Tag Archives: liquidity

11.06.25
by

You Don’t Say!

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

Morgan Stanley has published the results from their Taft-Hartley survey, in which they have to provided “insights into how Taft-Hartley plans are managing priorities and navigating challenges to strengthen their plans”. I sincerely appreciate MS’s effort and the output that they published. According to MS, T-H plans have as their top priority (67% of respondents) delivering promised benefits without increasing employer’s contributions. That seems quite appropriate. What doesn’t seem to jive with that statement is the fact that only 29% that improving or maintaining the plan’s funded status was important. Sorry to burst your bubble plan trustees, but you aren’t going to be able to accomplish your top priority without stabilizing the funded status/ratio by getting off the performance rollercoaster.

Interestingly, T-H trustees were concerned about market volatility (84%) and achieving desired investment performance while managing risk (69%). Well, again, traditional asset allocation structures guarantee volatility and NOT success. If you want to deliver promised benefits without increasing contributions, you must adopt a new approach to asset allocation and risk management. Doing the same old, same old won’t work.

I agree that the primary objective in managing a DB plan, T-H, public, or private, is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is not a return game. Adopting a new asset allocation in which the assets are divided among two buckets – liquidity and growth, will ensure that the promises (monthly benefits) are met every month chronologically as far into the future that the assets will cover delivering the promised benefits. However, just adopting this bifurcated asset allocation won’t get you off the rollercoaster of returns and reduce market volatility. One needs to adopt an asset/liability focus in which asset cash flows (bond interest and principal) will be matched against liability cash flows of benefits and expenses.

This approach will significantly reduce the volatility associated with markets as your pension plan’s assets and liabilities will now move in lockstep for that portion of the portfolio. As the funded status improves, you can port more assets from the growth portfolio to the liquidity bucket. It will also buys time for the remaining growth assets to help wade through choppy markets. According to the study, 47% of respondents that had an allocation to alternatives had between 20% and 40%. This allocation clearly impacts the liquidity available to the plan’s sponsor to meet those promises. If allocations remain at these levels, it is imperative to adopt this allocation framework.

Furthermore, given today’s equity valuations and abundant uncertainty surrounding interest rates, inflation, geopolitical risk, etc., having a portion of the pension assets in a risk mitigating strategy is critically important. Thanks, again, to MS for conducting this survey and for bubbling up these concerns.

10.30.25
by

Cash Flow Matching: Bringing Certainty to Pension Plans

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

Imagine a world, or at least the United States, where pension plans are no longer subject to market swings and the uncertainty those swings create. What if you could “guarantee” (outside of any corporate bond defaults) the promises made to your plan participants, ensuring their financial security with confidence? In today’s highly unpredictable investing environment, relying solely on the pursuit of investment returns is a risky ride—one that guarantees volatility and sleepless nights but not necessarily success. It’s time to rethink how we manage defined benefit (DB) pension plans and embrace a strategy that brings true certainty: Cash Flow Matching (CFM). Discover through the hypothetical conversation below how CFM can transform your investing approach, protect your plan, and deliver peace of mind for everyone involved. Let’s go!

Why are we talking about Cash Flow Matching (CFM) today?

First off, thanks for taking a few minutes to chat with me. As you may have heard me say before, our mission at Ryan ALM, Inc. is simple — to protect and preserve defined benefit (DB) pension plans and to secure the promises made to participants.

We believe that Cash Flow Matching (CFM) is one of the few strategies that can help us keep those promises with real certainty.

Why Now?

Because the world feels more uncertain than ever.

And if we’re honest, most of us don’t like uncertainty. Yet somehow, in the pension world, many plan sponsors have gotten used to it. Why is that?

Over the years, we’ve been taught that managing a DB plan is all about chasing returns. But that’s not really the case. When a plan invests 100% of its assets purely with a return objective, it locks itself into volatility — not stability or success.

That approach also puts your plan on the “asset allocation rollercoaster,” where markets rise and fall, and contributions swing higher and higher along with them. It’s time to step off that ride — at least for part of your portfolio.

So if it’s not all about returns, what is the real objective?

Managing a DB pension plan is all about cash flows — aligning the cash coming in (from principal and interest on bonds) with the cash going out (for benefits and expenses).

The real goal is to secure those promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. That’s the foundation of a healthy plan.

Does bringing more certainty mean I have to change how I manage the plan?

Yes — but only a little. The adjustments are modest and easy to implement.

How can I adopt a CFM strategy without making major changes?

