Tag Archives: db-pensions

06.10.26
by

Ryan ALM, Inc. – We Offer A Turnkey System

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

Ryan ALM helps defined benefit pension plans understand and manage the COMPLETE economics of their pension promise. Using cash flow projections of contributions, benefits, and expenses, the Ryan organization uses its proprietary liability valuation methodologies (ASC 715 discount rates), its trademarked Custom Liability Index (CLI), and our cash flow matching strategy that we call the Liability Beta Portfolio (LBP) to develop investment SOLUTIONS designed to align plan asset cash flows with liability cash flows. It is the SECURING of those future obligations that should be the paramount activity when managing a pension plan.

We refer to this process as a turnkey system, which Ron Ryan, Ryan ALM’s Chairman, recently described in great detail. We believe that our firm is unique in this regard. Unfortunately, pension plans today receive an actuarial update at most once per year, perhaps 4-6 months delayed. They rely on their asset consultants to create an asset allocation that should reflect the funded status but often the allocations are driven by the ROA. Investment managers are then retained to manage strategies based on the asset allocation, but not the plan’s liabilities. That seems pretty disjointed to us.

Ryan ALM’s competitive advantage is its proprietary turnkey system that integrates:

  • Liability valuation through discount-rate modeling
  • Cash-flow forecasting
  • Liability benchmark construction
  • Portfolio implementation
  • Ongoing monitoring

A true repeatable framework focused on the long-term SUSTAINABILITY of pension plans. Most pension plans don’t have such a system. They receive quarterly investment reports and annual actuarial valuations, but nobody integrates the assets and liabilities into a synergistic decision-making framework. Have you ever wondered: “How has the plan’s financial health changed since our last meeting, and what risks should we be paying attention to?” If not, you should be. Do you know where your liquidity is going to come from to meet those ongoing monthly obligations?

Ryan ALM would be happy to provide you with a free cash flow analysis based on our proprietary turnkey system. Given significant uncertainty today, a short 30-minute conversation followed by our analysis could ensure that your fund is set up for long-term success.

06.05.26
by

It is Our Mission!

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

The individual professionals on the Ryan ALM, Inc. team have both a personal and professional mission which drives us every day! What is that mission? We are driven with the goal of protecting and preserving defined benefit pension plans, which we believe are the only true retirement plans. Any other “retirement” vehicle pales in comparison. Yet, our industry has adopted practices which we believe are detrimental to the long-term stability of these critically important plans.

Pursuing an objective focused on return has created an environment that has these DB plans on a perpetual rollercoaster of performance, ultimately creating unnecessary instability and uncertainty as it relates to both contributions and funded status. As a reminder, we believe that the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is not a performance objective.

Recently, I reviewed a pension plan that believed its biggest challenge was improving returns. After examining its cash flow needs, we discovered the larger issue was liquidity. By addressing liquidity first, the trustees reduced risk, a key action in these uncertain times, while improving confidence in their ability to meet future benefit payments. Furthermore, most trustees I speak with are wrestling with the same issues—liquidity, uncertainty, and how much risk is appropriate at this stage of the investing cycle.

Through Cash Flow Matching (CFM), a dedicated investment-grade bond portfolio in which we carefully match asset cash flows of principal and interest against the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses, we are able to bring certainty to your cash flow needs through enhanced liquidity. I’d be happy to walk through your plan’s cash flow profile and show you how a cash flow matching approach would support your current asset allocation.

Every pension plan is different, but every trustee shares the same responsibility: ensuring promised benefits are paid. Markets will do what markets do. Interest rates will rise and fall. Economic uncertainty will come and go. The question is whether your pension plan is structured to withstand those events without jeopardizing the promises made to participants.

If you’re not completely certain that your fund is structured appropriately, let us at Ryan ALM work with you to protect and preserve your DB plan, as it is our collective mission. Your fund’s participants will appreciate knowing that their promised benefits have been secured for some period of time. If you’d like a second opinion on your plan’s liquidity profile, cash flow needs, or overall asset allocation strategy, let’s talk. A 30-minute conversation may help you see risks—and opportunities—that aren’t visible through a funded ratio or return assumption lens.

05.29.26
by

Important NIRS Statement related to Alaska

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

I recently published a post highlighting how powerful public pension funds are as an economic force. Despite DB pension fund demise in the private sector, they remain widely used to support hiring and retention of critical public servants. However, there are gaps in their usage and significant attempts have been made to shift the burden for a dignified retirement from the employer to the employee through DC offerings.

