Tag Archives: pensions

09.25.25
by

Taking From Peter to Pay Paul

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

Do you, or would you, consider yourself a “high earner” with a salary of $145k/year?

Try asking a family of four in NYC that question, when you consider the expenses from taxes (federal, state, city, sales, and property), the housing costs associated with an apartment, childcare, healthcare, food, clothing, etc. Yet, those at the IRS certainly do. In case you didn’t realize it, SECURE 2.0 is eliminating the tax deductibility of “make up” contributions for those 50 and up after they have maxed out their $23,500 annual contribution beginning in 2027. As a reminder, for those that 50-years old and up one can contribute another $7,500. For those between the ages of 60-and 63-years-old there is a super catch up contribution of $11,500. Why a 64- or 65-year-old can’t contribute more is beyond me. Perhaps it will blow out the U.S. federal budget deficit!

Unfortunately, if you are so lucky to earn a whopping $145k from a single employer in a calendar year, you will be forced to use a Roth 401(k) for those make up contributions. As stated previously, you lose the tax deductibility for those additional contributions. So, if you earn $200k and you contribute the additional $7,500 or the $11,500, instead of seeing your gross income fall by those figures, you will be taxed at the $200k level, increasing your tax burden for that year. Yes, the earnings within the account grow tax free, but the growth in the account balance is subject to a lot of risk factors.

We should be incentivizing all American workers to save as much as possible. Let’s stop with all these different gimmicks. Do we really want a significant percentage of our older population no longer participating in our economy? Those 65-years and older represent about 17% of today’s population, but they are expected to be 23% by 2050. Do we really want them depending on the U.S government for social services? No, and they don’t want that either. We want folks to be able to retire with dignity and remain active members of our economic community.

The demise of the traditional DB pensions has placed a significant burden on most American workers who are now tasked with funding, managing, and then disbursing a “retirement” benefit with little disposable income, no investment acumen, and a crystal ball to determine longevity as foggy as many San Francisco summer days. Again, with the burdens associated with all of the expenses mentioned above and more, it really is a moot point for many Americans to even consider catch up contributions, but for those lucky few, why penalize them?

04.11.25
by

What Was The Purpose?

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

I was introduced to the brilliance of Warren Mosler through my friend and former colleague, Chuck DuBois. It was Chuck who encouraged me to read Mosler’s book, “The 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy”. I would highly recommend that you take a few hours to dive into what Mosler presents. As I mentioned, I think that his insights are brilliant.

The 7 frauds, innocent or not, cover a variety of subjects including trade, the federal deficit, Social Security, government spending, taxes, etc. Regarding trade and specifically the “deficit”, Mosler would tell you that a trade deficit inures to the benefit of the United States. The general perception is that a trade deficit takes away jobs and reduces output, but Mosler will tell you that imports are “real benefits and exports are real costs”.

Unlike what I was taught as a young Catholic that it is better to give than to receive, Mosler would tell you that in Economics, it is much better to receive than to give. According to Mosler, the “real wealth of a nation is all it produces and keeps for itself, plus all it imports, minus what it exports”. So, with that logic, running a trade deficit enhances the real wealth of the U.S.

Earlier this year, the Atlanta Fed was forecasting GDP annual growth in Q1’25 of 3.9%, today that forecast has plummeted to -2.4%. We had been enjoying near full employment, moderating yields, and inflation. So, what was the purpose of starting a trade war other than the fact that one of Mosler’s innocent frauds was fully embraced by this administration that clearly did not understand the potential ramifications. They should have understood that a tariff is a tax that would add cost to every item imported. Did they not understand that inflation would take a hit? In fact, a recent survey has consumers expecting a 6.7% price jump in goods and services during the next 12-months. This represents the highest level since 1981. Furthermore, Treasury yields, after initially falling in response to a flight to safety, have marched significantly higher.

Again, I ask, what was the purpose? Did they think that jobs would flow back to the U.S.? Sorry, but the folks who suffered job losses as a result of a shift in manufacturing aren’t getting those jobs back. Given the current employment picture, many have been employed in other industries. So, given our full-employment, where would we even get the workers to fill those jobs? Again, we continue to benefit from the trade “imbalance”, as we shipped inflation overseas for decades. Do we now want to import inflation?

It is through fiscal policy (tax cuts and government spending) that we can always sustain our workforce and domestic output. Our spending is not constrained by other countries sending us their goods. In fact, our quality of life is enhanced through this activity.

