Tag Archives: secure

04.14.26
by

Pension Plan Sponsor: “I Wish that I could…”

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

In October, I will celebrate my 45th year in the pension/investment industry. I’ve been truly blessed, but also frustrated by activities that I deem detrimental to the successful management of DB pension plans.

First and foremost, I believe that a majority of folks think that achieving the return on asset assumption (ROA) is the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan. This is an incorrect assumption! Creating an asset allocation targeted at a return only guarantees annual volatility, and NOT success.

Second, meeting monthly liquidity through the sweeping of interest, dividends, capital distributions, and worse, the selling of investments harms the long-term return of your fund.

Third, using core fixed income as a return generator is not a sound strategy, as bonds are highly interest rate sensitive, and who knows the future direction of rates.

That being said, if I were a pension plan sponsor, I’d wish that I could find an investment strategy that provided: All of the plan’s liquidity needs, certainty for a portion of that plan, and a longer investment horizon for my alpha generating assets (non-bonds) so that I enhance the probability of achieving the desired outcome.

Great news – there is such a strategy. Cash Flow Matching (CFM) is designed to use investment-grade bonds for their cash flows of interest and principal (upon maturity) to match liability cash flows of benefits and expenses for as far out as the allocation goes. Furthermore, it extends the investing horizon for the non-bond assets so that they can wade successfully through choppy markets without being a source of liquidity. Finally, there is an element of certainty (minus that rare occurrence of an IG bond default) absent in the management of DB pension plans outside of a pension risk transfer (PRT) or an annuity.

I believe that the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan is to SECURE the pension promise at low cost and with prudent risk. Does focusing on the ROA secure benefits – no. The “sweeping” of dividends, interest, and capital distributions to meet ongoing liquidity needs can negatively impact the plan’s long-term return. Guinness Global (U.K. investment shop) produced a study that said sweeping dividends and not reinvesting them reduced the return to the S&P 500 by 47% over 10-year periods back to 1940 and 57% for 20-year periods.

Finally, bonds are highly interest rate sensitive. After a nearly 40-year decline in U.S. interest rates which drove bond prices up and yields down, we have seen rates rise to more average levels where they are holding leading to very weak fixed income returns for recent performance periods. Matching asset cash flows with liability cash flows eliminates interest rate risk for that portion of the portfolio, as benefits and expenses are future values that are not interest rate sensitive. Furthermore, Ryan ALM’s approach is to use 100% IG corporate bonds to build the CFM portfolio. A 100% IG portfolio will outperform a core active fixed income portfolio by the yield differential given the core portfolio’s exposure to agencies and Treasuries.

Question: If you had the opportunity to bring some certainty to the management of pensions, why wouldn’t you do it? If not, please share with us why not.

04.09.26
by

A Ryan ALM, Inc. Client Portfolio Review

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

We are blessed to work with a wonderful array of clients, both pension and E&F. They have chosen to bring an element of certainty to the management of their fund. We commend them for that decision and thank them for the confidence that they’ve shown in us and our cash flow matching (CFM) strategy/capability.

Our client relationships begin with the acquisition of important inputs including projections of benefits/grants, expenses, and contributions as far into the future as possible. Most often these are provided by the fund’s actuary. The next step in building a portfolio is to create a Custom Liability Index (CLI), that will establish the framework for monthly distributions.

Upon completion of the CLI, we will work with the client and their advisors to determine the appropriate allocation to CFM. We often suggest converting the current core fixed income allocation since bonds should only be used for their cash flows. Once that has been determined, we will build a high quality bond portfolio (most often 100% IG corporate bonds) that carefully matches asset cash flows of interest and principal with the liability cash flows (benefits and expenses (B&E)).

Once this portfolio is built, we have created an element of certainty for the plan sponsor, as asset cash flow will march in harmony with the liability cash flows barring a bond default, which occurs <0.2% annually (40-year study by S&P). It is only upon changes in the actuaries forecast that lead us to adjust the portfolio, and those annual changes tend to be quite insignificant.

Now the fun part: We are often asked to provide quarterly updates on our portfolio, which couldn’t be any easier. My last portfolio review lasted about 37 seconds. I stated that the projected cash flows that had been shared with us were matched by the asset cash flows, and that there have been no instances in which monthly cash flow needs were not met in their entirety. Furthermore, there have been no defaults in our portfolio ensuring that future cash flow needs will also be met as required. Any questions?

