Tag Archives: cfm

09.19.25
by

Dear Plan Sponsor: Please ask Yourself the Following Questions

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

Do you believe that your pension plan exists to meet (secure) a promise (benefit) that was given to the plan’s participants?

Are you factoring in that benefit promise when it comes to asset allocation?

Do you presently have exposure to core fixed income, and do you know where U.S. interest rates will be in the next day, month, year, 5-years?

Has liquidity to meet benefits and expenses become more challenging with the significant movement to alternatives – real estate, private equity, private debt, infrastructure, etc.?

Do you believe that providing investment strategies more time is prudent?

So, if you believe that securing benefits, driving asset allocation through a liability lens, improving liquidity, eliminating interest rate risk, and buying-time are important goals when managing a defined benefit plan, how are you accomplishing those objectives today?

Cash Flow Matching (CFM) achieves every one of those goals! By strategically matching asset cash flows of interest and principal from investment-grade bonds against the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses, the DB pension plan’s asset allocation becomes liability focused, liquidity is improved from next month as far out as the allocation covers, interest rate risk is mitigated for the CFM portfolio, the investing horizon is extended for the remaining assets improving the odds of a successful outcome, and most importantly, the promises made to your participants are SECURED!

How much should I invest into a CFM program? The allocation to CFM should be a function of the plan’s funded ratio/status, the ability to contribute, and the level of negative cash flow (contributions falling short of benefits and expenses being paid out). Since all pension plans need liquidity, every DB pension plan should have some exposure to CFM, which provides the necessary liquidity each month of the assignment. There is no forced liquidation of assets in markets that might not provide natural liquidity.

Again, please review these questions. If they resonate with you, call me. We’ll provide you with a good understanding of how much risk you can remove from your current structure before the next market crash hits us.

09.15.25
by

ARPA Update as of September 12, 2025

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

Welcome to FOMC week. I wouldn’t ordinarily mention the Federal Reserve in the ARPA update, but we could see an interest rate cut, and perhaps one that is larger than currently anticipated. The implications from falling interest rates are potential large, as it raises the costs to defease pension liabilities (benefits and expenses) that would be secured through the SFA grant by reducing the coverage period. This impact could be potentially diminished if the yield curve were to steepen given recent inflationary news.

Enough about rates and the Fed. The PBGC is still plugging away on the plethora of applications before them and those yet to be accepted. Currently, there are 20 applications under review. Teamsters Industrial Employees Pension Plan is the latest fund to submit an application seeking SFA. They are hoping to secure $27.4 million for the 1,888 participants. The PBGC has 6-7 applications that must be finalized in each of the next 3 months.

Happy to report that both Alaska Teamster – Employer Pension Plan and Hollow Metal Pension Plan received approval for their applications. The two non-priority pension funds will receive a combined $240.1 million for >13k members.

In other ARPA news, Bakery Drivers Local 550 and Industry Pension Fund, a Priority Group 2 member, whose initial application was originally denied because they were deemed ineligible, has had their revised application denied because of “completeness”. Will three times be the charm? In their latest application they were seeking $125.8 million to support 1,122 plan participants.

Lastly, Greater Cleveland Moving Picture Projector Operators Pension Fund, became the most recent fund added to the waitlist. They are the 167th fund on the waitlist of non-priority members, with 74 still to submit an application. According to the PBGC’s website, their e-Filing portal is limited at this time.

We’ll keep you updated on the activity of the U.S. Federal Reserve and the potential implications from their interest rate decision. Hopefully, concerns related to inflation will offset the current trends related to employment providing future SFA recipients with an environment conducive to defeasing the promised benefits at higher yields and thus, lower costs.

