Tag Archives: liquidity

10.13.26
by

Why Wait To Buy That Security?

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

As I’ve mentioned before, I like getting responses to the many blog posts that I publish. A recent response to the possible use of Cash Flow Matching (CFM) was “My plan has a 10+-year duration. We are not close to using CFM”. Thanks for the observation. Here’s what I’d say to that:

I wouldn’t view a 10+-year duration for a pension plan as either unique or one that is “not close” to using cash flow matching. Duration strategies and CFM address two very different purposes. A plan’s duration tells us something about the interest-rate sensitivity and timing of the pension plan’s liabilities. It doesn’t tell us whether those promised benefits should begin to be secured today, especially given the higher interest rate environment.

For Ryan ALM, the more important question is “What is the plan’s funded status/funded ratio”? If a plan has sufficient assets to secure a meaningful portion of its future benefit payments, why would a pension plan wait simply because the liability duration is 10+-years? Importantly, CFM DOESN’T require matching the entire liability stream or waiting until a plan is closed, frozen, or very mature. A plan can establish a CFM portfolio today that secures, for example, the next 5-, 10-, 15-, or more years of projected benefits and expenses, while the remaining assets continue to pursue growth to meet future liabilities. As an FYI, we have multiple 30+-year assignments.

Furthermore, many pension plans have negatively impacted the liquidity available to meet the monthly obligations through asset migration to non-public investments. CFM dramatically improves a plan’s liquidity profile. A duration strategy doesn’t provide liquidity!

We’d suggest that the better funded a plan becomes, the stronger the argument may be for taking some risk off the table, especially during these highly uncertain times. Funding improvement/security represents progress toward fulfilling the pension promise. CFM allows the sponsor to secure and monetize some of that progress by converting assets into contractual bond cash flows designed to meet those future benefit payments.

Finally, if the desire of the pension plan sponsor is to mitigate interest rate risk, CFM provides a superior duration match since every month of the assignment is duration matched. So, a 10-year CFM mandate would have 120 bespoke duration matches as opposed to an “average” duration or a few key rates matched along the Treasury yield curve.

Rather than observing that a pension plan with a 10+-year duration means that plan isn’t ready for CFM, I would counter with; “Why wouldn’t a plan sponsor want to secure a portion of the promises where a plan could improve liquidity, secure benefits, reduce the cost of those future benefits, and extend the investing horizon for the residual assets to grow unencumbered?”

Keep the questions and observations coming. Thank you.

10.01.26
by

Kudos to Florida and Its Liquidity Statute

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

You are not likely to know about Florida Statute §112.661(6) unless you reside in Florida and sit on a pension board, and even then, you still might not have heard or read about this statute. It became effective October 1, 2000, as part of Chapter 2000-264, Laws of Florida, enacted through CS/SB 372, “Investment of Public Funds”, which Governor Jeb Bush approved on June 14, 2000,

This provision is the only one of its type among the 50 U.S. states. Florida should be commended for its inclusion in the management of public pension plans. The subsection for this statute is titled “Maturity and Liquidity Requirements.” 

It provides: “The investment policy shall require that the investment portfolio be structured in such manner as to provide sufficient liquidity to pay obligations as they come due.”

It then goes a meaningful step further: “To that end, the investment policy should direct that, to the extent possible, an attempt will be made to MATCH (the statute’s word, not mine) investment maturities (that says bonds to me) with known cash needs and anticipated cash-flow requirements.” As Phil Rizzuto would say, “Holy Cow”! If given the opportunity, I couldn’t have written this requirement any more clearly.

Again, the Investment Policy Statement (IPS) should direct that an attempt will be made to match investment maturities through bonds with known cash needs and anticipated cash-flow requirements. That sounds a lot like Cash Flow Matching (CFM) to me.

So, I ask, within your (IPS) do you have an explicit Liquidity Policy? If so, does it consider Florida Statute 112.661? At the most recent FPPTA conference in Orlando, I was asked to speak to liquidity management practices currently used in Florida. What I discovered is the there are two fundamentally different philosophies:

Asset-driven liquidity

“When we need cash, where can we get it?”

Liability-driven liquidity

“We know when benefits must be paid, so why don’t we arrange the assets today to produce the cash when those payments occur?”

