Tag Archives: db-pensions

11.06.25
by

You Don’t Say!

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

Morgan Stanley has published the results from their Taft-Hartley survey, in which they have to provided “insights into how Taft-Hartley plans are managing priorities and navigating challenges to strengthen their plans”. I sincerely appreciate MS’s effort and the output that they published. According to MS, T-H plans have as their top priority (67% of respondents) delivering promised benefits without increasing employer’s contributions. That seems quite appropriate. What doesn’t seem to jive with that statement is the fact that only 29% that improving or maintaining the plan’s funded status was important. Sorry to burst your bubble plan trustees, but you aren’t going to be able to accomplish your top priority without stabilizing the funded status/ratio by getting off the performance rollercoaster.

Interestingly, T-H trustees were concerned about market volatility (84%) and achieving desired investment performance while managing risk (69%). Well, again, traditional asset allocation structures guarantee volatility and NOT success. If you want to deliver promised benefits without increasing contributions, you must adopt a new approach to asset allocation and risk management. Doing the same old, same old won’t work.

I agree that the primary objective in managing a DB plan, T-H, public, or private, is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is not a return game. Adopting a new asset allocation in which the assets are divided among two buckets – liquidity and growth, will ensure that the promises (monthly benefits) are met every month chronologically as far into the future that the assets will cover delivering the promised benefits. However, just adopting this bifurcated asset allocation won’t get you off the rollercoaster of returns and reduce market volatility. One needs to adopt an asset/liability focus in which asset cash flows (bond interest and principal) will be matched against liability cash flows of benefits and expenses.

This approach will significantly reduce the volatility associated with markets as your pension plan’s assets and liabilities will now move in lockstep for that portion of the portfolio. As the funded status improves, you can port more assets from the growth portfolio to the liquidity bucket. It will also buys time for the remaining growth assets to help wade through choppy markets. According to the study, 47% of respondents that had an allocation to alternatives had between 20% and 40%. This allocation clearly impacts the liquidity available to the plan’s sponsor to meet those promises. If allocations remain at these levels, it is imperative to adopt this allocation framework.

Furthermore, given today’s equity valuations and abundant uncertainty surrounding interest rates, inflation, geopolitical risk, etc., having a portion of the pension assets in a risk mitigating strategy is critically important. Thanks, again, to MS for conducting this survey and for bubbling up these concerns.

11.04.25
by

PBGC Increases Premium Rates – Why?

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

The demise of the defined benefit (DB) plan, most notably within the private sector, is harming the American worker and significantly reducing the odds of a dignified retirement. The Federal government should be doing everything that it can to protect the remaining pensions, including keeping fees low to ensure that these critically important retirement vehicles continue to operate. But unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be the case in this particular situation.

I have been very impressed with and supportive of the PBGC’s effort implementing the ARPA pension legislation, but I question the need to raise premium rates for 2026, which the PBGC has just announced. Why? As of fiscal year-end 2024, the PBGC’s single employer insurance program had a $54.1 BILLION surplus, as assets totaled $146.1 billion and liabilities stood at $92.0 billion. Despite these significant excess resources, the PBGC is increasing rates for the “flat rate premium per participant” in single-employer plans to $111 per participant in 2026 from $106. This 4.7% increase was described in a Chief Investment Officer article as modest! That increase doesn’t seem modest anyway you look at it, but certainly not when one remembers that $54 billion surplus. What is the justification? The rate per $1,000 in “unvested benefits”, not subject to indexing, was frozen by Congress in Section 349 of the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 and therefore remains $52. Seems like we need more legislation to freeze the flat-rate premium.

Despite the significant improvement in the multiemployer pension program due to the Special Financial Assistance (SFA) related to ARPA pension reform, that insurance pool is still underwater. As a result, multiemployer plans that only pay a per-participant premium will see the per-participant rate for flat rate premiums rise to $40 from $39 next year. That amounts to an increase of 2.6%. So, the program that is underwater sees a premium increase of 2.6%, while the insurance pool with the massive surplus gets an outsized 4.7% increase? I guess one must work for the government to understand that decision.

Again, we need to do much more to protect DB pensions for all American workers. Asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “retirement benefit” with little to no disposable income, low investment knowledge, and no crystal ball to help with longevity considerations is just poor policy doomed to failure. We are the wealthiest country in the world, yet we can’t seem to figure out how to control costs associated with retirement, healthcare, education, childcare, etc. and in the process, we are crippling a majority of American families. It isn’t right!

