Tag Archives: db-pensions

10.02.24
by

You Have An Obligation – Fund it!

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

I recently participated in a new program put on by the Florida Public Pension Trustees Association (FPPTA). They’ve introduced a higher-level program for trustees that really want to dive more deeply into pension issues. I’m thankful to have the opportunity to participate both as a speaker and a coach. At the inaugural event, the FPPTA leadership invited Von M. Hughes, the author of the book, U.S. Public Pension handbook”, which he described as a comprehensive guide for trustees and investment staff. During the Q&A session, Von was asked what differentiates a good fund from one that is performing poorly. His response was simple and direct. The pension systems that are best in class make the annual required contributions (ARC).

His response didn’t suggest anything about plans with internal staff versus those that outsource all investment functions. It had nothing to do with how complex the overall asset allocation was or the percentage allocated to alternatives. Furthermore, it didn’t matter about the size of the fund. It was simply, are you funding to a level required each and every year. Brilliant!

We all know which public funds are struggling and which are near full funding. There are enough entities reporting on the key metrics annual, if not more frequently. A closer look at these funds does support Von’s claim. But it isn’t just the lack of discipline in providing the necessary funding to secure the promises that have been met. There are also issues with regard to actuarial practices and legislative constraints. There is an interesting article in P&I with Brian Grinnell, former Chief Actuary, for the Ohio State Teachers’ Retirement System. Grinnell left the pension fund in May after more than 10 years, as the Chief actuary. According to Grinnell, he left the system because he “was not comfortable with the direction the plan was headed, and I didn’t feel like my continued participation would be positive.”

Grinnell discussed several issue, but the two that jumped out at me were the open amortization period and fixed contributions. In the case of the open amortization, Grinnell mentioned that “the amortization period for the retirement system’s unfunded pension liabilities under the STRS defined benefit plan had become infinite — meaning that it would never become fully funded.” Can you imagine having a mortgage with such a feature? With respect to the fixed-rate structure of both contributions and benefits, Grinnell mentioned that following a poor performance year the normal practice would be to increase contributions, which in the case of the Ohio plans is not possible without legislative action.

If creating a strong public pension system is predicated on the entity’s ability to meet the ARC, why would our industry agree to accounting and actuarial practices that restrict prudent action? Amortization periods should be fixed and contributions should be a function of how the plan is performing. As we’ve stated many times, DB pension plans are too critically important to millions of American workers. Investing is not easy. Forecasting the longevity of the participants is not easy. Let’s at least get the easy stuff right! Fund what is required!

10.02.24
by

Welcome to National Retirement (in)Security Month!

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

October isn’t just for leaf peepers, although it is a special time of year for those of us living in the Northeast. Importantly, October is also National Retirement Security Month. For those of you who regularly follow this blog, you know that we (at Ryan ALM, Inc.) are huge supporters of DB pension plans. Fortunately, we aren’t the only ones. In a wonderful post published by the National Public Pension Coalition, Ariel McConnell writes about the importance of supporting public pension plans, as well as those sponsored by private organizations.

Ms. McConnell highlights many concerns regarding the current state of retirement readiness among American workers. Frighteningly, she points out that 57% of Americans don’t have any retirement savings, and those with 401(k)s have a median balance of only $27,376. That will barely provide you with the financial resources to get you through one year let alone a retirement that could stretch well beyond 20 years. She also highlights how each of us can become more active in the fight to get every American ready for their retirement. We want each worker to have the chance to enjoy their “golden years”. Let’s not let poor policy decisions tarnish that dream.

Please join Ariel, the National Public Pension Coalition, Ryan ALM, Inc., and many more organizations in the fight to protect and preserve defined benefit plans for all. I can only begin to guess at the significant economic and social consequences if our Senior population is forced to live on a median balance as insignificant as the one mentioned in NPPC’s blog post.

09.13.24
by

Cash Flow Matching Done Right!

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

Most of us seek to climb the “ladder to success”. We also use ladders for important everyday activities. I’ll soon be back on a ladder myself, as year-end approaches and the Christmas lights are placed on my home. Despite the usefulness of ladders, there is one place where they aren’t necessarily beneficial. I’m specifically addressing the use of ladders for bond management as a replacement for a defeasement strategy.