Here are the seven strategies that I was able to identify that are currently being utilized. I’d be interested to hear from those of you that might have adopted some other means to secure liquidity.

Only #7 falls under the category of liability-driven liquidity, which comes closest to adhering to statute 112:661. Given the rapid rise in U.S. interest rates, creating a cash flow matching portfolio for some period of time (10-years) not only SECURES the necessary liquidity, it extends the investing horizon for the plan’s residual assets, while dramatically reducing the cost to fund those future benefits. We are always happy to provide a free analysis on what CFM could accomplish for you and your fund. Don’t let this wonderful rate environment pass you by.

08.28.26
by

About Time!

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

FINALLY!!!

Yesterday, there appeared a P&I article with the headline: “Ohio State Teachers says beating peers isn’t the point — paying benefits is”

YESSSSS! The only reason that a defined benefit pension plan exists is to fund a promise given to the participant. Managing a pension plan isn’t about achieving an ROA or beating a hybrid total fund index or eclipsing the performance of a peer group (silly concept). It is truly only about SECURING the liquidity necessary to match and fund benefits (and expenses) when they come due!

The pursuit of a return objective has only guaranteed volatility and NOT success. That is volatility of returns, contributions, and funded status. It is time to get off the performance rollercoaster.

The higher U.S. interest rate environment is providing plan sponsors with a great opportunity to de-risk and enhance liquidity through cash flow matching (CFM), which is designed to secure the liability cash flows (benefits and expenses) through the careful matching of asset cash flows (principal and interest) from bonds. 

An opportunity such as this hasn’t existed since 2000, when the average pension plan was well-overfunded and contribution expenses well-contained. It has been 26-years since the first market crash of the aughts began and public pension funds have only clawed back to an average funded status of 88% (Milliman). They can’t afford another crash that will only lead to a deterioration in the funded status and an escalation in contributions.

No one knows when that next correction may be just around the corner. Given that reality, don’t leave your pension plan vulnerable to this uncertainty. Put in place today a CFM strategy that will SECURE the promised benefits with certainty (barring an IG default), while buying time for the return-seeking assets to wade through the next market crisis. The time to act is now and not after the next market correction.

08.21.26
by

It’s Yield AND Principal

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

I hope that you’ve had a great week. I very much enjoyed my three days at the NCPERS Funding Forum in Chicago, where I spoke about bringing certainty to pension plans through cash flow matching (CFM) in an investment landscape providing abundant uncertainty.

As I mentioned during my talk, the only certainty in most pension plans today are the benefit payments that are due each month. How are plans managing that responsibility? Unfortunately, not well, as most cobble together liquidity through a cash sweep of bond interest, dividends, capital distributions, and sales of securities. The only contributor to that liquidity pot that makes sense is bond interest, as dividends and capital distributions should be reinvested in their potentially higher earning strategies, while sales of securities don’t always occur at advantageous times.

But can a pension plan generate enough interest income from their bonds to cover the necessary liquidity? NO! Following my talk on Wednesday morning, an experienced trustee questioned my promotion of CFM based on his math that would have the entire pension plan’s corpus needing to be in bonds for the YTM to produce enough interest (liquidity) to meet his fund’s monthly obligations. He did not realize that a properly constructed CFM portfolio would use both interest and principal from maturing bonds (no sales). The combination of interest and principal will be used to meet those pesky obligations each month (chronologically) when due without any collective deficits.

We often recommend that a pension plan convert their current active core bond portfolio from a benchmark focused strategy to a CFM portfolio now focused on meeting the monthly promises. But the allocation to CFM should really be a function of the plan’s funded status. Better funded plans don’t need to take as much risk as weaker funded plans. Negative cash flow plans, of which most public funds are today, especially need reliable cash flow to meet liquidity challenges. Again, the last thing any pension plan should be doing is forcing sales of securities to meet on-going cash needs.

As U.S. interest rates continue to rise, the YTM on CFM portfolios continues to rise. Longer-term CFM assignments, such as a 30-year period, are seeing YTMs in the 6%+ range. Given the average public fund ROA is roughly 6.6%-6.75%, pension plans can cover a significant percentage of their return target through a strategy providing certainty, barring any defaults (a rare IG event). Please don’t let this opportunity to secure the pension promises pass you by. We’ve seen this happen before and the outcome isn’t pretty.

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!

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.

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.