Recently, there was a bipartisan attempt by the Alaska legislation to reintroduce defined benefit plans to public sector workers, which were shuttered to new employees back in the early 2000s. Unfortunately, the bill was vetoed by Governor Dunleavy. The following text is a statement from Dan Doonan, Executive Director, National Institute on Retirement Security related to the Alaska situation. It is excellent!

Statement on Efforts in Alaska to Restore Pension Benefits to Address Grave Workforce Shortage

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 19, 2026 – In response to the veto of bipartisan legislation passed by the Alaska legislature to provide defined benefit pensions to Alaska’s public employees, the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) issued the following statement today from Dan Doonan, NIRS executive director:

“Alaska’s effort to restore a pension plan for public workers represents meaningful progress in addressing one of the state’s most pressing challenges: attracting and retaining a stable, experienced public workforce. While Governor Dunleavy has vetoed the legislation, the fact that the measure passed both the House and Senate demonstrates a growing recognition that retirement benefits are not just about retirement security — they also are an essential workforce management tool.

For years, Alaska has faced deep and growing staffing shortages and retention problems across the public sector after closing its pension plans, especially in education and public safety. Pensions are a proven tool for helping employers recruit qualified workers, reduce costly turnover, and retain experienced employees who provide continuity and institutional knowledge. Too often, Alaska has served as a training ground where workers gain experience and then leave for other states that provide pension benefits and offer public employees financial security after careers serving their communities.

Research delivered by NIRS to the Alaska Department of Education found that Alaska’s shift away from pensions contributed to higher turnover among public education employees. Alaska is a rare example in which data was available to compare the behavior of workers in the same jobs and communities, with the same employers, but with different benefit offerings. That increased worker turnover in Alaska carries real costs for employers, taxpayers, and communities alike.

Importantly, the new pension tier approved by the legislature offered an innovative middle-ground design approach to protect taxpayer interests, with both risk- and cost-sharing features.

Despite the veto, the legislation is an important step forward because policymakers from both parties acknowledge that retirement plan design directly affects workforce stability and the quality of public services. Supporters rightly argued that offering a redesigned, innovative pension plan with taxpayers’ protections would help address chronic vacancies and improve retention in critical public-sector jobs.

We hope Alaska lawmakers continue this conversation and make another run at restoring a pension option in the future. States across the country increasingly recognize that pensions remain one of the most cost-effective tools available to build and sustain a strong workforce capable of delivering essential public services.”

The National Institute on Retirement Security is a non-profit, non-partisan organization established to contribute to informed policymaking by fostering a deep understanding of the value of retirement security to employees, employers, and the economy as a whole. Located in Washington, D.C., NIRS membership includes financial services firms, employee benefit plans, trade associations, and other retirement service providers. More information is available at www.nirsonline.org.

Thanks, Dan and NIRS, for your continuing advocacy for DB pension plans.

05.28.26
by

DB Pension Plans – Powerful Economic Drivers

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

For regular readers of this blog or the research published at RyanALM.com, you know that I/we are huge supporters of defined benefit pension plans for many reasons. Not the least is the fact that asking the average American worker to fund, manage, and then disburse a “retirement” benefit with little to no disposable income, no investment acumen, and no crystal ball to help with longevity issues is just silly policy.

Importantly, public defined benefit pensions continue to be a major contributor to economic activity in the U.S. The sheer magnitude of public pensions asset bases (>$6 trillion) and the benefits that they annually pay ($418.3 billion in 2025) make them an economic force. These impressive stats and much more can be found in the Annual Survey of Public Pensions (ASPP) released recently by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The ASPP’s annual compendium provides revenues, expenditures, financial assets, and membership information about defined-benefit public pension systems. There is additional detailed actuarial data for state and locally administered defined-benefit public pension systems.

Survey Highlights:

  • In 2025, state and local governments invested $6.49 trillion in pension plans, up 8.46% from $5.98 trillion in 2024.
  • More than 37 million people (including inactive employees) participated in state and local pension plans in 2025.
  • Employees contributed nearly 25%, while governments contributed 75.2% of the total $315.0 billion contributed to state and local government pension plans in 2025.
  • State and local government pension plans in 2025 provided $418.25 billion in benefit payments to beneficiaries, up 3.40% from $404.46 billion in 2024. Much of that payment is spent in the recipient’s local community creating economic activity and jobs in the process.

Given the magnitude of the economic stimulus that DB pension plans provide, whether they be corporate, public, or multiemployer, they must be preserved and protected. The survey provides myriad statistics at the national level and for individual states. State and locally administered defined benefit plan information is also available. Just click on the link below.

Visit the Annual Survey of Public Pensions webpage for more information.

05.21.26
by

Pension Plans are NO Place for Cookie Cutter Solutions!

