Tag Archives: cfm

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.

08.18.25
by

ARPA Update as of August 15, 2025

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

Hard to believe that we are nearly 2/3rds of the way through 2025. I suspect that the PBGC is having a hard time with that reality given the workload that remains with 119 multiemployer plans still seeking a successful review of their SFA application. Seventy-one applications have yet to be submitted through the PBGC’s e-Filing portal.

As for last week, there were no applications approved and none have been since July 29, when Laborers’ Local No. 130 Pension Fund received $33.3 million in SFA to support its 641 plan participants. However, there were 3 applications submitted for review. These applications were from none-priority group members submitting revised applications. There are currently 30 applications before the PBGC, which has 120-days to act on each or they are automatically approved.

I’m pleased to report that no applications were denied or withdrawn during the previous week. There were also no pension funds required to repay a portion of the SFA deemed excessive due to census errors. It has been since August 1, 2025, that we’ve had a fund repay a portion of the SFA. There was one new fund added to the waitlist, which now stands at 162 members. Chicago Foundry Workers Pension Plan added its name to the list on August 11th. As reported above, there are still 71 multiemployer plans that have not submitted applications at this time.

As you may recall, when the Butch Lewis Act was first contemplated, the folks at Cheiron initially defined the potential universe of SFA recipients as 114 funds. Today there are 249 funds seeking SFA support, of which 130 have already been approved. As a reminder, eligible plans must apply for SFA by December 31, 2025. Those filing revised applications have until December 31, 2026. Any distribution of SFA must be completed by September 30, 2030, due to legislative sunset rules.

The PBGC is averaging about 6-7 submissions per month. Based on that pace, it doesn’t seem possible that many of the 71 members on the waitlist that haven’t submitted applications will be able to meet that 2025 deadline. More to come.

08.04.25
by

ARPA Update as of August 1, 2025

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

Talk about jumping out of the frying pan into the fire! I left New Jersey’s wonderful heat and humidity only to find myself in El Paso, TX, where the high temperature is testing the limits of a normal thermometer. Happy to be speaking at the TexPERS conference this week, but perhaps they can do an offsite in Bermuda the next time.

Regarding the ARPA legislation and the PBGC’s implementation of this critical pension program, we continue to see the PBGC ramp up its activity level. This past week witnessed five multiemployer plans submitting applications of which four were initial filings and the fifth was a revised offering. Another plan received approval, while one fund added its name to the waitlist. Finally, two funds have locked-in the measurement dates (valuation purposes).

Now the specifics: The four funds submitting initial applications were Colorado Cement Masons Pension Trust Fund, Iron Workers-Laborers Pension Plan of Cumberland, Maryland, Cumberland, Maryland Teamsters Construction and Miscellaneous Pension Plan, and Exhibition Employees Local 829 Pension Fund that collectively seek $50.8 million in SFA for their 1,260 plan participants. This week’s big fish, UFCW – Northern California Employers Joint Pension Plan, a Priority Group 6 member, is seeking $2.3 billion for its 138.5k members.

The plan receiving approval of its application for SFA is Laborers’ Local No. 130 Pension Fund, which will receive $33.3 million in SFA and interest for its 641 participants. In an interesting twist, Laborers’ Local No. 130 Pension Fund, has added the fund to a growing list of waitlist candidates. If the Laborers name seems to resemble the name of the recipient of the latest SFA grant you wouldn’t be wrong. I was as confused as you are/were until I realized that these entities have different that there are two different EIN #s.

Happy to report that there were no applications withdrawn, none denied, and no SFA recipients were asked to return a portion of the proceeds due to incorrect census information. However, there are still 119 funds going through the process. There is a tremendous amount of work left to be done at this time. This comes on the heels of 131 funds being approved for a total of $73.4 billion in SFA and interest supporting the retirements for 1.77 million American workers/retirees. What an incredible accomplishment!

07.31.25
by

When Should I Use CFM?

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

Good morning. I’m currently in Chicago in the midst of several meetings. Yesterday’s meetings were outstanding. As you’d expect, the conversations were centered on DB pension plans and the opportunity to de-risk through a Cash Flow Matching strategy (CFM) in today’s economic environment. The line of questioning that I received from each of my meeting hosts was great. However, there does seem to be a misconception on when and how to use CFM as a de-risking tool. Most believe that you engage CFM for only the front-end of the yield curve, while others think that CFM is only useful when a plan is at or near full funding. Yes, both of those implementations are useful, but that represents a small sampling of when and how to implement CFM. For instance:

As a plan sponsor you need to make sure that you have the liquidity necessary to meet you monthly benefits (and expenses). Do you have a liquidity policy established that clearly defines the source(s) of liquidity or are you scurrying around each month sweeping dividends, interest, and if lucky, capital distributions from your alternative portfolio? Unfortunately, most plan sponsors do not have a formal liquidity policy as part of their Investment Policy Statement (IPS). CFM ensures that the necessary liquidity is available every month of the assignment. There is not forced selling!

