Tag Archives: public-pensions

10.21.25
by

Milliman: Another good month for pension funding

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

Whether one is referring to public pensions or private DB plans, September was a continuation of the positive momentum experienced for most of 2025. Milliman has reported on both the Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), which analyzes the 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans and its Public Pension Funding Index (PPFI), which analyzes data from the nation’s 100 largest public defined benefit plans.

Milliman estimates that public pension funds saw aggregate returns of 1.7%, while corporate plans produced an average return for the month of 2.5%. As a result of these gains (sixth consecutive gain), public pension funded ratios stand at 85.4% up from 84.2% at the end of August. Corporate plans are now showing an aggregate funded ratio of 106.5%, marking the highest level since just before the Great Financial Crisis (GFC).

Public pension fund assets are now $5.66 trillion versus liabilities of $6.63 trillion, while corporate plans added $26 billion to their collective net assets increasing the funded status surplus to $80 billion. For corporate plans, the strong 2.5% estimated return was more than enough to overcome the decline in the discount rate to 5.36%, a pattern that has persisted for much of 2025.

“Robust returns helped corporate pension funding levels improve for the sixth straight month in September,” said Zorast Wadia, author of the Milliman PFI. “With more declines in discount rates likely ahead, funded ratios may lose ground unless plan assets move in lockstep with liabilities.”

“Thanks to continued strong investment performance, public pension funding levels continued to improve in September, and unfunded liabilities are now below the critical $1 trillion threshold for the first time since 2021,” said Becky Sielman, co-author of the Milliman PPFI. “Now, 45 of the 100 PPFI plans are more than 90% funded while only 11 are less than 60% funded, underscoring the continued health of public pensions.”

Discount rates have so far fallen in October. It will be interesting to see if returns can once again prop up funded status for corporate America. It will also be interesting to see how the different accounting standards (GASB vs. FASB) impact October’s results. A small gain for corporate plans may not be enough to overcome the potential growth in liabilities, as interest rates decline, but that small return may look just fine for public pension plans, that don’t mark liabilities to market only assets.

View this Month’s complete Pension Funding Index.

View the Milliman 100 Public Pension Funding Index.

07.31.25
by

When Should I Use CFM?

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

Good morning. I’m currently in Chicago in the midst of several meetings. Yesterday’s meetings were outstanding. As you’d expect, the conversations were centered on DB pension plans and the opportunity to de-risk through a Cash Flow Matching strategy (CFM) in today’s economic environment. The line of questioning that I received from each of my meeting hosts was great. However, there does seem to be a misconception on when and how to use CFM as a de-risking tool. Most believe that you engage CFM for only the front-end of the yield curve, while others think that CFM is only useful when a plan is at or near full funding. Yes, both of those implementations are useful, but that represents a small sampling of when and how to implement CFM. For instance:

As a plan sponsor you need to make sure that you have the liquidity necessary to meet you monthly benefits (and expenses). Do you have a liquidity policy established that clearly defines the source(s) of liquidity or are you scurrying around each month sweeping dividends, interest, and if lucky, capital distributions from your alternative portfolio? Unfortunately, most plan sponsors do not have a formal liquidity policy as part of their Investment Policy Statement (IPS). CFM ensures that the necessary liquidity is available every month of the assignment. There is not forced selling!

Do you currently have a core fixed income allocation? According to a P&I asset allocation survey, public pension plans have an average 18.9% in public fixed income. How are you managing that interest rate risk, which remains the greatest risk for an actively managed fixed income portfolio? As an industry, we enjoyed the benefits of a nearly four decades decline in U.S. interest rates beginning in 1982. However, the prior 28-years witnessed rising rates. Who knows if the current rise in rates is a blip or the start of another extended upward trend? CFM defeases future benefit payments which are not interest rate sensitive. A $2,000 payment next month or 10-years from now is $2,000 whether rates rise or fall. As a result, CFM mitigates interest rate risk.

