Tag Archives: Investing

05.14.26
by

Bonds as Performance Drivers? No, Sir!

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

U.S. fixed income benefitted tremendously from the nearly 4-decade decline in interest rates. From 1981 through 2021, the U.S. enjoyed a significant collapse in bond yields helping to fuel an unprecedented rally in risk assets. However, as Bob Dylan said, “the times they are a changin”!

The U.S. Federal Reserve’s FOMC announced on March 16, 2022, that the new Fed Fund’s target would be 0.25%-0.5% beginning on St. Patrick’s day 2022. This action marked the beginning of a rate regime change resulting from Covid-19 implications, including abundant stimulus creating massive demand for goods and services that couldn’t be met as production/manufacturing activities were disrupted.

The U.S. Fed Fund’s rate would eventually rise to 5.25%-5.50% in July 2023 (following 11 rate increases). Today, the Fed Fund’s rate stands at 3.5%-3.75%. For context, the average Fed Fund’s rate since 1971 is 5.39%, which includes a peak of nearly 20% in December 1980, and ultimately 0% in December 2008, in reaction to the GFC. It would once again hit 0% during Covid.

As a result, bond investors, such as pension plans, have ridden a rollercoaster of performance. Performance looked terrific for much of the nearly 40-year bull market but has been challenging since the Fed’s initial action in 2022. In fact, the Aggregate Index (Lehman, Barclays, Bloomberg, etc.) has produced only a 3.3% return for 20-years through March 2026. It is worse if you look at shorter timeframes, as the Index was up only 1.7% for 10-years, 0.3% for 5-years, and -0.1% YTD (all through March 31, 2026).

For pension plan sponsors and their advisors who are reluctant to utilize cash flow matching (CFM) as it might harm the pension plan’s ability to achieve the ROA, those performance #s above should be a wake-up call! As a reminder, the YTM of a CFM portfolio is a good proxy for what the fund will achieve for the period that liabilities are defeased. Given that Ryan ALM, Inc. is currently generating a YTM of 5.02% for a client with a 30-year defeasement and a 4.6% YTM for another with a 10-year CFM mandate, which result do you think is more harmful to the pension plan?

Furthermore, the CFM portfolio’s return is not predicated on the direction of interest rates, as it very much is with active core fixed income strategies. Importantly, CFM provides all the liquidity needed to meet the monthly benefit payments without having to sell assets, perhaps at inappropriate times. By cash flow matching bond principal and interest income with the plan’s liability cash flows (benefits and expenses), CFM secures the pension promises and reduces the FV cost (with certainty) of those obligations in the process. For the client with the 30-year CFM mandate, we are reducing future funding costs by -31.1% and for the 10-year CFM program, we have reduced funding cost by -28.0%.

Where are we today? After a brief respite, U.S interest rates are once again trending higher, as greater inflation takes hold. Who knows where inflation and interest rates will eventually land, but a pension plan (or E&F) could benefit tremendously in this environment by engaging Ryan ALM, Inc. and our CFM capability. The 30-year Treasury bond yield history below highlights the rising rate environment. As a reminder, Ryan ALM builds CFM portfolios using investment-grade corporate that have yields substantially higher than comparable Treasury maturities.

So, I ask: Why sit with active fixed income and subject your plan’s bond allocation to the whims of an unknown interest rate environment when you can SECURE the pension promise with near certainty (absent any defaults)? Wouldn’t it be wonderful to know that your liquidity needs are all set for some prescribed period? Wouldn’t your plan participants want to know that the promises given have been secured? Now is the time to bring an element of certainty to the management of pension assets that doesn’t currently exist. Given the geopolitical uncertainty and the potential impact on inflation, rates, and other markets, creating funding certainty should be priority #1. Why isn’t it?

05.11.26
by

Milliman: Corporate Pension Funding Highest Since 2007

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

Milliman has once again released its monthly Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), which analyzes the 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans. It would be fascinating to see how these 100 plans differ from a list just 20-years ago.

As for today’s members, the Milliman 100 PFI plans showed improved funding by $23 billion during April. These stellar results were driven by strong equity returns as the constituents averaged a 2.13% gain. As a result, the funded ratio dramatically improved from 105.9% at the end of March to 107.8% at the end of April representing the highest level of funding since October 2007, when it stood at 108.1%. Strong investment gains increased assets by $20 billion and now stand at $1.297 trillion, while the projected benefit obligation fell slightly to $1.204 trillion, as the monthly discount rate edged up one basis point, to 5.66% from 5.65%. 