10.30.25
by

Cash Flow Matching: Bringing Certainty to Pension Plans

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

Imagine a world, or at least the United States, where pension plans are no longer subject to market swings and the uncertainty those swings create. What if you could “guarantee” (outside of any corporate bond defaults) the promises made to your plan participants, ensuring their financial security with confidence? In today’s highly unpredictable investing environment, relying solely on the pursuit of investment returns is a risky ride—one that guarantees volatility and sleepless nights but not necessarily success. It’s time to rethink how we manage defined benefit (DB) pension plans and embrace a strategy that brings true certainty: Cash Flow Matching (CFM). Discover through the hypothetical conversation below how CFM can transform your investing approach, protect your plan, and deliver peace of mind for everyone involved. Let’s go!

Why are we talking about Cash Flow Matching (CFM) today?

First off, thanks for taking a few minutes to chat with me. As you may have heard me say before, our mission at Ryan ALM, Inc. is simple — to protect and preserve defined benefit (DB) pension plans and to secure the promises made to participants.

We believe that Cash Flow Matching (CFM) is one of the few strategies that can help us keep those promises with real certainty.

Why Now?

Because the world feels more uncertain than ever.

And if we’re honest, most of us don’t like uncertainty. Yet somehow, in the pension world, many plan sponsors have gotten used to it. Why is that?

Over the years, we’ve been taught that managing a DB plan is all about chasing returns. But that’s not really the case. When a plan invests 100% of its assets purely with a return objective, it locks itself into volatility — not stability or success.

That approach also puts your plan on the “asset allocation rollercoaster,” where markets rise and fall, and contributions swing higher and higher along with them. It’s time to step off that ride — at least for part of your portfolio.

So if it’s not all about returns, what is the real objective?

Managing a DB pension plan is all about cash flows — aligning the cash coming in (from principal and interest on bonds) with the cash going out (for benefits and expenses).

The real goal is to secure those promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. That’s the foundation of a healthy plan.

Does bringing more certainty mean I have to change how I manage the plan?

Yes — but only a little. The adjustments are modest and easy to implement.

How can I adopt a CFM strategy without making major changes?

The first step is to reconfigure your asset allocation. Most DB plans are currently 100% focused on returns. It’s time to split your assets into two clear buckets:

  1. Liquidity bucket – designed to provide cash flow to pay benefits and expenses.
  2. Growth bucket – focused on long-term return potential.

What goes into the liquidity bucket?

Most plans already hold some cash and core fixed income. Those assets can move into the liquidity bucket to fund benefit payments and expenses.

And what happens with the remaining assets?

Nothing changes there. Those assets stay in your growth or alpha bucket. The difference is that you’ll no longer need to sell from that bucket during market downturns, which helps protect your fund from the negative impact of forced selling.

Is that all I need to do to create more certainty?

Not quite. You’ll also want to reconfigure your fixed income exposure.

Instead of holding a generic, interest-rate-sensitive bond portfolio (like one tied to the Bloomberg Aggregate Index), you’ll want a portfolio that matches your plan’s specific liabilities — using both principal and income to accomplish the objective.

That’s where true cash flow matching comes in.

How does the matching process work?

We start by creating a Custom Liability Index (CLI) — a model of your plan’s projected benefit payments, expenses, and contributions. This serves as the roadmap for funding your monthly liquidity needs.

What information do you need to build that index?

Your plan’s actuary provides the projected benefits, expenses, and contributions as far out into the future as possible. The more data we have, the stronger the analysis. From there, we can map out your net monthly liquidity needs after accounting for contributions.

Which bonds do you use to match the cash flows?

We invest primarily in U.S. Treasuries and U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds. We stick with these because they provide dependable cash flows without introducing currency risk.

We limit our selections to bonds rated BBB+ or higher, and the longest maturity we’ll buy matches the length of the mandate. For example, if you ask us to secure 10 years of liabilities, the longest bond we’ll buy will mature in 10 years.

Do you build a laddered bond portfolio?

No — a traditional ladder would be inefficient for this purpose.

Here’s why: the longer the maturity and the higher the yield, the lower the overall cost of funding those future liabilities. So instead of a simple ladder, we use a proprietary optimization process to build the portfolio in a way that maximizes efficiency and minimizes cost.

It sounds manageable — not a big overhaul. Am I missing something?

Not at all. That’s exactly right.

Dividing assets into liquidity and growth buckets and reshaping your bond portfolio into a CFM strategy is typically all that’s required to bring more certainty to part of your plan.

