Tag Archives: Ryan ALM

04.11.25
by

What Was The Purpose?

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

I was introduced to the brilliance of Warren Mosler through my friend and former colleague, Chuck DuBois. It was Chuck who encouraged me to read Mosler’s book, “The 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy”. I would highly recommend that you take a few hours to dive into what Mosler presents. As I mentioned, I think that his insights are brilliant.

The 7 frauds, innocent or not, cover a variety of subjects including trade, the federal deficit, Social Security, government spending, taxes, etc. Regarding trade and specifically the “deficit”, Mosler would tell you that a trade deficit inures to the benefit of the United States. The general perception is that a trade deficit takes away jobs and reduces output, but Mosler will tell you that imports are “real benefits and exports are real costs”.

Unlike what I was taught as a young Catholic that it is better to give than to receive, Mosler would tell you that in Economics, it is much better to receive than to give. According to Mosler, the “real wealth of a nation is all it produces and keeps for itself, plus all it imports, minus what it exports”. So, with that logic, running a trade deficit enhances the real wealth of the U.S.

Earlier this year, the Atlanta Fed was forecasting GDP annual growth in Q1’25 of 3.9%, today that forecast has plummeted to -2.4%. We had been enjoying near full employment, moderating yields, and inflation. So, what was the purpose of starting a trade war other than the fact that one of Mosler’s innocent frauds was fully embraced by this administration that clearly did not understand the potential ramifications. They should have understood that a tariff is a tax that would add cost to every item imported. Did they not understand that inflation would take a hit? In fact, a recent survey has consumers expecting a 6.7% price jump in goods and services during the next 12-months. This represents the highest level since 1981. Furthermore, Treasury yields, after initially falling in response to a flight to safety, have marched significantly higher.

Again, I ask, what was the purpose? Did they think that jobs would flow back to the U.S.? Sorry, but the folks who suffered job losses as a result of a shift in manufacturing aren’t getting those jobs back. Given the current employment picture, many have been employed in other industries. So, given our full-employment, where would we even get the workers to fill those jobs? Again, we continue to benefit from the trade “imbalance”, as we shipped inflation overseas for decades. Do we now want to import inflation?

It is through fiscal policy (tax cuts and government spending) that we can always sustain our workforce and domestic output. Our spending is not constrained by other countries sending us their goods. In fact, our quality of life is enhanced through this activity.

It is truly unfortunate that the tremendous uncertainty surrounding tariff policy is still impacting markets today. Trillions of $s in wealth have been eroded and long-standing trading alliances broken or severely damaged. All because an “innocent” fraud was allowed to drive a reckless policy initiative. I implore you to stay away from Social Security and Medicare, whose costs can always be met since U.S. federal spending is not constrained by taxes and borrowing. How would you tell the tens of millions of Americans that rely on them to survive that another innocent fraud was allowed to drive economic policy?

04.11.25
by

Milliman – Corporate Pension Funding Falls in March

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

Milliman has just released its monthly Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), which analyzes the 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans. Weak investment returns, estimated at -1.4%, drove the PFI asset level down by $25 billion during March. Current assets for the top 100 plans are now $1.3 trillion. The fall in assets was only partially offset by the rise in the discount rate (13 bps) during the month. As a result, the surplus fell by $7 billion to $51 billion as of March 31, 2025.

The discount rate ended the month at 5.49%, which reduced plan liabilities by $18 billion, to $1.25 trillion by the end of March. As a result of assets falling by more than liabilities, the PFI funded ratio dropped from 104.6% at the end of February to 104.1% at the end of March. For the quarter, discount rates fell 10 basis points and the Milliman 100 plans lost $8 billion in funded status.   

“While the slight rise in discount rates in March led to a monthly decline in plan liabilities, plan assets fell even further due to poor market performance, which caused the funded status to fall below the 104.8% level seen at the beginning of 2025,” said Zorast Wadia, author of the PFI. Given market action during the first 10 days of April, it will be interesting to see if the impact from rising rates can offset the dramatic fall in asset values. Inflation fears fueled by tariffs could lead to rising bond yields, which will help mitigate some of the risk to equities given the possibility of declining earnings. As Zorast mentioned in the Milliman release, “plan sponsors will want to consider asset-liability matching strategies to preserve their balance sheet gains from last year”, especially given that 30-year corporates are once again yielding close to 6%.