Do you currently have a core fixed income allocation? According to a P&I asset allocation survey, public pension plans have an average 18.9% in public fixed income. How are you managing that interest rate risk, which remains the greatest risk for an actively managed fixed income portfolio? As an industry, we enjoyed the benefits of a nearly four decades decline in U.S. interest rates beginning in 1982. However, the prior 28-years witnessed rising rates. Who knows if the current rise in rates is a blip or the start of another extended upward trend? CFM defeases future benefit payments which are not interest rate sensitive. A $2,000 payment next month or 10-years from now is $2,000 whether rates rise or fall. As a result, CFM mitigates interest rate risk.

As you have sought potentially greater returns from a move into alternatives and private investments, not only has the available liquidity dried up, but you need a longer time horizon for those investments to mature and produce the expected outcome. Have you created a bridge within your plan’s asset allocation that will mitigate normal market gyrations? A 10-year CFM allocation will not only provide your plan with the necessary monthly liquidity, but it is essentially a bridge over volatile periods as it is the sole source of liquidity allowing the “alpha” assets to just grow and grow. That 10-year program coincides nicely with many of the lock-ins for alternative strategies.

There has been improvement in the funded status of public pension plans. According to Milliman, as of June 30, 2025, the average funded ratio for the constituents in their top 100 public pension index is now 82.9%, which is the highest level since December 2021. That’s terrific to see. Don’t you want to preserve that level of funding and the contribution expenses that coincide with that level? Riding the rollercoaster of performance can’t be comforting. Given what appears to be excessive valuations within equity markets and great uncertainty as it relates to the economic environment, are you willing to let your current exposures just ride? By allocating to a CFM program, you stabilize a portion of your plan’s funded status and the contributions associated with those Retired Lives Liability. Bringing a level of certainty to a very uncertain process should be a desirable goal for all plan sponsors and their advisors.

If I engage a CFM mandate, don’t I negatively impact my plan’s ability to meet the return objective (ROA) that we have established? NO! The Ryan ALM CFM portfolio will be heavily skewed to investment-grade corporate bonds (most portfolios are 100% corporates) that enjoy a significant premium yield relative to Treasuries and agencies. As mentioned previously, public pension plans already have an exposure to fixed income. That exposure is already included in the ROA calculation. By substituting a higher yielding CFM portfolio for a lower yielding core fixed income program benchmarked to the Aggregate index, you are enhancing the plan’s ability to achieve the ROA while also eliminating interest rate risk. A win-win in my book!

So, given these facts, how much should I allocate to a CFM mandate? The answer is predicated on many factors, including the plan’s current funded status, the ability to contribute, whether or not the plan is in a negative cash flow situation, the Board’s risk appetite, the current ROA, and others. Given that all pension systems’ liabilities are unique, there is no one correct answer. At Ryan ALM, we are happy to provide a detailed analysis on what could be done and at what cost to the plan. We do this analysis for free. When can we do yours?

07.21.25
by

ARPA Update as of July 18, 2025

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

I have the pleasure of drafting this post from beautiful Newport, RI, where I’m attending and speaking at the Opal Public Fund Forum East. The West forum’s location wasn’t too shabby either as it took place in Scottsdale last January! Business travel isn’t as glamorous as those who don’t travel think, but there are some nice perks, too. As they say in real estate: location, location, location!

With regard to ARPA, since you likely didn’t decide to open post this to find Waldo or Russ, the PBGC was fairly busy during the previous week, as there was one new application, one approved application, two new additions to the waitlist and two funds that locked-in their measurement date. Now the details.

I’m pleased to report that the Roofers Local 88 Pension Plan, a Canton OH-based fund, has filed a revised application seeking $9 million for their 484 participants. As usual, the PBGC has 120-days to act on the application or it is automatically approved. In addition, Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico Local 901 Pension Plan, a San Juan, PR-based fund, a Priority Group One member will receive $49 million in SFA and interest for the 3,397 members.