The first step is to reconfigure your asset allocation. Most DB plans are currently 100% focused on returns. It’s time to split your assets into two clear buckets:

  1. Liquidity bucket – designed to provide cash flow to pay benefits and expenses.
  2. Growth bucket – focused on long-term return potential.

What goes into the liquidity bucket?

Most plans already hold some cash and core fixed income. Those assets can move into the liquidity bucket to fund benefit payments and expenses.

And what happens with the remaining assets?

Nothing changes there. Those assets stay in your growth or alpha bucket. The difference is that you’ll no longer need to sell from that bucket during market downturns, which helps protect your fund from the negative impact of forced selling.

Is that all I need to do to create more certainty?

Not quite. You’ll also want to reconfigure your fixed income exposure.

Instead of holding a generic, interest-rate-sensitive bond portfolio (like one tied to the Bloomberg Aggregate Index), you’ll want a portfolio that matches your plan’s specific liabilities — using both principal and income to accomplish the objective.

That’s where true cash flow matching comes in.

How does the matching process work?

We start by creating a Custom Liability Index (CLI) — a model of your plan’s projected benefit payments, expenses, and contributions. This serves as the roadmap for funding your monthly liquidity needs.

What information do you need to build that index?

Your plan’s actuary provides the projected benefits, expenses, and contributions as far out into the future as possible. The more data we have, the stronger the analysis. From there, we can map out your net monthly liquidity needs after accounting for contributions.

Which bonds do you use to match the cash flows?

We invest primarily in U.S. Treasuries and U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds. We stick with these because they provide dependable cash flows without introducing currency risk.

We limit our selections to bonds rated BBB+ or higher, and the longest maturity we’ll buy matches the length of the mandate. For example, if you ask us to secure 10 years of liabilities, the longest bond we’ll buy will mature in 10 years.

Do you build a laddered bond portfolio?

No — a traditional ladder would be inefficient for this purpose.

Here’s why: the longer the maturity and the higher the yield, the lower the overall cost of funding those future liabilities. So instead of a simple ladder, we use a proprietary optimization process to build the portfolio in a way that maximizes efficiency and minimizes cost.

It sounds manageable — not a big overhaul. Am I missing something?

Not at all. That’s exactly right.

Dividing assets into liquidity and growth buckets and reshaping your bond portfolio into a CFM strategy is typically all that’s required to bring more certainty to part of your plan.

Every plan is unique, of course, so each implementation will reflect its own characteristics. But generally speaking, CFM can reduce the cost of future benefits by about 2% per year — or roughly 20% over a 10-year horizon.

On top of that, it helps stabilize your funded status and contribution requirements.

How much should I allocate to CFM?

A good starting point is your existing cash and bond allocation. That’s the least disruptive way to begin.

Alternatively, you can target a specific time horizon — for example, securing 5, 7, or 10 years of benefits. We’ll run an analysis to show what asset levels are needed to meet those payments, which may be slightly more or less than your current fixed income and cash allocations.

Once implemented, do I just let the liquidity bucket run down?

Most clients choose to rebalance annually to maintain the original maturity profile. That keeps the strategy consistent over time. Of course, the rebalancing schedule can be customized to your plan’s needs and the broader market environment.

This all sounds great — but what does it cost?

In line with our mission to provide stability at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk, our fee is about half the cost of a typical core fixed income mandate.

If you’d like, we can discuss your specific plan details and provide a customized proposal.

Final thoughts

Thank you for taking the time to explore CFM. Many plan sponsors haven’t yet heard much about it, but it’s quickly becoming a preferred approach for those who value stability and peace of mind.

At the end of the day, having a “sleep well at night” strategy benefits everyone — especially your participants.

09.19.25
by

Dear Plan Sponsor: Please ask Yourself the Following Questions

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

Do you believe that your pension plan exists to meet (secure) a promise (benefit) that was given to the plan’s participants?

Are you factoring in that benefit promise when it comes to asset allocation?

Do you presently have exposure to core fixed income, and do you know where U.S. interest rates will be in the next day, month, year, 5-years?

Has liquidity to meet benefits and expenses become more challenging with the significant movement to alternatives – real estate, private equity, private debt, infrastructure, etc.?

Do you believe that providing investment strategies more time is prudent?

So, if you believe that securing benefits, driving asset allocation through a liability lens, improving liquidity, eliminating interest rate risk, and buying-time are important goals when managing a defined benefit plan, how are you accomplishing those objectives today?

