Tag Archives: Ryan ALM

07.16.25
by

Really Only One Significant Influence

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

Managing fixed income (bonds) can be challenging as there are a plethora of risks that must be evaluated including, but not limited to, credit, liquidity, maturity/duration, yield, prepayment and reinvestment risk, etc. within the investment-grade universe. But the greatest risk – uncertainty – remains interest rate risk. Who really knows the future direction of rates? As the graph below highlights, U.S. interest rates have moved in long-term secular trends with numerous reversals along the way. Does that mean that we are headed for a protracted period of rising rates similar to what was witnessed from 1953 to 1981 or is this a head fake along the path to historically low rates?

When rates are falling, it is very good for bonds as they not only capture the coupon, but they get some capital appreciation, too. However, when rates rise, it is a very different game. Yes, rising interest rates are very good for pension funds from a liability perspective, as the present value (PV) of those future benefit payments (I.e. liabilities) is reduced, but the asset side may be hurt and not only for bonds but other asset classes as well.

No alternative text description for this image

This is the primary reason why bonds should be used for their cash flows of interest and principal and not as a performance generator. The cash flows should be used to meet monthly benefits and expenses chronologically through a cash flow matching strategy (CFM). Unfortunately, Bonds are frequently used for performance and perhaps diversification benefits while compared to a generic index, such as the BB Aggregate index, which doesn’t reflect the unique characteristics of the pension plan’s liabilities.

U.S. interest rates are presently elevated but aren’t high by historic standards. However, the current level of rates does provide the plan sponsor with a wonderful opportunity to take risk from their traditional asset allocation by defeasing a portion of the plan’s liabilities from next month out as far as the allocation will cover. While the bond portfolio is funding monthly obligations, the remaining assets can just grow unencumbered.

Given the uncertainty regarding the current inflationary environment, betting that U.S. rates will fall making a potential “investment” in bonds more lucrative is nothing short of a crapshoot. Investing in a CFM strategy helps to mitigate interest rate risk as future values are not interest rate sensitive.

07.10.25
by

Taylor-Made?

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

The Federal Reserve meeting notes have been published, and there seems to be little appetite among the Fed Governors to reduce U.S. interest rates at the next meeting. They continue to believe that the recently inflated tariffs and current trade policy actions could lead to greater inflationary pressures. These notes do not support the current administration’s push to see the Fed Funds Rate dropped significantly – perhaps as much as 3%.

In a very informative Bloomberg post from this morning, John Authers reminded everyone that President Trump selected Jerome Powell over John Taylor, Stanford University, in 2017 to become Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I must admit that I didn’t remember that being the case, while also not recalling that it is John Taylor who is credited with developing the Taylor Rule in 1993. When I think of famous Taylors, John isn’t at the top of my list. I might have believed that it had something to do with Lawrence Taylor’s dominance on the football field where he “ruled” for 13 Hall of Fame seasons and is considered by many the greatest defensive player in NFL history (yes, I am a Giants’ fan).

So, what is the Taylor Rule? The Taylor Rule is an economic formula that provides guidance on how central banks, such as the Federal Reserve, should set interest rates in response to changes in inflation and economic output. The rule is designed to help stabilize an economy by systematically adjusting the central bank’s key policy rate based on current economic conditions. It is designed to take the “guess work” out of establishing interest rate policy.

The Taylor rule suggests that the central bank should raise interest rates when inflation is above its target (currently 2%) or when GDP is growing faster than its estimated potential (overheating). Conversely, it suggests lowering interest rates when inflation is below target or when GDP is below potential (economy is underperforming). Ironically, President Trump’s dissatisfaction with Jerome Powell’s reluctance to reduce rates given significant economic uncertainty, may have been magnified by John Taylor’s model, which would have had rates higher at this time as reflected in the graph below.

As a reminder, Ryan ALM, Inc. does not forecast interest rates as part of our cash flow matching (CFM) strategy. In fact, the use of CFM to defease pension liabilities (benefits and expenses (B&E)) eliminates interest rate risk once the portfolio is built since future values (B&E) aren’t interest rate sensitive. That said, the currently higher rate environment is great for pension plan sponsors who desire to bring an element of certainty to the management of pensions which tend to live in a very uncertain existence. By funding a CFM portfolio, plan sponsors can ensure that proper liquidity is available each month of the assignment, while providing the residual assets time to grow. There are many other benefits, as well.