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

I was recently asked by a member of our investment/pension community if there was a common thread that linked my various roles during my 45-years in this business. After some thought, I said YES. For my nearly 20-years in consulting, or as the CEO for Invesco’s quant business or now at Ryan ALM, Inc. my roles have been highlighted by finding unique solutions to client or prospect challenges. I never believed that there existed an off-the-shelf-solution for my client’s unique requirements.

I continue to be motivated by this belief. I find it disconcerting that pension plans funded at quite different levels (60% vs. 90%) could have the same asset allocation. It makes no sense, yet we see that all the time. EVERY pension plan has a unique set of liabilities and asset allocation decisions should reflect those characteristics.

As an example, I attended a client’s quarterly meeting recently and listened to a consultant’s presentation regarding a new variable plan. We manage money for the legacy DB pension fund. The consultant explained that the new fund had a 5% annual return target. Yet they went on to say that the asset allocation was 60% equity, 35% fixed income, and 5% alternatives. WHY?

In today’s environment of much higher interest rates, investment grade corporate bonds of basically any maturity would provide a 5+% interest rate. Equities will likely get you more than 5% over time, but given the fund’s annual target and narrow corridor, why live with investments that come with far greater annual volatility, especially given today’s valuations, which are quite stretched by most measures?

Again, it appears to me that a 60%/35%/5% asset allocation is more of an off-the-shelf approach than one developed specifically for this client. For many plans today, the ability to meet the annual required contribution (ARC) is proving problematic. As we witnessed during the decade of the oughts, major market dislocations can have a profound impact on the sponsoring organization through ever increasing contributions. Furthermore, liquidity to meet ongoing monthly benefit payments, especially for negative cash flow plans, is proving to be difficult. These challenges need to be solved on an individual fund basis and not through a general approach.

We, at Ryan ALM, Inc., believe that the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is not a return objective. Since every plan has a unique set of liabilities, no generic index or “traditional” asset allocation could ever replicate those liabilities. Managing a pension plan needs to start with understanding the client’s objective.

05.11.26
by

Milliman: Corporate Pension Funding Highest Since 2007

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

Milliman has once again released its monthly Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), which analyzes the 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans. It would be fascinating to see how these 100 plans differ from a list just 20-years ago.

As for today’s members, the Milliman 100 PFI plans showed improved funding by $23 billion during April. These stellar results were driven by strong equity returns as the constituents averaged a 2.13% gain. As a result, the funded ratio dramatically improved from 105.9% at the end of March to 107.8% at the end of April representing the highest level of funding since October 2007, when it stood at 108.1%. Strong investment gains increased assets by $20 billion and now stand at $1.297 trillion, while the projected benefit obligation fell slightly to $1.204 trillion, as the monthly discount rate edged up one basis point, to 5.66% from 5.65%. 

“After a flat first quarter, the funding surplus grew to $94 billion at the end of April, primarily due to strong market returns,” said Zorast Wadia, author of the Milliman 100 PFI. “This means plan sponsors continue to have more pension risk management options as plans move further into surplus territory.”

Plan sponsors would be wise to seek risk reducing strategies. The previous high watermark was achieved in October 2007, just prior to the start of the Great Financial Crisis, which pummeled markets through March of 2009. As the graph below highlights, the Milliman 100 went from a small surplus in the Q3’07 to a major deficit within 6 months. It would be another 13-years before a surplus was once again created.

Plan sponsors should secure the pension promises through a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy and then actively manage surplus assets since they’ve now created a much longer investing horizon for those assets. Ryan ALM, Inc. is always willing to provide a free analysis of what is possible through CFM.

For the full Milliman report, click on the link below.

View this month’s complete Pension Funding Index.

05.07.26
by

Unique Liabilities Require A Unique Solution

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

Most pension plans have exposure to fixed income. Perhaps not as much as they did prior to 2000, but today’s common thinking is that the current exposure is enough to act as a buffer should equity markets not continue along this momentum fueled path, and finally, to support the monthly liquidity needs of the fund. But are those the right reasons to use bonds and what type of fixed income should be used to accomplish those objectives?

We observe that most funds use a variety of investment grade bonds (Treasuries, Agencies, Corporates, etc.) and they have that collection benchmarked to a generic index such as the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Index (a.k.a. the Agg). As a reminder, the Agg was created by Ron Ryan when he was Head of Research at Lehman Brothers a few years ago. But, again, is this the right approach? We at Ryan ALM, Inc. believe that bonds should only be used for their cash flows (principal and interest) and not as a performance driver. Bonds are perhaps the only asset class with a known cash flow equal to the value at maturity (PAR) and contractual interest payments. Those known cash flows can be modeled to meet the plan’s ongoing liability cash flows (benefits + expenses). 

