When is a Pension Fully Funded?

Source: When is a Pension Fully Funded?

The Funded Ratio tends to be the acid test and benchmark for funded status… but is it? We have written several research white papers (www. RyanALM/Research/White Papers) about the glaring issues with the Funded Ratio. Here are just a few of the inconsistencies with the Funded Ratio:

Actuarial Value versus Market Value

The Funded Ratio (FR) of a pension is usually based on the actuarial value of assets / actuarial value of liabilities. The Funded Status (FS) is the actuarial value of assets – actuarial value of liabilities. Actuarial values are different than market values… sometimes quite different. Market values are the better measurement of economic reality since you can’t spend actuarial dollars. As a result, this valuation difference can seriously distort the FR and FS calculation.

Present Value versus Future Value

Notably, the FR and FS are present value calculations. But pension liability cash flows (benefits + expenses (B+E)) are future value (FV) projections. Since the FV of most assets is not known this becomes a true pension conundrum. Bonds are the only asset class with a known and certain future value. That is why bonds have been the chosen asset class for defeasance, immunization and cash flow matching for several decades. The disconnect between PVs and FVs haunts pensions. The true objective of a pension is to secure and fully fund liability cash flows in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. As a result, the objective should be for asset cash flows to match and fully fund liability cash flows.So, when is a pension fully funded... when asset cash flows (future values) fully fund liability cash flows (future values). This is best accomplished thru cash flow matching and is best measured by the Asset Exhaustion Test.

Contributions = MIA

The FR and FS both ignore contributions as an asset. The truth is that contributions are future assets and should be a high consideration in any asset liability management (ALM). We recommend using the Ryan ALM modified Asset Exhaustion Test (AET) as the best way to measure the solvency and funding status of a pension. We take asset cash flows (based on a ROA) and compare them to NET liability cash flows (benefits + expenses – contributions) to understand if assets can fully fund the liability cash flows. We use a matrix of ROAs to determine what ROA is the best fit. This calculated ROA is in sharp contrast to the current ROA that is based on an asset allocation model that ignores the FR and FS. It is common that a pension plan with a 60% funded ratio and another funded at 90% have the same or similar ROA. How is this possible? Shouldn’t the 60% funded plan need assets to work harder? Yes, but that does not have anything to do with the current ROA calculation. Whatever shortfall there is in asset cash flows to fund liability cash flows (B+E) must be paid by higher contributions… this is not in the best interests of a pension plan and the sponsor’s budget. Clearly, the current ROA is not a calculated return based on the FR and FS that will guarantee a fully funded

status if achieved long-term… nor will it guarantee that contributions will go down. This has been a sad and costly trend for the last 25+ years.

Discount Rates

A most troubling issue is what discount rate to use. FASB and GASB tend to disagree on this.

FASB = high quality AA corporate zero-coupon yield curve

GASB = ROA

Since the ROA is a much higher rate (usually 100 to 200 bps) then liabilities would be priced at a much lower PV (12% to 24%). This would enhance the FR by 8% to 22%. Market rates are best in determining the market or economic value of liabilities. FASB 144 says it well:

“The objective of selecting assumed discount rates is to measure the single amount that, if invested at the measurement date in a portfolio of high-quality debt instruments, would provide the necessary future cash flows to pay the pension benefits when due. Notionally, that single amount, the projected benefit obligation, would equal the current market value of a portfolio of high-quality zero coupon bonds whose maturity dates and amounts would be the same as the timing and amount of the expected future benefit payments. The determination of the assumed discount rate is separate from the determination of the expected rate of return on plan assets”

Ryan ALM Solutions:

Custom Liability Index (CLI): The first step in prudent pension management is to calculate the liability cash flows that assets must fund. This should be a net liability cash flow (benefits + expenses – contributions). Until liabilities are monitored and priced as a Custom Liability Index (CLI) the asset side is in jeopardy of managing to the wrong objectives (i.e. ROA and generic market indexes). Only a CLI best represents the unique liability cash flows of a plan sponsor. Just like snowflakes, no two pension liability schedules are alike due to different labor forces, salaries, mortality and plan amendments. How could a static ROA or genericmarket indexes ever properly represent the risk/reward behavior of such a diverse array of pension liabilities? Once the CLI is installed, the pension can now know the true economic Funded Ratio and Funded Status which should dictate the appropriate Asset Allocation, Asset Management and Performance Measurement.

Asset Exhaustion Test (AET): GASB requires a test of solvency (AET) to document that the asset cash flows (at the ROA) will fully fund the net liability cash flows (benefits + expenses – contributions). GASB correctly understands that assets are funding net liabilities after contributions… and that contributions are future assets. This net liability is rarely focused on by the asset side in asset allocation. Ryan ALM enhances the asset exhaustion test by calculating the ROA that will fully fund net liability cash flows. Usually, we find that a lower ROA can accomplish this goal and is a better fit than the current ROA. This would suggest a more conservative asset allocation and a heavier allocation to fixed income to defease liability cash flows chronologically. This is a common and serious issue. This calculated ROA should be the asset allocation model focus. We urge all pensions to incorporate this modified AET before acting on asset allocation.

Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP):The intrinsic value in bonds is the certainty of its cash flows. That is why bonds have been used for decades to defease liability cash flows. The core or Beta portfolio for a pension should be in investment grade bonds that cash flow match and fully fund liabilities chronologically thereby buying time for the growth (Alpha) assets to outgrow liabilities and erase the deficit. The proper Beta portfolio for any liability objective should be… a Liability Beta Portfolio™. Ryan ALM has developed a LBP which will cash flow match liabilities chronologically and reduce funding costs by about 2% per year (1-10 years = 20%) as well as reduce the volatility of the Funded Status and contribution costs. The LBP should be the core portfolio of any pension and replace active fixed income management. By matching and funding liabilities chronologically, the LBP buys time for the growth or Alpha assets (non-bonds) to perform. By working in harmony with the Alpha assets the plan can gradually enhance its funded status and reduce contribution costs.

Liability Alpha Assets: The non-bond assets should be managed vs. the CLI to exceed liability growth (earn liability Alpha) and enhance the economic Funded Status. The goal here is outgrow liabilities in $s (relative returns) by enough to erase the deficit over a time horizon equal to the average life (duration) of liabilities (calculated by the CLI). As the Alpha assets achieve the required annual Alpha, any excess returns vs. liability growth should be ported over to the Liability Beta Portfolio™ to secure the victory. Had this been in place during the decade of the 1990s when pensions had surpluses… there would be no pension deficits today.

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”

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.

Things To Ask Your LDI Manager

Source: Things To Ask Your LDI Manager

LDI is the acronym for Liability Driven Investment. It is better explained as Asset Liability Management which we promote at Ryan ALM. It has developed into two main strategies either to fund liabilities through cash flow matching or to immunize the interest rate sensitivity of liabilities through duration matching. Below is a short list of questions we urge plan sponsors and pension consultants to ask to any LDI prospective asset manager. Please call us for more LDI guidance.

