Tag Archives: Ryan ALM

11.06.24
by

Have You Ever Wondered?

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

Ever wonder why future pension contributions aren’t part of the funded ratio calculation, yet future benefit payments are? Ironically, under GASB 67/68, which requires an Asset Exhaustion Test (AET), which is a test of a pension plan’s solvency, future contributions are an instrumental part of the equation. Why the disconnect? 

Also, the fact that future contributions, which in many cases are mandated by legislation or through negotiations, are not in the funded ratio means that the average funded ratio is likely understated. Furthermore, given the fact that the funded ratio is likely understated, the asset allocation, which should reflect the funded status, is likely too aggressive placing the plan’s assets on a more uncertain path leading to bigger swings in the funded ratio/status of the plan as the capital markets do what they do.

As part of the Ryan ALM turnkey LDI solution, we provide an AET, which often highlights the fact that the annual target return on asset assumption (ROA) is too high. A more conservative ROA would likely lead to a much more conservative asset allocation resulting in far smaller swings and volatility associated with annual contributions and the plan’s funded status. As you will soon read, contributions are an important part of the AET for public pensions. When performing the test, you need to account for future contributions from both employees and employers. These contributions, along with investment returns, help to sustain the pension plan’s assets relative to liabilities over time.

Here’s a quick summary of how contributions fit into the asset exhaustion test:

  1. Current Assets: Start with the current market value of the plan’s assets.
  2. Benefit Payments: Forecast the actuarial projections for future benefit payments
  3. Administrative Expenses: Add in the actuarial projections for administrative expenses
  4. Future Contributions: Subtract the actuarial projections for future contributions from employees and employers to get a net liability cash flow.
  5. Investment Returns: Grow the current market value of plan’s assets at the expected investment return on the plan’s assets (ROA) plus a matrix of lower ROAs to create an annual asset cash flow
  6. Year-by-Year Projection: Perform a year-by-year projection to see if the asset cash flows will fully fund the net liability cash flows. Choose the lowest ROA that will fully fund net liability cash flows as the new target ROA for asset allocation

By including contributions in the test, you get a more accurate picture of the plan’s long-term sustainability. So, I ask again, why aren’t future contributions included in the Funded Ratio calculation? Isn’t it amazing how one factor (not including those contributions) can lead to so many issues? With less volatility in funded status and contributions, DB plans would likely have many more supporters among sponsors and the general public (aka taxpayer) . It is clearly time to rethink this issue.

10.31.24
by

Pension ROA – Trick or Treat?

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

Ron brings to you today a Halloween Special titled, Pension ROA – Trick or Treat? In this research piece, Ron explores how the return on asset assumption (ROA) is calculated and some of the misconceptions associated with targeting this return as the primary objective of pension management. One of those misunderstandings has to do with the expectation for each asset class used in the plan. An asset class, such as fixed income, is only asked to earn the ROA assigned to It by using their index benchmark as the target return proxy. They are NOT required to earn the total pension fund ROA assumption (@ 6.75% to 7% today). This is an important fact to remember in asset allocation.

As always, we encourage your comments and questions. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to us. Have a wonderful Halloween with your family and friends.

10.30.24
by

“More Needs To Be Done!” – Do You Think?

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

This post is the 1,500th on this blog! I hope that you’ve found our insights useful. We’ve certainly appreciated the feedback – comments, questions, and likes – throughout the years. A lot of good debate has flowed from the ideas that we have expressed and we hope that it continues. The purpose of this blog is to provide education to those engaged in the pension/retirement industry. We have an incredible responsibility to millions of American workers who are counting on us to help provide a dignified retirement. A goal that is becoming more challenging every day.

As stated numerous times, doing the same-old-same-old is not working. How do we know? Just look at the surveys that regularly appear in our industry’s media outlets. Here is one from MissionSquare Research Institute done in collaboration with Greenwald Research. The survey reached a nationally representative sample of 1,009 state and local government workers between September 12 and October 4. What they found is upsetting, if not surprising. According to the research, “81% are concerned they won’t have enough money to last throughout retirement, and 78% doubt they’ll have enough to live comfortably during their golden years.”

Some of the other findings in the survey also tell a sad story. In fact, 73% of respondents are concerned they won’t be able to retire on time, while the same number are unsure whether they’ll have sufficient emergency savings. How terrible. The part about being able to retire “on time” is not often in the workers control wether because of health and the ability to continue to do the required task or as a result of other plans by their employer. Amazingly, public sector workers believe that their current retirement situation is better than those in the private sector. Wow, if that isn’t telling of the crisis unfolding in this country.

