Tag Archives: Ryan ALM

12.30.25
by

Pension Reform or Just Benefit Cuts?

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

According to NIRS, at least 48 U.S. states undertook significant public pension reforms in the years following the global financial crisis (GFC), with virtually every state making some form of change to its public pension retirement systems. I’ve questioned for some time that those “reforms” were nothing more than benefit cuts. When I think of reform, I think of how pension plans are managed, and not what they pay out in promised benefits. However, this wasn’t the case for those 48 states which mostly asked their participants to contribute more, work for more years, and ultimately get less in benefits.

Equable Institute released the second edition of its Retirement Security Report, a comprehensive assessment of the retirement income security provided to U.S. state and local government workers. The report evaluated 1,953 retirement plans across the country to determine how well public employees are being put on a path to secure and adequate retirement income. Unfortunately, the reports findings support my view that pension reforms were nothing more than benefit cuts. Here are a couple of the points:

“Retirement benefit values have declined significantly: The expected lifetime value of retirement benefits for a typical full-career public employee has dropped by more than $140,000 since 2006, primarily due to policy changes after the Great Recession such as higher retirement ages, longer vesting, and reduced COLAs.“

“Only 46.6% of public workers are being served well by their retirement plans.“

Yes, newer plan designs are allowing for greater portability through hybrid and defined contribution plans, but as I’ve discussed in many blog posts, asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “benefit” without the necessary disposable income, investment acumen, and a crystal ball to help with longevity issues is poor policy. We have an affordability issue in this country and it is being compounded by this push away from DB pensions to DC offerings.

Pension reform needs to be more than just benefit adjustments. We need a rethink regarding how these plans are managed. As we have said on many occasions, the primary objective in managing a pension plan is not one focused on return, which just guarantees volatility in outcomes. Managing a pension plan, public or private, should be about securing the promises that were given to the plan’s participants. That should be accomplished at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk.

Regrettably, most pensions are taking on more risk as they migrate significant assets to alternatives. In the process they have reduced liquidity to meet benefits and dramatically increased costs with no promise of actually meeting return projections. Furthermore, many of the alternative assets have become overcrowded trades that ultimately drive down future returns. Higher fees and lower returns – not a great formula for success.

It is time to get off the performance rollercoaster. Sure, recent returns have been quite good (for public markets), but as we’ve witnessed many times in the past, markets don’t always cooperate and when they don’t, years of good performance can evaporate very quickly. Changing one’s approach to managing a pension plan doesn’t have to be revolutionary. In fact, it is quite simple. All one needs to do is bifurcate the plan’s assets into two buckets – liquidity and growth – as opposed to having 100% of the assets focused on the ROA. Your plan likely has a healthy exposure to core fixed income that comes with great interest rate risk. Use that exposure to fill your liquidity bucket and convert those assets from an active strategy to a cash flow matching (CFM) portfolio focused on your fund’s unique liabilities.

Once that simple task has been done, you will now have SECURED a portion of your plan’s promises (benefits) chronologically from next month as far into the future as that allocation will take you. In the process the growth assets now have a longer investing horizon that should enhance the probability of achieving the desired outcome. Contribution expenses and the funded status will become more stable. As your plan’s funded status improves, allocate more of the growth assets to the liquidity bucket further stabilizing and securing the benefits.

This modest change will get your fund off that rollercoaster of returns. The primary objective of securing benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk will become a reality and true pension reform will be realized.

12.29.25
by

A Time to Look Back

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

Nearly eight years ago (2/28/18), I produced a blog post titled, “Let’s Just Cut Them Off!”, in which I took offense to an article trashing pension legislation then referred to as the “Butch Lewis Act” (BLA). The writer of the article, Rachel Greszler, The Heritage Foundation, stated that the BLA (as well as other potential solutions at that time) were nothing more than tax-payer bailouts.  She estimated that these bailouts could amount to as much as $1 trillion. I stated at that time that “I don’t know where she has gotten this figure, but it is not close to reality.”

Ms. Greszler defined the potential recipients of these loans (now grants) as the entire universe of multi-employer plans totaling roughly 1,375 (at that time) with an unfunded liability of $500 billion.  However, the Butch Lewis Act, and subsequently ARPA) was only designed for those plans that were designated as “Critical and Declining”.  The total amount of underfunding for that cohort was roughly $70 billion.  A far cry from the $1 trillion that she highlighted above.