It is truly unfortunate that the tremendous uncertainty surrounding tariff policy is still impacting markets today. Trillions of $s in wealth have been eroded and long-standing trading alliances broken or severely damaged. All because an “innocent” fraud was allowed to drive a reckless policy initiative. I implore you to stay away from Social Security and Medicare, whose costs can always be met since U.S. federal spending is not constrained by taxes and borrowing. How would you tell the tens of millions of Americans that rely on them to survive that another innocent fraud was allowed to drive economic policy?

01.23.25
by

That Step Isn’t Necessary!

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc

I recently stumbled over a brief article that touched on LDI. I’m always interested in absorbing everything that I can on this subject. I was particularly thrilled when the author stated, “since LDI was recognized as best practice for defined benefit (DB) plans…” – YES! I’m not sure where that proclamation came from, but I agree with the sentiments. The balance of that sentence read, “…sponsors have implemented investment strategies as a journey.”

The initial steps on this journey were for plan sponsors to “simply extend the duration of their fixed income using longer duration market-based benchmarks.” Clearly, the author is referencing duration matching strategies as the LDI product of choice during that phase. According to the author, the next phase in this LDI journey was the use of both credit and Treasuries to better align the portfolio with a plan’s liability risk profile.

Well, we are supposedly entering a third phase in this LDI journey given the improved funded status and “outsized” allocations to fixed income. The question they posed: “How do we diversify the growing fixed income allocation?” Their answer, add a host of non-traditional LDI fixed income products, including private debt and securitized products, to the toolkit to add further yield and return. No, no, and no!

As mentioned previously, funded status/ratios have improved dramatically. According to this report, corporate plans have a funded ratio of 111% at the end of 2024 based on their firm’s Pension Solutions Monitor. Given that level of funding, the only thing that these plans should be doing is engaging a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy to SECURE all the promises that have been given to the plan participants. You’ve WON the pension game. Congratulations! There is no reason for a third phase in the LDI journey. There likely wasn’t a need for the second phase, but that’s water over the dam.

We, at Ryan ALM, believe that CFM is a superior offering within the array of LDI strategies, as it not only provides the necessary liquidity to meet monthly liability cash flows, but it duration matches each and every month of an assignment. Ask us to CFM the next 10 years, we will have 120 duration matches. Most duration matching strategies use either an average duration or a few key rates along the yield curve. Since duration is price sensitive, it changes constantly.  In addition, yield curves do not move in parallel shifts making the management of duration a difficult target.

With CFM you can use STRIPS, Treasuries, investment grade corporates or a combination of these highly liquid assets. You don’t need to introduce less liquid and more complex products. A CFM strategy is all you need to accomplish the pension objective. A CFM strategy provides certainty of the cash flows which is a critical and necessary feature to fully fund liabilities. This feature does not exist in private debt and securitized products. As a reminder, the pension objective is not a return target. It is the securing of the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. Don’t risk what you’ve achieved. Lock in your funded status and secure the benefits. This strategy is designed as a “sleep well at night” offering. I think that you deserve to sleep like a baby!

12.09.24
by

ARPA Update as of December 6, 2024

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

You have to be excited as a Mets fan given yesterday’s news that Juan Soto will be joining the organization on a massive contract. The $765 million is a staggering figure. Let’s see what happens to ticket prices and TV streaming services from a cost standpoint.

Since ARPA was passed in 2021 and signed into law in March of that year, there have been folks upset that the government is using “tax revenue” to rescue pensions for multiemployer plans. Well, in the latest update provided by the PBGC, we note that the Pressroom Unions’ Pension Plan, a non-priority group member, will receive $63.7 million to protect and preserve the promised pensions for 1,344 plan participants. That seems very reasonable since this grant will likely cover these benefit payments for roughly the same time frame that Soto will be a Met (15 years), at only $12.7 million more than just one year of Soto’s contract.

In other ARPA news, the e-filing portal is listed as “limited”, which according to the PBGC means that “the e-Filing Portal is open only to plans at the top of the waiting list that have been notified by PBGC that they may submit their applications. Applications from any other plans will not be accepted at this time.” PA Local 47 Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Pension Plan was the only plan to file an application (revised) last week. They are seeking $8.3 million in SFA for 296 members in the fund.

