Why wait?

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

Due to great uncertainty brought on by the conflict in the Middle East and the war's potential impact on the price of oil ($85.63 at 10:01 EST) that could drive inflation higher, U.S. long-dated Treasury yields continue to rise. In fact, the U.S. 30-year Treasury yield has not been this high (5.26%) since July 6, 2007, when the yield was at 5.28%. Where yields go from here is anyone's guess, but I will share that oil, as represented by WTI, has risen 24.9% since June 30, 2026. Given the exposure that oil or oil-derived inputs have in more than 6,000 products, the significant rise in the recent price could impact inflation for quite some time, even if oil soon began to flow more freely.

We recently saw the average 30-year BBB+ bond trading at 110 bps above the prevailing 30-year Treasury. If that relationship is maintained, pension plans could potentially cover most of their desired return on asset (ROA) annual target (average public pension plan has a 6.75% ROA) through bonds. Should inflation spike once again, there is no telling how high U.S. interest rates could rise. Despite domestic equity's apparent immunity to market fundamentals and geopolitical risks, there will come a time when higher U.S. yields become too attractive to ignore leading to the potential for rebalancing out of equities into fixed income. That action will likely lead to lower equity prices and falling bond yields.

So, I ask, why wait? Why wait to take risk from your current asset allocation before the markets act? Why not SECURE your benefit promises through cash flow matching (CFM) well into the future and reduce the volatility related to returns, contributions, and funded status? Why not take advantage of very attractive bond yields? As a reminder, core, active fixed income strategies are highly interest rate sensitive. Rising yields negatively impact bond prices, as seen in the performance of the Aggregate Bond Index, which is up only 0.1% annually for the 5-years ending June 30, 2026. However, a CFM strategy, which secures benefits that are future values, eliminates interest rate risk, as future values are not interest rate sensitive.

Public pension plans have done a good job of improving their funded ratios since bottoming after the Great Financial Crisis but remain only one market crash away from repeating this vicious cycle. Get off the performance rollercoaster. Secure your promises chronologically for some period into the future (your plan's funded status should dictate the allocation). You and your participants will sleep much better knowing that the promises made will be kept.

There Is No "One Size Fits All" Asset Allocation

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

I recently attended a public pension conference in which the following question was asked by the moderator: Should public pension funds once again adopt a 60%/40% asset allocation framework? As a reminder, 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 asset allocation. Given that every defined benefit plan has its own unique liabilities, funded status/funded ratio, different workforces, ability to contribute, etc., how could there be a standard exposure to any asset class, let alone a standard 60% equity/40% fixed income allocation.

I’m sure that this question originates through the belief that the pension objective is to achieve a return on asset (ROA) assumption, as if 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 return objective guarantees volatility - volatility of returns, contributions, and funded status. It does not guarantee success! Regarding the volatility of returns, the annual standard deviation for a pension plan's asset allocation is roughly 12%-15%. Refocusing on the plan's unique liabilities secures, through cash flow matching (CFM), the monthly promises (benefit payments) from the first month out as far as the allocation will cover. Through this process the necessary liquidity is provided each month, while also providing the additional benefit of 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.

These growth assets 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. Again, 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 CFM strategy. If your plan is less well funded today, start with a more modest CFM allocation, 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 and its governance.

Ryan ALM's TPA+ Approach

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

Asset allocation discussions have recently compared traditional pension asset allocation with a "new" approach referred to as the Total Portfolio Approach (TPA). We believe the distinction between traditional asset allocation and the total portfolio allocation is subtle but important. The two approaches begin with different questions.

Traditional asset allocation approaches ask: "How should we invest the assets to achieve the required return objective?"

A TPA approach asks: "How does every asset contribute to funding a pension plans liabilities (benefits)?"

In a traditional asset allocation framework the expectation is that long-term returns will eventual fund the promises. However, a pension plan doesn't exist to outperform an index/benchmark. It exists to pay the promised benefits!

In the TPA approach, a pension fund will have a broadly diversified array of investments, but each investment has a specific purpose relative to the pension plan's liabilities. There are no investment sleeves, but a single portfolio with the goal to fund the pension's liabilities.

We, at Ryan ALM, Inc. believe that our approach, implemented over decades, goes one step beyond Total Portfolio Management.

Whereas a TPA asks: "What allocation best maximizes the performance of the entire portfolio?"

Ryan ALM asks: "What investment strategy best minimizes the cost and risk of paying future pension benefits?"

