Tag Archives: defined benefit plans

09.27.24
by

Defined Benefit Pension Plan: “Absolute Truths”

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

The four senior team members at Ryan ALM, Inc. have collectively more than 160 years of pension/investment experience. We’ve lived through an incredible array of markets during our tenures. We have also witnessed many attempts on the part of Pension America to try various strategies (schemes) to meet the promises that have been made to the pension plan participants. Regrettably, defined benefit (DB) pension plans continue to be tossed aside by corporate America in favor of defined contribution (DC) plans. Both public and multiemployer plan sponsors would be wise to adopt a strategy that seeks more certainty in order to protect and preserve these critically important retirement vehicles before they are subject to a similar fate.

We’ve compiled a list of DB pension “Absolute Truths” that we believe return the management of pension plans back to its roots when “SECURING the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk” was the primary objective. The dramatic move away from the securing of benefits to today’s arms race focus on the return on asset assumption (ROA) has eliminated any notion of certainty in favor of far greater variability in likely outcomes.

Here are the Ryan ALM DB Truths:

  • Defined Benefit (DB) plans are the best retirement vehicles!
  • They exist to fulfill a financial promise that has been made to the plan participant upon retirement.
  • The primary objective in managing a DB plan is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk.
  • The promised benefit payments are liabilities of the pension plan sponsor.
  • Liabilities need to be measured, monitored, and managed more than just once per year.
  • Liabilities are future value (FV) obligations – a $1,000 monthly benefit is $1,000 no matter what interest rates do. As a result, they are not interest rate sensitive.
  • Plan assets (stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.) are Present Value (PV) or market value (MV) calculations. We do not know the FV of assets except for bonds cash flows (interest and principal at maturity)
  • In order to measure and monitor the funded status, liabilities need to be converted from FV to PV – a Custom Liability Index (CLI) is absolutely needed.
  • A discount rate is used to create a PV for liabilities – ROA (publics), ASC 715 (corps), STRIPS, etc.
  • Liabilities are bond-like in nature. The PV of future liabilities rises and falls with changes in the discount rate (interest rates).
  • The nearly 40-year decline in US interest rates beginning in 1982 crushed pension funding, as the growth rate for future liabilities far exceeded the growth rate of the PV of assets.
  • The allocation of plan assets should be separated into two buckets – Liquidity (beta) and Growth (alpha).
  • The liquidity assets should consist of a bond portfolio that matches (defeases) asset cash flows with the plan’s liability cash flows (benefits and expenses (B&E)).
  • This task is best accomplished through a Cash Flow Matching (CFM) investment process.
  • The liquidity assets should be used to meet B&E chronologically buying time for the alpha assets to grow unencumbered in their quest to meet future liabilities.
  • The Growth assets will consist of all non-bonds, which can now grow unencumbered, as they are no longer a source of liquidity. Growth assets will fund future liabilities.
  • The Return on asset (ROA) assumption should be a calculated # derived through an Asset Exhaustion Test (AET)
  • The pension plan’s asset allocation should be responsive to the plan’s funded status and not the ROA.
  • As the funded status improves, port alpha (profits) from the Growth portfolio into the Liquidity bucket (de-risk) extending the cash flow matching assignment and securing more promises.
  • This de-risking ensures that plans don’t continue to ride the asset allocation rollercoaster leading to volatile contribution costs.
  • DB plans are a great recruiting and retention tool for managing a sponsor’s labor force.
  • DB plans need to be protected and preserved, as asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “benefit” through a Defined Contribution plan is poor policy.
  • Unfortunately, doing the same thing over and over and… is not working. A return to pension basics is critical.

You’ve made a promise: measure it – monitor it – manage it – and SECURE it…   

Get off the pension funding rollercoaster – sleep well!

06.07.24
by

Money Managers Recaptured 1/2 the 2022 losses – Should We Be Pleased?

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

P&I has produced an article highlighting the fact that money managers recaptured nearly half of the institutional assets lost (-$9 trillion) in 2022’s market correction. They mention that this was accomplished despite “lingering economic and political uncertainties that kept a lot of money sidelined, including a record $6 trillion parked in money market funds alone.”

According to Pensions & Investments’ 2023 survey of the largest money managers, institutional assets for 411 managers around the globe rose 9.7%, or $4.89 trillion, to $55.23 trillion as of Dec. 31, 2023 for a recovery rate of 52.5%. This recapture of assets was primarily driven by equities, both US (+26%) and global X US (+18%), while bonds were up 5.6% domestically and abroad.