In other news, three funds, including Toledo Roofers Local No. 134 Pension Plan, Freight Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 557 Pension Plan, and PACE Industry Union-Management Pension Plan, were asked to repay a total of $7 million in excess SFA due to census issues. The rebate represented 0.45% of the $1.6 billion received in SFA grants. Happy to report that there were no applications denied or withdrawn during the prior 7-day period.

As the chart above highlights, there are still 57 plans that have yet to file an application seeking SFA support. Estimates range from another $10 – $20 billion being allocated to the remaining entities.

12.05.24
by

Another Example of the Games That Are Played

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

I continue to be involved in programs associated with the Florida Public Pension Trustees Association (FPPTA) for which I remain quite grateful. If you’ve been exposed to their conferences, you know that they do a terrific job of bringing critical education to Florida’s trustee community and have since its founding in 1984. I’m pleased to highlight an expansion of their program to include the Trustee Leadership Council (TLC). This program brings together a small collection of experienced trustees who want to delve more deeply into the workings of defined benefit pensions – both assets and liabilities. Furthermore, the instruction is mostly done through case studies that provide them with the opportunity to roll up their sleeves and really get into the nitty gritty of pension management. Great stuff!

I could go on for days about the FPPTA and their programming, but I want to raise another issue. During a recent conversation with the TLC leadership, information was shared from one particular case study (a non-Florida-based pension plan). This information was for a substantial public pension plan that has had a troubling past from a funding standpoint. We also had info shared from a much smaller Florida-based system. There appeared to be a stark difference in performance of these two systems, as measured by the funded ratios, with a particular focus on 2022’s results. Upon further review, the one actuarial report used a 10-year smoothing for the funded ratio, while the Florida plan highlighted the performance for just 2022 and the impact that had on that plan’s funded ratio. As you can imagine, given the very challenging return environment in 2022, funded ratios took a hit. Question answered!

However, in looking at the actuarial report for the larger system, I saw that 2023’s funded ratio dramatically improved from the depths of 2022’s hit. It seemed outsized given what I knew about the environment that year. Diving a little deeper into the report – is there anything drier than an actuarial report – I found information related to a change in the discount rate that had occurred during 2023. It seems that this system had come up with its own funding method, but that was going to lead to the system becoming insolvent relatively soon. As a result, they passed legislation mandating that future contributions were going to be determined on an actuarial basis. How novel!

As a result of the move from a 4.63% blended rate (used a combination of the ROA (7%) and a municipal rate) they have now adopted a straight 7% discount rate equivalent to the fund’s return on asset assumption. Here is the result of that action:

As one can see, the present value (PV) of those future promises based on a 4.63% blended rate creates a net pension liability of -$12.8 billion. Using a 7% discount rate creates a PV of those net liabilities of “only ” -$6.7 billion. The dramatic improvement in the funded status from 48.4% to 64.1% is primarily the result of changing the discount rate, as a higher rate reduces the PV of your promise to plan participants. It really doesn’t change the promise, just how you are accounting for it.

The trustees who will participate in the TLC program offered by the FPPTA will receive a wonderful education that will allow them to dive into issues as referenced above. Knowing the ins and outs of pension management and finance will lead to more appropriate decisions related to benefits, contributions, asset allocation, etc.

11.22.24
by

And So It Is!

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

Milliman has released the results for its Public Pension Funding Index (PPFI), which analyzes data from the nation’s 100 largest public defined benefit plans. They are reporting that the collective funded ratio deteriorated during the last month from 82.8% as of September 30th, to 81.2% as of October 31st, as the combined investments of these plans fell for the first time since April. The estimated return for the PFFI was -1.6%, as losses ranged from -2.9% to -0.6%. The $s lost were roughly $80 billion during the month. The funding deficit now stands at about $1.1 trillion.

You may recall that on November 8th, I produced a blog post titled, “Another Inconsistency”, in which I wrote about Milliman’s reporting of its corporate index that highlighted the fact that the collective funded ratio improved during the month despite asset losses due to the fact that liabilities fell to a great extent as interest rates rose.

I also wrote the following, “what do you think will happen in public fund land? Well, given weak markets, asset levels for Milliman’s public fund index will likely fall” (they did, as reported above). “Given that the discount rate for public pension systems is the ROA, there will be no change in the present value of public pension plans’ future benefit obligations (silly). As a result, instead of witnessing an improvement in the collective funded status of public pensions, we will witness a deterioration.” (and we did!) The inconsistency is startling!

Decisions with regards to benefits and contributions are made all the time based on information related to the funded ratio/status of these pension plans. Using different accounting standards clearly produces different outcomes that might just lead to inappropriate conclusions and the subsequent decisions. Oh, boy!