09.12.25
by

Actuaries of DB Pension Plans Prefer Higher Interest Rates

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

I produced a post yesterday, titled “U.S. Rates Likely to Fall – Here’s the Good and Bad”. In that blog post I wrote, “I’d recommend that you not celebrate a potential decline in rates if you are a plan sponsor or asset consultant, unless you are personally looking for a loan.” Falling rates have historically benefited plan assets, and not just bonds, but risk assets, too. But lower rates cause the present value (PV) of liabilities to grow. A 50 bp decline in rates would cause the PV of liabilities to grow by 6% assuming a duration of 12-years. NOT GOOD!

Not being a trained actuary, although I spend a great deal of time communicating with them and working with actuarial output, I was hesitant to make that broad assessment. But subsequent research has provided me with the insights to now make that claim. Yes, unlike plan sponsors and asset consultants that are likely counting down the minutes to a rate cut next week, actuaries do indeed prefer higher interest rates.

Actuaries of DB pension plans, all else being equal, generally prefer higher interest rates when it comes to funding calculations and the plan’s financial position.

Impact of Higher Interest Rates

  • Lower Liabilities: When interest rates (used as the discount rate for future benefit payments) increase, the (PV) of the plan’s obligations may sharply decrease depending on the magnitude of the rate change, making the plan look better funded.
  • Lower Required Contributions: Higher discount rates mean lower calculated required annual contributions for plan sponsors and often lead to lower ongoing pension costs, such as PBGC costs per participant.
  • Potential for Surplus: Sustained periods of higher rates can create or increase pension plan surpluses, improving the financial health of the DB plan and providing flexibility for sponsors.

Why This Preference Exists

  • Discount Rate Role: Actuaries discount future benefit payments using an assumed interest rate tied to high-grade bond yields. The higher this rate, the less money is needed on hand today to meet future obligations.
  • Plan Health: Lower required contributions and lower projected liabilities mean sponsors are less likely to face funding shortfalls or regulatory intervention. Plans become much more sustainable and plan participants can sleep better knowing that the plan is financially healthy.
  • Plan Sponsor Perspective: While actuaries may remain neutral in advising on appropriate economic assumptions (appropriate ROA), almost all calculations and required reports look stronger with higher interest rates. What plan sponsor wouldn’t welcome that reality.

Consequences of Lower Interest Rates

  • Increase in Liabilities: Contrary to the impact of higher rates, lower rates drive up the PV of projected payments, potentially causing underfunded positions and/or the need for larger contributions.
  • Challenge for Plan Continuation: Persistently low interest rates have made DB plans less attractive or sustainable and contributed to a trend of plan terminations, freezes, or conversions to defined contribution or hybrid structures. The sustained U.S. interest rate decline, which spanned nearly four decades (1982-2021), crushed pension funding and led to the dramatic reduction in the use of traditional pension plans.

In summary, actuaries valuing DB pension plans almost always prefer higher interest rates because they result in lower reported liabilities, lower costs, and less financial pressure on employers. Given that 100% of the plan’s liabilities are impacted by movements in rates, everyone associated with DB pensions should be hoping that current interest rate levels are maintained, providing plan sponsors with the opportunity to secure the funded ratio/status through de-risking strategies. A DB pension plan is the gold standard of retirement vehicles and maintaining them is critical in combating the current retirement crisis.

09.11.25
by

U.S. Rates Likely to Fall – Here’s the Good and Bad

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

Unfortunately, there exists weakness in the U.S. labor force, as a notable deterioration in job creation, initial jobless claims, and job openings is taking place at this time. This weakness will likely lead the Federal Reserve to lower U.S. interest rates at the next FOMC, which takes place next week with an announcement on the 18th. The current consensus is for a 0.25% reduction in the Fed Fund’s Rate to 4.0%-4.25%. There is also a rising expectation that the “cut” could be larger. That might be more hope than reality at this time, given the CPI’s 0.4% posting today.

So, if rates were to be lowered, who benefits and who gets hurt? Well, individuals seeking loans – mortgages, cars, student loans – certainly benefit. But individuals hoping to generate some income from savings and retirement assets get hurt, especially since these rates tend to be shorter maturity instruments. Who else is impacted? Fixed income asset managers will benefit if they are holding coupon bonds, as falling rates drive bond prices upward. However, those holding bonds with adjustable yields won’t benefit as much.