04.03.25
by

An Ugly Day For Pension America

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

Yes, today’s ugliness in the markets is only one day and how many times have we heard or read that you can’t market time or if you miss just the best performing 25-, 50-, or 100-days in the stock market, your return will resemble that of cash or bonds? Those facts are mostly correct. We may not be able to market time, but we can certainly put in place an asset allocation framework that gets DB pension plans off the rollercoaster of performance. We can construct an asset allocation that provides the necessary liquidity when markets may not be able to naturally. An asset allocation that buys time for the growth asset to wade through troubled markets. A framework that secures the promised benefits and stabilizes both funded ratios and contribution expenses for that portion of the fund that has adopted a new strategy.

Yes, today is only one day, but the impact can be significantly negative. See, it isn’t just the loss that has to be made up, as pension plans are counting on a roughly 7% return (ROA) for the year. Every negative event pushes that target further away. Equity values are getting whacked and today’s market activity is just exacerbating the already weak start to the year. While equity markets are falling, U.S. interest rates are down precipitously. The U.S. 10-year Treasury note’s yield is down just about 0.8% since early in January. As a reminder, the average duration of a DB pension is about 12 years or twice the duration of the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Index, which is the benchmark for most core fixed income mandates. So, your bond portfolios may be seeing some appreciation today and since the start of 2025, but those portfolios are not growing nearly as fast as your plan’s liabilities, which have grown by about 10.6% (12 year duration x 0.8% + income of 1.0% = 10.6%). As a result, funded ratios are taking a hit.

I wrote this piece back on March 4th reminding everyone that the uncertainty around tariffs and other factors should inspire a course change, an asset allocation rethink. I suspect that it didn’t. So, one can just assume that markets will come back and the underperformance will not have impacted the pension plan, but that just isn’t true. In many cases, equity market corrections take years to recover from and in the process contribution expenses rise, and in some cases dramatically so.

Adopting a new asset allocation framework doesn’t mean changing the entire portfolio. A restructuring can be as simple as converting your highly interest rate sensitive core bond portfolio into a cash flow matching (CFM) portfolio that secures the promised benefits from next month out as far as the allocation can go. In the process you will have improved the plan’s liquidity, extended the investing horizon for the alpha assets, stabilized the funded status for that segment of your plan, and mitigated interest rate risk, as those benefit payments are future values which aren’t interest rate sensitive. You’ll sleep very well once adopted.

04.01.25
by

The Buying Of Time Can Reap Huge Rewards

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

When we present the list of benefits associated with using Cash Flow Matching (CFM), one of the benefits that we highlight is the buying of time a.k.a. an extended investing horizon. Our pension community tends to fall prey to short-termism despite claiming to be long-term investors. Quarterly observations are presented through the consultants regular performance reviews and managers are often dismissed after a relatively short period of “underperformance”. Actuarial reports tend to be annual which dictate projected contribution expenses. Yet, by extending the investment horizon to something more meaningful like 10-years or more, the probability of achieving the desired outcome is dramatically improved.

I recently played around with some S&P 500 data dating back to 12/31/69 and looked at the return and standard deviation of observations encompassing 1-10-year moving averages and longer periods such as 15-, 20-, 30-, and even 50-year moving averages for the industry’s primary domestic equity benchmark. Living in a one-year timeframe may produce decent annual returns, but is also comes with tremendous volatility. In fact, the average one-year return from 12/69 to 2/25 has been 12.5%, but the annual standard deviation is +/- 16.6%, meaning that 68% of the time your annual return could be +29.1% to -4.1%. Extending the analysis to 2 standard deviations (95% of the observations) means that in 19 out of 20 years the range of results can be as broad as +45.7% to -20.7%.

