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

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.

Problem/Solution: Asset-only Focus

Source: Problem/Solution: Asset-only Focus

Problem: Asset Only Focus on Asset Allocation

Solution: Asset Liability Management (ALM)

Most, if not all asset allocation models are focused on achieving a total return target or hurdle rate… commonly called the ROA (return on assets). This ROA target return is derived from a weighting of all asset classes forecasted index benchmark returns except for bonds which uses the yield of the index benchmark. These forecasts are based on some historical average (i.e. last 20 years or longer). As a result, it is common that most pensions have the same or similar ROA.

This ROA exercise ignores the funded status. It is certainly obvious that a 60% funded plan should have a much higher ROA than a 90% plan. But the balancing item is contributions. If the 60% funded plan would pay more in contributions than the 90% plan (% wise) then it can have a lower ROA. I guess the question is what comes first. And the answer is the ROA with contributions as a byproduct of the ROA. The actuarial math is whatever the assets don’t fund… contributions will fund.

If the true objective of a pension is to secure and fully fund benefits and expenses (B+E) in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk, then you would think that liabilities (benefits + expenses) would be the focus of asset allocation. NO, liabilities are usually missing in the asset allocation process. Pensions are supposed to be an asset/liability management (ALM) process not a total return process. Ryan ALM recommends the following asset allocation process:

Calculate the cost to fully fund (defease) the B+E of retired lives for the next 10 years chronologically using a cash flow matching (CFM) process with investment grade bonds. CFM will secure and fully fund B+E of retired lives for the next 10 years. Then calculate the ROA needed to fully fund the residual B+E with the current level of contributions. This is calculated through an asset exhaustion test (AET) which is a GASB requirement as a test of solvency. The difference is GASB requires it on the current estimated ROA before you do this ALM process. Ryan ALM can create this calculated ROA through our AET model. If the calculated ROA is too high then either you reduce the allocation to the CFM or increase contributions or a little bit of both. If the calculated ROA is low, then increasing the allocation to CFM is appropriate. Running AET iterations can produce the desired or most comfortable asset allocation answer.

Cash flow matching (CFM) will provide the liquidity and certainty needed to fully fund B+E in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. The Ryan ALM model (Liability Beta Portfolio™ or LBP) will reduce funding costs by about 2% per year or 20% for 1-10 years of liabilities. We will use corporate bonds skewed to A/BBB+ issues. There has never been a bond default in the 20-year history of Ryan ALM.

Assets are a team of liquidity (bonds) and growth assets to beat the liability opponent. They should work together in asset allocation to achieve the true pension objective.

Problem/Solution: Generic Indexes

Source: Problem/Solution: Generic Indexes

Problem: Find Pension Liabilities in any Generic Bond Index

Solution: Custom Liability Index (CLI)

Pension liabilities are unique to each plan sponsor… different salaries, benefits, expenses, contributions, mortality, inflation assumptions, plan amendments, etc. In an effort to capture and calculate the true liability objective, the Ryan team created the first Custom Liability Index (CLI) in 1991 as the proper pension benchmark for asset liability management (ALM). We take the actuarial projections of benefits and administrative expenses (B+E) for each client and then subtract Contributions to calculate the true liability cash flows that assets have to fund since contributions are the initial source to fund B+E. We then calculate the monthly liability cash flows as (B+E) – C. The CLI is a monthly report that includes the calculations of:

• Net future values broken out by term structure

• Net present values broken out by term structure

• Total returns broken out by term structure

• Summary statistics (yield, duration, etc.)

• Interest rate sensitivity

The Ryan ALM CLI should be installed as the index benchmark for any bond manager as well as total assets. This should be the first step in asset management and asset allocation. The CLI can be broken out into any time segment that bond assets are directed to fund (i.e. 1-3 years, 1-10 years, etc.). Moreover, total assets should be compared versus total liabilities to know if the funded ratio and funded status have improved over time. If all asset managers outperform their generic index benchmarks but lose to liability growth rate (total return)… the pension plan loses and must pay a higher contribution.

Since the CLI is a monthly report, plan sponsors can compare assets versus liabilities monthly. There should never be an investment update of just assets versus assets (generic index benchmarks) which is common. It is hard to understand in today’s sophisticated finance world, that liabilities are missing as an index. The reason must be that it is extra work for each client. But it should be clear that no generic bond index could ever properly represent the liability cash flows that assets are required to fund. It is apples versus oranges.