Cash Flow Matching (CFM) achieves every one of those goals! By strategically matching asset cash flows of interest and principal from investment-grade bonds against the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses, the DB pension plan’s asset allocation becomes liability focused, liquidity is improved from next month as far out as the allocation covers, interest rate risk is mitigated for the CFM portfolio, the investing horizon is extended for the remaining assets improving the odds of a successful outcome, and most importantly, the promises made to your participants are SECURED!

How much should I invest into a CFM program? The allocation to CFM should be a function of the plan’s funded ratio/status, the ability to contribute, and the level of negative cash flow (contributions falling short of benefits and expenses being paid out). Since all pension plans need liquidity, every DB pension plan should have some exposure to CFM, which provides the necessary liquidity each month of the assignment. There is no forced liquidation of assets in markets that might not provide natural liquidity.

Again, please review these questions. If they resonate with you, call me. We’ll provide you with a good understanding of how much risk you can remove from your current structure before the next market crash hits us.

08.20.25
by

Hey Ryan ALM – What if…?

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

We hope that you are enjoying a wonderful summer season. Thanks for taking the time to visit our blog, where we’ve now produced >1,650 mostly pension-related posts.

I wanted to share the following email exchange from earlier this week. I received an email at 6:40 pm on Monday from a senior member of the actuarial community who is familiar with our work. He said that he had a client meeting on Wednesday and he was wondering if we could model some potential outcomes should the plan decide to take some risk off the table by engaging a cash flow matching strategy (CFM).

The actuary gave us the “net” liabilities (after contributions) for the next 10-years and then asked two questions. How far out into the future would $200 million in AUM cover? If the client preferred to defease the next 10-years of net liabilities, how much would that cost? We were happy to get this inquiry because we are always willing to be a resource for members of our industry, including plan sponsors, consultants, and actuaries.

We produced two CFM portfolios, which we call the Liability Beta Portfolio™ or LBP, in response to the two questions that had been posed. In the first case, the $200 million in AUM would provide the client with coverage of $225.8 million in future value (FV) liabilities through March 31, 2031 for a total cost of $196.3 million. Trying to defease the next 10-years of liabilities would cost the plan $334.8 million in AUM to defease $430 million in net liabilities.

 $200 million in AUM10-year coverage
End Date3/31/31 7/01/35
FV$225,750,000$430,000,000
PV$196,315,548$334,807,166
YTM  4.52%  4.75%
MDur  2.73 years  4.45 years
Cost Savings $-$29,424,452-$95,192,834
Cost Savings %  13.04%   22.14%
Excess CF$230,375$679,563
RatingBBB+  A-

As we’ve mentioned on many occasions, the annual cost savings to defease liabilities averages roughly 2%/year, but as the maturity of the program lengthens that cost savings becomes greater. We believe that providing the necessary liquidity with certainty is comforting for all involved. Not only is the liquidity available when needed, but the remaining assets not engaged in the CFM program can now grow unencumbered.

If you’d like to see how a CFM program could improve your plan’s liquidity with certainty, just provide us with the forecasted contributions, benefits, and expenses, and we’ll do the rest. Oh, and by the way, we got the analysis completed and to the actuary by 12:30 pm on Tuesday in plenty of time to allow him to prepare for his Wednesday meeting. Don’t be shy. We don’t charge for this review.

07.24.25
by

A few Observations from Newport

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

As I mentioned in my ARPA update on Monday, I had the pleasure of attending the Opal Public Fund Forum East in beautiful Newport, RI, and neither the conference nor Newport disappointed. I don’t attend every session during the conference, but I do try to attend most. In all honesty, I can’t listen to another private equity discussion.

As always, there were terrific insights shared by the speakers/moderators, but there were also some points being made that are just wrong. With this being my first day back in the office this week, I don’t have the time to get into great detail regarding some of my concerns about what was shared, but I’ll give you the headline and perhaps link a previous blog post that addressed the issue.

First, DB pension plans are not Ponzi Schemes that need more new participants than retirees to keep those systems well-funded and functioning. Actuaries determine benefits and contributions based on each individual’s unique characteristics. If managed appropriately, systems with fewer new members can function just fine. Yes, plans that find themselves in a negative cash flow situation need to rethink the plan’s asset allocation, but they can continue to serve their participants just fine. Remember: a DB pension plan’s goal is to pay the last benefit payment with the last $. It is not designed to provide an inheritance.