Are you a Duration Matching (DM) or a Cash Flow Matching (CFM)manager?

If Duration Matching… ask these questions:

1. What is the source of your liability duration calculation? (Actuaries usually do not provide such calculation)

2. What is the discount rate(s) you use for your duration calculation? Is it a single rate? (ASC 715 is best for accurate market value calculation which is a AA corporate yield curve)

3. Are you using an average duration, key rates, or matches along the yield curve?

4. Do you match total liabilities including those past 30 years?

5. How often do you rebalance?

6. Do you make or fund the liability payments (benefits + expenses)? (Most DM managers are not term structure matched so not aligned to pay liabilities)

If Cash Flow Matching… ask these questions:

1. What liabilities are you funding? Gross or Net?

2. How are you funding the annual actuarial projected liability cash flows?

3. How much of a funding cost savings do you expect to realize? (Major CFM benefit is the funding cost savings: FV of liabilities – PV of CFM = about 2% per year which is achieved as soon as the CFM portfolio is built)

4. How do you fund liabilities past 30 years?

5. How many years of experience do you have with CFM? (CFM may be the oldest LDI strategy starting with Dedication in the 1970s)

As our name implies, Ryan ALM Advisers is dedicated to Asset Liability Management specializing in Cash Flow Matching… our only LDI product. We strongly feel that CFM best fits any liability objective including Pensions, OPEB, Lotteries, NDA, and E&F. Our team has over 168 years of experience dating back to the 1970s with Dedication models. Our CFM product is called the Liability Beta Portfolio™ which will fully fund monthly net liabilities at a funding cost savings of about 2% per year (40% on 1-20 years of liabilities). We can fully fund and CFM up to 30 years with certainty. This term structure monthly cash flow matching approach also provides the best duration matching as each monthly liability payment is fully funded and duration matched. After 30 years we are compatible and synergistic with any derivative strategy a plan sponsor may want to use.

Ryan ALM, Inc. Celebrates 20th Anniversary

Source: Ryan ALM, Inc. Celebrates 20th Anniversary

Ryan ALM, Inc. Celebrates 20th Anniversary Mission: Protecting and Preserving Pensions

Ryan ALM, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware on June 15, 2004. Ronald J, Ryan, founder, says that “we created our company to be dedicated to asset liability management (ALM) as our name suggests. We are quite proud of our progress and achievements in ALM. We have built a turnkey system of products that are quite unique in the ALM industry that we treat as assets shown on our balance sheet, to include:

1. Custom Liability Index (CLI) – assets need to know what they are funding. Usually, it is monthly net liabilities (benefits + expenses – contributions). Such net liabilities are based on actuarial projections even though actuaries do not calculate net liabilities. The CLI is the proper benchmark for all LDI and ALM objectives. The CLI performs numerous calculations including present values, duration, growth rates, interest rate sensitivity, YTM, etc.

2. ASC 715 Discount Rates – Ryan ALM is one of few vendors providing ASC 715 discount rates in conformity to FASB. We produce four unique yield curves of AA zero-coupon corporate bonds. Usually, our discount rates are higher than our competitors providing for lower liability valuations and enhanced balance sheets.

3. Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP) – our asset management division, Ryan ALM Advisers, LLC, is entirely focused on cash flow matching as our only ALM product we call LBP. We feel strongly that our LBP provides the most benefits in harmony with the true pension objective of funding liabilities in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. Our LBP matches and funds monthly liability cash flows with certainty while reducing funding costs by 2% per year (20% on 1-10 year liabilities). Our LBP will outyield the CLI and enhance the ROA for bonds.

4. Performance Attribution Report (PAR) – given our CLI, we can calculate the relative risk/reward behavior of assets (as measured by our LBP) versus liabilities (as measured by the CLI). PAR calculates 14 risk/reward measurements including two graphs to clearly show the value added (or lost) of assets versus liabilities. This should be critical information for consultants and plan sponsors to understand how well the plan is being funded.

5. Asset Exhaustion Test (AET) – assets need to know the hurdle rate or ROA needed to fully fund net liabilities. The current ROA most pensions use is not an accurate calculation of a hurdle rate. Our AET clearly shows the annual difference of asset cash flows versus liability cash flows. We calculate a matrix of ROAs to arrive at the most applicable target ROA. Usually our calculated ROA (AET) is much different and lower than the current ROA since we focus on net liabilities not gross liabilities which reduces the liability cash flows assets need to fund (perhaps significantly).

We are very proud of our synergistic system and thankful for our team of experts with over 168 years of experience. Ryan ALM remains dedicated to achieving the true pension objective of funding liabilities with low cost and low risk.”

The Evolution of Asset/Liability Management

Source: The Evolution of Asset/Liability Management

CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

What Is Asset/Liability Management (ALM)?

The objective of most institutions in the United States with assets to invest is to fund some sort of liability, (banks, insurance companies, pension funds, etc.). As a result, asset/liability management (ALM) should be the investment focus and strategy for these institutions.

Banks and insurance companies have maintained this focus because it is required by the regulations under which they operate. The IAIS Standard No. 13 (2006), which is the basis for insurance company regulation in the United States, defines asset/liability management (ALM) as the practice of managing a business so that decisions and actions taken with respect to assets and liabilities are coordinated.1 Oracle Financial Services (2008), in its white paper “Asset Liability Management: An Overview,” defines ALM for banks as a mechanism to address the risk faced by a bank because of a mismatch between assets and liabilities resulting from either differences in liquidity or changes in interest rates.

Indeed, as banks and insurance companies have practiced it, ALM is the management of assets so that asset cash flows are as similar as possible to that of the liability cash flows. Exley, Mehta, and Smith (1997) conclude in their paper “The Financial Theory of Defined Benefit Pension Schemes” that financial theory offers no good reason why ALM as practiced by pensions should differ from ALM by banks. They emphasize that the time has come to stop treating pensions as anything special. Pension liabilities are the same as any other liability. In a special LDI (liability-driven investing) issue of aiCIO Magazine, McDaniel (2011)

IAIS is the International Association of Insurance Supervisors. See http://www.iaisweb.com.

provides a well-documented history of LDI theory in his column “LDI’s Founding Document,” concluding that pension liabilities should be treated in the same way as bank and insurance liabilities, giving each a proper ALM focus.

The focus of this review will be the evolution of ALM for pensions. Pensions have no regulations requiring asset/liability management or the matching of assets cash flows to liability cash flows. This lack of regulation may be the most important cause of the spiraling pension deficits and decline of defined benefit plans since 1999.

Prehistory: Insurance Company Management of Pension Funds

In the decades before pension plan sponsors began to manage pension assets as quasi-independent investment organizations, it was typical for pension plan sponsors to simply pay an insurance company to assume the liabilities of the pension plan. The insurance company was then responsible for investing the assets while complying with then-current insurance regulations. By regulations, the insurance companies invested most of these assets in fixed-income securities, matching the cash flows from the assets to the cash required to be paid to the pension beneficiaries. This trend has existed from roughly 1875 when the first U.S. corporate pension plan (American Express) was established to today.