So, where are we today? I’m happy to report that as of 12/19/25, the PBGC has approved Special Financial Assistance to 151 pension plans totaling $75.2 billion. These grants are ensuring that 1,873,112 American workers will receive the retirement benefits they were promised! Amazing!

In my original post, I wrote “given the author’s concern for the million or so union workers whose benefits may be trashed, she certainly doesn’t propose any solutions other than to say that a “bailout” is a horrible way to go.  If these plans don’t receive assistance, they are likely to fail, placing a greater burden on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), which is already financially troubled.” Fortunately, through the ARPA pension legislation, the PBGC’s multiemployer insurance fund is stronger today than it has been in decades.

I finished my post with the following thoughts: “Retirement benefits stimulate economic activity, and usually on the local level. The loss of retirement benefits will have a direct impact on these economies. Also, these benefits are taxed, which helps pay for a portion of the loans (now grants). Doing nothing is not an answer. I applaud the effort of those individuals who are driving the Butch Lewis Act. I encourage everyone to reach out to your legislatures to educate them on the BLA and to gain their support. There are millions of Americans who need your support.  Thank you!”

I was thrilled to work with Ron Ryan and the BLA team headed by John Murphy and David Blitzstein. It remains one of the highlights of my 44-year career. Who knew when I began working with Ron and that team it would lead me to eventually join Ryan ALM, Inc. We continue to fight to protect and preserve DB pensions for the masses. There is a ton of work remaining to do. Securing those promises through cash flow matching (CFM) is an important first step. Let us help you accomplish that objective.

12.15.25
by

Bond Math and A Steepening Yield Curve – Perfect Together!

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

We are in the midst of a project for a DB pension plan in which we were asked to model a series of liability cash flows (benefits and expenses) using cash flow matching (CFM) to defease and secure those liabilities. The plan sponsor is looking to allocate 40% of the plan’s assets initially to begin to de-risk the fund.

We first approached the assignment by looking to defease 100% of the liabilities as far into the future as that 40% allocation would cover those benefits and expenses. As it turns out, we can defease the next 11-years of projected B&E beginning 1/1/26 and carrying through to 10/31/37. As we’ve written many times in this blog and in other Ryan ALM research (ryanalm.com), we expect to reduce the cost of future liabilities by about 2% per year in this interest rate environment. Well, as it turns out, we can reduce that future cost today by 23.96% today.

Importantly, not only is the liquidity enhanced through this process and the future expenses covered for the next 11-years, we’ve now extended the investing horizon for the remaining assets (alpha assets) that can now just grow unencumbered without needing to tap them for liquidity purposes – a wonderful win/win!

As impressive as that analysis proved to be, we know that bond math is very straightforward: the longer the maturity and the higher the yield, the greater the potential cost savings. Couple this reality with the fact that the U.S. Treasury yield curve has steepened during the last year, and you have the formula for far greater savings/cost reduction. In fact, the spread between 2-year Treasury notes and 30-year bonds has gone from 0.35% to 1.35% today. That extra yield is the gift that keeps on giving.

So, how does one use only 40% of the plan’s assets to take advantage of both bond math and the steepening yield curve when you’ve already told everyone that a full implementation CFM only covers the next 11-years? You do a vertical slice! A what? A vertical slice of the liabilities in which you use 40% of the assets to cover all of the future liabilities. No, you are not providing all of the liquidity necessary to meet monthly benefits and expenses, but you are providing good coverage while extending the defeasement out 30-years. Incredibly, by using this approach, we are able to reduce the future cost of those benefits not by an impressive 24%, but by an amazing 56.1%. In fact, we are reducing the future cost of those pension promises by a greater sum than the amount of assets used in the strategy.

Importantly, this savings or cost reduction is locked-in on day one. Yes, the day that the portfolio is built, that cost savings is created provided that we don’t experience a default. As an FYI, investment-grade corporate bonds have defaulted at a rate of 0.18% or about 2/1,000 bonds for the last 40-years according to S&P.

Can you imagine being able to reduce the cost of your future obligations by that magnitude and with more certainty than through any other strategy currently in your pension plan? What a great gift it is to yourself (sleep-well-at-night) and those plan participants for whom you are responsible. Want to see what a CFM strategy implemented by Ryan ALM can do for you? Just provide us with some basic info (call me at 201/675-8797 to find out what we need) and we’ll provide you with a free analysis. No gimmicks!