Another topic that was mentioned several times was the U.S. deficit and the impending economic doom as a result. The impact of the U.S. deficit is widely misunderstood. I was fortunate to work with a brilliant individual at Invesco – Charles DuBois – who took the time to educate me on the subject. As a result of his teaching, I now understand that the U.S. has a potential demand problem. Not a debt issue. I wrote a blog post on this subject back in 2017. Please take the time to read anything from Bill Mitchell, Warren Mosler, Stephanie Kelton, and other disciples of MMT.

Lastly, the issue of flows into strategies/asset classes seems not to be understood. The only reason we have cycles in our markets is through the movement of assets into and out of various products/strategies. Too much money chasing too few good ideas creates an environment in which those flows can overwhelm future returns. It is the same for individual asset management firms. Many of the larger asset management firms have become sales organizations in lieu of investment management organizations as they long ago eclipsed the natural capacity of their strategies. In the process, they have arbitraged away their insights which may have provided the basis for some value-added in the past. I believe that too much money is chasing many of the alternative/private strategies. In the process, future returns and liquidity will be negatively impacted. We’ve already seen that within private equity. Is private debt next?

Again, always enjoy seeing friends and industry colleagues at this conference. I continue to learn from so many of the presenters even after 44-years in the industry. However, not everything that you hear will be correct. It is up to you to challenge a lot of the “common wisdom” being shared.

07.09.25
by

Problem/Solution: Asset Allocation

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

In this post, Ron continues with his series on identifying solutions to various pension-related problems. This one addresses the issue of asset allocation being driven exclusively from an asset perspective.

Most, if not all asset allocation models are focused on achieving a total return target or hurdle rate… commonly called the ROA (return on assets). This ROA target return is derived from a weighting of the forecasted index benchmark returns for each asset class except for bonds which uses the yield of the index benchmark. These forecasts are generally based on some historical average (i.e. last 20 years or longer) with slight adjustments based on recent observations. As a result, it is common that most pensions have the same or similar ROA. 

This ROA exercise ignores the funded status. It is certainly obvious that a 60% funded plan should have a much higher ROA than a 90% plan. But the balancing item is contributions. If the 60% funded plan would pay more in contributions than the 90% plan (% wise) then it can have a lower ROA. I guess the question is what comes first. And the answer is the ROA with contributions as a byproduct of that ROA target. The actuarial math is whatever the assets don’t fund… contributions will fund.

If the true objective of a pension is to secure and fully fund benefits and expenses (B+E) in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk, then you would think that liabilities (B+E) would be the focus of asset allocation. NO, liabilities are usually missing in the asset allocation process. Pensions are supposed to be an asset/liability management (ALM) process not a total return process. Ryan ALM recommends the following asset allocation process:

Calculate the cost to fully fund (defease) the B+E of retired lives for the next 10 years chronologically using a cash flow matching (CFM) process with investment grade bonds. CFM will secure and fully fund the retired lives liabilities for the next 10 years. Then calculate the ROA needed to fully fund the residual B+E with the current level of contributions. This is calculated through an asset exhaustion test (AET) which is a GASB requirement as a test of solvency. The difference is GASB requires it on the current estimated ROA before you do this ALM process. Ryan ALM can create this calculated ROA through our AET model. If the calculated ROA is too high, then either you reduce the allocation to the CFM or increase contributions or a little bit of both. If the calculated ROA is low, then increasing the allocation to CFM is appropriate. Running AET iterations can produce the desired or most comfortable asset allocation answer.  

Cash flow matching (CFM) will provide the liquidity and certainty needed to fully fund B+E in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. The Ryan ALM model (Liability Beta Portfolio™ or LBP) will reduce funding costs by about 2% per year or roughly 20% for 1-10 years of liabilities. We will use corporate bonds skewed to A/BBB+ issues. According to S&P, investment grade defaults have averaged 0.18% of the IG universe annual for the past 40-years. Fortunately, Ryan ALM has never experienced a bond default in its 21-year history (knock wood).

Assets are a team of liquidity assets (bonds) and growth assets (stocks, etc.) to beat the liability opponent. They should work together in asset allocation to achieve the true pension objective.

For more info on cash flow matching, please contact Russ Kamp, CEO at  rkamp@ryanalm.com

07.07.25
by

Don’t Engage in a Cash Sweep – Dividends Matter!

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

We’ve already shared with you the importance of dividends to the long-term return of the S&P 500 by referencing studies conducted by Guinness Global Investors.

