Tag Archives: cfm

05.13.25
by

Bonds Are NOT Performance Instruments

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

As we wrote a year ago this past April, it is time to Bag the Agg. For public pension plan sponsors and their advisors who are so focused on achieving the return on asset (ROA) assumption, any exposure to a core fixed income strategy benchmarked to the Aggregate index would have been a major drag on the performance since the decades long decline in rates stopped (2020) and rates began to rise aggressively in early 2022. The table below shows the total return of the Bloomberg Aggregate for several rolling periods with returns well below the ROA target return (roughly 7%).

For core fixed income strategies, the YTW should be the expected return plus or minus the impact from changes in interest rates. Again, for nearly 4 decades beginning in 1981, U.S. interest rates declined providing a significant tailwind for both bonds and risk assets. What most folks might not know, from 1953 to 1981 U.S. interest rates rose. Could we be at the beginning of another secular trend of rising rates (see below)? If so, what does it mean for pension plans?

Rising rates may negatively impact the price of bonds, but importantly they reduce the present value (PV) of future benefit payments. They also provide pension funds and their advisors with the option to de-risk the plan through a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy as the absolute level of rates moves closer to the annual ROA. Active fixed income management is challenging. Who really knows where rates are going? But we know with certainty the cash flows that bonds produce (interest income and principal at maturity). Those bond cash flows can be used to match and fully fund liability cash flows (benefits and expenses). A decline in the value of a bond will be offset by the decline in the PV of the plan’s liabilities. So, a 5-year return of -0.3%, which looks horrible if bonds are viewed as performance instruments may match the growth rate of liabilities it is funding. Using bonds for their cash flows, brings certainty and liquidity to the portion of the plan that has been defeased.

Are you confident that your active fixed income will produce the YTW or better? Are you sure that U.S. interest rates are going to fall from these levels? Why bet on something that you can’t control? Convert your active core bond program into a CFM portfolio that will ensure that your plan’s liabilities and assets move in lockstep no matter which direction rates take. Moreover, CFM will provide all the liquidity needed to fund benefits and expenses thereby eliminating the need to do a cash sweep. Assume risk with your growth assets that will now have a longer investing horizon because you’ve just bought plenty of time for them to grow unencumbered.

05.13.25
by

My Wish List as a Pension Trustee

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

I’ve been a trustee for a non-profit’s foundation fund. I haven’t been a Trustee for a defined benefit pension plan, but I’ve spent nearly 44-years in the pension industry as both a consultant and investment advisor working with many plan sponsors of varying sizes and challenges. As anyone who follows this blog knows, Ryan ALM, Inc. and I are huge advocates for DB pension plans. We believe that it is critical for the success of our retirement industry that DB pension plans remain at the core of everyone’s retirement preparedness. Regrettably, that is becoming less likely for most. However, if today I were a trustee/plan sponsor of a DB pension plan, private, public, or multiemployer, this would be my wish list:

  • I would like to have more CERTAINTY in managing my DB pension fund, since all my fund’s investments are subject to the whims of the markets.
  • I would like to have the necessary LIQUIDITY to meet my plan’s benefits every month without having to force a sale of a security or sweep income from higher growth strategies (dividends and capital distributions) that serve my fund better if they are reinvested.
  • I would like to have a longer investing HORIZON for my growth (alpha) assets, so that the probability of achieving the strategy’s desired outcome is greatly enhanced.
  • I don’t want to have to guess where interest rates are going, which impact both assets (bond strategies) and liabilities (promised benefits). Bonds should be used for their CASH FLOWS of interest and principal at maturity.
  • I don’t want to pay high fees without the promise of delivery.
  • I’d like to have a more stable funded status/funded ratio.
  • I want annual contribution expenses to be more consistent, so that those who fund my plan continue to support the mission.
  • I want my pension fund to perform in line with expectations so that I don’t have to establish multiple tiers that disadvantage a subset of my fund’s participants.
  • I want my fund to be sustainable, even though I might believe it is perpetual.

