Tag Archives: liquidity

04.30.24
by

Healthier Than Ever? Nah!

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

P&I produced an article yesterday titled, “Corporate Pension Funds Are Fully Funded, Healthier Than Ever. Now What?” According to Milliman, corporate pension plans are averaging roughly a funded ratio of 106%. This represents a healthy funded status, but it is by no means the healthiest ever. One may recall that corporate plans were funded in excess of 120% as recently as 2000. In what might be more shocking news, public pension plans were too when using a market discount rate (ASC 715 discount rate). Today, those public pension plans have a funded status of roughly 80% according to Milliman’s latest public fund report.

The question, “Now what”? is absolutely the right question to be asking. Many corporate plans have already begun de-risking, as the average exposure to fixed income is >45% according to P&I’s asset allocation survey through November 2023. Unfortunately, public pension systems still sit with only about 18% exposure to US fixed income, preferring a “let it ride” mentality as equities and alternatives account for more than 75% of the average plan’s asset allocation. Is this the right move? No. The move into alternatives has dried up liquidity, increased fees, and reduced transparency. Furthermore, just because a public plan believes that its sponsor is perpetual, does that make the system sustainable? You may want to be reminded about Jacksonville Police and Fire. There are other examples, too.

Whether the pension plan is corporate, multiemployer, or public, the asset allocation should reflect the funded status. There is no reason that a 60% funded plan should have the same asset allocation as one that is 90% or better funded. All plans should have both liquidity and growth buckets. The liquidity bucket will be a bond allocation (investment grade corporates in our case) that matches asset cash flows to liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. That bucket will provide all of the necessary liquidity as far into the future as the pension system can afford. The remaining assets will be focused on outperforming future liability growth. These assets will be non-bonds that now have the benefit of an extended investing horizon to grow unencumbered. Forcing liquidity in environments in which natural liquidity has been compromised only serves to exacerbate the downward spiral.

Pension America has the opportunity to stabilize the funded status and contribution expenses. They also have the chance to SECURE a portion of the promises. How comforting! We saw this movie a little more than 20 years ago. Are we going to treat this opportunity as a Ground Hog Day event and do nothing or are we going to be thoughtful in taking appropriate measures to reduce risk before the markets bludgeon the funded status? The time to act is now. Not after the fact.

03.28.24
by

The Importance of Liquidity

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

I recently came across an article written by a friend of mine in the industry. Jack Boyce, former Head of Distribution for Insight, penned a terrific article for Treasury and Risk in July 2020. The title of Jack’s article was “We Need to Talk About the Armadillo in the Room”. It isn’t just a funny title, but an incredible simile for the two primary stages of a pension plan, notably the accumulation and decumulation stages of pension cash flows. The move from a positive cash flow environment to a negative cash flow environment creates a hump that is reminiscent of the shape of an armadillo.

I stumbled on an armadillo at TexPERS last summer and truthfully didn’t think at that time that I was looking at a pension funding cycle, but I’ll never look at an armadillo again without thinking about Jack’s comparison. But the most important aspect of Jack’s writing wasn’t that he correctly associated the funding cycle with a less than cuddly animal, it was the fact that he highlighted a critically important need for pension plan sponsors of all types – liquidity! I’ve seen far too often the negative impact on pension plans and endowments and foundations when appropriate and necessary liquidity is not available to meet the promises, whether they be a monthly benefit, grant, or support of operations.

The last thing that you want to have happen when cash is needed is to be forced to raise liquidity when natural liquidity is absent from the market. There have been many times when even something as liquid as a Treasury note can’t be sold. Just harken back to 2008, if you want a prime example of not being able to transact in even the most liquid of instruments. Bid/ask spreads all of a sudden resemble the Grand Canyon. As we, at Ryan ALM have been saying, sponsors of these funds should bring certainty to a process that has become anything but certain. Jack correctly points out that “a typical LDI approach focuses on making sure the market value of a plan’s assets and the present value of its liabilities move in lockstep.” However, too often “these calculations fail to factor in the timing of cash flows.” We couldn’t agree more. Where is the certainty?

His recommendation mirrors ours, in that cash flow matching should be a cornerstone of any LDI program. Using the cash flow of interest and principal from investment grade bonds to carefully match (defease) the liability cash flows secures the necessary liquidity chronologically for as long as the allocation is sustained. By creating a liquidity bucket, one buys time for the remaining assets in the corpus to now grow unencumbered. As we all know, time is an extremely important attribute when investing. I wouldn’t feel comfortable counting on a certain return over a day, week, month, year, or even 5 years. But give me 10-years or more and I’m fairly confident that the expected return profile will be achieved.

Jack wrote, “pension plan sponsors need thoughtful solutions”. We couldn’t agree more and have been bringing ideas such as this to the marketplace for decades. Like Jack, “we believe a CDI approach can simultaneously improve a plan’s overall efficiency and the certainty of reaching its long-term outcome.” Certainty is safety! We should all be striving for this attribute.

06.30.15
by

Market Volatility Giving You The Woollies?

I’ve witnessed many market declines during my more than 33 years in the investment industry, and I would be lying if I told you that I called the beginning, end, and ultimate magnitude of any of the sell-offs.  Market declines are part of the investing game.  But just knowing that isn’t enough, as unfortunately, they can have a profound impact on retirement plans and retirement planning, both institutional and individual, as they impact the psyche of the investors.

It is well documented how individuals tend to buy high and sell low. The market crash of 2007 – 2009 drove many individuals out of equities at or near the bottom, and many of those “investors” have kept their allocations to equities below 2007 levels. It hasn’t been that much better for the average institutional investor either.  We are aware of a number of situations (NJ for one) that plowed into expensive, absolute-return product at the bottom of the equity market only to see that portfolio dramatically underperform very inexpensive beta, as the equity markets have rallied since March 2009.

In some cases, the selling “pressure” was the result of liquidity needs, which lead to the tremendous explosion in the secondary markets for private equity, real estate, etc. in 2009.  The E&F asset allocation model, made so famous by Yale, was the undoing for many retirement plans, as the failure to secure adequate liquidity exacerbated market losses. Who knows whether the turmoil in Greece will lead to their exit (expulsion) from the Euro, but there is certainly heightened fear and volatility in the global markets? Are you currently prepared to meet your liquidity needs?

As we’ve discussed within both the Fireside Chats and on the KCS blog, the development of a hybrid asset allocation model geared specifically to your plan’s liabilities, can begin to de-risk your plan, while dramatically improving liquidity.  The introduction of the beta / alpha concept will provide plan sponsors with an inexpensive cash matching strategy that meets near-term benefit needs, while extending the investing horizon for the less liquid investments in your portfolio. By not being forced to sell into the market correction, your investments have a greater chance of rebounding when the market settles.

Traditional asset allocation models subject the entire portfolio to market movements, while the beta / alpha approach only subjects the alpha assets to volatility.  But, since one doesn’t have to sell alpha assets to meet liquidity needs given that the beta portfolio is used for that purpose, the volatility doesn’t matter. Don’t fret about Greece and its potential implications for the global markets and your plan. Let us help you design an asset allocation that improves liquidity, extends the investment horizon for your alpha assets, and begins to de-risk your plan, as the funded ratio and status improve.