In other news, Local 400 Food Terminal Employees Pension Trust Fund and the Textile Processors Service Trades Health Care Professional and Technical Employees International Union Local No. 1 Pension Fund (that name is a mouth full) have both added their funds to the PBGC’s waitlist for the submission of an SFA application. Good luck. There were also two funds from the waitlist, Iron Workers Local 473 Pension Plan and Greenville Plumbers and Pipefitters Pension Fund have locked in their measurement date and both chose April 30, 2025.

Lastly, there were no applications denied or withdrawn, and none of the previous SFA recipients were asked to rebate a portion of their proceeds due to census errors. As reported previously, the PBGC has their work cut out for them, as all of the outstanding applications need to be filed by year-end.

07.18.25
by

AI Needs An Education Regarding ALM/CFM!

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

I asked an AI tool that I use the following: Asset/Liability Management (ALM) is an effective tool for pensions. What strategies are currently being deployed?

As usual, the response was nearly instantaneous, but was it correct? Here is what I got:

Overview

“Asset/liability management (ALM) remains central to pension fund sustainability, aiming to balance expected pension liabilities with optimal asset growth. In 2025, pension funds deploy a range of strategies to ensure their ability to meet long-term obligations while managing risk efficiently.” No argument there. However, here is a list of the strategies. This is where I have an issue.

Key ALM Strategies Currently in Use

1. Liability-Driven Investing (LDI)

  • Matching Asset Duration to Liabilities: Many corporate pension plans invest in high-quality bonds with durations closely matching those of plan liabilities to mitigate interest rate risk. This ensures that both assets and liabilities react similarly to interest rate changes, stabilizing the funded status from year to year.
  • Glidepath Strategies: Plans gradually shift the asset mix towards more fixed-income securities as funded status improves or as the plan matures, further reducing risk and aligning assets with near-term liabilities.

2. Dynamic Asset Allocation

  • Strategic Shifts in Asset Mix: Pension funds adjust allocations based on changing liabilities, market conditions, and funding status. For instance, U.S. public pension plans have recently shifted asset allocations to maintain return expectations and recover from volatility.
  • Scenario-Based Modeling: Funds use forward-looking models to stress-test outcomes under varying economic scenarios, reviewing assumptions about returns, inflation, and participant demographics.

3. Risk Transfer Solutions

  • Pension Risk Transfer (PRT): Many sponsors employ annuity purchases and lump-sum windows to reduce long-term liability, transferring obligations to insurers. In 2024, settlement payouts (such as annuity buyouts) remained a significant tool for risk management among major pension plans.

4. Liability Modeling Innovations

  • Member-Level Simulation: Advanced models project individual participant cash flows, account for currency exposure, and enable granular liability projections. Such approaches allow more precise matching of assets to future obligations, improving ALM decision-making.
  • Regular Reviews and Assumption Updates: ALM programs, such as those at CalPERS, involve systematic reviews of demographic and financial assumptions (e.g., life expectancy, inflation), with revisions made every four years to incorporate emerging trends.

5. Use of Custom Benchmarks

  • Liability-Mimicking Portfolios: Funds create tailored portfolios (“benchmark” portfolios) that track the liability profile as closely as possible, often blending nominal bonds, inflation-linked bonds, and equities according to the plan’s specifics (such as maturity and inflation sensitivity).

That’s it? Where is Cash Flow Matching (CFM)? In each of these scenarios, liquidity needed to fund benefits and expenses is missing. Duration strategies minimize interest rate risk, but don’t produce timely liquidity to fully fund B+E. Furthermore, duration strategies that use an “average” duration or a few key rates don’t duration match as well as CFM that duration matches EVERY month of the assignment.

In the second set of products – dynamic asset allocation – what is being secured? Forecasts related to future economic scenarios come with a lot of volatility. If anyone had a crystal ball to accomplish this objective with precision, they’d be minting $ billions!

A PRT or risk transfer solution is fine if you don’t want to sustain the plan for future workers, but it can be very expensive to implement depending on the insurance premium, current market conditions (interest rates), and the plan’s funded status

In the liability modeling category, I guess the first example might be a tip of the hat to cash flow matching, but there is no description of how one actually matches assets to those “granular” liability projections. As for part two, updating projections every four years seems like a LONG TIME. In a Ryan ALM CFM portfolio, we use a dynamic process that reconfigures the portfolio every time the actuary updates their liability projections, which are usually annually.

Lastly, the use of Custom benchmarks as described once again uses instruments that have significant volatility associated with them, especially the reference to equities. What is the price of Amazon going to be in 10-years? Given the fact that no one knows, how do you secure cash flow needs? You can’t! Moreover, inflation-linked bonds are not appropriate since the actuary includes an inflation assumption in their projections which is usually different than the CPI.  

