Tag Archives: us-interest-rates

06.25.24
by

The Heavyweight Fight May Be Tilting Toward Fiscal Policy

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

You may recall that on March 22, 2024, I produced a post titled, “Are We Witnessing A Heavyweight Fight?”. The gist of the blog post was the conflict between the Fed’s desire to drive down rates through monetary policy and the Federal government’s ongoing deficit spending. At the time of publication, the OMB was forecasting a $1.6 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2024. As I noted in a post on Linkedin.com this morning, the budget office has revised its forecast that now has 2024’s fiscal deficit at $2.0 trillion.

This additional $400 billion in deficit spending will likely create additional demand for goods and services leading to a continuing struggle for the Fed and the FOMC, as they struggle to contain inflation. I also reported yesterday that rental expenses had risen 5.4% on an annual basis through May 31, 2024. Given the 32% weight of rents on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), I find it hard to believe that the Fed will be successful anytime soon in driving down inflation to their 2% target.

As a result, we believe that US interest rates are likely to remain at elevated levels to where they’ve been for the past couple of decades. These higher levels provide pension plan sponsors the opportunity to use bonds to de-risk their pension plans by securing the promised benefit payments through a defeasement strategy (cash flow matching). Furthermore, higher rates provide an opportunity for savers to finally realize some income from their fixed income investments. So, higher rates aren’t all bad! I would suggest (argue) that rates have yet to achieve a level that is constraining economic activity. Just look at the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model and its 3.0% annualized Real GDP forecast for Q2’24. Does that suggest a recessionary environment to you?

For those investors that have only lived through protracted periods of falling rates and/or an accommodative Federal Reserve, this time may be very different. Forecasts of Fed easing considerably throughout 2024 have proven to be quite premature. As I stated this morning, “investors” should seriously consider a different outcome for the remainder of 2024 then they went into this year expecting.

06.25.24
by

ARPA Update as of June 21, 2024

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

I suspect (can only hope) that you woke up yesterday morning just itching to see what news I was going to share as it related to ARPA and the PBGC’s implementation of that critical legislation. Sorry to have disappointed you. Like most everyone else, my day just got away from me.

However, I do have some exciting news to share which might just make up for the disappointment of having to wait one day to get the weekly update. As we’ve been writing, the PBGC was running up against many application review and determination deadlines this month. As a result, they have announced that five funds had their applications approved for Special Financial Assistance (SFA). Terrific!

The five funds are the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store International Union and Industry Pension Plan, the Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Pension Fund, United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Pension Plan, GCIU-Employer Retirement Benefit Plan, and the Pacific Coast Shipyards Pension Plan. These funds represent three Priority Group 6 members and two that came through the non-priority waitlist. In total, they will receive nearly $5.8 billion in SFA for just over 200k in plan participants. The Kansas Construction Trades Open End Pension Trust Fund is the last application that needs action in June. There are four that have July deadlines.

There were no new applications submitted to the PBGC, as the portal remains temporarily closed, no applications denied or withdrawn, and none of the plans that have received SFA were forced to return a portion of the proceeds as a result of overpayment identified through a death audit of the plan’s population.

Fortunately, the US interest rate environment and current economic conditions remain favorable for those potential SFA recipients to SECURE promised benefits far into the future without subjecting the grant proceeds to unnecessary risk associated with a non-cash flow matching assignment. Remember that the sequencing of returns is a critical variable when contemplating an asset allocation framework. If your SFA portfolio suffers significant losses in the early years, you negatively impact the coverage period. We’ll be happy to model your plan’s liabilities for free. Don’t hesitate to reach out to us if we can be a resource for you.

05.30.24
by

A Little History Lesson is in Order

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

I continue to be surprised by the constant droning that US interest rates are too high and financial conditions are too tight. Compared to what? If the reference point is Covid-19 induced levels then you are probably right, but if the comparison is to almost any other timeframe then those proclaiming that the sky is about to fall should refer to one of the greatest decades for equities in my lifetime – the 1990s. I think most investors would agree that the 1990s provided a nearly unprecedented investing environment. One in which the S&P 500 produced an 18.02% annualized performance.

Was the economic environment of the 1990s so much better than today’s? Heck no, but let’s take a closer look. The average 10-year Treasury note yield was 6.52% ranging from a peak of 8.06% at the end of 1990 to a low of 4.65% in 1998. Given that the current yield for the US 10-year Treasury note is 4.56%, I’d suggest that the present environment isn’t too constraining. Furthermore, let’s look at the employment picture from the ’90s. If US rates aren’t high by 1990 standards, unemployment must have been very low. You’d be wrong if that was your guess. In fact, unemployment in the US ranged from 7.5% at the end of 1992 to a low of 4.2% in 1999. For the decade, we had to deal with an average of 5.75% unemployment. Today, we sit with a 3.9% unemployment rate. That level doesn’t seem too constraining, and initial unemployment claims remain quite modest.

So, current US interest rates and unemployment look attractive versus what we experienced during the ’90s. It must be that economic growth was incredibly robust to support such strong equity markets. Well, again you’d be wrong. Sure economic growth averaged 3.2% during the decade, but the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is forecasting a 3.5% growth rate currently for Q2’24. This comes on the heels of a rather surprising 2023 growth rate. What else could have contributed to the 1990’s successful equity market performance that isn’t evident today? How about fiscal deficits? Perhaps the US annual deficit during the ’90s contributed significant stimulus which would have led to enhanced demand for goods and services?

I don’t think that was the case either, as the cumulative US fiscal deficit of $1.336 trillion during the 1990s, including surpluses in 1998 and 1999, is roughly $400 billion less than that which occurred in fiscal 2023 and what is predicted for 2024. Oh, my. The largest fiscal deficit during the 1990s was only $290 billion. That’s equivalent to about 2 months-worth today.

I’m confused, the 1990s produced an incredible equity market despite higher rates, higher unemployment, lower GDP growth, and little to no fiscal stimulus provided by deficit spending, yet today’s environment is constraining? Come, on. Inflation remains sticky. The American worker is enjoying (finally) some real wage growth and is gainfully employed. Rates are not too high by almost any reasonable comparison. US GDP growth is forecasted to be >3%. Where is the recession? Fiscal stimulus continues to be in direct conflict with the Fed’s monetary policy. Something that those investing during the 1990s didn’t need to worry about. Taken all together, is 2024’s environment something to be concerned about, especially relative to what transpired in the 1990s? Should the Fed be looking to reduce rates? I’ll be quite surprised if they come to that conclusion anytime soon.