Tag Archives: Ryan ALM

12.12.24
by

How Comforting is $1,305.54/year?

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

One doesn’t have to spend much time on LinkedIn.com these days without seeing a discussion about the pros and cons of Defined Benefit (DB) vs. Defined Contribution (DC) aka 401(k) plans. Anyone who has read just a few of the >1,500+ posts on this blog know that I and Ryan ALM, Inc. are huge supporters of DB plans. Based on the following, it becomes apparent why that is the case.

One topic frequently mentioned among our peers is financial literacy. As a former member of two boards of education (11 years in total), I have witnessed first-hand how little financial literacy is shared with our high school students, especially as it relates to saving and investing. That said, as important as education is, the greatest issue for me is the lack of disposable income for the average American worker.

Frequently we read about the spending habits of younger generations, including being the “avocado toast” crowd. Examples often used include the daily purchase of a Starbucks drink or two, the use of Uber Eats, and similar examples of perceived wasteful spending. They fail to mention that even “well-paid” workers (>$100k) are burdened by a mortgage or rent payment, they likely have student loan debt, they have to buy insurance in order to use their car, which is also a very expensive purchase, they are required to have health insurance, homeowners or rental insurance, and God forbid that they have a spouse and a couple of kids. Childcare expenses have gotten to be insane. Is there any wonder that funding one’s own retirement has proven to be incredibly challenging?

So how are we doing? Unfortunately, most of the literature on the subject uses average balances to represent 401(k) savings. This practice needs to stop. According to Vanguard the average balance in 2024 is $134,128, but the median balance is $35,285. In addition, Morningstar has just published an article stating that retirees should use only a 3.7% withdrawal rate (no longer 4%) to safely use a 401(k) retirement balance given the recent performance of equity markets and the current interest rate environment. Let’s see: 3.7% * $35,285 = $1,305.54. That is an annual withdrawal, although it looks like it should be a monthly payout! What kind of retirement will that level of annual withdrawals provide? For comparison purposes, the average DB payout in the private sector is $11k and nearly $25k in public pensions.

As a reminder, DC plans were intended to be supplemental to DB plans. It is highly regrettable that they have morphed into most everyone’s primary means of “accumulating” retirement resources. This migration in proving to be an unmitigated failure and the consequences will be untenable. The American worker needs access to a DB plan. Let’s work together to protect and preserve those that remain, while encouraging former sponsors of these plans to rethink the decision to freeze or terminate. There are also state sponsored entities that afford employees in smaller companies access to a DB-like plan. That said, please manage them with a focus on the pension promise (securing benefits). Don’t rely on markets and all the volatility that comes with that exposure to “fund” these essential programs. That strategy hasn’t worked!

12.09.24
by

Corporate Pension Funding Improves, Again: Milliman

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

The Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI) has once again been produced (View the complete Pension Funding Index). The index, which includes the largest 100 U.S. corporate pension plans, reveals a positive change in the funded ratio for November 2024. Asset growth of 1.88% lifted the combined assets of these 100 plans by $18 billion, which was more than enough to overcome growth in the present value of the future benefit payments ($13 billion). The funded ratio improved to 103.5% from October’s 103.2%.

The discount rate for valuing pension liabilities now stands at 5.21% as of November 30, 2024. The current rate represents a 10 basis point decline from the end of October. “November saw the second consecutive month of improvement in the PFI funded ratio, with the 1.88% investment gain more than offsetting the rise in plan liabilities caused by falling discount rates,” said Zorast Wadia, author of the PFI.

Given the incredible performance of risk assets during the last two years, valuations appear very stretched. Many corporate plans have reduced risk through ALM strategies, including cash flow matching (CFM). It may be time to reduce asset allocation risk to a greater extent, especially for those plans that continue to manage the pension’s assets in a more traditional approach.

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.

12.06.24
by

“Peace of Mind” – How Beneficial Would That Be?

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

As a member of the investment community do you often feel stressed, worried, insecure, uneasy, or are you just simply too busy to be at peace? In the chaotic world of pension management, finding peace of mind can sometimes be hard, if not impossible. How much would it mean to you if you could identify an investment strategy that provides you with just that state of being?

At Ryan ALM, Inc. our mission is to protect and preserve DB pension plans through a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy that ensures, barring any defaults, that the liabilities (benefits and expenses) that YOU choose to cover are absolutely secured chronologically. You’ll have the liquidity to meet those obligations in the amounts and at the time that they are to be used. There is no longer the worry and frustration about finding the necessary “cash” to meet those promises. CFM provides you with that liquidity and certainty of cash flows.

Furthermore, you are buying time for the growth (alpha or non-bond) assets to now grow unencumbered, as they are no longer a source of liquidity. You don’t have to worry about drawdowns, as the CFM portfolio creates a bridge over the challenging markets with no fear of locking in losses due to cash flow needs. Don’t you just feel yourself nodding off with the knowledge that there is a way to get a better night’s sleep?

How much would you “spend” to achieve such peace of mind? Most pension systems cobble together disparate asset classes and products, many which come with hefty price tags, in the HOPE of achieving the desired outcome. With CFM, YOU choose the coverage period to be defeased, which could be as short as 3-5 years or as long as it takes to cover the last liability. The longer the time horizon the greater the potential cost reduction. As an FYI, most of our clients have chosen a coverage period of roughly 10-years. Knowing that you have SECURED your plan’s obligations for the next 10-years, and locked in the cost reduction, which can be substantial (2% per year = 20% for 1-10 years), on the very first day in which the portfolio is constructed, has to be just an incredible feeling compared to living in an environment in which traditional pension asset allocations can have significant annual volatility and no certainty of providing either the desired return or cash flow when needed.