“After a flat first quarter, the funding surplus grew to $94 billion at the end of April, primarily due to strong market returns,” said Zorast Wadia, author of the Milliman 100 PFI. “This means plan sponsors continue to have more pension risk management options as plans move further into surplus territory.”

Plan sponsors would be wise to seek risk reducing strategies. The previous high watermark was achieved in October 2007, just prior to the start of the Great Financial Crisis, which pummeled markets through March of 2009. As the graph below highlights, the Milliman 100 went from a small surplus in the Q3’07 to a major deficit within 6 months. It would be another 13-years before a surplus was once again created.

Plan sponsors should secure the pension promises through a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy and then actively manage surplus assets since they’ve now created a much longer investing horizon for those assets. Ryan ALM, Inc. is always willing to provide a free analysis of what is possible through CFM.

For the full Milliman report, click on the link below.

View this month’s complete Pension Funding Index.

05.07.26
by

Unique Liabilities Require A Unique Solution

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

Most pension plans have exposure to fixed income. Perhaps not as much as they did prior to 2000, but today’s common thinking is that the current exposure is enough to act as a buffer should equity markets not continue along this momentum fueled path, and finally, to support the monthly liquidity needs of the fund. But are those the right reasons to use bonds and what type of fixed income should be used to accomplish those objectives?

We observe that most funds use a variety of investment grade bonds (Treasuries, Agencies, Corporates, etc.) and they have that collection benchmarked to a generic index such as the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Index (a.k.a. the Agg). As a reminder, the Agg was created by Ron Ryan when he was Head of Research at Lehman Brothers a few years ago. But, again, is this the right approach? We at Ryan ALM, Inc. believe that bonds should only be used for their cash flows (principal and interest) and not as a performance driver. Bonds are perhaps the only asset class with a known cash flow equal to the value at maturity (PAR) and contractual interest payments. Those known cash flows can be modeled to meet the plan’s ongoing liability cash flows (benefits + expenses). 

Which brings me to the point that every pension plan’s liabilities are unique, and as such, no generic index such as the Agg could possibly match a plan’s liabilities. If the asset cash flows don’t match and fund the liability cash flows (benefits and expenses), the plan is subject to unnecessary interest rate risk. Again, given that every pension plan has a unique set of liabilities this would suggest that each pension plan needs to have an investment strategy created specifically for their cash flow needs. Cash Flow Matching (CFM) is an investment strategy with a very long and successful history. An appropriately crafted CFM portfolio will meet and fully fund chronologically the liability cash flows as far into the future as the allocation to the CFM strategy lasts.

We take great pride in our proprietary CFM optimization modeling, which we began using at Ryan ALM’s founding in 2004. Having the ability to tailor unique solutions to client specific issues/requests is a hallmark of our firm, and this capability is being recognized throughout the industry. In fact, we recently received this feedback from an ALM expert at a large asset/liability consulting firm, who stated that I’m “impressed with the team’s ability to build portfolios for such non-standard cashflow streams.” Thank you!

We’d be happy to demonstrate our capability and we’re always willing to provide a free analysis highlighting how your fund could benefit through CFM and Ryan ALM’s expertise. Just call us.

05.04.26
by

Why Wouldn’t You Prefer a SD of +/-0%?

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

I continue to be surprised that more pension plans don’t embrace greater certainty in the management of their funds. The Iran War is leading to great uncertainty related to inflation, interest rates, and economic growth. Yes, U.S. equities have enjoyed a healthy recovery following the initial outbreak in the Middle East, but is that sustainable?

Callan does a good job of providing a regular review of what asset allocation would be necessary to achieve a 7% return and the risk (measured as standard deviation) to achieve that return objective. Callan indicated that it was very easy to achieve a 7% return all the way back in 1994 when U.S. interest rates were higher than they are today. In fact, an allocation of 85% to fixed income and small allocations to L.C. equity, SC equity, and int’l stocks would have produced a 7% return with only a 5.6% annual standard deviation.

However, in the most recent update from 2024, Callan suggests the following asset allocation is necessary to achieve a 7% return:

This means that 68% of the time, a plan sponsor should expect an annual return of 7% +/- 8.6%. At two standard deviations (95% of the observations or 19/20 years), the annual return will fall between +/- 17.2% of the 7% target. Would you be comfortable knowing that your fund could generate an annual return of -10.2%? Think about the impact a return like that would have on contributions?

What if I said that cash flow matching (CFM) a portion of your pension fund would result in those assets having an annual SD of 0% barring a default which occurs at a rate of 0.18% annually among investment grade corporate bonds for the last 40-years. How’s that possible? When CFM is implemented, the plan’s asset cash flows and matched agains the plan’s liability cash flows (benefits and expenses). They mover in lockstep with each other no matter where rates go. Today’s U.S. interest environment is attractive and getting more attractive as I write this post, as the 30-year Treasury bond yield has topped 5% (5.02% at 11:47 am DST). Higher rates are great for CFM, as they lower the present value of those future promises.

