Pension Problem: Future Values

Printable Version: Pension Problem: Future Values

The true objective of a pension is to secure promised benefits in a cost-effective manner with  prudent risk. Pension benefit payments are future value numbers. We do not know the future value  of pension assets except for bonds who have the certainty of their cash flows (principal + interest  payments). The least risky way to secure benefits is to cash flow match (CFM) these future value  benefit payments with U.S. Treasury STRIPS  (zero-coupon bonds). However, STRIPS may be  too  costly since  they have lower yields. The least costly way  to secure benefits is  through CFM with  investment grade bonds because of the certainty of their cash flows. 

Funded Ratio / Status 

Actuarial practices use present values (PV) to calculate the  funded ratio and  funded status… but  benefit payments are future values (FV). This suggests that the future value of assets vs. the future  value of liabilities would be the more appropriate and critical evaluation. Most asset classes are  difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain their future value. Only bonds (and insurance annuities) have  a known future value and, accordingly, have historically been used to cash flow match liabilities (i.e.  defeasance,  dedication).  To  prove  my  point  as  to  the  potential  misinformation  with  using  a  PV  calculation, let’s use a simple example below. Two pensions both at $100 million market value with  a 15-year duration would have the same  funded ratio in PV$. But pension B is 100% invested in  corporate  bonds  that  outyield  pension  A  (100%  invested  in  Treasuries)  by  100  bps  per  year.  Certainly, plan B has a much greater future value (@ 15.6% higher) and funded status if we used  future values. This suggests that the funded ratio and funded status are not the best indicators of  the true economic solvency: 

Pension	Composition	YTM	PV	FV
A	100% Treasuries	4.00%	$100 million	$180 million
B	100% Corporates	5.00%	$100 million	$208 million

The point of all this is that we need to focus more on the FV of assets vs. liabilities or cash flows. The  AET is the appropriate methodology to compare assets versus liabilities cash flows (future values). 

Pensions are all about cash flows… asset cash flows to fully fund liability cash flows! For some  reason  the  funded  ratio  /  status ignores contributions  as  asset  cash  flows.  Actuaries  say  this is  because  contributions  are  in  the  future  and  could  be  altered. Well,  isn’t  this  true  about  benefit  payments? Such  projections  of  contributions  and  liabilities  are  recalculated  annually  by  the  actuaries so  the  AET  should  be  monitored  annually  after  the  new  actuarial  projections.  We  congratulate GASB 67/68 on requiring a test of solvency (AET) where projected asset cash flows  including  contributions  grow  based  on  the  ROA and are  compared  to  projected  net  liabilities  (benefits + expenses – projected contributions or ((B+E) – C). Ryan ALM modifies this AET approach  where we calculate the ROA needed to fully fund net liability cash flows. In almost all cases, we find  it would take a lower ROA to fully fund net liabilities. This calculated ROA should be the hurdle  rate for asset allocation. 

The AET is a critical and accurate gauge of the solvency of a pension plan since it focuses on  asset cash flows funding NET liability cash flows (future values). It is a valuable tool for all pensions  (Private, Public, and Multiemployer). Notice, it includes contributions as a pension asset where  the  funded  ratio  and  funded  status  do  not. The  AET  correctly  considers  contributions  as  future  assets. 

A  corporate  bond  portfolio  cash  flow  matched  to  net  liability  cash  flows would secure  pension benefits and reduce funding costs (FV of liabilities - PV of assets) with certainty. This is why  cash flow matching of net liability future values is the most prudent and lowest cost methodology  to de-risk a pension through asset liability management (ALM). 

SOLUTION:  Cash Flow Matching 

As stated earlier, funding the net liability benefit payment schedule (liability cash flows or FVs after  contributions) in a cost-effective manner should be the quest of a pension plan sponsor. Ryan ALM  has  built  a  liability  cash  flow  matching  product,  Liability  Beta  Portfolio™ (LBP),  as  a  cost  optimization model that matches and fully funds the net liability payment schedule or cash flows  ((B+E) - C) chronologically at the lowest cost given the investment policy restrictions of our clients.  By focusing on future values, we avoid the present value problems of duration matching (i.e. interest  rate sensitivity changes daily and is a forecast of rates). By matching future values chronologically, the LBP has mitigated interest rate risk which dominates the present value behavior of bonds.  (Note, FVs are not interest rate sensitive.) The LBP is a perfect complement to the AET by cash  flow  matching  each liability  cash  flow payment chronologically (FV  of  benefits +  expenses).  By  matching future values, the LBP enhances the SOLVENCY of any pension at a reduced funding  cost. 

The LBP currently provides a roughly 2% per year funding cost savings (i.e. 20% on a 1- 10-year net liability cash  flow  schedule). This is a  serious cost  reduction and  should be a major  consideration of any pension asset allocation strategy. Yes, the LBP model may have some credit risk, but it remains very small since we are using investment grade bonds (BBB+ or better) with  credit filters (no bonds on negative watch list, low Bloomberg default risk, etc.) plus the cost savings  provides a large risk cushion.  

The funded ratio/status should dictate the allocation to bonds. A surplus or high funded ratio  should have a high allocation  to bonds cash  flow matched  to liabilities and  vice  versa  for a high  deficit or low funded ratio plan. Unfortunately, current asset allocation practices do not respond to  the funded status. In the late 1990s with funded ratios at 120% to 150%, why didn’t all pensions  cash flow match liabilities (defease) and secure this victory? Amazingly, instead of increasing their  bond allocation in response to a growing funded ratio most pensions reduced their bond allocation to the lowest in modern history by 1999 to achieve a target ROA (@ 8.0%). Had pensions cash flow  matched liabilities  then  they would  have  secured  benefits at low  cost in  harmony with  the  true  pension objective and created a surplus portfolio that could have been maintained for decades and used for other purposes (pay OPEB liabilities). 

“Where is the knowledge we have lost in information” 

T.S. Eliot

Bond Math… Let THE FORCE be with you!

Source: Bond Math… Let THE FORCE be with you!