Remember, the amount of peace of mind is driven by your decisions. If you desire abundant restful nights, use CFM for longer timeframes. If you believe that you only need “peace of mind” in the near-term, engage a CFM strategy for a shorter 3-5 years. In any case, I guarantee that the pension plan’s exposure to CFM won’t be the reason why you are restless when you put your head on the pillow. Oh, and by the way, we offer the CFM strategy at fee rates that are substantially below traditional fixed income strategies, let alone, non-bond capabilities. Call us. We want to be your sleep doctor!

11.25.24
by

ARPA Update as of November 22, 2024 – #100!!!

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

Welcome to Thanksgiving Holiday week. We wish for you and your family a day filled with love, laughs, and lots of great eating. I wish for myself a TV blackout so that I don’t have to watch the Giants!

We are thrilled to report that the PBGC has approved the Special Financial Assistance (SFA) for the 100th multiemployer plan. Employers’ – Warehousemen’s Pension Plan, a Los Angeles, CA, based non-priority plan will receive $41.4 million in SFA grants and interest for its 1,821 plan participants. The PBGC has now approved grants in the amount of $69.5 billion. By our estimate, there are still 102 funds in the queue to potentially receive an SFA allocation. Clearly, there is much more to do.

In other news from last week, Laborers’ Local No. 265 Pension Plan was permitted to submit a revised application seeking just over $55 million to support its 1,460 members. Rounding out the week, there were no applications denied or withdrawn. There were no excess SFA funds returned. Finally, no pension funds sought to be added to the waitlist, which currently has 58 funds waiting to submit an initial application.

As we enter the Thanksgiving holiday week, let us be incredibly thankful for how beneficial the ARPA legislation has been for the 1,414,505 plan participants who have seen their promised benefits SECURED. For many of these pensioners who were in pension plans on the verge of collapse, the securing of these benefits through the SFA grants has been the difference between supporting oneself or being at the mercy of the Federal social safety net through no fault of their own. The nearly $70 billion may seem like a steep price to pay to some, but it is far less expensive than the cost of a pay-as-you-go system to support those 1.4 million American workers who buy goods and services with their pension checks. We all benefit from that activity. Great job ARPA and the PBGC.

11.13.24
by

The Joke’s On Us!

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

According to a P&I article, the ECB has undertaken an “exploratory review of bank exposures to private equity and private credit funds in order to better understand these channels and to assess banks’ risk management approaches.” According to P&I, the overarching message was that “complex exposures to private equity and credit funds require sophisticated risk management.”

Yesterday, there was a FundFire article that questioned the effectiveness of the “Yale Model” given the heavy dependence on alternatives and the weak performance associated with those products in recent periods. According to the article, the greater the alts exposure the likely weaker fiscal performance.

In a recent article by Richard Ennis, founder and former chairman of investment consultant EnnisKnupp, he estimates that Harvard University, with about 80% of its endowment assets in alternative investments, spends roughly 3% of endowment value on money management fees annually, including the operation of its investment office.

Given the concerns noted above with respect to fees, risk management, and the overall success of investing in alternative strategies, one would believe that a cautionary tone would be delivered at this time. But alas that isn’t the case when it comes to forging ahead with plans to introduce alternatives into DC plans where the individual participant lacks the necessary sophistication to undertake a review of such investments. According to yet another FundFire article in recent days, Apollo and Franklin are plowing forward with plans to make available alternative investments to the DC participant through a new CIT. Shameful!

I’ve commented numerous times that it is pure madness to believe that the average American worker has the disposable income, investment acumen, and/or the necessary crystal ball to effectively manage distributions upon retirement through a DC offering. Given this lack of investment knowledge, I find it so distasteful that “Wall Street” continues to look at these plans as just another source of high fees and revenue. Where are the FIDUCIARIES?

If the ECB doesn’t believe that their banks have the necessary tools in place to handle these complex investments, how on Earth will my neighbor, family member, former teacher, etc.? Can we please stop this madness!

11.08.24
by

Another Inconsistency

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

The US pension industry is so critically important for the financial future of so many American workers. The defined benefit coverage is clearly not what it once was when more than 40% of workers were covered by traditional pension. There were a number of factors that led to the significantly reduced role of DB plans as the primary retirement vehicle. At Ryan ALM we often point out inconsistencies and head-scratching activities that have contributed to this troubling trend. One of the principal issues has been the conflict in accounting rules between GASB (public plans) and FASB (private plans). We frequently highlight these inconsistencies in our quarterly Pension Monitor updates.

The most striking difference between these two organizations is in the accounting for pension liabilities. Private plans use a AA corporate yield curve to value future liabilities, while public plans use the return on asset assumption (ROA) as if assets and liabilities move in lockstep (same growth rate) with one another. As a reminder, liabilities are bond-like in nature and their present values move with interest rates. I mention this relationship once more given market action during October.

Milliman has once again produced the results for the Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), which analyzes the 100 largest US corporate pension plans (thank goodness that there are still 100 to be found). During the month of October, investment returns produced a -2.53% result. Given similar asset allocations, it is likely that investment results will prove to be negative for public plans, too. We’ll get that update later in the month from Milliman, also. Despite the negative performance result for the PFI members, their collective Funded Ratio improved from 102.5% at the end of September to 103.4% by the end of October.

The improved funding had everything to do with the change in the value of the PFI’s collective liabilities, as US rates rose significantly creating a -0.35%  liability growth rate and a discount rate now at 5.31%. This was the first increase in the discount rate in six months according to Zorast Wadia, author of the PFI. The upward move in the discount rate created a -$51 billion reduction in the projected benefit obligation of the PFI members. That was more than enough to overcome the -$41 billion reduction in assets.

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. 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. The inconsistency is startling!

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.