12.11.25
by

Something Has Got to Give

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

Not surprisingly, the U.S. Federal Reserve’s FOMC lowered rates another 25 bps today. The new target is 3.75%-4.0%, down from 4.5%-4.75% during the last 3 meetings. Currently, the 10-year Treasury yield (4.145% at 3:21 pm EST) is only marginally greater than the median CPI (Latest reading from the Cleveland Fed is 3.5% annually).

Ryan ALM, Inc.’s Head Trader, Steve DeVito put together the following comparison.

Steve is comparing the 10-year Treasury note yield (blue) versus the Median CPI (red) since January 2016. The green line is the “real” yield (10-year Treasury – the median CPI). For this period of time, there has been very little real yield, as U.S. rates were driven to historic lows before inflation spiked due to Covid-19 factors. However, historically (1962-2025), the real yield has average 2%. With rates down and inflation remaining stubbornly steady to increasing slightly, the real yield that investors are willing to take is, and has been, quite modest (0.17% since 2008). Why? Were the historically low rates in reaction to covid-19 an anomaly, or has something changed from an investor standpoint? Given today’s fundamentals, one might assume that investors are anticipating a sudden reversal in inflation, but is that a smart bet?

The WSJ produced the graph in today’s edition highlighting the change in the U.S. Treasury yield curve during the last year. As one can clearly see, the yield curve has gotten much steeper with the 30-year Treasury bond yield 0.4% above last year’s level (at 4.81%). That steepness would indicate to me that there is more risk longer term from inflation potentially rising.

So, it seems as if something has to give. If inflation remains at these levels, the yield on the 10-year Treasury note should be about 1.25% greater than today. If in fact, yields were to rise to that level, active core fixed income managers would see significant principal losses. However, cash flow matching managers and their clients would see the potential for greater cost reduction in the defeasing of pension liabilities, especially for longer-term programs. Bond math is very straight forward. The longer the maturity and the higher the yield, the greater the cost savings.

Managing a pension plan should be all about cash flows. That is asset cash flows versus liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. Higher yields reduce the future value of those promises. Remember, a CFM strategy is unique in that it brings an element of certainty (barring a default) to the management of pensions which live in a world of great uncertainty. Aren’t you ready for a sleep-well-at-night strategy?

12.09.25
by

Time to Get Serious!

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

This blog focuses most often on issues related to defined benefit pension plans or other retirement-related programs/issues. However, sometimes an issue (in this case “affordability”) captures my attention leading me to respond. As you may recall, last week the WSJ asked the question: Can “Trump Accounts” for babies change the economics of having a family? I posted a note on LinkedIn.com that seemed to get the attention of many of my connections and others, as well.

My response to that question posed by the WSJ was “are you kidding me?” A one-time $1,000 deposit into a child’s account is not even a rounding error in the annual cost of raising a child. Current estimates have the cost of raising a child at >$27k/year for a two-working-adult household and >$300k by the time that child reaches 18, excluding college!

Why would anyone think that a $1,000 contribution to a small subset of children (those born between 2025 and 2028) is going to make a difference in the affordability of having children today? How is this band-aid going to tackle the economic hardship on middle and lower wage earners? Affordability has deteriorated for most Americans because essential costs—especially housing, healthcare, education, and child care—have grown much faster than typical wages, while interest rates and structural constraints (like housing supply) magnify the squeeze on household budgets. This creates a situation in which a larger share of income is needed to absorb basic living expenses, reducing room for saving (emergency fund, retirement, education, etc.), mobility, and discretionary spending (how dare you dream of a vacation) for the majority of households.

We often read about the impact of escalating housing costs (ownership or rent), but healthcare and higher education have seen some of the most significant long‑run price increases, becoming major affordability stressors for a significant majority of American families. Studies of cost‑of‑living trends highlight that health insurance premiums, out‑of‑pocket medical costs, and public college tuition have grown multiple times faster than general inflation and median earnings, increasing debt loads and the potential for financial risk and hardship.

Other necessities—such as food, transportation (try buying a new car), and utilities—have also risen substantially over the past two decades, with food and other goods and services experiencing cumulative price increases of roughly 85% or more since 2000. While some of this price movement reflects broad inflation issues, the problem for households is that real wage growth has not kept pace, so a larger share of one’s take-home pay goes to basics.

