Tag Archives: Finance

11.17.25
by

The Times They Are A-Changin’

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

Thank you, Bob Dylan, for the lyric that is just perfect for this blog post. I have just returned from the IFEBP conference in Honolulu, HI. What a great conference, and not just because it was in Hawaii (my first time there). If it wasn’t the location, then what made this one so special? For years I would attend this conference and many others in our industry and never hear the word liability mentioned, as in the pension promise, among any of the presentations.

So pleased that during the last few years, as U.S. interest rates have risen and defined benefit pension funding has improved, not only are liabilities being discussed, but more importantly, asset allocation strategies focused on pension liabilities are being presented much more often. During this latest IFEBP conference there were multiple sessions on ALM or asset allocation that touched on paying heed to the pension plan’s liabilities, including:

“Asset Allocation for Today’s Markets”

“My Pension Plan is Well-Funded – Now What?”

“Asset Liability Matching Investment to Manage the Risk of Unfunded Liabilities”

“Decumulation Strategies for Public Employer Defined Contribution Plans” (they highlighted the fact that these strategies should be employed in DB plans, too)

“Applying Asset Liability Management Strategies to Your Investments” (my session delivered twice)

“Entering the Green Zone and Staying There”

These presentations all touched on the importance of risk management strategies, while encouraging pension plan sponsors to stop riding the performance rollercoaster. Given today’s highly uncertain times and equity valuations that appear stretched under almost any metric, these sessions were incredibly timely and necessary. Chasing a performance objective only ensures volatility. That approach doesn’t guarantee success. On the other hand, securing the pension promise through an ALM strategy at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk does redefine the pension objective appropriately.

I know that human beings are reluctant to embrace change, but we despise uncertainty to a far greater extent. Now is the time to bring an element of certainty to the management of pension assets. By the way, that was the title of my recent presentation to public funds at the NCPERS conference in Fort Lauderdale. Again, understanding pension liabilities and managing to them is not new, but it has certainly been under a bigger and brighter spotlight recently. That is great news!

11.06.25
by

You Don’t Say!

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

Morgan Stanley has published the results from their Taft-Hartley survey, in which they have to provided “insights into how Taft-Hartley plans are managing priorities and navigating challenges to strengthen their plans”. I sincerely appreciate MS’s effort and the output that they published. According to MS, T-H plans have as their top priority (67% of respondents) delivering promised benefits without increasing employer’s contributions. That seems quite appropriate. What doesn’t seem to jive with that statement is the fact that only 29% that improving or maintaining the plan’s funded status was important. Sorry to burst your bubble plan trustees, but you aren’t going to be able to accomplish your top priority without stabilizing the funded status/ratio by getting off the performance rollercoaster.

Interestingly, T-H trustees were concerned about market volatility (84%) and achieving desired investment performance while managing risk (69%). Well, again, traditional asset allocation structures guarantee volatility and NOT success. If you want to deliver promised benefits without increasing contributions, you must adopt a new approach to asset allocation and risk management. Doing the same old, same old won’t work.

I agree that the primary objective in managing a DB plan, T-H, public, or private, is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is not a return game. Adopting a new asset allocation in which the assets are divided among two buckets – liquidity and growth, will ensure that the promises (monthly benefits) are met every month chronologically as far into the future that the assets will cover delivering the promised benefits. However, just adopting this bifurcated asset allocation won’t get you off the rollercoaster of returns and reduce market volatility. One needs to adopt an asset/liability focus in which asset cash flows (bond interest and principal) will be matched against liability cash flows of benefits and expenses.

This approach will significantly reduce the volatility associated with markets as your pension plan’s assets and liabilities will now move in lockstep for that portion of the portfolio. As the funded status improves, you can port more assets from the growth portfolio to the liquidity bucket. It will also buys time for the remaining growth assets to help wade through choppy markets. According to the study, 47% of respondents that had an allocation to alternatives had between 20% and 40%. This allocation clearly impacts the liquidity available to the plan’s sponsor to meet those promises. If allocations remain at these levels, it is imperative to adopt this allocation framework.

Furthermore, given today’s equity valuations and abundant uncertainty surrounding interest rates, inflation, geopolitical risk, etc., having a portion of the pension assets in a risk mitigating strategy is critically important. Thanks, again, to MS for conducting this survey and for bubbling up these concerns.

