Tag Archives: Investing

06.10.25
by

HF Assets Hit Record – Why?

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

I touched on the subject of hedge funds a few years ago. Unfortunately, results haven’t gotten any better. Yet, P&I is reporting that Hedge Fund assets have reached an all-time high of $5.7 trillion. My simple question – WHY?

I believe that we have overcomplicated the management of DB pension plans and the use of hedge funds is a clear example. If the primary objective is to fund the promised benefits in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk, why do we continue to waste so much energy buying complicated, opaque products and strategies that often come with ridiculously high fees and little alpha? Furthermore, the management of a DB pension plan has a relative objective – funding the plan’s liabilities of benefits and expenses. It is not an absolute objective which is what a hedge fund strives to produce. It really doesn’t matter if a hedge fund produces a 5% 10-year return if liability growth far exceeds that performance.

Here’s the skinny, the HFRI Composite index reveals that the 10- and 20-year compounded returns are 5.0% and 5.1%, respectively through March 31, 2025. We know that we didn’t get those “robust” returns at either an efficient cost or with prudent risk. What are these products hedging other than returns? Why do we continue to invest in this collection of overpriced and underperforming products? Are they sexy? Does that make them more appealing? Do we think that we are getting a magic elixir that will solve all of our funding issues?

Sadly, the story is even worse when you take a gander at the returns associated with the HFRI Hedge Fund of Funds Composite Index. I shouldn’t have been surprised by the weaker performance given the extra layer of fees. According to HFRI, 10- and 20-year annualized returns fall to 3.5% and 3.3%, respectively. UGH! For those two time frames, the S&P 500 produced returns of 12.5% and 10.2% respectively, and for a few basis points in fees. Furthermore, as U.S. interest rates have risen, bond returns have become competitive with the returns produced by HFs and HF of Funds. In fact, during the 1-year period both T-bills (4.9%) and the BB Aggregate index (5.2%) have outperformed HFs (4.6%), while matching or exceeding the HF of Funds (4.9%) as of March 31, 2025.

While pension systems struggle under growing contribution expenses and plan participants worry about the viability of the pension promise, the hedge fund gurus get to buy sports franchises because of the outrageous fees that are charged and the incredible sums of assets (again, $5.7 trillion!!!) that have been thrown at them? I suspect that the standard fee is no longer 2% plus 20%, but the fees probably haven’t fallen too far from those levels. As Fred Schwed asked with his famous publication in 1952 titled, “Where are the Customers’ Yachts?”, I haven’t been able to find them. Unfortunately, I think that the picture below is more representative of what plan sponsors and the participants have gotten for their investment.

Participant’s yacht – deflated results

Don’t you think that it is time to get back to pension basics? Let’s focus on funding the promised benefits through an enhanced liquidity strategy (cash flow matching) for a portion of the plan’s assets, while allowing the remainder of the portfolio’s assets to enjoy the benefit of time to grow unencumbered (extended investing horizon). This bifurcated approach is superior to the current strategy of placing all of your eggs (assets) into a ROA bucket and hoping that the combination will create a return commensurate with what is needed to meet those current Retired Lives Benefit promises and all future benefits and expenses.

06.09.25
by

ARPA Update as of June 6, 2025

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

Pleased to provide you with another weekly update on the PBGC’s implementation of the critically important ARPA pension legislation. We are roughly 1 1/2 years from the completion of this program and yet, more pension funds are seeking to be added to the waitlist. In just the past week, another six funds were added to the list, including Bakery and Sales Drivers’ Local 33 Partitioned Pension Fund, Oregon Printing Industry Pension Trust, Local No. 171 Pension Plan, Licensed Tugmen’s and Pilots’ Pension Fund, San Diego Plasterers Pension Trust, and the Ironworkers Local No. 6 Pension Plan. In total 132 funds sought SFA that weren’t part of the original six priority groups that became five after further review.

There were no new applications submitted during the prior 7-day period, as the PBGC’s eFiling portal remains temporarily closed. There are currently 19 applications with the PBGC, including one Priority Group 1 member and a recently submitted Priority Group 2 application. There remains one application with a June 2025 deadline for action. Happy to report that two funds received approval for their applications, including New Bedford Longshoremen’s Pension Plan and Cement Masons Local No. 524 Pension Plan, both of which are non-priority group members. In total, they will receive just under $6 million in SFA plus interest for the 280 plan participants.

There were no plans asked to repay a portion of the SFA due to census errors and no plans had their applications denied. There were two plans running up against the PBGC’s 120-day window that withdrew applications, including Teamsters Local 277 Pension Fund and Laborers National Pension Fund.