Recent high inflation (2021–2023) raised the prices of everyday items and housing costs faster than nominal wages for many workers, compressing real disposable income. In response, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates sharply, which helped moderate inflation but also increased borrowing costs for mortgages, car loans, and credit card balances.​

Given that many households rely on debt to manage education, vehicles, or unexpected expenses, higher interest rates translate into heavier monthly payments and less capacity to save or invest. For younger households and those without assets, this dynamic can delay milestones like homeownership or starting a family, reinforcing a sense that the “American Dream” is receding, if not collapsing!

Less capacity to save for retirement (DC plans) and education (529 plans) is reflected in the median balances for each. I’ve railed about the failure of the defined contribution model being the primary “retirement” vehicle in many blog posts. Asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a benefit with limited, if no, disposable income, a lack of investment acumen, and no crystal ball to help with longevity issues is just poor policy.

Can we stop with the gimmicks, such as these child accounts, and finally get serious about the lack of affordability in this country for a significant majority of Americans! Rising inequality amplifies affordability problems because gains are concentrated among higher‑income and wealthier households while most others face flat real incomes and volatile expenses. “The Ludwig Institute’s analysis, for example, concludes that a minimal but “dignified” standard of living is now out of reach for the bottom 60 percent of households, even around $100,000 in income in some regions, due to the cumulative effect of costs.” (Truthout)

No economy can function long-term when a small sliver of the population earns most of the income, while also benefiting from lower capital gains treatment and reduced corporate taxes. Recent reports suggest that 47% of income is absorbed by the top 10% of wage earners. Other reports suggest that >60% of Americans couldn’t meet a $400 emergency related to a car repair or medical expense without taking on debt. This situation can’t continue unabated.

​As the father of five and the grandfather to 11, I see these economic burdens play out everyday! It is time to get serious!

12.02.25
by

Do the Analysis! Remove the Guess Work.

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

I am truly blessed working for an organization such as Ryan ALM, Inc. I am awed by the folks that I get to work with and the product/strategy that I get to represent. As a reminder, we’ve created a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy that brings an element of certainty to the management of pensions that should be welcomed by pension plan sponsors and their advisors far and wide. What other strategy can inform you on the day that the portfolio is constructed what the performance of that strategy will be for the full-term of the assignment (barring any defaults within investment grade bonds)? Name another strategy that can lay out the liquidity with certainty for each month (chronologically) of that assignment.

Given that liquidity is becoming a challenge as pension plans (mostly public) adopt a more aggressive asset allocation favoring alternative investments, using a CFM strategy that provides ALL the liquidity to meet ongoing benefits and expenses should be a decision that is easily embraced. Yet, our conversations with key decision makers often stall as other parties get involved in the “review”. To this day, I’m not sure what is involved in most of those conversations.

Are they attempting to determine that a traditional core fixed income strategy benchmarked to a generic index such as the BB Aggregate is capable of producing the same outcome? If so, let me tell you that they can’t and it won’t. Any fixed income product that is not managed against your plan’s specific liabilities will not provide the same benefits as CFM. It will be a highly interest rate sensitive product and performance will be driven by changes in interest rates. Do you know where U.S. rates are headed? Furthermore, the liquidity provided by a “core” fixed income strategy is not likely to be sufficient resulting in other investment products needing to be swept of their liquidity (dividends and capital distributions), reducing the potential returns from those strategies.  Such a cash sweep will reduce the ROA of these non-bond investments. Guinness Global’s study of S&P data for the last 85 years has shown that dividends and reinvestment of dividends account for 50% or more of the S&P returns for rolling 10- and 20-year periods dating back to 1940.

Are they trying to determine if the return produced by the CFM mandate will be sufficient to meet the return on asset assumption (ROA)? Could be, but all they need to realize is that the CFM portfolio’s yield will likely be much higher than the YTM of a core fixed income strategy given CFM’s 100% exposure to corporate bonds versus a heavy allocation to lower yielding Treasuries and agencies in an Agg-type portfolio. In this case, the use of a CFM strategy to replace a core fixed income mandate doesn’t impact the overall asset allocation and it certainly doesn’t reduce the fund’s ability to meet the long-term return of the program.

Instead of trying to incorporate all these unknown variables/inputs into the decision, just have Ryan ALM do the analysis. We love to work on projects that help the plan sponsor and their advisors come to sound decisions based on facts. There is no guess work. Importantly, we will construct for FREE multiple CFM portfolios, if necessary, to help frame the decision. Each plan’s liabilities are unique and as such, each CFM portfolio must be built to meet that plan’s unique liability cash flows.