Defined Benefit pension planseverywhereface serious risk factors:

Liquidity Risk

The true objective of a pension is to fund liabilities in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. Pension liabilities are a term structure of monthly payments of benefits + expenses (liability cash flows). Funding liabilities in a cost-efficient, risk-controlled manner is increasingly difficult in a volatile market.Most pension plans rely on assets with uncertain cash flows which do not match the pension benefit payments schedule (liability cash flows). This mismatch creates unnecessary risk, unnecessary costs, and unnecessary stress. For many plan sponsors, this feels like fighting a battle with no clear weapon… let bond math, aka “THE FORCE”, be with you by adopting a Cash Flow Matching (CFM) strategy.

Funding Risk

When a pension sponsor adopts a CFM strategy, there is a significant funding enhancement. Instead of anxiety about market outcomes, contribution spikes, or liquidity needs, a CFM strategy turns the pension plan into aprecision cash flow process that fully funds liability cash flows in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. With Ryan ALM’s CFM in place, here is what life looks like for the plan sponsor:

• Liquidity risk is eliminated, no more cash sweeps

• Funded ratio stabilized for the portion of the plan using CFM

• Non-CFM (performance) assets grow unencumbered, enhancing total return

• Benefits are fully funded with cash flow certainty for the portion using CFM

• Funding costs are significantly lower by 2% per year (20% over 10 years, 40% over 20 years)

Cash Flow Matching (CFM) Methodology

Cash flow matching (Ryan ALM model = Liability Beta Portfolio™ or LBP) will secure monthly benefits and significantly reduce funding costs. Our LBP is a cost optimization model that goes through several iterations to find the optimal cost savings that will fund monthly liability payments with certainty. Since liabilities are priced like bonds… they behave like bonds (FASB or GASB discount rates require pricing as if liability cash flows are a portfolio of zero-coupon bonds). As a result, bonds become the proper proxy and assets to match and fund liability cash flows. Bond math tells us that the longer the maturity the lower the cost and the higher the yield the lower the cost for the same par value. Our LBP is comprised of investment grade bonds skewed to longer maturities and A/BBB+ credits. Importantly, the LBP yield of A/BBB+ bonds creates an excess return (Alpha) over the ROA assigned to bonds (YTM), which further enhances the funded status and reduces contribution costs. It will also outyield liabilities priced as AA corporates (ASC 715 discount rates) by roughly 50 - 100 bps. Skewing the portfolio weights to longer maturities within the designated liability term structure we are funding. As an example, means thata 30-year coupon bond will partially fund 29 years of benefits through interest income. The same is true for a 10-year bond partially funding 1-9 years of liabilities through interest income. Adding principal payments cash flow at maturity adds even more cash flow. Our LBP model will calculate a portfolio of asset cash flows (interest income + principal payments) that will match and fully fund monthly liability cash flows at a significant cost savings.

This is NOT how duration matching (DM) works, which has definite liability cash flow mismatches and cost inefficiencies. Since the longest duration bonds are around 19-years today, duration matching is forced to use Treasury zero-coupon bonds (STRIPS) to fund any liability past 19-years. Since Treasuries are the lowest yielding bonds… they are the highest cost bonds to fund and match liabilities. Moreover, duration is a present value (PV) calculation that is very interest rate sensitive. Duration matching (DM) is focused on matching liability growth rates and not on matching and funding benefit payments (future values). DM usually tries to match an average duration of liabilities or a series of key rate durations. Since duration matching is a PV focus, it does not produce a CFM of liability cash flows (future values) and can be an extremely interest rate sensitive strategy. Cash flow matching fully funds monthly liability cash flows thereby providing a more accurate and tighter duration matching fit.

BOND MATH = “The FORCE”

Just like “The Force” in Star Wars, bond math provides great power and control over asset cash flows. Bond math tells us:

The longer the maturity → the lower the present value

The higher the yield → the lower the present value

Example (bond Future Value = needed to fund $100 million liability payment):

YTM	Maturity	Present Value	Cost Savings	Savings %
5%	5 years	$78,352,617	$21,647,383	21.65%
5%	10 years	$61,391,325	$38,608,675	38.61%
6%	5 years	$74,726,215	$25,273,785	25.27%
6%	10 years	$55,839,479	$44,160,521	44.16%

Note: A 10-year bond at 5% YTM saves 52.8% more than a 5-year bond at 6% YTM. Bonds are the only asset with certain future values (interest income + principal)

Only cash flow matching (defeasement) can secure benefits and reduce funding costs with certainty. By matching and fully funding liabilities (benefits + expenses) our LBP reduces risk accordingly. Our LBP has numerous benefits that best achieve the true pension objective:

Benefit: Eliminates Liquidity Risk

• LBP fully funds liability cash flows chronologically (no need for cash sweep)

Benefit: Enhances Funded Ratio /Status

• LBP outyields ROA for bonds (usually skewed to an index heavily weighted to Treasuries)

Benefit: Reduces Funding Risk

• LBP provides certainty of asset cash flows to fully fund liability cash flows

Benefit: Reduces Costs

• LBP reduces Contribution, Funding and Asset Management Costs

Benefit: Reduces Volatility

• LBP matches and funds liability cash flows reducing volatility of funded status

Benefit: Eliminates Interest Rate Risk

• LBP and liability cash flows are future values (FV) which are not Interest Rate Sensitive

Benefit: Reduce and Stabilize Contribution Costs

• LBP will fully fund liabilities thereby reducing the volatility of contribution costs

Benefit: Buys Time

• LBP fully funds liabilitiesbuying time for other assets (Alpha) to grow unencumbered

Benefit: Portable Alpha

• As Alpha assets grow unencumbered, transfer (port) Excess Returns to LBP

The LBP should be the core portfolio of asset allocation since it best represents and funds the true client objective (funding benefits in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk). The greater the allocation to the LBP, the greater the cost savings and stabilization of the funded status. We strongly recommend replacing the current bond allocation to active bond management managed versus a generic bond index with our LBP cash flow matching portfolio that manages assets versus liabilities. Since Retired Lives are the most certain and most important (most tenured employees) liabilities, we recommend funding Retired Lives through our LBP as a high priority of the pension plan. Ryan ALM can cost-effectively fund the Retired Lives liability cash flow schedule with low risk. Our Liability Beta Portfolio complements the performance or risky assets by removing the cash sweep and buying time for them to grow unencumbered which should significantly help them achieve their target ROA.

