented on active management, liquid alts, and hedge funds. His conclusion was that “the only upside of tough times is we can learn from them. Here is to a better 2035-2045”

Fortunately, you reside in the year 2025, a year in which U.S. equities are incredibly expensive, U.S. inflation may not be tamed, U.S. bonds will likely underperform as interest rates rise, the incredible push into both private equity and credit will overwhelm future returns, and let’s not discuss cryptos, which I still don’t get. Question: Are you going to maintain the status quo, or will you act to reduce these risks NOW before you are writing your own 10 year look back on a devastating market environment that has set your fund back decades?

As we preach at Ryan ALM, Inc., the primary objective when managing a DB pension plan is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. Continuing to invest today in many segments of our capital markets don’t meet the standard of low cost or of a prudent nature. Now is the time to act! It really doesn’t necessitate being a rocket scientist. Valuations matter, liquidity is critical, high costs erode returns, and no market outperforms always! Take risk off the table, buy time for the growth assets to wade through the next 10-years of choppy markets, and SECURE the promised benefits through a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy that ensures (barring defaults) that the promised benefits will be paid when due.

Thanks, Cliff, for an excellent article!

12.30.24
by

ARPA Update as of December 27, 2024

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

We, at Ryan ALM, Inc., wish for you a happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year in 2025. May the markets continue to treat you well. However, nothing grows to the heavens, so it may be wise to alter one’s asset allocation and reduce risk as the year begins given inflated valuations, particularly for large cap US equities.

Regarding ARPA and the PBGC’s on-going effort implementing this critical legislation, there was a pause in activity during the last week. Good for them, as 2024 has been an incredibly busy and successful year. Regarding last week, the PBGC’s eFiling portal remains temporarily closed, so there were no new applications filed. There also weren’t any applications denied, withdrawn, or approved. Finally, there were no repayments made by funds that had received excess SFA.

To recap 2024, the PBGC approved 36 applications, awarding more than $16.2 billion in SFA grants that went to support the promised benefits for 458,446 plan participants. WOW! As the chart below highlights, only 15 of the 87 Priority Group members have yet to have the applications for SFA approved. Three of those applications are currently under review. Of the 115 funds seeking support that weren’t initially identified as a Priority Group member, 64 pension plans have participated to some extent in this program with 33 of those applications approved.

US Treasury note and bond yields (longer maturities) have risen sharply in the last few months. They are at levels not witnessed since early this year. As a result, they are providing plan sponsors with a wonderful opportunity to reduce risk without giving up potentially higher returns. We’d be happy to provide a free analysis on what could be achieved within your plan. Don’t hesitate to reach out to us.

Again, Happy New Year!

12.19.24
by

5.6% 10-year forecast for US All-Cap

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

Fiducient Advisors has published its 2025 Outlook. Given the strong performance in US equity markets, future returns have been adjusted downward – rightfully so. Here are some of the highlights:

–Full valuations, concentrated U.S. large-cap indexes and the risk of reigniting inflation are shaping the key themes we believe will drive markets and portfolio positioning in 2025.

-Recent market successes have pushed our 2025 10-year forecasts lower across most major asset classes. Long-term return premium for equities over fixed income is now at its narrowest since 2007, sparking important conversations about portfolio posture and risk allocation.

–Rising reinflation risk leads us to increase our allocation to more flexible fixed income strategies (dynamic bonds) and TIPS while eliminating our global bond allocation.

US stock market performance has been heavily influenced by the “Magnificent Seven”, creating concentration risk not seen in decades, if ever. The outperformance of US markets vis-a-vis international markets is unprecedented. As stated above, valuations are stretched. Most metrics used to measure “value” in our markets are at extreme levels, if not historical. How much more can one squeeze from this market? As a result, Fiducient is forecasting that US All-Cap (Russell 3000?) will appreciate an annualized 5.6% for the next 10-years.

Nearly as weak are the forecasts for private equity, which Fiducient believes will produce only an annualized 8.6% return through the next 10-years. What happened to the significant “premium” that investing privately would provide? Are the massive flows into these products finally catching up with this asset class? Sure seems like it.