11.04.25
by

PBGC Increases Premium Rates – Why?

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

The demise of the defined benefit (DB) plan, most notably within the private sector, is harming the American worker and significantly reducing the odds of a dignified retirement. The Federal government should be doing everything that it can to protect the remaining pensions, including keeping fees low to ensure that these critically important retirement vehicles continue to operate. But unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be the case in this particular situation.

I have been very impressed with and supportive of the PBGC’s effort implementing the ARPA pension legislation, but I question the need to raise premium rates for 2026, which the PBGC has just announced. Why? As of fiscal year-end 2024, the PBGC’s single employer insurance program had a $54.1 BILLION surplus, as assets totaled $146.1 billion and liabilities stood at $92.0 billion. Despite these significant excess resources, the PBGC is increasing rates for the “flat rate premium per participant” in single-employer plans to $111 per participant in 2026 from $106. This 4.7% increase was described in a Chief Investment Officer article as modest! That increase doesn’t seem modest anyway you look at it, but certainly not when one remembers that $54 billion surplus. What is the justification? The rate per $1,000 in “unvested benefits”, not subject to indexing, was frozen by Congress in Section 349 of the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 and therefore remains $52. Seems like we need more legislation to freeze the flat-rate premium.

Despite the significant improvement in the multiemployer pension program due to the Special Financial Assistance (SFA) related to ARPA pension reform, that insurance pool is still underwater. As a result, multiemployer plans that only pay a per-participant premium will see the per-participant rate for flat rate premiums rise to $40 from $39 next year. That amounts to an increase of 2.6%. So, the program that is underwater sees a premium increase of 2.6%, while the insurance pool with the massive surplus gets an outsized 4.7% increase? I guess one must work for the government to understand that decision.

Again, we need to do much more to protect DB pensions for all American workers. Asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “retirement benefit” with little to no disposable income, low investment knowledge, and no crystal ball to help with longevity considerations is just poor policy doomed to failure. We are the wealthiest country in the world, yet we can’t seem to figure out how to control costs associated with retirement, healthcare, education, childcare, etc. and in the process, we are crippling a majority of American families. It isn’t right!

10.30.25
by

Cash Flow Matching: Bringing Certainty to Pension Plans

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

Imagine a world, or at least the United States, where pension plans are no longer subject to market swings and the uncertainty those swings create. What if you could “guarantee” (outside of any corporate bond defaults) the promises made to your plan participants, ensuring their financial security with confidence? In today’s highly unpredictable investing environment, relying solely on the pursuit of investment returns is a risky ride—one that guarantees volatility and sleepless nights but not necessarily success. It’s time to rethink how we manage defined benefit (DB) pension plans and embrace a strategy that brings true certainty: Cash Flow Matching (CFM). Discover through the hypothetical conversation below how CFM can transform your investing approach, protect your plan, and deliver peace of mind for everyone involved. Let’s go!

Why are we talking about Cash Flow Matching (CFM) today?

First off, thanks for taking a few minutes to chat with me. As you may have heard me say before, our mission at Ryan ALM, Inc. is simple — to protect and preserve defined benefit (DB) pension plans and to secure the promises made to participants.

We believe that Cash Flow Matching (CFM) is one of the few strategies that can help us keep those promises with real certainty.

Why Now?

Because the world feels more uncertain than ever.

And if we’re honest, most of us don’t like uncertainty. Yet somehow, in the pension world, many plan sponsors have gotten used to it. Why is that?

Over the years, we’ve been taught that managing a DB plan is all about chasing returns. But that’s not really the case. When a plan invests 100% of its assets purely with a return objective, it locks itself into volatility — not stability or success.

That approach also puts your plan on the “asset allocation rollercoaster,” where markets rise and fall, and contributions swing higher and higher along with them. It’s time to step off that ride — at least for part of your portfolio.

So if it’s not all about returns, what is the real objective?

Managing a DB pension plan is all about cash flows — aligning the cash coming in (from principal and interest on bonds) with the cash going out (for benefits and expenses).

The real goal is to secure those promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. That’s the foundation of a healthy plan.

Does bringing more certainty mean I have to change how I manage the plan?

Yes — but only a little. The adjustments are modest and easy to implement.

