Tag Archives: liquidity

06.17.26
by

Pension Problem: Gross versus Net Liabilities

By: Ronald J. Ryan, CFA, Chairman, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Most pension plans are focused on gross liabilities as expressed by the funded ratio (total assets / total liabilities) and funded status (total assets – total liabilities). But the truth is plan assets are to fund NET liabilities after contributions. Contributions can be quite large especially for public pension funds. Pension assets need to know what they are funding… answer = NET liabilities. Unfortunately, actuaries do not calculate NET liabilities, nor do they include contributions as an asset to calculate the funded ratio / status. These oversights have an impact on asset allocation, especially if it is focused on the true economic funded status of solvency. The Ryan team created the first Custom Liability Index (CLI) in 1991 that has become a core product of Ryan ALM. Our CLI will calculate NET liabilities as a term structure, so assets and the plan sponsor know the liquidity needed and when to fund NET liabilities. 

GASB accounting requires a test of solvency (asset exhaustion test or AET) for public funds (which should be a requirement for all types of pensions) that includes contributions as a future asset to help fund the future liability cash flow schedule. Assets are grown at the return on asset assumption (ROA) to see if they can fully fund projected benefits – projected contributions (net liabilities). At the point that assets are exhausted, GASB requires a bifurcated discount rate using AA 20-year municipal rates. Ryan ALM modifies the GASB AET to calculate the ROA needed to fully fund net liabilities. We find that our calculated ROA is usually much lower than the ROA assumption currently being used. Our calculated ROA should be the hurdle rate for asset allocation instead of the common practice of choosing an ROA based on an asset only forecast of returns by asset classes. Our modified AET should be the first step in asset allocation after the CLI is built.

Bonds are the only asset class with the certainty of cash flows. That is why bonds have always been used to defease and immunize liabilities. Our Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP) is a cost optimization model that will fully fund NET liabilities at the lowest cost to the plan sponsor. We strongly believe that the bond allocation should be used to fully fund NET liabilities chronologically. In the process, an extended investment horizon is created buying time for the Alpha assets to grow unencumbered. We have found that converting the plan’s core fixed income allocation to a cash flow matching portfolio will normally cover the plan’s next 10+-years of benefit payments. Instead, some pension plans use a “Cash Sweep” to fund current liabilities which significantly damages the total return produced by those growth assets. Let bonds fund NET liabilities with certainty through our LBP… and sleep well at night.        

“Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” T.S. Eliot

06.12.26
by

Try Clapping With One Hand

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

The only reason that your DB pension plan exists is because a promise was given to your participants that they would receive a monthly benefit for life upon meeting some requirements such as years employed and retirement age. The promise wasn’t based on whether your particular pension fund achieved the annual return on asset assumption (ROA). If the ROA was achieved – great. Contributions would be as forecasted by your actuary. If not, it would be time to ante up more in annual contributions. But at the end of the day, you remain on the hook to make that monthly payment.

Given that reality, does it make sense that the primary focus is on the ROA and not the promised benefits? Regrettably, for most of Pension America, the annual ROA is the goal. However, pursuing that objective only guarantees volatility and not success. On the other hand, we, at Ryan ALM, Inc., believe that the primary pension objective is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. By securing that promise, you eliminate uncertainty and volatility in the funded status.

Here’s the rub, the pension liabilities are the domain of the actuaries, while asset allocation falls to the asset consultants. How often do those entities communicate? How often do you as the plan sponsor know how that promise you made is behaving? Does it make sense to you that assets are constantly being measured while the liabilities may get a once per year update 4-6 months delayed? Wouldn’t it make much more sense to have both the assets and liabilities updated at the same time so that asset allocation adjustments could be made as necessary?

