Tag Archives: Investing

07.31.26
by

Why wait?

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

Due to great uncertainty brought on by the conflict in the Middle East and the war’s potential impact on the price of oil ($85.63 at 10:01 EST) that could drive inflation higher, U.S. long-dated Treasury yields continue to rise. In fact, the U.S. 30-year Treasury yield has not been this high (5.26%) since July 6, 2007, when the yield was at 5.28%. Where yields go from here is anyone’s guess, but I will share that oil, as represented by WTI, has risen 24.9% since June 30, 2026. Given the exposure that oil or oil-derived inputs have in more than 6,000 products, the significant rise in the recent price could impact inflation for quite some time, even if oil soon began to flow more freely.

We recently saw the average 30-year BBB+ bond trading at 110 bps above the prevailing 30-year Treasury. If that relationship is maintained, pension plans could potentially cover most of their desired return on asset (ROA) annual target (average public pension plan has a 6.75% ROA) through bonds. Should inflation spike once again, there is no telling how high U.S. interest rates could rise. Despite domestic equity’s apparent immunity to market fundamentals and geopolitical risks, there will come a time when higher U.S. yields become too attractive to ignore leading to the potential for rebalancing out of equities into fixed income. That action will likely lead to lower equity prices and falling bond yields.

So, I ask, why wait? Why wait to take risk from your current asset allocation before the markets act? Why not SECURE your benefit promises through cash flow matching (CFM) well into the future and reduce the volatility related to returns, contributions, and funded status? Why not take advantage of very attractive bond yields? As a reminder, core, active fixed income strategies are highly interest rate sensitive. Rising yields negatively impact bond prices, as seen in the performance of the Aggregate Bond Index, which is up only 0.1% annually for the 5-years ending June 30, 2026. However, a CFM strategy, which secures benefits that are future values, eliminates interest rate risk, as future values are not interest rate sensitive.

Public pension plans have done a good job of improving their funded ratios since bottoming after the Great Financial Crisis but remain only one market crash away from repeating this vicious cycle. Get off the performance rollercoaster. Secure your promises chronologically for some period into the future (your plan’s funded status should dictate the allocation). You and your participants will sleep much better knowing that the promises made will be kept.

07.29.26
by

There Is No “One Size Fits All” Asset Allocation

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

I recently attended a public pension conference in which the following question was asked by the moderator: Should public pension funds once again adopt a 60%/40% asset allocation framework? As a reminder, there may be an average exposure that results from a review of all public fund data, but there is NO such thing as an appropriate or standard asset allocation. Given that every defined benefit plan has its own unique liabilities, funded status/funded ratio, different workforces, ability to contribute, etc., how could there be a standard exposure to any asset class, let alone a standard 60% equity/40% fixed income allocation.

I’m sure that this question originates through the belief that the pension objective is to achieve a return on asset (ROA) assumption, as if there is some magic combination of assets and weightings that will enable the pension plan to achieve the return target. However, as regular readers of this blog know, we, at Ryan ALM, think that the primary objective when managing a DB pension plan is NOT a return objective but it is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk.

Pursuing a return objective guarantees volatility – volatility of returns, contributions, and funded status. It does not guarantee success! Regarding the volatility of returns, the annual standard deviation for a pension plan’s asset allocation is roughly 12%-15%. Refocusing on the plan’s unique liabilities secures, through cash flow matching (CFM), the monthly promises (benefit payments) from the first month out as far as the allocation will cover. Through this process the necessary liquidity is provided each month, while also providing the additional benefit of extending the investing horizon for the remainder of the assets that are no longer needed as a source of liquidity. We refer to these residual assets as the alpha or growth assets that now can grow unencumbered.

These growth assets can be invested almost anyway that you want. You can decide to just buy the S&P 500 index at low fees or construct a more intricate asset allocation with exposures and weightings of your choice. Again, there is no one size fits all solution. We do suggest that the better the funded ratio/status of your plan, the greater the allocation to the CFM strategy. If your plan is less well funded today, start with a more modest CFM allocation, and expand it as funding levels improve. In any case, you are bringing an element of certainty to what has been historically a very uncertain process.