11.04.24
by

ARPA Update as of November 1, 2024

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

Welcome to November. I’m shocked by how quickly the year is flying by. I’m also thankful that the incessant political commercials will soon be behind us.

The PBGC had a very good and busy last week, as we witnessed quite a bit of activity in the implementation of the ARPA legislation. Always pleased to announce that three plans received approval for Special Financial Assistance, including the last member of the #6 priority group. Pension Plan of the Marine Carpenters Pension Fund (their initial application), United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Plan (the Priority Group 6 member), and Local 111 Pension Plan were granted a total of $736.1 million for just over 32k participants.

In addition to the approvals, the eFiling portal was open to Lumber Industry Pension Plan and the Laborers’ Local No. 130 Pension Fund. In the case of the lumber Industry plan, it appears that they get to chop off some of the wait time for approval as their application indicates an expedited review. This plan is seeking $103.2 million for 5,834 members. Local No. 130 filed its initial application in which they are hoping to receive $32.1 million for 641 plan participants.

There were also four plans that withdrew initial applications for SFA. Alaska Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Pension Plan, Lumber Industry Pension Plan, Upstate New York Engineers Pension Fund, and Pension Plan of the Automotive Machinists Pension Trust were collectively seeking $438.3 million for just under 22k participants. Each of these plans are non-priority funds. Only 15 of the original 87 Priority Group members have not received approval at this time.

Finally, there were no applications denied during the prior week and no funds rebated excess SFA on account of census errors. There were also no pension plans added to the waitlist which stands at 63 that haven’t seen any activity at this time. There hasn’t been a plan added to the waitlist since July 2024 with the addition of the Production Workers Pension Plan.

10.15.24
by

ARPA Update as of October 11, 2024

By: Russ Kamp, Ryan ALM, Inc.

I hope that you enjoyed a wonderful holiday weekend. Autumn’s beautiful colors are finally present in the Northeast – enjoy those, too. As you will soon read, the PBGC had a busy week according to its latest update, so the extra day of rest was likely necessary.

The PBGC’s effort implementing the ARPA legislation continues in full swing. During the prior week there were three new applications received, two approved, another 2 withdrawn, and finally there were two more plans rebating excess SFA as a result of census corrections. Thankfully, there were no applications rejected. Lastly, there were no multiemployer plans seeking to be added to the waitlist (non-Priority Group members).

The plans receiving approval included Midwestern Teamsters Pension Plan and the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund – Detroit & Vicinity. The Carpenters nailed a $635.0 million SFA grant for its 22,576 participants, while the much smaller Midwestern Teamsters plan received $23.6 for 615 members. The PBGC has now awarded $68.6 billion in SFA grants to 94 pension systems.

Sheet Metal Workers’ Local No. 40 Pension Plan, Warehouse Employees Union Local 169 and Employers Joint Pension Plan, and Local 111 Pension Plan were granted the opportunity to submit requests for SFA grants. In the case of Local 111, they submitted a revised application. They are collectively seeking $124,7 million for 6,193 plan members. Good luck! In other news, the Teamsters Local 210 Affiliated Pension Plan and Local 111 Pension Plan withdrew their initial applications. These two funds were seeking $137.3 million collectively.

Finally, Milk Industry Office Employees Pension Trust Fund and Local 805 Pension and Retirement Plan rebated excess SFA grant money as a result of a census audit that confirmed overpayment. The Milk Industry delivered $193k (2.4% of the SFA received) to the PBGC, while Local 805 forked over $3.2 million (1.8% of the grant). Both represented a larger percentage of the SFA received than the previous transactions. At this time, 21 plans have returned $147.5 million in SFA and interest representing 0.37% of the grants received.

I hope that you find these updates useful. I remain incredibly bullish regarding the ARPA legislation and the positive impact that it continues to have on the American worker that earned this pension promise. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to Ryan ALM with any questions related to the legislation and what should be done to secure the promised benefits with the SFA grant assets.

10.04.24
by

What Will Their Performance Be In About 11 years?