Think about a bridge with two primary supports. One of the supports are representative of the actuaries and the other one is the asset consultants. To get from one side of the pension canyon to the other side, there needs to be a connector. What entity is that? It is not your investment managers, who are focused on a generic benchmark and not your plan’s liabilities. Ryan ALM believes that we can be that entity, as we provide a turnkey system of sustainable solutions to make sure that each pension fund that we support understands the promises that have been made, develops the correct cash flow roadmap, and carefully constructs the necessary match between liability cash flows of benefits and expenses with the asset cash flows (principal and interest) from IG bonds to SECURE those monthly promises.

Our mission is to secure your promises at both low cost and with prudent risk. It is not to have you sit firmly on the rollercoaster of market returns with the hope that the plan’s asset allocation will deliver a return near the ROA. The current breakdown in communication between actuaries and asset consultants is like trying to clap with one hand. As hard as you try, it just won’t work. Let Ryan ALM be your bridge. With us you’ll receive a monthly Custom Liability Index (CLI) based on your fund’s forecasted liabilities, monthly liquidity chronologically as far into the future as your allocation to a cash flow matching (CFM) mandate covers, time for the residual assets (alpha assets) to grow, low cost management fees, ongoing monitoring of the relationship of assets to liabilities, and a stable funded ratio and contribution expenses for that portion of the plan. We connect assets to liabilities through our proprietary turnkey system of four products. Think of us as the maestro leading the orchestra. Both hands are working for you and your participants.

06.05.26
by

It is Our Mission!

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

The individual professionals on the Ryan ALM, Inc. team have both a personal and professional mission which drives us every day! What is that mission? We are driven with the goal of protecting and preserving defined benefit pension plans, which we believe are the only true retirement plans. Any other “retirement” vehicle pales in comparison. Yet, our industry has adopted practices which we believe are detrimental to the long-term stability of these critically important plans.

Pursuing an objective focused on return has created an environment that has these DB plans on a perpetual rollercoaster of performance, ultimately creating unnecessary instability and uncertainty as it relates to both contributions and funded status. As a reminder, we believe that the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is not a performance objective.

Recently, I reviewed a pension plan that believed its biggest challenge was improving returns. After examining its cash flow needs, we discovered the larger issue was liquidity. By addressing liquidity first, the trustees reduced risk, a key action in these uncertain times, while improving confidence in their ability to meet future benefit payments. Furthermore, most trustees I speak with are wrestling with the same issues—liquidity, uncertainty, and how much risk is appropriate at this stage of the investing cycle.

Through Cash Flow Matching (CFM), a dedicated investment-grade bond portfolio in which we carefully match asset cash flows of principal and interest against the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses, we are able to bring certainty to your cash flow needs through enhanced liquidity. I’d be happy to walk through your plan’s cash flow profile and show you how a cash flow matching approach would support your current asset allocation.

Every pension plan is different, but every trustee shares the same responsibility: ensuring promised benefits are paid. Markets will do what markets do. Interest rates will rise and fall. Economic uncertainty will come and go. The question is whether your pension plan is structured to withstand those events without jeopardizing the promises made to participants.

If you’re not completely certain that your fund is structured appropriately, let us at Ryan ALM work with you to protect and preserve your DB plan, as it is our collective mission. Your fund’s participants will appreciate knowing that their promised benefits have been secured for some period of time. If you’d like a second opinion on your plan’s liquidity profile, cash flow needs, or overall asset allocation strategy, let’s talk. A 30-minute conversation may help you see risks—and opportunities—that aren’t visible through a funded ratio or return assumption lens.

06.01.26
by

What Do You Need?