How about DB pension funds? Yes, those pension funds invested in U.S. fixed income will likely see asset appreciation. However, both public and multiemployer plans have dramatically reduced their average exposure to this asset class. According to P&I’s annual survey, multiemployer plans have 18.2% in U.S. domestic fixed income, while public plans have roughly 18.7% of plan assets dedicated to U.S. fixed income. As a point of reference, corporate plans have nearly half of the plan’s assets dedicate to fixed income (45.4%). As rates fall, these plans will see some appreciation providing a boost in their quest to achieve the desired ROA. Great!

However, let us not forget that pension liabilities will be negatively impacted by falling rates, as they are bond-like in nature and the present value of those liabilities will grow. This is what crushed DB pensions during the massive decline in interest rates from 1982 until 2021. A move down in rates will directly benefit less than 50% of the assets, if we are talking about a corporate plan, and <20% of the assets for multiemployer and public funds. However, 100% of the liabilities will be impacted! Doesn’t seem like a good trade-off. As a result, funded ratios will decline and funded status shortfalls will grow, leading to greater contributions.

Given the mismatch identified above, I’d recommend that you not celebrate a potential decline in rates if you are a plan sponsor or asset consultant, unless you are personally looking for a loan. I would also recommend that you align your plan’s asset cash flows (principal and income from bonds) with your liability cash flows (benefits and expenses) while rates remain moderately high. As I’ve stated many times in this blog, Pension America had a great opportunity to de-risk DB pensions in 1999 but failed to act. Please don’t let this opportunity slip by without appropriate action.

09.09.25
by

A Peer Group?

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

Got an email today that got my heart rate up a little. The gist of the article was related to a particular public pension fund that eclipsed its “benchmark” return for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. Good job! However, the article went on to state that they failed to match or exceed the median return of 10.2% for the 108 public pension funds with asset >$1 billion. What a silly concept.

Just as there are no two snowflakes alike, there are no two public pension systems that are the same, even within the same state or city. Each entity has a different set of characteristics including its labor force, plan design, risk tolerance, benefit structure, ability to contribute, and much more. The idea that any plan should be compared to another is not right. Again, it is just silly!

As we’ve discussed hundreds of times, the only thing that should matter for any DB pension plan is that plan’s specific liabilities. The fund has made a promise, and it is that promise that should be the “benchmark” not some made up return on asset (ROA) assumption. How did this fund do versus their liabilities? Well, that relationship was not disclosed – what a shocker!

Interestingly, the ROA wasn’t highlighted either. What was mentioned was the fact that the plan’s returns for 3-, 5-, and 10-years were only 6.2%, 6.6%, and 5.4%, respectively (these are net #s), and conveniently, they just happened to beat their policy benchmark in each period.

I’d be interested to know how the funded ratio/status changed? Did contribution expenses rise or fall? Did they secure any of the promised benefits? Did they have to create another tier for new entrants? Were current participants asked to contribute more, work longer, and perhaps get less?

I am a huge supporter of defined benefit plans provided they are managed appropriately. That starts with knowing the true pension objective and then managing to that goal. Nearly all reporting on public pension plans focuses on returns, returns, returns. When not focusing on returns the reporting will highlight asset allocation shifts. The management of a DB pension plan with a focus on returns only guarantees volatility and not success. I suspect that the 3-, 5-, and 10-year return above failed to meet the expected ROA. As a result, contributions likely escalated. Oh, and this fund uses leverage (???) that gives them a 125% notional exposure on their total assets. I hope that leverage can be removed quickly and in time for the next correction.

09.05.25
by

I’m Concerned! Are You?

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

I’ve been concerned about the U.S. retirement industry for many years, with a particular focus on traditional pensions. The demise of DB pensions is a major social and economic issue for a significant majority of American workers, who fear that their golden years will be greatly tarnished without the support of a traditional DB pension plan coupled with their inability to fund a supplemental retirement vehicle, such as a defined contribution plan.