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

How comforting would it be for both plan sponsors and their advisors to know how a particular strategy is going to perform over some defined period of time? I would think that having that knowledge would be quite comforting, at least as a “core” holding. Do you think that a core fixed income manager running a relative return strategy versus the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Index could tell you how that portfolio will perform in the next 10 1/2 years? No. Ryan ALM can with a very high degree of certainty. How’s that? Well, cash flow matching (CFM) of asset cash flows to liability cash flows locks in that relationship on the day that the portfolio is constructed. Ryan ALM views risk as the uncertainty of achieving the objective. If the true pension objective is to fund benefits and expenses in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk, then our CFM model will be the lowest risk portfolio.

We were awarded a CFM assignment earlier this year. Our task was/is to defease the future grant payments for this foundation. On the day the portfolio was built, we were able to defease $165.1 million in FV grant payments for only $118.8 million, locking in savings (difference between FV and PV of the liability cash flows) of $46.3 million equal to 28.0% of those future grant payments. That’s fairly substantial. The YTM on that day was 5.19% and the duration was 5.92 years.

Earlier this week, we provided an update for the client through our monthly reporting. The current Liability Beta Portfolio (the name that we’ve given to our CFM optimization process) has the same FV of grant payments. On a market value basis, the portfolio is now worth $129 million, and the PV of those future grant payments is $126 million. But despite the change in market value due to falling interest rates, the cost savings are still -$46.3 million. The YTM has fallen to 4.31%, but that doesn’t change the initial relationship of asset cash flows to liability cash flows. That is the beauty of CFM.

Now, let me ask you, do you think that a core fixed income manager running a relative return portfolio can lay claim to the same facts? Absolutely, not! They may have benefitted in the most recent short run due to falling interest rates, but that would clearly depend on multiple decisions/factors, including the duration of the portfolio, changes in credit spreads, the shape of the yield curve, the allocation among corporates, Treasuries, agencies, and other bonds, etc. Let’s not discount the direction of future interest rate movements and the impact those changes may have on a bond strategy. In reality, the core fixed income manager has no idea how that portfolio will perform between now and March 31, 2035.

Furthermore, will they provide the necessary liquidity to meet those grant payments or benefits and expenses, if it were a DB pension? Not likely. With a yield to maturity of 4.31% and a market value of assets of $129.3 million, they will produce income of roughly $5.57 million/year. The first year’s grant payments are forecast to be $9.7 million. Our portfolio is designed to meet every $ of that grant payment. The relative return manager will be forced to liquidate a portion of their portfolio in order to meet all of the payments. What if rates have risen at that point. Forcing liquidity in that environment will result in locking in a loss. That’s not comforting.

CFM portfolios provide the client with the certainty of cash flows when they are needed. There is no forced selling, unlike the relative return manager that might be forced to sell in a market that isn’t conducive to trading. Furthermore, a CFM mandate locks in the cost savings on day 1. The assets not used to meet those FV payments, can now be managed more aggressively since they benefit from more time and aren’t going to be used to meet liability cash flows.

Asset allocation strategies should be adapted from a single basket approach to one that uses two baskets – liquidity and growth. The liquidity bucket will house a defeased bond portfolio to meet all the cash flow requirements and the remainder of the assets will migrate into the growth bucket where they can now grow unencumbered. You’ll know on day 1 how the CFM portfolio is going to perform. Now all you have to worry about are those growth assets, but you’ll have plenty of time to deal with any challenges presented.

10.02.24
by

Welcome to National Retirement (in)Security Month!

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

October isn’t just for leaf peepers, although it is a special time of year for those of us living in the Northeast. Importantly, October is also National Retirement Security Month. For those of you who regularly follow this blog, you know that we (at Ryan ALM, Inc.) are huge supporters of DB pension plans. Fortunately, we aren’t the only ones. In a wonderful post published by the National Public Pension Coalition, Ariel McConnell writes about the importance of supporting public pension plans, as well as those sponsored by private organizations.

Ms. McConnell highlights many concerns regarding the current state of retirement readiness among American workers. Frighteningly, she points out that 57% of Americans don’t have any retirement savings, and those with 401(k)s have a median balance of only $27,376. That will barely provide you with the financial resources to get you through one year let alone a retirement that could stretch well beyond 20 years. She also highlights how each of us can become more active in the fight to get every American ready for their retirement. We want each worker to have the chance to enjoy their “golden years”. Let’s not let poor policy decisions tarnish that dream.

Please join Ariel, the National Public Pension Coalition, Ryan ALM, Inc., and many more organizations in the fight to protect and preserve defined benefit plans for all. I can only begin to guess at the significant economic and social consequences if our Senior population is forced to live on a median balance as insignificant as the one mentioned in NPPC’s blog post.