Every plan is unique, of course, so each implementation will reflect its own characteristics. But generally speaking, CFM can reduce the cost of future benefits by about 2% per year — or roughly 20% over a 10-year horizon.

On top of that, it helps stabilize your funded status and contribution requirements.

How much should I allocate to CFM?

A good starting point is your existing cash and bond allocation. That’s the least disruptive way to begin.

Alternatively, you can target a specific time horizon — for example, securing 5, 7, or 10 years of benefits. We’ll run an analysis to show what asset levels are needed to meet those payments, which may be slightly more or less than your current fixed income and cash allocations.

Once implemented, do I just let the liquidity bucket run down?

Most clients choose to rebalance annually to maintain the original maturity profile. That keeps the strategy consistent over time. Of course, the rebalancing schedule can be customized to your plan’s needs and the broader market environment.

This all sounds great — but what does it cost?

In line with our mission to provide stability at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk, our fee is about half the cost of a typical core fixed income mandate.

If you’d like, we can discuss your specific plan details and provide a customized proposal.

Final thoughts

Thank you for taking the time to explore CFM. Many plan sponsors haven’t yet heard much about it, but it’s quickly becoming a preferred approach for those who value stability and peace of mind.

At the end of the day, having a “sleep well at night” strategy benefits everyone — especially your participants.

10.28.25
by

Uncertainty versus Change

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

Seems like we have a conflict within the management of defined benefit plans. On one hand, human beings (plan sponsors) despise uncertainty. But nearly all public DB pension plans are embracing uncertainty in how they are managed. How? Through a traditional asset allocation framework that focuses the fund’s assets on a performance objective – the return on asset assumption (roughly 7% for the average public plan). Each second that the capital markets are operating, uncertainty is abundant, as price movements are out of one’s control. So let’s change how plans are managed. Not so simple, as those same human beings hate change. Oh, boy.

I have the privilege of speaking at the NCPERS Fall conference tomorrow. The title of my presentation is “Bringing an Element of Certainty to Pension Management”. Folks should absolutely eat up this topic, but given the conflict cited above, it will be interesting to see if the trustees in the audience embrace the concept of achieving some certainty despite having to implement change to their current operating practices.

Given that both uncertainty and change are difficult for humans, what are we to do? Well, psychological research suggests that uncertainty is generally more challenging because it disrupts our ability to predict, control, and prepare for outcomes, and in the process it triggers more anxiety and stress than change itself. According to the research:

  • Uncertainty introduces ambiguity about outcomes, which activates heightened anxiety in the brain. When people lack information about what will happen (such as market movements), they tend to experience more stress and feelings of helplessness.
  • Change, while uncomfortable, becomes easier to adapt to when the outcome is known, even if it’s negative. Humans can plan, adjust, and find coping strategies if they know what to expect. As a result, predictable change is less stressful than unpredictable change.

Why is uncertainty more challenging? Again, according to the research:

  • The human brain is wired to seek patterns and predict the future; uncertainty undermines this process, making adaptation feel more difficult.
  • Studies show that people prefer even certain bad news to ambiguous situations, because they can prepare for and process what’s coming.
  • Chronic uncertainty can lead to anxiety disorders and impaired decision-making, while change tends to prompt growth and learning once people know what they’re facing.

Uncertainty is usually more psychologically challenging than change because it creates anxiety about the unknown, whereas change with a known outcome—though still difficult—allows people to adapt and regain control. Given this reality, it would seem that reducing uncertainty within the management of a DB pension plan would outweigh the changes necessary to accomplish that objective. BTW, the changes needed aren’t great. All one needs to do to bring some certainty to the process is to convert the current core fixed income allocation to a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy that will SECURE the promised benefits for as far into the future as that allocation will cover. In the process you improve the fund’s liquidity profile and extend the investing horizon for the residual assets. A win/win!

How nice would it be to communicate to your plan participants that no matter what happens in the markets (uncertainty) the promised benefits are protected for the next 5-, 7-, 10- or more years. Talk about a “sleep well at night” strategy! Now that’s certainty that even change can live with.

10.21.25
by

Milliman: Another good month for pension funding

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

Whether one is referring to public pensions or private DB plans, September was a continuation of the positive momentum experienced for most of 2025. Milliman has reported on both the Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), which analyzes the 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans and its Public Pension Funding Index (PPFI), which analyzes data from the nation’s 100 largest public defined benefit plans.