“Given the wrong index benchmark… you will get the wrong risk/reward”

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.

Pension Conundrum - Liquidity Risk

Source: Pension Conundrum - Liquidity Risk

Liquidity is a critical and necessary priority of a pension fund, since it must fund monthly benefits and expenses (B + E) on time. Many plan sponsors use a “cash sweep” or a fixed cash allocation to provide such cash flow. Both strategies are not optimal for a pension plan.

Cash Sweep

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 found 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 B+E.

As a solution, Ryan ALM recommends that you use a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy to fully fund B+E. Our CFM model will provide timely cash flows that will fully fund B+E at the lowest cost to our clients. The benefits of CFM are quite substantial:

• Allows growth (non-liquidity) assets to grow unencumbered. Should enhance their ROA significantly.

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

• CFM will provide certainty (barring a default) of cash flows which reduces or eliminates liquidity risk.

• CFM is an investment grade portfolio skewed to the longest maturities within the area it is funding (i.e. 1-3 years or 1-5 years) that should enhance the CFM yield versus the yield on cash reserves.

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

Asset Allocation (AA)

Most AA have a cash allocation somewhere between 2% to 5%. Why? Normally you hear it is for liquidity purposes or even diversification. Cash is usually the lowest yielding asset especially when there is a positive sloping yield curve. Due to its very short maturities, cash is usually costing the plan close to a 1:1 cost ratio of present value to future value. The present value of a 3-month T-Bill will be quite close to its future value or a 1:1 ratio. While a CFM portfolio with a 3-year average maturity yielding 4.00% would have a 0.88:1 ratio for a cost reduction = 12%.

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 than cash thereby reducing the cost ratio. In this way the liquidity assets and the growth assets are a team that will produce the optimal solutions:

• Enhance ROA by eliminating a cash sweep so growth assets grow unencumbered.

• Reduce or eliminate liquidity risk by fully funding B+E monthly with certainty.

• Enhance the ROA by outyielding cash

• Reduce funding costs

Magnificent 7: Caveat Emptor!

Source: Magnificent 7: Caveat Emptor!

As pension watchdogs, Ryan ALM is always interested and concerned about trends that may affect the funded status of pensions. Since the major asset holding of most pensions is the S&P 500, we are on the alert for anything that may affect this valuable asset. I recently attended a CFA dinner where Rob Arnott, founder and chairman of Research Affiliates a subdivision of PIMCO was the guest speaker. Rob is quite articulate and brilliant on his assessments and forecasts. He was concerned about the valuation of the Magnificent 7 and thought the P/E multiples may not be sustainable. I share Rob’s concerns for the following reasons.

Apple became the first $3 trillion market valuation in America’s history. The seven largest capitalized technology stocks (i.e. the Magnificent 7) have been the main driver of returns for the S&P 500 for several years and certainly in 2023 YTD. As of December 1, this group had a total return = 98.79% based on the Bloomberg Magnificent Seven equal weighted index. At the same time the S&P 500 has a YTD return of 20.96%. According to BOA Global Investment Research, the Mag 7 account for 29.6% of the S&P 500 market capitalization. The newly released Bloomberg Large Cap index without the Magnificent 7 (B500XM7T) posted a YTD return of 7.6% which is 36.4% of the YTD S&P 500 return of 20.96%. This means that the Mag 7 has a YTD weighted group return of 13.33% which accounts for 63.6% of the S&P 500 YTD return (as of 12/01/23).

The Mag 7 should continue to grow well given their product line, market share, higher sales growth, higher margins, strong balance sheet and greater re-investment ratio in their market. The main question is one of valuation. Although it may be hard to assess a proper P/E multiple for each of the Mag 7, the wide array of P/E multiples and comparison to the market seem quite overvalued… S&P 500 multiple = 24.2x current and 18.7x forward (source: Yardeni). Tesla at 76.9x current/61.7x forward seems hard to justify especially with earnings growth of -6.1% over the last 12 months. Alphabet, Apple, Meta and even Microsoft trailing 12 months EPS growth do not seem robust enough to merit their valuation either.