How can I adopt a CFM strategy without making major changes?

The first step is to reconfigure your asset allocation. Most DB plans are currently 100% focused on returns. It’s time to split your assets into two clear buckets:

  1. Liquidity bucket – designed to provide cash flow to pay benefits and expenses.
  2. Growth bucket – focused on long-term return potential.

What goes into the liquidity bucket?

Most plans already hold some cash and core fixed income. Those assets can move into the liquidity bucket to fund benefit payments and expenses.

And what happens with the remaining assets?

Nothing changes there. Those assets stay in your growth or alpha bucket. The difference is that you’ll no longer need to sell from that bucket during market downturns, which helps protect your fund from the negative impact of forced selling.

Is that all I need to do to create more certainty?

Not quite. You’ll also want to reconfigure your fixed income exposure.

Instead of holding a generic, interest-rate-sensitive bond portfolio (like one tied to the Bloomberg Aggregate Index), you’ll want a portfolio that matches your plan’s specific liabilities — using both principal and income to accomplish the objective.

That’s where true cash flow matching comes in.

How does the matching process work?

We start by creating a Custom Liability Index (CLI) — a model of your plan’s projected benefit payments, expenses, and contributions. This serves as the roadmap for funding your monthly liquidity needs.

What information do you need to build that index?

Your plan’s actuary provides the projected benefits, expenses, and contributions as far out into the future as possible. The more data we have, the stronger the analysis. From there, we can map out your net monthly liquidity needs after accounting for contributions.

Which bonds do you use to match the cash flows?

We invest primarily in U.S. Treasuries and U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds. We stick with these because they provide dependable cash flows without introducing currency risk.

We limit our selections to bonds rated BBB+ or higher, and the longest maturity we’ll buy matches the length of the mandate. For example, if you ask us to secure 10 years of liabilities, the longest bond we’ll buy will mature in 10 years.

Do you build a laddered bond portfolio?

No — a traditional ladder would be inefficient for this purpose.

Here’s why: the longer the maturity and the higher the yield, the lower the overall cost of funding those future liabilities. So instead of a simple ladder, we use a proprietary optimization process to build the portfolio in a way that maximizes efficiency and minimizes cost.

It sounds manageable — not a big overhaul. Am I missing something?

Not at all. That’s exactly right.

Dividing assets into liquidity and growth buckets and reshaping your bond portfolio into a CFM strategy is typically all that’s required to bring more certainty to part of your plan.

Every plan is unique, of course, so each implementation will reflect its own characteristics. But generally speaking, CFM can reduce the cost of future benefits by about 2% per year — or roughly 20% over a 10-year horizon.

On top of that, it helps stabilize your funded status and contribution requirements.

How much should I allocate to CFM?

A good starting point is your existing cash and bond allocation. That’s the least disruptive way to begin.

Alternatively, you can target a specific time horizon — for example, securing 5, 7, or 10 years of benefits. We’ll run an analysis to show what asset levels are needed to meet those payments, which may be slightly more or less than your current fixed income and cash allocations.

Once implemented, do I just let the liquidity bucket run down?

Most clients choose to rebalance annually to maintain the original maturity profile. That keeps the strategy consistent over time. Of course, the rebalancing schedule can be customized to your plan’s needs and the broader market environment.

This all sounds great — but what does it cost?

In line with our mission to provide stability at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk, our fee is about half the cost of a typical core fixed income mandate.

If you’d like, we can discuss your specific plan details and provide a customized proposal.

Final thoughts

Thank you for taking the time to explore CFM. Many plan sponsors haven’t yet heard much about it, but it’s quickly becoming a preferred approach for those who value stability and peace of mind.

At the end of the day, having a “sleep well at night” strategy benefits everyone — especially your participants.

10.27.25
by

ARPA Update as of October 24, 2025

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

If it is a Monday, it is ARPA/SFA update day. I’m bringing you this update from Fort Lauderdale, FL, where I’m attending and speaking at the NCPERS Fall conference. It looks like a wonderful agenda for the next few days. Regarding ARPA, how did the PBGC do last week? Let’s explore.

