Tag Archives: cfm

01.23.26
by

How Does One Secure A Benefit?

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

We hope that you’ll agree that going to Chicago in January demonstrates the lengths that Ryan ALM personnel will go to help plan sponsors and their advisors protect and preserve DB pension plans. We are just thankful that we left yesterday, as today’s temperature is not expected to get to 0. OUCH!

Ron Ryan and I spent the last couple of days speaking with a number of funds and consultants about the many benefits of cash flow matching (CFM), which is gaining incredible traction among pension sponsors of all types. Who doesn’t want an element of certainty and enhanced liquidity within their plans given all the uncertainty we are facing in markets and geopolitically.

The idea of creating an element of certainty within the management of pension plans sounds wonderful, but how is that actually achieved? This is a question that we often receive and this trip was no exception. We had been discussing the fact that the relationship between asset cash flows (bond principal and interest) and liability cash flows (benefits and expenses) is locked in on the day that the bond portfolio is produced. The optimization process that we created blends the principal and interest from multiple bonds to meet the monthly obligations of benefits and expenses with an emphasis on longer maturity and higher yielding bonds to capture greater cost reduction of those future promises.

However, to demonstrate how one defeases a future liability, my example below highlights the matching of one bond versus one future $2 million 10-year liability. In this example from 18-months ago we purchased:

Bond: MetLife 6.375% due 6/15/34, A- quality, price = $107.64

Buy $1,240,000 par value of MetLife at a cost = $1,334,736

Interest is equal to the par value of bonds ($1,240,000) times the bond’s coupon (6.375%)

As a result of this purchase, we Receive: 

  Interest =  $78,412.50 annually ($39,206.25 semi-annual payments)

                            Total interest earned for 10 years is $784,125

  Principal = $1,240,000 at maturity (par value)

Total Cash Flow = $2,024,125  – $2,000,000 10-year Liability  = $24,124.99 excess

                             ($24,124.99 excess Cash Flow)

Benefits:

Able to fund $2 million benefit at a cost of $1.335 million or a -33.25% cost reduction

Excess cash flow can be reinvested or used to partially fund other benefits

In today’s yield environment, our clients benefit to a greater extent asking us to create longer maturity programs given the steepness of the yield curve. If they don’t have the assets to fund 100% of those longer-term liabilities, we can defease a portion of them through what we call a vertical slice. That slice of liabilities can be any percentage that allows us to cover a period from next month to 30-years from now. In a recent analysis produced for a prospect, we constructed a portfolio of bonds that covered 40% of the pension plan’s liabilities out to 30-years. As a result, we reduced the present value cost to defease those liabilities by –42.7%!!

Reach out to us today to learn how much we can reduce the future value cost of your promised benefits. We do this analysis for free. We encourage you to take us up on our generous offer.

01.20.26
by

ARPA Update as of January 16, 2026

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

We hope that the continuing success of the ARPA pension legislation warms your heart despite ridiculously cold temperatures in New Jersey and elsewhere.

Regarding last week’s activity, pleased to report that two plans received approval for their SFA applications. Pension Trust Fund Agreement of St. Louis Motion Picture Machine Operators and Teamsters Local 837 Pension Plan, both non-priority group members, will receive a combined $19.9 million in SFA and interest for their 1,431 members. These approvals are the first for the PBGC in just under one month.

In other ARPA news, there were no new applications filed, as the e-Filing portal remains temporarily closed. In addition, as we’ve been reporting, the window for initial applications to be submitted was to close on 12/31/25. From this point forward, only revised applications should be received by the PBGC. Despite that impediment, two more funds, NMU Great Lakes Pension Fund and UFCW Pension Fund of Northeastern Pennsylvania, added their names to the extensive waitlist seeking Special Financial Assistance. These plans and the others currently on the list must believe that the current deadline in place will be amended.

There was one application withdrawn during the prior week, as the Dairy Employees Union Local #17 Pension Plan pulled their initial application seeking $3.5 million in SFA for the 633 plan participants. Under the current rules, they have until 12/31/26 to resubmit a revised application.

Lastly, there were no applications denied nor were any of the previous recipients of SFA asked to rebate a portion due to census errors.

The U.S. interest rate environment is reacting to some of the global uncertainty. As a result, longer dated Treasury yields are marching higher. As of 9:51 am, the yield on the 30-year Treasury bond is 4.93%, while the 10-year Treasury note yield is at 4.29%. These yields are quite attractive for plans receiving SFA and wanting to secure benefits and expenses with the proceeds. Don’t miss this opportunity to significantly reduce the cost of those future benefits.

