Tag Archives: db-pensions

06.23.25
by

$6 billion – Is That All?

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

A recent ruling by the 2nd Circuit has opened the door for roughly 100+ multiemployer plans to pursue Special Financial Assistance (SFA) that were originally deemed ineligible because the plans had terminated. The PBGC’s inspector general, in a “risk advisory”, has estimated that the cost to provide the SFA to these newly eligible plans could be as much as $6 billion. Is that all? Let’s not focus on the $s, but the number of American workers and their families that this additional expenditure will support.

As I reported last week in my weekly update related to ARPA’s pension reform, the PBGC had denied the application for the Bakery Drivers Local 550 and Industry Pension Fund, a New York-based terminated pension plan, because it had terminated. The plan covered 1,094 participants in 2022 and was 6.3% funded, according to their Form 5500. Regrettably, the plan terminated in 2016 by mass withdrawal after Hostess Brands, Inc., its largest contributor, went bankrupt. However, the court stated, that despite terminating in 2016, the plan “continued to perform audits, conduct valuations, file annual reports, and make payments to more than 1,100 beneficiaries.”

As of June 13, 2025, the PBGC had already received 223 applications for SFA with $73.0 billion approved supporting the retirements for 1.75 million American workers. What an incredible outcome! However, according to the inspector general’s letter, the potential $6 billion in added cost would include $3.5 billion to repay the PBGC’s earlier loans to approximately 91 terminated plans, which was described as a “potential waste”. He went on to state that the potential repayment to the PBGC would be a waste of taxpayer funds due to the positive current and projected financial condition of the multiemployer program. “PBGC’s multiemployer program is in the best financial condition it has been in for many years. PBGC’s 2023 Projections Report states that PBGC’s multiemployer program is projected to ‘likely remain solvent for at least 40 years.’” GREAT!

Perhaps the repayment of $3.5 billion in loans could enable the PBGC to lower the annual premiums on the cost to insure each participant, which might keep some plans from seeking termination due to excessive costs to administer the program. Something needs to be done with private DB plans, too, as those costs per participant are far greater, but that’s a story for another blog post.

As regular readers of this blog know, we’ve celebrated the success of this program since its inception (July 2021). The fact that 1.75 million American workers to date have had their promised benefits secured, and in some cases, restored, is wonderful. Think of the economic impact that receiving and spending a monthly pension check has on their communities. Furthermore, think about what the cost would have been for each of these folks had the Federal government been needed to provide social services. None of these workers/retirees did anything wrong, yet they bore the brunt.

The estimated $6 billion in additional “investment” in American workers is a drop in the bucket relative to the annual budget deficit, which has been running from $1-$2 trillion annually. Restoring and supporting the earned retirement benefits is the right thing to do.

06.20.25
by

Why? – Revisited

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

My 44-year career in the investment industry has been focused on DB pension plans, in roles as both a consultant and an investment manager (I’ve also served as a trustee). I’ve engaged in 000s of conversations related to the management of DB pension plans covering the good, the bad, and even the ugly! I’ve published more than 1,600 mostly pension-related posts on this blog with the specific goal to provide education. I hope that some of my insights have proven useful. Managing a DB pension plan, whether a private, public, or a multiemployer plan is challenging. As a result, I’ve always felt that it was important to challenge the status quo with the aim to help protect and preserve DB pensions for all.

Unfortunately, I continue to think that many aspects of pension management are wrong – sorry. Here are some of the concerns:

  • Why do we have two different accounting standards (FASB and GASB) in the U.S. for valuing pension liabilities?
  • Why does it make sense to value liabilities at a rate (ROA) that can’t be purchased 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 (benefits) 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 some of these observations resonate with you, and 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” (extending the investment horizon) 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 because you’ve SECURED the near-term liquidity needed to fund the promises and just watch the highly uncertain markets unfold knowing that you don’t have to do anything except sleep very well at night.

06.18.25
by

Eligible For SFA

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

Regular followers of this blog know that I provide a weekly update on the ARPA pension legislation and the PBGC’s progress implementing this critical support for multiemployer pension plans. We reported way back in January 2023 that the Bakery Drivers Local 550 and Industry Pension Fund’s application seeking Special Financial Assistance (SFA) had been denied due to ineligibility. We also reported that the Bakery Drivers had submitted a revised application on May 30, 2025. We observed at the time that unlike all the other applications that had been submitted, this one did not have a 120-day window for the PBGC to act on the submission. We now know why.