So, please remember that every DB plan is unique. Don’t let anyone tell you that your fund needs to have X% in asset class A or Y% in asset class B. Securing the benefits should be the most important decision. How you build the alpha portfolio will be a function of so many other factors related specifically to your plan and its governance.

07.22.26
by

A “Joe Friday” Moment

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

Jack Webb, who portrayed Joe Friday in the 1950s crime drama “Dragnet”, was famous for saying in season two “all we want are the facts, ma’am.” The catchphrase eventually morphed into a shorter phrase with the help of comedian, Stan Freberg, who released his parody “St. George and the Dragonet” in which he stated, “just the facts, Ma’am”. That phrase has been carried forward in Dragnet remakes. But, I digress.

Today, I present to you a Joe Friday moment. Here are the facts: Oil prices have risen by 27% since July 6th. U.S. Treasury yields are rising across the yield curve, and the 30-year Treasury yield is within 6 bps of this cycle’s high of 5.2%. The 10-year Treasury yield is currently 4.66% as of 10:24 am on 7/22/26. Investment grade corporate bond spreads have finally started to widen although slowly. According to Morgan Stanley, the “average” yield on a BBB+ corporate is 6.23% or roughly 1.1% higher than the yield on the comparable 30-year Treasury bond. Inflation, which moderated in June, is likely to spike higher given the current direction of activity in the Middle East and its impact on shipping lanes.

These are the facts. They suggest to me, and hopefully you, that the current U.S. interest rate environment is ripe for de-risking activities through cash flow matching (CFM). Why continue to live with the uncertainty surrounding oil, inflation, rates, etc., when you can SECURE your fund’s promises in the near-term?

I wish that I had a crystal ball to help me forecast the future but alas I don’t, and I suspect that you don’t either. Given the lack of clarity related to future events, I suggest that we live in the moment. We have an environment in which the cost of those future promises (benefit payments) can be cut dramatically. An environment that brings an element of certainty to a very uncertain process. An environment in which U.S. interest rates are providing plan sponsors with a significant portion of the annual return on investment target.

We’ve seen this scenario before. At the start of the 2000s, we had pension plans extremely well-funded and contribution expenses well-controlled. That opportunity went unheeded. The result of that inaction proved to be disastrous as we saw DB pension funding get pounded by two major equity market corrections. Are you confident that another major correction isn’t around the corner?

Like Joe Friday, I rely on the facts, which I’ve now presented to you. Ignore them at your peril.

07.17.26
by

DB Pension Plans: Only One Certainty

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

As you look at the landscape for defined benefit pension plans, it is readily apparent that there is only one CERTAINTY. Each month your fund must fulfill a promise. Benefit payments (and expenses) can’t wait to be paid. Like clockwork, B&E come due each month whether markets have behaved or suddenly made finding liquidity a challenge. What have you done to make sure that those obligations are met?

Pension plan management is primarily focused on the fund’s assets. Sponsors and their advisors put together an asset allocation framework that is singularly focused on the annual required return on assets (ROA). But those asset allocation frameworks come with a lot of volatility and uncertainty. Many factors contribute to market movements. Each one out of the control of the pension sponsor.

Do you know where stocks will be trading in 1-hour let alone 1-month, 1-year, or 1-decade? How about inflation? Interest rates? What about the Middle East, Ukraine, China, etc.? Why live with such uncertainty?

How comforting would it be to know what a pension fund’s annual contributions will be for the next 10-, 20- or 30+-years? No guessing, no budgeting woes, and no unfortunate spikes in annual contributions for public systems that harm one’s ability to support the social safety net. The process that can create this level of certainty has been used for decades: Cash Flow Matching (CFM).

As previously mentioned, current pension management approaches are return focused, which only guarantees volatility. Volatility in returns, contributions, and funded status! A CFM approach, which is the careful matching of asset cash flows (principal and interest) with the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses, will bring certainty (outside of a rare IG default) to the management of DB pensions. Importantly, liquidity is created and available when needed. There is no forced selling to fulfill those commitments. No scraping of dividend income which is detrimental to the long-term success of the equity program.

Importantly, a CFM program also “buys time” for the residual assets (presumably the alpha assets) to grow unencumbered with the goal to meet future liabilities. A longer investing horizon will dramatically enhance the probability of those assets meeting long-term return expectations.