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

We are now nearly through the first half of 2026. That doesn’t seem possible. Despite the very uncertain economic and geopolitical environment, U.S. equities continue to march higher, especially for stocks associated in any way with AI. As a result, I suspect that a number of plan sponsors/trustees will say that they only need for those good times to keep rolling. But is that possible given current valuations? On the other hand, perhaps you are a sponsor/trustee that believes that nothing grows to the heavens, and as a result you might be looking to take a little risk out of your current asset allocation. If so, I have a suggestion. But first, here are a few questions that I’d like you to consider:

  • How is your fund’s current liquidity profile?
  • If raising the necessary monthly liquidity is challenging, how would you like a strategy that provides the liquidity you need, net of contributions, each month chronologically as far out as the strategy’s allocation will take you?
  • Given current equity valuations, how would you like an extended investing horizon that buys time for your fund’s alpha assets to wade through potentially choppy near-term markets without fear of forced selling to meet benefits and expenses?
  • How does reducing investment management fees sound?
  • How would you like to stabilize contribution costs and the funded ratio?
  • The investment strategy that I am referring to brings an element of certainty to the management of pensions that sorely lack that today. How does that sound?
  • How do you think your participants would appreciate knowing that their promised benefits are SECURED for the period that your new strategy covers?
  • Interest rates are the greatest threat to a fixed income (bond) investment program. How would you like a strategy that is not impacted by changes in U.S. interest rates?

Come on Kamp, is there really an investment strategy that can secure the benefits, buy time for the residual assets to just grow unencumbered, lower investment fees, eliminate interest rate risk, and provide the liquidity that I’ll need to pay my monthly bills? There sure is! For regular readers of this blog, you likely know that I’m referring to Cash Flow Matching (CFM) as the investment strategy.

This bond product carefully matches the asset cash flows of principal and interest with the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. By doing so, the benefits are secured for the length of the program. We have assignments from 3-years to 30-years. We’ve just bought time for the assets not engaged in CFM to wade through any ugliness in markets without fear of liquidation to meet monthly payouts. Furthermore, we are matching future values which are not interest rate sensitive. A $1,000 benefit payment next month is $1,000 whether rates are at 2% or 10%. Finally, we provide our investment management services at attractively low rates.

We also provide a free analysis to any sponsor who’d like to know how CFM could benefit their fund. We’ll produce a CFM portfolio that will help you understand the potential cost reduction in the value of those future benefit promises. In today’s rate environment, we can produce portfolios that reduce the future cost of providing benefits by roughly 2% per year. Ask us to cover the next 10-years and the savings becomes very attractive and meaningful. We are ready when you are!

05.22.26
by

The Benefit of Higher U.S. Interest Rates

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

Rising interest rates can often create stresses in an economy and within the capital markets. They certainly make financing big ticket items more painful. They can destabilize equity markets, although it seems as if the current equity market is immune to any risk at this time. They harm most fixed income managers/strategies, as rising rates lower the present value of their bonds.

However, rising rates are GREAT for cash flow matching (CFM) strategies, as the higher rates reduce the cost of those future pension promises (benefit payments). We were recently asked by a public pension fund to provide them with an analysis of what CFM could potentially do for them in this environment. They provided us with the requisite data – projected benefits, expenses, and contributions as far into the future as possible – which we then ran through our cost optimization model that we call the Liability Beta Portfolio (LBP).

The output is compelling! We can secure this fund’s net (after contributions) liabilities (all of them!) through September 30, 2053. The future value (FV) of those liabilities is $86.2 million. However, the plan needs to set aside only $50.1 million in present value (PV) assets to defease those liabilities with certainty. The $36.1 million cost reduction is locked in on the day that the portfolio is created. That “savings” equates to a cost reduction of 41.9%!

So, this plan sponsor can now SECURE pension payments for 27-years. The residual assets not needed in the CFM portfolio can now grow unencumbered. If I were them I’d just buy a S&P 500 ETF creating considerable savings from lower management fees and far less complexity. Furthermore, the plan sponsor now knows what contributions will look like for the next nearly three decades. They won’t have to be alarmed should markets suffer a deep and extended correction, as the assets AND liabilities will move in lockstep.

By the way, these benefits were achieved without taking substantial risk, as our process only uses investment-grade corporate bonds rated BBB+ or better. Defaults, which are the only risk within the strategy, have been 0.2% (2/1000 bonds) annually for the last 40-years according to S&P.