The Bakers were cooking up an argument that was presented to the courts on why their application seeking SFA was appropriate and they were right. “The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals says that a multiemployer pension plan that qualifies for a grant under the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s (PBGC) Special Financial Assistance (SFA) program cannot be excluded just because that plan was previously terminated.”

“Because we do not read the pertinent provision of the SFA statute to exclude plans based solely on a prior termination,” the court ruled, the plan should be eligible for a SFA grant. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the fund, “vacated the PBGC’s denial and remanded the application to the PBGC for reconsideration.”

A little history. The Bakery Drivers Local 550 and Industry Pension Fund, a fund based in Floral Park, NY. The plan covered 1,094 participants in 2022 and was 6.3% funded, according to their Form 5500. Regrettably, the plan terminated in 2016 by mass withdrawal after Hostess Brands, Inc., its largest contributor, went bankrupt. However, the court stated, that despite terminating in 2016, the plan “continued to perform audits, conduct valuations, file annual reports, and make payments to more than 1,100 beneficiaries.”

The court ruled that the statute said that any multiemployer plan that was in critical and declining status from 2020 to 2022 was potentially eligible, and the plan was in critical and declining status in Sept. 2022 when it applied. Importantly, “these provisions do not, by their terms, exclude a plan that was terminated by mass withdrawal.”

According to the PBGC’s status of applications weekly report, the United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Pension Plan, a non-priority group member, is the only other applicant to have its submission denied due to ineligibility. I wonder if they will have a similar argument as the Bakery Drivers. More to come.

06.16.25
by

The Power of Bond Math

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

Bonds are the only asset class with the certainty of its cash flows. That is why bonds have always been used to cash flow match and defease liabilities. Given this certainty, bonds provide a secure way to reduce the cost to fund liabilities. This benefit is not as transparent or valued as one might think. If you could save 20% to 50% on almost anything, most people would jump at the opportunity? But when it comes to pre-funding pension liabilities there seems to be a hesitation to capture this prudent benefit.

Bond math tells us that the higher the yield and the longer the maturity… the lower the cost. Usually there is a positive sloping yield curve such that when you extend maturity you pick up yield. What may not be evident is the fact that extending maturity is the best way to reduce costs even if yields were not increased. Here are examples of what it would cost to fund a $100,000 liability payment with a bond(s) whose maturity matches the liability payment date:

Cost savings is measured as the difference between Cost and the liability payment of $100k. As you can see, extending maturity produces a much greater cost reduction than an increase in yield. More importantly, the cost reduction is significant no matter what maturity you invest at, even if yields are unchanged. The cost savings range from 21.9% (5-years) to 38.1% (10-years) and 62.8% (20-years) with rates unchanged. Why wouldn’t a pension want to reduce funding costs by 21.9% to 62.8% with certainty instead of using bonds for a volatile and uncertain total return objective? Given the large asset bases in many pensions, such a funding cost reduction should be a primary budget consideration.

Ryan ALM is a leader in Cash Flow Matching (CFM) through our proprietary Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP) model. We believe that the intrinsic value in bonds is the certainty of their cash flows. We urge pensions to transfer their fixed income allocation from a total return objective versus a generic market index (whose cash flows look nothing like the clients’ liability cash flows) to a CFM strategy. The benefits are numerous:

Secures benefits for time horizon LBP is funding (1-10 years)

Buys time for alpha assets to grow unencumbered 

Reduces Funding costs (roughly 2% per year)

Reduces Volatility of Funded Ratio/Status

Reduces Volatility of Contribution costs

Outyields active bond management

Mitigates Interest Rate Risk 

Low fee = 15 bps

For more info on our Cash Flow Matching model (LBP) or a free analysis to highlight what CFM can do for your plan, please contact Russ Kamp, CEO at rkamp@ryanalm.com

06.16.25
by

ARPA Update as of June 13, 2025

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

I hope that you and/or the men in your life had a wonderful Father’s Day.

Regarding the ARPA legislation and the PBGC’s oversight, last week was fairly tame in terms of activity. There weren’t exciting developments such as approvals or submissions of applications, as access to the PBGC’s eFiling portal remains “limited”, which means that it “is open only to plans at the top of the waiting list that have been notified by PBGC that they may submit their applications. Applications from any other plans will not be accepted at this time.”

There were no applications denied, withdrawn, and no further recipients of the SFA required to repay a portion of the grant due to census errors. It has been a little over a month (5/5/25) since the last plan repaid a portion of the SFA. As I’ve mentioned several times, there likely aren’t many plans that still might be asked to return a portion of the grant monies.