Cash… A Risky and Costly Investment For Pensions

Source: Cash…A Risky and Costly Investment For Pensions

Pension funds tend to have a cash portfolio, which is usually held by the custodian bank and often has an average maturity/duration of about 3 months. That cash “bucket” is meant to fund monthly benefits (and expenses). Any deficiency in the cash account to fund monthly benefits creates a cash sweep of other assets, including dividends and interest. This practice causes cash to be a risky and costly investment decision for the following reasons:

1. Reinvestment Risk – Pension liabilities (benefits and expenses) are monthly payments. It is rare that the allocation to cash matches the characteristics of the liability cash flows for the next 3 months. There could be either excess cash or an inadequate cash allocation. Excess cash has some reinvestment risk. A cash shortage usually requires the plan sponsor to sweep liquid assets from growth assets, including dividends and interest income, thereby creating a reinvestment drag or risk on future returns (ROA) of growth assets.

2. Opportunity Cost – Cash is usually the lowest yielding asset since the portfolio has a Treasury bias and maturities are short. This creates an opportunity cost when compared to cash flow matching (CFM) given the longer maturities and much higher yields.

3. Funding Cost – Funding liabilities with cash creates a pay-as-you-go strategy, which tends to be the highest cost strategy to fund liabilities. This is in direct contrast to a defeasance strategy using CFM to fully fund liabilities.

Solution: Cash Flow Matching (CFM)

CFM is designed to fully fund net liability cash flows in a cost-efficient manner. CFM skews the assets to the longer maturities within the maturity range it is funding. The Ryan ALM model (we call the Liability Beta Portfolio™ or LBP) is an investment-grade portfolio skewed to A/BBB+ securities. Bond math tells us that the longer the maturity and the higher the yield, the lower the cost. For example, if CFM is funding liabilities out to 10 years, it will have skewed the weights to the 5-10-year area. This means that 0-1 year liabilities are being partially funded by the cash flows of the longer maturities. The benefits of CFM as the liquidity assets are numerous:

1. Higher yield than cash, enhancing the probability of achieving the ROA.

2. Buys time for the alpha assets to grow unencumbered.

3. Reduces the cost of funding liabilities by about 2% per year.

4. Eliminates a cash sweep that significantly diminishes the ROA of growth assets.

5. Neutralizes interest rate risk since it is funding liability cash flows (FV numbers).

6. Enhances funded ratio/status since it outyields cash and traditional bond portfolios.

CFM should be the core portfolio and liquidity assets of a pension since it best represents the true client objective: funding benefits in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk.

What Do Pension Sponsors Want For Christmas?

Source: What Do Pension Sponsors Want For Christmas?

When asked this question, most pension sponsors would answer:

• Lower or stable pension cost

• Lower volatility on funded status

Yet the asset allocation of most pension plans is skewed to risky and volatile assets. This skewness has created a long history of volatile funded ratios and increasing contribution costs. Fortunately, there is a product that will provide the answers pensions have long sought: Cash Flow Matching!

Given that the true objective of a pension is to fully fund benefits and expenses (liabilities) in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk, plan sponsors and their consultants should be installing a strategy that is the best fit to achieve this true pension objective. CFM is a portfolio of investment grade bonds that provide an accurate and timely match of monthly asset cash flows to fully fund monthly liability cash flows.

The intrinsic value in bonds is the certainty of their cash flows (only asset class with such certainty). Bond math teaches us that the longer the maturity and the higher the yield… the lower the cost. The Ryan ALM CFM portfolio is created through a cost optimization model that fully funds monthly liability cash flows at a cost savings of about 2% per year (20% to fund 1-10-year liabilities). We call our CFM mode the Liability Beta Portfolio (LBP). The LBP should be the core portfolio for any DB pension fund replacing active fixed income management, which is highly interest rate sensitive. Since pension liabilities are future value costs the monthly payments are not interest rate sensitive. As a result, by matching the FV of liabilities, CFM mitigates interest rate risk! By matching and funding liabilities chronologically, the LBP also buys time for the performance or Alpha assets to grow unencumbered. The pension plan can gradually enhance its funded status and stabilize contribution costs by having CFM work in harmony with the Alpha assets. There are numerous benefits to a CFM strategy:

• No need for cash sweep as LBP provides the liquidity to fully fund liabilities

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

• Buys time for performance assets to grow unencumbered

• Outyields active bond management enhancing ROA

• Reduces Volatility of Funded Ratio/Status

• Reduces Volatility of Contribution costs

• Low Investment Advisory Cost = 15 bps

• Reduces Funding costs (2% per year)

• Mitigates Interest Rate Risk

Pension Doctor: Specialist or Generalist?

Source: Pension Doctor: Specialist or Generalist?

When a person gets sick or has an injurythey go see a doctor. Usually, they prefer to see a Specialist who is the recognized expert on the ailment they have rather than a Generalist who has less expertise related to this particular medical condition. Well, the same should be true for pensions. If a pension plan needs a certain strategy to help enhance (cure) the funded status, they call in a specialist for that strategy.

Given that the true objective of a pension is to fully fund benefits and expenses (liabilities) in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk plan sponsors and their advisors should be dialing up a risk mitigation specialist, such as Ryan ALM. For more than 50 years, our cash flow matching (CFM) strategy is the best fit and proven strategy for the pension objective. CFM provides an accurate and timely match of monthly asset cash flows to fully fund monthly liability cash flows. The CFM is a portfolio of investment grade bonds. The intrinsic value in bonds is the certainty of their cash flows (only asset class with such certainty).

