Tag Archives: liquidity

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.

01.29.26
by

What Topics Would You Pick?

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

I’m hopefully attending the FPPTA conference in Orlando beginning on Sunday, February 1, 2026. My attendance will be very much dependent on the path of the next winter storm takes as it migrates up the East coast. I’ve been asked to speak on a couple of occasions at this event for which I’m always very appreciative to be given the opportunity to share my perspectives on a variety of pension subjects.

The first opportunity is straightforward in that I will be addressing the importance of cash flow in managing defined benefit pension plans. In my opinion, there is nothing more important than generating and managing cash flow to meet ongoing plan liabilities of benefits and expenses. As pension plans have pursued a more aggressive asset allocation utilizing significantly more alternatives – private equity, private credit, real estate infrastructure, etc. – liquidity has become more challenging. As a result, some of the strategies that have been adopted to raise the necessary cash flow are not in the best interest of the plans longer term. I’ll be happy to share my thoughts on those issues if you want to reach out to me.

Regarding my second opportunity to share some perspective, I am one of four individuals who were asked to identify three pension related topics for a session called “Around the Pension World Discussion”. There will be six randomly selected topics from the original list of 12 that will be covered in 15-minute increments. It is a really interesting concept, and hopefully as we lead the conversation will get great input from the attendees.

The three topics that I chose are:

  1. Liquidity – it is being challenged through the migration of assets to alternative strategies.
  2. Uncertainty – Human beings hate uncertainty as it has both a physiological and psychological impact on us. Yet little to none of our current practices managing pensions brings certainty.
  3. The Primary Pension objective – managing a DB pension is about securing the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is not a return objective.

Clearly, there are tons of topics covering investments/asset allocation, risk management, governance, actuarial assumptions, plan design, etc. It shouldn’t be surprising why I chose the topics that I did based on my focus on securing pension promises through cash flow matching (CFM). We provide the necessary liquidity to meet those ongoing expenditures, while securing the promises given to the plan participants. In addition, CFM is a “sleep-well-at-night” strategy that brings certainty to the management of pension plans that engage in very uncertain practices.

What topics would you have chosen? Please reply to this post. I’d like to share your topics and the rationale behind choosing them in a follow-up blog. Have a great day!

12.15.25
by

Bond Math and A Steepening Yield Curve – Perfect Together!

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

We are in the midst of a project for a DB pension plan in which we were asked to model a series of liability cash flows (benefits and expenses) using cash flow matching (CFM) to defease and secure those liabilities. The plan sponsor is looking to allocate 40% of the plan’s assets initially to begin to de-risk the fund.

We first approached the assignment by looking to defease 100% of the liabilities as far into the future as that 40% allocation would cover those benefits and expenses. As it turns out, we can defease the next 11-years of projected B&E beginning 1/1/26 and carrying through to 10/31/37. As we’ve written many times in this blog and in other Ryan ALM research (ryanalm.com), we expect to reduce the cost of future liabilities by about 2% per year in this interest rate environment. Well, as it turns out, we can reduce that future cost today by 23.96% today.

Importantly, not only is the liquidity enhanced through this process and the future expenses covered for the next 11-years, we’ve now extended the investing horizon for the remaining assets (alpha assets) that can now just grow unencumbered without needing to tap them for liquidity purposes – a wonderful win/win!

As impressive as that analysis proved to be, we know that bond math is very straightforward: the longer the maturity and the higher the yield, the greater the potential cost savings. Couple this reality with the fact that the U.S. Treasury yield curve has steepened during the last year, and you have the formula for far greater savings/cost reduction. In fact, the spread between 2-year Treasury notes and 30-year bonds has gone from 0.35% to 1.35% today. That extra yield is the gift that keeps on giving.

So, how does one use only 40% of the plan’s assets to take advantage of both bond math and the steepening yield curve when you’ve already told everyone that a full implementation CFM only covers the next 11-years? You do a vertical slice! A what? A vertical slice of the liabilities in which you use 40% of the assets to cover all of the future liabilities. No, you are not providing all of the liquidity necessary to meet monthly benefits and expenses, but you are providing good coverage while extending the defeasement out 30-years. Incredibly, by using this approach, we are able to reduce the future cost of those benefits not by an impressive 24%, but by an amazing 56.1%. In fact, we are reducing the future cost of those pension promises by a greater sum than the amount of assets used in the strategy.

Importantly, this savings or cost reduction is locked-in on day one. Yes, the day that the portfolio is built, that cost savings is created provided that we don’t experience a default. As an FYI, investment-grade corporate bonds have defaulted at a rate of 0.18% or about 2/1,000 bonds for the last 40-years according to S&P.