TPA shifts the focus from individual asset classes to the overall portfolio. Ryan ALM shifts the focus again—from the portfolio itself to the pension liabilities. Assets need to know what they are funding… net liabilities (projected benefits – projected contributions). Since the actuary does not calculate net liabilities, this becomes the first step and calculation of the Ryan ALM process. Our philosophy is arguably closer to Total Pension Management than Total Portfolio Management.

Ryan ALM's liability-based investment philosophy shares important characteristics with TPA while also differing in a fundamental way.

Traditional Asset Allocation	Total Portfolio Approach	Ryan ALM Liability-Based Investing
Optimizes asset-class weights	Optimizes the total portfolio	Optimizes the funded status and liability outcomes
Benchmark relative	Goal relative	Liability relative
Focus on returns	Focus on total risk-adjusted returns	Focus on securing pension promises
Asset classes drive decisions	Portfolio drives decisions	Liabilities drive decisions

The Pension objective isn't returns—it's securing pension promises! Ryan ALM's pension management is distinguished from both traditional asset allocators and TPA by highlighting and managing to the pension plan's liabilities, and then paying those liabilities when required through Cash Flow Matching. No games and no uncertainty!

Pension Problem: Gross versus Net Liabilities

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

Most pension plans are focused on gross liabilities as expressed by the funded ratio (total assets / total liabilities) and funded status (total assets – total liabilities). But the truth is plan assets are to fund NET liabilities after contributions. Contributions can be quite large especially for public pension funds. Pension assets need to know what they are funding… answer = NET liabilities. Unfortunately, actuaries do not calculate NET liabilities, nor do they include contributions as an asset to calculate the funded ratio / status. These oversights have an impact on asset allocation, especially if it is focused on the true economic funded status of solvency. The Ryan team created the first Custom Liability Index (CLI) in 1991 that has become a core product of Ryan ALM. Our CLI will calculate NET liabilities as a term structure, so assets and the plan sponsor know the liquidity needed and when to fund NET liabilities. 

GASB accounting requires a test of solvency (asset exhaustion test or AET) for public funds (which should be a requirement for all types of pensions) that includes contributions as a future asset to help fund the future liability cash flow schedule. Assets are grown at the return on asset assumption (ROA) to see if they can fully fund projected benefits – projected contributions (net liabilities). At the point that assets are exhausted, GASB requires a bifurcated discount rate using AA 20-year municipal rates. Ryan ALM modifies the GASB AET to calculate the ROA needed to fully fund net liabilities. We find that our calculated ROA is usually much lower than the ROA assumption currently being used. Our calculated ROA should be the hurdle rate for asset allocation instead of the common practice of choosing an ROA based on an asset only forecast of returns by asset classes. Our modified AET should be the first step in asset allocation after the CLI is built.

Bonds are the only asset class with the certainty of cash flows. That is why bonds have always been used to defease and immunize liabilities. Our Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP) is a cost optimization model that will fully fund NET liabilities at the lowest cost to the plan sponsor. We strongly believe that the bond allocation should be used to fully fund NET liabilities chronologically. In the process, an extended investment horizon is created buying time for the Alpha assets to grow unencumbered. We have found that converting the plan’s core fixed income allocation to a cash flow matching portfolio will normally cover the plan’s next 10+-years of benefit payments. Instead, some pension plans use a “Cash Sweep” to fund current liabilities which significantly damages the total return produced by those growth assets. Let bonds fund NET liabilities with certainty through our LBP… and sleep well at night.        

“Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” T.S. Eliot

Try Clapping With One Hand

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

The only reason that your DB pension plan exists is because a promise was given to your participants that they would receive a monthly benefit for life upon meeting some requirements such as years employed and retirement age. The promise wasn't based on whether your particular pension fund achieved the annual return on asset assumption (ROA). If the ROA was achieved - great. Contributions would be as forecasted by your actuary. If not, it would be time to ante up more in annual contributions. But at the end of the day, you remain on the hook to make that monthly payment.

Given that reality, does it make sense that the primary focus is on the ROA and not the promised benefits? Regrettably, for most of Pension America, the annual ROA is the goal. However, pursuing that objective only guarantees volatility and not success. On the other hand, we, at Ryan ALM, Inc., believe that the primary pension objective is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. By securing that promise, you eliminate uncertainty and volatility in the funded status.

Here's the rub, the pension liabilities are the domain of the actuaries, while asset allocation falls to the asset consultants. How often do those entities communicate? How often do you as the plan sponsor know how that promise you made is behaving? Does it make sense to you that assets are constantly being measured while the liabilities may get a once per year update 4-6 months delayed? Wouldn't it make much more sense to have both the assets and liabilities updated at the same time so that asset allocation adjustments could be made as necessary?