Bond math teaches us that the longer the maturity and the higher the yield… the lower the cost. The Ryan ALM cash flow matching product is a cost optimization model that fully funds monthly liability cash flows at a cost savings of about 2% per year in this interest rate environment. We call our CFM model the Liability Beta Portfolio (LBP). The LBP should be the core portfolio of any DB pension and replace active fixed income management, which is highly susceptible to changes in rates. By matching and funding liabilities chronologically, the LBP buys time for the Alpha or performance assets (non-bonds) to grow unencumbered. By working in harmony with the Alpha assets the plan can gradually enhance its funded status and stabilize contribution costs. There are numerous benefits to a CFM strategy:

• No need for cash sweep as LBP provides the liquidity to fully fund liabilities

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

• Buys time for performance assets to grow unencumbered

• Outyields active bond management… enhances ROA

• Reduces Volatility of Funded Ratio/Status

• Reduces Volatility of Contribution costs

• Low Investment Advisory Cost = 15 bps

• Reduces Funding costs (2% per year)

• Mitigates Interest Rate Risk

We urge pensions to use CFM as the core portfolio strategy to achieve their true objective. To our knowledge Ryan ALM is the only firm that specializes in CFM… our only product.

What’s It All About? Liabilities!

Source: What’s It All About? Liabilities!

Most institutional assets are required to fund some type of liability objective (Pensions, OPEB, Lottery, Endowment & Foundation) yet liabilities tend to be missing in every function related to assets:

Asset Allocation – is focused on achieving an absolute rate of return (ROA) which has nothing to do with a liability objective. The proof: how could a 60% and a 90% funded pension plan have the same or similar ROA? Wouldn’t the 60% funded plan have to work harder? This common focus is really assets versus assets (as measured by some index benchmarks) and not assets versus liabilities.

Asset Management – most asset classes are given some generic index benchmark as their return focus. Obviously no generic index could ever represent the unique liability cash flows of each client.

Performance Measurement – once again we have assets versus assets (generic index benchmarks). If an asset class outperforms its generic index benchmark does that mean assets have outgrown liability growth? Of course not! This is again a complete disconnect which plaques most institutional comparisons.

Solutions:

Ryan ALM has developed a turnkey system of products that are a best fit to achieving the true liability objective of institutions:

Custom Liability Index (CLI) – In 1991, the Ryan team developed the CLI as the proper benchmark for any liability objective. The CLI is a monthly report that calculates what liability cash flows assets must fund. For pensions, this is usually the net monthly liability cash flows (after contributions). The CLI is in harmony with clients’ actuarial projections since that is the data used to construct the CLI.

Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP) – The LBP is our proprietary cash flow matching (CFM) model which will fully fund monthly net liability cash flows at a low cost to our clients. Usually, the LBP will reduce funding costs by roughly 2% per year (20% for 1-10 years). Our LBP is a good fit as the liquidity assets so there is no need for a cash sweep that takes income from all asset classes to fund benefits + expenses (B+E). Since the LBP is focused on liability cash flows (future values or FV) it mitigates interest rate risk as well because FVs are not interest rate sensitive.

Performance Attribution Report (PAR) – Our proprietary PAR product provides 14 risk/reward calculations of the LBP versus the CLI, providing even more evidence of value added (in addition to cost savings + mitigation of interest rate risk) since our LBP should outyield and outgrow the CLI.

Asset Exhaustion Test (AET) – Our AET will calculate the true ROA needed to fully fund net liability cash flows. Quite often this calculated ROA is much lower than the current ROA used for asset allocation. Developing an AET should be a first step in the asset allocation process in determining the allocation to the liquidity bucket (LBP assets).

Observations:

The intrinsic value in bonds is the certainty of their cash flows. Bonds are the only asset class with certainty of their cash flows. That is why bonds have been the logical choice for Dedication and Defeasance using Cash Flow Matching (CFM) strategies since the 1970s. Only CFM is a best fit for any liability driven objective. The primary objective of a pension is to secure benefitsin a cost-efficient manner. Our CFM product (LBP) will secure and fully fund benefits by matching asset cash flows monthly versus liability cash flows. This matching process is done chronologically for as far out as the plan sponsor deems necessary.

Furthermore, it would be wise to separate liquidity assets (liability Beta assets) from growth assets (liability Alpha assets). The Beta assets should be the bond allocation to cash flow match the net liability cash flows (after contributions) chronologically for a target horizon. This will buy time for the risky assets (Alpha) to grow unencumbered since you have certainty of the Beta assets’ cash flows for as long a period as you want. A study of S&P data by Guinness Global highlights that dividends and dividends reinvested account for about 47% of the S&P 500 total return on rolling 10-year periods dating back to 1940 and 57% for 20-year horizons. So why would you want to dilute equity returns with a cash sweep? Since we are dealing with net liabilities (after contributions) a 15% LBP allocation may fund liabilities out to 10-years or more, especially given the higher U.S. interest rate environment.

Observations and Benefits of LBP:

• No change in Cash and Bond allocation

• No dilution of Alpha assets to fund B + E

• Reduces funding costs by about 2% per year

• Mitigates interest rate risk (funding future values)

• Secures + fully funds monthly B+E chronologically

• Eliminates the need for a cash sweep which dilutes equity returns

• LBP will out yield current bond managers and enhance the ROA

• Cash flow matching buys time for Alpha assets to grow unencumbered

• Generic bond indexes cash flows look nothing like the projected benefit payment schedule

• This leads to a mismatch of cash flows and risk/reward behaviors… serious issues over time

• Alpha assets need time to perform without any dilution of their cash flows to pay benefits so they shouldn’t be a source of liquidity. Use CFM as the liquidity assets.

Logic:

Let the performance assets (Alpha assets) perform by growing unencumbered as the liquidity assets (Beta assets) provide cash flows sufficient to fully fund benefits plus expenses chronologically.

Bond Yields… Caveat Emptor

Source: Bond Yields… Caveat Emptor

Most bonds are priced and traded on some yield calculation. These yield calculations are based on assumptions that are difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. For example:

Yield to Maturity (YTM) assumes you will reinvest every six months at the purchase YTM until maturity of the bond. How could this happen? Yields are changing every day, and will you reinvest exactly every six months into the same maturity and same YTM? Sounds like Mission Impossible! In fact, the reinvestment rate on any bond is based on the total return of what you reinvested into. Yes, it is possible to have a negative reinvestment rate if you reinvested into a security with a negative total return. Moreover, the longer the bond maturity… the more the reinvestment rate of return determines the yield or return to maturity. In truth, the basic value of the YTM is to determine a price for the security.