Given these results, it shouldn’t be shocking that unions are seeking a return of DB plans as the primary retirement vehicle. We know that asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “benefit” through a defined contribution plan is poor policy. We’ve seen the results and they are horrid, with median balances for all age groups being significantly below the level needed to have any kind of retirement. Currently, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers are on strike at Boeing, and a major sticking point is the union’s desire to see a reopening of Boeing’s frozen DB plan.

We’ve also recently seen the UAW and ILA memberships seek access to DB plans. It shouldn’t be a shock given the ineffectiveness of DC plans that were once considered supplemental to pensions. Again, asking the American worker to fund a DC offering with little to no disposable income, investment acumen, or a crystal ball to help with longevity concerns is just foolish. Yes, there is more to do, much more! It is time to realize that DB plans are the only true retirement vehicle and one that helps retain and attract talented workers who aren’t easily replaced. Wake up before the crisis deepens and everyone suffers.

10.28.24
by

3% Return for the Decade? It Isn’t Far-fetched!

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

This blog is a follow up to a post that I published last week. In that post I cited a recent analysis by Goldman Sach’s forecasting a 3% 10-year return. I concluded the blog with the following: “I wouldn’t worry about the 5% fixed income yield-to-worst (YTW) securing my pension liabilities. Instead, I’d worry about all the “growth” assets not used to secure the promises, as they will likely be struggling to even match the YTW on a CFM corporate bond portfolio.”

How likely is it that Goldman and other financial institutions are “right” in forecasting such a meager return for the next decade? I’m sure that plan sponsors and their advisors are pondering the same question. Well, here is more insight into how one forecasts long-term equity returns (not necessarily Goldman’s forecasting technique) and how one might arrive at such a low equity return (S&P 500 as the proxy) that, if realized, would likely crush pension funding.

Inputs necessary to forecast the future return for the S&P 500 are the current S&P EPS ($255), future expected EPS growth (5.5%) and an assumed P/E multiple in 10 years. Finally, add in the dividend yield (1.3%) and you have your expected annualized return.

Charles DuBois, my former Invesco research colleague, provided me with his thoughts on the following inputs. He believes that nominal earnings growth will be roughly 5.5% during the next decade, reflecting 4% nominal GDP growth coupled with a small boost from increasing federal deficits as a share of GDP and a boost for net share buybacks (1.5% in total). 

Right now, earnings per share for the S&P 500 are forecasted to be about $255 in 2024. If earnings grow by the 5.5%/per annum described above, in 10 years earnings for the S&P 500 will be $428 per share.

The S&P is currently trading at 5,834, which is 22.9X (high by any measure) the current EPS. Let’s assume a more normal, but still historically high, multiple of 18X in 10 years. That gets you to an S&P 500 level of 7,704 or a 2.8% annual rate of gain over the next 10 years.  Add in a 1.3% dividend yield gets you to 4.1%. Not Goldman’s 3%, but close. It is still much lower than the long-term average for the market or the average ROA for most public and multiemployer pension plans.

If one were to assume a 15X P/E multiple in 10 years, the return to the S&P 500 is 0.64%/annum and the “total” return is slightly less than 2.0%. UGLY! Obviously, the end of the 10-year period multiple is the key to the return calculation. But all in all, the low returns that most investment firms (including Goldman) are forecasting seem to be in the right neighborhood given these expectations.

Given the potential challenges for Pension America to achieve the desired return (ROA objective) outcome, a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy will help a pension plan bridge this potentially difficult period. Importantly, by having the necessary liquidity to meet monthly benefits and expenses, assets won’t have to be sold to meet those obligations thus eliminating the potential to lock in losses. Lastly, the roughly 5% yield-to-worse (YTW) on the CFM portfolio looks to be superior to future equity returns – a win/win!

It just might be time to rethink your plan’s asset allocation. Don’t place all of your assets into one return bucket. Explore the many benefits of dividing pension assets into liquidity and growth buckets. Want more info? Ryan ALM, Inc. has a ton of research on this idea. Please go to RyanALM.com/research.

10.23.24
by

That’s Not Right!

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

I’ve recently had a series of terrific meetings with consultants, actuaries, and asset owners (mostly pension plans) about cash flow matching (CFM). I believe that most folks see the merit in using CFM for liquidity purposes, but often fail to see the benefit of bringing certainty to a portfolio for that segment that is defeasing asset cash flows relative to liability cash flows (benefits and expenses). I’m not entirely sure why that is the case, but one question comes up regularly. Question: If I use 30% of my assets on lower yielding fixed income, how am I supposed to meet my ROA objective? I guess that they believe that the current 4.75% to 5% yielding investment grade corporate portfolio will be an anchor on the portfolio’s return.