As you have sought potentially greater returns from a move into alternatives and private investments, not only has the available liquidity dried up, but you need a longer time horizon for those investments to mature and produce the expected outcome. Have you created a bridge within your plan’s asset allocation that will mitigate normal market gyrations? A 10-year CFM allocation will not only provide your plan with the necessary monthly liquidity, but it is essentially a bridge over volatile periods as it is the sole source of liquidity allowing the “alpha” assets to just grow and grow. That 10-year program coincides nicely with many of the lock-ins for alternative strategies.

There has been improvement in the funded status of public pension plans. According to Milliman, as of June 30, 2025, the average funded ratio for the constituents in their top 100 public pension index is now 82.9%, which is the highest level since December 2021. That’s terrific to see. Don’t you want to preserve that level of funding and the contribution expenses that coincide with that level? Riding the rollercoaster of performance can’t be comforting. Given what appears to be excessive valuations within equity markets and great uncertainty as it relates to the economic environment, are you willing to let your current exposures just ride? By allocating to a CFM program, you stabilize a portion of your plan’s funded status and the contributions associated with those Retired Lives Liability. Bringing a level of certainty to a very uncertain process should be a desirable goal for all plan sponsors and their advisors.

If I engage a CFM mandate, don’t I negatively impact my plan’s ability to meet the return objective (ROA) that we have established? NO! The Ryan ALM CFM portfolio will be heavily skewed to investment-grade corporate bonds (most portfolios are 100% corporates) that enjoy a significant premium yield relative to Treasuries and agencies. As mentioned previously, public pension plans already have an exposure to fixed income. That exposure is already included in the ROA calculation. By substituting a higher yielding CFM portfolio for a lower yielding core fixed income program benchmarked to the Aggregate index, you are enhancing the plan’s ability to achieve the ROA while also eliminating interest rate risk. A win-win in my book!

So, given these facts, how much should I allocate to a CFM mandate? The answer is predicated on many factors, including the plan’s current funded status, the ability to contribute, whether or not the plan is in a negative cash flow situation, the Board’s risk appetite, the current ROA, and others. Given that all pension systems’ liabilities are unique, there is no one correct answer. At Ryan ALM, we are happy to provide a detailed analysis on what could be done and at what cost to the plan. We do this analysis for free. When can we do yours?

06.26.25
by

There Is No “Standard” Exposure

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

I recently attended a public pension conference in which the following question was asked: What is the appropriate weighting to emerging markets? There may be an average exposure that results from a review of all public fund data, but there is NO such thing as an appropriate or standard weight. Given that every defined benefit plan has its own unique liabilities, funded status, ability to contribute, etc., how could there be a standard exposure to any asset class, let alone emerging markets.

I’m sure that this question originates through the belief that the pension objective is to achieve a return on asset (ROA) assumption. That there is some magic combination of assets and weightings that will enable the pension plan to achieve the return target. However, as regular readers of this blog know, we, at Ryan ALM, think that the primary objective when managing a DB pension plan is NOT a return objective but it is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk.

Pursuing a performance (return) objective guarantees volatility, as the annual standard deviation for a pension plan is roughly 12%-15%, but not success in meeting the funding objective. Refocusing on the liabilities secures, through cash flow matching, the monthly promises from the first month out as far as the allocation will cover. Through this process the necessary liquidity is provided each month, while also extending the investing horizon for the remainder of the assets that are no longer needed as a source of liquidity. We refer to these residual assets as the alpha or growth assets, that now can grow unencumbered.

This growth bucket can be invested almost anyway that you want. You can decide to just buy the S&P 500 index at low fees or construct a more intricate asset allocation with exposures and weightings of your choice. There is no one size fits all solution. We do suggest that the better the funded ratio/status of your plan, the greater the allocation to the liquidity assets. If your plan is less well funded today, start with a more modest CFM portfolio, and expand it as funding levels improve. In any case, you are bringing an element of certainty to what has been historically a very uncertain process.

So, please remember that every DB plan is unique. Don’t let anyone tell you that your fund needs to have X% in asset class A or Y% in asset class B. Securing the benefits should be the most important decision. How you build the alpha portfolio will be a function of so many other factors related specifically to your plan.