Stock Symbol	Company	PE current	PE forward	Market Capitalization	EPS Growth 5-year Avg.	EPS Growth Last 12 mos.
GOOG	Alphabet	25.38x	19.80x	$1.66 trillion	25.4%	3.4%
AMZN	Amazon	76.69x	41.03x	$1.52t	63.0%	74.1%
AAPL	Apple	31.55x	27.16	$3.01t	14.4%	0.3%
META	META	28.10x	18.17x	$0.82t	8.9%	3.1%
MSFT	Microsoft	36.08x	28.76x	$2.77t	18.4%	10.5%
NVDA	Nvidia	61.48x	22.61x	$1.15t	27.7%	264.5%
TSLA	Tesla	76.87x	61.72x	$0.76t	40.5%	-6.1%
	S&P 500	24.2x	18.7x	$37.7t

Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research is forecasting a 6% growth for 2024 for the S&P 500. This does not validate the P/E multiples of the S&P 500.

“Investors should be skeptical of history-based models. Beware of geeks bearing formulas”

Warren Buffett

Ryan ALM Pension Monitor 3Q’22

Source: Ryan ALM Pension Monitor 3Q’22

‍(Through September 30, 2022)

Pension plan liabilities need to be measured and monitored regularly. Without knowledge of plan liabilities, the allocation of plan assets cannot be done efficiently or appropriately.

The funded ratio/status of pension plans are present value calculations. Each type of plan is governed by accounting rules and actuarial practices, which determine the discount rate used to calculate the present value of liabilities. Single employer corporate plans are under ASC 715 (FASB) discount rates (AA corporate zero-coupon yield curve); multiemployer plans and public plans use the ROA (return on asset assumption) as the liability discount rate. The difference in liability growth between these plans can be quite significant, which will affect funded status and contribution levels. The table below compares these different liability growth rates (based on a 12-year average duration) versus the asset growth rate using the P&I asset allocation survey of the top 1,000 plans which is updated each year. The graph below shows the contrasting annual differences of asset versus liability growth for corporate and public plans since 2015. The impact of different accounting rules is massive, especially during 2022’s rising rate environment.

ASSET ALLOCATION	YTD Return	Corporate	Public	Union
Domestic Stock International Stock Global Equity Domestic Fixed Income Global Fixed Income Cash Private Equity Real Estate Equity* Other	-23.9% -27.1% -25.3% -14.6% -21.3% 0.2% 11.6% 8.6% 9.1%	11.1% 6.5% 10.4% 46.7% 1.3% 2.0% 8.5% 4.1% 9.4%	24.4% 16.3% 5.3% 20.2% 1.7% 2.0% 12.7% 7.9% 9.5%	24.7% 8.6% 11.4% 28.0% 0.9% 0.6% 8.2% 9.3% 8.3%
TOTAL ASSETS Growth Rate		-12.0%	-11.9%	-12.9%
LIABILITIES Growth Rate*		-25.9%	5.6%	5.6%
Asset Growth – Liability Growth		13.9%	-17.5%	-18.5%

Index Benchmarks: Domestic Stock = S&P 500; Int’l Stock = EAFE, Global Equity = All Country World; Domestic Fixed Income = BB Aggregate; Global Fixed Income = FTSE World Gov’t (unhedged); Cash = 3 mo. T-Bill; Private Equity =10-year return for the R2500 + 2%; *Real estate Equity =NFI-DP Index (delayed one month); Alternative Investments and Other = CPI-U & 3%.

*Liabilities = Ryan ALM Custom Liability Indexes (CLI)

Footnote: The measurement of asset growth to liability growth is an annual calculation beginning on December 31, 2015. For periods shorter than 1-year, the observation is a YTD calculation.

Ryan ALM Pension Monitor 3Q ‘21

Source: Ryan ALM Pension Monitor 3Q

(Through September 30, 2021)

Pension plan liabilities need to be measured and monitored regularly. Without knowledge of plan liabilities, the allocation of plan assets cannot be done appropriately.

The funded ratio/status of pension plans are present value calculations. Each type of plan is governed by accounting rules and actuarial practices, which determine the discount rate used to calculate the present value of liabilities. Single employer corporate plans are under ASC 715 (FASB) discount rates (AA corporate zero-coupon yield curve); multiemployer plans and public plans use the ROA (return on asset assumption) as the liability discount rate. The difference in liability growth between these plans can be quite significant, which will affect funded status and contribution levels.

The table below compares these different liability growth rates (based on 12-year average duration) versus the asset growth rate based on the P&I asset allocation survey of the top 1,000 plans. The graph below shows the contrasting annual differences of asset versus liability growth for corporate and public plans since 2015.