All other yields (yield to call, yield to average life, yield to worst, etc.) are based on assumptions that are most difficult to occur, if not impossible. The intrinsic value of most bonds is the certainty of their cash flows. This is what the smart investor should focus on and utilize. Remove the uncertainty that is embedded in all bond yield calculations. Bonds are the only asset class with this certainty of their cash flows. That is why bonds have been the logical choice for Dedication and Defeasance using Cash Flow Matching (CFM) strategies since the 1970s. Only CFM is a best fit for any liability driven objective (Endowments & Foundations, Lotteries, Pensions, OPEB, etc.). The primary objective of a pension is to secure benefitsin a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. CFM will secure and fully fund benefits by asset cash flows matching and fully funding monthly liability cash flows chronologically for as far out as the plan sponsor deems necessary.

We believe that a best practice is to separate liquidity assets (liability Beta assets) from growth assets (liability Alpha assets). The Beta assets should be the bond allocation to cash flow match the net liability cash flows (after contributions) chronologically for a target horizon (we recommend 10 years). This will provide the time for risky assets (Alpha) to grow unencumbered since you have the certainty of the Beta assets cash flows for as long a period as you want. It would also be wise to take the Cash and Fixed Income allocation and apply it to a CFM allocation. Several pension plans do a cash sweep of all assets’ income to fund the monthly benefits and expenses. A study of S&P 500 data by Guinness Global has determined that dividends and dividends reinvested account for about 47% of the S&P 500 total return on rolling 10-year periods and 57% for 20-year time horizons. So why would you want to dilute equity returns by spending the dividend income? Let the cash + bond allocation fund the current monthly liability cash flows through our CFM model (Liability Beta Portfolio™ or LBP). Our LBP would match and secure benefits chronologically for as far out as the allocation of funds allows. Since we are dealing with net liabilities (after contributions) a 15% LBP allocation may fund liabilities out to 10-years. The Ryan ALM cash flow matching model is well tested showing a funding cost savings of about 2% per year or more for longer maturity programs (20% for 1-10 years) depending on the liability term structure.

The Ryan ALM LBP model is funding benefits (future values) which are not interest rate sensitive. This eliminates the largest risk in bonds. Our LBP model will usually outyield active bond managers by over 50 bps, which will also reduce costs.

Observations and Benefits of LBP:

• No change in Cash and Bond allocation

• No dilution of Alpha assets to fund B + E

• Reduces funding costs by about 2% per year

• Mitigates interest rate risk (funding future values)

• Secures + fully funds monthly B+E chronologically

• Eliminates the need for a cash sweep which dilutes equity returns

• LBP will out yield current bond managers and enhance the ROA

• Cash flow matching buys time for Alpha assets to grow unencumbered

Logic

Let the performance assets (Alpha assets) perform by growing unencumbered as the liquidity assets (Beta assets) provide cash flow sufficient to fully fund benefits plus expenses chronologically.

Operation Home Run

Source: Operation Home Run

Pension Solution:Operation Home Run

The true objective of a pension is to secure and fully fund benefits in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. This is best accomplished through a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy using investment grade bonds to fully fund and match monthly benefit payments at low cost. CFM has several advantages of which we label four as “Operation Home Run”:

1.Liquidity

Liquidity is a critical and necessary priority of a pension since it must fund monthly benefits + expenses (B + E) on time. Many plan sponsors use a “cash sweep” or a cash allocation strategy to provide such cash flow. Both strategies are not optimal for a pension plan. A cash sweep usually takes income or cash flow from all asset classes to fund the current monthly B+E. This can severely damage the ROA of such asset classes. According to a research report by Guinness Global since 1940, dividends and dividends reinvested have accounted for 47% of the S&P 500 total return on a 10-year rolling period and 57% on a 20-year rolling period. So, this data questions the logic of a cash sweep that uses dividends to fund benefits + expenses (B+E). A cash allocation is usually low yielding + is close to a 1:1 relationship between present value and future value which is high cost. CFM will fully fund monthly B+E in a cost-efficient manner with yields of the average duration of the CFM.

2.Security

Pensions need to secure the benefit payments as a high priority. This is best accomplished through CFM which has the certainty of asset cash flows that fully fund liability cash flows on time with the correct amount. To our knowledge only bonds and annuities have certain cash flows. This is why bonds have been chosen as the appropriate securities to defease liability cash flows for decades.

3.Time

The greatest asset of a pension is time. Most pensions have long average lives. The best way to buy time is with a CFM strategy that will defease liabilities for as long a period of time as the plan sponsor wants. S&P data proves that the longer the time horizon the higher the total return of stocks… and most risky investments. Ryan ALM recommends a CFM strategy to fund at least 1-7 years.

4.Cost

The pension objective is a liability objective and cost objective. Since liabilities are future value costs, only a CFM or annuity strategy could fund liability cash flows with certainty. The Ryan ALM CFM model will reduce funding costs by about 2% per year (20% for 1-10 years of liabilities).

Conclusion

As a best-fit to achieve the true pension objective, Ryan ALM recommends our cash flow matching (CFM) strategy to fully fund B+E in a cost-efficient manner. Our CFM model will provide timely cash flows that will fully fund B+E at the lowest cost to our clients. The benefits of our CFM model are quite substantial:

• CFM will provide certainty of cash flows which eliminates liquidity risk.

• CFM secures the benefit payments through the certainty of its cash flows.

• CFM buys time. The longer the time, the greater the ROA for the growth assets.

• CFM is a cost optimization model that reduces funding costs by about 2% per year.

• CFM is an investment grade portfolio skewed to the longest maturities within the area it is funding (i.e. 1-5 years or 1-10 years) that should enhance the CFM yield versus the yield on cash reserves and active bond management.

• CFM reduces reinvestment risk if interest rates trend downward (as many expect).