05.09.25
by

The Benefits of Using Multiple Discount Rates in a Public Pension Plan

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

Public pension plan sponsors frequently ask us about the impact of investing in a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy on the fund’s ability to achieve the ROA, which is also the discount rate used to value the plan’s liabilities under GASB accounting. As we’ve discussed many times, the plan’s ROA is actually a blend of ROAs with an “expected” return target assigned to each asset class, except for bonds, which uses the YTM of the index benchmark, and then those forecasts are averaged based on the weight of the exposure within the total asset base. So, despite the fact that GASB requires a single rate to discount the plan’s liabilities, multiple ROA targets have been used for years.

We believe that this process can, and should, be refined even more. We believe that the ROA target should be focused on the plan’s liabilities and not just the assets. With a liability focus one gets the following benefits when using multiple discount rates, including:

  • Risk Matching: Applying different discount rates to different asset or liability segments can better reflect the varying risk profiles of those segments. For example, using a lower, market-based rate for secured benefits (through a CFM process) and a higher rate for more uncertain, investment-backed benefits can align present value (PV) calculations more closely with the actual risks being taken within the fund.
  • Improved Accuracy: Multiple rates may provide a more accurate estimate of liabilities, especially when plan assets are invested in a mix of instruments with different risk and return characteristics.
  • Transparency in Funding Status: By separating liabilities based on funding source or risk, stakeholders get a clearer picture of which obligations are well-secured (those that are defeased through CFM) and which may be more vulnerable to market fluctuations (the growth assets).
  • Policy Flexibility: Using a blended discount rate can help manage the transition when lowering the overall discount rate, avoiding sudden shocks to contribution requirements.

We often discuss the need to bring an element of certainty to the management of DB pension plans, which have embraced uncertainty for years. Bifurcating your plans liabilities (retired lives and actives) and assets (liquidity and growth) into two buckets and applying different discount rates to each brings greater certainty to the management of a pension plan. There is no longer any guessing as to how your liquidity bucket will perform, as the asset cash flows are matched to liability cash flows with certainty and the fund’s cost savings and return are both know on the day that the portfolio is constructed. How wonderful!

05.07.25
by

Source Ryan – Question of the Day.

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

We often get comments and questions following the posting of a blog. We welcome the opportunity to exchange ideas with interested readers. Here is a recent comment/question from a LinkedIn.com exchange.

Question: In reviewing the countless reports, reading past agendas, and meeting minutes for these 20 plans, I did not notice any CFM or dedicated fixed income strategies employed by any of them. Perhaps there are a couple that I missed that do, or perhaps some have since embarked on such a strategy. Why wouldn’t public fund plan sponsors use Cash Flow Matching (CFM)?

There really isn’t a reason why they shouldn’t as pointed out by Dan Hougard, Verus, in his recent excellent piece, but unfortunately, they likely haven’t begun to use a strategy that has been used effectively for decades within the insurance industry, by lottery systems, and early on in pension management. Regrettably, plan sponsors must enjoy being on the rollercoaster of returns that only guarantees volatility and not necessarily success. Furthermore, they must get excited about trying to find liquidity each month to meet the promised benefits by scrambling to capture dividend income, bond interest, or capital distributions. If this doesn’t prove to be enough to meet the promises, they then get to liquidate a holding whether it is the right time or not.

In addition, there must be a particular thrill about losing sleep at night during periods of major market disruptions. Otherwise, they’d use CFM in lieu of a core fixed income strategy that rides its own rollercoaster of returns mostly driven by changes in interest rates. Do you know where rates are going? I certainly don’t, but I do know that next month, the month after that, followed by the one after that, and all the way to the end of the coverage period, that my clients will have the liquidity to meet the benefit promises without having to force a sale in an environment that isn’t necessarily providing appropriate liquidity.

The fact that a CFM strategy also eliminates interest rate risk because benefit payments are future values, while also extending the investing horizon for the fund’s growth assets are two additional benefits. See, there really is NO reason not to retain a cash flow matching expert like Ryan ALM, Inc. to bring certainty to the management of pensions that have lived with great uncertainty. In doing so, many plans have had to dramatically increase contributions, alter asset allocation frameworks to take on significantly more risk, while unfortunately asking participants to increase employee contributions, work more years, and receive less at retirement under the guise of pension reform. Let’s stop doing the same old same old and explore the tremendous benefits of Cash Flow Matching. Your plan participants will be incredibly grateful.