Which brings me to the point that every pension plan’s liabilities are unique, and as such, no generic index such as the Agg could possibly match a plan’s liabilities. If the asset cash flows don’t match and fund the liability cash flows (benefits and expenses), the plan is subject to unnecessary interest rate risk. Again, given that every pension plan has a unique set of liabilities this would suggest that each pension plan needs to have an investment strategy created specifically for their cash flow needs. Cash Flow Matching (CFM) is an investment strategy with a very long and successful history. An appropriately crafted CFM portfolio will meet and fully fund chronologically the liability cash flows as far into the future as the allocation to the CFM strategy lasts.

We take great pride in our proprietary CFM optimization modeling, which we began using at Ryan ALM’s founding in 2004. Having the ability to tailor unique solutions to client specific issues/requests is a hallmark of our firm, and this capability is being recognized throughout the industry. In fact, we recently received this feedback from an ALM expert at a large asset/liability consulting firm, who stated that I’m “impressed with the team’s ability to build portfolios for such non-standard cashflow streams.” Thank you!

We’d be happy to demonstrate our capability and we’re always willing to provide a free analysis highlighting how your fund could benefit through CFM and Ryan ALM’s expertise. Just call us.

05.04.26
by

Why Wouldn’t You Prefer a SD of +/-0%?

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

I continue to be surprised that more pension plans don’t embrace greater certainty in the management of their funds. The Iran War is leading to great uncertainty related to inflation, interest rates, and economic growth. Yes, U.S. equities have enjoyed a healthy recovery following the initial outbreak in the Middle East, but is that sustainable?

Callan does a good job of providing a regular review of what asset allocation would be necessary to achieve a 7% return and the risk (measured as standard deviation) to achieve that return objective. Callan indicated that it was very easy to achieve a 7% return all the way back in 1994 when U.S. interest rates were higher than they are today. In fact, an allocation of 85% to fixed income and small allocations to L.C. equity, SC equity, and int’l stocks would have produced a 7% return with only a 5.6% annual standard deviation.

However, in the most recent update from 2024, Callan suggests the following asset allocation is necessary to achieve a 7% return:

This means that 68% of the time, a plan sponsor should expect an annual return of 7% +/- 8.6%. At two standard deviations (95% of the observations or 19/20 years), the annual return will fall between +/- 17.2% of the 7% target. Would you be comfortable knowing that your fund could generate an annual return of -10.2%? Think about the impact a return like that would have on contributions?

What if I said that cash flow matching (CFM) a portion of your pension fund would result in those assets having an annual SD of 0% barring a default which occurs at a rate of 0.18% annually among investment grade corporate bonds for the last 40-years. How’s that possible? When CFM is implemented, the plan’s asset cash flows and matched agains the plan’s liability cash flows (benefits and expenses). They mover in lockstep with each other no matter where rates go. Today’s U.S. interest environment is attractive and getting more attractive as I write this post, as the 30-year Treasury bond yield has topped 5% (5.02% at 11:47 am DST). Higher rates are great for CFM, as they lower the present value of those future promises.

Furthermore, the use of a CFM portfolio secures the pension promises, dramatically improves plan liquidity, eliminates interest rate risk for the portion of the plan, extends the investing horizon for the residual plan assets, and reduces the cost of those future pension promises. Again, why wouldn’t you embrace an element of certainty?

I’m not sure what the Callan team would identify as the proper allocation to achieve a 7% return today, but I suspect that the annual standard deviation is greater than the 8.6% from 2024. Every time a pension plan falls short of the annual ROA, contributions must increase to make up for the shortfall. Greater investment certainty, like that associated with using CFM, reduces the likelihood that the pension plan sponsor with suffer from a negative surprise associate from increased contributions.

03.24.26
by

ARPA Update as of March 20, 2026

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

I’m sure that folks were very (perhaps bitterly) disappointed not to get my weekly update yesterday on the PBGC’s implementation of the ARPA pension legislation. I was traveling for business yesterday, but unlike many travelers, my experience at Newark Airport was shockingly positive. I have heard of 4-6 hour waits to get through security and planes that are forced to leave the gate with as few as 5 passengers. Various estimates put the daily impact of these disruptions at $285 million to $580 million once a 10% reduction in flights occurs.

What about ARPA? As regular readers know, the PBGC has worked through a significant majority of non-mass withdrawal applicants. There remains just one fund – Plasterers Local 79 Pension Plan – that hasn’t gotten to submit an initial application form those on the waitlist. There are still a few pension funds from the original Priority Groups that haven’t filed an initial application seeking SFA.