Why use CFM? The benefits are incredible, including; certainty, security, all the necessary liquidity, an extended investing horizon, lower management fees, stable contributions, and improved sleep! If these benefits sound attractive to you, provide us the same info that our public fund prospect did (see above) and we’ll provide you with a free analysis, too. We are confident that you’ll be as blown away as they were and the many clients that we are proud to support.

05.21.26
by

Pension Plans are NO Place for Cookie Cutter Solutions!

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

I was recently asked by a member of our investment/pension community if there was a common thread that linked my various roles during my 45-years in this business. After some thought, I said YES. For my nearly 20-years in consulting, or as the CEO for Invesco’s quant business or now at Ryan ALM, Inc. my roles have been highlighted by finding unique solutions to client or prospect challenges. I never believed that there existed an off-the-shelf-solution for my client’s unique requirements.

I continue to be motivated by this belief. I find it disconcerting that pension plans funded at quite different levels (60% vs. 90%) could have the same asset allocation. It makes no sense, yet we see that all the time. EVERY pension plan has a unique set of liabilities and asset allocation decisions should reflect those characteristics.

As an example, I attended a client’s quarterly meeting recently and listened to a consultant’s presentation regarding a new variable plan. We manage money for the legacy DB pension fund. The consultant explained that the new fund had a 5% annual return target. Yet they went on to say that the asset allocation was 60% equity, 35% fixed income, and 5% alternatives. WHY?

In today’s environment of much higher interest rates, investment grade corporate bonds of basically any maturity would provide a 5+% interest rate. Equities will likely get you more than 5% over time, but given the fund’s annual target and narrow corridor, why live with investments that come with far greater annual volatility, especially given today’s valuations, which are quite stretched by most measures?

Again, it appears to me that a 60%/35%/5% asset allocation is more of an off-the-shelf approach than one developed specifically for this client. For many plans today, the ability to meet the annual required contribution (ARC) is proving problematic. As we witnessed during the decade of the oughts, major market dislocations can have a profound impact on the sponsoring organization through ever increasing contributions. Furthermore, liquidity to meet ongoing monthly benefit payments, especially for negative cash flow plans, is proving to be difficult. These challenges need to be solved on an individual fund basis and not through a general approach.

We, at Ryan ALM, Inc., believe that the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is not a return objective. Since every plan has a unique set of liabilities, no generic index or “traditional” asset allocation could ever replicate those liabilities. Managing a pension plan needs to start with understanding the client’s objective.

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.

03.04.26
by

Here’s Another Example – Why, Oh Why?

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

In October 2022, I wrote the following: “I believe that we have overcomplicated the management of DB pension plans. If the primary objective is to fund the promised benefits in a cost-efficient manner and with prudent risk, why do we continue to waste so much energy buying complicated products and strategies that often come with ridiculously high fees and little alpha?”

I still believe that our industry continues to build complicated asset allocation structures unnecessarily. In a recent P&I article, the following was reported: that a public pension system will adjust their asset allocation to reflect new targets including a 4% allocation to hedge funds and 3% to opportunistic credit, alongside increases in private equity to 13.5% from 8% and private debt to 8% from 6.5% — funded by reductions in domestic equities, international equities, and infrastructure.

This action is occurring after the investment consultant ABC recommended the changes following an asset-liability study, with the goal of enhancing protection against volatility and drawdowns while maintaining sufficient liquidity. Can you get more complicated? Are they really claiming that this structure will maintain sufficient liquidity? Sure, there may be a reduction in “volatility” because these strategies are not marked-to-market, as opposed to the public markets, but claiming that sufficient liquidity will be maintained is a joke!

I’ve been arguing for quite some time that the private markets are overbought. As assets continue to flow into these strategies, liquidity has dried up with little capital flowing back to the investor, which is why the secondary markets have flourished. Too many assets in any strategy deflate future returns, which we have witnessed. Regarding hedge funds, which are not aligned with the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan which is a relative objective (assets versus pension liabilities and NOT the ROA) they continue to be extremely expensive offerings that have produced subpar returns for the better part of the last two decades.