Think about a bridge with two primary supports. One of the supports are representative of the actuaries and the other one is the asset consultants. To get from one side of the pension canyon to the other side, there needs to be a connector. What entity is that? It is not your investment managers, who are focused on a generic benchmark and not your plan's liabilities. Ryan ALM believes that we can be that entity, as we provide a turnkey system of sustainable solutions to make sure that each pension fund that we support understands the promises that have been made, develops the correct cash flow roadmap, and carefully constructs the necessary match between liability cash flows of benefits and expenses with the asset cash flows (principal and interest) from IG bonds to SECURE those monthly promises.

Our mission is to secure your promises at both low cost and with prudent risk. It is not to have you sit firmly on the rollercoaster of market returns with the hope that the plan's asset allocation will deliver a return near the ROA. The current breakdown in communication between actuaries and asset consultants is like trying to clap with one hand. As hard as you try, it just won't work. Let Ryan ALM be your bridge. With us you'll receive a monthly Custom Liability Index (CLI) based on your fund's forecasted liabilities, monthly liquidity chronologically as far into the future as your allocation to a cash flow matching (CFM) mandate covers, time for the residual assets (alpha assets) to grow, low cost management fees, ongoing monitoring of the relationship of assets to liabilities, and a stable funded ratio and contribution expenses for that portion of the plan. We connect assets to liabilities through our proprietary turnkey system of four products. Think of us as the maestro leading the orchestra. Both hands are working for you and your participants.

It is Our Mission!

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

The individual professionals on the Ryan ALM, Inc. team have both a personal and professional mission which drives us every day! What is that mission? We are driven with the goal of protecting and preserving defined benefit pension plans, which we believe are the only true retirement plans. Any other "retirement" vehicle pales in comparison. Yet, our industry has adopted practices which we believe are detrimental to the long-term stability of these critically important plans.

Pursuing an objective focused on return has created an environment that has these DB plans on a perpetual rollercoaster of performance, ultimately creating unnecessary instability and uncertainty as it relates to both contributions and funded status. As a reminder, we believe that the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is not a performance objective.

Recently, I reviewed a pension plan that believed its biggest challenge was improving returns. After examining its cash flow needs, we discovered the larger issue was liquidity. By addressing liquidity first, the trustees reduced risk, a key action in these uncertain times, while improving confidence in their ability to meet future benefit payments. Furthermore, most trustees I speak with are wrestling with the same issues—liquidity, uncertainty, and how much risk is appropriate at this stage of the investing cycle.

Through Cash Flow Matching (CFM), a dedicated investment-grade bond portfolio in which we carefully match asset cash flows of principal and interest against the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses, we are able to bring certainty to your cash flow needs through enhanced liquidity. I'd be happy to walk through your plan's cash flow profile and show you how a cash flow matching approach would support your current asset allocation.

Every pension plan is different, but every trustee shares the same responsibility: ensuring promised benefits are paid. Markets will do what markets do. Interest rates will rise and fall. Economic uncertainty will come and go. The question is whether your pension plan is structured to withstand those events without jeopardizing the promises made to participants.

If you're not completely certain that your fund is structured appropriately, let us at Ryan ALM work with you to protect and preserve your DB plan, as it is our collective mission. Your fund's participants will appreciate knowing that their promised benefits have been secured for some period of time. If you'd like a second opinion on your plan's liquidity profile, cash flow needs, or overall asset allocation strategy, let's talk. A 30-minute conversation may help you see risks—and opportunities—that aren't visible through a funded ratio or return assumption lens.

As Clara Would Ask: "Where's the Beef?"

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

Clara Peller became famous as a result of her participation in the 1984 Wendy's ad campaign in which she famously asks, "where's the beef?". Her comment was of course in reference to Wendy's competitors whose burgers were less than impressive in size.

Yesterday, I produced a post highlighting the many benefits of cash flow matching (CFM), including providing ALL the necessary liquidity, creating an extended investing horizon, providing certainty and security, lower management fees, stable contributions/funded ratio, and the elimination of interest rate risk.

Despite the plethora of benefits, we occasionally receive push back from plan sponsors and their advisors on the use of CFM because some folks believe that they can identify a fixed income manager or group of bond managers that will "outperform" a CFM portfolio thus supporting the ROA target, as if that was the primary objective. As we've stated many times, the primary objective in managing a defined benefit plan is to SECURE the promised benefits at a reasonable cost and with prudent risk. It is NOT a return objective.