In the Beginning: Dedication

Dedication was the earliest form of ALM practiced by pension plans as quasi-independent investment organizations. It was in vogue during the historically high-interest-rate environment of the 1970s and early 1980s. Marty Leibowitz was the first to refer to cash flow matching as “dedication” because it required matching a stream of cash inflows (assets) to a stream of cash outflows (liabilities); each cash inflow was “dedicated” to paying a particular outflow. His work was initially published by Salomon Brothers in the 1970s, where he was managing director, and then (1986) as a series in the Financial Analysts Journal under the title “The Dedicated Bond Portfolio in Pension Funds.” Many authors have written about the pros and cons of dedication. Perhaps the most complete set of writings is offered by Frank Fabozzi (2005) in Dedicated Bond Portfoliosin The Handbook of Fixed Income Securities.

As interest rates rose in a long secular trend, the financial industry began to pay attention. Realizing that the high interest rates would allow them to lock in unprecedented rates of return, defined benefit pension fund managers embraced the concepts of dedication and then later immunization. Wall Street

broker/dealers, especially Salomon Brothers, with Marty Leibowitz as its intellectual leader, provided the complicated software models needed to execute dedication and immunization effectively. Many papers promoting and critiquing ALM strategies were written by quantitative scholars during this time. Times were also good for broker/dealers who could execute very large dedication and immunization portfolios. Perhaps the largest bond trades ever recorded were those done for dedication and immunization.

The dedication model assumed a 100% bond portfolio held to maturity. The quest was to find the least expensive collection of bonds that provided the needed cash flows over the time horizon of the liabilities to be funded. Dedication had several distinct advantages:

1. Simple asset allocation (100% bonds)

2. Mitigates interest rate risk since it is funding future values

3. Specificity (asset cash flows must match liability cash flows)

4. Predictable cash flows (when the bonds are held to maturity)

5. Structured management (more certain returns with lower fees)

6. Reduction of risk (interest rates, reinvestment, inflation, and liquidity)

Immunization Introduced as an ALM Strategy

In the 1980s when interest rates started a secular decline immunization became popular, which focuses on matching the interest rate movement of liabilities in present value dollars. The idea is to minimize the volatility of the surplus (the dollar value of assets minus liabilities) by having an asset duration equal to the liability duration. Duration is the present-value-weighted average time to receipt of the cash flows from a security or portfolio. Macaulay (1938), in his book entitled Some Theoretical Problems Suggested by] the Movement of Interest Rates, Bond Yields and Stock Prices in the United States since 1856,2 is credited with introducing the term “duration” and defining it as above. In 1942, Koopmans’s paper “The Risk of Interest Fluctuations in Life Insurance Companies” pointed out that if the duration of the bonds held in a portfolio were matched to the duration of the liabilities those bonds would fund, the effects of interest rate changes could be mitigated or nullified completely (i.e., the portfolio would be immunized).

This effort to define ALM strategies that would protect a portfolio from interest rate changes largely conducted by academics, culminated in a 1952 paper titled “Review of the Principles of Life-Office Valuations” by a nonacademic actuary, F.M. Redington, who worked for a British insurance company. He is credited with introducing the term “immunization” to signify the investment of assets in such a way that the existing business is immune to a general change in the interest rate.

As interest rates began to fall in early 1982, call risk surfaced as a serious impediment to immunization and dedication models, especially for those who ventured into mortgage-backed securities. This call (or prepayment) risk would alter cash flows and maturity structures, with resulting damage to the integrity of immunization and dedication models that depended on the certainty of these cash flows and maturity dates.

Accounting Rules Redirect Pension Asset Management

This FASB standard would help those designing immunization strategies to understand how to match the present value of liabilities. However, for pension expense purposes, the new statement allowed corporations to use the return on assets (ROA) assumption as follows: If the dollar growth in pension assets based on the ROA rate exceeded the pension expense amount, then pension expense would be negative—that is, it would become pension income which would directly enhance earnings. Because corporations are earnings led and not liabilities led, the ROA became the hurdle rate objective for pension assets.

When interest rates went below the ROA assumption rate (around 8%) in the late 1980s, dedication and immunization strategies fell out of vogue because they locked in a return that would not be sufficient to neutralize or overcome pension expense, resulting in a drain on EPS. As a consequence, dedication and immunization were largely replaced by surplus optimization strategies that aimed at the growth of pension assets to outpace liability growth, thereby creating a pension surplus that would reduce or even eliminate contribution costs. Contribution costs were a function of the funded status (the present value of assets minus the present value of liabilities). Any deficit or underfunding (a funded ratio less than 100%) was to be erased through contributions planned out over time so that the pension plan would be fully funded over the life of the liabilities.

The late 1980s and the decade of the 1990s were good times for pensions. With the switch to a surplus optimization strategy, asset allocation models were heavily skewed to equities over bonds because the ROA was now the “bogey,” or investment return benchmark. This asset allocation decision worked out well during this period; equities enjoyed several good years of double-digit returns, resulting in pension surpluses that enhanced EPS (returns above the ROA were an “actuarial gain” line item that increased EPS) and reduced contribution costs. During this period, ALM became a hard sell, given the level of interest rates, the historical return track record of equities, and the resulting financial statement benefits of an ROA hurdle rate. This focus on an absolute return (ROA) rather than on relative cash flows would soon haunt the pension industry and prove fatal to some plan sponsors.

The equity bear market that hit in 2000–2002 became a pension tsunami for several reasons. The correction was quite deep, amounting to a 49% fall in the S&P 500 Index, with the result that pension asset growth underperformed liability growth by as much as 75% on a cumulative basis over those three years. This event led to spiking contribution costs because of crashing funded ratios, an EPS drain from the pension assets underperforming the ROA (actuarial loss), and even insolvency of the plan sponsor, with several companies (notably airlines) filing for bankruptcy because pensions tend to be the largest liability of many firms.

The Society of Actuaries (SOA) became concerned that such an asset/liability disparity occurred as a result of accounting rules and it issued a research paper draft (2004) titled “Principles Underlying Asset Liability Management,” which warned that accounting measures can distort economic reality and produce reports that are inconsistent with economic results. It

further stated that entities that focus on economic value tend to achieve their financial objectives more consistently in the long run. In other words, the SOA promoted ALM on an economic basis (i.e., market value), rather than on an accounting basis, as the proper asset management style.

At that time, corporations were begging for relief from spiking pension contribution costs. Congress responded with the Pension Protection Act (PPA) of 2006. A number of pension experts provided testimony during the several-years-long process of writing the PPA. In my testimony before the ERISA Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans (2003), I recommended that liabilities should be priced at the market as a yield curve since liabilities are a term structure. In harmony with FAS 87 rules, I reminded them that the discount rate used should be one that settles the liabilities. I further proposed that as an acid test a rule should be created and enforced that reads, “If you cannot buy it, you cannot use it as a discount rate!”