04.28.25
by

Verus: “LDI for Public Sponsors”

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

Dan Hougard, FSA and Associate Director, Actuarial Services at Verus has recently published an excellent thought piece on LDI for public pension plans. In this case, the LDI refers to Cash Flow Matching (CFM). We at Ryan ALM, believe that LDI is the label in which sits both CFM and duration matching strategies. Furthermore, we absolutely agree with Dan’s assessment that public pension plans can benefit in this environment of higher yields despite the accounting differences that may not make the use of CFM obvious.

As most readers of this blog know, we often criticize public pension accounting (GASB) for pension liabilities that allow the use of the ROA assumption to “discount” liabilities, while corporate/private pension plans use a market-based interest rate (FASB). We applaud Dan for stating that “the purpose of a pension plan’s investment portfolio (assets) is to ensure that the promised benefits (liabilities) can be paid to beneficiaries as they come due”. We at Ryan ALM believe that the primary objective in managing a DB plan is to SECURE the benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk.

Key highlights from Dan’s research:

Many plan sponsors approach their investment policy without explicitly focusing on the liabilities

Because public plans discount liabilities at the ROA the perceived benefit of LDI (CFM) is not as obvious

Public plans could match longer-duration cashflows combined with “market-based” reporting for a portion of the liabilities – such as all current retirees.

The lowest risk asset class for pension investors are fixed income securities, as income is used to pay benefits, and securities are held to maturity so there is no interest rate risk.

During periods of market stress, negative cash flow plans may be forced to sell assets at depressed prices.

CFM can overcome that challenge by providing the needed cash flow to cover obligations while the return-seeking portfolio grows unencumbered.

IG credit yields haven’t been this attractive since 2010.

Public pension portfolios tend to have very uncertain outcomes and carry “tremendous” asset-liability mismatch.

Finally, CFM “investing can offer considerable value for many pension plans”!

It is wonderful to see a thoughtful article on this subject. We, at Ryan ALM, often feel as if we are all alone in our quest to protect and preserve defined benefit plans for the masses through cash flow matching, which SECURES the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It also allows for a wonderful night’s sleep during periods of excessive uncertainty.

03.06.25
by

Markets Hate Uncertainty

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

I’ve published many posts on the impact of uncertainty on the well-being of individuals and our capital markets. In neither case are the outcomes positive.

What we are witnessing in the last several trading days is the direct result of policy flip-flopping that is creating abundant uncertainty. As a result, the business environment is deteriorating. One can argue the merits of tariffs, but it is the flip-flopping of these policy decisions that is wreaking havoc. How can a business react to these policies when they change daily, if not hourly.

The impact so far has been to create an environment in which both investment and employment have suffered. Economic uncertainty is currently at record levels only witness during the pandemic. Rarely have we witnessed an environment in which capital expenditures are falling while prices are increasing, but that is exactly what we have today. Regrettably, we are now witnessing expectations for rising input prices, which track consumer goods inflation. It has been more than four decades since we were impacted by stagflation, but we are on the cusp of a repeat last seen in the ’70s. How comfortable are you?

We just got a glimpse of how bad things might become for our economy when the Atlanta Fed published a series of updates driving GDP growth expectations down from a high of +3.9% earlier in the quarter to the current -2.4% published today. The key drivers of this recalibration were trade and consumer spending. The uncertainty isn’t just impacting the economy. As mentioned above, our capital markets don’t like uncertainty either.

I had the opportunity to speak on a panel last week at Opal/LATEC discussing Risk On or Risk Off. At that point I concluded that little had been done to reduce risk within public pension plans, as traditional asset allocation frameworks had not been adjusted in any meaningful way. It isn’t too late to start the process today. Action should be taken to reconfigure the plan’s asset allocation into two buckets – liquidity and growth. The liquidity bucket will provide the necessary cash flow in the near future, while buying time for the growth assets to wade through these troubled waters. Doing nothing subjects the entire asset base to the whims of the markets, and we know how that can turn out.