ASSET ALLOCATION	YTD 09/21 Return	Corporate	Public	Union
Domestic Stock International Stock Global Equity Domestic Fixed Income Global Fixed Income Cash Private Equity Real Estate Equity Alternative Investments Other	15.9% 8.3% 11.5% -1.6% -5.9% 0.1% 15.3% 10.5% 8.3% 8.3%	10.6% 7.1% 13.3% 48.3% 0.7% 2.4% 6.2% 4.5% 4.6% 2.5%	24.6% 16.9% 6.2% 21.0% 2.3% 2.0% 10.3% 8.7% 7.6% 1.4%	24.7% 8.6% 11.4% 28.0% 0.9% 0.6% 8.2% 9.3% 8.3% 0.0%
TOTAL ASSETS Growth Rate		5.0%	8.7%	8.4%
LIABILITIES Growth Rate		-6.3%	5.3%	5.3%
Asset Growth – Liability Growth		11.3%	3.4%	3.1%

Index Benchmarks: Domestic Stock = S&P 500; Int’l Stock = EAFE, Global Equity = All Country World; Domestic Fixed Income = BB Aggregate; Global Fixed Income = FTSE World Gov’t (unhedged); Cash = 3 mo. T-Bill; Private Equity =10-year return for the R2500 + 2%; Real estate Equity =NFI-DP Index; Alternative Investments and Other = CPI-U & 3%.

Footnote: The measurement of asset growth to liability growth is an annual calculation beginning on December 31, 2015. For periods shorter than 1-year, the observation is a YTD calculation.

Best way to hedge pension inflation

Source: Best way to hedge pension inflation

Executive Summary

Pension inflation is what a plan sponsor agrees to as a cost of living adjustment (COLAs) benefit increase for retired lives and a salary increase factor for active lives. Quite often, these COLAS are based on the CPI with a floor and a cap or even a % of the CPI while salary increases tend to be quite static @ a 3% annual increase. As a result, pension inflation tends to be less volatile and certainly different than the CPI. Please note that the plan will mismatch the actuarial pension inflation and may introduce

Best way to hedge pension inflation

Many pensions have an allocation to some type of inflation hedge strategy. The most common asset strategies are TIPS and real assets. These strategies are based on hedging or outperforming the CPI. The truth is… these are not appropriate strategies for hedging pension inflation. Pension inflation is what a plan sponsor agrees to as a cost of living adjustment (COLAs) benefit increase for retired lives and a salary increase factor for active lives. Quite often, these COLAS are based on the CPI with a floor and a cap or even a % of the CPI while salary increases tend to be quite static at a 3% annual increase. As a result, pension inflation tends to be less volatile and certainly different than the CPI. Please note that the plan sponsor actuary includes pension inflation (COLAs and salary increases) in their projected benefit payment schedule for both retired and active lives. As a result, the best and, perhaps only way, to hedge pension inflation is to… cash flow match projected benefits! All other inflation strategies (i.e. TIPS and real assets) will mismatch the actuarial pension inflation and may introduce higher cost and fees.

Solution: Cash Flow Match Liabilities

Securing benefits of Retired Lives by matching and funding the projected liability benefit payment schedule (liability cash flows) at the lowest cost is the highest priority of any pension. This is also the ideal way to de-risk a pension plan and hedge pension inflation. Since the actuary includes pension inflation in their liability projections, by cash flow matching the projected liability cash flows (benefit payments) you have hedged pension inflation accurately. There is no other asset strategy that can hedge actuarial pension inflation exactly except insurance annuities which come at a high cost (25% to 40% higher than cash flow matching liability cash flows).

Ryan ALM built a liability cash flow matching product, named the Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP), as a cost optimization model that matches and funds the actuarial projected liability benefit payment schedule for retired lives at the lowest cost given the investment policy restrictions of our clients. The LBP portfolio is composed of investment grade corporate bonds skewed to A and BBB corporate bonds since that represents about 89% of the investable investment grade corporate bond universe. Our LBP also accepts and uses high yield bonds if the client investment policy allows.

The LBP provides a 10% to 20% funding cost savings versus the projected benefit payments of retired lives (liability cash flows) and a 20% to 30% cost savings versus using Treasury STRIPS to defease the same liabilities (STRIPS is the discount rate method used by insurance annuities)! This is a serious cost reduction and should be a major consideration of any defined benefit pension plan asset allocation, inflation hedge or de-risking strategy. Yes, the LBP model has some credit risk but very limited since we are using investment grade bonds with several credit filters (to enhance solvency) plus the cost savings provide a large value-added cushion.