Furthermore, the use of a CFM portfolio secures the pension promises, dramatically improves plan liquidity, eliminates interest rate risk for the portion of the plan, extends the investing horizon for the residual plan assets, and reduces the cost of those future pension promises. Again, why wouldn’t you embrace an element of certainty?

I’m not sure what the Callan team would identify as the proper allocation to achieve a 7% return today, but I suspect that the annual standard deviation is greater than the 8.6% from 2024. Every time a pension plan falls short of the annual ROA, contributions must increase to make up for the shortfall. Greater investment certainty, like that associated with using CFM, reduces the likelihood that the pension plan sponsor with suffer from a negative surprise associate from increased contributions.

05.01.26
by

Is Now Really the Time to Buy Stocks?

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

U.S. equity markets enjoyed a robust April despite myriad economic and geopolitical inputs that might have given investors pause. Should equity investors remain bullish at this time? The graph below caught my attention primarily because of the recent disconnect between the two lines related to the Shiller Excess Cape Yield (ECY) and subsequent 10-year Real Return for equities. There are many, many valuation tools that claim to provide clues about the future direction of stocks, and this is such an example. Those tools can be short-, medium-, and long-term in nature. The ECY happens to be one valuation metric that provides “guidance” for longer time frames. The current reading of 1.60% certainly looks rich relative to its long history.

In case you don’t know, the Shiller excess CAPE yield is a valuation measure that compares the stock market’s earnings yield with the “real” yield on the 10-year Treasury note. In simple terms, it asks how much extra return stocks may offer over inflation-adjusted government bonds.

How it is calculated

  • Take the inverse of the CAPE ratio, which is the market’s “earnings yield.”
  • Subtract the real 10-year Treasury yield.

So, ECY=(1/CAPE)−10-year real Treasury yield

A higher excess CAPE yield suggests stocks might look more attractive relative to bonds. A lower reading suggests the equity risk premium is thinner, meaning stocks offer less return versus bonds. As mentioned above, current readings show the S&P 500 Shiller Excess CAPE Yield around 1.60% for April 2026, which is well below its long-term average of 4.60%. Another data source put it at 1.41 as of April 30, 2026.

Investors have historically used the ECY as a long-term asset allocation tool, especially when comparing stocks with Treasury bonds. It is not a short-term trading signal, but rather a rough guide to whether equities look cheap or expensive relative to real bond yields. A CAPE yield below 2% has generally signaled subdued future equity returns over the next 5 to 10 years, providing a valuation warning sign, and not an exact measure.

As a reminder, there are many valuation techniques used to identify opportunities and risk when investing in U.S. equities. Depending on a pension plan’s liquidity needs, funded ratio, willingness to take risk, etc. today’s current environment may be providing an opportunity to reduce risk by trimming equities and using the proceeds along with core fixed income assets to establish a cash flow matching mandate. In the process, the plan’s liquidity is improved, promised benefits secured, and the investing horizon extended for the residual assets. Give us a call. We are always willing to provide a free analysis showcasing how CFM can help your fund.

04.21.26
by

I’m Prepared! Really?

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

The Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies has published the findings for its 26th annual survey, “Life and Money: Retirement Security in the USA“. Only 66% of the 10,015 respondents believe that they are on the right path to enjoy a comfortable retirement, including 22% who are very confident and 44% who are somewhat confident, while 22% are not too confident, and 12% are not at all confident. I’m not sure that describing oneself as “somewhat” confident should be an indication of being on the right path, especially when taking into consideration that the median retirement savings for participants in the survey was only $56,000.

According to the findings, those who felt they were currently building or had built a large enough nest egg was at 59% – we seemed to have lost 7% from the right path. Despite the optimism that the proper sized nest egg was being constructed, participants believed that they needed $500,000 in retirement. The difference between $56k currently accumulated and the $500k goal seems like a significant gap that might have led to a much smaller # of responders being confident at this time.

Transamerica found that 69% of respondents saved for retirement through a workplace 401(k) or similar plan, including 81% of employed respondents and 64% of self-employed respondents. Fifteen percent of employed workers indicated that their employer did not offer any retirement benefits. I wonder how many folks without any retirement savings or access to an employer sponsored retirement fund refused to participate in the survey?