I recently had hope that the rising U.S. interest rate environment would bring about a sea change in the use of DB pensions, but I haven’t seen the tidal wave yet. That said, the higher rate environment did (could still) provide plan sponsors with the ability to take some risk off the table, but outside of private pensions, I’ve witnessed little movement away from a traditional asset allocation framework. You see, the higher rate environment reduces the present value cost of those future benefit payments improving both the funded ratio and funded status of DB pensions, while possibly reducing ongoing contributions. Securing those benefits, even for just 10-years dramatically reduces risk.

But, again, I’ve witnessed too few plans engaging in alternative asset allocation strategies. That’s not the same as engaging in alternative strategies, which unfortunately continues to be all the rage despite the significant flows into these products, which will likely diminish future returns, and the lack of distributions from them, too. An alternative asset allocation strategy that Ryan ALM supports and recommends is the bifurcation of assets into two buckets – liquidity and growth – as opposed to having all of the plan’s assets focused on the return on asset (ROA) assumption.

By dividing the assets into two buckets, one can achieve multiple goals simultaneously. The liquidity bucket, constituting investment grade bonds, will be used to defease the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses, while the growth or alpha assets can grow unencumbered with the goal of being used to defease future liabilities (current active lives). One of the most important investment tenets is time. As mentioned above, defeasing pension liabilities for even 10-years dramatically enhances the probability of the alpha assets achieving the desired outcome.

So why am I concerned? The lack of risk mitigation is of great concern. I’m tired of watching pensions ride the rollercoaster of returns up and down until something breaks, which usually means contributions go up and benefits go down! Given the great uncertainty related to both the economy and the labor force, why would anyone embrace the status quo resulting in many sleepless nights? Do something, and not just for the sake of doing something. Really do something! Embrace the asset allocation framework that we espouse. Migrate your current core bond allocation to a defeased bond allocation known as cash flow matching (CFM) to bring an element of certainty to the management of your plan.

Listen, if rates fall as a result of a deteriorating labor force and economy, the present value of pension liabilities will rise. Given that scenario, it is highly likely that asset prices will fall, too. That is a lethal combination, and not unique given how many times I’ve seen that play out during my 44-year career. Reach out to us if you aren’t sure how to start the process. We’d be pleased to take you through a series of scenarios so that you can determine what is possible. Perhaps you’ll sleep like a baby after we talk.

09.02.25
by

ARPA Update as of August 29, 2025

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

We are pleased to share with you the last update for August 2025. Welcome to the final third of the calendar year. We wish for you and your children heading back to school a great year! Always an exciting time of year despite some understandable anxiousness. I still have a daughter heading off to her last year of grad school and six of our 11 grandkids going to grammar school.

The PBGC certainly ramped up activity during the prior week. They absolutely earned their Labor Day break. We’ll provide more detail, but in summary there was one revised application received, five applications approved, two applications withdrawn, and two waitlisted plans decided to lock-in their valuation date.

Alaska United Food and Commercial Workers Pension Fund and Local 73 Retirement Plan, both non-Priority Group members withdrew initial applications. However, Alaska United resubmitted a revised application three days later. They are seeking $95.3 million in SFA for 6,106 plan participants. The PBGC has until December 27, 2025, to act on this submission.

I’m not sure that I remember a week in which the PBGC approved five applications, but as we’ve been saying, with 105 applications yet to be approved and in many cases, even submitted, the PBGC’s pace of approval is bound to speed up. Pension funds receiving approval included Local 1102 Retirement Trust, IBEW Eastern States Pension Plan, Local 1922 Pension Plan, Local 888 Pension Fund (Elmwood Park, NJ), and Local 807 Labor-Management Pension Fund. They are seeking a combined $349.6 million for 13,441 members. The PBGC has now approved the SFA application for 137 funds.