According to the Guinness study, which was last updated as of April 2020, the contribution to return of the S&P 500 from dividends and dividends reinvested for 10-year periods since 1940 was a robust 47% down insignificantly from 48% a decade ago. Extending the measurement period to 20 years from 1940 forward highlights an incredible 57% contribution to the total return of the S&P 500 from dividends. Importantly, this study is on the entirety of the S&P 500, not just those companies that pay dividends. If the universe only included dividend payers, this analysis would reveal strikingly greater contributions since roughly 100 S&P 500 companies are not currently paying a dividend.

As if this study isn’t enough to convince you of the importance of dividends to the long-term return of stocks, Glen Eagle Trading put out an email today that referenced a recent Wall Street Journal article, titled “Why Investors Are Right to Love Dividends”. The article highlighted the fact that recent studies show S&P 500 dividend-paying stocks returned 9.2% annually over the past 50 years, which is more than double the 4.3% return of non-dividend payers, with lower volatility. Then there is this study by Ned Davis which broke down the contribution of dividends for the 47-years ending December 21, 2019.

Once again, it becomes abundantly clear why investing in companies paying dividends is a terrific long-term strategy. It also begs the question, why do many plan sponsors and their advisors regularly “sweep” income from their equity managers to meet ongoing benefits and expenses? In doing so, instead of structuring the pension plan to have a liquidity bucket to meet those obligations, this activity diminishes the potential long-term contribution to equities from dividends. As longer-term returns are reduced, greater contributions are needed to make up the shortfall compounding the problem.

Please don’t sweep interest and dividend income or capital distributions for that matter, establish an asset allocation that has a dedicated liquidity bucket that uses cash flow matching to secure and fund ongoing benefits and expenses. The remainder of the assets not deployed in the liquidity bucket go into a growth bucket that benefits from the passage of time.

06.20.25
by

Why? – Revisited

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

My 44-year career in the investment industry has been focused on DB pension plans, in roles as both a consultant and an investment manager (I’ve also served as a trustee). I’ve engaged in 000s of conversations related to the management of DB pension plans covering the good, the bad, and even the ugly! I’ve published more than 1,600 mostly pension-related posts on this blog with the specific goal to provide education. I hope that some of my insights have proven useful. Managing a DB pension plan, whether a private, public, or a multiemployer plan is challenging. As a result, I’ve always felt that it was important to challenge the status quo with the aim to help protect and preserve DB pensions for all.

Unfortunately, I continue to think that many aspects of pension management are wrong – sorry. Here are some of the concerns:

  • Why do we have two different accounting standards (FASB and GASB) in the U.S. for valuing pension liabilities?
  • Why does it make sense to value liabilities at a rate (ROA) that can’t be purchased to defease pension liabilities in this interest rate environment?
  • Why do we continue to create an asset allocation framework that only guarantees volatility and not success?
  • Why do we think that the pension objective is a return objective (ROA) when it is the liabilities (benefits) that need to be funded and secured?
  • Why haven’t we realized that plowing tons of plan assets into an asset class/strategy will negatively impact future returns?
  • Why are we willing to pay ridiculous sums of money in asset management fees with no guaranteed outcome?
  • Why is liquidity to meet benefits an afterthought until it becomes a major issue?
  • Why does it make sense that two plans with wildly different funded ratios have the same ROA?
  • Why are plan sponsors willing to live with interest rate risk in the core bond allocations?
  • Why do we think that placing <5% in any asset class is going to make a difference on the long-term success of that plan?
  • Why do we think that moving small percentages of assets among a variety of strategies is meaningful?
  • Why do we think that having a funded ratio of 80% is a successful outcome?
  • Why are we incapable of rethinking the management of pensions with the goal to bring an element of certainty to the process, especially given how humans hate uncertainty?

WHY, WHY, WHY?

If some of these observations resonate with you, and you are as confused as I am with our current approach to DB pension management, try cash flow matching (CFM) a portion of your plan. With CFM you’ll get a product that SECURES the promised benefits at low cost and with prudent risk. You will have a carefully constructed liquidity bucket to meet benefits and expenses when needed – no forced selling in challenging market environments. Importantly, your investing horizon will be extended for the growth (alpha) assets that haven’t been used to defease liabilities. We know that by “buying time” (extending the investment horizon) one dramatically improves the probability of a successful outcome.

Furthermore, your pension plan’s funded status will be stabilized for that portion of the assets that uses CFM. This is a dynamic asset allocation process that should respond to improvement in the plan’s funded status. Lastly, you will be happy to sit back because you’ve SECURED the near-term liquidity needed to fund the promises and just watch the highly uncertain markets unfold knowing that you don’t have to do anything except sleep very well at night.

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.