There are still so many misconceptions regarding Cash Flow Matching (CFM). Importantly, CFM is NOT a “laddered bond portfolio”, which would be quite inefficient and costly. It IS a highly sophisticated cost optimization process that maximizes cost savings by emphasizing longer maturity bonds (within the program’s parameters capped at the maximum year to be defeased) and higher yielding corporate bonds, such as A and BBB+.

Furthermore, it is not just a viable strategy for private pension plans, as it has been deployed successfully in public and multiemployer plans for decades, as well as E&Fs. It is also NOT an all or nothing strategy. The exposure to CFM is a function of several factors, including the plan’s funded status, current allocation to core fixed income, and the Retired Lives Liability, etc. Many of our clients have chosen to defease their pension liabilities from 5-30 years or beyond. When asked, we recommend a minimum of 10 years, but again that will be a function of each plan’s unique funding situation.

CFM strategies are NOT “buy and hold” programs. CFM implementations must be dynamic and responsive to changes in the actuary’s forecasts of benefits, expenses, and contributions. There are also continuous changes in the fixed income environment (I.e. yields, spreads, credits) that might provide additional cost savings that need to be monitored and managed. Plan sponsors may seek to extend the initial length (years) of the program as it matures which will often necessitate a restructuring or rebalancing of the original portfolio to maximize potential funding coverage and cost reductions.

CFM programs CANNOT be managed against a generic index, as no pension plan’s liabilities will look like the BB Aggregate or any other generic index. Importantly, no pension plan’s liabilities will look like another pension plan given the unique characteristics of that plan’s workforce and plan provisions. The appropriate management of CFM requires the construction of a Custom Liability Index (CLI) that maps the plan’s liabilities in multiple dimensions and creates the path forward for the successful implementation of the asset/liability match.

Importantly, CFM programs are NOT going to negatively impact the plan’s ability to achieve its desired ROA. In fact, a successful CFM program, such as the one we produce, will actually enhance the probability of achieving the return target. How? Your plan likely has an allocation to core fixed income. Our implementation will likely outyield that portfolio over time creating alpha as well as SECURING the promised benefits. Given the higher corporate bond interest rates, an allocation to this asset class can generate a significant percentage of the ROA target with risks substantially below those of other asset classes.

When done right, a successful CFM implementation achieves the following:

Provides liquidity to meet benefits and expenses

Secures benefits for the time horizon the CFM portfolio is funding (1-10 years +)

Buys time for the alpha assets to grow unencumbered

Out yields active bond management… enhances ROA

Reduces Volatility of Funded Ratio/Status

Reduces Volatility of Contribution costs

Reduces Funding costs (roughly 2% per year in this rate environment)

Mitigates Interest Rate Risk for that portion of the portfolio using CFM as benefits are future values that are not interest rate sensitive.

No laddered bond portfolio can provide the benefits listed above. Whether you are responsible for a DB pension, an endowment or foundation, a HNW individual, or any other pool of assets, you likely have liquidity needs regularly. CFM done right will greatly enhance this process. Call on us. We’ll gladly provide an initial analysis on what can be achieved, and we will do it for FREE.

07.23.24
by

Oh, The Games That Are Played!

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

Managing a defined benefit pension plan should be fairly straightforward. The plan sponsor has made a promise to each participant which is based on time of service, salary, and a multiplier as the primary inputs. The plan sponsor hires an actuary to do the nearly impossible of predicting the future benefits, administrative expenses, salaries, mortality, etc., which for the most part, they do a terrific job. Certainly in the short-term. Since we have a reasonable understanding of what that promise looks like, the objective should be to SECURE that promise at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. Furthermore, sufficient contributions should be made to lessen the dependence on investment returns, which can be quite unstable.

Yet, our industry has adopted an approach to the allocation of assets that has morphed from focusing on this benefit promise to one designed to generate a target return on assets (ROA). In the process, we have placed these critically important pension funds on a rollercoaster of uncertainty. How many times do we have to ride markets up and down before we finally realize that this approach isn’t generating the desired outcomes? Not only that, it is causing pension systems to contribute more and more to close the funding gap.

Through this focus on only the asset-side of the equation, we’ve introduced “benchmarks” that make little sense. The focus of every consultant’s quarterly performance report should be a comparison of the total assets to total liabilities. When was the last time you saw that? Never? It just doesn’t happen. Instead, we get total fund performance being compared to something like this:

Really?