Are My Desired Outcomes Unreasonable?

Absolutely, not! However, there is only one way to my wish list. I must retain a Cash Flow Matching (CFM) strategy, that when implemented will provide the necessary liquidity, extend the investing horizon, eliminate interest rate risk, bring an element of certainty to a very uncertain process, AND stabilize both contribution expenses and the funded status for that portion of the portfolio using CFM.

Is there another strategy outside of an expensive annuity that can create similar outcomes? NO! I believe that the primary objective in managing a DB plan is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable (low) cost and with prudent risk. CFM does that. Striving to achieve a return on asset (ROA) through various fixed income, equity, and alternative strategies comes with great uncertainty and volatility.  The proverbial rollercoaster of outcomes. The CFM allocation should be driven by my plan’s funded status. The higher the funded status, the greater the allocation to CFM, and the more certainty my fund will enjoy.

I believe that since every plan needs liquidity, EVERY DB pension fund should use CFM as the core holding. I want to sleep well at night, and I believe that CFM provides me with that opportunity. What do you think?

05.08.25
by

Improved Corporate Pension Funding – Milliman

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

Milliman released the results of its 2025 Corporate Pension Funding Study(PFS). The study analyzes pension data for the 100 U.S. public companies with the largest defined benefit (DB) pension plans. Unlike the monthly updates provided by Milliman, this study covers the 2024 fiscal years (FY) for each plan. Milliman has now produced this review for 25 consecutive years.

Here are Milliman’s Key findings from the 2025 annual study, including:

  • The PFS funded percentage increased from 98.5% at the end of FY2023 to 101.1% in FY2024, with the funded status climbing from a $19.9 billion deficit to a $13.8 billion surplus.
  • This is the first surplus for the Milliman 100 companies since 2007.
  • As of FY2024, over half (53) of the plans in the study were funded at 100% or greater; only one plan in the study is funded below 80%. RDK note: This is a significant difference from what we witness in public pension funding studies.
  • Rising U.S. interest rates aren’t all bad, as the funding improvement was driven largely by the 42-basis point increase in the PFS discount rate (from 5.01% to 5.43%)
  • Higher discount rates lowered the projected benefit obligations (PBO) of these plans from $1.34 trillion to $1.24 trillion.
  • While the average return on investments was 3.6% – lower than these plans’ average long-term assumption of 6.5% – the underperformance of assets did not outstrip the PBO improvement. Only 19 of the Milliman 100 companies exceeded their expected returns. 
  • According to Milliman, equities outperformed fixed-income investments for the sixth year in a row. Over the last five years, plans with consistently high allocations to fixed income have underperformed other plans but experienced lower funded ratio volatility. Since 2005, pension plan asset allocations have swung more heavily toward fixed income, away from equity allocations.

“Looking ahead, the economic volatility we’ve seen in 2025 plus the potential for declining interest rates likely means corporate plan sponsors will continue with de-risking strategies – whether that’s through an investment glide-path strategy, lump-sum window, or pension risk transfer,” said Zorast Wadia, co-author of the PFS. “But with about $45 billion of surplus in frozen Milliman 100 plans, there’s also the potential for balance sheet and cash savings by incorporating new defined benefit plan designs.” One can only hope, Zorast.

Final thought: Given the unique shape of today’s Treasury yield curve, duration strategies may be challenged to reduce interest rate risk through an average duration or a few key rates. As a reminder, Cash Flow Matching (CFM) duration matches every month of the assignment. Use CFM for the next 10-years, you have 120 bespoke duration matches.

05.07.25
by

Source Ryan – Question of the Day.

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

We often get comments and questions following the posting of a blog. We welcome the opportunity to exchange ideas with interested readers. Here is a recent comment/question from a LinkedIn.com exchange.

Question: In reviewing the countless reports, reading past agendas, and meeting minutes for these 20 plans, I did not notice any CFM or dedicated fixed income strategies employed by any of them. Perhaps there are a couple that I missed that do, or perhaps some have since embarked on such a strategy. Why wouldn’t public fund plan sponsors use Cash Flow Matching (CFM)?