1. a 24-month moving average of a three-segment yield curve and (

2. the current spot-rate yield curve. In both options, the yield curve was based on high-quality corporate bonds rather than Treasury bonds. In effect, the PPA raised discount rates which lowered the present value of liabilities, thereby enhancing the apparent funded ratio and lowering contribution requirements.

The FASB was also concerned that existing standards did not communicate the funded status on balance sheets, so in 2006 it issued Statement of Accounting Standards No. 158: Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans (effective 2007). This communication, usually referred to as FAS 158, clarified that the discount rates used should correspond to the current market value of aportfolio of high-quality zero-coupon bonds whose maturity dates and amounts match the expected future benefit payments. This accounting standard also introduced Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) liabilities onto the balance sheet, revealing that they are one of the largest liabilities facing U.S. institutions.

ALM Strategies Reborn as LDI

After the equity correction of 2000–2003, the stage was set for institutions to return to the basic practice of asset/liability management, because failure to do so had resulted in deteriorating funded ratios, large actuarial losses, spiking contribution costs and even bankruptcies. This time, however, ALM was more frequently referred to as liability-driven investing (LDI) to suggest a new, enhanced approach.

Because of the ongoing secular trend toward lower rates and the fact that the expected return on assets continued to be used to calculate pension expense, corporations continued to pursue an asset allocation away from bonds but with less equity concentration. This trend opened the asset allocation door to many new asset classes and strategies, including hedge funds, alternative investments, and new LDI strategies.

Frank Fabozzi, Ph.D. and I have written prolifically on ALM strategies and considerations. Fabozzi’s books are a mainstay for any ALM practitioner. His Bond Portfolio Management (especially the chapter “Managing Funds Against Liabilities”), published in 2001, and his Handbook of Fixed Income Securities (chapter on “Cash Flow Matching”), published in 2022, have become required reading. Fabozzi and I teamed up in 2005 to produce the article “Reforming Pension Reform,” proposing a solution to the growing pension crisis. Our solution starts with pricing liabilities at the market (economic value) and then building a custom liability index as the proper benchmark for pensions (or any liability-driven objective), because liabilities are unique to each pension plan. We later followed this article with “Liability Index Fund: The Liability Beta Portfolio” (2011), in which we argued that a liability index fund should bethe core portfolio and is the only correct beta portfolio for a pension with a liability objective. The liability beta portfolio is the proper form of ALM or LDI which cash flow matches liability cash flows at low cost. To create and maintain such a portfolio, a custom liability index is also required.

Waring and Siegel produced a detailed account of why saving defined benefit pension plans is a good idea in their 2007 paper “Don’t Kill the Golden Goose! Saving Pension Plans.” They conclude that the first element needed to manage a defined benefit plan is an “economic” view of the liability. The only risks that can be hedged through investment policy and strategy are those that are correlated with market returns of one kind or another. Accounting values are not hedgeable because they are smoothed and are not market values. In the face of a trend toward freezing defined benefit plans in favor of defined contribution plans, the authors argued that defined benefit plans are more cost effective and efficient than defined contribution plans.

Public pensions have the largest deficits and the lowest funded ratios, a result that may be attributable to the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) accounting rules, which smooth assets over five years and price liabilities at a ROA discount rate. Since 1999, this accounting practice has usually overvalued assets and undervalued liabilities versus economic values (market values). In my paper “The Public Pension Crisis” (2011), I described how the ROA discount rate misled pension trustees and consultants into making inappropriate asset allocation, benefit, and contribution decisions by thinking they were highly funded when they had true large economic deficits. All of these decisions are linked together. My solution to the public pension crisis starts with liabilities. I argued that until a Custom Liability Index (CLI) is installed as the proper benchmark priced as a yield curve of market rates, all asset allocation, budget, and contribution decisions are in jeopardy.

In conclusion, the true objective of a pension plan is to secure the benefits in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. This is best accomplished thru cash flow matching of the liability cash flows. A Custom Liability Index should also be installed as the proper benchmark so asset allocation can know the true economic funded status and performance measurement of asset growth versus liability growth can be accurately assessed.

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” - Albert Einstein

Bibliography

Black, Fischer. 1980. “The Tax Consequences of Long-Run Pension Policy.” Financial Analysts Journal, vol. 36, no. 4 (July/August):21–28.

“I believe that every tax-paying firm’s defined benefit pension fund portfolio should be invested entirely in bonds (or insurance contracts). Although the firm’s pension funds are legally distinct from the firm, there is a close tie between the performance of the pension fund investments and the firm’s cash flows. Sooner or later, gains or losses in pension fund portfolios will mean changes in the firm’s pension contributions. Shifting from stocks to bonds in the pension funds will increase the firm’s debt capacity, because it will reduce the volatility of the firm’s future cash flows. Shifting from stocks to bonds will give an indirect tax benefit equal to the firm’s marginal tax rate times the interest on the bonds.” (p. 21)

Choie, Kenneth S. 1992. “Caveats in Immunization of Pension Liabilities.” Journal of Portfolio Management, vol. 18, no. 2 (Winter):54–69.

“Immunization requires that the value of assets and the present value of liabilities be the same, and that the interest rate sensitivity or duration of the assets be the same as that of the liabilities. The first issue in immunization is establishment of the appropriate discount rates to compute the present value and the duration of a liability schedule. The question of the appropriate discount rates for a given liability schedule has crucial ramifications for construction of an asset portfolio to immunize the liability stream.” (p. 54)

Collie, Bob. 2012. “LDI’s Journey toward Greater Customization.” aiCIO Magazine, vol. 4, no. 4 (LDI Special Issue):6–11.

“The basic initial steps of an LDI program are an increase in the portfolio’s sensitivity to interest rates and a reduction in equity holdings. These steps are similar no matter who is taking them. However, as the LDI program becomes more advanced and the link between the asset portfolio and the liabilities becomes stronger, a point is reached at which a greater degree of customization becomes necessary.” (p. 6)

Ehrentreich, Norman. 2009. “The Asset Return–Funding Cost Paradox: The Case for LDI.” Ehrentreich LDI Consulting & Research.

“Pension regulations of the 1980s have effectively removed incentives for corporate plan sponsors to overfund their pension plans. Now, equity based investing strategies sooner or later lead to large funding shortfalls, and the inability of most plan sponsors to close them immediately makes them persistent. Therefore, the most basic requirement for converting eventual higher asset returns into lower funding costs, i.e., having average funding levels of 100% or more, is regularly violated by most pension plans.” (p. 1)

Fabozzi, Frank. 2005a. “Dedicated Bond Portfolios.” In TheHandbook of Fixed Income Securities. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill:1103–1117.