Last week saw limited action with only two applications received, including a revised application from a Priority Group 1 member. As you may recall, this was the first group permitted to submit applications all the way back in July 2021! Only 25 of the 30 members of that cohort have received Special Financial Assistance to date. Richmond, VA based Bricklayers Union Local No. 1 Pension Fund of Virginia, submitted a revised application seeking $12.9 million for its 395 participants, while International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers Local No. 79 Pension Fund, submitted an initial application hoping to secure $14.6 for 462 members. As an aside, the Ironworkers would be golden if the SFA desired was based on the length of the plan’s name.

In other ARPA news, or lack thereof, there were no applications approved, and fortunately, none denied. There were no pension plans forced to withdraw an application and none asked to repay a portion of the SFA received due to census errors. However, there was one more plan added to the burgeoning waitlist. The Soft Drink Industry Pension Fund is the 178th none-priority group fund to add its name to the list.

The next couple of months should be quite exciting for the PBGC as it works through the abundant list of applications for non-priority group members. U.S. interest rates have pulled back recently reducing some of the potential coverage period through a CFM strategy, but rates are still significantly higher than they were in 2021 when ARPA began to be implemented. Please reach out to us if you’d like to get a free analysis on what is possible once the SFA is received.

10.22.25
by

And Now Utility Bills!

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

Electric payment company Payless Power released a report showing how Americans are being forced to choose between keeping the lights on, buying groceries, or paying for medicine. They conducted a survey of 1,069 people, including nearly half of whom came from low-income households, and regrettably 39% said they’d fallen behind on electricity payments in the past year.

Incredibly, more than 30% received at least one shutoff notice, while 11% had their power cut off due to missed payments. “Beyond the financial stress, high electricity prices are creating real safety risks,” Payless Power said. “More than half of low-income households said they went without heat or air conditioning for several days in the past year because they couldn’t afford it.”

The impact of having one’s electricity shut off has led roughly 30% of the respondents to feel physically unsafe at home during extreme temperatures. Not unlike the challenging economic times found during the Great Depression, nearly one in four sent children or pets away from their home to escape dangerous indoor conditions.

More than half (52%) of low-income households cut back on groceries to pay utility bills, while 16% skipped medication or medical care. Another 19% reduced transportation or internet spending, and 5% missed rent or mortgage payments. As you can imagine, larger families are hit hardest, as households with five or more people were nearly twice as likely to fall behind as those homes with two or fewer individuals at home.

Rising utility costs come as households are already stretched thin by higher housing costs and food prices compounded by a deteriorating labor market. Research from Goldman Sachs shows consumers are absorbing >50% of the cost of President Trump’s widespread tariffs. In a Harris/Axios poll, 47% of Americans said groceries are more difficult to afford than they were in September 2024.

Lastly, as of Q2’25, Moody’s and the Federal Reserve estimate that the top 10% of income earners in the U.S. account for 49.2% of the consumption. This is the highest percentage on record dating back to when data collection began in 1989. A level of concentration such as this is NOT good for the long-term viability of the U.S. economy.

Now 51% of the Median Household Income
10.21.25
by

Milliman: Another good month for pension funding

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

Whether one is referring to public pensions or private DB plans, September was a continuation of the positive momentum experienced for most of 2025. Milliman has reported on both the Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), which analyzes the 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans and its Public Pension Funding Index (PPFI), which analyzes data from the nation’s 100 largest public defined benefit plans.

Milliman estimates that public pension funds saw aggregate returns of 1.7%, while corporate plans produced an average return for the month of 2.5%. As a result of these gains (sixth consecutive gain), public pension funded ratios stand at 85.4% up from 84.2% at the end of August. Corporate plans are now showing an aggregate funded ratio of 106.5%, marking the highest level since just before the Great Financial Crisis (GFC).

Public pension fund assets are now $5.66 trillion versus liabilities of $6.63 trillion, while corporate plans added $26 billion to their collective net assets increasing the funded status surplus to $80 billion. For corporate plans, the strong 2.5% estimated return was more than enough to overcome the decline in the discount rate to 5.36%, a pattern that has persisted for much of 2025.

“Robust returns helped corporate pension funding levels improve for the sixth straight month in September,” said Zorast Wadia, author of the Milliman PFI. “With more declines in discount rates likely ahead, funded ratios may lose ground unless plan assets move in lockstep with liabilities.”