Given uncertainty related to the impact of the tariffs on consumption, jobs, earnings, etc. The Federal Reserve remains cautious in its approach to future rate movements. As a result, U.S. interest rates have migrated higher providing plan sponsors with a wonderful opportunity to defease the promised benefit payments and in the process extend the potential coverage period. As always, we are willing to provide a free analysis to help any SFA recipient think through an appropriate asset allocation framework.

06.09.25
by

Capital Distributions From Private Equity Collapse

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

I recently published a blog titled, Problem – Solution: Liquidity, in which I discussed the impact of pension plan sponsors cobbling together interest, dividends, and capital distributions from their roster of managers, and how that practice was not beneficial, especially during periods of stress in the markets. Well, one of those three legs of the “gotta, but how am I gonna, meet my monthly payment of benefits and expenses”, is really falling short at this time.

Dividends are far lower these days than they once were when equities were perceived to be quite risky. In fact, it wasn’t until 1958 that dividend income fell below interest income from bonds. Couple that phenomenon with the fact that capital distributions have plummeted, and plan sponsors are placing far greater emphasis on capturing interest from bonds than ever before. Yes, thankfully interest rates have risen, but the YTM on the BB Aggregate index is still only in the 4.7% range. That is not likely sufficient to meet monthly payouts, which means that bonds will have to be sold, too. The last thing one should want to do in a rising rate environment is to sell securities at a loss.

However, if the plan sponsor engaged a Cash Flow Matching (CFM) manager in lieu of an active core fixed income manager, the necessary liquidity would be made available each and every month of the assignment, as asset cash flows would be carefully matched against liability cash flows. Both interest and maturing principal would be used to meet those benefits and expenses. No forced selling. No scurrying around to “find” liquidity. A far more secure and certain process.

What if my plan isn’t fully funded. Does it make sense to use CFM? Of course, given that benefits and expenses are paid each month whether your plan is fully invested or not, wouldn’t it make more sense to have those flows covered with certainty? Sure, a poorly funded plan may only be able to use CFM for the next 3-5-years, but that’s the beauty of CFM. It is a dynamic process providing a unique solution for each pension plan. No off the shelf products.

06.02.25
by

Problem – Solution: Liquidity

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

Plan Sponsors of defined benefit pension plans don’t have an easy job! The current focus on return/performance and the proliferation of new, and in some cases, complicated and opaque products, make navigating today’s market environment as challenging as it has ever been.

At Ryan ALM, Inc. we want to be our clients’ and prospects’ first call for anything related to de-risking/defeasing pension liabilities. Ryan ALM is a specialty firm focused exclusively on Asset/Liability Management (ALM) and how best to SECURE the pension promise. For those of you who know Ron Ryan and the team, you know that this have been his/our focus for 50+ years. I think that it is safe to say that we’ve learned a thing or two about managing pension liabilities along the way. Have a problem? We may just have the solution. For instance:

Problem – Plan sponsors need liquidity to meet monthly benefits and expense. How is this best achieved since many plan sponsors today cobble together monthly liquidity by taking dividends, interest, and capital distributions from their roster of investment advisors or worse, sell securities to meet the liquidity needs?

Solution – Create an asset allocation framework that has a dedicated liquidity bucket. Instead of having all of the plan’s assets focused on the return on asset (ROA) assumption, bifurcate the assets into two buckets – liquidity and growth. The liquidity bucket will consist of investment grade bonds whose cash flows of interest and principal will be matched against the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses through a sophisticated cost-optimization model. Liquidity will be available from the first month of the assignment as far out as the allocation to this bucket will secure – could be 5-years, 10-years, or longer. In reality, the allocation should be driven by the plan’s funded status. The better the funding, the more one can safely allocate to this strategy. Every plan needs liquidity, so even poorly funded plans should take this approach of having a dedicated liquidity bucket to meet monthly cash flows.

By adopting this framework, a plan sponsor no longer must worry where the liquidity is going to come from, especially for those plans that are in a negative cash flow situation. Also, removing dividend income from your equity managers has a long-term negative effect on the performance of your equity assets. Finally, during periods of market dislocation, a dedicated liquidity bucket will eliminate the need to transact in less than favorable markets further preserving assets.

We’re often asked what percentage of the plan’s assets should be dedicated to the liquidity bucket. As mentioned before, funded status plays an important role, but so does the sponsors ability to contribute, the current asset allocation, and the risk profile of the sponsor. We normally suggest converting the current core fixed income allocation, with all of the interest rate risk, to a cash flow matching (CFM) portfolio that will be used to fund liquidity as needed.

