Tag Archives: Investing

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).


03.31.26
by

Trouble Paying the Bills?

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

“The worst thing that can happen,” Andrew Junkin, CIO, Virginia Retirement System says, “is that you’re a forced seller in any market.”

That quote appeared in a Chief Investment Officer article from March 4, 2026. We couldn’t agree more with Mr. Junkin. Despite improved funding, public funds are being challenged to find adequate cash flow to meet the monthly benefits and expenses. Two factors are at play: 1) improved funding leads to lower annual contributions, and 2) much heavier allocations to alternatives have dried up liquidity, as expected capital distributions fail to materialize.

According to a report by NIRS, from 2001 to 2023, public pension plans shifted roughly 20% of public equity and fixed income into alternatives such as private equity, real estate, and private credit. These are illiquid investments. Despite the “wisdom” of the pension crowd, illiquidity is a RISK and not an alpha generator. As more assets shifted into these illiquid investments, the trades became ever more crowded reducing liquidity further. That is, unless one was willing to take a significant haircut through the secondary markets.

As a reminder, public pension funds are designed to become cash-flow negative over time. Contributions into these funds exceed benefits in earlier decades, building a corpus to be used to fund retirements down the road. They are designed to have the last $ pay the last promised benefit. There is no inheritance waiting for the last few beneficiaries.

You want to have adequate liquidity that isn’t forcing the sale of assets at inopportune times? Develop an asset allocation strategy that bifurcates your assets into two buckets – liquidity and growth – and stop the focus on the ROA as if it were the Holy Grail. It isn’t! Use a cash flow matching (CFM) investment strategy to ensure that abundant liquidity is available from next month as far into the future as your allocation goes. The remainder of the assets go into the growth bucket. If you still want to maintain a heavy allocation to alternatives, they can now grow unencumbered as they are no longer a source of liquidity.

The allocation should be driven by the pension plan’s funded ratio and ability to contribute. We recently provided a large fund with an analysis that showed a plan with <50% funding could still secure the promised NET benefits for the next 33-years, while creating a substantial surplus that could now be managed as aggressively as members of that Board could withstand. Not only are the promised benefits secure, but so are the participants who can now sleep well at night knowing that myriad risks won’t sabotage their golden years.

03.25.26
by

What is My Funded Ratio? Who Cares!

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

The funded ratio of a DB pension plan gets a lot of attention, especially if it is perceived to be weak. But does the funded ratio truly tell you the whole story as to the financial health of a DB pension plan? We, at Ryan ALM, Inc. don’t think so.

So, how is the funded ratio calculated:

Funded ratio = MV of plan assets / plan liabilities earned to date X 100

The market value of assets is a present value (PV) calculation. The market value of liabilities is the future value of liabilities earned to date discounted back to a PV calculation based on a discount rate. For public and multiemployer plans the discount rate tends to be the fund’s return on asset assumption (ROA), while it is an AA corporate blended rate for private pensions. In today’s interest rate environment, the discount rate for private plans will be roughly 1.5% less than the discount rate based on the average ROA. That means that liabilities for private funds will have a greater current value than the value of liabilities calculated based on the discount rate using the ROA. Oh, okay, so the choice of a discount rate can change my funded ratio. That’s interesting. So that tells me that if I wanted to improve my funded ratio, all I’d have to do is increase my discount rate to lower the PV of my liabilities. That’s very interesting.

So, it appears that the funded ratio calculation can be manipulated to some extent. As we think about the formula above, is there anything missing? Yes, where are the future contributions, which can be significant. Why are future payment liabilities in the calculation, but projected contributions, which are future assets of the fund, not included? Common thinking suggests that those future contributions aren’t guaranteed, which is why they aren’t factored into the funded ratio calculation. However, is that a correct assumption? In doing some research, it appears >80% of DB pension funds receive 100% of the annual required contribution (ARC). Even NJ’s public pension system is making the ARC and then some.

We recently had a conversation with a large plan sponsor who thought that their fund was <50% funded based on the formula above. Not surprisingly, they were very focused on this ratio and looking for investment strategies that could potentially enhance it. As an FYI, this plan’s future contributions as forecasted by their actuary were significant. In fact, future contributions were so large that they were equal to 73% of the forecasted liabilities! Yes, without including the pension fund’s current assets, this plan was 73% funded, provided those projected contributions were met which they have been for more than a decade.

