Tag Archives: db-pensions

10.30.24
by

“More Needs To Be Done!” – Do You Think?

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

This post is the 1,500th on this blog! I hope that you’ve found our insights useful. We’ve certainly appreciated the feedback – comments, questions, and likes – throughout the years. A lot of good debate has flowed from the ideas that we have expressed and we hope that it continues. The purpose of this blog is to provide education to those engaged in the pension/retirement industry. We have an incredible responsibility to millions of American workers who are counting on us to help provide a dignified retirement. A goal that is becoming more challenging every day.

As stated numerous times, doing the same-old-same-old is not working. How do we know? Just look at the surveys that regularly appear in our industry’s media outlets. Here is one from MissionSquare Research Institute done in collaboration with Greenwald Research. The survey reached a nationally representative sample of 1,009 state and local government workers between September 12 and October 4. What they found is upsetting, if not surprising. According to the research, “81% are concerned they won’t have enough money to last throughout retirement, and 78% doubt they’ll have enough to live comfortably during their golden years.”

Some of the other findings in the survey also tell a sad story. In fact, 73% of respondents are concerned they won’t be able to retire on time, while the same number are unsure whether they’ll have sufficient emergency savings. How terrible. The part about being able to retire “on time” is not often in the workers control wether because of health and the ability to continue to do the required task or as a result of other plans by their employer. Amazingly, public sector workers believe that their current retirement situation is better than those in the private sector. Wow, if that isn’t telling of the crisis unfolding in this country.

Given these results, it shouldn’t be shocking that unions are seeking a return of DB plans as the primary retirement vehicle. We know that asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “benefit” through a defined contribution plan is poor policy. We’ve seen the results and they are horrid, with median balances for all age groups being significantly below the level needed to have any kind of retirement. Currently, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers are on strike at Boeing, and a major sticking point is the union’s desire to see a reopening of Boeing’s frozen DB plan.

We’ve also recently seen the UAW and ILA memberships seek access to DB plans. It shouldn’t be a shock given the ineffectiveness of DC plans that were once considered supplemental to pensions. Again, asking the American worker to fund a DC offering with little to no disposable income, investment acumen, or a crystal ball to help with longevity concerns is just foolish. Yes, there is more to do, much more! It is time to realize that DB plans are the only true retirement vehicle and one that helps retain and attract talented workers who aren’t easily replaced. Wake up before the crisis deepens and everyone suffers.

10.28.24
by

ARPA Update as of October 25, 2024

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

Welcome to the last week of October. Like many of us, I can’t wait to see my children’s and grandchildren’s costumes on Thursday. The weather in NJ will be more like June than the end of October. Enjoy!

With regard to the PBGC’s effort to implement the ARPA pension legislation, last week’s activity was rather muted. I’m happy to report that we had one plan’s application approved, as I.B.E.W. Pacific Coast Pension Fund will receive $75.5 million in SFA and interest for 3,318 plan participants. This brings the number of approved applications to 95 and the total award of SFA to $68.8 billion. There are still 107 applications that are in the queue to eventually (hopefully) receive special financial assistance, with 64 yet to file an initial application.

Also, during the past week, we had the Laborers’ Local No. 265 Pension Plan withdraw its application. That plan is seeking $55.6 million for 1,460 members of its plan. This was the initial application for this fund which had been filed on July 11, 2024. There has been a total of 117 applications filed and withdrawn throughout the ARPA implementation. Some funds have seen multiple applications withdrawn and resubmitted.

Given the limited activity last week, it isn’t surprising to learn that the eFiling Portal remains temporarily closed. There is still much to accomplish with this legislation and time, although not currently an issue, will become one should this process linger beyond 2025.

Lastly, the recent move up in US Treasury rates bodes well for those plans receiving SFA and wanting to use cash flow matching to secure the promised benefits. Ryan ALM is always willing to produce an initial analysis on what can be achieved through CFM in terms of a coverage period. Don’t hesitate to reach out to us.

10.21.24
by

ARPA Update as of October 18, 2024

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

Major League baseball finally has the last two competitors for this year’s World Series. As a Mets’ fan, I would have appreciated a different outcome, but it was a surprisingly good season for the team from Flushing! Good luck to the Yankees and Dodgers.

With regard to ARPA and the PBGC’s effort to implement this important pension legislation, last week provided just a couple of updates for us to digest. There were no new applications submitted, approved or denied. The PBGC’s eFiling Portal remains temporarily closed at this time. There were also no new systems seeking to be added to the waitlist at this time.

There was one application withdrawn. PA Local 47 Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Pension Plan, a non-priority group plan, withdrew its initial application last week that was seeking $8.3 million for the 296 participants in the plan.

The last bit of activity to discuss relates to the repayment of excess SFA as a result of census corrections. Teamsters Local Union No. 52 Pension Fund became the 22nd plan to repay a portion of their SFA received. In the case of Local No. 52, they repaid $1.1 million, which represented 1.15% of their grant. The largest repayment to date has been the $126 million repaid by Central States (0.35% of grant). In terms of percentages, the Milk Industry Office Employees Pension Trust Fund returned 2.36% of their grant marking the high watermark, while Local Union No. 466 Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers Pension Plan, was asked to return only 0.11% of their reward.

Finally, US interest rates have risen significantly since the Fed’s first rate cut on September 18th, as highlighted in the graph below. The higher rates reduce the present value of those future benefit payments and helps to stretch the coverage period provided by the SFA.

10.16.24
by

Milliman: Public Pension Funded Ratio at 82.8%

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

Milliman recently released results for its Public Pension Funding Index (PPFI), which covers the nation’s 100 largest public defined benefit plans.

Positive equity market performance in September increased the Milliman 100 PPFI funded ratio from 82.0% at the end of August to 82.8% as of September 30, representing the highest level since March 31, 2022, prior to the Fed’s aggressive rate increases. The previous high-water mark stood at 82.7%. The improved funding for Milliman’s PPFI plans was driven by an estimated 1.4% aggregate return for September 2024 (9.4% for the YTD period). Total fund performance for these 100 public plans ranged from an estimated 0.7% to 2.1% for the month. As a result of the relatively strong performance, PPFI plans gained approximately $72 billion in MV during the latest month. The asset growth was offset by negative cash flow amounting to about $10 billion. It is estimated that the current asset shortfall relative to accrued liabilities is about $1.138 trillion as of September 30. 

In addition, it was reported that an additional 5 of the PPFI members had achieved a 90% or better funded status (34 plans have now eclipsed this level), while regrettably, 14 of the constituents remain at <60%. Given that changing US interest rates do not impact the calculation for pension liabilities under GASB accounting, which uses the ROA as the liability discount rate, the improvement in the collective funded status may be overstated, as US rates continued to decline throughout the third quarter following an upward trajectory to start the calendar year.

10.02.24
by

You Have An Obligation – Fund it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

10.02.24
by

Welcome to National Retirement (in)Security Month!

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

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

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

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

09.13.24
by

Cash Flow Matching Done Right!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Provides liquidity to meet benefits and expenses

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

Buys time for the alpha assets to grow unencumbered

Out yields active bond management… enhances ROA

Reduces Volatility of Funded Ratio/Status

Reduces Volatility of Contribution costs

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

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

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

07.23.24
by

Oh, The Games That Are Played!

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

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

07.18.24
by

Different Levels of Certainty

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

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

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

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

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

07.15.24
by

ARPA Update as of July 12, 2024

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

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

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

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

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