Tag Archives: de-risking

09.12.25
by

Actuaries of DB Pension Plans Prefer Higher Interest Rates

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

I produced a post yesterday, titled “U.S. Rates Likely to Fall – Here’s the Good and Bad”. In that blog post I wrote, “I’d recommend that you not celebrate a potential decline in rates if you are a plan sponsor or asset consultant, unless you are personally looking for a loan.” Falling rates have historically benefited plan assets, and not just bonds, but risk assets, too. But lower rates cause the present value (PV) of liabilities to grow. A 50 bp decline in rates would cause the PV of liabilities to grow by 6% assuming a duration of 12-years. NOT GOOD!

Not being a trained actuary, although I spend a great deal of time communicating with them and working with actuarial output, I was hesitant to make that broad assessment. But subsequent research has provided me with the insights to now make that claim. Yes, unlike plan sponsors and asset consultants that are likely counting down the minutes to a rate cut next week, actuaries do indeed prefer higher interest rates.

Actuaries of DB pension plans, all else being equal, generally prefer higher interest rates when it comes to funding calculations and the plan’s financial position.

Impact of Higher Interest Rates

  • Lower Liabilities: When interest rates (used as the discount rate for future benefit payments) increase, the (PV) of the plan’s obligations may sharply decrease depending on the magnitude of the rate change, making the plan look better funded.
  • Lower Required Contributions: Higher discount rates mean lower calculated required annual contributions for plan sponsors and often lead to lower ongoing pension costs, such as PBGC costs per participant.
  • Potential for Surplus: Sustained periods of higher rates can create or increase pension plan surpluses, improving the financial health of the DB plan and providing flexibility for sponsors.

Why This Preference Exists

  • Discount Rate Role: Actuaries discount future benefit payments using an assumed interest rate tied to high-grade bond yields. The higher this rate, the less money is needed on hand today to meet future obligations.
  • Plan Health: Lower required contributions and lower projected liabilities mean sponsors are less likely to face funding shortfalls or regulatory intervention. Plans become much more sustainable and plan participants can sleep better knowing that the plan is financially healthy.
  • Plan Sponsor Perspective: While actuaries may remain neutral in advising on appropriate economic assumptions (appropriate ROA), almost all calculations and required reports look stronger with higher interest rates. What plan sponsor wouldn’t welcome that reality.

Consequences of Lower Interest Rates

  • Increase in Liabilities: Contrary to the impact of higher rates, lower rates drive up the PV of projected payments, potentially causing underfunded positions and/or the need for larger contributions.
  • Challenge for Plan Continuation: Persistently low interest rates have made DB plans less attractive or sustainable and contributed to a trend of plan terminations, freezes, or conversions to defined contribution or hybrid structures. The sustained U.S. interest rate decline, which spanned nearly four decades (1982-2021), crushed pension funding and led to the dramatic reduction in the use of traditional pension plans.

In summary, actuaries valuing DB pension plans almost always prefer higher interest rates because they result in lower reported liabilities, lower costs, and less financial pressure on employers. Given that 100% of the plan’s liabilities are impacted by movements in rates, everyone associated with DB pensions should be hoping that current interest rate levels are maintained, providing plan sponsors with the opportunity to secure the funded ratio/status through de-risking strategies. A DB pension plan is the gold standard of retirement vehicles and maintaining them is critical in combating the current retirement crisis.

07.18.25
by

AI Needs An Education Regarding ALM/CFM!

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

I asked an AI tool that I use the following: Asset/Liability Management (ALM) is an effective tool for pensions. What strategies are currently being deployed?

As usual, the response was nearly instantaneous, but was it correct? Here is what I got:

Overview

“Asset/liability management (ALM) remains central to pension fund sustainability, aiming to balance expected pension liabilities with optimal asset growth. In 2025, pension funds deploy a range of strategies to ensure their ability to meet long-term obligations while managing risk efficiently.” No argument there. However, here is a list of the strategies. This is where I have an issue.

Key ALM Strategies Currently in Use

1. Liability-Driven Investing (LDI)

  • Matching Asset Duration to Liabilities: Many corporate pension plans invest in high-quality bonds with durations closely matching those of plan liabilities to mitigate interest rate risk. This ensures that both assets and liabilities react similarly to interest rate changes, stabilizing the funded status from year to year.
  • Glidepath Strategies: Plans gradually shift the asset mix towards more fixed-income securities as funded status improves or as the plan matures, further reducing risk and aligning assets with near-term liabilities.

2. Dynamic Asset Allocation

  • Strategic Shifts in Asset Mix: Pension funds adjust allocations based on changing liabilities, market conditions, and funding status. For instance, U.S. public pension plans have recently shifted asset allocations to maintain return expectations and recover from volatility.
  • Scenario-Based Modeling: Funds use forward-looking models to stress-test outcomes under varying economic scenarios, reviewing assumptions about returns, inflation, and participant demographics.

3. Risk Transfer Solutions

  • Pension Risk Transfer (PRT): Many sponsors employ annuity purchases and lump-sum windows to reduce long-term liability, transferring obligations to insurers. In 2024, settlement payouts (such as annuity buyouts) remained a significant tool for risk management among major pension plans.