Given that there is currently only one certainty (monthly obligations) for sponsors of DB pension plans, wouldn’t it be beneficial to create another level of certainty through the SECURING of the monthly promises? Why wait, especially given all the uncertainty facing market participants today? Ryan ALM, Inc. is always willing to provide you with a free analysis of what CFM could do for your fund. We’re ready to help you sleep better at night.

07.14.26
by

Ryan ALM’s TPA+ Approach

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

Asset allocation discussions have recently compared traditional pension asset allocation with a “new” approach referred to as the Total Portfolio Approach (TPA). We believe the distinction between traditional asset allocation and the total portfolio allocation is subtle but important. The two approaches begin with different questions.

Traditional asset allocation approaches ask: “How should we invest the assets to achieve the required return objective?”

A TPA approach asks: “How does every asset contribute to funding a pension plans liabilities (benefits)?”

In a traditional asset allocation framework the expectation is that long-term returns will eventual fund the promises. However, a pension plan doesn’t exist to outperform an index/benchmark. It exists to pay the promised benefits!

In the TPA approach, a pension fund will have a broadly diversified array of investments, but each investment has a specific purpose relative to the pension plan’s liabilities. There are no investment sleeves, but a single portfolio with the goal to fund the pension’s liabilities.

We, at Ryan ALM, Inc. believe that our approach, implemented over decades, goes one step beyond Total Portfolio Management.

Whereas a TPA asks: “What allocation best maximizes the performance of the entire portfolio?”

Ryan ALM asks: “What investment strategy best minimizes the cost and risk of paying future pension benefits?”

TPA shifts the focus from individual asset classes to the overall portfolio. Ryan ALM shifts the focus again—from the portfolio itself to the pension liabilities. Assets need to know what they are funding… net liabilities (projected benefits – projected contributions). Since the actuary does not calculate net liabilities, this becomes the first step and calculation of the Ryan ALM process. Our philosophy is arguably closer to Total Pension Management than Total Portfolio Management.

Ryan ALM’s liability-based investment philosophy shares important characteristics with TPA while also differing in a fundamental way.

Traditional Asset AllocationTotal Portfolio ApproachRyan ALM Liability-Based Investing
Optimizes asset-class weightsOptimizes the total portfolioOptimizes the funded status and liability outcomes
Benchmark relativeGoal relativeLiability relative
Focus on returnsFocus on total risk-adjusted returnsFocus on securing pension promises
Asset classes drive decisionsPortfolio drives decisionsLiabilities drive decisions

The Pension objective isn’t returns—it’s securing pension promises! Ryan ALM’s pension management is distinguished from both traditional asset allocators and TPA by highlighting and managing to the pension plan’s liabilities, and then paying those liabilities when required through Cash Flow Matching. No games and no uncertainty!

07.08.26
by

Complexity Doesn’t Make it Good or Appropriate

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

We have a serious retirement problem in the U.S. Defined benefit plans have mostly been replaced in the private sector, and rising contribution levels are making public pension offerings problematic for the sponsoring entities. These issues are compounded by the fact that many defined benefit plans have migrated significant assets to opaque, complex, and costly alternative investments. In the process, creating liquidity to meet ongoing benefits and expenses has become more challenging.

Managing a DB pension plan isn’t complicated, yet we continue to make it so. I read an Institutional Investor article with interest, and some alarm, that a public pension system operating with negative cash flow (contributions < benefits and expenses) has decided that the best way to address the liquidity shortfall is to move assets into “”a lot more esoteric lending strategies” like asset-based finance and royalty-based lending in sectors such as entertainment, healthcare, and aircraft engine leasing.” The CIO for this fund continued, “we’re going into a lot of illiquid structures, so we structure the portfolio to make sure we have enough liquidity to meet our benefit payments at all times,” Really????

Going into illiquid structures to ensure adequate liquidity seems oxymoronic. We’ve seen what has transpired in both private equity and private debt regarding distributions and the lack thereof. Again, our industry often brings complexity to a problem when there are far simpler ways to tackle an issue. For decades, Cash Flow Matching (CFM) has carefully matched asset cash flows of bond interest and principal with the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses (B&E) chronologically. There is no hoping that the liquidity will be available when needed.