If the objective is to maintain sufficient liquidity look no further than cash flow matching (CFM) which will ensure that the necessary liquidity to meet benefits and expenses is available each month of the assignment as far out as the allocation goes without a need for a cash sweep of growth assets. Furthermore, one doesn’t have to pay hedge fund fees to get that “liquidity”. You can get a CFM strategy for 15 bps or less. While your liquidity needs are being met, the CFM portfolio will also extend the investing horizon for the remainder of the fund’s assets enhancing the probability that those less liquid, highly opaque offerings have time to produce the forecasted returns.

Afraid that you are going to give up “return” by using a CFM strategy? We recently completed an analysis for a large public pension system that believed they were <50% funded. We proved that we could fully fund and SECURE the NET liabilities (after contributions) of benefits and expenses (B&E) through 2059! Yes, a CFM portfolio with a YTM of 5.4% was able to fully fund the net B&E for 33-years. In addition, we were able to produce a surplus in excess of $4 billion, which can now just grow and grow and grow. In fact, investing that surplus in an S&P 500 index fund would grow those assets at a 6.5% annual return (the fund’s target ROA) to $35.3 billion by 2059. If the index produced an 8% nominal return for that period those surplus assets grow to >$75 billion that can be used to reduce future contributions, meet future liabilities, and perhaps enhance benefits.

Oh, wait, it gets even better. By investing in just the CFM strategy and the S&P 500 index fund, this plan can reduce annual investment fees from nearly $50 million per year to <$4 million, a reduction of 93%. Those fee savings add another $1.5 billion to the surplus before any return is generated on those savings. As Ripley would say, “BELIEVE IT OR NOT”!

Again, the management of a DB plan is not rocket science. Fund the annual required contributions, focus on the primary objective to SECURE the promised benefits at low cost and prudent risk, and you have a program that is neither complicated nor expensive to administer. When will we learn?

01.30.26
by

“Everybody’s looking under every rock.” Jay Kloepfer

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

Institutional Investor’s James Comtois has recently published an article that quoted several industry members on the near-term (10-years) return forecast for both public and private markets, which according to those asked are looking anemic. No one should be surprised by these forecasts given the incredible strength of public markets during the past three years and the fact that regression to the mean tendencies is not just theory.

An equally, if not greater, challenge is liquidity. As the title above highlights, Jay Kloepfer, Director of Capital Markets Research at Callan, told II that “Liquidity has become a bigger issue,” He went on to say that “Everybody’s looking under every rock.” Not surprising! Given the migration of assets from public markets to private during the last few decades. The rapid decline in U.S. interest rates certainly contributed to this asset movement, but expectations for “outsized” gains from alternatives also fueled enthusiasm and action. The Callan chart below highlights just how far pension plans have migrated.

I’ve written a lot on the subject of liquidity. Of course, the only reason that pension plans exist is to fund a promise that was made to the participants of that fund. Those promises are paid in monthly installments. Not having the necessary liquidity can create significant unintended consequences. No one wants to be a forced seller in a liquidity challenged market. It is critical that pension plans have a liquidity policy in place to deal with this critical issue. Equally important is to have an asset allocation that captures liquidity without having to sell investments.

Cash flow matching (CFM) is such a strategy. It ensures that the necessary liquidity is available each and every month through the careful matching of asset cash flows (interest and principal) with the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. No forced selling! Furthermore, the use of CFM extends the investing horizon for those growth assets not needed in the CFM program. Those investments can just grow unencumbered. The extended investing horizon also allows the growth assets to wade through choppy markets without the possibility of being sold at less than opportune times.

So, if you are concerned about near-term returns for a variety of assets and with creating the necessary liquidity to meet ongoing pension promises, don’t rely on the status quo approach to asset allocation. Adopt a bifurcated asset allocation that separates plan assets into liquidity and growth buckets. Your plan will be in much better shape to deal with the inevitable market correction.