“The dedicated bond portfolio, as it is frequently called, is a strategy that matches monthly cash flows from a portfolio of bonds to a prespecified set of monthly cash requirements of liabilities. Cash matching or prefunding these liabilities leads to the elimination of interest-rate risk and the defeasance of the liability. Applications for the dedicated strategy include pension benefit funding, defeasance of debt service, municipal funding of construction takedown schedules, structured settlement funding, GIC matching and funding of other fixed insurance products.” (p. 1103)

Fabozzi, Frank, and Ronald Ryan. 2005. “Reforming Pension Reform.” Institutional Investor (January):84–88.

“Until pension liabilities are priced at the market, pension funds run the risk of an asset-liability disconnect. Liabilities should be priced off of a market yield curve. An ironclad pension accounting rule should be: If you cannot buy it, you cannot use it as a discount rate. Start with the Treasury zero-coupon yield curve. Use this yield curve to build custom liability indexes for each plan. Once a plan sponsor creates a custom index as a benchmark for liabilities, it can properly manage assets. Asset allocation and performance measurement models will be able to compare the growth and risk behavior of assets and liabilities by term structure. If assets are not measured against liabilities, they are likely to have the wrong index objective.” (p. 88)

Fabozzi, Frank, and Ronald Ryan. 2011. “Liability Index Fund: The Liability Beta Portfolio.” Journal of Financial Transformation, vol. 33 (December):29–33.

“For corporate defined benefit plans, only a CLI [custom liability index] is the appropriate asset benchmark for liability-driven objectives. With a CLI, Beta and Alpha portfolios are redefined and can work in harmony with the true objective. The asset management guidelines of a pension plan can then take into account the risk/reward behavior of the true economic objective in establishing investment policy, especially the liability Beta portfolio which should be installed as the core portfolio.” (p. 33)

“By definition, an index fund is the correct Beta portfolio that matches the index benchmark with such accuracy that the tracking error is nil with the Beta calculation at 1.00 and the correlation at or near 100. With a liability-driven objective, only a liability index fund could qualify as the Beta or matching portfolio. A liability index fund, by definition, requires an index that reflects a pension fund’s liability term structure. Since each liability structure is unique, this calls for the creation of a custom liability index (CLI). Until the asset portfolio’s cash flows match each monthly liability payment (i.e., liability term structure), the interest rate risk (systematic risk) that dominates the risk/reward behavior of pension liabilities cannot be hedged.” (p. 31)

Financial Accounting Standards Board. 1985. “Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 87: Employers’ Accounting for Pensions.” FASB

“Interest rates vary depending on the duration of investments; for example, U.S. Treasury bills, 7-year bonds, and 30-year bonds have different interest rates. … The disclosures required by this Statement regarding components of the pension benefit obligation will be more representationally faithful if individual discount rates to various benefit deferral periods are selected.” (paragraph 199)

“In making those estimates, employers may also look to rates of return on high-quality fixed-income investments currently available and expected to be available during the period to maturity of the pension benefits.” (paragraph 44)

Financial Accounting Standards Board. 2006. “Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158: Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans.”

“The objective of selecting assumed discount rates is to measure the single amount that, if invested at the measurement date in a portfolio of high-quality debt instruments, would provide the necessary future cash flows to pay the accumulated benefits when due. Notionally, that single amount, the accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation, would equal the current market value of a portfolio of high-quality zero-coupon bonds whose maturity dates and amounts would be the same as the timing and amount of the expected future benefit payments.” (paragraph 144a)

International Association of Insurance Supervisors. 2006. “Standard on Asset-Liability Management.” IAIS Standard No. 13

“This paper describes best practices for asset-liability management (ALM) that a well-managed insurer would be expected to follow and identifies 11 minimum requirements. Asset-liability management (ALM) is the practice of managing a business so that decisions and actions taken with respect to assets and liabilities are coordinated. The objective of ALM is not to eliminate risk. Rather, it is to manage risks within a framework that includes self-imposed limits. The IAIS requires that insurers have in place effective procedures for monitoring and managing their asset-liability positions to ensure that their assets and investment activities are appropriate to their liability and risk profiles and their solvency positions.” (pp. 3, 5, 6)

Leibowitz, Martin L. 1986a. “The Dedicated Bond Portfolio in Pension Funds—Part I: Motivations and Basics.” Financial Analysts Journal, vol. 42, no. 1

“Dedicated bond portfolios allow a corporate pension fund to take advantage of favorable fixed income markets and the actuarial system’s willingness to provide special benefits for a minimum-risk investment approach. Purely as an investment approach, a dedicated portfolio serves as a least-risk asset, minimizing the risks involved in fulfilling a large class of nominal-dollar liabilities. Because the process is largely assumption-free, it provides the sponsoring corporation with an actuarially acceptable way to take advantage of available market interest rates to improve funding status.” (p. 68)

Leibowitz, Martin L. 1986b. “The Dedicated Bond Portfolio in Pension Funds—Part II: Immunization, Horizon Matching and Contingent Procedures.” Financial Analysts Journal, vol. 42, no. 2

“Immunization, horizon matching and various contingent schemes offer pension plan sponsors and managers an opportunity to minimize risk while retaining some degree of management discretion to pursue lower costs or higher returns. Immunization calls for the creation of a portfolio of bonds whose value coincides with the present value of a given schedule of liabilities and whose duration, or interest rate sensitivity, is the same as that of the liabilities. By specifying a minimum portfolio return somewhat below the available market rate, the manager can create a “cushion spread” that provides the basis for several contingent schemes. As long as the portfolio retains assets sufficient to meet the target return, it may be actively managed. When adverse market moves threaten this return, the portfolio must be converted into a dedicated mode that will assure the target return.” (p. 47)

Macaulay, Frederick R. 1938. Some Theoretical Problems Suggested by the Movement of Interest Rates, Bond Yields and Stock Prices in the United States since 1856. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

“The time to maturity is not an accurate or even a good measure of ‘duration.’ ‘Duration’ is a reality of which ‘maturity’ is only one factor. Whether one bond represents an essentially shorter or an essentially longer term loan than another bond depends not only upon the respective ‘maturities’ of the two bonds but also upon their respective ‘coupon rates’ and under certain circumstances, on their respective ‘yields.’ Only if maturities, coupon rates and yields are identical can we say, without calculations, that the ‘durations’ of two bonds are the same. The duration of a stream of payments may be thought of as the average life of the stream.” (p. 45)

McDaniel, Kip. 2011. “LDI’s Founding Document.” aiCIO Magazine, vol. 3, no. 2 (LDI Special Issue)

“The history of a formal LDI theory is littered, it seems, with false starts. Our conclusion is that, although historically a distinction has been drawn between asset and liability management by banks and pension funds, financial theory offers no good reason for this distinction. Time to stop treating pensions as anything special. They’re the same as any other liability—and time to show that on the balance sheet.” (pp. 8, 9)

Oracle Financial Services. 2008. “Asset Liability Management: An Overview.” Oracle White Papers (http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/financial-services/045581.pdf).