However, extend out your investing horizon to 10-years, and the average return from 12/69 dips to 11.4%, but the standard deviation collapses to only 5.0% for a much more comfortable range of +16.4% to 6.4%. Extend to 2 standard deviations and you still have a positive observation in 19 out of 20 years at +1.4% as the lower boundary. Extend to 30-years and the volatility craters to only +/-1.2% around an average return of 11.25%.

We, at Ryan ALM, were blessed in 2024 to take on an assignment to cash flow match 30+ years of this plan’s liabilities. We covered all of the projected liability cash flows through 2056 and still had about $8 million in surplus assets, which were invested in two equity funds, that can now just grow and grow and grow since all of the plan’s liquidity needs are being covered by the CFM strategy! So, how important is a long investing runway? Well, if this plan’s surplus assets achieve the average S&P 500 30-year return during the next 30-years, that $8 million will grow to >$195 million.

We often speak with prospects about the importance of bifurcating one’s asset base into two buckets – liquidity and growth. It is critically important that the plan’s liquidity be covered through the asset cash flows of interest and principal produced by bonds since they are the only asset with a known future value. CFM eliminates the need for a cash sweep which would severely reduce the ROA of growth assets. This practice will allow the growth or alpha assets to wade through choppy markets, such as the one we are currently witnessing, without fear that liquidity must be raised to meet benefits at a less than opportune time.

The plan sponsor highlighted above was fortunate to have a well-funded plan, but even plans that are less well-funded need liquidity. Ensuring that benefits and expenses can be met monthly (chronologically) without forcing liquidity that might not naturally exist is critical to the successful operation of a pension plan. CFM can be used over any time frame that the plan sponsor desires or the plan can afford. We believe that extending the investment horizon out to 10-years should be the minimum goal, but every plan is unique and that uniqueness will ultimately drive the decision on the appropriate allocation to CFM.

03.31.25
by

ARPA Update as of March 28, 2025

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

Welcome to the last update of March. If you are a fan of both Men’s and Women’s college basketball, there wasn’t as much “madness” as usual during the respective tournaments, as all #1 seeds made the men’s Final Four, while only teams seeded either #1 or #2 made the woman’s Final Four. However, these teams should make for a very exciting and competitive games as they conclude. I’m still waiting for Fordham to get there one day.

Now onto the task at hand. Regarding ARPA and the PBGC’s implementation of this critical legislation, last week was fairly busy. Three non-priority group funds, including United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Participating Employers Pension Plan, Roofers Local 88 Pension Plan, and Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union (Independent) Pension Fund, filed initial applications seeking a total of $241.7 million in Special Financial Assistance (SFA) that will support the promised benefits for 14,769 workers. There are 22 funds that currently have an application before the PBGC.

In addition to the new fillings, Oregon Processors Seasonal Employees Pension Plan, received approval of its revised application. They will receive $19.9 million in SFA and interest to help cover the promised pensions for 7,279 members. There were no applications denied during the previous week, but there were a couple of initial applications from non-priority group members withdrawn. Distributors Association Warehousemen’s Pension Trust and Alaska Teamster – Employer Pension Plan were seeking $206.6 million in SFA for nearly 12,200 participants.

In other ARPA news, the PBGC recouped  $994,701.30 or 1.55% in excess SFA paid by The Newspaper Guild International Pension Plan. The PBGC has now recouped $202.2 million in excess SFA from grants totaling $47.5 billion or 0.42% of the proceeds. These funds, including another 4 that didn’t receive any excess proceeds, were among the roughly 60 that received awards before they were given access to the Social Security’s Master Death File.

Lastly, there was one more multiemployer fund added to the waitlist. The Plasterers Local 79 Pension Plan becomes the 117th plan to be placed on the waitlist. Fortunately, the PBGC has begun the process on all but 45 of those.

03.03.25
by

ARPA Update as of February 28, 2025

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

Welcome to March!