Question: If each asset class and investment manager beat their respective benchmark, but lost to liability growth, as we witnessed during most of the 2000s: did you win? Of course not! The only metric that matters is how the plan’s assets performed relative to that same plan’s liabilities. It really doesn’t matter how the S&P 500 performed or the US Govt/Credit index, or worse, a peer group. Why should it matter how pension fund XYZ performed when ABC fund has an entirely different work force, funded status, ability (desire) to contribute, and set of liabilities?

It is not wrong to compare one’s equity managers to an S&P or Russell index, but at some point, assets need to know what they are funding (cash flows) and when, which is why it is imperative that a Custom Liability Index (CLI) be constructed for your pension plan. Given the uniqueness of each pension liability stream, no generic index can ever replicate your liabilities.

Another thing that drives me crazy is the practice of using the same asset allocation whether the plan is 60% funded or 90% funded. It seems that if 7% is the return target, then the 7% will determine the allocation of assets and not the funded status. That is just wrong. A plan that is 90% funded has nearly won the game. It is time to take substantial risk out of the asset allocation. For a plan that is 60% funded, secure your liquidity needs in the short-term allowing for a longer investment horizon for the alpha assets that can now grow unencumbered. As the funded status improves continue to remove more risk from the asset allocation.

DB plans are too critically important to continue to inject unnecessary risk and uncertainty into the process of managing that fund. As I’ve written on a number of occasions, bringing certainty to the process allows for everyone involved to sleep better at night. Isn’t it time for you to feel great when you wake up?

07.18.24
by

Different Levels of Certainty

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

A friend of mine in the industry emailed me a copy of Howard Marks’ latest memo titled, “The Folly of Certainty”. As they normally are, this piece is excellent. As regular readers of this blog know, I’ve encouraged plan sponsors and their advisors to bring more certainty to defined benefit plans through a defeasement strategy known as cash flow matching. I paused when I read the title, thinking, “oh, boy”, I’m at odds with Mr. Marks and his thoughts. But I’m glad to say after reading the piece that I’m not.

What Howard is referring to are the forecasts, predictions, and/or estimates made with little to no doubt concerning the outcome. He cited a few examples of predictions that were given with 100% certainty. How silly. Forecasts always come with some degree of uncertainty (standard deviation around the observation), and it is the humble individual who should doubt, to some degree, those predictions. I’ve often said that hope isn’t an effective investment strategy, but that thought doesn’t seem to have resonated with a majority of the investment community.

Ryan ALM’s pursuit of greater certainty is brought about through our ability to create investment grade bond portfolios whose cash flows match with certainty (barring a default) the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. We accomplish this objective through our highly sophisticated and trade-marked optimization model. We are not building our portfolios with interest rate forecasts, based on economic variables that come with a very high degree of uncertainty. No, we build our portfolios based on the client’s specific liability cash flows and implement them in chronological order. Importantly, once those portfolios are created, we’ve locked in a significant cost reduction that is a function of the rate environment and the length of the mandate.

As stated previously, I have a great appreciation for Howard Marks and what he’s accomplished. He is absolutely correct when he questions any forecast that has little expectation for being wrong. In most cases, the forecaster is not in control of the outcome, which should lend itself to being more cautious. In the case of the Ryan ALM cash flow matching strategy, we are in control. Having the ability to bring some certainty in our pursuit of securing the promised benefits should be greatly appreciated by the plan sponsor community. Because of the uncertain economic environment that we are currently living in, bringing some certainty should be an immediate goal. Care to learn more?

07.15.24
by

ARPA Update as of July 12, 2024

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

Not only has the weather heated up, but so has the activity at the PBGC as it relates to the implementation of the ARPA pension legislation. During the past week two non-priority group plans submitted applications. In the case of the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund – Detroit & Vicinity, it was a revised application seeking nearly $600 million in Special Financial Assistance (SFA), while the Laborers’ Local No. 265 Pension Plan put forward its initial filing seeking $55.6 million. In total, more than 24,000 plan participants would enjoy a more secure retirement with the approval of these applications.

In other ARPA news, the American Federation of Musicians and Employers’ Pension Plan finally received approval. This fund had multiple filings throughout the process, which began on March 10, 2023 with the initial filing followed by two other applications. The wait was certainly worth it, as they will receive >$1.5 billion to reinforce the pensions of nearly 50,000 eligible participants.