“Asset Liability Management (ALM) can be defined as a mechanism to address the risk faced by a bank due to a mismatch between assets and liabilities either due to liquidity or changes in interest rates. Apart from liquidity, a bank may also have a mismatch due to changes in interest rates as banks typically tend to borrow short term (fixed or floating) and lend long term (fixed or floating). The function of ALM is not just protection from risk. The safety achieved through ALM also opens up opportunities for enhancing net worth.” (p. 2)

Ryan, Ronald. 2003. “Testimony before the ERISA Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans.” U.S. Department of Labor

“Liabilities should be priced at the market as a yield curve. A rule should be created, or enforced, that reads: If you cannot buy it, you cannot use it as a discount rate! Bond indexes are market-weighted; they’re not liability weighted. Until a custom liability index is built for each pension plan, based upon the unique actuarial term structure of that plan, and priced off of real zero-coupon bonds, pensions are in jeopardy of managing to the wrong objective.” (p. 9)

Ryan, Ronald. 2011. “The Public Pension Crisis.” IMCA Investments and Wealth Monitor

“The solution to the public pension and budget crisis starts with liabilities. Until a custom liability index (CLI) is installed as the proper benchmark, all asset allocation, asset management, benefit and contribution decisions will be based upon erroneous and misleading calculations. The benchmark must be a CLI because no two pensions are alike due to different salaries, mortality and plan amendments.” (p. 30)

Society of Actuaries. 2004. “Principles Underlying Asset Liability Management.” SOA Exposure Draft

“Asset Liability Management is the ongoing process of formulating, implementing, monitoring, and revising strategies related to assets and liabilities to achieve financial objectives, for a given set of risk tolerances and constraints. A consistent ALM structure can only be achieved for economic objectives. Various accounting measures are affected by rules that change the emergence of income and the reported book value of assets and liabilities. These measures can sometimes distort economic reality and produce results inconsistent with economic value. Because ALM is concerned with the future asset and liability cash flows, the natural focus of ALM is economic value. Entities that focus on economic value tend to achieve their financial objectives more consistently in the long term.” (p. 6)

Waring, M. Barton, and Laurence B. Siegel. 2007. “Don’t Kill the Golden Goose! Saving Pension Plans.” Financial Analysts Journal, vol. 63, no. 1

“The first element of ‘new’ technology needed to manage DB plan risk and cost is an economic view of the liability. The only risks that are helpful to know about are the risks that can be hedged through investing the assets. Such risks are those in the liability that are market related—that is, correlated with the returns of assets or indices available in the markets. Therefore, sponsors need to set aside the actuarial and accounting views of the liability and rediscount the cash flows at appropriate, market-related rates. Plus, they need to understand how these market-related values, economically sensible measures of periodic pension cost, and economically required contributions change as market interest rates change.” (p. 36)

Waring, Barton, and Duane Whitney. 2009. “An Asset–Liability Version of the Capital Asset Pricing Model with a Multi-Period Two-Fund Theorem.” Journal of Portfolio Management, vol. 35, no. 4 (Summer)

“The authors present a new capital asset pricing model (CAPM) that incorporates investors’ deferred spending plans, or ‘economic liabilities’—the underlying purpose behind all investments—and thus reveal a new risk-free asset, the investor’s liability-matching asset portfolio.” (p. 111)

Liability Beta vs. Market Beta

Source: Liability Beta vs. Market Beta

Beta is a term first pioneered by PhD. William Sharpe in his 1970 book “Portfolio Theory and Capital Markets”. Here he introduced his famous capital asset pricing model (CAPM) which presented the idea that individual investments contain two types of risk: Systematic and Unsystematic risk.

Systematic risk was deemed to be market risk that cannot be diversified away while unsystematic risk was deemed to be the specific risk of that investment (i.e. credit, features, etc.) that can be diversified away through adding other investments to the portfolio. Modern portfolio theory (MPT) shows that unsystematic risks can be removed or reduced through portfolio diversification. The problem that remains is that of market risk.

The Notre Dame fixed income indexes study of 1986 proved that the market risk for bonds is interest rate risk which is quite dominate. Their calculations showed that interest rate risk explained or accounted for 96% plus of the total return for the major bond index aggregates. This study further proved that interest rate is best measured by a yield curve that is well diversified by maturity or duration (term structure). Any bond index that does not have a distinct term structure is not a good measurement of bond market risk.

Through time, it became obvious how difficult it was for active management to consistently outperform a market index as a benchmark (especially after fees). This led to Index Funds as a major asset management style. The growth in this form of asset management has been dramatic especially when including the explosive growth of exchange traded funds (ETFs).

With the advent of Portable Alpha as a strategy, assets are divided into two groups: Alpha and Beta. A Portable Alpha strategy transfers (ports) the excess return (Alpha) over to the Beta portfolio to secure the victory. The Beta portfolio is considered the portfolio that matches the objective as an index benchmark (i.e. Index Fund) and Alpha is considered the portfolio that outgrows (excess return) the index objective.

Given the currentasset liability management(ALM)or liability driven investment (LDI) trends, it has become obvious that the true objective of a pension is to fund a liability schedule unique to each plan sponsor. Since the objective of a pension (and most institutional objectives) is liability driven shouldn’t the terms Beta and Alpha be redefined for any LDI objective. After communication with PhD. William Sharpe years ago, he suggested I qualify my research as Liability Beta and Liability Alpha to distinguish it from market beta and market alpha. I agree, that makes good sense.

Market Beta and Alpha

Most asset managers are given an index bogey or objective that best represents the asset class risk/reward behavior that the client has chosen as the objective of such asset allocation. Asset consultants are quite diligent in selecting and monitoring the asset managers to perform under these index objectives. The goal could be to either match the risk/reward behavior (Beta portfolio or index fund) or outperform the return behavior (earn Alpha). A few good questions here are: if your asset managers earn market Alpha, does that mean they earned liability Alpha? If all asset managers outperformed their index bogey but total assets underperformed liability growth, did the client win or lose? Did asset allocation create value added (Alpha)?

Liability Beta and Alpha

Several strategies exist to match pension liabilities (cash flow matching, duration matching, derivatives, interest rate swaps, etc.). These liability Beta portfolios are to match the liability cash flow schedule (cash flow matching) or interest rate sensitivity of liabilities (duration matching) or both. Liability Alpha is rarely a consideration yet this is how a pension improves its funding status and reduces pension costs (i.e. contributions). In the end, total assets must outgrow total liabilities over time to earn liability Alpha thereby enhancing the funded status and reduce pension costs.