We recommend funding the first 10 years of Retired Lives on a net liability basis (after contributions). In truth, current assets fund the net liabilities not the gross liabilities as contributions are the initial funding source of liabilities. Our LBP model will calculate with precision the cost to fund net liabilities chronologically in a cost-effective manner which will de-risk the plan gradually. Since liabilities are funded initially by contributions, using the LBP model to cash flow match net liabilities chronologically may be able to fund more liabilities than you think. Contributions tend to be quite large (especially with many Public plans where actuarially determined contributions are legislated) such that a 10% allocation to our LBP could often fund the next 10-years of net Retired Lives easily.

Matching liabilities chronologically should also buy time for the non-bond assets (Alpha assets) to perform and outgrow liabilities. Given time (10 years) most non-bond asset classes tend to outperform bonds. Since pension liabilities behave like bonds there is a high probability that non-bond asset classes should outperform liability growth over an extended time horizon, especially at today’s low yield on bonds (and liabilities) which would enhance the funded status.

Since the primary pension liability objective is to secure benefits in a cost-effective manner, cash flow matching net liabilities with our Liability Beta Portfolio™ would secure benefits and produce the optimalcost savings.

Asset Allocation (AA)

Pension consultants and plan sponsors should consider installing our LBP as the core portfolio in asset allocation. The best value in bonds is the certainty of their cash flows. Bonds are usually not considered performance assets (Alpha assets) especially versus pension liabilities which behave like bonds. By installing the LBP to fund the first 10 years of net Retired Lives, the pension plan buys time for the Alpha assets (non-bonds) to perform. As the Alpha assets perform versus liability growth, thereby enhancing the funded ratio, such excess returns could be transferred (ported) over to the Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP) to de-risk more and more liabilities thereby creating a … Portable Alpha strategy. Had this Portable Alpha discipline been in place during the decade of the 1990s when funded ratios grew to their highest historical levels with true economic surpluses… there would be no U.S. pension crisis today!

Note – The largest U.S. DB pension (CalPERS) removed their 9% asset allocation to inflation hedge assets in 2019.

About Ryan ALM, Inc.

Ryan ALM was founded by Ronald J. Ryan, CFA on July 12, 2004 as an Asset/Liability Management firm. The firm builds a turnkey system of proprietary synergistic products designed to measure liabilities as a Custom Liability Index (CLI) and manage assets to the CLI as Liability Beta Portfolios.

Ryan ALM is unique in having its own proprietary Index company named ALM Research Solutions, LLC. This company builds both custom and generic bond indexes. Such indexes range from Custom Liability Indexes to ETF Indexes.

Our Liability Beta Portfolio™ is our proprietary cost optimization model that "cash flow matches" clients projected liability benefit payment schedules at the least cost using investment grade bonds. It is back-tested since 2009 showing a consistent cost savings of 8% to 15%. Our LBP best represents the core portfolio of a pension plan.

Our team has been recognized for our expertise and results including Ron Ryan having won the William F. Sharpe Index Lifetime Achievement Award.

The Role of Bonds in Pension Asset Allocation

Source: The Role of Bonds in Pension Asset Allocation

Custom Liability Index (CLI)

The first step in prudent pension management is to install a Custom Liability Index (CLI) to calculate and monitor the present and future value term structure, growth rate and interest rate sensitivity of the plan’s liabilities. The CLI is the proper benchmark for any pension defined benefit plan. It is based on the actuarial projections of the future benefit payment schedule. The CLI will produce all of the critical calculations needed to manage and understand a pension: future value, present value, yield, duration, growth rate, term structure and interest rate sensitivity. Since contributions are the initial source to fund liabilities, current assets truly fund the net liabilities (after contributions). As a result, there needs to be both a gross and net CLI to show the significant differences in future values, present values, yield, duration, growth rates and interest rate sensitivity. It is rare to find a CLI installed in most pensions which leads to a misalignment of assets vs. liabilities. Beware of custom indexes that are a blend of generic bond indexes… where are the client’s liabilities? Ron Ryan created the first CLI in 1991 and Ryan ALM is a leader in providing CLIs to plan sponsors. We will price the CLI at any discount rate the client prefers: ASC 715, ROA, PPA, Treasury STRIPS. Since Moody’s has adopted the ASC 715 discount rates (zero-coupon AA corporates) for Public pensions and FASB uses ASC 715 discount rates for corporations, the ASC 715 discount rates would be the logical choice to calculate liability present value to understand the true economic funded status and liability growth rate.