As a solution, Ryan ALM recommends separating liquidity assets from growth assets in asset allocation. Let bonds in a CFM strategy be your liquidity assets for the advantages mentioned above. A CFM strategy will have a longer average duration and higher yield than cash thereby reducing the cost to fund B+E. In this way the liquidity assets and the growth assets are a team that will produce the optimal solutions.

The Pension Crisis of 2000-02

Source: The Pension Crisis of 2000-02

In my 2013 book “The U.S. Pension Crisis” I detailed the causes of the 2000-02 pension crisis where funded ratios deteriorated significantly from a surplus position in the 1990s. This created a spike in contribution costs for many years which I labeled as the U.S. pension crisis… it was actually a contribution cost crisis. Contribution costs for many pensions rose quickly by 5x to 10x or even more in a short period of time. This led many cities and states into a budget shock and some even filed for bankruptcy (i.e. Detroit, Harrisburg, Jefferson County, Stockton).

The major cause of this dilemma, I reasoned, was the asset allocation objective of achieving a ROA (about 8.00% then). This was in sharp contrast and conflict with the true pension objective… to fund benefits (liabilities) in a cost-effective manner with prudent risk.

With funded ratios in a surplus position in the late 1990s. most pension plans could have defeased their liabilities with a bond allocation that used a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy. This CFM strategy would have secured benefit payments and kept contribution costs very low. This used to be called Dedication in the 1970s and 1980s and was a widespread strategy then. CFM gives certainty that the asset cash flows will fully fund the liability cash flows at the lowest cost to the plan sponsor. But because interest rates were well below the ROA of 8.0% in the late 1990s, asset allocation models heavily skewed their weights to equities and other non-bond risky assets to try to earn this 8.0% ROA hurdle rate.

When the equity correction hit in 2000 it was quite severe for pensions. Not only did the equity assets have negative growth but due to a secular decline in interest rates from 1982 this translated into high pension liability growth since they behave like bonds. According to Federal Reserve calculations, the average asset growth for public pensions underperformed the average liability growth by about 73% in the period 2000-02 as follows:

	Assets	Liabilities	Difference	Cumulative
2000	-2.50%	25.96%	-28.46%	-28.46%
2001	-5.40%	3.08%	-8.48%	-37.60
2002	-11.41%	19.47%	-30.88%	-73.40%

2000AssetsLiabilitiesDifferenceCumulative2000-2.50%25.96%-28.46%-28.46%2001-5.40%3.08%- 8.48%-37.602002-11.41%19.47%-30.88%-73.40%

This underperformance caused pension funded ratios to go from a nice surplus to a deep deficit creating the spike in contribution costs. According to the Federal Reserve System data the average funded ratio for state pension funds was 58.9% as of 2002 from a surplus position in 1999.

for their asset allocation models. According to the 2024 Milliman study the average asset allocation for public pensions is skewed to equities at 76% with bonds at 21% down from 24% 10 years ago.

Given the performance of equities in recent years, we may be nearing a correction similar to 2000-02 based on some key criteria:

Reversion to the Mean

This is a common and logical concept. The S&P 500 has a mean return of 9.75% for 20 years and 9.90% for 30 years with dividends. The last 5 years has a mean return of 11.33% and 10 years = 12.39%. This suggests a possible negative growth for the near future to revert to the mean.

P/E Multiple

Valuation is another key determinant. Based on forward earnings, the current forward P/E for the S&P 500 is around 24.26x today. The graph below by Yardeni shows it at 21.7x on Jan. 23. The point here is that the forward P/E today is above the median P/E of 20.1x and is near a 25 year high which happened in 2000.

Déjà Vu

Pensions need to protect and enhance their funded status. They cannot afford volatility in the funded ratio and contribution costs. Now is the time to address asset allocation by shifting assets to a cash flow matching strategy. We recommend a minimum of defeasing the 1-10 year liability cash flows. This would buy time for the risky assets to grow unencumbered and recover from any correction. It also eliminates the need for a cash sweep that reduces the ROA of stocks significantly.

How Bonds Can Enhance the ROA

Source: How Bonds Can Enhance the ROA

Given the volatility and uncertainty of the financial markets, bonds can provide Pension Plan Sponsors a strategy to mitigate some of that volatility. Bonds, through the certainty of their cash flows, prove to be a very effective tool. Most pensions focus on earning the return on asset (ROA) assumption as the goal of asset allocation. Because bonds yield less today than the ROA (7.00% average) the asset allocation to bonds tends to be lower than historic norms. But there exists a bond allocation that could enhance the probability of achieving the ROA. Here’s how:

1. Cash Flow Matching – if bonds were used to cash flow match and fund net liabilities (after contributions) chronologically they would produce the liquidity needed to fully fund such net liabilities. Cash flow matching works best with longer coupon bonds where you use semi-annual interest income to partially fund liabilities. A 10-year bond has 20 interest cash flows + one principal cash flowall priced at a 10-year yield. Having this liquidity wouldeliminate the need to do a cash sweep from other asset classes which is a common liquidity procedure. According to Guinness Global, the S&P 500 has 47% of its historical returns from dividends and reinvestment since 1940 on a 10-year rolling period basis. Wouldn’t you want to reinvest dividends back into growth assets rather than spend it on funding benefits + expenses? By using bonds as the liquidity assets, the growth assets are left unencumbered to grow. The longer the cash flow matching period, the more time the growth assets have to compound their growth. This strategy and practice could significantly enhance the ROA.