U.S. rates are currently at levels providing plan sponsors with the ability to SECURE future B&E at low cost and with certainty barring any defaults in IG bonds (<0.2%/year for the last 40-years). Why engage in expensive, opaque “solutions” when a CFM strategy can be adopted for pennies on the $. CFM is a-sleep-well-at-night strategy, which will be comforting to not only the plan sponsor but the plan’s participants. Please stop thinking that a solution needs to be complex to be good. Some of the very best approaches are transparent, straight-forward, and inexpensive: like CFM!

07.06.26
by

It’s The Wrong Benchmark!

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

Mark Stricherz has penned an article for The Center Square discussing the Pennsylvania Public-School Employees’ pension fund and its $41 billion shortfall. The gist of article centered on the fact that PSERS failed to exceed it’s investment benchmark last years which fund officials blamed on private equity.

A bit of background: As of Dec. 31, PSERS held $85.3 billion in assets, including $10.1 billion in private equity. Long-term return expectations for this asset class were an annual 10.06% return. The precision of the return expectation seems a bit silly and quite modest given the asset class’s poor transparency, lack of liquidity, and excessive fees. As a point of comparison, the S&P 500 returned 11.4% for the 20-years through June 30, 2026. Regrettably, PSERS’ PE funds produced only a 2.59% last year. As ugly as that return is, that is NOT the reason that PSERS is $41 billion in the whole and Pennsylvania taxpayers on the hook.

An investigation by The Center Square found that private equity was the only one of PSERS’ eight asset classes to miss its benchmarks over one-, three-, five-, 10- and 15-year periods. Interesting! I find it hard to believe that the fund had this kind of relative outperformance and yet still must deal with a $41 billion shortfall. Again, I don’t believe that PE is the sole cause.

As I’ve been reporting for years, the primary objective in managing a defined benefit plan is NOT one focused on return (the ROA). It is the SECURING of the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is a LIABILITY objective. It doesn’t matter that a plan’s assets outperform their respective asset class objectives if the plan’s total fund fails to exceed liability growth. Presently, there are roughly 500,000 members and beneficiaries counting on those promised benefits.

A successful DB pension plan understands its commitments. You’ve made a promise: measure it – monitor it – manage it – and SECURE it! Focusing on return only guarantees volatility. Volatility of returns, contributions, and funded status. Get off the performance rollercoaster.


06.30.26
by

As a Fiduciary, Would you…

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

Regrettably, the investment industry has trained pension fiduciaries to think in terms of returns:

  • “Can we earn 7.25%?”
  • “Can we outperform the benchmark?”
  • “Should we own more equities?”
  • “How about alternatives?”

But we at Ryan ALM, Inc. believe chasing returns is NOT the economic objective of a defined benefit plan. Pursuing a return objective only guarantees volatility and not success. Volatility of returns, volatility of the Funded Ratio, and volatility of contributions! We believe that the objective is much simpler:

Deliver every promised benefit at the lowest sustainable COST to the sponsor.

Given that objective, we help pension plans reduce the cost of delivering every pension promise through our turnkey pension sustainable solutions. Reducing cost and SECURING the promised benefits is what every stakeholder should desire from trustees, to sponsors, and most importantly, plan participants.

As a pension Fiduciary what would you do if given this choice?

Imagine two pension funds that both owe retirees $100 million over the next 30 years. One fund invests with the goal of earning the highest possible return, while the other invests with the goal of meeting every payment at the lowest expected long-term cost.

Which strategy sounds more prudent? We believe that most trustees will immediately recognize that the second action better aligns with their responsibilities as Fiduciaries.

Here’s another example to consider. Lets think about funding your pension like you would a 30-year mortgage on your home.

Would you rather:

  • Put all your money in the stock market and hope it’s there when each payment comes due?

Or:

  • Structure your cash flows so each payment is already funded when it’s due?

I believe (hope) that most people would choose the second option for a monthly obligation they cannot afford to miss. Funding your monthly benefits is the exact same thing. Why not ensure that those benefits have been secured and the liquidity available as far into the future as possible through a cash flow matching (CFM) portfolio. It is absolutely time to get off the performance rollercoaster. Bring some certainty to a very uncertain process.

In conclusion, the primary pension objective is to pay every promised benefit at the lowest sustainable cost. Everything we do at Ryan ALM follows from that premise.