There really isn’t a reason why they shouldn’t as pointed out by Dan Hougard, Verus, in his recent excellent piece, but unfortunately, they likely haven’t begun to use a strategy that has been used effectively for decades within the insurance industry, by lottery systems, and early on in pension management. Regrettably, plan sponsors must enjoy being on the rollercoaster of returns that only guarantees volatility and not necessarily success. Furthermore, they must get excited about trying to find liquidity each month to meet the promised benefits by scrambling to capture dividend income, bond interest, or capital distributions. If this doesn’t prove to be enough to meet the promises, they then get to liquidate a holding whether it is the right time or not.

In addition, there must be a particular thrill about losing sleep at night during periods of major market disruptions. Otherwise, they’d use CFM in lieu of a core fixed income strategy that rides its own rollercoaster of returns mostly driven by changes in interest rates. Do you know where rates are going? I certainly don’t, but I do know that next month, the month after that, followed by the one after that, and all the way to the end of the coverage period, that my clients will have the liquidity to meet the benefit promises without having to force a sale in an environment that isn’t necessarily providing appropriate liquidity.

The fact that a CFM strategy also eliminates interest rate risk because benefit payments are future values, while also extending the investing horizon for the fund’s growth assets are two additional benefits. See, there really is NO reason not to retain a cash flow matching expert like Ryan ALM, Inc. to bring certainty to the management of pensions that have lived with great uncertainty. In doing so, many plans have had to dramatically increase contributions, alter asset allocation frameworks to take on significantly more risk, while unfortunately asking participants to increase employee contributions, work more years, and receive less at retirement under the guise of pension reform. Let’s stop doing the same old same old and explore the tremendous benefits of Cash Flow Matching. Your plan participants will be incredibly grateful.

05.02.25
by

Enhancing the Probability of Achieving the ROA

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

We are often confronted by plan sponsors and their advisors with the objection of using cash flow matching (CFM) because the “expected return” is lower than the plan’s return on asset assumption (ROA). Given that objection, we often point out that each asset class has its own expected return. The ROA target is developed by weighting each asset class’s exposure by the forecasted return. In the case of the bond allocation, the YTW is used as the target return.

If the plan sponsor has an allocation to “core” fixed income, there is a fairly great probability that our CFM portfolio, which we call the Liability Beta Portfolio (LBP), will outyield the core fixed income allocation thus enhancing the probability of achieving the ROA. This is accomplished through our heavy concentration in A/BBB+ investment grade corporate bonds that will outyield comparable maturity Treasuries and Agencies, which are a big and growing percentage of the Aggregate Index. In most cases, the yield advantage will be 50-100 bps depending on the maturities.

Ron Ryan, Ryan ALM’s Chairman, has produced a very thoughtful research piece on this subject. He also discusses the negative impact on a plan’s ability to achieve the ROA through the practice of sweeping dividend income, interest income, and capital distributions from the plan’s investment programs. Those distributions are better used when reinvested in the investment strategies from which they were derived, as they get reinvested at higher expected growth rates. The CFM program should be the only source to fund net benefits and expenses, as there is no forced selling when benefits and expenses are due.

There is no viable excuse to not use CFM. The benefits from this strategy are plentiful, especially the securing of the promised benefits which is the primary objective for any pension plan. We encourage you to visit RyanALM.com to read the plentiful research on this subject and other aspects of cash flow matching.

05.02.25
by

Opportunity Cost Goes Both Ways

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

I had an interesting conversation at the IFEBP Investment forum. It wasn’t the first time that this topic has been raised and I am willing to state that it won’t be the last. I was discussing the benefits of cash flow matching (CFM) with a trustee who raised concern about locking in the asset / liability match, suggesting that by defeasing a period longer than 3-5-years may lead to “regret” if there had been an opportunity to generate a greater return from those assets used to defease a portion of the liabilities.