Can you imagine being able to reduce the cost of your future obligations by that magnitude and with more certainty than through any other strategy currently in your pension plan? What a great gift it is to yourself (sleep-well-at-night) and those plan participants for whom you are responsible. Want to see what a CFM strategy implemented by Ryan ALM can do for you? Just provide us with some basic info (call me at 201/675-8797 to find out what we need) and we’ll provide you with a free analysis. No gimmicks!

12.02.25
by

Do the Analysis! Remove the Guess Work.

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

I am truly blessed working for an organization such as Ryan ALM, Inc. I am awed by the folks that I get to work with and the product/strategy that I get to represent. As a reminder, we’ve created a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy that brings an element of certainty to the management of pensions that should be welcomed by pension plan sponsors and their advisors far and wide. What other strategy can inform you on the day that the portfolio is constructed what the performance of that strategy will be for the full-term of the assignment (barring any defaults within investment grade bonds)? Name another strategy that can lay out the liquidity with certainty for each month (chronologically) of that assignment.

Given that liquidity is becoming a challenge as pension plans (mostly public) adopt a more aggressive asset allocation favoring alternative investments, using a CFM strategy that provides ALL the liquidity to meet ongoing benefits and expenses should be a decision that is easily embraced. Yet, our conversations with key decision makers often stall as other parties get involved in the “review”. To this day, I’m not sure what is involved in most of those conversations.

Are they attempting to determine that a traditional core fixed income strategy benchmarked to a generic index such as the BB Aggregate is capable of producing the same outcome? If so, let me tell you that they can’t and it won’t. Any fixed income product that is not managed against your plan’s specific liabilities will not provide the same benefits as CFM. It will be a highly interest rate sensitive product and performance will be driven by changes in interest rates. Do you know where U.S. rates are headed? Furthermore, the liquidity provided by a “core” fixed income strategy is not likely to be sufficient resulting in other investment products needing to be swept of their liquidity (dividends and capital distributions), reducing the potential returns from those strategies.  Such a cash sweep will reduce the ROA of these non-bond investments. Guinness Global’s study of S&P data for the last 85 years has shown that dividends and reinvestment of dividends account for 50% or more of the S&P returns for rolling 10- and 20-year periods dating back to 1940.

Are they trying to determine if the return produced by the CFM mandate will be sufficient to meet the return on asset assumption (ROA)? Could be, but all they need to realize is that the CFM portfolio’s yield will likely be much higher than the YTM of a core fixed income strategy given CFM’s 100% exposure to corporate bonds versus a heavy allocation to lower yielding Treasuries and agencies in an Agg-type portfolio. In this case, the use of a CFM strategy to replace a core fixed income mandate doesn’t impact the overall asset allocation and it certainly doesn’t reduce the fund’s ability to meet the long-term return of the program.

Instead of trying to incorporate all these unknown variables/inputs into the decision, just have Ryan ALM do the analysis. We love to work on projects that help the plan sponsor and their advisors come to sound decisions based on facts. There is no guess work. Importantly, we will construct for FREE multiple CFM portfolios, if necessary, to help frame the decision. Each plan’s liabilities are unique and as such, each CFM portfolio must be built to meet that plan’s unique liability cash flows.

All that is required for us to complete our analysis are the projected liability cash flows of benefits and expenses (contributions, too) as far into the future as possible. The further into the future, the greater the insights that we will create for you. We can use the current allocation to fixed income as the AUM for the analysis or you can choose a different allocation. We will use 100% IG corporates or you can ask us to use either 100% Treasuries/STRIPS or some combination of Treasuries and corporate bonds. We can defease 100% of the plan’s liabilities for a period of time, such as the next 10-years or do a vertical slice of a % of the liabilities, such as 50%, which will allow the CFM program to extend coverage further into the future and benefit from using longer maturity bonds with greater YTMs. Isn’t that exciting!

So, I ask again, why noodle over a bunch of unknowns, when you could have Ryan ALM provide you with a nearly precise evaluation of the benefits of CFM for your pension plan? When you hire other managers in a variety of asset classes, do they provide you with a portfolio up front? One that can give you the return that will be generated over a specific timeframe? No? Not surprised. Oh, and BTW, we provide our investment management services at a significantly lower fee than traditional core fixed income managers and we cap our annual fee once a certain AUM is reached. Stop the guess work. Have us do the work for you. It will make for a much better conversation when considering using CFM. Call me at 201/675-8797 or email me at rkamp@ryanalm.com for your free analysis. I look forward to speaking with you!