We are pleased to provide you with the latest update on the PBGC’s implementation of the ARPA pension legislation. The last week saw moderate activity, as the PBGC’s eFiling portal was temporarily open providing three funds, Local 810 Affiliated Pension Plan, Aluminum, Brick & Glass Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Eastern District Council No. 12 Pension Plan, and Sheet Metal Workers’ Local No. 40 Pension Plan the opportunity to submit revised applications seeking Special Financial Assistance. The PBGC has until June 26, 2025, to act on the applications that combined are seeking $112.6 million in SFA for 3,001 plan participants.

In addition to the above-mentioned filings, one pension fund, Roofers and Slaters Local No. 248 Pension Plan, a Chicopee, MA-based fund, withdrew its initial application that was looking for roughly $8.4 million in SFA for 202 members of the plan. As I said, there was moderate activity last week. Fortunately, no multiemployer pension plans were denied SFA and no other plans repaid excess SFA as a result of census issues. There were also no plans approved or added to the waitlist, which contains the names of 116 plans, of which 47 have yet to submit an application.

As you may recall, I wrote a post last week titled, “A Little Late to the Party!“. The gist of the article had to do with an effort on the part of a couple of Congressmen to get the Justice Department involved in the repayment of any excess SFA funds that have been distributed to the 60 funds that received SFA prior to the use by the PBGC of the Social Security Administrations Death File Master. As I’ve reported, this process is well underway (41 funds have repaid a portion of the SFA to date), having begun back in April with the Central States plan. It is unfortunate that pension plans used to have access to this master file, but that ability was rescinded years ago over privacy concerns. ARPA has been a huge success. The repayment of excess SFA should not taint the tremendous benefit that this legislation has brought.

02.26.25
by

Risk On or Risk Off?

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

I have the pleasure of speaking at the Opal/LATEC conference on Thursday. My panel has been given the topic of Risk On or Risk Off: How Are You Adjusting Your Portfolio, and Which Investment Risks Concern You Most? I think it is an incredibly timely discussion given the many cross-currents in the markets today.

Generally speaking, what is risk? At Ryan ALM, Inc. we would say that risk is the failure to achieve the objective. What is the objective in managing a defined benefit pension plan? We believe that the primary objective is to secure the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. We don’t believe that it is a return objective.

However, most DB pension systems are NOT focused on securing the promised benefits, but they are engaged in developing an asset allocation framework that cobbles together diversified (overly perhaps) asset classes and investment strategies designed to achieve an annual return (ROA) target that has been established through the contributions of the asset consultant, actuary, board of trustees, and perhaps internal staff, if the plan is of sufficient size to warrant (afford) an internal management capability.

Once that objective has been defined, the goal(s) will be carefully addressed in the plan’s investment policy statement (IPS), which is a road map for the trustees and their advisors to follow. It should be reviewed often to ensure that those goals still reflect the trustees’ wishes. The review should also incorporate an assessment of the current market environment to make sure that the exposures to the various asset classes reflect today’s best thinking.

There are numerous potential risks that must be assessed from an investment standpoint. Some of those include market (beta), credit, liquidity, interest rates, and inflation. For your international managers, currency and geopolitical risk must be addressed. From the pension management standpoint, one must deal with both operational and regulatory risk. Some of these risks carry greater weight, such as market risk, but each can have an impact on the performance of your pension plan.

However, there are going to be times when a risk such as inflation will dominate the investing landscape (see 2022). Understanding where inflation MAY be headed and its potential impact on interest rates and corporate earnings is a critical input into how both bonds and stocks will likely perform in the near-term. Being able to assess these potential risks as a tool to adjust your funds asset allocation could reduce risk and help mitigate the negative impact of significant drawdowns that will impact the plan’s funded status and contribution expenses. Of course, the ability to reduce or increase exposures will depend on the ranges that have been established around asset class exposures (refer to your IPS).

So, where are we today? Is it risk on or risk off as far as the investing community is concerned? It certainly appears to me that most investors continue to take on risk despite extreme equity valuations, sticky, and perhaps worsening inflation, leading to an uncertain path for U.S. interest rates, and geopolitical risk that can be observed in multiple locations from the Middle East, to Ukraine/Russia, and China/Taiwan. The recent change in the administration and policy changes related to the use of tariffs has created uncertainty, if not anxiety, among the investment community.