Since we don’t know where rates are likely to go, we highly recommend engaging a CFM program sooner rather than later before we find that lower interest rates have caused the potential benefits (cost savings) provided by CFM to fall.

07.09.25
by

Problem/Solution: Asset Allocation

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

In this post, Ron continues with his series on identifying solutions to various pension-related problems. This one addresses the issue of asset allocation being driven exclusively from an asset perspective.

Most, if not all asset allocation models are focused on achieving a total return target or hurdle rate… commonly called the ROA (return on assets). This ROA target return is derived from a weighting of the forecasted index benchmark returns for each asset class except for bonds which uses the yield of the index benchmark. These forecasts are generally based on some historical average (i.e. last 20 years or longer) with slight adjustments based on recent observations. As a result, it is common that most pensions have the same or similar ROA. 

This ROA exercise ignores the funded status. It is certainly obvious that a 60% funded plan should have a much higher ROA than a 90% plan. But the balancing item is contributions. If the 60% funded plan would pay more in contributions than the 90% plan (% wise) then it can have a lower ROA. I guess the question is what comes first. And the answer is the ROA with contributions as a byproduct of that ROA target. The actuarial math is whatever the assets don’t fund… contributions will fund.

If the true objective of a pension is to secure and fully fund benefits and expenses (B+E) in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk, then you would think that liabilities (B+E) would be the focus of asset allocation. NO, liabilities are usually missing in the asset allocation process. Pensions are supposed to be an asset/liability management (ALM) process not a total return process. Ryan ALM recommends the following asset allocation process:

Calculate the cost to fully fund (defease) the B+E of retired lives for the next 10 years chronologically using a cash flow matching (CFM) process with investment grade bonds. CFM will secure and fully fund the retired lives liabilities for the next 10 years. Then calculate the ROA needed to fully fund the residual B+E with the current level of contributions. This is calculated through an asset exhaustion test (AET) which is a GASB requirement as a test of solvency. The difference is GASB requires it on the current estimated ROA before you do this ALM process. Ryan ALM can create this calculated ROA through our AET model. If the calculated ROA is too high, then either you reduce the allocation to the CFM or increase contributions or a little bit of both. If the calculated ROA is low, then increasing the allocation to CFM is appropriate. Running AET iterations can produce the desired or most comfortable asset allocation answer.  

Cash flow matching (CFM) will provide the liquidity and certainty needed to fully fund B+E in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. The Ryan ALM model (Liability Beta Portfolio™ or LBP) will reduce funding costs by about 2% per year or roughly 20% for 1-10 years of liabilities. We will use corporate bonds skewed to A/BBB+ issues. According to S&P, investment grade defaults have averaged 0.18% of the IG universe annual for the past 40-years. Fortunately, Ryan ALM has never experienced a bond default in its 21-year history (knock wood).

Assets are a team of liquidity assets (bonds) and growth assets (stocks, etc.) to beat the liability opponent. They should work together in asset allocation to achieve the true pension objective.

For more info on cash flow matching, please contact Russ Kamp, CEO at  rkamp@ryanalm.com

07.08.25
by

Milliman: Corporate Pension Funding Up

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

Milliman released its monthly Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), which analyzes the 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans, and they are reporting that the collective funded ratio has risen to 105.1% as of June 30th from 104.9% at the end of May. The driving force behind the improved funding was the powerful 2.6% asset return for the index’s members, which more than offset the growth in pension liabilities as the discount rate fell by 19 bps.

As a result of the significant appreciation during the month, the Milliman PFI plan assets rose by $27 billion to $1.281 trillion during the month from $1.254 trillion at the end of May. The discount rate fell to 5.52% in June, from 5.71% in May and it is now down slights from 5.59% at the beginning of the year. 

“The second quarter of 2025 was a win-win for pensions from both sides of the balance sheet, as market gains of 3.42% drove up plan assets while modest discount rate increases of 2 basis points reduced plan liabilities and resulted in the highest funded ratio since October 2022,” said Zorast Wadia, author of the PFI.