01.09.26
by

Milliman: Corporate Pension Funding UP – Again!

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

Milliman released its monthly Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), which analyzes the 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans. They reported that the funded ratio has now improved for nine straight months – impressive! As of December 31, 2025, the funded ratio for the index constituents is 108.1%, which is up substantially from year end 2024’s 103.6%.

The increase in the funded ratio for December (and the year) was mostly driven by the performance of the assets for the index’s constituents that saw an 11.32% average return for the year, increasing asset values by $53 billion. A rather stable interest rate environment lead to only a $1 billion decline in the PV of those FV liabilities.

According to Zorast Wadia, author of the Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index report, “discount rates fell during the year, and this trend could extend into 2026, potentially reversing some of the recent funded status gains and underscoring the continued need for prudent asset-liability management.” We couldn’t agree more.

It was the significant decline in U.S. interest rates during a nearly four decade bull market for bonds that really crushed funding for private DB pension plans. It would be tragic to witness a deterioration in the funded ratio/status after reclaiming a strong financial footing. Secure those promises and sit back and enjoy managing surplus assets.

Here is the link to the full December report: View this month’s complete Pension Funding Index

12.30.25
by

Pension Reform or Just Benefit Cuts?

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

According to NIRS, at least 48 U.S. states undertook significant public pension reforms in the years following the global financial crisis (GFC), with virtually every state making some form of change to its public pension retirement systems. I’ve questioned for some time that those “reforms” were nothing more than benefit cuts. When I think of reform, I think of how pension plans are managed, and not what they pay out in promised benefits. However, this wasn’t the case for those 48 states which mostly asked their participants to contribute more, work for more years, and ultimately get less in benefits.

Equable Institute released the second edition of its Retirement Security Report, a comprehensive assessment of the retirement income security provided to U.S. state and local government workers. The report evaluated 1,953 retirement plans across the country to determine how well public employees are being put on a path to secure and adequate retirement income. Unfortunately, the reports findings support my view that pension reforms were nothing more than benefit cuts. Here are a couple of the points:

“Retirement benefit values have declined significantly: The expected lifetime value of retirement benefits for a typical full-career public employee has dropped by more than $140,000 since 2006, primarily due to policy changes after the Great Recession such as higher retirement ages, longer vesting, and reduced COLAs.“

“Only 46.6% of public workers are being served well by their retirement plans.“

Yes, newer plan designs are allowing for greater portability through hybrid and defined contribution plans, but as I’ve discussed in many blog posts, asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “benefit” without the necessary disposable income, investment acumen, and a crystal ball to help with longevity issues is poor policy. We have an affordability issue in this country and it is being compounded by this push away from DB pensions to DC offerings.

Pension reform needs to be more than just benefit adjustments. We need a rethink regarding how these plans are managed. As we have said on many occasions, the primary objective in managing a pension plan is not one focused on return, which just guarantees volatility in outcomes. Managing a pension plan, public or private, should be about securing the promises that were given to the plan’s participants. That should be accomplished at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk.

Regrettably, most pensions are taking on more risk as they migrate significant assets to alternatives. In the process they have reduced liquidity to meet benefits and dramatically increased costs with no promise of actually meeting return projections. Furthermore, many of the alternative assets have become overcrowded trades that ultimately drive down future returns. Higher fees and lower returns – not a great formula for success.

It is time to get off the performance rollercoaster. Sure, recent returns have been quite good (for public markets), but as we’ve witnessed many times in the past, markets don’t always cooperate and when they don’t, years of good performance can evaporate very quickly. Changing one’s approach to managing a pension plan doesn’t have to be revolutionary. In fact, it is quite simple. All one needs to do is bifurcate the plan’s assets into two buckets – liquidity and growth – as opposed to having 100% of the assets focused on the ROA. Your plan likely has a healthy exposure to core fixed income that comes with great interest rate risk. Use that exposure to fill your liquidity bucket and convert those assets from an active strategy to a cash flow matching (CFM) portfolio focused on your fund’s unique liabilities.