But, let's just say for argument's sake that using bonds in your fund was for return purposes. The greatest risk in managing U.S. fixed income is interest rate risk. Yes, most of us grew up in this industry during the last 40+ years when interest rates declined from ridiculous levels (10-year Treasury yield was 15.1% on the day I entered this business (October 1981)) to the zero-rate environment created by Covid-19. Most core fixed income managers continue to use the Barclays Aggregate (formerly Lehman) Index as the benchmark. The YTW on that index is 4.67%. A yield that is certainly below most, if not all, ROA targets for DB pensions (certainly public and multiemployer plans). Moreover, the yield on the Ryan ALM CFM is over 5.00% since it is a portfolio of primarily A/BBB+ corporate bonds. Our CFM should outperform the Agg by the yield difference given the same or similar duration.

Furthermore, that core fixed income manager(s) will actively position exposures related to the types of bonds, including Treasuries, agencies, MBS/ABS/CMOs, corporates, duration, sectors, etc. relative to the index to try to capture some excess return. But is "active management" adding value and what is the annual volatility or standard deviation associated with that activity? Many bond investors benefited from the nearly 4 decade decline in rates, as bond prices rose when yields fell. However, most investors today weren't around for the 28-years prior to 1981 when U.S. interest rates rose! Things were much different for bond managers then.

Do you know in which direction interest rates will travel during the next 1-, 3-, 5- or more years? We, at Ryan ALM, certainly don't and we don't need to know. Given that the greatest risk to an active core bond strategy is rates, why do you remain confident that your manager(s) will consistently meet or exceed the index's return? With CFM, there is no guessing as to what rates will do. On the day that the CFM portfolio is created, asset cash flows of principal and interest are matched against the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. As rates move (either up or down), that careful match remains, which is how we can claim that both security and certainty (barring a default) is achieved. Your core manager can't make that claim because the Aggregate index looks nothing like your unique liabilities.

By the way, the "Agg" is up only 0.17% for the 5-years ending May 31, 2026. On a YTD basis, the index has produced a 0.38% return. Do you think that those results are helping or hurting your fund? As Clara asked 42-years ago (oh, my!), "where's the beef?” I can tell you. It is found in a CFM strategy and it is a whopper! 

What Do You Need?

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

We are now nearly through the first half of 2026. That doesn't seem possible. Despite the very uncertain economic and geopolitical environment, U.S. equities continue to march higher, especially for stocks associated in any way with AI. As a result, I suspect that a number of plan sponsors/trustees will say that they only need for those good times to keep rolling. But is that possible given current valuations? On the other hand, perhaps you are a sponsor/trustee that believes that nothing grows to the heavens, and as a result you might be looking to take a little risk out of your current asset allocation. If so, I have a suggestion. But first, here are a few questions that I'd like you to consider:

• How is your fund's current liquidity profile?

• If raising the necessary monthly liquidity is challenging, how would you like a strategy that provides the liquidity you need, net of contributions, each month chronologically as far out as the strategy's allocation will take you?

• Given current equity valuations, how would you like an extended investing horizon that buys time for your fund's alpha assets to wade through potentially choppy near-term markets without fear of forced selling to meet benefits and expenses?

• How does reducing investment management fees sound?

• How would you like to stabilize contribution costs and the funded ratio?

• The investment strategy that I am referring to brings an element of certainty to the management of pensions that sorely lack that today. How does that sound?

• How do you think your participants would appreciate knowing that their promised benefits are SECURED for the period that your new strategy covers?

• Interest rates are the greatest threat to a fixed income (bond) investment program. How would you like a strategy that is not impacted by changes in U.S. interest rates?

Come on Kamp, is there really an investment strategy that can secure the benefits, buy time for the residual assets to just grow unencumbered, lower investment fees, eliminate interest rate risk, and provide the liquidity that I'll need to pay my monthly bills? There sure is! For regular readers of this blog, you likely know that I'm referring to Cash Flow Matching (CFM) as the investment strategy.

This bond product carefully matches the asset cash flows of principal and interest with the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. By doing so, the benefits are secured for the length of the program. We have assignments from 3-years to 30-years. We've just bought time for the assets not engaged in CFM to wade through any ugliness in markets without fear of liquidation to meet monthly payouts. Furthermore, we are matching future values which are not interest rate sensitive. A $1,000 benefit payment next month is $1,000 whether rates are at 2% or 10%. Finally, we provide our investment management services at attractively low rates.