4. Liability Modeling Innovations

  • Member-Level Simulation: Advanced models project individual participant cash flows, account for currency exposure, and enable granular liability projections. Such approaches allow more precise matching of assets to future obligations, improving ALM decision-making.
  • Regular Reviews and Assumption Updates: ALM programs, such as those at CalPERS, involve systematic reviews of demographic and financial assumptions (e.g., life expectancy, inflation), with revisions made every four years to incorporate emerging trends.

5. Use of Custom Benchmarks

  • Liability-Mimicking Portfolios: Funds create tailored portfolios (“benchmark” portfolios) that track the liability profile as closely as possible, often blending nominal bonds, inflation-linked bonds, and equities according to the plan’s specifics (such as maturity and inflation sensitivity).

That’s it? Where is Cash Flow Matching (CFM)? In each of these scenarios, liquidity needed to fund benefits and expenses is missing. Duration strategies minimize interest rate risk, but don’t produce timely liquidity to fully fund B+E. Furthermore, duration strategies that use an “average” duration or a few key rates don’t duration match as well as CFM that duration matches EVERY month of the assignment.

In the second set of products – dynamic asset allocation – what is being secured? Forecasts related to future economic scenarios come with a lot of volatility. If anyone had a crystal ball to accomplish this objective with precision, they’d be minting $ billions!

A PRT or risk transfer solution is fine if you don’t want to sustain the plan for future workers, but it can be very expensive to implement depending on the insurance premium, current market conditions (interest rates), and the plan’s funded status

In the liability modeling category, I guess the first example might be a tip of the hat to cash flow matching, but there is no description of how one actually matches assets to those “granular” liability projections. As for part two, updating projections every four years seems like a LONG TIME. In a Ryan ALM CFM portfolio, we use a dynamic process that reconfigures the portfolio every time the actuary updates their liability projections, which are usually annually.

Lastly, the use of Custom benchmarks as described once again uses instruments that have significant volatility associated with them, especially the reference to equities. What is the price of Amazon going to be in 10-years? Given the fact that no one knows, how do you secure cash flow needs? You can’t! Moreover, inflation-linked bonds are not appropriate since the actuary includes an inflation assumption in their projections which is usually different than the CPI.  

Cash Flow Matching is the only ALM strategy that absolutely SECURES the promised benefits and expenses chronologically from the first month as far out as the allocation will go. It accomplishes this objective through maturing principal and interest income. No forced selling to meet those promises. Furthermore, CFM buys time for the residual assets to grow unencumbered. This is particularly important at this time given the plethora of assets that have been migrated to alternative and definitely less liquid instruments.

As mentioned earlier, CFM is a dynamic process that adapts to changes in the pension plan’s funded status. As the Funded ratio improves, allocate more assets from the growth bucket to the CFM portfolio. In the process, the funded status becomes less volatility and contribution expenses are more manageable.

I’m not sure why CFM isn’t the #1 strategy highlighted by this AI tool given its long and successful history in SECURING the benefits and expenses (B&E). Once known as dedication, CFM is the ONLY strategy that truly matches and fully funds asset cash flows (bonds) with liability cash flows (B&E). Again, it is the ONLY strategy that provides the necessary liquidity without having to sell assets to meet ongoing obligations. It doesn’t use instruments that are highly volatile to accomplish the objective. Given that investment-grade defaults are an extremely rare occurrence (2/1,000 bonds), CFM is the closest thing to a sure bet that you can find in our industry with proven performance since the 1970s.

So, if you are using an AI tool to provide you with some perspective on ALM strategies, know that CFM may not be highlighted, but it is by far the most important risk reducing tool in your ALM toolbox.

07.03.25
by

Segal: Benefits of Pension De-Risking

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

Jason Russell and Seth Almaliah, Segal, have co-authored an article titled, “Benefits of Pension De-Risking and Why Now is the Right Time”. Yes! We, at Ryan ALM, agree that there are significant benefits to de-risking a pension plan and we absolutely agree that NOW is the right time to engage in that activity.

In their article they mention that the current interest rate environment is providing opportunities to de-risk that plan sponsors haven’t seen in more than two decades. In addition to the current rate environment, they reflect on the fact that many pension plans are now “mature” defining that stage as a point where the number of retired lives and terminated vested participants is greater than the active population. They also equate mature plans to one’s that have negative cash flow, where benefits and expenses eclipse contributions. In a negative cash flow environment, market corrections can be more painful as assets must be sold to meet ongoing payments locking in losses, as a result.

They continue by referencing four “risk reducing” strategies, including: 1) reducing Investment Volatility, 2) liability immunization, 3) short-term, cash flow matching, and 4) pension risk transfers. Not surprisingly, we have some thoughts about each.