Milliman estimates that public pension funds saw aggregate returns of 1.7%, while corporate plans produced an average return for the month of 2.5%. As a result of these gains (sixth consecutive gain), public pension funded ratios stand at 85.4% up from 84.2% at the end of August. Corporate plans are now showing an aggregate funded ratio of 106.5%, marking the highest level since just before the Great Financial Crisis (GFC).

Public pension fund assets are now $5.66 trillion versus liabilities of $6.63 trillion, while corporate plans added $26 billion to their collective net assets increasing the funded status surplus to $80 billion. For corporate plans, the strong 2.5% estimated return was more than enough to overcome the decline in the discount rate to 5.36%, a pattern that has persisted for much of 2025.

“Robust returns helped corporate pension funding levels improve for the sixth straight month in September,” said Zorast Wadia, author of the Milliman PFI. “With more declines in discount rates likely ahead, funded ratios may lose ground unless plan assets move in lockstep with liabilities.”

“Thanks to continued strong investment performance, public pension funding levels continued to improve in September, and unfunded liabilities are now below the critical $1 trillion threshold for the first time since 2021,” said Becky Sielman, co-author of the Milliman PPFI. “Now, 45 of the 100 PPFI plans are more than 90% funded while only 11 are less than 60% funded, underscoring the continued health of public pensions.”

Discount rates have so far fallen in October. It will be interesting to see if returns can once again prop up funded status for corporate America. It will also be interesting to see how the different accounting standards (GASB vs. FASB) impact October’s results. A small gain for corporate plans may not be enough to overcome the potential growth in liabilities, as interest rates decline, but that small return may look just fine for public pension plans, that don’t mark liabilities to market only assets.

View this Month’s complete Pension Funding Index.

View the Milliman 100 Public Pension Funding Index.

10.20.25
by

ARPA Update as of October 17, 2025

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

The PBGC is doing its best to get through an imposing list of applicants for Special Financial Assistance (SFA). However, it seems more like one step forward, 1 1/2 steps backward for that organization as they grapple with late arrivals to the waitlist. In the latest week, the PBGC didn’t allow any additional applications to be submitted through the eFiling portal, but they did manage to approve two applications for SFA, while a third withdrew its initial application.

Despite the apparent progress, the PBGC saw four additions to the waitlist, which now numbers 176, of which 72 have yet to see any action taken on their potential submission. I can’t see how the PBGC is going to get through the remaining applications by year-end, when the filing of an initial application needs to be completed based on the language within the ARPA legislation.

Those pension funds receiving approval for the SFA in this latest week included, Local 153 Pension Fund and (initial application) Roofers Local 88 Pension Plan (revised application). Together they will collect $239.7 in SFA and interest for 12,335 plan participants. There have now been 144 pension plans approved to receive SFA for a total of $74.5 billion in grants. Amazing!

Happy to report that there were no applications denied and none of the previous SFA recipients were asked to refund a portion of the grant due to census errors. However, there was one plan that withdrew the initial application. Cumberland, Maryland Teamsters Construction and Miscellaneous Pension Plan, is seeking a SFA grant of $8.7 million for its 101 members.

The four latest (late) additions to the waitlist include, Local 29 R.W.D.S.U. Pension Fund, United Optical Workers Local 408 Pension Fund, Millwrights and Machinery Erectors Local No. 1545 Pension Plan, and Painters and Allied Trades Paint Makers Pension Plan. Only the Millwrights plan locked in its valuation date as of July 31, 2025. They were joined by the New Bedford Fish Lumpers Pension Plan which also chose July 31, 2025, for its valuation date. Do you know what a fish lumper is or does? You’ll have to see next week’s ARPA post for the answer, or you can go to your friendly AI app like I did.

10.17.25
by

Remember: NO Free Lunch!

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

In 1938, journalist Walter Morrow, Scripps-Howard newspaper chain, wrote the phrase “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”. The pension community would be well-served by remembering what Mr. Morrow produced more than eight decades ago. Morrow’s story is a fable about a king who asks his economists to articulate their economic theory in the fewest words. The last of the king’s economists utters the famous phrase above. There have been subsequent uses of the phrase, including Milton Friedman in his 1975 essay collection, titled “There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch”, in which he used it to describe the principle of opportunity cost.