With regard to the comment about fixed income, I’m not sure that I know what “flexible fixed income strategies” are and the reference to dynamic escapes me, too. I do know that bonds benefit from lower interest rates and get harmed when rates rise. We have been very consistent in our messaging that we don’t forecast interest rates as a firm, but we have also written extensively that the inflation fight was far from over and that US growth was more likely to surprise on the upside than reflect a recessionary environment. Today, the third and final installment of the Q3’24 GDP forecast was revised up to 3.1% annual growth. The Q4’24 estimate produced by the Atlanta Fed through its GDPNow model is forecasting 3.2% annual growth. What recession?

Given that US growth is likely to be stronger, employment and wage growth still robust, and sticky inflation just that, bonds SHOULDN’T be used as a performance instrument. Bonds should be used for their cash flows of interest and principal. BTW, one can buy an Athene Holding Ltd (ATH) bond maturing 1/15/34 with a YTW of 5.62% today. Why invest in US All-Caps with a projected 5.6% return with all of that annual standard deviation when you can buy a bond, barring a default and held to maturity, will absolutely provide you with a 5.62% return? This is the beauty in bonds! Those contractual cash flows can be used, and have been for decades, to defease liabilities (pension benefits, grants, etc.) and to SECURE the promises made to your participants.

It is time to rethink the approach to pension management and asset allocation. Use a cash flow matching strategy to secure your benefits for the next 10-years that buys time for the growth assets to GROW, as they are no longer a source of liquidity. Equity markets may not provide the same level of appreciation as they have during the last decade (+13.4% annualized for the S&P 500 for 10-years through 11/30/24), but a defeased bond portfolio will certainly provide you with the necessary liquidity, an extended investing horizon, and the security (peace of mind) of knowing that your benefits will be paid as promised and when due! Who needs “flexible and dynamic” bonds when you have the security of a defeased cash flow matching strategy?

12.18.24
by

P&I: Asset Owner CIOs See Uncertainty in 2025

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

P&I is out with a story today about asset owner CIOs “forecasting” uncertainty for 2025. The capital markets are always uncertain. It only takes a “surprise” to disrupt even the most obvious trend. Given a new regime in Washington, stubborn inflation, geopolitical risks throughout the globe, and equity valuations that are stretched (that’s putting it mildly), CIOs have reason to be uncertain, especially over a short timeframe, such as a calendar year or two.

The lack of certainty can be destabilizing to individuals and investment strategies. I covered the psychology of uncertainty in a post earlier this year. Here were a few highlights:

  • When facing ongoing uncertainty, our bodies stay at a high level of physiological arousal, exerting considerable wear and tear.
  • Uncertainty exerts a strong pull on our thoughts and inhibits our ability to act, leaving us in a suspended waiting game.
  • We can manage uncertainty by figuring out what we can control, distracting ourselves from negative thoughts, and reaching out to others.

The last point is particularly important. We can manage “uncertainty” by figuring out what we can control. As a plan sponsor, we can utilize an investment strategy (cash flow matching or CFM) that creates certainty for the portion of the portfolio that uses CFM. In the following post, I question the significant use of equity and equity-like product in public pension systems that are accompanied by tremendous annual volatility. Again, this produces great uncertainty.

Adopting the use of greater fixed income exposure also doesn’t ensure less uncertainty, as changes in US interest rates can play havoc on fixed income strategies. ONLY with a CFM strategy do you bring certainty of cash flows (absent any defaults) to the management of pension plans. Traditional fixed income strategies benefited from a nearly 4-decade move down in rates, but there is currently great uncertainty as to the future direction of inflation and as a result, rates. With CFM one knows what the performance will look like a decade from now. With a fixed income strategy focused on a generic index, such as the BB Aggregate, one has no idea how that portfolio will perform 10 or more years from now.

Lastly, there is no reason to live with the uncertainty that many CIOs currently foresee. I wrote a piece just recently on achieving “peace of mind“. Uncertainty won’t help you in your quest for a good night’s sleep, but achieving peace of mind is very much achievable once you adopt a CFM strategy and secure the promised benefits (or grants) for some period of time. Call us. We want to remove as much uncertainty from your professional life as possible.