2. Yield on Bonds – the asset allocation models forecast the return of each asset class in the model, then weight each asset class to get the derived ROA for total assets. The ROA for most asset classes is based on the historical returns of each asset class index benchmark except for bonds. The currentyield on the bond index benchmark(s) is usually used as the forecast for bond returns. The Bloomberg Barclay Aggregate is most favored as the bond index benchmark. This index was designed at Lehman Bros. by Ron Ryan when he was the head of Fixed Income Research & Strategy from 1977 to 1983. The Aggregate is a very large and diversified portfolio of bonds with the following summary statistics as of March 31, 2025:

# of issues	13,770	Treasury	44.79%	AAA	3.06%
YTM	4.51%	Agency	1.29%	AA	47.86%
Duration	6.08 yrs.	Mtg. Backed	24.85%	A	11.38%
Avg. Maturity	8.38 yrs.	Corporates	24.06%	BBB	11.43%
				NR	25.60%

As a result, most asset allocation models would have a ROA for bonds of about 4.50%. If you can build a bond portfolio that outyields the Aggregate index, by definition, it should enhance the ROA for total assets. Ryan ALM Advisers, LLC has created a cash flow matching product we call the Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP). The LBP is a cost optimization model that cash flow matches liability cash flows chronologically at the lowest cost from a corporate bond portfolio skewed to A/BBB bonds. Based on the actuarial projections of each client we initially build a Custom Liability Index (CLI) to calculate net liabilities ((benefits + expenses) – contributions) chronologically. The CLI provides all the data needed for the LBP to function efficiently. Based on the allocation to the LBP will determine how far out the LBP can fully fund net liabilities. Usually, a 15% allocation to the LBP can fund 1-7 or even 1-10 years of net liabilities. The longer the term structure of the LBP, the higher the yield. The LBP will roughly outyield the Aggregate index by 50 bps (1-5 years) to over 100 bps (1-10 years) based on the LBP term structure. If the LBP outyields the AGG index by 50 to 100 bps, asset allocation can afford to overweight the bond allocation and still meet the target ROA for total assets. A 15% allocation to LBP is 7.5 to 15 bps value added to the ROA.

3.Cash – many pension plans have a cash allocation of around 2%+. Cash is usually the lowest yielding asset. Since the LBP becomes the liquidity assets to fully fund benefits + expenses chronologically, there is little need for cash to fund B+E. Cash might only be needed for capital calls on Private Equity and Alternative Investments. The LBP should significantly increase the yield margin versus cash since the LBP is using A/BBB+ coupon income from all maturities of the LBP. With the LBP fully funding B+E, the cash allocation can be reduced to <1%. Replacing most of the cash allocation to fund B+E with the LBP allocation is another ROA enhancement… it all adds up.

What’s Better For a Pension?

Source: What’s Better For a Pension?

Asset returns are uncertain and very volatile. The S&P 500 is a good example. Since 1990 this index has enjoyed 13 years of 20% + growth. Unfortunately, it was accompanied with several negative return years which brought the average 20 year return down to 9.75%:

1995= 37.20%

1996= 22.68%

1997= 33.10%

1998= 28.34%

1999= 20.89%

2003= 28.36%

2009= 25.94%

2013= 32.15%

2017= 21.83%

2019= 31.49%

2021= 30.92%

2023= 26.29%

2024= 25.02%

The decades of the 2000s began with three negative return years for the S&P 500 as follows:

2000 = (9.03%) 2001 = (11.85%) 2002 = (21.97%)

This combined with a secular decline in interest rates made liability growth spike by 55.12% in those three years (according to the Ryan ALM Liability Index) causing funded ratios to drop significantly by as much as 47%. This brings up the commonsense math… if funded ratios go down about 50%, they need to have assets outgrow liabilities by about 100% to get back to full funding. Since the return on assets (ROA) forecast is not based on the funded status but on the expected return of the plan’s asset allocation, the actuarial projections must make up the funded status deficit by increasing contributions. Most pension plans have experienced spiking contributions costs since 2000 which I proclaimed as the primary impetus for the US pension crisis in my 2013 book (The U.S. Pension Crisis). The uncertainty and volatility of the actual ROA has plagued pensions forever and will continue if this remains the focus of asset allocation.

Since the true objective of a pension is to secure benefits in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk then asset allocation should be focused on this objective and not an ROA objective, which doesn’t guarantee success. This is best accomplished by bifurcating assets into liquidity (Beta) and growth (Alpha) assets. The liquidity or Beta assets should fully fund the liability cash flows (benefits + expenses) chronologically with certainty for as long as the allocation will cover. We define risk as the uncertainty of achieving the objective. So, the least risky asset strategy is to cash flow match (defease) the liability cash flows with certainty. Depending on the plan’s funded status will dictate the asset allocation between the liquidity and growth assets. The funded status is best measured by the

Asset Exhaustion Test (AET) which compares the annual asset cash flows (including contribution) versus the annual liability cash flows (including benefits + expenses).

Ryan ALM recommends starting with an allocation to liquidity or Beta assets that fully funds the liability cash flows for the next 10 years. Then we run the AET to see what ROA is needed for the residual growth assets to fully fund the residual liability cash flows. If the calculated ROA is lower than the current ROA assumption, you can allocate more to the liquidity assets and vice versa.

The benefits of the Ryan ALM cash flow matching strategy (Liability Beta Portfolio™) are numerous and significant:

• Reduces risk (de-risks) by cash flow matching liability cash flows with certainty

• No interest rate risk since it is funding future values (B+E liability payments)

• Provides timely and proper liquidity to fully fund benefits + expenses (B+E)

• AET will calculate proper allocation between liquidity and growth assets

• AET will calculate ROA needed to fully fund liability cash flows

• Reduces funding costs by about 2% per year (1-10 years = 20%)

• Reduces asset management costs (Ryan ALM fee = 15 bps)

• Reduces volatility of the funded ratio and contributions

• Buys time for the Alpha assets to grow unencumbered

• No need for a cash sweep to meetliquidity needs

In summary, a LBP cash flow matching strategy for liquidity assets will reduce funding costs by about 2% per year (1-10 years = 20%) while fully funding the liability cash flows with certainty. This will reduce the volatility of the funded status and allow plan sponsors and their consultants to better plan asset allocation for the growth assets. By eliminating a cash sweep, the growth assets can now reinvest their income and enhance their ROA. So, I ask once again: What is better for a pension plan? A 20% asset gain or a 20% liability cost reduction? It is clearly the cost reduction given the certainty of the outcome!

Pension Strategy to Reduce Funding Costs by 20%+

Source: Pension Strategy to Reduce Funding Costs by 20%+

The true objective of a pension is to secure and fully fund benefits in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. It is a liability and cost objective… it is NOT a return objective! This objective is best accomplished through a cash flow matching strategy where an optimal bond portfolio will fully fund monthly benefits + administrative expenses net of contributions. Bonds are the only asset class with certainty of its cash flows. That is why bonds have been the asset choice to defease liabilities for over 50 years.