As you can see, there is no need to fret about the direction of U.S. interest rates. No worry about what the “Fed” may do today, tomorrow, or next year. No forecasting of the economic environment, inflation, and/or the geopolitical landscape. Once the CFM portfolio is constructed, the cost savings (cost to fund future B&E) is known and locked in. How many investment managers can tell you how the portfolio will perform over the duration of the program?

Why wouldn’t you want to bring an element of certainty to your fund? Wouldn’t a “sleep-well-at-night” strategy bring comfort to you and those that you serve? If the true objective in managing a defined benefit fund is to SECURE the promised benefits at low cost and with prudent risk, is there another investment strategy that can match the positive attributes of CFM? If we’ve grabbed your attention, reach out. We provide a free analysis of how CFM can make your fund less volatile and uncertain.

01.23.26
by

How Does One Secure A Benefit?

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

We hope that you’ll agree that going to Chicago in January demonstrates the lengths that Ryan ALM personnel will go to help plan sponsors and their advisors protect and preserve DB pension plans. We are just thankful that we left yesterday, as today’s temperature is not expected to get to 0. OUCH!

Ron Ryan and I spent the last couple of days speaking with a number of funds and consultants about the many benefits of cash flow matching (CFM), which is gaining incredible traction among pension sponsors of all types. Who doesn’t want an element of certainty and enhanced liquidity within their plans given all the uncertainty we are facing in markets and geopolitically.

The idea of creating an element of certainty within the management of pension plans sounds wonderful, but how is that actually achieved? This is a question that we often receive and this trip was no exception. We had been discussing the fact that the relationship between asset cash flows (bond principal and interest) and liability cash flows (benefits and expenses) is locked in on the day that the bond portfolio is produced. The optimization process that we created blends the principal and interest from multiple bonds to meet the monthly obligations of benefits and expenses with an emphasis on longer maturity and higher yielding bonds to capture greater cost reduction of those future promises.

However, to demonstrate how one defeases a future liability, my example below highlights the matching of one bond versus one future $2 million 10-year liability. In this example from 18-months ago we purchased:

Bond: MetLife 6.375% due 6/15/34, A- quality, price = $107.64

Buy $1,240,000 par value of MetLife at a cost = $1,334,736

Interest is equal to the par value of bonds ($1,240,000) times the bond’s coupon (6.375%)

As a result of this purchase, we Receive: 

  Interest =  $78,412.50 annually ($39,206.25 semi-annual payments)

                            Total interest earned for 10 years is $784,125

  Principal = $1,240,000 at maturity (par value)

Total Cash Flow = $2,024,125  – $2,000,000 10-year Liability  = $24,124.99 excess

                             ($24,124.99 excess Cash Flow)

Benefits:

Able to fund $2 million benefit at a cost of $1.335 million or a -33.25% cost reduction

Excess cash flow can be reinvested or used to partially fund other benefits

In today’s yield environment, our clients benefit to a greater extent asking us to create longer maturity programs given the steepness of the yield curve. If they don’t have the assets to fund 100% of those longer-term liabilities, we can defease a portion of them through what we call a vertical slice. That slice of liabilities can be any percentage that allows us to cover a period from next month to 30-years from now. In a recent analysis produced for a prospect, we constructed a portfolio of bonds that covered 40% of the pension plan’s liabilities out to 30-years. As a result, we reduced the present value cost to defease those liabilities by –42.7%!!

Reach out to us today to learn how much we can reduce the future value cost of your promised benefits. We do this analysis for free. We encourage you to take us up on our generous offer.

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.

06.23.25
by

ARPA Update as of June 20, 2025

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

Despite the chaotic nature of our markets and geopolitics, it is comforting that I can report weekly on the progress being made by the PBGC implementing the critical ARPA legislation. That is not to say, that the 2nd Circuit’s recent ruling isn’t creating a bit of chaos, too.

Regarding last week’s activity, the PBGC’s efiling portal must have been wide open, as they accepted initial applications from 5 pension plans residing on the waitlist. The PBGC will now have 120-days to act on these submissions.

There were no applications approved, denied, or withdrawn last week, but that isn’t to say that the PBGC rested on its laurels. There were two more plans that repaid a portion of the SFA received, as census errors were corrected. International Association of Machinists Motor City Pension Plan and Western States Office and Professional Employees Pension Fund repaid 1.61% and 1.08% of the SFA, respectively. In total, 57 plans have “settled” with the PBGC, including four funds that had no census errors. To date, $219 million was repaid from grants exceeding $48 billion or 0.45% of the grant.