“Thanks to continued strong investment performance, public pension funding levels continued to improve in September, and unfunded liabilities are now below the critical $1 trillion threshold for the first time since 2021,” said Becky Sielman, co-author of the Milliman PPFI. “Now, 45 of the 100 PPFI plans are more than 90% funded while only 11 are less than 60% funded, underscoring the continued health of public pensions.”

Discount rates have so far fallen in October. It will be interesting to see if returns can once again prop up funded status for corporate America. It will also be interesting to see how the different accounting standards (GASB vs. FASB) impact October’s results. A small gain for corporate plans may not be enough to overcome the potential growth in liabilities, as interest rates decline, but that small return may look just fine for public pension plans, that don’t mark liabilities to market only assets.

View this Month’s complete Pension Funding Index.

View the Milliman 100 Public Pension Funding Index.

10.17.25
by

Remember: NO Free Lunch!

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

In 1938, journalist Walter Morrow, Scripps-Howard newspaper chain, wrote the phrase “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”. The pension community would be well-served by remembering what Mr. Morrow produced more than eight decades ago. Morrow’s story is a fable about a king who asks his economists to articulate their economic theory in the fewest words. The last of the king’s economists utters the famous phrase above. There have been subsequent uses of the phrase, including Milton Friedman in his 1975 essay collection, titled “There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch”, in which he used it to describe the principle of opportunity cost.

I mention this idea today in the context of private credit and its burgeoning forms. I wrote about capacity concerns in private credit and private equity last year. I continue to believe that as an industry we have a tendency to overwhelm good ideas by not understanding the natural capacity of an asset class in general and a manager’s particular capability more specifically. Every insight that a manager brings to a process has a natural capacity. Many managers, if not most, will eventually overwhelm their own ideas through asset growth. Those ideas can, and should be, measured to assess their continuing viability. It is not unusual that good insights get arbitraged away just through sheer assets being managed in the strategy.

Now, we are beginning to see some cracks in the facade of private credit. We have witnessed a significant bankruptcy in First Brands, a major U.S. auto parts manufacturer. Is this event related to having too much money in an asset class, which is now estimated at >$4 trillion.? I don’t know, but it does highlight the fact that there are more significant risks investing in private deals than through public, investment-grade bond offerings. Again, there is no free lunch. Chasing the higher yields provided by private credit and thinking that there is little risk is silly. By the way, as more money is placed into this asset class to be deployed, future returns are naturally depressed as the borrower now has many more options to help finance their business.

In addition, there is now a blurring of roles between private equity and private credit firms, which are increasingly converging into a more unified private capital ecosystem. This convergence is blurring the historic distinction between equity sponsors and debt providers, with private equity firms funding private credit vehicles. Furthermore, we see “pure” credit managers taking equity stakes in the borrowers. So much for diversification. This blurring of roles is raising concerns about valuations, interconnected exposures, and potential conflicts of interest due to a single manager holding both creditor and ownership stakes in the same issue.

As a reminder, public debt markets are providing plan sponsors with a unique opportunity to de-risk their pension fund’s asset allocation through a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy. The defeasement of pension liabilities through the careful matching of bond cash flows of principal and interest SECURES the promised benefits while extending the investing horizon for the non-bond assets. There is little risk in this process outside of a highly unlikely IG default (2/1,000 bonds per S&P). There is no convergence of strategies, no blurring of responsibilities, no concern about valuations, capacity, etc. CFM remains one of the only, if not the only, strategies that provides an element of certainty in pension management. It isn’t a free lunch (we charge 15 bps for our services to the first breakpoint), but it is as close as one will get!

10.15.25
by

MV versus FV

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

There seems to be abundant confusion within certain segments of the pension industry regarding the purpose and accounting (performance) of a Cash Flow Matching (CFM) portfolio on a monthly basis. Traditional monthly reports focus on the present value (PV) of assets in marking those assets to month-end prices. However, when utilizing a CFM strategy, one is hoping to defease (secure) promised benefits which are a future value (FV). As a reminder, FVs are not interest rate sensitive. The movement in monthly prices become irrelevant.

If pension plan A owes a participant $1,000 next month or 10-years from now, that promise is $1,000 whether interest rates are at 2% or 8%. However, when converting that FV benefit into a PV using today’s interest rates, one can “lock in” the relationship between assets and liabilities (benefit payment) no matter which way rates go. To accomplish this objective, a CFM portfolio will match those projected liabilities through an optimization process that matches principal, interest, and any reinvested income from bonds to those monthly promises. The allocation to the CFM strategy will determine the length of the mandate (coverage period).