So, given these forecasted contributions is that pension fund really <50% funded?

In another example, the same fund that thought that they were poorly funded, could defease net pension liabilities for the next 33-years. How is it possible that a plan that believes it is <50% funded able to significantly reduce risk, enhance liquidity, and SECURE pension promises for 33-years? Furthermore, this fund was going to establish a $4.4 billion surplus on the day that those benefits and expenses were defeased for 33-years. If it just earned the projected ROA, that $4.4 billion would grow to $34.2 billion during that 33-year period. Wow! 

So, I ask once more, does that sound like a plan in financial distress, which a funded ratio of <50% might suggest? NO!

The funded ratio is but one measure of a pension plan’s health. Unfortunately, many in our industry would look at that # and say that more risk needs to be taken to achieve “full funding” down the road, when in fact reducing risk through a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy is the appropriate approach. It is past the time to get off the scary asset allocation rollercoaster. 

03.24.26
by

ARPA Update as of March 20, 2026

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

I’m sure that folks were very (perhaps bitterly) disappointed not to get my weekly update yesterday on the PBGC’s implementation of the ARPA pension legislation. I was traveling for business yesterday, but unlike many travelers, my experience at Newark Airport was shockingly positive. I have heard of 4-6 hour waits to get through security and planes that are forced to leave the gate with as few as 5 passengers. Various estimates put the daily impact of these disruptions at $285 million to $580 million once a 10% reduction in flights occurs.

What about ARPA? As regular readers know, the PBGC has worked through a significant majority of non-mass withdrawal applicants. There remains just one fund – Plasterers Local 79 Pension Plan – that hasn’t gotten to submit an initial application form those on the waitlist. There are still a few pension funds from the original Priority Groups that haven’t filed an initial application seeking SFA.

During the prior week, Cumberland, Maryland Teamsters Construction and Miscellaneous Pension Plan received approval of its revised SFA application. They will receive $9.5 million for their 101 plan members. Congrats!

In other news, there is no other news, as there were no new applications submitted, as the PBGC’s eFiling portal remains temporarily closed. Also, there were no applicants denied, no plans were asked to repay a portion of the SFA, and no applications were withdrawn or added to the waitlist.

The treatment of the 80 plans (from potentially 131) currently on the waitlist that fall under the category of plans suffering mass withdrawal prior to 2020 is the last remaining significant issue that the PBGC must still work through.

U.S. Treasury yields have risen sharply since the beginning of the Iran conflict. As challenging as that development is on existing bond funds, the entry point for SFA recipients wanting to use CFM to secure the benefits and expenses is as good as it has been in more than 1-year. As a reminder, higher yields reduce the cost of those future promises.

03.17.26
by

What Would You Do?

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

Happy St. Paddy’s Day to my Irish friends (I’m 1/2 Irish) and those that would like to be. May the luck of the Irish embrace you today.

As many of you know, we are always willing to provide to the pension and E&F communities a free analysis to highlight how a Cash Flow Matching (CFM) mandate could secure the promised benefits/grants for your fund and importantly, provide the necessary liquidity to meet future promises. In many cases, we will produce multiple runs covering a variety of periods usually 5-years to 30-years. Often the sponsor of the fund is shocked by the potential cost reduction of those future obligations.

We recently provided a large pension plan with several potential implementations, as they try to improve the fund’s liquidity profile, while also desiring to secure those future promises. Here are three scenarios that we provided to them and I’d welcome your feedback on what you would do.

Scenario #1 – Provide a CFM portfolio using the core fixed income allocation ($3 billion/15% of total assets) to match and fund the NET (after contributions) liability cash flows of benefits and expenses (B&E). In this scenario, we can cover the next 6-years of B&E through 6/30/32, covering $3.44 billion in FV benefits and expenses for $3.0 billion (a cost reduction of $443.3k or 12.88%). The YTM on the portfolio is 4.09 and the duration 3.09 years, with the average quality being A-. The remaining assets can continue to be managed as they currently are, but they now benefit from a 6-year investing horizon in which they are no longer providing any liquidity to meet monthly obligations.