So, how are you adjusting your portfolio? If your plan is managed similarly to most where all the assets are focused on the ROA, the ability to adjust allocations based on the current environment is likely limited to those ranges that I described above. Also, who can market time? I would suggest that the best way to adjust your portfolio given today’s uncertainty is to adopt an entirely different asset allocation framework. Instead of having all of the assets focused on that ROA objective, bifurcate your asset allocation into liquidity and growth buckets.

By adopting this strategy, liquidity is guaranteed to be available when needed to make those pesky monthly benefit payments. In addition, you’ve just bought time, an extremely important investment tenet, for the remainder of the assets (growth/alpha) to now grow unencumbered. The liquidity bucket will provide a bridge over choppy waters churned up by underperforming markets. Yes, there appears to be significant uncertainty in today’s investment environment. Instead of throwing up your hands and accepting the risks because you have limited means to act, adopt the new asset allocation structure before it is too late to protect your plan’s funded status.

02.24.25
by

ARPA Update as of February 21, 2025

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

Welcome to the last week in February. Spring can’t arrive soon enough in New Jersey!

Last week the Milliman organization published its annual review of the state of multiemployer pension plans. The news was quite positive, but in digger deeper, it became apparent that the payment of the Special Financial assistance (SFA) was the primary reason for the improved funding ratios. Given how critically important the SFA is to the ongoing success of many of these plans, let’s look at what transpired during the previous week.

According to the PBGC’s weekly spreadsheet, there were no new applications filed as the eFiling portal remains temporarily closed. In addition, no applications were approved or denied, but there was one application withdrawn, as non-priority plan Aluminum, Brick & Glass Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Eastern District Council No. 12 Pension Plan (the plan’s name is longer than the fund’s size is large) pulled its application seeking $10.6 million for 580 participants.

There was some additional activity though, as five plans were asked to repay a portion of the previously agreed SFA due to census errors. In total, these plans repaid $16.3 million representing just 1.06% of the grants received. To date, $180.8 million has been reclaimed from grants totaling $43.6 billion or 0.41%.

In other news, we had Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local No. 3 NY Niagara Falls-Buffalo Chapter Pension Plan, added to the waitlist (#116). This is the first addition to the list since July 2024. This plan did not elect to lock-in the interest rate for discount rate purposes, joining a couple other plans that have kept their options open.

We should witness dramatic improvement in the Milliman funded ratio study next year, as about 7% (85 funds) were funded at <60% in 2024. There are currently 94 plans seeking SFA support. If granted, they should all see meaningful improvement in the funded status of their plans. As a result, we could have a situation in which the multiemployer universe becomes fully funded. How incredible. Now, let’s not do something silly from an investment standpoint that would jeopardize this improved funding.

02.21.25
by

Milliman’s Multiemployer Study Released

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

Milliman released the 2024 year-end results of its Multiemployer Pension Funding Study (MPFS). The MPFS analyzes the funded status of ALL U.S. multiemployer DB pension plans. As of December 31, 2024, Milliman estimated multiemployer plans have an aggregate funded ratio of 97%, up from 89% as of December 31, 2023. Impressive!

Milliman determined that the improved funded status was largely due to investment gains, but they also highlighted the critical contribution from the special financial assistance (SFA) granted under the ARPA. Milliman highlighted that as of year-end 2024, 102 plans have received nearly $70 billion in SFA funding, including $16 billion paid during 2024. Incredibly, without the support of SFA grants, the MPFS plans’ aggregate funded percentage at year-end 2024 would be approximately 89% or the same as the end of December 2023. As my chart below highlights, as of today, 109 plans have now received $71 billion in SFA grants.

Chart provided by Ryan ALM, Inc.

According to Milliman, “53% (627 of 1,193 plans) are 100% funded or more, and 84% (1,005) are 80% funded or better.” They also highlighted the more challenged members of this cohort, stating that “7% of plans (85) are below 60% funded and may be headed toward insolvency. Many are likely eligible and expected to apply for SFA in 2025.” As the chart above highlights, there still 93 plans going through the process of submitting applications with the PBGC to receive SFA support.