Lastly, two plans, Employee Pension Benefit Plan of Local 640 IATSE and Southern Council of Industrial Workers United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America AFL-CIO Pension Plan have locked in their valuation date as of May 31, 2025. Given the number of funds still on the waitlist, there should be some doubt as to whether these initial applications will even be submitted before the December 31, 2025 deadline for initial applications.

08.27.25
by

Not So Fast

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

In addition to publishing my thoughts through this blog, I frequently put sound bites out through LinkedIn.com. The following is an example of such a comment: Given Powell’s statement about “balancing dual mandates”, it seems premature to assume that the Fed’s next move on rates is downward. Tariffs have only recently kicked in and their presence could create a very challenging situation for the Fed should inflation continue on its path upward. Market reaction seems overblown. September’s CPI/PPI numbers could be very interesting.

As a follow-up to that comment, here is a graph from Bloomberg highlighting the recent widening in the spread between 5-year and 30-year Treasuries, which is at its widest point in the last 4 years.  This steeping of the yield curve would suggest that inflation is being more heavily anticipated on the long end.

As I mentioned above, the reaction to Powell’s comments from Wyoming last Friday seemed overblown given the rethinking about “dual mandates”. Inflation has recently reversed the downward trajectory and with the impact of tariffs yet to be truly felt, it is doubtful that we’ll see inflation fall to levels that would provide comfort to the U.S. Federal Reserve policy makers. Yes, there may be a small (25 bps) cut in September, but should inflation continue to be a concern the spread in Treasury yields referenced above could continue to widen. President Trump’s goal of jumpstarting the housing market through lower mortgage rates would not likely occur.

From a pension perspective, higher rates reduce the present value of those future promised benefits. They also provide implementers of cash flow matching (CFM) strategies, such as Ryan ALM Advisers, LLC, the opportunity to defease those pension liabilities at a lower cost (greater cost savings). Bond math is very straight forward. The higher the yield and the longer the maturity, the greater the cost savings. Although higher rates might not be good for U.S. equities, especially given their current valuations, the ability to reduce risk at this time through a CFM strategy should be comforting.

Bifurcate your asset allocation into two buckets – liquidity and growth. The liquidity bucket will house the CFM strategy, providing all the necessary liquidity to meet ongoing monthly obligations as far into the future as the allocation will cover. The remaining assets (all non-core bonds) in the growth or alpha portfolio will now have more time to just grow unencumbered, as they are no longer a source of liquidity. Time is a critical investment tenet, and with more time, the probability of meeting the expected return is enhanced.

There is tremendous uncertainty in our markets and economy currently. One can bring an element of certainty to the management of pensions, live with great uncertainty.

08.22.25
by

Confusing the Purpose!

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

There recently appeared in my inbox an article from an investment advisory firm discussing Cash Flow Driven Investing (CDI). Given that CDI, or as we call it Cash Flow Matching (CFM), is our only investment strategy, I absorb as much info from “competitors” as I can.

The initial point in the article’s summary read “There is no one-size-fits-all approach for cashflow driven investment strategies.” We concur, as each client’s liabilities are unique to them. Like snowflakes, there are no two pension plan liability streams that are the same. As such, each CDI/CFM portfolio needs to reflect those unique cash flows.

The second point in their summary of key points is where we would depart in our approach. They stated: “While most will have a core allocation to investment grade credit, the broader design can vary greatly to reflect individual requirements.” This is where I believe that the purpose in using CFM is confused and unnecessarily complicated. CFM should be used to defease a plan’s net outflows with certainty. At Ryan ALM, Inc. we use 100% of the bond assets to accurately match the liability cash flows most often through the use of investment-grade corporate bonds. Furthermore, It is a strategy that will reduce risk, while stabilizing the plan’s funded status and contribution expenses associated with the portion of the liability cash flows that is defeased. It is not an alpha generator, although the use of corporate bonds will provide an excess yield relative to Treasuries and STRIPS, providing some alpha.