Cash flow matching (CFM) used to be called Dedication in the 1970s and 1980s. As the head of Fixed Income Research at Lehman in the 1970s and early 1980s, I was in charge of our Dedication model. When I created my initial firm in 1984 (Ryan Financial Strategy Group), I hired the two professors in charge of Dedication at I.P. Sharpe to build our model. At Ryan ALM, we have rebuilt a CFM model that best fits any liability objective. The Ryan ALM CFM strategy utilizes our proprietary cost optimization model that will fully fund monthly net liabilities and reduce funding costs by about 2% per year. If we CFM 1-10 years of net liabilities, we should be able to reduce funding costs by about 20%, 1-15 years = 30%, etc. In addition to reducing funding costs, CFM has several benefits that should be utilized and recognized. We strongly urge pensions to consider CFM as the core portfolio that best fits the true pension objective and provides many additional benefits as listed below:

Cash Flow Matching – Provides Liquidity

The intrinsic value of bonds is the certainty of their cash flows! If bonds were used to cash flow match and fund net liabilities (benefits - contributions) chronologically they would produce the liquidity needed to fully fund such net liabilities. Cash flow matching works best with longer coupon bonds where you use semi-annual interest income cash flows to partially fund liabilities. A 10-year bond has 20 interest cash flows + one principal cash flow all priced at a 10-year yield. This would eliminate the need to do a cash sweep of other asset classes which is a common liquidity procedure. According to S&P data, the S&P 500 has 48% of its historical returns from dividends and reinvestment since 1940 on a 10-year rolling period basis. Wouldn’t you want to reinvest dividends back into growth assets rather than spend it on funding benefits + expenses? Wouldn’t you want the ROA of growth assets enhanced?

Cash Flow Matching - Provides TIME

Ryan ALM, Inc. released a 2022 research report titled “Most Important Asset of a Pension… Time!”. By using bonds as the liquidity assets, the growth assets are left unencumbered to grow. The longer the cash flow matching period, the more time the growth assets have to compound their growth. This could significantly enhance the ROA. By cash flow matching net liabilities chronologically, Ryan ALM can buy the time a plan sponsor and their consultant feel is necessary for the growth assets to grow unencumbered… and recover from negative return years. When markets correct and go down (i.e. 2022) it may take several years to recover and achieve the average annual target ROA that was assigned to that asset class.

Cash Flow Matching – Provides Inflation Hedge

Ryan ALM released a 2020 research report and pension alert titled “Pension Inflation =/= CPI”. Pension inflation has three parts: a cost of living adjustment (COLA) lives; a salary increase factor for active lives and a forecast of administrative expenses. The COLA may be based on the CPI but with a floor and a cap or even a % of the CPI while the salary and administrative expense increases tend to be quite static @ 3% annual increase. As a result, pension inflation tends to be less volatile and more static than the CPI. The plan sponsor actuary includes pension inflation in their projected benefit + expenses payment schedule for both retired and active lives. This fact suggests clearly that the best way (and only way) to hedge pension inflation is to cash flow match the actuarial projected benefits + expenses. If you cash flow match the actuarial projections, you have defeased liabilities and hedged pension inflation.

Cash Flow Matching – Outyields Benchmark and Bond ROA

The Ryan ALM cash flow matching product (Liability Beta Portfolio or LBP) is heavily skewed to A/BBB corporate bonds while the BB Aggregate is heavily skewed to Government bonds. As a result, the LBP will outyield the BB Aggregate by a significant yield spread… usually 50 – 75 bps, which will enhance the ROA of bonds.

Higher Yields are Good for Cash Flow Matching… and Pensions

Ryan ALM released a topical 2022 research report titled “Why Higher Interest Rates are Good for Pensions”. Pension funds are highly interest rate sensitive! Certainly, fixed income assets are such that the longer their maturity and effective duration, the greater their interest rate sensitivity. But it is pension liabilities that are more interest rate sensitive. Liabilities behave like a 100% zero-coupon bond portfolio because the discount rate(s) chosen price liabilities as zero-coupon bonds. This causes liabilities to be longer in duration then the same maturity(s) coupon bonds. Many discount rates are a yield curve of rates (ASC 715, PPA, PBGC, IASB). As interest rates trend higher, bonds can cash flow match liabilities at lower and lower costs. Note that cash flow matching is focused on funding B + E which are future values. Future values are not interest rate sensitive. Bonds are the only asset class with the certainty of cash flows (future values). That is why bonds have always been used as the methodology for defeasance (cash flow matching) of liabilities. Moreover, if interest rates trend upward any reinvestment of cash flow can buy future value at a lower cost. As a result, cash flow matching sees higher interest rates as an opportunity to reduce funding costs. The Ryan ALM cash flow matching product can reduce funding costs by @ 20% for most pension liabilities out to 10 years. In contrast, bonds used as performance or growth assets could see negative returns… like 2022. Total return performance is not the value in bonds… the certainty of cash flow is the intrinsic value. We urge pensions to transfer their bond allocation from focusing on outperforming some generic bond index to focusing on cash flow matching liabilities chronologically, especially at today’s higher rates.

Reminder: The ROA is Plural… ROAs

Ryan ALM, Inc. released a topical 2022 research report titled “The Pension ROA is plural… ROAs” that details how the ROA is calculated. Each asset class is askby using their index benchmark as the target return proxy. However, for fixed income it is the YIELD of the index benchmark… not the total return like other asset classes. The Bloomberg Barclay Aggregate is most favored as the bond index benchmark. This index and almost all popular bond index benchmarks were designed at Lehman Bros. by me (Ron Ryan) when I was the head of Fixed Income Research & Strategy from 1977 to 1983. Please note… each asset class is NOT required to earn the pension fund ROA assumption (@ 6.50% today). This is an important fact to remember in asset allocation. We at Ryan ALM often hear the criticism and question… how can we invest in 4% bonds to earn our ROA? The answer is bonds do NOT need to earn the pension ROA… just their assigned ROA (yield of index benchmark) in the asset allocation model.