Obviously, it was great to see the “rally” despite wide-spread uncertainty related to the economy, inflation, interest rates, and the labor market. Issues that are still impacting perceptions today. But the real question one should ask has to do with the cyclical nature of markets and what plan sponsors and their advisors can do to mitigate the peaks and valleys. As I reported earlier this week, since 2000, public pension plans have seen a tripling (or more) in contribution expenses as a % of pay, while the funded status of Piscataqua research’s universe of 127 state and local plans has fallen by 25%.

Isn’t it time to get off the asset allocation rollercoaster? The nearly singular focus on return (ROA) by pension plan sponsors has placed pension funding on a ride that does little to guarantee success, but has certainly exacerbated volatility. In the process, contributions into these critically important retirement systems have skyrocketed. Let’s stop thinking that the only way to fund pensions is through outsized market returns. Today’s interest rate environment is providing plan sponsors with a wonderful opportunity to SECURE a portion of their future promises by carefully constructing a defeased bond portfolio that matches and funds asset cash flows of principal and interest with liability cash flows of benefits and expenses.

By doing so, you eliminate the impact of drawdowns, as the assets and liabilities will now move in tandem. How refreshing! Because you are defeasing a future benefit, you are also eliminating interest rate risk, as future values are not interest rate sensitive. Furthermore, you have now created a liquidity profile that is enhanced, as the bond portfolio now pays all of the benefits and expenses chronologically as far into the future as the allocation to the cash flow matching program lasts. Lastly, the growth or alpha assets can now grow unencumbered, as they are no longer a source of funding. The need for a cash sweep has been replaced by cash flow matching with bonds.

Let’s stop having to celebrate recovery rates of roughly 50%, when we can institute investment programs that eliminate these massive and harmful drawdowns. They aren’t helpful to the sustainability of DB pension plans, which we so desperately need if we are to provide a dignified retirement to the American worker. Let’s get back to the fundamentals, as the true objective of a pension is to fund benefits in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. It isn’t a performance arms race!

05.21.24
by

Does This Look Like Success?

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

The following was a headline for a MarketWatch.com article, “The 401(k)’s success has been overlooked and will help even more Americans”, which I saw on a LinkedIn.com post earlier today. Sure, some American workers have benefited from their ability to fund a DC account, but the vast majority of Americans are struggling.

Does This look like success?

Perhaps the level of savings would be okay if DC plans were actually supplemental retirement vehicles, but since they have morphed into the primary retirement program for most workers, this is a disaster. I’m tired of the fact that we only ever see “average” balances reported. Of course, a few well-funded balances will drive the average up. Let’s focus on the MEDIAN account balances. Does a $70,620 account balance for a 65+ year-old participant look like a successful outcome? How much would that balance provide on a monthly basis for a roughly 20-year retirement?

If I were fortunate to have a defined benefit plan that provided $2,000/month (which isn’t a lot) for 20-years, I would receive $480K in retirement which is 6.8Xs what the 65+ year-old with the median account balance has today. It is a far cry when compared to the view that $1.4 million is the balance needed to have a dignified retirement today. It is silly to believe that the average American has the disposable income, investment acumen, and predictive ability to gauge how long they will live in order to allocate this meager balance to ensure that the recipient doesn’t outlive their savings.

The investment industry can celebrate all they want as it relates to the total accumulated wealth in defined contribution plans, but for the “median” American, it just isn’t close to being enough. Defined benefit plans should be the backbone of our retirement system, while DC plans occupy the supplemental role for which they were designed. As someone in that LinkedIn.com post stated, “the numbers don’t lie”. I would certainly agree, but that doesn’t mean that the #s are revealing success!

04.05.24
by

Corporate Funding Improves in March – Milliman

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

Milliman released the results of its latest Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), which analyzes the 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans. Pension funding improved for the third consecutive month to start the year, which now stands at 105.6% from 105.3% at the end of February. March was a bit different, however, as the discount rate declined 11 basis points increasing the collective liabilities by $14 billion to $1.299 trillion at the end of the quarter. Despite the increase in liabilities, investment performance was once again strong leading to a gain of $19 billion. Total assets now stand at $1.373 trillion.

Zorast Wadia, author of the PFI, stated, “the funded status gains may dissipate unless plan sponsors adhere to liability-matching investment strategies. Zorast’s observation is outstanding. Should rates fall from these levels, the cost to defease pension liabilities will grow. Now is the time to take risk off the table. Create certainty by getting off the asset allocation rollercoaster. Engaging in Cash Flow Matching (CFM) does not necessitate being an all or nothing strategy. Start your cash flow matching mandate and extend it as the funded status improves.

Return-seeking bond strategies will lose in an environment of rising rates. However, once a plan engages in CFM, the relationship between plan assets and liabilities is locked. Done correctly, assets and liabilities will move in tandem. It doesn’t matter what interest rates do, as benefit payments are future values that are not interest rate sensitive.

Act now to create some certainty! You’ll appreciate the great night’s sleep that you’ll start to have.