Anytime an asset allocation decision is taken, there is always the possibility that some combination of asset classes and products would have produced a greater return in the short-term. However, opportunity cost can easily be opportunity lost. When one engages in a CFM strategy, one does so because they understand that the primary objective in managing a DB pension is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. Managing a pension fund is not a return game despite the prevailing orthodoxy in our industry.

Why would one not want to secure a portion of the asset base providing the necessary liquidity to meet benefits and expenses? It is so comforting, or it should be, not to have to worry about raising liquidity in challenging markets. At the same time, the CFM strategy is buying time for the alpha (risk) assets to grow unencumbered. We normally suggest that a 10-year CFM be implemented, but that decision is predicated on a number of factors specific to that plan. We can, and have, engaged in assignments shorter than 10-years, and CFM provides the same benefits, even if the cost savings may be less than that provided by a longer assignment.

Furthermore, there is always the question of maintaining the maturity of the assignment (5-, 7-, 10- or more years) once the program is up and running. Plan sponsors must decide if the assignment should be allowed to run out after the initial allocation, be maintained at the same maturity, or extended given improved funding. If markets don’t behave there is no obligation to extend the program. If markets get crushed and the sponsor feels that liquidating the CFM portfolio assets could be used to buy “low” that is available given the liquidity profile of investment grade bonds. We don’t understand why one would want to do that since the matching of assets and liabilities creates certainty, which is missing in traditional pension management.

DB pension plans are critical to the long-term financial security of the participants. Securing the promised benefits reduces the possibility that adverse outcomes don’t result in the fund having to take dramatic action such as additional tiers or worse, the freezing of the plan. CFM stabilizes both the funded status for that portion of the fund and contributions. I would think that getting as much into CFM and reducing the uncertainty of managing the plan given our volatile markets should be an unquestionable goal.

04.29.25
by

Benefits of Cash Flow Matching (CFM)

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

The true objective of a pension is to secure and fund benefits in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. This is best accomplished by cash flow matching (CFM). In the 1970s and 1980s it was greatly in vogue and called Dedication. CFM aligns the cash flows of assets to match and fully fund the liability cash flows (benefits + expenses (B+E)) chronologically. Since bonds are the only asset class with the certainty of cash flows (principal and interest), bonds have always been the choice to CFM liability cash flows. The benefits of the Ryan ALM CFM approach are numerous and significant:

Reduces Risk – Risk is best defined as the uncertainty of achieving the objective. CFM will secure the objective of paying benefits with certainty.

    Reduces Cost – The cost to fund future B+E is reduced by about 2% per year (1-10 years = 20%).

    Enhances the ROA – There is a ROA for each asset class. For bonds, it is usually the YTM of a generic bond index. The Ryan ALM CFM is heavily skewed to A/BBB+ corporate bonds and will outyield these bond indexes thereby enhancing the ROA for the bond allocation.

    Mitigates Interest Rate Risk – CFM matches and funds actuarial projections of B+E which are all future values. Importantly, future values are not interest rate sensitive. Future values of B+E should be the focus of a pension objective. Present values are interest rate sensitive but that is not the objective. Since CFM will match the liability cash flows it will have the same or similar duration profile and present value interest rate sensitivity. 

    Eliminates Cash Sweep– Many pensions do a cash sweep of all assets to find the liquidity needed to fund current B+E. CFM will provide this liquidity so there is no need for a cash sweep that harms asset growth. This should enhance the ROA of growth assets whose dividends may have been used to fund current B+E. According to a Guinness Global study of the S&P 500 dating back to 1940, dividends + dividends reinvested accounted for about 49% of the S&P 500 total return for rolling 10-year periods and 57% for 20-year periods. CFM buys time for the growth assets to grow unencumbered.

        Reduces Volatility of Funded Ratio and Contributions – CFM will match and fully fund the liability cash flows chronologically thereby reducing or eliminating any funding ratio volatility for the period it is funding. This should help reduce the volatility of contributions as well.