06.26.26
by

Will You Be Wearing A Bathing Suit?

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

I’m not asking about your plans for America’s 250th celebration come this Fourth of July. 

I read a very interesting email yesterday that referenced the tragic events in Venezuela by saying that the “earthquake doesn’t write the verdict. It audits the books.” My initial reaction: that’s harsh given the significant deaths and injuries that resulted, but upon reflection the author is correct. It wasn’t the fact that an earthquake of that magnitude hadn’t occurred in 125-years. It was the fact that poor planning, weak building codes, inferior construction, and poor maintenance well before the event created the tragic outcome.

As I contemplated the authors words, I began to reflect on what Warren Buffet had said in his 2001 annual letter to shareholders. He stated, “only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.” Bringing this post back to investing and the impact on pension plans;

  • Rising markets make almost every strategy appear successful.
  • Cheap credit, abundant liquidity, and investor optimism hide poor decisions and weak fundamentals.
  • Excessive leverage, weak business models, and speculation can all seem to work (think SPCX).

But when the “tide goes out” (markets decline) we are left with the truth, and it can be pretty ugly.

  • Companies with too much debt struggle.
  • Investors who relied on leverage are forced to sell.
  • Weak business models fail (Dot Com bubble).
  • Investment managers, pension plans, and their advisors that took hidden risks are exposed.

Importantly, bear markets don’t create weakness—they expose weakness that was already there.

We witnessed what happened following the go go 1990s, when it seemed as if every investment made money, pension funded ratios were at or near all-time highs, and contributions were well contained. It was that prolonged bull market that made almost any pension investment strategy look successful. But then the piper came calling! By the time the tide had rolled out, we witnessed the crushing impact on America’s pension system that hadn’t done anything to secure the promised benefits, improve liquidity, and reduce risk in very aggressive asset allocations.

So, I ask once more, will you be wearing a bathing suit when the next market crash/event occurs? Have you done enough to protect the promises made to your plan participants? If you are concerned that you haven’t, let us perform the audit before the event occurs. Our turnkey system will:

  • Properly measure your fund’s liabilities and cash flow needs.
  • Generate and maintain sufficient liquidity chronologically.
  • Avoid excessive risk.
  • Manage interest-rate risk.
  • Buy-time for the growth assets to perform.
  • Stabilize the funded status and contribution expenses.

Those plans that prepare ahead of the “event”, will be the ones that are healthy when the tide begins to rise again. Prudent risk management matters much more than chasing returns. The real test of an investment strategy for a pension system isn’t during bull markets—it’s during highly uncertain ones, when hidden vulnerabilities become impossible to ignore. Will your fund pass an audit?

06.25.26
by

The Ryan ALM, Inc. Blog

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

Are you a recent subscriber (thank you) to the Ryan ALM, Inc. blog? Here’s a little history. I began writing this blog in 2013. I’ll never forget my elementary school friend, Tony, who helped me set up the blog, saying that I shouldn’t start one if I wasn’t going to be consistent in producing content. Well, 13-years later and there are now 1,800+ mostly pension-related posts and more than 600k words. When I joined Ryan ALM, Inc. in the summer of 2019, I was extremely grateful to Ron Ryan for supporting this effort and that support continues to this day, while also being a contributor of important content.

As a new subscriber, what should you expect to read among the plethora of posts? I believe the dominant themes are:

  1. DB Pensions exist to secure promised benefits, not maximize returns.
  2. Pension Liabilities should drive investment decisions and not the ROA.
  3. Funded status matters much more than asset returns.
  4. Cash Flow Matching (CFM) is the most prudent way to secure benefits.
  5. Custom Liability Indexes (CLI) are essential for measuring pension success – good governance.
  6. Reducing uncertainty through fully funding benefits is the true definition of pension risk management.
  7. Defined benefit plans should be protected and preserved.

As a reminder, Ryan ALM, Inc. is an independent pension risk management and SEC registered investment firm that helps defined benefit plans improve funded status, reduce liability risk, enhance liquidity, and secure retirement promises through custom liability measurement, cash flow matching, actuarially informed investment strategies, and ongoing monitoring.

Don’t hesitate to reach out to us with your questions and/or comments. They are always welcome on this blog, which can be found here.