Custom Liability Index

Given any liability driven objective, the proper index benchmark should be a Custom Liability Index (CLI) that best measures the size, shape and risk/reward behavior of these client specific benefit payment schedules. The Ryan ALM CLI is a monthly report that calculates the present value, growth rate and interest rate sensitivity of liabilities. Client liabilities are like snowflakes… you will never find two alike. Only a CLI could accurately represent the true pension objective. It should be obvious thatthe true objective of a pension is to fund their liabilities in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. It is difficult, if not impossible, for asset liability management (ALM) to function effectively without proper knowledge of the liability cash flows. In sports, the scoreboard dictates the strategy. The CLI is the pension scoreboard for liabilities. When compared to assets, the plan sponsor knows every month if they are winning or losing the pension game.

Current accounting rules and actuarial practices price liabilities as a zero-coupon bond portfolio at a single discount rate on an annual basis, months delinquent where the liability cash flow schedule (annual projections of benefits) is rarely seen. Moreover, this single discount rate may not be a market rate (GASB for public plans uses the ROA). Could any asset manager perform versus a generic market index if it came out annually, months delinquent where the index portfolio was not transparent and all issues were priced at the same yield? Sounds ridiculous … well, welcome to the current pension liability world we live in.

The Society of Actuaries (SoA) in their 2004 research paper addressed this situation citing that current accounting rules distort economic reality and urged pensions to create a set of economic books that price liabilities at the market on a frequent and accurate basis. Such economic books are best created and maintained as a Custom Liability Index. Indeed, until a Custom Liability Index is installed, the asset side cannot function effectively towards a liability objective. How could an asset allocation model function without correct input as to the true economic Funded Ratio (assets/liabilities) and the size of the economic deficit or surplus (funded status)? How could performance measurement be calculated quarterly without knowledge of the true economic liability growth rate (total return)? How could you match and fund assets to liabilities without a Custom Liability Index?

I designed the CLI over 32 years ago as the best representation and benchmark for any liability objective. The CLI is a monthly report that prices liabilities at the market (using either the Ryan ALM ASC 715 (AA corporates) discount rates or US Treasury STRIPS). The CLI calculates the true economic present value of liabilities and their growth rate so the funded status and performance measurement of assets versus liabilities can both be ascertained.

Lehman Aggregate and Generic Bond Indexes

As the designer of many of the popular Lehman bond indexes (now Bloomberg Barclay’s), I am honored by the acceptance of these bond indexes. However, it should be obvious that they do not behave like liabilities. All of the popular generic bond indexes are rules based. Such rules only use coupon bonds and do not have zero-coupon bonds. Mathematically, the longest duration of any coupon bond is around 17 years today. As a result, such bond indexes could not be a proxy for long duration liabilities or match these liabilities as an index fund. Furthermore, most pensions are weighted to long durations with an average pension fund in the 10 to 15-year average duration area. The Bloomberg Barclay’s Aggregate’s average duration is usually between four to five years … a definite mismatch to pension liabilities cash flow. Even the long Corporate or Credit index cannot match liabilities. It has two distinct rules based problems. First, it has no issues shorter than 10 years in maturity which leaves out a large and most important segment of liability cash flows. Second, it has no issues with durations longer than 17 years. This is an inappropriate proxy for any pension’s liabilities. It is not the average duration you are trying to match and monitor but the entire liability term structure (liability cash flows). Once again only a Custom Liability Index is the proper fit as a liability benchmark.

Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP)

If the Beta portfolio is the portfolio that matches the index objective (Index Fund) then given a liability objective, the proper liability Beta portfolio is … the portfolio that matches the liability objective (Liability Index Fund). To be accurate, you must fund each monthly liability payment.

The Ryan ALM LBP is a cash flow matching portfolio that matches and funds monthly liability cash flows chronologically. Our LBP is a cost optimization model that will produce the optimal lowest cost portfolio to fund the target liability cash flows. Our LBP should reduce funding costs by about 2% per year (1-10 year liability schedule = 20% funding cost savings)! Moreover, the LBP will outyield the CLI thereby providing liability Alpha similar to the yield difference which enhances the funded status. The Ryan ALM LBP should also mitigate interest rate risk (similar duration and term structure matching) and reduce pension expense, the volatility of the funded status and contributions.

The intrinsic value in bonds is the certainty of their cash flows. We urge pensions to use bonds for their value… to match bond cash flows that fund liability cash flows. We do not view bonds as performance vehicles or Alpha assets. They are best as liquidity assets to fund liabilities as they come due. By bifurcating liquidity assets from growth assets (Beta vs. Alpha assets) you BUY TIME for the Alpha assets to grow unencumbered. Many pensions use a “Cash Sweep” where they take away income from all asset classes to fund benefits + expenses (B+E). According to S&P 500 data, dividends reinvested accounted for: 47% of rolling 10 years returns since 1940. So let the bond allocation (liquidity assets) fund B+E which will buy time for the Alpha assets to grow significantly more.

“An error is not a mistake until you refuse to correct it” John F. Kennedy

NIRS Innovative Pension Funding Strategies

Source: NIRS Innovative Pension Funding Strategies

The NIRS pension objectives for this paper are:

1. Reduce contribution volatility

2. Promote intergenerational equity

3. Keep plan on sound funding trajectory

Cash Flows (Future Values versus Present Values)

Pensions are all about cash flows: asset cash flows versus liability cash flows. It is the future value of these cash flows that are the most meaningful and need to be monitored. Asset cash flows are pension assets (A) to grow at some ROA forecasted rate + projected contributions (C). Liability cash flows are projected benefit payments (B) + projected administrative expenses (E). The formula of: (A + C) – (B + E) is what dictates the soundness and solvency of any pension. However, funded ratios and status are based on the present value of A/B or A – B. Contributions and expenses are not included in the funded ratio/status. Contributions are the first source to fund B + E. Accordingly, assets fund net liabilities not gross. This is the first innovative funding strategy: subtract contributions from B + E to calculate net liabilities. Have assets focus on fully funding net liabilities. Indeed, GASB requires an asset exhaustion test (AET) as a test of solvency which takes cumulative projected A + C minus projected B + E on an annual basis to determine how far out is the plan solvent. The AET is truly the battlefield that the pension asset/liability game is played on and should play a major role in asset allocation.

Present values may help us understand if we are on track like a scoreboard but can be very misleading. Take for example, two portfolios: one is 100% in Treasuries yielding 1.75% and the second portfolio is 100% in corporate bonds yielding 2.50%. They have the same present values, but their future values are much different by as much as 20% to 30% depending on maturities. They have the same funded ratio and status, but they are certainly different in pension solvency. The same problem exists with asset smoothing and actuarial valuations. Only a market valuation will tell you the true or accurate economic value. Imagine your bank telling you that they cannot provide your current balance but only the five-year average balance. Would you be comfortable writing a check on that information? Asset liability management (ALM) requires accurate and frequent information in order to be successful.