I mention this idea today in the context of private credit and its burgeoning forms. I wrote about capacity concerns in private credit and private equity last year. I continue to believe that as an industry we have a tendency to overwhelm good ideas by not understanding the natural capacity of an asset class in general and a manager’s particular capability more specifically. Every insight that a manager brings to a process has a natural capacity. Many managers, if not most, will eventually overwhelm their own ideas through asset growth. Those ideas can, and should be, measured to assess their continuing viability. It is not unusual that good insights get arbitraged away just through sheer assets being managed in the strategy.

Now, we are beginning to see some cracks in the facade of private credit. We have witnessed a significant bankruptcy in First Brands, a major U.S. auto parts manufacturer. Is this event related to having too much money in an asset class, which is now estimated at >$4 trillion.? I don’t know, but it does highlight the fact that there are more significant risks investing in private deals than through public, investment-grade bond offerings. Again, there is no free lunch. Chasing the higher yields provided by private credit and thinking that there is little risk is silly. By the way, as more money is placed into this asset class to be deployed, future returns are naturally depressed as the borrower now has many more options to help finance their business.

In addition, there is now a blurring of roles between private equity and private credit firms, which are increasingly converging into a more unified private capital ecosystem. This convergence is blurring the historic distinction between equity sponsors and debt providers, with private equity firms funding private credit vehicles. Furthermore, we see “pure” credit managers taking equity stakes in the borrowers. So much for diversification. This blurring of roles is raising concerns about valuations, interconnected exposures, and potential conflicts of interest due to a single manager holding both creditor and ownership stakes in the same issue.

As a reminder, public debt markets are providing plan sponsors with a unique opportunity to de-risk their pension fund’s asset allocation through a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy. The defeasement of pension liabilities through the careful matching of bond cash flows of principal and interest SECURES the promised benefits while extending the investing horizon for the non-bond assets. There is little risk in this process outside of a highly unlikely IG default (2/1,000 bonds per S&P). There is no convergence of strategies, no blurring of responsibilities, no concern about valuations, capacity, etc. CFM remains one of the only, if not the only, strategies that provides an element of certainty in pension management. It isn’t a free lunch (we charge 15 bps for our services to the first breakpoint), but it is as close as one will get!

10.13.25
by

ARPA Update as of October 10, 2025

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

Welcome to Columbus and Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Bond markets are closed and the equity markets remain open. Columbus Day remains a federal holiday, but with most federal employees already furloughed, it will not be a day to celebrate for many.

Regarding ARPA and the PBGC’s activity implementing this critical legislation, last week proved a busy one as there were three new applications received, two approved, and one withdrawn. There was also a plan added to the burgeoning waitlist. Happy to report that there were no applications denied or required to rebate a portion of the SFA as a result of census errors.

Now for the details. Ironworkers’ Local 340 Retirement Income Plan, Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons Local No. 109 Pension Plan, and Dairy Employees Union Local #17 Pension Plan, each a non-priority group member, filed their initial applications seeking a combined $60.4 million in SFA for nearly 3k plan participants. The PBGC has 120-days to act on these applications.

Pleased to report that two plans, Local 734 Pension Fund and the Retirement Plan of the Millmen’s Retirement Trust of Washington received approval for their initial applications, and they will receive $89.5 and $7.2 million, respectively for their combined 2,597 members. The PBGC has now awarded $74.3 billion in SFA grants to support the pensions for 1.828 million workers.

In other ARPA news, Pension Plan of the Pension Fund for Hospital and Health Care Employees – Philadelphia and Vicinity has withdrawn its initial application seeking $229.8 million in SFA that would support 11,084 members. Finally, the Buffalo Carpenters Pension Fund has added their name to the waitlist. They immediately secured the valuation date as July 31, 2025. Good luck to them as there are 67 plans currently on the waitlist that have yet to submit an application.

I’ve mentioned on several occasions the approaching deadline to file an initial application seeking SFA approval. I do hope that an extension of the filing deadline is approved. There are a lot of American workers who should be provided the full benefits that they have been promised and could secure through the ARPA legislation. This should be a bi-partisan effort.

09.24.25
by

You Can’t Manage What You Don’t Measure!

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

Nearly 10 years ago, before joining Ryan ALM, I wrote an article about the idea that plan sponsors need to focus on their fund’s liabilities, as much as, if not more than, their plan’s assets. It shouldn’t be a shocking statement since the only reason that the plan exists is to fund a promise (benefit) that has been granted. Yet I would often get strange looks and frowns every time that concept was mentioned.