Asset Allocation (AA)

Asset allocation is the single most important asset decision since it affects all assets. The goal of AA is to enhance the funded ratio and funded status in a cost-effective manner with prudent risk. AA should be based on the funded ratio and funded status not the ROA. A pension plan with a surplus should have a radically different asset allocation than a plan with a major deficit. Yet if these two plans had the same ROA (return on asset assumption) they would most probably have the same asset allocation… totally inappropriate! Note once again, assets fund the net liabilities (after contributions). So it is the net liabilities that should be used to calculate a net funded ratio and funded status which drives the AA. It is this net funded ratio and funded status that should be the focus of asset allocation. It is critical that current assets know what they are funding… net liabilities!

Funded Ratios History

Most pensions had a surplus in the 1990s. Prudent fiduciary responsibility should have secured this surplus through an asset liability matching (ALM) strategy using bonds (i.e. cash flow matching, defeasance or immunization). But since bond interest rates were low and trending lower, asset allocation models went the other way and reduced their allocation to bonds consistently and skewed their allocation to more and more risky assets (i.e. equity) in an attempt to achieve the ROA. This became a fatal mistake as funded ratios eroded by about 50% in the 2000-2002 equity correction period and have stayed in a deficit position ever since. The old adage, “if you go down 50%, you have to go up 100% to get back to 0%”... rang true in pensions. Had asset allocation been responsive to the rising funded ratio in the 1990s, it would have transferred more and more assets to bonds in an ALM strategy. Moreover, there was no anchor or core portfolio to de-risk the plan (ALM strategy) that would have significantly reduced the volatility of the funded ratio and secured the surplus.

De-Risking a Pension

Pension plans should want to de-risk their plans consistently over time. The lowest risk assets for a pension are those that match the liability benefit payment schedule (future values) with certainty. By definition, Treasury zero-coupon bonds (STRIPS) and annuities would be the lowest risk assets for pension since they have a known future value… but they tend to come at a high cost since they are low yielding and have high fees (annuities). Given that the pension objective is a liability objective with cost constraints, then solving for cost while matching the liability benefit payment schedule would be the ideal way to de-risk a pension. This is best accomplished thru a cash flow matching strategy. A pension liability benefit payment schedule is a term structure or yield curve often referred to as the liability cash flow. In order to match or de-risk the liability cash flow requires a matching cash flow from assets. Basically, only bonds and annuities produce a certain cash flow. That is why bonds and annuities are preferred as the way to defease, immunize and de-risk a pension plan.

Problem: Immunization Strategies (Duration Matching)

The initial problem with duration matching is where do you get the duration of each client’s liabilities. The actuary does not calculate and provide the average duration of liabilities in the annual actuarial report. Most, if not all, duration matching strategies use a generic bond market index as the proxy for liabilities. How could one generic index represent each unique pension plan? Pension liabilities are like snowflakes, you will never find two alike… different labor force, salaries, mortality, plan amendments, etc. The difference in liability cash flows and durations could be quite significant. For every year you are off in duration, should represent a 1% difference in liability growth per 100 bp move in the discount rates. Without a custom liability index, duration matching is a futile effort.

Imagine a 12-year average duration liability benefit payment schedule. It could have many different term structure shapes to come up with an average 12-year average duration. Imagine a bond portfolio where 100% of the bond assets have a 12-year duration. If interest rates rose 50 basis points in a year the total assets and liabilities supposedly would both have a -6% price return (interest rate movement x duration (as a negative number)). If they had the same income return = 4% they would match again (note that assets usually don’t match the income or yield of liabilities). However, if the matching assets are used to fund the liability cash flow of annual benefits then a -2% loss (-6% + 4% = -2%) on assets could be funding a one-year liability which should have a small positive growth rate. Consequently, the assets could be taking a loss each year to fund the next liability payment if interest rates continue to rise. This could be a serious costly mismatch if interest rates began a secular trend to higher rates for the next five years. But the point is… there is no cash flow match of the liability term structure, only a duration match of total liabilities so there is serious funding risk!