During the prior week, Cumberland, Maryland Teamsters Construction and Miscellaneous Pension Plan received approval of its revised SFA application. They will receive $9.5 million for their 101 plan members. Congrats!

In other news, there is no other news, as there were no new applications submitted, as the PBGC’s eFiling portal remains temporarily closed. Also, there were no applicants denied, no plans were asked to repay a portion of the SFA, and no applications were withdrawn or added to the waitlist.

The treatment of the 80 plans (from potentially 131) currently on the waitlist that fall under the category of plans suffering mass withdrawal prior to 2020 is the last remaining significant issue that the PBGC must still work through.

U.S. Treasury yields have risen sharply since the beginning of the Iran conflict. As challenging as that development is on existing bond funds, the entry point for SFA recipients wanting to use CFM to secure the benefits and expenses is as good as it has been in more than 1-year. As a reminder, higher yields reduce the cost of those future promises.

03.17.26
by

What Would You Do?

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

Happy St. Paddy’s Day to my Irish friends (I’m 1/2 Irish) and those that would like to be. May the luck of the Irish embrace you today.

As many of you know, we are always willing to provide to the pension and E&F communities a free analysis to highlight how a Cash Flow Matching (CFM) mandate could secure the promised benefits/grants for your fund and importantly, provide the necessary liquidity to meet future promises. In many cases, we will produce multiple runs covering a variety of periods usually 5-years to 30-years. Often the sponsor of the fund is shocked by the potential cost reduction of those future obligations.

We recently provided a large pension plan with several potential implementations, as they try to improve the fund’s liquidity profile, while also desiring to secure those future promises. Here are three scenarios that we provided to them and I’d welcome your feedback on what you would do.

Scenario #1 – Provide a CFM portfolio using the core fixed income allocation ($3 billion/15% of total assets) to match and fund the NET (after contributions) liability cash flows of benefits and expenses (B&E). In this scenario, we can cover the next 6-years of B&E through 6/30/32, covering $3.44 billion in FV benefits and expenses for $3.0 billion (a cost reduction of $443.3k or 12.88%). The YTM on the portfolio is 4.09 and the duration 3.09 years, with the average quality being A-. The remaining assets can continue to be managed as they currently are, but they now benefit from a 6-year investing horizon in which they are no longer providing any liquidity to meet monthly obligations.

Scenario #2 – Provide a CFM portfolio using the same $3 billion (only needed $2.96 billion) or 15% of the fund’s total assets, but implement the strategy using a vertical slice of the liabilities going out 30-years. In this example, we can cover 22% of the liability cash flows for the next 30-years. The FV of those liabilities are $6.3 billion (as opposed to the $3.44 billion using 100% CFM for 6-years). We can reduce the FV cost by $3.33 billion or 53%. The remaining 85% of the fund’s assets can be managed as they presently are, but they don’t benefit from the longer investing horizon, as they will be called upon to provide liquidity to meet the residual B&E.

Scenario #3 – 100% CFM covering net liabilities through 6/30/59. In this case we showed that we can cover 100% of the NET B&E for $9.9 billion in assets, while providing the plan with a $4.4 billion surplus. The FV of those B&E through 2059 are reduced by about $13 billion or 56%! The surplus assets now have a 33-year investing horizon to just grow and grow! A modest 6.5% annualized return for that period produces a surplus of $34.2 billion that can be used to fund B&E after 2059, enhance benefits, and/or reduce future contributions. An 8% annualized return produces a surplus >$75 billion. Oh, my! Also, in this scenario, the organization ONLY needs an annual 2.56% return on the remaining assets to fully fund ALL projected B&E well beyond 2059, as determined by our Asset Exhaustion Test (AET).

Importantly, these scenarios only work if the sponsoring entity provides the forecasted contributions, which in this case they have consistently done for the past 10+ years.

So, I ask once again, what would you do? Scenario 1 ($3 billion/15% of total assets) provides a 100% coverage for 6-years while reducing cost by 13%. Scenario 2 reduces the cost of FV B&E by 53% or $3.4 billion, but covers only 22% of the liabilities, while Scenario 3 reduces the FV cost by 56%, while securing the net promises through 2059 for a cost of $9.9 billion resulting in a surplus of $4.4 billion.

I guess that there is a fourth scenario which is to do nothing, but why would you want to continue to ride the proverbial performance rollercoaster that only guarantees volatility and not success when you can secure a portion of the liabilities, significantly reduce the cost of those future promises, improve liquidity, and “buy time” for the residual assets to just grow unencumbered?

As the Irish say – “May the most you wish for be the least you get“.