Here’s where it gets a little scary for the average American worker. Among those who are not yet retired, the percentage of Americans who plan to continue working after they retire stood at 48% including 13% who plan to work full time and 35% who plan to work part time, and another 19% are “not sure.” So, 67% of the American workforce will at least consider continuing to work after they retire. I guess that’s how you can be comfortable that you are on the right path despite sitting at >$440k below the level of assets needed to retire.

American households are facing unprecedented financial pressures from housing, healthcare, education, childcare, food, energy, transportation, etc. Asking individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “retirement benefit” through a defined contribution plan (most of the respondents) is incredibly poor policy. Why do we think that these folks with little disposable income, no investment acumen, and no crystal ball to help with longevity considerations will produce successful outcomes? Regrettably, most won’t.

04.16.26
by

Pension Game: Find the Liabilities?

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

I can remember as a child playing the games hide-and-seek and manhunt among myriad activities with my friends in Palisades Park. We would play for hours. It was particularly exciting as daylight waned just before we were beckoned home when the streetlights flicked on.

Those games were innocent and most of the time no one got hurt. However, Ron Ryan, Ryan ALM’s Chairman, has written about another game. In this competition, he’s challenging pension professionals to “find the liabilities”. Why? Unfortunately, most of the effort put forth by pension professionals (outside of actuaries) is focused on assets: the allocation, manager selection, and performance. But is that the correct approach? Of course not.

The only reason that a pension plan exists is because of a promise that has been made to the plan participant. Pre-funding that promise through a pension system is a most effective approach to meeting those future obligations. As a result, that promise needs to be the focal point of pension management, but it rarely is. Unfortunately, most folks think that managing a pension is all about returns. How has the fund performed relative to the return on asset (ROA) assumption.

As Ron points out in this excellent piece, if all the investment managers/strategies outperform their generic asset specific benchmarks, but the total fund underperforms its liability growth rate, has the fund won? Of course not. That’s why we believe that the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan should be to SECURE the promises at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk.

As I mentioned earlier, the games that I engaged in as a child in New Jersey were innocent. Failure to understand what a plan’s liabilities look like could be much more harmful. We’ve seen that scenario play out many times and with significant consequences. Don’t let your fund become the victim of an assets-only approach.

04.14.26
by

Pension Plan Sponsor: “I Wish that I could…”

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

In October, I will celebrate my 45th year in the pension/investment industry. I’ve been truly blessed, but also frustrated by activities that I deem detrimental to the successful management of DB pension plans.

First and foremost, I believe that a majority of folks think that achieving the return on asset assumption (ROA) is the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan. This is an incorrect assumption! Creating an asset allocation targeted at a return only guarantees annual volatility, and NOT success.

Second, meeting monthly liquidity through the sweeping of interest, dividends, capital distributions, and worse, the selling of investments harms the long-term return of your fund.

Third, using core fixed income as a return generator is not a sound strategy, as bonds are highly interest rate sensitive, and who knows the future direction of rates.

That being said, if I were a pension plan sponsor, I’d wish that I could find an investment strategy that provided: All of the plan’s liquidity needs, certainty for a portion of that plan, and a longer investment horizon for my alpha generating assets (non-bonds) so that I enhance the probability of achieving the desired outcome.

Great news – there is such a strategy. Cash Flow Matching (CFM) is designed to use investment-grade bonds for their cash flows of interest and principal (upon maturity) to match liability cash flows of benefits and expenses for as far out as the allocation goes. Furthermore, it extends the investing horizon for the non-bond assets so that they can wade successfully through choppy markets without being a source of liquidity. Finally, there is an element of certainty (minus that rare occurrence of an IG bond default) absent in the management of DB pension plans outside of a pension risk transfer (PRT) or an annuity.

I believe that the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan is to SECURE the pension promise at low cost and with prudent risk. Does focusing on the ROA secure benefits – no. The “sweeping” of dividends, interest, and capital distributions to meet ongoing liquidity needs can negatively impact the plan’s long-term return. Guinness Global (U.K. investment shop) produced a study that said sweeping dividends and not reinvesting them reduced the return to the S&P 500 by 47% over 10-year periods back to 1940 and 57% for 20-year periods.

Finally, bonds are highly interest rate sensitive. After a nearly 40-year decline in U.S. interest rates which drove bond prices up and yields down, we have seen rates rise to more average levels where they are holding leading to very weak fixed income returns for recent performance periods. Matching asset cash flows with liability cash flows eliminates interest rate risk for that portion of the portfolio, as benefits and expenses are future values that are not interest rate sensitive. Furthermore, Ryan ALM’s approach is to use 100% IG corporate bonds to build the CFM portfolio. A 100% IG portfolio will outperform a core active fixed income portfolio by the yield differential given the core portfolio’s exposure to agencies and Treasuries.