Cash Flow Matching is the only ALM strategy that absolutely SECURES the promised benefits and expenses chronologically from the first month as far out as the allocation will go. It accomplishes this objective through maturing principal and interest income. No forced selling to meet those promises. Furthermore, CFM buys time for the residual assets to grow unencumbered. This is particularly important at this time given the plethora of assets that have been migrated to alternative and definitely less liquid instruments.

As mentioned earlier, CFM is a dynamic process that adapts to changes in the pension plan’s funded status. As the Funded ratio improves, allocate more assets from the growth bucket to the CFM portfolio. In the process, the funded status becomes less volatility and contribution expenses are more manageable.

I’m not sure why CFM isn’t the #1 strategy highlighted by this AI tool given its long and successful history in SECURING the benefits and expenses (B&E). Once known as dedication, CFM is the ONLY strategy that truly matches and fully funds asset cash flows (bonds) with liability cash flows (B&E). Again, it is the ONLY strategy that provides the necessary liquidity without having to sell assets to meet ongoing obligations. It doesn’t use instruments that are highly volatile to accomplish the objective. Given that investment-grade defaults are an extremely rare occurrence (2/1,000 bonds), CFM is the closest thing to a sure bet that you can find in our industry with proven performance since the 1970s.

So, if you are using an AI tool to provide you with some perspective on ALM strategies, know that CFM may not be highlighted, but it is by far the most important risk reducing tool in your ALM toolbox.

07.16.25
by

Really Only One Significant Influence

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

Managing fixed income (bonds) can be challenging as there are a plethora of risks that must be evaluated including, but not limited to, credit, liquidity, maturity/duration, yield, prepayment and reinvestment risk, etc. within the investment-grade universe. But the greatest risk – uncertainty – remains interest rate risk. Who really knows the future direction of rates? As the graph below highlights, U.S. interest rates have moved in long-term secular trends with numerous reversals along the way. Does that mean that we are headed for a protracted period of rising rates similar to what was witnessed from 1953 to 1981 or is this a head fake along the path to historically low rates?

When rates are falling, it is very good for bonds as they not only capture the coupon, but they get some capital appreciation, too. However, when rates rise, it is a very different game. Yes, rising interest rates are very good for pension funds from a liability perspective, as the present value (PV) of those future benefit payments (I.e. liabilities) is reduced, but the asset side may be hurt and not only for bonds but other asset classes as well.

No alternative text description for this image

This is the primary reason why bonds should be used for their cash flows of interest and principal and not as a performance generator. The cash flows should be used to meet monthly benefits and expenses chronologically through a cash flow matching strategy (CFM). Unfortunately, Bonds are frequently used for performance and perhaps diversification benefits while compared to a generic index, such as the BB Aggregate index, which doesn’t reflect the unique characteristics of the pension plan’s liabilities.

U.S. interest rates are presently elevated but aren’t high by historic standards. However, the current level of rates does provide the plan sponsor with a wonderful opportunity to take risk from their traditional asset allocation by defeasing a portion of the plan’s liabilities from next month out as far as the allocation will cover. While the bond portfolio is funding monthly obligations, the remaining assets can just grow unencumbered.

Given the uncertainty regarding the current inflationary environment, betting that U.S. rates will fall making a potential “investment” in bonds more lucrative is nothing short of a crapshoot. Investing in a CFM strategy helps to mitigate interest rate risk as future values are not interest rate sensitive.

07.10.25
by

Taylor-Made?

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

The Federal Reserve meeting notes have been published, and there seems to be little appetite among the Fed Governors to reduce U.S. interest rates at the next meeting. They continue to believe that the recently inflated tariffs and current trade policy actions could lead to greater inflationary pressures. These notes do not support the current administration’s push to see the Fed Funds Rate dropped significantly – perhaps as much as 3%.

In a very informative Bloomberg post from this morning, John Authers reminded everyone that President Trump selected Jerome Powell over John Taylor, Stanford University, in 2017 to become Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I must admit that I didn’t remember that being the case, while also not recalling that it is John Taylor who is credited with developing the Taylor Rule in 1993. When I think of famous Taylors, John isn’t at the top of my list. I might have believed that it had something to do with Lawrence Taylor’s dominance on the football field where he “ruled” for 13 Hall of Fame seasons and is considered by many the greatest defensive player in NFL history (yes, I am a Giants’ fan).