ARPA’s pension reform legislation has clearly been a godsend to many struggling multiemployer plans (roughly 10% of ME plans to date). That said, a review of the universe of all multiemployer plans points to terrific stewardship of the retirement assets on the part of a significant percentage of plans. My one concern is that the use of the return on Asset (ROA) assumption by most of these plans as the discount rate for plan liabilities is overstating the true funded status relative to a discount rate of a blended AA corporate rate used by the private sector. Milliman’s other DB pension plan studies have public sector plans at an 81.2% funded ratio and private plans at 105.8%.

02.20.25
by

Parallels to the 1970s?

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

My recollection of the 1970s has more to do with playing high school sports, graduating from PPHS in 1977, and then going off to Fordham where I would meet my wife in an economics class in 1979. I wasn’t really focused on the economy throughout much of the decade. You see, college was reasonably affordable, and gas and tolls (GWB) were not priced outrageously, so getting back and forth to the Bronx wasn’t crushing for me and my parents.

However, I do recall the two oil embargoes that rocked the economy during the decade. I vividly recall the 1973 oil embargo that was triggered by the Yom Kippur War. I was a newspaper delivery boy for the Hudson Dispatch and was frequently amazed by the long gas lines that would stretch for blocks on both odd and even days, as I drove by on my bike. The Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries instituted the oil embargo against any country supporting Israel, including the U.S. This led to a dramatic increase in oil prices from about $3/barrel to roughly $12/barrel. This action led to widespread economic disruption, and as you can imagine, significant inflationary pressures.

The 1979 oil crisis was precipitated by the Iranian Revolution which saw the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in February 1979. The Revolution created a significant disruption in oil production in Iran, causing global oil supply issues. Similarly, to the 1973 crisis, oil prices surged from about $14/barrel to nearly $40/barrel. Once again, gasoline shortages materialized and inflation rose rather dramatically. This oil impact would lead to a period of economic stagnation that would eventually be defined as “stagflation”.

Now, I am NOT saying that we are about to face significant oil embargoes. But I am reminding everyone that history does have a tendency to repeat itself even if the players aren’t exactly the same. The graph below is pretty eye-opening, at least to me.

For those of you who can recall the 1970s, you’ll remember that the US Federal Reserve tried to mitigate inflation through aggressive increases in the Fed Funds Rate, which would eventually hit 20% in March 1980. As a result of their action, U.S. Treasury yields rose dramatically, too. For instance, the yield on the US 10-year Treasury note would peak at 15.84% in September 1981. As an FYI, I would enter our industry in October 1981.

Despite the aggressive action by the Fed’s FOMC beginning in March 2022, inflation has not been brought under control. Were they premature in reducing the FFR 3 times and by 1% to end 2024? A case could certainly be made that they were. So, where do we go from here? There certainly appears to be some warning signs that inflation could raise its ugly head once more. We are in the midst of a rebound in food inflation, and not just eggs. I just read this morning that those heating with natural gas will see about a 10% increase in their bills relative to last year – ouch. There are other worrying signs as well without even getting into the potential impact from policy changes brought about by the new administration.

It is quite doubtful that we will witness peaks in inflation and interest rates described above, but who really knows? Given the great uncertainty, and the potentially significant ramifications of a renewed inflationary cycle (2022 was not that long ago), plan sponsors should be working diligently to secure the current funding levels for their plans. Why continue to subject all of the assets to the whims of the markets for which they have no control over? Inflationary concerns rocked both the equity and bond markets in 2022. In fact, the BB Aggregate Index suffered its worst loss (-13%) by more than 4X the previous worst annual return (-2.9% in 1994). Rising rates crush traditional core fixed income strategies, but they are a beautiful benefit when matching asset cash flows (principal and interest) to liability cash flows (benefits and expenses) through CFM.

As a plan sponsor, I’d want to find as much certainty as possible, given the abundant uncertainty of markets each and every day. As Milliman has reported, both private and public pension funded ratios are at levels not seen in years. Don’t blow it now!