Once that simple task has been done, you will now have SECURED a portion of your plan’s promises (benefits) chronologically from next month as far into the future as that allocation will take you. In the process the growth assets now have a longer investing horizon that should enhance the probability of achieving the desired outcome. Contribution expenses and the funded status will become more stable. As your plan’s funded status improves, allocate more of the growth assets to the liquidity bucket further stabilizing and securing the benefits.

This modest change will get your fund off that rollercoaster of returns. The primary objective of securing benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk will become a reality and true pension reform will be realized.

12.29.25
by

A Time to Look Back

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

Nearly eight years ago (2/28/18), I produced a blog post titled, “Let’s Just Cut Them Off!”, in which I took offense to an article trashing pension legislation then referred to as the “Butch Lewis Act” (BLA). The writer of the article, Rachel Greszler, The Heritage Foundation, stated that the BLA (as well as other potential solutions at that time) were nothing more than tax-payer bailouts.  She estimated that these bailouts could amount to as much as $1 trillion. I stated at that time that “I don’t know where she has gotten this figure, but it is not close to reality.”

Ms. Greszler defined the potential recipients of these loans (now grants) as the entire universe of multi-employer plans totaling roughly 1,375 (at that time) with an unfunded liability of $500 billion.  However, the Butch Lewis Act, and subsequently ARPA) was only designed for those plans that were designated as “Critical and Declining”.  The total amount of underfunding for that cohort was roughly $70 billion.  A far cry from the $1 trillion that she highlighted above.

So, where are we today? I’m happy to report that as of 12/19/25, the PBGC has approved Special Financial Assistance to 151 pension plans totaling $75.2 billion. These grants are ensuring that 1,873,112 American workers will receive the retirement benefits they were promised! Amazing!

In my original post, I wrote “given the author’s concern for the million or so union workers whose benefits may be trashed, she certainly doesn’t propose any solutions other than to say that a “bailout” is a horrible way to go.  If these plans don’t receive assistance, they are likely to fail, placing a greater burden on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), which is already financially troubled.” Fortunately, through the ARPA pension legislation, the PBGC’s multiemployer insurance fund is stronger today than it has been in decades.

I finished my post with the following thoughts: “Retirement benefits stimulate economic activity, and usually on the local level. The loss of retirement benefits will have a direct impact on these economies. Also, these benefits are taxed, which helps pay for a portion of the loans (now grants). Doing nothing is not an answer. I applaud the effort of those individuals who are driving the Butch Lewis Act. I encourage everyone to reach out to your legislatures to educate them on the BLA and to gain their support. There are millions of Americans who need your support.  Thank you!”

I was thrilled to work with Ron Ryan and the BLA team headed by John Murphy and David Blitzstein. It remains one of the highlights of my 44-year career. Who knew when I began working with Ron and that team it would lead me to eventually join Ryan ALM, Inc. We continue to fight to protect and preserve DB pensions for the masses. There is a ton of work remaining to do. Securing those promises through cash flow matching (CFM) is an important first step. Let us help you accomplish that objective.

12.17.25
by

FV Benefits Reduced by -56.1% – Really!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.15.25
by

ARPA Update as of December 12, 2025

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

Unlike the Northeast, access to the PBGC’s e-Filing portal is thawing. According to the PBGC’s website, “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.” Despite the dozens of multiemployer plans that remain on the waitlist, the floodgates have certainly not opened.

In fact, only two plans were permitted to submit applications last week. UFCW – Northern California Employers Joint Pension Plan, a Priority Group 6 member, submitted a revised application seeking >$2.3 billion for nearly 140k members, while UFCW, Local 23 and Giant Eagle Pension Plan, a non-priority group member, filed an initial application hoping to garner $40 million in SFA for 7,100 plan participants.

In other news, Dairy Industry-Union Pension Plan for Philadelphia and Vicinity, Warehouse Employees Union Local No. 730 Pension Trust Fund, and Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Plan received approval for SFA grants. Collectively they will receive $303.4 million (including interest and loan repayments) for 13,533 plan participants. There have now been 150 plans approved for SFA totaling just over $75 billion in grants.

Fortunately, there were no plans asked to repay a portion of the SFA due to census errors, no plans denied a filing, and no withdrawals of previously submitted applications. There were two more funds added to the waitlist and nine that locked in their valuation dates, including the two most recent additions to the waitlist. There remain 85 applications that have yet to be submitted to the PBGC.