So, what is the Taylor Rule? The Taylor Rule is an economic formula that provides guidance on how central banks, such as the Federal Reserve, should set interest rates in response to changes in inflation and economic output. The rule is designed to help stabilize an economy by systematically adjusting the central bank’s key policy rate based on current economic conditions. It is designed to take the “guess work” out of establishing interest rate policy.

The Taylor rule suggests that the central bank should raise interest rates when inflation is above its target (currently 2%) or when GDP is growing faster than its estimated potential (overheating). Conversely, it suggests lowering interest rates when inflation is below target or when GDP is below potential (economy is underperforming). Ironically, President Trump’s dissatisfaction with Jerome Powell’s reluctance to reduce rates given significant economic uncertainty, may have been magnified by John Taylor’s model, which would have had rates higher at this time as reflected in the graph below.

As a reminder, Ryan ALM, Inc. does not forecast interest rates as part of our cash flow matching (CFM) strategy. In fact, the use of CFM to defease pension liabilities (benefits and expenses (B&E)) eliminates interest rate risk once the portfolio is built since future values (B&E) aren’t interest rate sensitive. That said, the currently higher rate environment is great for pension plan sponsors who desire to bring an element of certainty to the management of pensions which tend to live in a very uncertain existence. By funding a CFM portfolio, plan sponsors can ensure that proper liquidity is available each month of the assignment, while providing the residual assets time to grow. There are many other benefits, as well.

Since we don’t know where rates are likely to go, we highly recommend engaging a CFM program sooner rather than later before we find that lower interest rates have caused the potential benefits (cost savings) provided by CFM to fall.

07.09.25
by

Problem/Solution: Asset Allocation

By: Ronald J. Ryan, CFA, Chairman, Ryan ALM, Inc.

In this post, Ron continues with his series on identifying solutions to various pension-related problems. This one addresses the issue of asset allocation being driven exclusively from an asset perspective.

Most, if not all asset allocation models are focused on achieving a total return target or hurdle rate… commonly called the ROA (return on assets). This ROA target return is derived from a weighting of the forecasted index benchmark returns for each asset class except for bonds which uses the yield of the index benchmark. These forecasts are generally based on some historical average (i.e. last 20 years or longer) with slight adjustments based on recent observations. As a result, it is common that most pensions have the same or similar ROA. 

This ROA exercise ignores the funded status. It is certainly obvious that a 60% funded plan should have a much higher ROA than a 90% plan. But the balancing item is contributions. If the 60% funded plan would pay more in contributions than the 90% plan (% wise) then it can have a lower ROA. I guess the question is what comes first. And the answer is the ROA with contributions as a byproduct of that ROA target. The actuarial math is whatever the assets don’t fund… contributions will fund.

If the true objective of a pension is to secure and fully fund benefits and expenses (B+E) in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk, then you would think that liabilities (B+E) would be the focus of asset allocation. NO, liabilities are usually missing in the asset allocation process. Pensions are supposed to be an asset/liability management (ALM) process not a total return process. Ryan ALM recommends the following asset allocation process:

Calculate the cost to fully fund (defease) the B+E of retired lives for the next 10 years chronologically using a cash flow matching (CFM) process with investment grade bonds. CFM will secure and fully fund the retired lives liabilities for the next 10 years. Then calculate the ROA needed to fully fund the residual B+E with the current level of contributions. This is calculated through an asset exhaustion test (AET) which is a GASB requirement as a test of solvency. The difference is GASB requires it on the current estimated ROA before you do this ALM process. Ryan ALM can create this calculated ROA through our AET model. If the calculated ROA is too high, then either you reduce the allocation to the CFM or increase contributions or a little bit of both. If the calculated ROA is low, then increasing the allocation to CFM is appropriate. Running AET iterations can produce the desired or most comfortable asset allocation answer.  

Cash flow matching (CFM) will provide the liquidity and certainty needed to fully fund B+E in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. The Ryan ALM model (Liability Beta Portfolio™ or LBP) will reduce funding costs by about 2% per year or roughly 20% for 1-10 years of liabilities. We will use corporate bonds skewed to A/BBB+ issues. According to S&P, investment grade defaults have averaged 0.18% of the IG universe annual for the past 40-years. Fortunately, Ryan ALM has never experienced a bond default in its 21-year history (knock wood).

Assets are a team of liquidity assets (bonds) and growth assets (stocks, etc.) to beat the liability opponent. They should work together in asset allocation to achieve the true pension objective.

For more info on cash flow matching, please contact Russ Kamp, CEO at  rkamp@ryanalm.com