Why? Well, for over 50 years, pension sponsors and their consultants have been under the impression that if the return on assets (ROA) objective is achieved or exceeded, then the plan’s funding needs shall be sated. Unfortunately, this is just not true. A plan can achieve the ROA and then some, only to have the Funded Ratio decline and the Funded Status deteriorate, as liability growth exceeds asset growth.

We place liabilities – and the management of plan assets versus those liabilities – at the forefront of our approach to managing DB plans. Pension America has seen a significant demise in the use of DB plans, and we would suggest it has to do, in part, with how they’ve been managed. It will only get worse if we continue to support the notion that only the asset side of the pension equation is relevant. Focusing exclusively on the asset side of the equation with little or no integration with the plan’s liabilities has created an asset allocation that can be completely mismatched versus liabilities. It is time to adopt a new approach before the remaining 23,000 or so DB plans are all gone!

Our Suggestion

As this article’s title suggests, to manage the liability side of the equation, one needs a tool to measure and monitor the growth in liabilities, and it needs to be more frequent than the actuarial report that is an annual document usually available 3-6 months following the end of the calendar or fiscal year.

Such a tool exists – it is readily available, yet under-appreciated and certainly under-utilized! Ryan ALM has provided this tool to DB plan sponsors; namely, a Custom Liability Index (CLI), since 1991. This is a real time (available monthly or quarterly) index based on a plan’s specific projected liabilities. Furthermore, the output from this index should be the primary objective for a DB plan and not asset growth versus some hybrid index. Importantly, the CLI will provide to a plan sponsor (and their consultant) the following summary statistics on the liabilities, including:

  • Term-structure, Duration and Yield to Worst
  • Growth Rate of the Liabilities
  • Interest Rate Sensitivity
  • Present Value based on several discount rates

Different discount rates are used depending on the type of plan. GASB allows the ROA to be used as the discount rate for public pension plans, while FASB has a AA Corporate blended rate (ASC 715) as the primary discount rate for corporate plans. Having the ability (transparency) to see a plan’s liabilities at various discount rates with projected contributions is an incredible tool for both contribution management and asset allocation. Don’t hesitate to reach out to us for more information on how you can get a Custom Liability Index for your pension plan.

09.19.25
by

Houston, We Have A Problem!

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

That famous phrase from the movie Apollo 13, is actually modified from the original comment spoken by Jack Swigert, the command module pilot, who said, “Okay, Houston…we’ve had a problem here”. In any case, I am not referencing our space program, the City of Houston or for that matter, any other municipality. However, I am acknowledging that we continue to have an issue with how the debt of companies, municipalities, and other government entities get rated and how those rating agencies get compensated.

There was a comment in New Jersey Spotlight News (a daily email newsletter) that stated “New Jersey is facing uncertain economic times, to say the least, but its state government got a vote of confidence from Wall Street this week.” Of course, I was intrigued to understand what this vote of confidence might be especially given my knowledge of the current economic reality facing my lifelong state of residence. It turns out that Moody’s has elevated NJ’s debt rating. Huh?

Moody’s action in raising the rating to Aa3 follows a similar path that S&P took several months ago. Yes, NJ was able to recently close its budget gap by $600 million through tax increases but given that the state has one of the greatest tax burdens of any U.S. state, the ability to further raise taxes is likely significantly curtailed unless they want to witness a mass exodus of residents, including the author of this post!

According to Steve Church, Piscataqua Research, a highly experienced and thoughtful actuary, “New Jersey’s public employees, teachers, police and fire systems are $96B underfunded by reference to their actuaries’ contribution liability calculations and $154B underfunded using their actuaries’ LDROM calculations!” Ouch! Furthermore, they offer an OPEB that is funded at <10%. In addition, New Jersey, like many states, will be negatively impacted by the cuts in Medicaid and other social safety net programs. These cuts are likely to put significant pressure on the state’s budget, which has already risen significantly in just the last 5 years from $38.3 billion in fiscal year 2020 to nearly $60 billion today.

So, how is it possible that NJ could see a ratings increase given the significant burden that it continues to face in meeting future pension and OPEB funding, while also protecting the social safety net that so many Jersey residents are depending on. Well, here’s the rub. Rating agencies are paid under the practice called “issuer-pays”. This process has often been criticized, especially during the GFC when a host of credit ratings were called into question. Unfortunately, few alternatives have been put into practice today. How likely will a municipality or corporate entity pay an agency for a rating that puts the sponsor in a poor light? We’ve been extremely fortunate to have mostly weathered recent economic storms, but as history has shown, there is likely another just around the corner. How will these bonds hold up during the next crisis?