Scenario #2 – Provide a CFM portfolio using the same $3 billion (only needed $2.96 billion) or 15% of the fund’s total assets, but implement the strategy using a vertical slice of the liabilities going out 30-years. In this example, we can cover 22% of the liability cash flows for the next 30-years. The FV of those liabilities are $6.3 billion (as opposed to the $3.44 billion using 100% CFM for 6-years). We can reduce the FV cost by $3.33 billion or 53%. The remaining 85% of the fund’s assets can be managed as they presently are, but they don’t benefit from the longer investing horizon, as they will be called upon to provide liquidity to meet the residual B&E.

Scenario #3 – 100% CFM covering net liabilities through 6/30/59. In this case we showed that we can cover 100% of the NET B&E for $9.9 billion in assets, while providing the plan with a $4.4 billion surplus. The FV of those B&E through 2059 are reduced by about $13 billion or 56%! The surplus assets now have a 33-year investing horizon to just grow and grow! A modest 6.5% annualized return for that period produces a surplus of $34.2 billion that can be used to fund B&E after 2059, enhance benefits, and/or reduce future contributions. An 8% annualized return produces a surplus >$75 billion. Oh, my! Also, in this scenario, the organization ONLY needs an annual 2.56% return on the remaining assets to fully fund ALL projected B&E well beyond 2059, as determined by our Asset Exhaustion Test (AET).

Importantly, these scenarios only work if the sponsoring entity provides the forecasted contributions, which in this case they have consistently done for the past 10+ years.

So, I ask once again, what would you do? Scenario 1 ($3 billion/15% of total assets) provides a 100% coverage for 6-years while reducing cost by 13%. Scenario 2 reduces the cost of FV B&E by 53% or $3.4 billion, but covers only 22% of the liabilities, while Scenario 3 reduces the FV cost by 56%, while securing the net promises through 2059 for a cost of $9.9 billion resulting in a surplus of $4.4 billion.

I guess that there is a fourth scenario which is to do nothing, but why would you want to continue to ride the proverbial performance rollercoaster that only guarantees volatility and not success when you can secure a portion of the liabilities, significantly reduce the cost of those future promises, improve liquidity, and “buy time” for the residual assets to just grow unencumbered?

As the Irish say – “May the most you wish for be the least you get“.

03.16.26
by

Unfortunately, the Joke Was On Us!

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

I started raising alarm bells related to DB pension exposure to alternatives – mainly private equity and private credit several years ago, and have produced roughly a dozen blog posts that touch on this issue. You may recall some of the posts from 2024:

The Joke’s On Us!

Good Ideas are Often Overwhelmed!

Kinda Silly Question

Well, unfortunately it appears that it is time to pay the piper! As mentioned in the posts listed above, we as an industry don’t truly appreciate the idea that there is a natural capacity to EVERY investment. As an industry, we DO overwhelm good ideas and those funds that are late to the party are often left with just the crumbs in the chaffing dish.

I stumbled over a good, but scary, list of recent events within private credit. The list was compiled by Ignacio Ramirez Moreno, Host of The Blunt Dollar Podcast:

Cliffwater saw 14% redemption requests.

Morgan Stanley’s fund got 10.9%.

Blackstone hit a record 7.9%.

All three capped withdrawals below what investors requested.

Glendon Capital flagged concerns about Blue Owl’s valuations.

Pimco called it “a crisis of really bad underwriting.”

JPMorgan’s marking down loans and tightening lending to private credit funds.

Partners Group thinks defaults could double.

Pimco’s predicting a “full-blown default cycle.”

Apollo’s saying the pain could last 12-18 months.

Well, that is some list! In addition, I was always quite skeptical of the credit quality that was assigned to these companies, and I guess that I wasn’t too far off given that 43% of private credit borrowers have negative free cash flow. Furthermore, the U.S./Israel vs. Iran war won’t help either, as inflation expectations have ratcheted higher reducing significantly the prospects for Fed action leading to lower rates. In fact, it would not be surprising to see the Fed have to raise rates. If such an action occurs, the higher interest rates could exacerbate the current challenging environment for private debt borrowers and their income statements.

Let’s see how the pension plan sponsor community and their advisors deal with private credit’s first real crisis. It should be both interesting and likely painful.