In other ARPA news, another 16 funds have been added to the waitlist resulting from the 2nd Circuit’s determination that previously terminated plans can seek SFA. We do believe that it will prove beneficial for these plans, but it will stress the resources of the PBGC to meet ARPA imposed deadlines.

Given the highly unpredictable nature of war and tariffs on inflation and U.S interest rates, it isn’t surprising that the U.S. Federal Reserve held the Fed Funds Rate steady last week. We encourage those plans receiving SFA grants to secure the promised benefits through a cash flow matching strategy. Who knows how markets will impact bonds and stocks for the remainder of the year.

06.16.25
by

The Power of Bond Math

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

Bonds are the only asset class with the certainty of its cash flows. That is why bonds have always been used to cash flow match and defease liabilities. Given this certainty, bonds provide a secure way to reduce the cost to fund liabilities. This benefit is not as transparent or valued as one might think. If you could save 20% to 50% on almost anything, most people would jump at the opportunity? But when it comes to pre-funding pension liabilities there seems to be a hesitation to capture this prudent benefit.

Bond math tells us that the higher the yield and the longer the maturity… the lower the cost. Usually there is a positive sloping yield curve such that when you extend maturity you pick up yield. What may not be evident is the fact that extending maturity is the best way to reduce costs even if yields were not increased. Here are examples of what it would cost to fund a $100,000 liability payment with a bond(s) whose maturity matches the liability payment date:

Cost savings is measured as the difference between Cost and the liability payment of $100k. As you can see, extending maturity produces a much greater cost reduction than an increase in yield. More importantly, the cost reduction is significant no matter what maturity you invest at, even if yields are unchanged. The cost savings range from 21.9% (5-years) to 38.1% (10-years) and 62.8% (20-years) with rates unchanged. Why wouldn’t a pension want to reduce funding costs by 21.9% to 62.8% with certainty instead of using bonds for a volatile and uncertain total return objective? Given the large asset bases in many pensions, such a funding cost reduction should be a primary budget consideration.

Ryan ALM is a leader in Cash Flow Matching (CFM) through our proprietary Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP) model. We believe that the intrinsic value in bonds is the certainty of their cash flows. We urge pensions to transfer their fixed income allocation from a total return objective versus a generic market index (whose cash flows look nothing like the clients’ liability cash flows) to a CFM strategy. The benefits are numerous:

Secures benefits for time horizon LBP is funding (1-10 years)

Buys time for alpha assets to grow unencumbered 

Reduces Funding costs (roughly 2% per year)

Reduces Volatility of Funded Ratio/Status

Reduces Volatility of Contribution costs

Outyields active bond management

Mitigates Interest Rate Risk 

Low fee = 15 bps

For more info on our Cash Flow Matching model (LBP) or a free analysis to highlight what CFM can do for your plan, please contact Russ Kamp, CEO at rkamp@ryanalm.com

10.28.24
by

ARPA Update as of October 25, 2024

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

Welcome to the last week of October. Like many of us, I can’t wait to see my children’s and grandchildren’s costumes on Thursday. The weather in NJ will be more like June than the end of October. Enjoy!

With regard to the PBGC’s effort to implement the ARPA pension legislation, last week’s activity was rather muted. I’m happy to report that we had one plan’s application approved, as I.B.E.W. Pacific Coast Pension Fund will receive $75.5 million in SFA and interest for 3,318 plan participants. This brings the number of approved applications to 95 and the total award of SFA to $68.8 billion. There are still 107 applications that are in the queue to eventually (hopefully) receive special financial assistance, with 64 yet to file an initial application.

Also, during the past week, we had the Laborers’ Local No. 265 Pension Plan withdraw its application. That plan is seeking $55.6 million for 1,460 members of its plan. This was the initial application for this fund which had been filed on July 11, 2024. There has been a total of 117 applications filed and withdrawn throughout the ARPA implementation. Some funds have seen multiple applications withdrawn and resubmitted.

Given the limited activity last week, it isn’t surprising to learn that the eFiling Portal remains temporarily closed. There is still much to accomplish with this legislation and time, although not currently an issue, will become one should this process linger beyond 2025.

Lastly, the recent move up in US Treasury rates bodes well for those plans receiving SFA and wanting to use cash flow matching to secure the promised benefits. Ryan ALM is always willing to produce an initial analysis on what can be achieved through CFM in terms of a coverage period. Don’t hesitate to reach out to us.