Zorast further stated that “if discount rates decline in the second half of the year, plan sponsors will need to be ever more focused on preserving funded status gains and employing prudent asset-liability management.” We couldn’t agree more. We, at Ryan ALM, believe that the primary goal in managing a DB pension plan is to secure the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is NOT a return objective. Having achieved this level of funding allows plan sponsors and their advisors to significantly de-risk their plans through Cash Flow Matching (CFM), which is a superior duration strategy, as each month of the assignment is duration matched.

07.08.25
by

ARPA Update as of July 3, 2025

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

Welcome to the Summer doldrums. The PBGC’s ARPA activity appears to have been impacted by the holiday-shortened week. We hope that you and your family had a terrific Fourth of July weekend.

There isn’t a whole lot to discuss about last week. There were no applications received as the PBGC’s e-Filing portal remains temporarily closed. No applications were approved or denied, and there were no pension funds looking to be added to a very crowded waiting list.

However, there was one fund, Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc. Pension Plan, that repaid a portion of the Special Financial Assistance (SFA) received earlier. The $7.7 million repayment represents 0.99% of the $774.3 million grant. The Truckers’ fund is the 55th fund to repay a portion of the SFA grant. There are four funds that had no census errors. It was estimated that roughly 60 pension funds had been granted SFA prior to the PBGC’s use of the Social Security Master Death file. In total, $229.4 million has been recouped from $50.9 billion in grants (0.45%).

In other ARPA news, eight funds currently on the waitlist have elected their measurement lock-in date. As a reminder, the measurement date refers to the date on which a plan submits a lock-in application to PBGC. This date is crucial because it sets and permanently establishes the plan’s SFA measurement date and base data for its eventual SFA application, regardless of when the full application is later submitted. Specifically, the lock-in application fixes: 1) the non-SFA and SFA interest rates, 2) the SFA measurement date, and 3) participant census data. Five of the funds chose March 31, 2025, while the other three selected April 30, 2025, as the measurement date for their pension plans.

According to the ARPA legislation, the PBGC is prohibited from accepting initial applications after December 31, 2025. They may receive and review revised applications until December 31, 2026. They currently have about 70 plans on the waitlist, in addition to the 46 that are under review or have been withdrawn. It will take a tremendous effort to process these initial applications prior to the legislation’s deadline.

07.07.25
by

Don’t Engage in a Cash Sweep – Dividends Matter!

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

We’ve already shared with you the importance of dividends to the long-term return of the S&P 500 by referencing studies conducted by Guinness Global Investors.

According to the Guinness study, which was last updated as of April 2020, the contribution to return of the S&P 500 from dividends and dividends reinvested for 10-year periods since 1940 was a robust 47% down insignificantly from 48% a decade ago. Extending the measurement period to 20 years from 1940 forward highlights an incredible 57% contribution to the total return of the S&P 500 from dividends. Importantly, this study is on the entirety of the S&P 500, not just those companies that pay dividends. If the universe only included dividend payers, this analysis would reveal strikingly greater contributions since roughly 100 S&P 500 companies are not currently paying a dividend.

As if this study isn’t enough to convince you of the importance of dividends to the long-term return of stocks, Glen Eagle Trading put out an email today that referenced a recent Wall Street Journal article, titled “Why Investors Are Right to Love Dividends”. The article highlighted the fact that recent studies show S&P 500 dividend-paying stocks returned 9.2% annually over the past 50 years, which is more than double the 4.3% return of non-dividend payers, with lower volatility. Then there is this study by Ned Davis which broke down the contribution of dividends for the 47-years ending December 21, 2019.

Once again, it becomes abundantly clear why investing in companies paying dividends is a terrific long-term strategy. It also begs the question, why do many plan sponsors and their advisors regularly “sweep” income from their equity managers to meet ongoing benefits and expenses? In doing so, instead of structuring the pension plan to have a liquidity bucket to meet those obligations, this activity diminishes the potential long-term contribution to equities from dividends. As longer-term returns are reduced, greater contributions are needed to make up the shortfall compounding the problem.

Please don’t sweep interest and dividend income or capital distributions for that matter, establish an asset allocation that has a dedicated liquidity bucket that uses cash flow matching to secure and fund ongoing benefits and expenses. The remainder of the assets not deployed in the liquidity bucket go into a growth bucket that benefits from the passage of time.