There were no applications denied during the past week, but one fund, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Plan, withdrew its application that had been seeking $638.3 million in SFA for 29+k members. There were no plans that were forced to repay excess SFA assets and no new plans added to the waitlist.

We’ve all heard the phrase with uncertainty comes opportunity, and that may very well be true, but the uncertainty comes with a certain level of risk, too. Given all of the uncertainty in the economic and political spheres at this time, is the opportunity greater than the risk? We would encourage plan sponsors of all plan types to look to reduce some of the risk in their funds, especially given the elevated multiples on which the equity markets are currently trading. The higher US interest rates are providing a unique opportunity not available to us in the past two decades. Secure some of the promises (benefits) by defeasing your liabilities through a cash flow matching strategy. We are happy to discuss this suggestion in far greater detail or you can go to RyanALM.com to read myriad research articles and blog posts on the subject.

07.15.24
by

Milliman: Improved Corporate Pension Funding Continues

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

Milliman has once again produced its monthly update of the Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), which analyzes the 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans. Thank goodness they can still find 100 corporate plans to evaluate. Despite my snarkiness, it is good to read that Milliman is reporting improved funding for the sixth consecutive month in 2024, with a slight increase in the funded ratio from 103.6 to 103.7. The surplus remained the same at $46 billion.

June’s investment return of 1.22% matched the $9 billion increase in liabilities as the discount rate fell 7 bps to 5.46%. “The first half of 2024 has seen nothing but funded ratio improvements,” said Zorast Wadia, author of the PFI. “However, with markets at all-time highs and concerns that discount rates may eventually fall, the forecast for the second half of 2024 may not be as sanguine, and liability-matching portfolios will continue to be prudent strategies for plan sponsors.”

We absolutely agree with Zorast’s assessment of what may transpire in 2024’s second half. There has clearly been a slowing in economic activity as seen by the GDP in Q1’24 (1.4%) and Q2’24 is not looking much more robust, as the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model presently forecasts a 2.0% real GDP annualized return for the second quarter. If economic weakness were to develop, as a result of the Fed’s campaign to stem inflation by raising the Fed Fund’s rate (presently 5.25% – 5.5%), US interest rates could fall, while equities could also cool off as a result of the economic weakness. A combination such as this would be quite detrimental to pension funding.

In related news, FundFire has published an article highlighting the fact that “fixed income products now make up about 54% of defined-benefit portfolios, according to Mike Moran, senior pension strategist at Goldman Sachs Asset Management. He is obviously speaking about corporate plans, as both public and multiemployer exposures to fixed income are much more modest. Happy to see that Moran was quoted as saying that he “urges pension managers to act quickly to de-risk.” He went on to say, “This is a period of strength, a position of strength, for plan sponsors, and history shows us that the position of strength can sometimes be fleeting,” We absolutely agree.

We’ve been encouraging plan sponsors of all types to act to reduce risk and secure the promised benefits before the Fed or market participants reduce rates from these two-decade high levels.

06.17.24
by

ARPA Update as of June 14, 2024

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

We hope that you enjoyed a wonderful Father’s Day. I’m blessed to still have my Dad with us (95 years young). In addition, I have two sons and two sons-in-law who are wonderful fathers. It was a terrific day!

Regarding ARPA and the PBGC’s implementation of that critical pension legislation, there was some activity during the previous week. However, the filing portal remains temporarily closed for those plans still seeking relief through the SFA grants. That said, there are still 17 applications that are currently being reviewed with 6 of those nearing the 120 deadline for action. Those six plans are seeking nearly $5.5 billion in SFA. As a result, the rest of June is going to be busy for the PBGC.

The Pension Plan for the Arizona Bricklayers’ Pension Trust Fund received approval for its application. They will receive $10.7 million to protect the pensions for the 666 members of the plan. This non-priority plan received approval on their initial application. In other news, there were no applications either denied or withdrawn. However, the Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters National Pension Fund joined Central States as the only other plan to repay excess SFA as a result of a death audit. In this case, they are repaying just over $8 million.

Have a great week. Don’t hesitate to reach out to us if you like to learn more about cash flow matching and how it can be used to extend and protect the SFA grant assets so vital to ensuring that the pension promises are met for your participants.