05.01.24
by

Another Challenging Month for US Fixed Income

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

S&P Dow Jones is out with its monthly “Dash Board” on a variety of benchmarks, both domestic and foreign. April proved challenging for both US equities and bonds. With regard to stocks, the S&P 500 was down -4.1% bringing the YTD performance to +6.04%. It was a tougher environment for both mid cap (-6.0%) and small cap (-5.6%). Small caps (S&P 600) continue to be pressured and the index is now down -3.3% YTD. As US interest rates continue on a course higher, US equities will continue to be challenged.

The higher US rates are also continuing to pressure US fixed income. The Aggregate Index produced a -1.8% April, and the index is now down -2.4% since the start of 2024 despite the rather robust YTM of 5.3%. As we’ve discussed on many occasions, bonds are the only asset class with a known cash flow of a terminal value and contractual coupon payments. As a result, bonds should be used for the certainty of those cash flows and specifically to defease pension liabilities. As a reminder, pension liabilities are bond-like in nature and they will move with changes in interest rates. Don’t use bonds as a total return strategy, as they will not perform in a rising rate environment. Sure, the nearly 40-year decline in rates made bonds and their historical performance look wonderful, but that secular trend is over.

Use the fixed income allocation to match asset cash flows of interest and principal to the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. As a result, that portion of the total assets portfolio will have mitigated interest rate risk, while SECURING the promised benefits. Having ample liquidity is essential. Using bonds to defease pension liabilities ensures that the necessary liquidity will be available as needed. The current US interest rate environment may be pressuring total return-seeking fixed income managers, but it is proving cash flow matching programs with a very healthy YTM that dramatically reduces the cost of those future value payments. Don’t waste this golden opportunity.

03.28.24
by

The Importance of Liquidity

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

I recently came across an article written by a friend of mine in the industry. Jack Boyce, former Head of Distribution for Insight, penned a terrific article for Treasury and Risk in July 2020. The title of Jack’s article was “We Need to Talk About the Armadillo in the Room”. It isn’t just a funny title, but an incredible simile for the two primary stages of a pension plan, notably the accumulation and decumulation stages of pension cash flows. The move from a positive cash flow environment to a negative cash flow environment creates a hump that is reminiscent of the shape of an armadillo.

I stumbled on an armadillo at TexPERS last summer and truthfully didn’t think at that time that I was looking at a pension funding cycle, but I’ll never look at an armadillo again without thinking about Jack’s comparison. But the most important aspect of Jack’s writing wasn’t that he correctly associated the funding cycle with a less than cuddly animal, it was the fact that he highlighted a critically important need for pension plan sponsors of all types – liquidity! I’ve seen far too often the negative impact on pension plans and endowments and foundations when appropriate and necessary liquidity is not available to meet the promises, whether they be a monthly benefit, grant, or support of operations.

The last thing that you want to have happen when cash is needed is to be forced to raise liquidity when natural liquidity is absent from the market. There have been many times when even something as liquid as a Treasury note can’t be sold. Just harken back to 2008, if you want a prime example of not being able to transact in even the most liquid of instruments. Bid/ask spreads all of a sudden resemble the Grand Canyon. As we, at Ryan ALM have been saying, sponsors of these funds should bring certainty to a process that has become anything but certain. Jack correctly points out that “a typical LDI approach focuses on making sure the market value of a plan’s assets and the present value of its liabilities move in lockstep.” However, too often “these calculations fail to factor in the timing of cash flows.” We couldn’t agree more. Where is the certainty?

His recommendation mirrors ours, in that cash flow matching should be a cornerstone of any LDI program. Using the cash flow of interest and principal from investment grade bonds to carefully match (defease) the liability cash flows secures the necessary liquidity chronologically for as long as the allocation is sustained. By creating a liquidity bucket, one buys time for the remaining assets in the corpus to now grow unencumbered. As we all know, time is an extremely important attribute when investing. I wouldn’t feel comfortable counting on a certain return over a day, week, month, year, or even 5 years. But give me 10-years or more and I’m fairly confident that the expected return profile will be achieved.

Jack wrote, “pension plan sponsors need thoughtful solutions”. We couldn’t agree more and have been bringing ideas such as this to the marketplace for decades. Like Jack, “we believe a CDI approach can simultaneously improve a plan’s overall efficiency and the certainty of reaching its long-term outcome.” Certainty is safety! We should all be striving for this attribute.