Recent Federal Reserve interest rate action has rates on the long-end of the yield curve ratcheting higher. The 30-year Treasury Bond’s yield is at 4.83% (12:-5 pm). Comparable 30-year IG corporates are trading at yields close to 6% at this time. It remains an excellent time to secure the promised benefits through a CFM strategy.

12.15.25
by

Bond Math and A Steepening Yield Curve – Perfect Together!

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

We are in the midst of a project for a DB pension plan in which we were asked to model a series of liability cash flows (benefits and expenses) using cash flow matching (CFM) to defease and secure those liabilities. The plan sponsor is looking to allocate 40% of the plan’s assets initially to begin to de-risk the fund.

We first approached the assignment by looking to defease 100% of the liabilities as far into the future as that 40% allocation would cover those benefits and expenses. As it turns out, we can defease the next 11-years of projected B&E beginning 1/1/26 and carrying through to 10/31/37. As we’ve written many times in this blog and in other Ryan ALM research (ryanalm.com), we expect to reduce the cost of future liabilities by about 2% per year in this interest rate environment. Well, as it turns out, we can reduce that future cost today by 23.96% today.

Importantly, not only is the liquidity enhanced through this process and the future expenses covered for the next 11-years, we’ve now extended the investing horizon for the remaining assets (alpha assets) that can now just grow unencumbered without needing to tap them for liquidity purposes – a wonderful win/win!

As impressive as that analysis proved to be, we know that bond math is very straightforward: the longer the maturity and the higher the yield, the greater the potential cost savings. Couple this reality with the fact that the U.S. Treasury yield curve has steepened during the last year, and you have the formula for far greater savings/cost reduction. In fact, the spread between 2-year Treasury notes and 30-year bonds has gone from 0.35% to 1.35% today. That extra yield is the gift that keeps on giving.

So, how does one use only 40% of the plan’s assets to take advantage of both bond math and the steepening yield curve when you’ve already told everyone that a full implementation CFM only covers the next 11-years? You do a vertical slice! A what? A vertical slice of the liabilities in which you use 40% of the assets to cover all of the future liabilities. No, you are not providing all of the liquidity necessary to meet monthly benefits and expenses, but you are providing good coverage while extending the defeasement out 30-years. Incredibly, by using this approach, we are able to reduce the future cost of those benefits not by an impressive 24%, but by an amazing 56.1%. In fact, we are reducing the future cost of those pension promises by a greater sum than the amount of assets used in the strategy.

Importantly, this savings or cost reduction is locked-in on day one. Yes, the day that the portfolio is built, that cost savings is created provided that we don’t experience a default. As an FYI, investment-grade corporate bonds have defaulted at a rate of 0.18% or about 2/1,000 bonds for the last 40-years according to S&P.

Can you imagine being able to reduce the cost of your future obligations by that magnitude and with more certainty than through any other strategy currently in your pension plan? What a great gift it is to yourself (sleep-well-at-night) and those plan participants for whom you are responsible. Want to see what a CFM strategy implemented by Ryan ALM can do for you? Just provide us with some basic info (call me at 201/675-8797 to find out what we need) and we’ll provide you with a free analysis. No gimmicks!

12.02.25
by

Do the Analysis! Remove the Guess Work.

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

I am truly blessed working for an organization such as Ryan ALM, Inc. I am awed by the folks that I get to work with and the product/strategy that I get to represent. As a reminder, we’ve created a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy that brings an element of certainty to the management of pensions that should be welcomed by pension plan sponsors and their advisors far and wide. What other strategy can inform you on the day that the portfolio is constructed what the performance of that strategy will be for the full-term of the assignment (barring any defaults within investment grade bonds)? Name another strategy that can lay out the liquidity with certainty for each month (chronologically) of that assignment.

Given that liquidity is becoming a challenge as pension plans (mostly public) adopt a more aggressive asset allocation favoring alternative investments, using a CFM strategy that provides ALL the liquidity to meet ongoing benefits and expenses should be a decision that is easily embraced. Yet, our conversations with key decision makers often stall as other parties get involved in the “review”. To this day, I’m not sure what is involved in most of those conversations.