          Provides Accurate Pension Inflation Hedge – The actuarial projections of B+E include inflation. As a result, CFM not only is the proper liability cash flow hedge but is the only accurate way to hedge pension inflation (benefits, expenses, salary, etc.). Please note that pension inflation is not equal to the CPI but can vary greatly.

          Reduces Pension Expense – For corporations, the present value growth of assets versus the present value growth of liabilities in $s creates a line item called pension expense. Corporations want asset growth to match liability growth in $s to avoid a hit to earnings and use a duration match strategy to hedge. CFM will provide a more accurate duration match since it funds monthly liability cash flows and not an average duration. Public plans do not have this earnings issue.

          Don’t hesitate to reach out to us if you’d like to learn more about how Ryan ALM’s Cash Flow Matching capability can benefit your plan. You can always visit RyanALM.com to get additional research insights . Finally, we are always willing to provide a free analysis. All we need are the projected benefits, expenses, and contributions. The further into the future those projection cover the greater the insights.

              04.28.25
              by

              Verus: “LDI for Public Sponsors”

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

              Dan Hougard, FSA and Associate Director, Actuarial Services at Verus has recently published an excellent thought piece on LDI for public pension plans. In this case, the LDI refers to Cash Flow Matching (CFM). We at Ryan ALM, believe that LDI is the label in which sits both CFM and duration matching strategies. Furthermore, we absolutely agree with Dan’s assessment that public pension plans can benefit in this environment of higher yields despite the accounting differences that may not make the use of CFM obvious.

              As most readers of this blog know, we often criticize public pension accounting (GASB) for pension liabilities that allow the use of the ROA assumption to “discount” liabilities, while corporate/private pension plans use a market-based interest rate (FASB). We applaud Dan for stating that “the purpose of a pension plan’s investment portfolio (assets) is to ensure that the promised benefits (liabilities) can be paid to beneficiaries as they come due”. We at Ryan ALM believe that the primary objective in managing a DB plan is to SECURE the benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk.

              Key highlights from Dan’s research:

              Many plan sponsors approach their investment policy without explicitly focusing on the liabilities

              Because public plans discount liabilities at the ROA the perceived benefit of LDI (CFM) is not as obvious

              Public plans could match longer-duration cashflows combined with “market-based” reporting for a portion of the liabilities – such as all current retirees.

              The lowest risk asset class for pension investors are fixed income securities, as income is used to pay benefits, and securities are held to maturity so there is no interest rate risk.

              During periods of market stress, negative cash flow plans may be forced to sell assets at depressed prices.

              CFM can overcome that challenge by providing the needed cash flow to cover obligations while the return-seeking portfolio grows unencumbered.

              IG credit yields haven’t been this attractive since 2010.

              Public pension portfolios tend to have very uncertain outcomes and carry “tremendous” asset-liability mismatch.

              Finally, CFM “investing can offer considerable value for many pension plans”!

              It is wonderful to see a thoughtful article on this subject. We, at Ryan ALM, often feel as if we are all alone in our quest to protect and preserve defined benefit plans for the masses through cash flow matching, which SECURES the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It also allows for a wonderful night’s sleep during periods of excessive uncertainty.

              04.25.25
              by

              A Call for Pension Reform – Five Years Later

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

              On March 25, 2020, I produced a post titled, “Why Pension Reform is Absolutely Necessary“. A few of you may recall that blog. I penned the post in reaction to a series of statistics that my friend John A. produced. John is a retired Teamster and an incredibly important driver behind efforts to reinstate benefits that had been cut under MPRA. John’s analysis was based on a survey that he conducted on multiemployer plans that had roughly 43,000 plan participants impacted by that misguided legislation. That universe of participants would grow to more than 75,000. What he discovered through his polling and outreach was shocking!

              Their benefit reductions amounted to nearly $34,000,000 / month.  (That is a ton of lost economic activity.)

              95% were not able to work.