Imagine another duration matching approach where you buy bonds that exactly match the duration of each liability payment. So you would buy a 3-year duration bond to fund a 3-year benefit payment, a 5-year bond to fund a 5-year benefit payment, etc. Using corporate bonds to duration match is difficult, if not impossible. First, there are no corporate zero-coupon bonds. Second, the duration of a coupon bond changes with interest rates so if interest rates go down the durations should go up and vice versa. This is not compatible with funding each benefit payment as they come due over time since liabilities behave like zero-coupon bonds. Third, duration matching does not match or fund each benefit payment (the benefit payment schedule). Last, there are no corporate coupon bonds whose durations exceed 16-years so you are forced into Treasury STRIPS to fund liabilities past 16 years. Treasury STRIPS will certainly match these longer liabilities but come at a high cost. You want to buy longer bonds whose cash flows match the liability benefit payment schedule but at a much lower cost. This requires long coupon bonds which would create a duration mismatch.

Interest rate swaps and futures (derivatives) are another immunization strategy. They are contracts not true assets. There is no cash flow or funds available to make the liability cash flow payments. They are certainly NOT de-risking strategies but hedges vs. the liability growth rate. In fact, these strategies introduce more risk: counter party risk, interest rate risk, non-matching risk of assets purchased (usually equities) vs. liabilities and leverage. In addition, interest rate swaps and futures have all of the problems associated with a liability duration proxy… as listed with duration matching.

Problems with Insurance Buyout Annuities (IBA)

The buyout annuity is certainly the least risky approach to de-risking a pension but it comes at the highest cost. The current trend is to price liabilities at the Treasury STRIPS yield curve and create a single discount rate (i.e. 3.00%) + a fee of around 4%. The plan sponsor would have to transfer assets and funds over to the insurance company such that the plan is fully funded (or even up to 105% funded) at this single discount rate.

The insurance buyout annuity should be more costly than defeasing the plan with Treasury STRIPS which was always considered the high cost de-risking strategy. Defeasance with Treasury STRIPS should also allow an accounting removal of the pension liability debt. Since the primary pension objective is to fund liabilities at low and stable costs, the buyout annuity should be given a second thought before executing. In addition, if the insurance company goes bankrupt there may be a claw back of pension liabilities to the plan sponsor.

Solution: Cash Flow Matching

As stated in the beginning, matching the liability benefit payment schedule (liability cash flow) at the lowest cost is the ideal way to de-risk a pension plan. Ryan ALM spent two years building a liability cash flow matching product, named the Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP), as a cost optimization model that matches the liability benefit payment schedule at the lowest cost given the investment policy restrictions of our clients. Based on the same sample benefit payment schedule used above for the buyout annuity vs Treasury defeasance comparison, our LBP model shows a 26.84% funding cost savings vs. the buyout annuity and 26.54% vs. STRIPS! This is a serious funding cost reduction and should be a major consideration of any de-risking strategy. Yes, the LBP model has some credit risk but very small since we are using investment grade bonds only. The funding cost savings + the extra yield vs. liabilities annually (@100 bps) provide a large value-added cushion vs. any credit problems. Since our LBP is matching and funding the liability benefit payment schedule (future values), there is no interest rate risk since future values are not interest rate sensitive.

The funded ratio should dictate the allocation to bonds. A surplus should have a high allocation to bonds matched to liabilities and vice versa for a deficit funded status. Unfortunately, asset allocation did not respond to the surplus status in the 1990s which led to the US pension crisis. I wrote a book “The U.S. Pension Crisis” detailing the causes and solutions of this enormous financial crisis. With funded ratios at 120% to 150% in the 1990s, why didn’t pensions de-risk their plan (cash flow match) and secure this victory? Because pensions were focused on achieving the ROA (return on asset assumption) instead of focusing on the funded ratio and status, they reduced their bond allocations when bond yields went below the ROA… around 1988. Amazingly, instead of increasing their bond allocation in response to a growing funded ratio they reduced it consistently to the lowest bond allocations in modern history by 1999. The equity correction of 2000-02 erased pension surpluses and created severe deficits that most pensions have not recovered from with spiking contribution costs ever since 2000.

Based on the allocation to bonds should determine how much of the liabilities we can cash flow match (i.e. 25% bond allocation could fund the next 10 years of net liabilities). Most current bond allocations are historically low. As a result, you cannot match and de-risk 100% of liabilities with a 25% bond allocation, especially if you have a funded status deficit. Such a 25% allocation could be used to match and de-risk either a % of total net liabilities or net liabilities chronologically… both methods will de-risk the plan gradually. There are advantages for each method.