We’ll be producing a Problem – Solution blog on a variety of DB plan topics. Keep an eye out for the next one in the series. Also, if you have a problem, don’t hesitate to reach out to us. We might just have an answer. Don’t delay.

05.28.25
by

Where’s The Beef?

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

In case this little ditty got by you, today is National Hamburger Day. According to the history books, the beef patty that most of us love originated in Hamburg, Germany. It has nothing to do with the meat, which as far as I know was never pork/ham. I bring you this info not only because I am looking forward to my burger later this evening, but because of a lack of “beef” in today’s retirement industry.

Despite adoption of financial wellness programs, millions of workers in their 50s and early 60s remain critically unprepared to fund their retirement, “according to a new report from the Institutional Retirement Income Council”. How bad are the stats? Nearly 50% of Americans aged 55 to 64 have NO retirement savings – zilch, nada, zippo! That info comes courtesy of the Federal Reserve Board’s 2023 Survey of Consumer Finances, which was cited in the IRIC report. Furthermore, for those that have accumulated retirement savings, the median account balance is only $202,000, and totally insufficient for a retirement that could last more than 20 years. Applying the 4% rule to annual withdrawals provides this median participant an annual spending budget of $8,080. That certainly won’t get you much.

It gets worse. According to a bank of America study, “only 38% understand how to properly claim Social Security”. Compounding these issues is the fact that most underestimate how much they might need for health care, estimated at up to $315,000 in medical expenses, per Fidelity Investments.  

IRIC Executive Director Kevin Crain, the report’s author, wrote that the lack of preparedness is already leading to a troubling trend of “delayed retirements, workplace disruption, and heightened financial stress among older employees and their employers.”  

This dire situation needs to be rectified immediately, and the only way to ensure a sound retirement for our American workforce is to once again institute defined benefit (DB) pension plans. Asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “benefit” through a DC plan without disposable income, investment acumen, or a crystal ball to help with longevity is just silly. There’s just no beef in today’s retirement offerings!

Where’s Clara Peller when we need her the most?

05.13.25
by

Bonds Are NOT Performance Instruments

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

As we wrote a year ago this past April, it is time to Bag the Agg. For public pension plan sponsors and their advisors who are so focused on achieving the return on asset (ROA) assumption, any exposure to a core fixed income strategy benchmarked to the Aggregate index would have been a major drag on the performance since the decades long decline in rates stopped (2020) and rates began to rise aggressively in early 2022. The table below shows the total return of the Bloomberg Aggregate for several rolling periods with returns well below the ROA target return (roughly 7%).

For core fixed income strategies, the YTW should be the expected return plus or minus the impact from changes in interest rates. Again, for nearly 4 decades beginning in 1981, U.S. interest rates declined providing a significant tailwind for both bonds and risk assets. What most folks might not know, from 1953 to 1981 U.S. interest rates rose. Could we be at the beginning of another secular trend of rising rates (see below)? If so, what does it mean for pension plans?

Rising rates may negatively impact the price of bonds, but importantly they reduce the present value (PV) of future benefit payments. They also provide pension funds and their advisors with the option to de-risk the plan through a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy as the absolute level of rates moves closer to the annual ROA. Active fixed income management is challenging. Who really knows where rates are going? But we know with certainty the cash flows that bonds produce (interest income and principal at maturity). Those bond cash flows can be used to match and fully fund liability cash flows (benefits and expenses). A decline in the value of a bond will be offset by the decline in the PV of the plan’s liabilities. So, a 5-year return of -0.3%, which looks horrible if bonds are viewed as performance instruments may match the growth rate of liabilities it is funding. Using bonds for their cash flows, brings certainty and liquidity to the portion of the plan that has been defeased.

Are you confident that your active fixed income will produce the YTW or better? Are you sure that U.S. interest rates are going to fall from these levels? Why bet on something that you can’t control? Convert your active core bond program into a CFM portfolio that will ensure that your plan’s liabilities and assets move in lockstep no matter which direction rates take. Moreover, CFM will provide all the liquidity needed to fund benefits and expenses thereby eliminating the need to do a cash sweep. Assume risk with your growth assets that will now have a longer investing horizon because you’ve just bought plenty of time for them to grow unencumbered.