  1. Reducing investment volatility – Segal suggests in this strategy that plan sponsors simply reduce risk by just shifting assets to “high-quality” fixed income. Yes, the annual standard deviation of an investment grade bond portfolio with a duration similar to that of the BB Aggregate would have a lower volatility than equities, but it continues to have great uncertainty since bond performance is driven primarily by interest rates. Who knows where rates are going in this environment?
  2. Liability Immunization – The article mentions that some plan sponsors are taking advantage of the higher rate environment by “immunizing” a portion of the plan’s liabilities. They describe the process as a dedicated portfolio of high-quality bonds matched to cover a portion of the projected benefits. They mentioned that this strategy tends to be long-term in nature. They also mention that because it is “longer-term” it carries more default risk. Finally, they mentioned that this strategy may lose some appeal because of the inverted yield curve presently observed. Let me comment: 1) Immunization is neither a long-term strategy or a short-term strategy. The percentage of liabilities “covered” is a function of multiple factors, 2) yes, immunization or cash flow matching’s one concern when using corporate bonds is default risk. According to S&P, the default rate for IG bonds is 0.18% for the last 40-years, and 3) bond math tells us that the longer the maturity and the higher the yield, the lower the cost. Depending on the length of the assignment, the current inverted yield curve would not provide a constraint on this process. Finally, CFM is dependent on the actuary’s forecasts of contributions, benefits, and expenses. Any change in those forecasts must be reflected in the portfolio. As such, CFM is a dynamic process.
  3. Short-term, cash flow matching – CFM is the same as immunization, whether short-term or not. Yes, it is very popular strategy for multiemployer plans that received Special Financial Assistance (SFA) under ARPA for obvious reasons. It is a strategy that SECURES the promised benefits at both low cost and with prudent risk. It maximizes the benefit coverage period with the least uncertainty.
  4. Pension Risk Transfers (PRT) – In a PRT, the plan sponsor transfers a portion of the liabilities, if not all of them, to an insurance company. This is the ultimate risk reduction strategy for the plan sponsor, but is it best for the participant? They do point out that reducing a portion of the liabilities will also reduce the PBGC premiums. But, does it impact the union’s ability to retain and attract their workers?

We believe that every DB pension plan should engage in CFM. The benefits are impressive from dramatically improving liquidity, to buying time for the growth (non-CFM bonds) assets, to eliminating interest rate risk for those assets engage in CFM, to helping to stabilize contributions and more. Focusing 100% of the assets on a performance objective only guarantees volatility. It is time to adopt a new strategy before markets once again behave badly. Don’t waste this wonderful rate environment.

Thank you, Segal, for your thoughtful piece.

07.09.24
by

The Proof’s in the Pudding!

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

Not sure why I used the title that I did, but I recently had pudding (vanilla) over the holiday weekend, so maybe that inspired me, and boy, was it good! That said, we, at Ryan ALM, Inc., are frequently challenged about the benefits of Cash Flow Matching (CFM) versus other LDI strategies, most notably duration matching. There seems to be singular focus on interest rate risk without any consideration for the need to create the necessary liquidity to meet monthly benefit payments. Given that objective, it isn’t surprising that duration matching strategies have been the dominant investment strategy for LDI mandates. But does that really make sense?

Are duration matching strategies that use an average duration or several key rate durations along the Treasury curve truly the best option for hedging interest rate risk? There are also consulting firms that espouse the use of several different fixed income managers with different duration objectives such as short-term, intermediate, and long-term duration mandates. Again, does this approach make sense? Will these strategies truly hedge a pension plan’s interest rate sensitivity? Remember, duration is a measure of the sensitivity of a bond’s price to changes in interest rates. Thus, the duration of a bond is constantly changing.

We, at Ryan ALM, Inc., believe that CFM provides the more precise interest rate hedge and duration matching, while also generating the liquidity necessary to meet ongoing benefits (and expenses (B&E)) when needed. How? In a CFM assignment, every month of the mandate is duration matched (term structure matched). If we are asked to manage the next 10-years of liabilities, we will match 120 durations, and not just an “average” or a few key rates. In the example below, we’ve been asked to fund and match the next 23+ years. In this case, we are funding 280 months of B&E chronologically from 8/1/24 to 12/31/47. As you can see, the modified duration of our portfolio is 6.02 years vs. 6.08 years for liabilities (priced at ASC 715 discount rates). This nearly precise match will remain intact as US interest rates move either up or down throughout the assignment.

Furthermore, CFM is providing monthly cash flows, so the pension plan’s liquidity profile is dramatically improved as it eliminates the need to do a cash sweep of interest, dividends, and capital distributions or worse, the liquidation of assets from a manager, the timing of which might not be beneficial. Please also note that the cost savings (difference between FV and PV) of nearly 31% is realized on the day that the portfolio is constructed. Lastly, the securing of benefits for an extended time dramatically improves the odds of success as the alpha/growth assets now have the benefit of an extended investing horizon. Give a manager 10+ years and they are likely to see a substantial jump in the probability of meeting their objectives.

In this US interest rate environment, where CFM portfolios are producing 5+% YTMs with little risk given that they are matched against the pension plan’s liabilities, why would you continue to use an aggressive asset allocation framework with all of the associated volatility, uncertainty, and lack of liquidity? The primary objective in managing a pension plan is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is not an arms race designed on producing the highest return, which places most pension plans on the asset allocation rollercoaster of returns.