All that is required for us to complete our analysis are the projected liability cash flows of benefits and expenses (contributions, too) as far into the future as possible. The further into the future, the greater the insights that we will create for you. We can use the current allocation to fixed income as the AUM for the analysis or you can choose a different allocation. We will use 100% IG corporates or you can ask us to use either 100% Treasuries/STRIPS or some combination of Treasuries and corporate bonds. We can defease 100% of the plan’s liabilities for a period of time, such as the next 10-years or do a vertical slice of a % of the liabilities, such as 50%, which will allow the CFM program to extend coverage further into the future and benefit from using longer maturity bonds with greater YTMs. Isn’t that exciting!

So, I ask again, why noodle over a bunch of unknowns, when you could have Ryan ALM provide you with a nearly precise evaluation of the benefits of CFM for your pension plan? When you hire other managers in a variety of asset classes, do they provide you with a portfolio up front? One that can give you the return that will be generated over a specific timeframe? No? Not surprised. Oh, and BTW, we provide our investment management services at a significantly lower fee than traditional core fixed income managers and we cap our annual fee once a certain AUM is reached. Stop the guess work. Have us do the work for you. It will make for a much better conversation when considering using CFM. Call me at 201/675-8797 or email me at rkamp@ryanalm.com for your free analysis. I look forward to speaking with you!

12.01.25
by

ARPA Updated as of November 28, 2025

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

We hope that you enjoyed a fabulous Thanksgiving holiday with your family and friends. This update is the last one for November. Wow, that month went by quickly.

Regarding the ARPA legislation, have we entered the last month for new applications to be received by the PBGC? As I’ve mentioned multiple times, the ARPA pension legislation specifically states that initial applications must be submitted to the PBGC by 12/31/25. Revised applications can be submitted through 12/31/26. If this is the case, we have roughly 83 applications yet to be submitted. Compounding this issue is the fact that the PBGC’s e-Filing portal is temporarily closed.

The PBGC’s recorded activity was light last week which shouldn’t surprise anyone given the holiday last week. There were no applications received, denied, or withdrawn. Furthermore, there were no recipients of Special Financial Assistance (SFA) requested to rebate a portion of the grant payment due to census issues. Thankfully, it has been more than two months since we last had a plan pay back a small percentage of the proceeds.

There was some good news, as Exhibition Employees Local 829 Pension Fund, a non-priority group member, received approval of its initial application. The fund will receive $14.2 million in SFA for the 242 plan participants. This pension plan became the 70th non-priority plan to receive SFA and the 145th overall. To-date, $72.8 billion in SFA grants have been awarded!

Despite the near unanimity by market participants that U.S. Treasury yields will fall as the Fed’s FOMC prepares another Fed Funds Rate cut, interest rates are rising today. The current level of Treasury yields and bonds that price off that curve are still providing SFA recipients with attractive rates in which to secure the promised benefits through a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy. Don’t subject the SFA to the whims of the markets, especially given so much uncertainty and currently high valuations.

11.19.25
by

I’m Confused??

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

I’ve had the great pleasure of speaking at a number of conferences and events this year. Thank you to those of you who provided me with these opportunities. Regular readers of this blog know that I’ve been discussing the concept of uncertainty and specifically how human beings really despise this state of being.

In the prior two weeks I’ve spoken at both NCPERS in Fort Lauderdale, FL, and at the IFEBP in Honolulu, HI, where I had the opportunity to discuss Cash Flow Matching (CFM) as part of a broader ALM conversation. In both cases I asked the audience, one primarily public fund sponsors (NCPERS) and the other multiemployer, if they could point to any part of their DB pension plan that brought certainty. Not surprisingly, not one hand was raised.

I then commented that if humans, including plan sponsors of DB pension plans, hated uncertainty, why were they continuing to live with the uncertainty imbedded in their current asset allocation structures? These asset allocations place plan sponsors and the plan’s participants on the performance rollercoaster driven by the whims of the markets, which shouldn’t be comfortable for anyone.

So, I ask once more: if folks hate uncertainty and they have the chance to bring a level of certainty into the management of pension plans through CFM, why haven’t they done so? Do they still believe that managing a pension plan is all about generating the ROA? Do they believe that their plan is sustainable (perpetual), so the swings in funded status don’t matter? Do they not worry about where liquidity is going to be derived despite the significant push into alternatives that are sapping plans of liquidity? These are just a few questions for which answers must be furnished. Without an appropriate answer the practice must stop.