05.13.25
by

My Wish List as a Pension Trustee

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

I’ve been a trustee for a non-profit’s foundation fund. I haven’t been a Trustee for a defined benefit pension plan, but I’ve spent nearly 44-years in the pension industry as both a consultant and investment advisor working with many plan sponsors of varying sizes and challenges. As anyone who follows this blog knows, Ryan ALM, Inc. and I are huge advocates for DB pension plans. We believe that it is critical for the success of our retirement industry that DB pension plans remain at the core of everyone’s retirement preparedness. Regrettably, that is becoming less likely for most. However, if today I were a trustee/plan sponsor of a DB pension plan, private, public, or multiemployer, this would be my wish list:

  • I would like to have more CERTAINTY in managing my DB pension fund, since all my fund’s investments are subject to the whims of the markets.
  • I would like to have the necessary LIQUIDITY to meet my plan’s benefits every month without having to force a sale of a security or sweep income from higher growth strategies (dividends and capital distributions) that serve my fund better if they are reinvested.
  • I would like to have a longer investing HORIZON for my growth (alpha) assets, so that the probability of achieving the strategy’s desired outcome is greatly enhanced.
  • I don’t want to have to guess where interest rates are going, which impact both assets (bond strategies) and liabilities (promised benefits). Bonds should be used for their CASH FLOWS of interest and principal at maturity.
  • I don’t want to pay high fees without the promise of delivery.
  • I’d like to have a more stable funded status/funded ratio.
  • I want annual contribution expenses to be more consistent, so that those who fund my plan continue to support the mission.
  • I want my pension fund to perform in line with expectations so that I don’t have to establish multiple tiers that disadvantage a subset of my fund’s participants.
  • I want my fund to be sustainable, even though I might believe it is perpetual.

Are My Desired Outcomes Unreasonable?

Absolutely, not! However, there is only one way to my wish list. I must retain a Cash Flow Matching (CFM) strategy, that when implemented will provide the necessary liquidity, extend the investing horizon, eliminate interest rate risk, bring an element of certainty to a very uncertain process, AND stabilize both contribution expenses and the funded status for that portion of the portfolio using CFM.

Is there another strategy outside of an expensive annuity that can create similar outcomes? NO! I believe that the primary objective in managing a DB plan is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable (low) cost and with prudent risk. CFM does that. Striving to achieve a return on asset (ROA) through various fixed income, equity, and alternative strategies comes with great uncertainty and volatility.  The proverbial rollercoaster of outcomes. The CFM allocation should be driven by my plan’s funded status. The higher the funded status, the greater the allocation to CFM, and the more certainty my fund will enjoy.

I believe that since every plan needs liquidity, EVERY DB pension fund should use CFM as the core holding. I want to sleep well at night, and I believe that CFM provides me with that opportunity. What do you think?

05.09.25
by

The Benefits of Using Multiple Discount Rates in a Public Pension Plan

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

Public pension plan sponsors frequently ask us about the impact of investing in a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy on the fund’s ability to achieve the ROA, which is also the discount rate used to value the plan’s liabilities under GASB accounting. As we’ve discussed many times, the plan’s ROA is actually a blend of ROAs with an “expected” return target assigned to each asset class, except for bonds, which uses the YTM of the index benchmark, and then those forecasts are averaged based on the weight of the exposure within the total asset base. So, despite the fact that GASB requires a single rate to discount the plan’s liabilities, multiple ROA targets have been used for years.

We believe that this process can, and should, be refined even more. We believe that the ROA target should be focused on the plan’s liabilities and not just the assets. With a liability focus one gets the following benefits when using multiple discount rates, including:

  • Risk Matching: Applying different discount rates to different asset or liability segments can better reflect the varying risk profiles of those segments. For example, using a lower, market-based rate for secured benefits (through a CFM process) and a higher rate for more uncertain, investment-backed benefits can align present value (PV) calculations more closely with the actual risks being taken within the fund.
  • Improved Accuracy: Multiple rates may provide a more accurate estimate of liabilities, especially when plan assets are invested in a mix of instruments with different risk and return characteristics.
  • Transparency in Funding Status: By separating liabilities based on funding source or risk, stakeholders get a clearer picture of which obligations are well-secured (those that are defeased through CFM) and which may be more vulnerable to market fluctuations (the growth assets).
  • Policy Flexibility: Using a blended discount rate can help manage the transition when lowering the overall discount rate, avoiding sudden shocks to contribution requirements.

We often discuss the need to bring an element of certainty to the management of DB pension plans, which have embraced uncertainty for years. Bifurcating your plans liabilities (retired lives and actives) and assets (liquidity and growth) into two buckets and applying different discount rates to each brings greater certainty to the management of a pension plan. There is no longer any guessing as to how your liquidity bucket will perform, as the asset cash flows are matched to liability cash flows with certainty and the fund’s cost savings and return are both know on the day that the portfolio is constructed. How wonderful!