06.30.14
by

Seeing “Double DB” in Your Future?

Seeing “Double DB” in Your Future?

The latest KCS Fireside Chat is attached for your review. This edition is the 24th Fireside Chat in our monthly series. This one addresses the development of a new hybrid plan called the Double DB. KCS is pleased to be involved in bringing this new pension plan design to the marketplace. We believe that sharing risk among both the plan sponsor and the participant is the better approach than one entity bearing all the risk. This exciting new pension plan design accomplishes this objective, while also bringing many additional attributes to the marketplace.

Please don’t hesitate to call on us if we can answer any questions that you might have about this exciting development.

06.10.14
by

Where are the Economies of Scale?

Since its founding in August 2011, KCS has tried to highlight some of the issues facing the US retirement industry in the hopes that perhaps best practices could be identified and DB plans, as a result, SAVED.  I recently came across the “Status Report on Local Government Pension Plans” for Pennsylvania.  The report was released in December 2012, and it used information through calendar year 2011.

The following paragraph jumped out at me:

“Pennsylvania’s local government pension plans comprise more than 25 percent of the public employee
pension plans in the United States. There are now more than 3,200 local government pension plans in
Pennsylvania, and the number is continuing to grow. Seventy percent of the local government pension plans
are self-insured, defined benefit plans, and 30 percent are money purchase or other type plans. The pension
plans range in size from one to more than 18,000 active members, but more than 98 percent of the pension
plans can be characterized as small (less than 100 members). While 68 percent of the local government
pension plans have ten or fewer members, 32 percent have three or fewer active members.”

I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that having more than 3,200 local government plans in PA is a good idea, especially when one considers that 98% of the plans have fewer than 100 employees. The local governments and their participants would be much better off pooling their resources into larger, more professionally managed DB plans that afford everyone the benefit or economies of scale. 

I suspect that there exist other states in the Union with a similar governance structure, but if we are to preserve the defined benefit plan as the retirement vehicle of choice, we need to reduce the cost of managing these plans.  Allowing thousands of defined benefit plans with fewer than 100 participants to exist is not sound governance.

01.09.14
by

Rethink the Use of Fixed Income in a Defined Benefit Plan

With the closure of the first quarter, we’d like to remind you of a blog post that we first published in early January.  Our thoughts are still relevant, especially given the market action within fixed income during the quarter and what is transpiring in US fixed income today.  The 10-year Treasury has rallied 2% today, and we think that it may continue to move lower.  The following paragraphs are what we originally posted.

What I’d like to highlight today is a new use for a plan’s current fixed income exposure. In day two of the conference, I attended a panel discussion titled, “Opportunities in Fixed Income and Credit Markets”.  The panel was occupied by 4 senior investment pros (plan sponsor, consultant, and investment managers).  They generally discussed the likelihood that interest rates were going to rise (I’m beginning to wonder if there is anyone out their who doesn’t think that rates will rise), and the implications of that movement on traditional fixed income portfolios.  Most of the panelists talked about various sub-sectors (mortgages, asset backs, bank loans, etc) and which ones might hold up better. There was discussion about shortening duration, etc. They also talked about fixed income’s traditional role as an anchor to windward, a risk reducer, and a provider of liquidity.

However, only one individual mentioned taking a step back to truly contemplate the “role” of fixed income.  He didn’t provide any further perspective, which is why I’m addressing the issue here and today.  I believe (as do my partners at KCS) that a plan’s liabilities should be the focal point of any pension discussion.  As such, they need to be the primary objective for the plan, the driver of asset allocation decisions and investment / portfolio structure.  The asset class most similar in characteristic to liabilities is fixed income.  As such, fixed income needs to play a prominent role in a defined benefit plan.

Instead of worrying about the implications from a rising interest rate environment on an LDI strategy that currently consists of long duration corporates, change the emphasis to matching near-term liabilities, by converting your current fixed income portfolio into a Treasury STRIP portfolio that matches cash flows with projected benefits (Beta portfolio).  First, you are improving liquidity.  Second, duration is shortened in an environment that may not be conducive to long bonds.  Third, you are lengthening the investing time horizon for the balance of the corpus, which will allow asset classes / products with a liquidity premium a chance to capture that performance increment (Alpha portfolio). Finally, the funded status and contribution costs should begin to stabilize.  As the Alpha portfolio outperforms liability growth (hopefully), siphon excess profits and extend the beta portfolio.

This is a proactive move to restructure the fixed income portfolio in an environment of uncertainty.

Lastly, I am not of the general school of thought that interest rates are definitely going to rise, and soon.  I believe that we still have slack demand in our economy, brought on by underemployment, which will keep inflation in check and provide room for stable to slightly lower rates.