So what did transpire during the previous week? Well, mutliemployer plans continue to be added to the waitlist. In fact, since April 30, 2025, twenty pension plans have been added to the list. In total, 136 pension plans have sought Special Financial Assistance through the waitlist path with 56 of those yet to file an application with the PBGC. Two of the recent waiting list additions to the waitlist have locked in the valuation date as of March 31, 2025. As a reminder, a “lock-in application will set the plan’s SFA measurement date and base data but has no impact on the process PBGC follows for accepting complete SFA applications for review”, per the PBGC.

Continuing uncertainty surrounding economic policies and geopolitical risks has U.S. Treasury yields hovering around cycle highs. This rising rate environment is not helpful to active core fixed income managers, but it is quite helpful to plan sponsors looking to secure the promised benefits through the SFA grants.

06.13.25
by

One Can Only Hope!

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

The title of this post could be used to discuss any number of uncertainties that we are currently facing including geopolitical risk, economic risks associated with potentially disruptive policies, to the economic burdens faced by many Americans. I’ve chosen to apply this title to the prospect that America’s sponsors of defined benefit plans may not be offloading those pension liabilities with the rapidity that they’ve shown in the last decade or so.

There recently appeared an article in PlanSponsor titled, “Fewer Plan Sponsors Terminating DB Plans Amid Risk Management Shifts”. Again, one can only hope that this trend continues. “Half of plan sponsors do not intend to terminate their DB plans, up from 36.7% in 2023 and 28.3% in 2021, according to Mercer’s 2025 CFO Survey,” The survey was based on response from 173 senior finance officers. Unfortunately, it doesn’t undo the harm wrought by all the previous DB terminations, but it is still wonderful news for the American workforce!

As I’ve reported previously, Milliman’s monthly index of the Top 100 corporate plans currently shows a 104.1% funded ratio. Managing surplus assets is now the focus for many of these pension plans. Generating pension earnings, as opposed to living with the burden of pension expense will change one’s perspective. In Ron Ryan’s excellent book, titled, “The U.S. Pension Crisis”, he attributes a lot of the crisis to the accounting rules. For many corporations, pension expenses became a drag on earnings. Sure, they might have said that the company’s primary focus was manufacturing XYZ product and not managing a pension, but the costs associated with managing a DB plan certainly weighed heavily on the decision to freeze, terminate, and eventually transfer the plan.

Now that companies are sitting with a surplus leading to pension earnings, they are reluctant to shift those assets to an insurance company. According to the Mercer survey “70.1% reporting they have implemented dynamic de-risking strategies, an increase of nearly 10 percentage points from 2023. Additionally, 44% have boosted allocations to fixed-income assets to stabilize their funded status.” Let’s hope that they just haven’t engaged a duration strategy to mitigate some of the interest rate sensitivity. As we’ve stated, cash flow matching is a superior strategy to duration matching as every month of the coverage period is duration matched and you get the liquidity as a bonus to meet monthly distributions. Moreover, the Ryan ALM model will outyield ASC 715 discount rates which should enhance pension income or reduce pension expense.

Clearly, this is a positive trend, but we are far from out of the woods in preserving DB pensions. Unfortunately, plan sponsors are still considering risk transfers which continue to “dominate strategic discussions”, as more than 70% of organizations plan to offer lump-sum payments to some portion of their plan beneficiaries in the next two years.” The American workforce is far more interested these days in securing their golden years and a DB plan is the best way to accomplish that objective.

06.10.25
by

HF Assets Hit Record – Why?

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

I touched on the subject of hedge funds a few years ago. Unfortunately, results haven’t gotten any better. Yet, P&I is reporting that Hedge Fund assets have reached an all-time high of $5.7 trillion. My simple question – WHY?

I believe that we have overcomplicated the management of DB pension plans and the use of hedge funds is a clear example. If the primary objective is to fund the promised benefits in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk, why do we continue to waste so much energy buying complicated, opaque products and strategies that often come with ridiculously high fees and little alpha? Furthermore, the management of a DB pension plan has a relative objective – funding the plan’s liabilities of benefits and expenses. It is not an absolute objective which is what a hedge fund strives to produce. It really doesn’t matter if a hedge fund produces a 5% 10-year return if liability growth far exceeds that performance.

Here’s the skinny, the HFRI Composite index reveals that the 10- and 20-year compounded returns are 5.0% and 5.1%, respectively through March 31, 2025. We know that we didn’t get those “robust” returns at either an efficient cost or with prudent risk. What are these products hedging other than returns? Why do we continue to invest in this collection of overpriced and underperforming products? Are they sexy? Does that make them more appealing? Do we think that we are getting a magic elixir that will solve all of our funding issues?