Since liabilities are funded initially by contributions, using the LBP model to cash flow match net liabilities chronologically may be able to fund more liabilities than you think. Assume that a 25% bond allocation could match the next 10 years of net liability payments chronologically. Based on the Ryan ALM Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP) model we show a funding cost savings of about 4% to 6% on cash flow matching the first 10 years of liabilities versus the ASC 715 discount rate (AA corporate zero-coupon bonds). Note that Ryan ALM is one of few vendors who provide the ASC 715 discount rates since 2008. Our discount rates are consistently higher than the Citigroup rates providing a lower present value on liabilities and enhancing funded ratios and balance sheets. Price Waterhouse has been a subscriber to our ASC 715 discount rates since 2008.

Matching liabilities chronologically should also buy time for the non-bond assets (Alpha assets) to perform and outgrow liabilities (as measured by the CLI). Given time (10 years) most non-bond asset classes tend to outperform bonds. Since liabilities behave like bonds there is a high probability that non-bond asset classes should outperform liability growth over an extended time horizon especially at today’s low yield on bonds (i.e. liabilities).

Since the pension liability objective is also a cost focus, cash flow matching a % of total liabilities would produce the optimal funding cost savings since the longer the bond the less it costs given the same future value. Our LBP model is back tested since 2009 showing a cost savings of 8% to 12% on cash flow matching a % of total net liabilities. For every $1 billion in bonds used in our LBP model could save about $100 million in cost savings vs. the ASC 715 present value of liabilities.

Core Bond Portfolio (De-Risk)

Pension consultants and plan sponsors should consider installing a LBP as the core portfolio in asset allocation. This would gradually de-risk the plan and facilitate portable alpha asset allocation. The best value in bonds is their cash flows. Bonds are usually not considered performance assets (Alpha assets) especially vs. pension liabilities which behave like bonds. The P&I performance study has proven for decades that fixed income managers have little or no value added vs. bond index benchmarks (after fees).

Given no change in the bond allocation… replace high fee active bond management with a LBP that will de-risk the plan, reduce funding costs and reduce contribution volatility at a low asset management fee (@ 12 bps). As the Alpha assets (non-bonds) perform vs. liability growth (as measured by the CLI), thereby enhancing the economic funded ratio, such excess returns (liability Alpha) should be transferred over to the Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP) to de-risk more and more liabilities… Portable Alpha. Had this portable Alpha discipline been in place during the decade of the 1990s when funded ratios grew to their highest historical levels with true economic surpluses… there would be no U.S. pension crisis today!

Nota Bene (Note Well)

Please note that the definition of risk used in this research report is in sharp contrast to the traditional approach produced by the Nobel Prize winner Ph.D. William F. Sharpe back in 1966. Professor Sharpe proposed that risk is the volatility of total returns and that the three-month T-Bill was the default risk-free rate. He developed the Sharpe Ratio as a means of calculating the risk-adjusted return by subtracting the return of the three-month T-Bill from the mean return of the assets being analyzed and dividing the net return by the volatility of the return of the assets in review. For many decades the Sharpe Ratio was the standard measurement of risk-adjusted returns. In 1994 Prof. Sharpe called me and invited me to Stanford to discuss our unique custom liability index data and index reports. I had the unique pleasure to meet and debate with one of the finest intellects I ever met.

I proposed that risk is not a generic measurement but based on each client’s objective. I referenced pensions where every client’s liabilities are different (like snowflakes). As proof, I asked him what is the risk-free asset for a 10-year liability payment? Prof. Sharpe answered… a 10-year Treasury zero-coupon bond that matches the liability payment with certainty. Prof. Sharpe identified that the three-month T-Bill would have 39 reinvestment moments of uncertainty, so there is no way the three-month T-Bill could match a 10-year liability future value with any certainty and would become a risky asset. Our discussion led to Prof. Sharpe re-inventing the Sharpe Ratio in 1994 to include the benchmark objective instead of the three-month T-Bill in the numerator and denominator such that the average return of the asset portfolio is reduced by the average return of the objective (numerator). This net average return is then divided by the standard deviation of the asset portfolio return vs. the objective return (tracking error). This is commonly called today… the Information Ratio.