A carefully constructed (optimized) CFM program established with IG bonds will SECURE the promises, enhance and provide the necessary liquidity (chronologically), extend the investing horizon for the non-bond assets that can now just grow, and in the process provide the plan sponsor and their members with a “sleep-well-at-night” strategy that is far more certain than anything that they are currently using. We recognize that change isn’t easy, but it is sure better than riding the proverbial performance rollercoaster with the accompanying unknown climbs and dramatic falls.

11.17.25
by

ARPA Update as of November 14, 2025

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

I hope that last week was great for you. I didn’t recognize anyone from the PBGC at the IFEBP in Honolulu last week, but I suspect that there must have been a few attendees. Why? Well, for the first time that I can recall since I began producing these weekly updates, there is nothing to report in terms of the PBGC’s implementation of the ARPA pension legislation. NOTHING!

Now, I’m sure that a lot is going on behind the scenes, especially given the announcement that Janet Dhillon has been confirmed as the 17th Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, but in the weekly update produced as of Friday, November 14th, there were no applications submitted, as the PBGC’s e-Filing portal remains temporarily closed. No pension plans received approval for SFA nor were any denied. There were no withdrawals of previously submitted applications. Lastly, there were no multiemployer plans asking to be added to the growing waitlist.

As we get closer to the legislation’s deadline for new applications to be submitted, we are down to about 6-7 weeks until December 31, 2025. Having a week in which nothing concrete was reported reduces the odds that most of those plans yet to file will actually be given that opportunity.

The graph above reflects the activity through November 7th. Despite the lack of activity last week, the PBGC deserves high praise for their handling of this critical legislation that has helped som many American workers and pensioners. Lastly, at the IFEBP was asked to touch on ARPA/SFA and how best to incorporate ALM strategies to mitigate risk. I’ve had the privilege to speak on this topic numerous times. In summation, the allocation of Special Financial Assistance (SFA) to multiemployer plans is truly of gift. That allocation is not likely to ever be repeated. As such, plans should take every precaution to ensure the maximum coverage of benefits (and expenses) while minimizing the risk through their investments. Call on us (ryanalm.com) if we can help you think through the use of Cash Flow Matching to SECURE those promises.

11.17.25
by

The Times They Are A-Changin’

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

Thank you, Bob Dylan, for the lyric that is just perfect for this blog post. I have just returned from the IFEBP conference in Honolulu, HI. What a great conference, and not just because it was in Hawaii (my first time there). If it wasn’t the location, then what made this one so special? For years I would attend this conference and many others in our industry and never hear the word liability mentioned, as in the pension promise, among any of the presentations.

So pleased that during the last few years, as U.S. interest rates have risen and defined benefit pension funding has improved, not only are liabilities being discussed, but more importantly, asset allocation strategies focused on pension liabilities are being presented much more often. During this latest IFEBP conference there were multiple sessions on ALM or asset allocation that touched on paying heed to the pension plan’s liabilities, including:

“Asset Allocation for Today’s Markets”

“My Pension Plan is Well-Funded – Now What?”

“Asset Liability Matching Investment to Manage the Risk of Unfunded Liabilities”

“Decumulation Strategies for Public Employer Defined Contribution Plans” (they highlighted the fact that these strategies should be employed in DB plans, too)

“Applying Asset Liability Management Strategies to Your Investments” (my session delivered twice)

“Entering the Green Zone and Staying There”

These presentations all touched on the importance of risk management strategies, while encouraging pension plan sponsors to stop riding the performance rollercoaster. Given today’s highly uncertain times and equity valuations that appear stretched under almost any metric, these sessions were incredibly timely and necessary. Chasing a performance objective only ensures volatility. That approach doesn’t guarantee success. On the other hand, securing the pension promise through an ALM strategy at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk does redefine the pension objective appropriately.

I know that human beings are reluctant to embrace change, but we despise uncertainty to a far greater extent. Now is the time to bring an element of certainty to the management of pension assets. By the way, that was the title of my recent presentation to public funds at the NCPERS conference in Fort Lauderdale. Again, understanding pension liabilities and managing to them is not new, but it has certainly been under a bigger and brighter spotlight recently. That is great news!