Are they attempting to determine that a traditional core fixed income strategy benchmarked to a generic index such as the BB Aggregate is capable of producing the same outcome? If so, let me tell you that they can’t and it won’t. Any fixed income product that is not managed against your plan’s specific liabilities will not provide the same benefits as CFM. It will be a highly interest rate sensitive product and performance will be driven by changes in interest rates. Do you know where U.S. rates are headed? Furthermore, the liquidity provided by a “core” fixed income strategy is not likely to be sufficient resulting in other investment products needing to be swept of their liquidity (dividends and capital distributions), reducing the potential returns from those strategies.  Such a cash sweep will reduce the ROA of these non-bond investments. Guinness Global’s study of S&P data for the last 85 years has shown that dividends and reinvestment of dividends account for 50% or more of the S&P returns for rolling 10- and 20-year periods dating back to 1940.

Are they trying to determine if the return produced by the CFM mandate will be sufficient to meet the return on asset assumption (ROA)? Could be, but all they need to realize is that the CFM portfolio’s yield will likely be much higher than the YTM of a core fixed income strategy given CFM’s 100% exposure to corporate bonds versus a heavy allocation to lower yielding Treasuries and agencies in an Agg-type portfolio. In this case, the use of a CFM strategy to replace a core fixed income mandate doesn’t impact the overall asset allocation and it certainly doesn’t reduce the fund’s ability to meet the long-term return of the program.

Instead of trying to incorporate all these unknown variables/inputs into the decision, just have Ryan ALM do the analysis. We love to work on projects that help the plan sponsor and their advisors come to sound decisions based on facts. There is no guess work. Importantly, we will construct for FREE multiple CFM portfolios, if necessary, to help frame the decision. Each plan’s liabilities are unique and as such, each CFM portfolio must be built to meet that plan’s unique liability cash flows.

All that is required for us to complete our analysis are the projected liability cash flows of benefits and expenses (contributions, too) as far into the future as possible. The further into the future, the greater the insights that we will create for you. We can use the current allocation to fixed income as the AUM for the analysis or you can choose a different allocation. We will use 100% IG corporates or you can ask us to use either 100% Treasuries/STRIPS or some combination of Treasuries and corporate bonds. We can defease 100% of the plan’s liabilities for a period of time, such as the next 10-years or do a vertical slice of a % of the liabilities, such as 50%, which will allow the CFM program to extend coverage further into the future and benefit from using longer maturity bonds with greater YTMs. Isn’t that exciting!

So, I ask again, why noodle over a bunch of unknowns, when you could have Ryan ALM provide you with a nearly precise evaluation of the benefits of CFM for your pension plan? When you hire other managers in a variety of asset classes, do they provide you with a portfolio up front? One that can give you the return that will be generated over a specific timeframe? No? Not surprised. Oh, and BTW, we provide our investment management services at a significantly lower fee than traditional core fixed income managers and we cap our annual fee once a certain AUM is reached. Stop the guess work. Have us do the work for you. It will make for a much better conversation when considering using CFM. Call me at 201/675-8797 or email me at rkamp@ryanalm.com for your free analysis. I look forward to speaking with you!

12.01.25
by

ARPA Updated as of November 28, 2025

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

We hope that you enjoyed a fabulous Thanksgiving holiday with your family and friends. This update is the last one for November. Wow, that month went by quickly.

Regarding the ARPA legislation, have we entered the last month for new applications to be received by the PBGC? As I’ve mentioned multiple times, the ARPA pension legislation specifically states that initial applications must be submitted to the PBGC by 12/31/25. Revised applications can be submitted through 12/31/26. If this is the case, we have roughly 83 applications yet to be submitted. Compounding this issue is the fact that the PBGC’s e-Filing portal is temporarily closed.

The PBGC’s recorded activity was light last week which shouldn’t surprise anyone given the holiday last week. There were no applications received, denied, or withdrawn. Furthermore, there were no recipients of Special Financial Assistance (SFA) requested to rebate a portion of the grant payment due to census issues. Thankfully, it has been more than two months since we last had a plan pay back a small percentage of the proceeds.

There was some good news, as Exhibition Employees Local 829 Pension Fund, a non-priority group member, received approval of its initial application. The fund will receive $14.2 million in SFA for the 242 plan participants. This pension plan became the 70th non-priority plan to receive SFA and the 145th overall. To-date, $72.8 billion in SFA grants have been awarded!

Despite the near unanimity by market participants that U.S. Treasury yields will fall as the Fed’s FOMC prepares another Fed Funds Rate cut, interest rates are rising today. The current level of Treasury yields and bonds that price off that curve are still providing SFA recipients with attractive rates in which to secure the promised benefits through a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy. Don’t subject the SFA to the whims of the markets, especially given so much uncertainty and currently high valuations.