05.08.25
by

Improved Corporate Pension Funding – Milliman

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

Milliman released the results of its 2025 Corporate Pension Funding Study(PFS). The study analyzes pension data for the 100 U.S. public companies with the largest defined benefit (DB) pension plans. Unlike the monthly updates provided by Milliman, this study covers the 2024 fiscal years (FY) for each plan. Milliman has now produced this review for 25 consecutive years.

Here are Milliman’s Key findings from the 2025 annual study, including:

  • The PFS funded percentage increased from 98.5% at the end of FY2023 to 101.1% in FY2024, with the funded status climbing from a $19.9 billion deficit to a $13.8 billion surplus.
  • This is the first surplus for the Milliman 100 companies since 2007.
  • As of FY2024, over half (53) of the plans in the study were funded at 100% or greater; only one plan in the study is funded below 80%. RDK note: This is a significant difference from what we witness in public pension funding studies.
  • Rising U.S. interest rates aren’t all bad, as the funding improvement was driven largely by the 42-basis point increase in the PFS discount rate (from 5.01% to 5.43%)
  • Higher discount rates lowered the projected benefit obligations (PBO) of these plans from $1.34 trillion to $1.24 trillion.
  • While the average return on investments was 3.6% – lower than these plans’ average long-term assumption of 6.5% – the underperformance of assets did not outstrip the PBO improvement. Only 19 of the Milliman 100 companies exceeded their expected returns. 
  • According to Milliman, equities outperformed fixed-income investments for the sixth year in a row. Over the last five years, plans with consistently high allocations to fixed income have underperformed other plans but experienced lower funded ratio volatility. Since 2005, pension plan asset allocations have swung more heavily toward fixed income, away from equity allocations.

“Looking ahead, the economic volatility we’ve seen in 2025 plus the potential for declining interest rates likely means corporate plan sponsors will continue with de-risking strategies – whether that’s through an investment glide-path strategy, lump-sum window, or pension risk transfer,” said Zorast Wadia, co-author of the PFS. “But with about $45 billion of surplus in frozen Milliman 100 plans, there’s also the potential for balance sheet and cash savings by incorporating new defined benefit plan designs.” One can only hope, Zorast.

Final thought: Given the unique shape of today’s Treasury yield curve, duration strategies may be challenged to reduce interest rate risk through an average duration or a few key rates. As a reminder, Cash Flow Matching (CFM) duration matches every month of the assignment. Use CFM for the next 10-years, you have 120 bespoke duration matches.

05.07.25
by

Source Ryan – Question of the Day.

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

We often get comments and questions following the posting of a blog. We welcome the opportunity to exchange ideas with interested readers. Here is a recent comment/question from a LinkedIn.com exchange.

Question: In reviewing the countless reports, reading past agendas, and meeting minutes for these 20 plans, I did not notice any CFM or dedicated fixed income strategies employed by any of them. Perhaps there are a couple that I missed that do, or perhaps some have since embarked on such a strategy. Why wouldn’t public fund plan sponsors use Cash Flow Matching (CFM)?

There really isn’t a reason why they shouldn’t as pointed out by Dan Hougard, Verus, in his recent excellent piece, but unfortunately, they likely haven’t begun to use a strategy that has been used effectively for decades within the insurance industry, by lottery systems, and early on in pension management. Regrettably, plan sponsors must enjoy being on the rollercoaster of returns that only guarantees volatility and not necessarily success. Furthermore, they must get excited about trying to find liquidity each month to meet the promised benefits by scrambling to capture dividend income, bond interest, or capital distributions. If this doesn’t prove to be enough to meet the promises, they then get to liquidate a holding whether it is the right time or not.

In addition, there must be a particular thrill about losing sleep at night during periods of major market disruptions. Otherwise, they’d use CFM in lieu of a core fixed income strategy that rides its own rollercoaster of returns mostly driven by changes in interest rates. Do you know where rates are going? I certainly don’t, but I do know that next month, the month after that, followed by the one after that, and all the way to the end of the coverage period, that my clients will have the liquidity to meet the benefit promises without having to force a sale in an environment that isn’t necessarily providing appropriate liquidity.

The fact that a CFM strategy also eliminates interest rate risk because benefit payments are future values, while also extending the investing horizon for the fund’s growth assets are two additional benefits. See, there really is NO reason not to retain a cash flow matching expert like Ryan ALM, Inc. to bring certainty to the management of pensions that have lived with great uncertainty. In doing so, many plans have had to dramatically increase contributions, alter asset allocation frameworks to take on significantly more risk, while unfortunately asking participants to increase employee contributions, work more years, and receive less at retirement under the guise of pension reform. Let’s stop doing the same old same old and explore the tremendous benefits of Cash Flow Matching. Your plan participants will be incredibly grateful.