Sadly, the story is even worse when you take a gander at the returns associated with the HFRI Hedge Fund of Funds Composite Index. I shouldn’t have been surprised by the weaker performance given the extra layer of fees. According to HFRI, 10- and 20-year annualized returns fall to 3.5% and 3.3%, respectively. UGH! For those two time frames, the S&P 500 produced returns of 12.5% and 10.2% respectively, and for a few basis points in fees. Furthermore, as U.S. interest rates have risen, bond returns have become competitive with the returns produced by HFs and HF of Funds. In fact, during the 1-year period both T-bills (4.9%) and the BB Aggregate index (5.2%) have outperformed HFs (4.6%), while matching or exceeding the HF of Funds (4.9%) as of March 31, 2025.

While pension systems struggle under growing contribution expenses and plan participants worry about the viability of the pension promise, the hedge fund gurus get to buy sports franchises because of the outrageous fees that are charged and the incredible sums of assets (again, $5.7 trillion!!!) that have been thrown at them? I suspect that the standard fee is no longer 2% plus 20%, but the fees probably haven’t fallen too far from those levels. As Fred Schwed asked with his famous publication in 1952 titled, “Where are the Customers’ Yachts?”, I haven’t been able to find them. Unfortunately, I think that the picture below is more representative of what plan sponsors and the participants have gotten for their investment.

Participant’s yacht – deflated results

Don’t you think that it is time to get back to pension basics? Let’s focus on funding the promised benefits through an enhanced liquidity strategy (cash flow matching) for a portion of the plan’s assets, while allowing the remainder of the portfolio’s assets to enjoy the benefit of time to grow unencumbered (extended investing horizon). This bifurcated approach is superior to the current strategy of placing all of your eggs (assets) into a ROA bucket and hoping that the combination will create a return commensurate with what is needed to meet those current Retired Lives Benefit promises and all future benefits and expenses.

06.02.25
by

Problem – Solution: Liquidity

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

Plan Sponsors of defined benefit pension plans don’t have an easy job! The current focus on return/performance and the proliferation of new, and in some cases, complicated and opaque products, make navigating today’s market environment as challenging as it has ever been.

At Ryan ALM, Inc. we want to be our clients’ and prospects’ first call for anything related to de-risking/defeasing pension liabilities. Ryan ALM is a specialty firm focused exclusively on Asset/Liability Management (ALM) and how best to SECURE the pension promise. For those of you who know Ron Ryan and the team, you know that this have been his/our focus for 50+ years. I think that it is safe to say that we’ve learned a thing or two about managing pension liabilities along the way. Have a problem? We may just have the solution. For instance:

Problem – Plan sponsors need liquidity to meet monthly benefits and expense. How is this best achieved since many plan sponsors today cobble together monthly liquidity by taking dividends, interest, and capital distributions from their roster of investment advisors or worse, sell securities to meet the liquidity needs?

Solution – Create an asset allocation framework that has a dedicated liquidity bucket. Instead of having all of the plan’s assets focused on the return on asset (ROA) assumption, bifurcate the assets into two buckets – liquidity and growth. The liquidity bucket will consist of investment grade bonds whose cash flows of interest and principal will be matched against the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses through a sophisticated cost-optimization model. Liquidity will be available from the first month of the assignment as far out as the allocation to this bucket will secure – could be 5-years, 10-years, or longer. In reality, the allocation should be driven by the plan’s funded status. The better the funding, the more one can safely allocate to this strategy. Every plan needs liquidity, so even poorly funded plans should take this approach of having a dedicated liquidity bucket to meet monthly cash flows.

By adopting this framework, a plan sponsor no longer must worry where the liquidity is going to come from, especially for those plans that are in a negative cash flow situation. Also, removing dividend income from your equity managers has a long-term negative effect on the performance of your equity assets. Finally, during periods of market dislocation, a dedicated liquidity bucket will eliminate the need to transact in less than favorable markets further preserving assets.

We’re often asked what percentage of the plan’s assets should be dedicated to the liquidity bucket. As mentioned before, funded status plays an important role, but so does the sponsors ability to contribute, the current asset allocation, and the risk profile of the sponsor. We normally suggest converting the current core fixed income allocation, with all of the interest rate risk, to a cash flow matching (CFM) portfolio that will be used to fund liquidity as needed.

We’ll be producing a Problem – Solution blog on a variety of DB plan topics. Keep an eye out for the next one in the series. Also, if you have a problem, don’t hesitate to reach out to us. We might just have an answer. Don’t delay.