As we’ve discussed many times in this blog, traditional asset allocation approaches having all of the plan’s assets focused on a return objective is inappropriate for the pension objective to secure and fully fund benefits in a cost-efficient manner despite overwhelming use. We continue to espouse the bifurcation of the assets into liquidity and growth buckets. The liquidity bucket should be an investment-grade corporate bond portfolio that cash flow matches the liability cash flows chronologically from the next month as far out as the allocation will cover. The remaining assets are the growth or alpha assets that now have time to grow unencumbered.

Why take risk in the CFM portfolio by adding emerging markets debt, high yield, and especially illiquid assets, when the purpose of the portfolio is to create certainty and liquidity to meet ongoing benefits and expenses? If the use of those other assets is deemed appropriate, include them in the alpha bucket. As a reminder, CFM has been used successfully for many decades. Plan sponsors live with great uncertainty every day, as markets are constantly moving. Why not embrace a strategy that gives you a level of certainty not available in other strategies? Use riskier strategies when they have time to wade through potentially choppy markets. CFM provides such a bridge. If you give most investment strategies a 10-year time horizon without the need to provide liquidity, you dramatically enhance the probability of achieving the desired or expected outcome.

Unfortunately, we have a tendency in our industry to over-complicate the management of pensions. Using a CFM strategy focused on the plan’s liabilities, and not the ROA, brings the management of pensions back to its roots. Take risks when you have the necessary time. Focusing the assets on the ROA creates a situation in which one or more assets may have to be traded (sold) in order to meet the required outflows. Those trades might have to be done in environments in which natural liquidity does not exist.

08.20.25
by

Hey Ryan ALM – What if…?

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

We hope that you are enjoying a wonderful summer season. Thanks for taking the time to visit our blog, where we’ve now produced >1,650 mostly pension-related posts.

I wanted to share the following email exchange from earlier this week. I received an email at 6:40 pm on Monday from a senior member of the actuarial community who is familiar with our work. He said that he had a client meeting on Wednesday and he was wondering if we could model some potential outcomes should the plan decide to take some risk off the table by engaging a cash flow matching strategy (CFM).

The actuary gave us the “net” liabilities (after contributions) for the next 10-years and then asked two questions. How far out into the future would $200 million in AUM cover? If the client preferred to defease the next 10-years of net liabilities, how much would that cost? We were happy to get this inquiry because we are always willing to be a resource for members of our industry, including plan sponsors, consultants, and actuaries.

We produced two CFM portfolios, which we call the Liability Beta Portfolio™ or LBP, in response to the two questions that had been posed. In the first case, the $200 million in AUM would provide the client with coverage of $225.8 million in future value (FV) liabilities through March 31, 2031 for a total cost of $196.3 million. Trying to defease the next 10-years of liabilities would cost the plan $334.8 million in AUM to defease $430 million in net liabilities.

 $200 million in AUM10-year coverage
End Date3/31/31 7/01/35
FV$225,750,000$430,000,000
PV$196,315,548$334,807,166
YTM  4.52%  4.75%
MDur  2.73 years  4.45 years
Cost Savings $-$29,424,452-$95,192,834
Cost Savings %  13.04%   22.14%
Excess CF$230,375$679,563
RatingBBB+  A-

As we’ve mentioned on many occasions, the annual cost savings to defease liabilities averages roughly 2%/year, but as the maturity of the program lengthens that cost savings becomes greater. We believe that providing the necessary liquidity with certainty is comforting for all involved. Not only is the liquidity available when needed, but the remaining assets not engaged in the CFM program can now grow unencumbered.

If you’d like to see how a CFM program could improve your plan’s liquidity with certainty, just provide us with the forecasted contributions, benefits, and expenses, and we’ll do the rest. Oh, and by the way, we got the analysis completed and to the actuary by 12:30 pm on Tuesday in plenty of time to allow him to prepare for his Wednesday meeting. Don’t be shy. We don’t charge for this review.