07.03.25
by

Segal: Benefits of Pension De-Risking

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

Jason Russell and Seth Almaliah, Segal, have co-authored an article titled, “Benefits of Pension De-Risking and Why Now is the Right Time”. Yes! We, at Ryan ALM, agree that there are significant benefits to de-risking a pension plan and we absolutely agree that NOW is the right time to engage in that activity.

In their article they mention that the current interest rate environment is providing opportunities to de-risk that plan sponsors haven’t seen in more than two decades. In addition to the current rate environment, they reflect on the fact that many pension plans are now “mature” defining that stage as a point where the number of retired lives and terminated vested participants is greater than the active population. They also equate mature plans to one’s that have negative cash flow, where benefits and expenses eclipse contributions. In a negative cash flow environment, market corrections can be more painful as assets must be sold to meet ongoing payments locking in losses, as a result.

They continue by referencing four “risk reducing” strategies, including: 1) reducing Investment Volatility, 2) liability immunization, 3) short-term, cash flow matching, and 4) pension risk transfers. Not surprisingly, we have some thoughts about each.

  1. Reducing investment volatility – Segal suggests in this strategy that plan sponsors simply reduce risk by just shifting assets to “high-quality” fixed income. Yes, the annual standard deviation of an investment grade bond portfolio with a duration similar to that of the BB Aggregate would have a lower volatility than equities, but it continues to have great uncertainty since bond performance is driven primarily by interest rates. Who knows where rates are going in this environment?
  2. Liability Immunization – The article mentions that some plan sponsors are taking advantage of the higher rate environment by “immunizing” a portion of the plan’s liabilities. They describe the process as a dedicated portfolio of high-quality bonds matched to cover a portion of the projected benefits. They mentioned that this strategy tends to be long-term in nature. They also mention that because it is “longer-term” it carries more default risk. Finally, they mentioned that this strategy may lose some appeal because of the inverted yield curve presently observed. Let me comment: 1) Immunization is neither a long-term strategy or a short-term strategy. The percentage of liabilities “covered” is a function of multiple factors, 2) yes, immunization or cash flow matching’s one concern when using corporate bonds is default risk. According to S&P, the default rate for IG bonds is 0.18% for the last 40-years, and 3) bond math tells us that the longer the maturity and the higher the yield, the lower the cost. Depending on the length of the assignment, the current inverted yield curve would not provide a constraint on this process. Finally, CFM is dependent on the actuary’s forecasts of contributions, benefits, and expenses. Any change in those forecasts must be reflected in the portfolio. As such, CFM is a dynamic process.
  3. Short-term, cash flow matching – CFM is the same as immunization, whether short-term or not. Yes, it is very popular strategy for multiemployer plans that received Special Financial Assistance (SFA) under ARPA for obvious reasons. It is a strategy that SECURES the promised benefits at both low cost and with prudent risk. It maximizes the benefit coverage period with the least uncertainty.
  4. Pension Risk Transfers (PRT) – In a PRT, the plan sponsor transfers a portion of the liabilities, if not all of them, to an insurance company. This is the ultimate risk reduction strategy for the plan sponsor, but is it best for the participant? They do point out that reducing a portion of the liabilities will also reduce the PBGC premiums. But, does it impact the union’s ability to retain and attract their workers?

We believe that every DB pension plan should engage in CFM. The benefits are impressive from dramatically improving liquidity, to buying time for the growth (non-CFM bonds) assets, to eliminating interest rate risk for those assets engage in CFM, to helping to stabilize contributions and more. Focusing 100% of the assets on a performance objective only guarantees volatility. It is time to adopt a new strategy before markets once again behave badly. Don’t waste this wonderful rate environment.

Thank you, Segal, for your thoughtful piece.

07.01.25
by

U.S. $ Decline and the Impact on Inflation

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

As I was contemplating my next blog post, I took a look at how many of my previous >1,625+ posts mentioned currencies, and specifically the U.S. $. NEVER had I written about the U.S. $ other than referencing the fact that we enjoy the benefit of a fiat currency. I did mention Bitcoin and other cryptos, but stated that I didn’t believe that they were currencies and still don’t. Why mention them now? Well, the U.S. $ has been falling relative to nearly all currencies for most of 2025. According to the WSJ’s Dollar Index (BUXX), the $ has fallen by 8.5% for the first half of 2025.