Question: If you had the opportunity to bring some certainty to the management of pensions, why wouldn’t you do it? If not, please share with us why not.

04.09.26
by

A Ryan ALM, Inc. Client Portfolio Review

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

We are blessed to work with a wonderful array of clients, both pension and E&F. They have chosen to bring an element of certainty to the management of their fund. We commend them for that decision and thank them for the confidence that they’ve shown in us and our cash flow matching (CFM) strategy/capability.

Our client relationships begin with the acquisition of important inputs including projections of benefits/grants, expenses, and contributions as far into the future as possible. Most often these are provided by the fund’s actuary. The next step in building a portfolio is to create a Custom Liability Index (CLI), that will establish the framework for monthly distributions.

Upon completion of the CLI, we will work with the client and their advisors to determine the appropriate allocation to CFM. We often suggest converting the current core fixed income allocation since bonds should only be used for their cash flows. Once that has been determined, we will build a high quality bond portfolio (most often 100% IG corporate bonds) that carefully matches asset cash flows of interest and principal with the liability cash flows (benefits and expenses (B&E)).

Once this portfolio is built, we have created an element of certainty for the plan sponsor, as asset cash flow will march in harmony with the liability cash flows barring a bond default, which occurs <0.2% annually (40-year study by S&P). It is only upon changes in the actuaries forecast that lead us to adjust the portfolio, and those annual changes tend to be quite insignificant.

Now the fun part: We are often asked to provide quarterly updates on our portfolio, which couldn’t be any easier. My last portfolio review lasted about 37 seconds. I stated that the projected cash flows that had been shared with us were matched by the asset cash flows, and that there have been no instances in which monthly cash flow needs were not met in their entirety. Furthermore, there have been no defaults in our portfolio ensuring that future cash flow needs will also be met as required. Any questions?

As you can see, there is no need to fret about the direction of U.S. interest rates. No worry about what the “Fed” may do today, tomorrow, or next year. No forecasting of the economic environment, inflation, and/or the geopolitical landscape. Once the CFM portfolio is constructed, the cost savings (cost to fund future B&E) is known and locked in. How many investment managers can tell you how the portfolio will perform over the duration of the program?

Why wouldn’t you want to bring an element of certainty to your fund? Wouldn’t a “sleep-well-at-night” strategy bring comfort to you and those that you serve? If the true objective in managing a defined benefit fund is to SECURE the promised benefits at low cost and with prudent risk, is there another investment strategy that can match the positive attributes of CFM? If we’ve grabbed your attention, reach out. We provide a free analysis of how CFM can make your fund less volatile and uncertain.

04.01.26
by

March Proves Challenging for Core Fixed Income

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

March was a difficult month for active core fixed income managers, as the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Index fell -1.8%. Uncertainty related to the impact of the Iran War on oil prices and subsequently inflation, pushed rates higher across the Treasury yield curve. The U.S. 10-year Treasury note saw yields rise 38 bps to 4.31%.

Agencies fell -1.7% in line with Treasuries, while the Corporate sector declined -2.0%. Corporate spreads ended March with an option adjusted spread (OAS) of 88.6 bps. The best performing Corporate sector was Financials (-1.7%), while Utilities performed worst at -2.2%.

The greatest risk managing bonds is interest rate risk. Given both geopolitical (Iran, Taiwan, Ukraine) and economic risks (oil, inflation, interest rates), now is the time to significantly reduce risk within your fund, whether that be a DB pension or E&F. Why continue to ride active fixed income through these uncertain markets? One can use a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy to SECURE and fund net liabilities chronologically well into the future. In the process, interest rate risk is eliminated as future benefits and expenses are not interest rate sensitive.

Furthermore, by securing near-term liabilities, the non-bond assets can now grow unencumbered providing more time to wade through these challenging times. I have no idea how long this conflict will last. I also don’t know how much damage has occurred and that which might still happen to oil production in the Middle East. Implementing a strategy that doesn’t rely on forecasting U.S. interest rates should be a high priority today.

Making the switch is easy. Rotate your current core fixed income assets from an active investment strategy to a CFM portfolio. There isn’t a need to revisit the fund’s asset allocation. We’ll even look for opportunities to take-in-kind some of your existing holdings. You’ll appreciate not having to search each month for the liquidity to meet the monthly promises that have been made to your participants, as the CFM strategy will provide all the liquidity that you need. Moreover, the Ryan ALM CFM model is skewed to A/BBB+ corporate bonds which should outyield most generic bond indexes that are skewed to Treasuries (e.g. the AGG).