              72% were providing primary care for an ailing loved one.

              65% were not able to maintain healthcare insurance.

              60% had lost their home.

              55% were forced to file for bankruptcy.

              80% were living benefit check to benefit check.

              100% of the PBGC maximum benefit payout was inadequate ($12,870 for a retiree with 30-years of work).

              50% of the retirees were U.S. service veterans.

              Shocked? I certainly was and continue to be that our government allowed the benefits to be cut for hard working American workers who rightfully earned them through years of employment.

              Where are we today? Fortunately, the got the passage of ARPA pension reform (originally referred to as the Butch Lewis Act) which was signed into law by President Biden in March 2021. Responsibility to implement the legislation fell to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). In my original blog post, I referred to a potential universe of 125 multiemployer plans that might be eligible for Special Financial Assistance (SFA). That list would eventually become 204 plans (see below).

              I’m extremely pleased to announce that 119 funds of the 204 potential recipients have received more than $71.6 billion in SFA and interest supporting the retirements of 1,555,460 plan participants. Awesome! There is still much to do, and hopefully, the sponsors of these funds will prove to be good stewards of the grant $s by conservatively investing the SFA and reserving the risk taking for the legacy assets that have time to wade through challenging markets.

              What an incredible accomplishment! So many folks would have been subject to very uncertain futures. The securing of their benefits goes a long way to allowing them to enjoy their retirement years. Unfortunately, there are too many American workers that don’t have a defined benefit plan. In many cases they have an employer sponsored defined contribution plan, but we know how challenging it can be for those participants to fund, manage, and disburse that benefit. For many others, there is no employer sponsored benefit. Their financial futures are in serious jeopardy.

              That said, what appeared to be a pipe dream once the U.S. Senate failed to take up the BLA legislation has become an amazing success story. Just think of all the economic activity that has been created through these monthly payments that certainly dwarf the $34 million/month mentioned above. Congrats to all who were instrumental in getting this legislation created and passed!

              04.22.25
              by

              WHY?

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

              Why do we have two different accounting standards in the U.S. for valuing pension liabilities?

              Why does it make sense to value liabilities at a rate (ROA) that can’t be used to defease pension liabilities in this interest rate environment?

              Why do we continue to create an asset allocation framework that only guarantees volatility and not success?

              Why do we think that the pension objective is a return objective (ROA) when it is the liabilities that need to be funded and secured?

              Why haven’t we realized that plowing tons of plan assets into an asset class/strategy will negatively impact future returns?

              Why are we willing to pay ridiculous sums of money in asset management fees with no guaranteed outcome?

              Why is liquidity to meet benefits an afterthought until it becomes a major issue?

              Why does it make sense that two plans with wildly different funded ratios have the same ROA?

              Why are plan sponsors willing to live with interest rate risk in the core bond allocations?

              Why do we think that placing <5% in any asset class is going to make a difference on the long-term success of that plan?

              Why do we think that moving small percentages of assets among a variety of strategies is meaningful?

              Why do we think that having a funded ratio of 80% is a successful outcome?

              Why are we incapable of rethinking the management of pensions with the goal to bring an element of certainty to the process, especially given how humans hate uncertainty?

              WHY, WHY, WHY?

              If you are as confused as I am with our current approach to DB pension management, try cash flow matching (CFM) a portion of your plan. With CFM you’ll get a product that SECURES the promised benefits at low cost and with prudent risk. You will have a carefully constructed liquidity bucket to meet benefits and expenses when needed – no forced selling in challenging market environments. Importantly, your investing horizon will be extended for the growth (alpha) assets that haven’t been used to defease liabilities. We know that by buying time one dramatically improves the probability of a successful outcome. Furthermore, your pension plan’s funded status will be stabilized for that portion of the assets that uses CFM. This is a dynamic asset allocation process that should respond to improvement in the plan’s funded status. Lastly, you will be happy to sit back and watch the mayhem in markets unfold knowing that you don’t have to do anything except sleep very well at night.