Relative to the Euro, the $ has fallen nearly 14% and the trend isn’t much better against the Pound (-9.6%) and the Yen (-8.7%). So, what are the implications for the U.S. given the weakening currency? First, the cost of imports rises. When the $ loses value, it costs more to buy goods and services from abroad. The likely outcome is that the increased costs get passed onto the consumer, who is already dealing with the implications from uncertain tariff policies.

Yes, exports become cheaper, which would hopefully increase demand for our goods, but the heightened demand could also lead to greater demand for U.S. workers in order to meet that demand leading to rising wages (great), but that is also potentially inflationary.

What have we seen so far? Well, first quarter’s GDP (-0.5%) reflected an increase in imports spurred on by fear of price increases due to the potential for tariffs. Q2’25 is currently forecasted to be 2.5% according to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model, as U.S. imports have fallen. According to the BLS, import prices have risen in 4 of 5 months in 2025, with March’s sharp decline the only outlier.

The potential inflationary impact from rising costs could lead to higher U.S. interest rates, which have been swinging back and forth depending on the day of the week and the news cycle. Furthermore, there is fear that the proposed “Big Beautiful Bill” could also drive rates higher due to the potential increase in the federal deficit by nearly $5 trillion due to the stimulative nature of deficits. Obviously, higher U.S rates are great for individual savers, but they don’t help bonds as principal values fall.

We recommend that plan sponsors and their advisors use bonds for the cash flows (interest and principal) and not as a performance driver. Use the fixed income exposure as a liquidity bucket designed to meet monthly benefits and expenses through the use of Cash Flow Matching (CFM), which will orchestrate a careful match of asset cash flows funding the projected liabilities cash flows. The remaining assets (alpha bucket) now benefit from time, as the investment horizon is extended.

Price increases on imports due to a weakening $ can impact U.S. inflation, but there are other factors, too. I’ve already mentioned tariffs and wage growth, but there other factors, including productivity and global supply chains. Some of these drivers may take more time to hash out. There are many uncertainties that could potentially impact markets, why not bring an element of certainty to your pension fund through CFM.

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.

06.25.25
by

Problem/Solution: Generic Indexes

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

We challenge you to find Pension Liabilities in any Generic Bond Index. We’re confident that you won’t. As a result, we’ve developed an appropriate solution, which we call the Custom Liability Index (CLI).

Pension liabilities (benefits and expenses (B+E)) are unique to each plan sponsor… different workforces, different longevity characteristics, different salaries, benefits, expenses, contributions, inflation assumptions, plan amendments, etc. To capture and calculate the true liability objective, the Ryan team created the first CLI in 1991 as the proper pension benchmark for asset liability management (ALM). We take the actuarial projections of (B+E) for each client and then subtract forecasted Contributions since contributions are the initial source to fund B+E. This net total becomes the true liability cash flows that assets have to fund. We then calculate the monthly liability cash flows as (B+E) – C. The CLI is a monthly report that includes the calculations of:

  • Net future values broken out by term structure
  • Net present values broken out by term structure
  • Total returns broken out by term structure
  • Summary statistics (yield, duration, etc.)
  • Interest rate sensitivity 

We recommend that the Ryan ALM CLI be installed as the index benchmark for total assets, as well as any bond program dedicated to matching assets and liabilities. This action should be the first step in asset allocation. The CLI can be broken out into any time segment that bond assets are directed to fund (i.e. 1-3 years, 1-10 years, etc.). Moreover, total assets should be compared versus total liabilities to know if the funded ratio and funded status have improved over time. If all asset managers outperform their generic index benchmarks but lose to liability growth rate the pension plan loses and must pay a higher contribution.   

Since the CLI is a monthly report, plan sponsors can compare assets versus liabilities monthly. Furthermore, we suggest that there should never be an investment update of just assets versus assets (generic index benchmarks), which unfortunately is common practice today. It is hard to understand in today’s sophisticated finance world why liabilities are missing as a pension index. It should be clear that no generic bond index could ever properly represent the liability cash flows that assets are required to fund. It is apples versus oranges, at a minimum. 

“Given the wrong index benchmark… you will get the wrong risk/reward”

For more info on the Ryan ALM CLI please contact Russ Kamp, CEO at  rkamp@ryanalm.com