10.16.24
by

Milliman: Public Pension Funded Ratio at 82.8%

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

Milliman recently released results for its Public Pension Funding Index (PPFI), which covers the nation’s 100 largest public defined benefit plans.

Positive equity market performance in September increased the Milliman 100 PPFI funded ratio from 82.0% at the end of August to 82.8% as of September 30, representing the highest level since March 31, 2022, prior to the Fed’s aggressive rate increases. The previous high-water mark stood at 82.7%. The improved funding for Milliman’s PPFI plans was driven by an estimated 1.4% aggregate return for September 2024 (9.4% for the YTD period). Total fund performance for these 100 public plans ranged from an estimated 0.7% to 2.1% for the month. As a result of the relatively strong performance, PPFI plans gained approximately $72 billion in MV during the latest month. The asset growth was offset by negative cash flow amounting to about $10 billion. It is estimated that the current asset shortfall relative to accrued liabilities is about $1.138 trillion as of September 30. 

In addition, it was reported that an additional 5 of the PPFI members had achieved a 90% or better funded status (34 plans have now eclipsed this level), while regrettably, 14 of the constituents remain at <60%. Given that changing US interest rates do not impact the calculation for pension liabilities under GASB accounting, which uses the ROA as the liability discount rate, the improvement in the collective funded status may be overstated, as US rates continued to decline throughout the third quarter following an upward trajectory to start the calendar year.

06.05.24
by

The Status Quo Isn’t Working

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

Anyone who has read just a handful of the >1,400 blog posts that I’ve produced knows that I am a huge fan of defined benefit (DB) plans. That I’ve come to loathe the fact that DB plans were/are viewed as dinosaurs, and as a result have been mostly replaced by ineffective defined contribution plans. As a result, the American worker is less well-off given the greater uncertainty of their funding outcome. A dignified retirement is getting further out of reach for a majority of today’s workers.

That said, just because I desire to see DB plans maintained as the primary retirement vehicle, doesn’t mean that I appreciate how many of them have been managed. The pension plan asset allocations remain focused on the wrong objective, which continues to be the ROA and NOT the plan’s liabilities. It is this mismatch in the primary objective that has exacerbated the volatility of the funded ratio/status and contribution expenses. As I’ve stated many times, it is time to get off the asset allocation rollercoaster. We need to bring an element of certainty to the investment structure despite the fact that outcomes within the capital markets are highly uncertain.

How bad have things been? According to a recently produced analysis by Piscataqua Research, Inc., which regularly reviews the performance of both assets and liabilities for 127 state and local retirement systems, since 2000 contributions as a % of pay have tripled, while funded status has declined by more than 25%. Again, I’m not here to bash public funds. On the contrary, I am here to offer a potential solution to the volatility exhibited. I wrote a piece many years (1/17) ago titled, “Perpetual Doesn’t Mean Sustainable” in which I discussed the need to bring stability to these critically important retirement plans because at some point there might just be a revolt from the taxpayers that are lacking defined benefit participation themselves. We can’t afford to have tens of millions of American public fund workers added to the federal social safety net God forbid their retirement plans are terminated and benefits frozen prematurely.

There is only one asset class – bonds – in which the future performance is known on the day that the bond is acquired. You can’t tell me what Amazon or Tesla will be worth in 10 years or the value of a building or private equity portfolio, but I can tell you how much interest and principal you will have earned on the day that the bond matures, whether that be 3-, 5-, 10- or 30-years from now. That information is incredibly valuable and can be used to match and SECURE the pension plan’s liabilities. That portion of the plan’s assets will now provide stability and certainty reducing the ups and downs exhibited through normal market behavior. Why continue to embrace an asset allocation that has NO certainty? An asset allocation that can create the explosion in contribution expenses that we’ve witnessed.

DB plans need to be protected and preserved! Ryan ALM’s focus is solely on achieving that lofty goal. It should be your goal, too. Let us help you get off the asset allocation rollercoaster before markets reach their peak and we once again ride those market down creating a funding deficit that will take years and major contributions to overcome.