What these folks fail to understand is the fact that the segment of the portfolio that is defeasing liability cash flows is matched as precisely as possible. The pension game has been won! If the defeased bond portfolio represents 30% of the total plan, the ROA objective is now only needed to be achieved for the 70% of assets not used to SECURE your plan’s liabilities. The capital markets are highly uncertain. Using CFM for a portion of the plan brings greater certainty to the management of these programs. Furthermore, we know that time (investing horizon) is one of the most important investment tenets. The greater the investing horizon the higher the probability of achieving the desired outcome, as those assets can now grow unencumbered as they are no longer a source of liquidity.  It bears repeating… a major benefit of CFM is that it buys time for the growth assets to grow unencumbered.

Plan sponsors should be looking to secure as much of the liability cash flows (through a CFM portfolio) as possible eliminating the rollercoaster return pattern that ultimately leads to higher contribution expenses. As mentioned above, capital markets are highly uncertain. The volatility associated with a traditional asset allocation framework has recently been calculated by Callan as +/-33.6% (2 standard deviations or 95% of observations). Why live with that uncertainty? In addition, Goldman Sachs equity strategy team “citing today’s high concentration in just a few stocks and a lofty starting valuation” forecasts that the S&P 500 “will produce an annualized nominal total return of just 3% the next 10 years, according to the team led by David Kostin, which would rank in just the 7th percentile of 10-year returns since 1930.” (CNBC)

Given that forecast, I wouldn’t worry about the 5% fixed income YTW securing my pension liabilities. Instead, I’d worry about all the “growth” assets not used to secure the promises, as they will likely be struggling to even match the YTW on a CFM corporate bond portfolio.

10.21.24
by

ARPA Update as of October 18, 2024

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

Major League baseball finally has the last two competitors for this year’s World Series. As a Mets’ fan, I would have appreciated a different outcome, but it was a surprisingly good season for the team from Flushing! Good luck to the Yankees and Dodgers.

With regard to ARPA and the PBGC’s effort to implement this important pension legislation, last week provided just a couple of updates for us to digest. There were no new applications submitted, approved or denied. The PBGC’s eFiling Portal remains temporarily closed at this time. There were also no new systems seeking to be added to the waitlist at this time.

There was one application withdrawn. PA Local 47 Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Pension Plan, a non-priority group plan, withdrew its initial application last week that was seeking $8.3 million for the 296 participants in the plan.

The last bit of activity to discuss relates to the repayment of excess SFA as a result of census corrections. Teamsters Local Union No. 52 Pension Fund became the 22nd plan to repay a portion of their SFA received. In the case of Local No. 52, they repaid $1.1 million, which represented 1.15% of their grant. The largest repayment to date has been the $126 million repaid by Central States (0.35% of grant). In terms of percentages, the Milk Industry Office Employees Pension Trust Fund returned 2.36% of their grant marking the high watermark, while Local Union No. 466 Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers Pension Plan, was asked to return only 0.11% of their reward.

Finally, US interest rates have risen significantly since the Fed’s first rate cut on September 18th, as highlighted in the graph below. The higher rates reduce the present value of those future benefit payments and helps to stretch the coverage period provided by the SFA.

10.15.24
by

We Are # 29 – WOW!

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

The  16th annual Mercer/CFA Institute Global Pension Index report was released on Oct. 15. I want to extend a big thank you to Mercer and the CFA for their collective effort to elevate retirement issues, while celebrating those countries who are getting it right. According to the survey, “the overall index value is based on three weighted sub-indices—adequacy (40%), sustainability (35%) and integrity (25%)—to measure each retirement income system. Adequacy looked at areas such as benefits, system design, savings and government support. Sustainability examined pension coverage, total assets, demography and other areas. Integrity encompassed regulation, governance and protection.” There are more than 50 indicators that support these three broad categories.

The United States was given a score of 60.4 (63 in 2023’s study), which placed our retirement readiness at 29 of 48 countries that were evaluated. That 29 is 7 spots lower than 2023’s rank. According to the Mercer CFA study, a score of 60.4 places us slightly below the average score (63.4) among those ranked and we were given a letter grade of C+. I don’t know about you but if I had scored a 60 (scale of 0-100) during my school days, my letter grade would have likely been an F. Based on how I feel that we are prepared as a nation, I think that an F is much more appropriate than a C+. What about you?