06.11.24
by

Corporate Pension Funding Improves Once More – Milliman

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

Milliman is reporting improvement in the funded status for the largest corporate plans. According to the Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), corporate funding improved from 103.1% to 103.4% during May, marking the fifth consecutive monthly improvement to start 2024. Milliman attributed the improved funding to asset gains driven by the year’s best month at 2.29% driving the indexes assets up by $22 billion to $1.3 trillion. With the decline in the discount rate of 15 bps, pension liabilities grew by $18 billion and now stand at $1.25 trillion. According to Zorast Wadia, the discount rate used by Milliman is the FTSE Pension Liability Index, which is similar to ASC 715 rates. As a reminder, Ryan ALM, Inc. has produced ASC 715 rates since 2007. The $4 billion difference between pension assets and plan liabilities produced the 0.3% funding improvement.

Milliman’s monthly reporting also includes scenario testing. In the latest work, Milliman forecasts 2024 and 2025 interest rates and asset returns. In the optimistic case they forecast the discount rate at 5.88% at the end of 2024 and 6.48% at the end of 2025, while assets grow at 10.4% per annum during that time. If achieved, the funded status for the Pension Funding Index would ratchet up to 110% at the end of 2024 and 123% by 2025’s conclusion. These levels would rival what we had at the end of 1999, when Pension America should have defeased the liabilities.

A pessimistic forecast has the discount rate falling to 5.18% by the end of 2024 and 4.58% by December 31, 2025. Assets under this scenario produce only a 2.4% annualized return. If this forecast were to become reality, the PFI funded status would be 98% by the end of 2024 and 89% by the end of 2025. Since most of us have no clue where rates are going in the next couple of years, why play the game. Defease your plan’s liabilities at the current level of rates. We’ve seen too often greed creep into the equation instead of sound risk management. Use this opportunity to substantially reduce risk by matching and funding benefits and expenses with asset cash flows of interest and principal.

05.29.24
by

What A Ride!

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

In 1971, Bread produced the song If. The song starts off with David Gates singing the lyrics, “if a picture paints a thousand words”. Looking at the graph below, I think that Bread and David could have used a number far greater than 1,000 to describe the impact that this picture might produce.

It never ceases to amaze me how momentum builds for an idea driving perceptions to depths or altitudes not supported by the underlying fundamentals. We see it so often in our markets whether discussing bonds, equities, or alternatives. In the case above, the “Street” became convinced that the US Federal Reserve was going to have to drive US interest rates down as our economy was about to collapse. A “please do something” cry could almost be heard from market participants who thrived on nearly four decades of Fed support. They were so accustomed to the Fed stepping in anytime that there was a wobble in the markets that it became part of the investment strategy.

It got so silly, that fixed income managers drove rates down substantially from the end of October to the end of 2023. In the process, they created an environment that was once again very “easy” and supportive of economic growth. But, that wasn’t the end of the story. I can recall a near unanimous expectation that there was going to be anywhere from 4-6 cuts in the Fed Funds Rate and perhaps more during 2024. We had analysts predicting 250 – 300 bps of rate cuts. Was the world ending?

I’ve produced more than 40 blog posts since March of 2022 that used the phrase “higher for longer” in describing an economic and inflationary environment that I felt was to robust for the Fed to reduce rates. Of course, there were many more posts in which I questioned the wisdom of the deflationary and lower rates crowd where I didn’t precisely utter those three words. Well, fortunately for pension America and the American worker, the US economy has held up in far greater fashion than predicted. The labor market remains fairly robust keeping Americans working and spending.

While inflation remains sticky and elevated, US rates have remained at decade highs providing defined benefit sponsors the opportunity to take substantial risk from the plan’s asset allocation framework through asset/liability strategies (read Cash Flow Matching) that secure the promises at substantially lower cost. As the chart above highlights, expectations for rate cuts have fallen from 4-6 or more to fewer than 2 at this point, as only a -31 bps decline is currently priced in. We’ve seen quite a repricing in 2024, and I suspect that we might need to see more, as “higher for longer” seems to be the approach being taken by the Fed.

While this is the case, plan sponsors would be wise to secure as many years of promised benefits as possible. Plan sponsors and their advisors let 2000 come and go without securing the benefits only to see two major market declines sabotage the opportunity and your plan’s funded status. Riding the asset allocation rollercoaster hasn’t worked. Is the car that you are riding in nearing the peak at this time?