Given the fact that the FV relationship is secured, providing plan sponsors with the only element of certainty within a pension fund, does it really make any sense to mark those bonds used to defease liabilities to market each month? Absolutely, NOT! The only concern one should have in using a CFM strategy is a bond default, which is extremely rare within the investment grade universe (from AAA to BBB-) of bonds. In fact, according to a recent study by S&P, the rate of defaults within the IG universe is only 0.18% annually for the last 40-years or roughly 2/1,000 bonds.

A CFM portfolio must reflect the actuaries latest forecast for projected benefits (and expenses), which means that perhaps once per year a small adjustment must be made to the portfolio. However, most pension plans receive annual contributions which can and should be used to make those modest adjustments minimizing turnover. As a result, most CFM strategies will purchase bonds at the inception of a mandate and hold those same issues until they mature at par. This low turnover locks in the cost reduction or difference in the PV vs. FV of the liabilities from day 1 of the mandate. There is no other strategy that can provide this level of certainty.

To get away from needing or wanting to mark all the plan’s assets to market each month, segregate the CFM assets from the balance of the plan’s assets. This segregation of assets mirrors our recommendation that a pension plan should bifurcate a plan’s asset allocation into two buckets: liquidity and growth. In this case, the CFM portfolio is the liquidity bucket and the remaining assets are the growth or alpha assets. If done correctly, the CFM portfolio will make all the necessary monthly distributions (benefits and expenses), while the alpha assets can just grow unencumbered. It is a very clean separation of the assets by function.

Yes, bond prices move every minute of every day that markets are open. If your bond allocation is being compared to a generic bond index such as the Aggregate index, then calculating a MV monthly return makes sense given that the market value of those assets changes continuously. But if a CFM strategy can secure the cost reduction to fund FVs on day 1, should a changing MV really bother you? Again, NO. You should be quite pleased that a segment of your portfolio has been secured. As the pension plan’s funded status improves, a further allocation should be made to the CFM mandate securing more of the promised benefits. This is a dynamic and responsive asset allocation approach driven by the funded status and not some arbitrary return on asset (ROA) target.

I encourage you to reach out to me, if you’d appreciate the opportunity to discuss this concept in more detail.

10.13.25
by

ARPA Update as of October 10, 2025

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

Welcome to Columbus and Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Bond markets are closed and the equity markets remain open. Columbus Day remains a federal holiday, but with most federal employees already furloughed, it will not be a day to celebrate for many.

Regarding ARPA and the PBGC’s activity implementing this critical legislation, last week proved a busy one as there were three new applications received, two approved, and one withdrawn. There was also a plan added to the burgeoning waitlist. Happy to report that there were no applications denied or required to rebate a portion of the SFA as a result of census errors.

Now for the details. Ironworkers’ Local 340 Retirement Income Plan, Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons Local No. 109 Pension Plan, and Dairy Employees Union Local #17 Pension Plan, each a non-priority group member, filed their initial applications seeking a combined $60.4 million in SFA for nearly 3k plan participants. The PBGC has 120-days to act on these applications.

Pleased to report that two plans, Local 734 Pension Fund and the Retirement Plan of the Millmen’s Retirement Trust of Washington received approval for their initial applications, and they will receive $89.5 and $7.2 million, respectively for their combined 2,597 members. The PBGC has now awarded $74.3 billion in SFA grants to support the pensions for 1.828 million workers.

In other ARPA news, Pension Plan of the Pension Fund for Hospital and Health Care Employees – Philadelphia and Vicinity has withdrawn its initial application seeking $229.8 million in SFA that would support 11,084 members. Finally, the Buffalo Carpenters Pension Fund has added their name to the waitlist. They immediately secured the valuation date as July 31, 2025. Good luck to them as there are 67 plans currently on the waitlist that have yet to submit an application.

I’ve mentioned on several occasions the approaching deadline to file an initial application seeking SFA approval. I do hope that an extension of the filing deadline is approved. There are a lot of American workers who should be provided the full benefits that they have been promised and could secure through the ARPA legislation. This should be a bi-partisan effort.