05.29.25
by

Union Wins NEW Defined Benefit Pension!!

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

Anyone who reads this blog knows that we at Ryan ALM, Inc. are huge proponents of defined benefit (DB) plans. We promote the use of DB plans as the only sensible retirement vehicle for the American worker. Blog after blog has discussed ways to secure the benefit promises for those pension plans still operating in the hope that the tide to offloading these critical funds would be slowed, if not stemmed.

When IBM announced that they were going to reopen their plan, I produced the post “Oh, What A Beautiful Morning”, and promised not to sing. I’m also not going to sing today, but I might just shout from the rooftops, if the rain stops in NJ. Why? There is a new DB fund that has just been approved! YES!!

Dee-Ann Burbin, The Associated Press, is reporting that “U.S. meatpacking workers are getting their first new defined benefit pension plan in nearly 40 years under a contract agreement between Brazil-based JBS, one of the world’s largest meat companies, and an American labour union”.

The United Food and Commercial Workers union said 26,000 meatpacking workers at 14 JBS facilities would be eligible for the multi-employer pension plan. “This contract, everything that was achieved, really starts to paint the picture of what everybody would like to have: long-term stable jobs that are a benefit for the employees, a benefit for the employers and a benefit for the community they operate in,” Mark Lauritsen, the head of the UFCW’s meatpacking and food processing division, told the Associated Press in an interview.

In a statement, JBS said the pension plan reflected its commitment to its workforce and the rural communities in which it operates. “We are confident that the significant wage increases over the life of the contracts and the opportunity of a secure retirement through our pension plan will create a better future for the men and women who work with us at JBS.” Lauritsen said DB pension plans used to be standard in the meatpacking industry but were cut in the 1980s as companies consolidated. Big meat companies like Tyson Foods Inc. and Cargill Inc. now offer 401(k) plans but not traditional pensions.

According to Burdin’s article, the union started discussing a return to pensions a few years ago as a way to help companies hang on to their workers. “The good thing about a 401 (k) is that it’s portable, but the bad thing about a 401 (k) is that it’s portable,” he said. “This was a way to capture and retain people who were moving from plant to plant, chasing an extra dime or a quarter”, according to Lauritsen

Workers hailed the plan. “Everything now is very expensive and it’s hard to save money for retirement, so this gives us security,” said Thelma Cruz, a union steward with JBS at a pork plant in Marshalltown, Iowa. A return to DB pension plans is unusual but not unheard of in the private sector. International Business Machines Corp. reopened its frozen pension plan in 2023. Let’s hope that this becomes a trend. As I’ve said many times, asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “benefit” without disposable income, investment acumen, or a crystal ball is just silly! DB plans help the American worker avoid that trifecta of stumbling blocks!

05.28.25
by

Where’s The Beef?

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

In case this little ditty got by you, today is National Hamburger Day. According to the history books, the beef patty that most of us love originated in Hamburg, Germany. It has nothing to do with the meat, which as far as I know was never pork/ham. I bring you this info not only because I am looking forward to my burger later this evening, but because of a lack of “beef” in today’s retirement industry.

Despite adoption of financial wellness programs, millions of workers in their 50s and early 60s remain critically unprepared to fund their retirement, “according to a new report from the Institutional Retirement Income Council”. How bad are the stats? Nearly 50% of Americans aged 55 to 64 have NO retirement savings – zilch, nada, zippo! That info comes courtesy of the Federal Reserve Board’s 2023 Survey of Consumer Finances, which was cited in the IRIC report. Furthermore, for those that have accumulated retirement savings, the median account balance is only $202,000, and totally insufficient for a retirement that could last more than 20 years. Applying the 4% rule to annual withdrawals provides this median participant an annual spending budget of $8,080. That certainly won’t get you much.

It gets worse. According to a bank of America study, “only 38% understand how to properly claim Social Security”. Compounding these issues is the fact that most underestimate how much they might need for health care, estimated at up to $315,000 in medical expenses, per Fidelity Investments.  

IRIC Executive Director Kevin Crain, the report’s author, wrote that the lack of preparedness is already leading to a troubling trend of “delayed retirements, workplace disruption, and heightened financial stress among older employees and their employers.”  

This dire situation needs to be rectified immediately, and the only way to ensure a sound retirement for our American workforce is to once again institute defined benefit (DB) pension plans. Asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “benefit” through a DC plan without disposable income, investment acumen, or a crystal ball to help with longevity is just silly. There’s just no beef in today’s retirement offerings!

Where’s Clara Peller when we need her the most?