I’m not trying to pick on the U.S. retirement system, which scored 63.9 on adequacy, 58.4 on sustainability and 57.5 on integrity, with Integrity being the poorest ranking as it trailed the worldwide average score by >16 points at 74.1. Our retirement system was evaluated based on the Social Security system and voluntary private pensions, which may be job-related (DB or DC) or personal, such as an IRA. Other systems with comparable overall index values to the U.S. (60-65) included Colombia (63), Saudi Arabia (60.5) and Kazakhstan (64.0). I don’t know about you but being ranked among those countries doesn’t make me feel warm and fuzzy about our effort or achievement. Systems scoring the highest were the Netherlands (84.8), Iceland (83.4), Denmark (81.6), and Israel (80.2) – they were given an ‘A’ grade.

Anyone participating in our industry knows that can AND MUST do better. The loss of DB pension plans within the private sector is a very harmful trend. Leakage within DC plans makes them more like glorified savings accounts rather than retirement vehicles, and Social Security provides small relief for a majority of recipients. As I’ve uttered on many occasions, asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “retirement benefit” without the financial means, investment skill, and a crystal ball to forecast longevity is just silly policy.

Mercer and the CFA institute recommended a series of potential reforms to improve the long-term success of the US retirement system. I just loved this one:

“Promoting higher labor force participation at older ages, which will increase the savings available for retirement and limit the continuing increase in the length of retirement;“

A truly amazing suggestion – if you never retire then you don’t have to worry about whether or not your system will provide an adequate benefit! Problem solved! Many Americans would welcome the opportunity to extend their careers/employment opportunities, but some jobs require physical labor not easily done at more mature ages, while many American companies are anxious to rid themselves of higher priced and experienced talent in favor of younger workers (ageism?).

When I wrote about this survey last year, I’d hoped that the higher US interest rate environment would begin to improve outcomes for our workers whether their plans are a defined benefit or defined contribution offering. Unfortunately, current trends have US rates falling again. That just puts more pressure on DB plans and individual participants in DC plans and encourages (forces) everyone to take more risk. That development isn’t going to help next year’s score!

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.

10.11.24
by

That’s comforting!

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

The Fed’s meeting notes from the September 17-18 FOMC have recently been released. Here are a few tidbits:

Some officials warned against lowering rates “too late or too little” because this risked harming the labor market.

At the same time, other officials said cutting “too soon or too much” might stall or reverse progress on inflation.

Here’s my favorite:

Officials also don’t seem in agreement over how much downward pressure the current level of the Fed’s benchmark rate was putting on demand.

I have an idea, why don’t we just have each member of the Federal Reserve’s board of governors stick their finger in the air and see which way the economic winds are blowing. It may be just as effective as what we currently seem to be getting.

Given that the economy continues to hum along with annual GDP growth of roughly 3% and “full employment” at 4.1%, I’d suggest that having a Fed Funds Rate at 5.25%-5.50% wasn’t too constraining, if constraining at all. We’ve highlighted in this blog on many occasions the fact that US rates had been historically higher for extended periods in which both the economy and markets (equities) performed exceptionally well – see the 1990’s as one example.

Furthermore, as we’ve also highlighted, there is a conflict between current fiscal and monetary policy, as the fiscal 2024 federal deficit came in at $1.8 trillion or about $400 billion greater than the anticipated deficit at the beginning of the year. That $400 billion is significant extra stimulus that leads directly to greater demand for goods and services. How likely is it that the fiscal deficit for 2025 will be any smaller?

I believe that there are many more uncertainties that could lead to higher inflation. The geopolitical risks that reside on multiple fronts seem to have been buried at this time. Any one of those conflicts – Russia/Ukraine, Israel/rest of the Middle East, and China/Taiwan – could produce inflationary pressures, even if it just results in the US increasing the federal budget deficit to support our allies.

If just sticking one’s finger in the air doesn’t help us solve our current confusion, there is always this strategy:

10.08.24
by

Milliman: Corporate Pension Funding Weakens in September

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

Milliman has released the latest results for the Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI). This index reviews the funding status each month of the top 100 U.S. corporate pension plans. The report indicated that the funded ratio declined to 102.4% at month-end from 102.6% at the end of August. Plan assets increased as a result of a 1.74% investment gain, but the discount rate declined by 0.14% to 4.96%. As a result, the growth in liabilities eclipsed asset growth leading to a $12 billion loss in funded surplus.

Assets for these combined plans now total $1.36 trillion as of September 30, while the projected benefit obligation is now $1.33 trillion giving these 100 corporate plans a $29 billion surplus. According to Zorast Wadia, author of the PFI, the current discount rate at 4.96% marks the first time since April 2023 that the rate hasn’t been >5.0%. However, so far in October we’ve witnessed a fairly significant move up in rates. If this trend continues, we could see the funded ratio for this index once again rising if the increase in rates doesn’t negatively impact the asset side of the pension equation.