We also provide a free analysis to any sponsor who'd like to know how CFM could benefit their fund. We'll produce a CFM portfolio that will help you understand the potential cost reduction in the value of those future benefit promises. In today's rate environment, we can produce portfolios that reduce the future cost of providing benefits by roughly 2% per year. Ask us to cover the next 10-years and the savings becomes very attractive and meaningful. We are ready when you are!

The Benefit of Higher U.S. Interest Rates

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

Rising interest rates can often create stresses in an economy and within the capital markets. They certainly make financing big ticket items more painful. They can destabilize equity markets, although it seems as if the current equity market is immune to any risk at this time. They harm most fixed income managers/strategies, as rising rates lower the present value of their bonds.

However, rising rates are GREAT for cash flow matching (CFM) strategies, as the higher rates reduce the cost of those future pension promises (benefit payments). We were recently asked by a public pension fund to provide them with an analysis of what CFM could potentially do for them in this environment. They provided us with the requisite data - projected benefits, expenses, and contributions as far into the future as possible - which we then ran through our cost optimization model that we call the Liability Beta Portfolio (LBP).

The output is compelling! We can secure this fund's net (after contributions) liabilities (all of them!) through September 30, 2053. The future value (FV) of those liabilities is $86.2 million. However, the plan needs to set aside only $50.1 million in present value (PV) assets to defease those liabilities with certainty. The $36.1 million cost reduction is locked in on the day that the portfolio is created. That "savings" equates to a cost reduction of 41.9%!

So, this plan sponsor can now SECURE pension payments for 27-years. The residual assets not needed in the CFM portfolio can now grow unencumbered. If I were them I'd just buy a S&P 500 ETF creating considerable savings from lower management fees and far less complexity. Furthermore, the plan sponsor now knows what contributions will look like for the next nearly three decades. They won't have to be alarmed should markets suffer a deep and extended correction, as the assets AND liabilities will move in lockstep.

By the way, these benefits were achieved without taking substantial risk, as our process only uses investment-grade corporate bonds rated BBB+ or better. Defaults, which are the only risk within the strategy, have been 0.2% (2/1000 bonds) annually for the last 40-years according to S&P.

Why use CFM? The benefits are incredible, including; certainty, security, all the necessary liquidity, an extended investing horizon, lower management fees, stable contributions, and improved sleep! If these benefits sound attractive to you, provide us the same info that our public fund prospect did (see above) and we'll provide you with a free analysis, too. We are confident that you'll be as blown away as they were and the many clients that we are proud to support.

Pension Plans are NO Place for Cookie Cutter Solutions!

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

I was recently asked by a member of our investment/pension community if there was a common thread that linked my various roles during my 45-years in this business. After some thought, I said YES. For my nearly 20-years in consulting, or as the CEO for Invesco's quant business or now at Ryan ALM, Inc. my roles have been highlighted by finding unique solutions to client or prospect challenges. I never believed that there existed an off-the-shelf-solution for my client's unique requirements.

I continue to be motivated by this belief. I find it disconcerting that pension plans funded at quite different levels (60% vs. 90%) could have the same asset allocation. It makes no sense, yet we see that all the time. EVERY pension plan has a unique set of liabilities and asset allocation decisions should reflect those characteristics.

As an example, I attended a client's quarterly meeting recently and listened to a consultant's presentation regarding a new variable plan. We manage money for the legacy DB pension fund. The consultant explained that the new fund had a 5% annual return target. Yet they went on to say that the asset allocation was 60% equity, 35% fixed income, and 5% alternatives. WHY?

In today's environment of much higher interest rates, investment grade corporate bonds of basically any maturity would provide a 5+% interest rate. Equities will likely get you more than 5% over time, but given the fund's annual target and narrow corridor, why live with investments that come with far greater annual volatility, especially given today's valuations, which are quite stretched by most measures?

Again, it appears to me that a 60%/35%/5% asset allocation is more of an off-the-shelf approach than one developed specifically for this client. For many plans today, the ability to meet the annual required contribution (ARC) is proving problematic. As we witnessed during the decade of the oughts, major market dislocations can have a profound impact on the sponsoring organization through ever increasing contributions. Furthermore, liquidity to meet ongoing monthly benefit payments, especially for negative cash flow plans, is proving to be difficult. These challenges need to be solved on an individual fund basis and not through a general approach.

We, at Ryan ALM, Inc., believe that the primary objective 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. Since every plan has a unique set of liabilities, no generic index or "traditional" asset allocation could ever replicate those liabilities. Managing a pension plan needs to start with understanding the client's objective.