Return on Asset Assumption (ROA)

Assets need to know what they are funding… net not gross liabilities. The AET can be modified to calculate the ROA needed for assets to fully fund net liabilities. This is the second innovative funding strategy: calculate the ROA based on the AET and not asset allocation. Currently, the ROA is calculated based on what asset allocation tells us is a high probability of achieving a target return given a certain asset allocation. This in no way tells us if this ROA is capable of achieving accurate full funding, which is the true goal of the assets. The ROA may be too high creating surpluses and higher contribution costs (too often the result). The AET can be used to calculate what ROA will fully fund residual net liabilities. This accurately determined ROA will now be the hurdle rate for asset allocation.

Assure Plan Remains on Sound Funding Trajectory

It is the future value of A + C versus B + E that counts. That is what the AET focuses on and what assets should focus on. Since we only know the future value of bonds with certainty then bonds should be the core or Beta portfolio. This is the third innovative funding strategy: install a Beta portfolio to cash flow match net liabilities chronologically. The Beta assets are the liquidity assets to fund B + E chronologically and buy time for the Alpha or growth assets to grow unencumbered. Asset allocation should initially focus on the weighting of Beta + Alpha assets that produce the highest probability of fully funding B + E net of C. The question of how much is allocated to the Beta assets is based on the how well funded the plan is. The higher the funded ratio, the greater the allocation to Beta assets. Logically, you want the Beta assets to fund the next 10-years since history tells us that the alpha assets need time to perform and grow. This will allow the Alpha assets to reinvest their dividends and income streams. Historically, about 48% of the S&P 500 growth on a 10-year rolling basis since 1950 comes from dividends and reinvestment.

This is not how asset allocation has worked for decades. Instead, asset allocation is based on achieving a target ROA which favors a high allocation to riskier (Alpha) assets no matter what the funded status is. Two plans, one at 40% funded and the other at 80% funded should have distinctly different asset allocations. But if they have the same ROA, they will have the same or similar asset allocations. This was the asset allocation mistake made in the 1990s when public pension plans had surpluses. Why didn’t they secure B + E and the surplus with a high allocation to Beta assets that would have cash flow matched B + E for many years? Instead, they reduced their allocation to bonds to achieve a ROA target return as interest rates were going down in a secular trend over 38 years. The equity correction of 2000-02 sent funded ratios into deep deficits and spiking contribution costs which public pensions have not yet cured.

Reduce Contribution Cost Volatility

Cash flow matching (CDI) with bonds reduces contribution cost volatility by definition. It will fully fund B + E chronologically thereby reducing contribution cost volatility in the area it is funding (i.e., 1-10 years). CDI is based on matching and funding future values not present values. This eliminates the actuarial noise from actuarial valuations. It also mitigates interest rate risk which is the dominant risk factor in bonds. The future value of B + E is not very volatile especially on shorter projections (i.e., 1-10 years). Moreover, CDI will rebalance whenever actuarial projections change to always be cash flow matched to projected B + E. It also assures that the pension plan remains on a strong fiscal path. The certainty of their cash flows is the value of bonds and why bonds have always been used for cash flow matching, defeasance, dedication and immunization. A cash flow matching portfolio should be the anchor or core portfolio for prudent pension ALM.

Intergenerational Equity

The AET will calculate the residual or remaining assets based on fully funding B + E after C. As a result, you want AET to show an increase in assets or, at least, show the initial assets as the remainder so intergenerational equity has improved its asset position or no dilution of assets. The AET is certainly the best measurement for intergenerational equity and should be monitored annually.

Hypothetical Pension Plan

Applying our innovative funding strategies to the NIRS hypothetical pension plan, we first calculated net liabilities (B + E) – C by using the projected B + E provided by NIRS and taking contributions (normal cost) of $184.75 million and growing it at 3% for payroll inflation which creates a constant 12% of payroll contribution cost. We ran three asset exhaustion test (AET) versions (see link _____________________):

1. Keeping Contributions as a constant 12% of payroll with 3% inflation grows contribution costs to exceed B + E by 1/01/64. As a result, a ROA of less than 3% will fully fund all projected B + E thru 12/31/99.

2. Removing Contributions after 1/01/64 (crossover point where C > B + E) would result in a ROA of 4.63% to fully fund all projected B + E thru 12/31/99.

3. Freezing Contribution costs at the initial amount would result in a ROA of 6.19% to fully fund all projected B + E thru 12/31/99.

The major point of this exercise is to show and prove that the ROA is not a calculated number based on the funded status. If the mission of pension assets is to fully fund B + E in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk, then assets need to know the correct ROA needed to accomplish this mission. But that is not what happens today with the ROA and asset allocation. A rounded ROA hurdle rate is commonly used based on the asset allocation model with no regards to the funded status. As a result, a surplus funded status and a significant deficit funded status could have the same ROA if that they had the same or similar asset allocation. This is not logical or in the best interest of the plan solvency. Again, my example of what happened in the 1990s which led to spiking contribution costs in the early 2000s and beyond should never be repeated.

Today, most public plans have seen an improvement in their funded status but little or no change in their asset allocation. To be true to the pension objective, asset allocation needs to be responsive to the economic funded status based on valuing assets and liabilities on market valuations not actuarial valuations. We ran a Custom Liability Index (CLI) to compare and calculate the present value of B + E before and after C based on both a 7% ROA and an ASC 715 discount rate of 2.61%. Here are the calculations:

‍Custom Liability Index

Assets	$7,665,500,000	$7,665,500,000
Gross Liabilities (w/o Contributions)	$40,998,000,000	$40,998,000,000
PV of Gross CLI (w/o Contributions)	$9,259,823,437	$19,351,264,070
Funded Ratio	82.78%	39.61%
PV of Net CLI (C @ 3% growth to 1/1/64)	$5,349,624,369	$11,215,430,808
Net Funded Ratio (with C)	143.29%	68.35%

Noticeably, there is a significant difference in PV based on the two discount rates (ROA vs. ASC 715). Which one provides the best calculation of the true economic funded ratio/status? Which one should asset allocation be focused on? Certainly, the ASC 715 is based on reality… current market rates. FASB accounting rules clearly state that the discount rate should be a rate that can settle the liabilities… a rate you can buy to defease liabilities. The ROA discount rate is eliminated here since it is a rate that you can NOT buy.

Cash flow matching (CDI) with bonds focuses on future values and eliminates this confusion over discount rates and the correct present value of liabilities and funded ratio/status. Our third innovative funding strategy is to install CDI as the core portfolio or liquidity assets to fully fund B + E (net after contributions) for as far out as makes sense. Logically, the CDI allocation should allow for the asset allocation to achieve the new calculated ROA. Based on the AETs we ran, it looks like a 4.63% ROA is the proper hurdle rate if C are used to initially fund B + E up to 1/01/64 leaving net liabilities to be funded by the assets. This would suggest that 47% invested in CDI yielding 2.00% + and 53% invested in residual assets earning 7.00% would earn the 4.63% hurdle rate. This is the prudent approach to a calculated ROA and a responsive asset allocation to fully funding (B + E) – C. It is also a far more conservative asset allocation than that of most plans that should lead to significantly reduced volatility of returns, contribution expenses, and the plan’s funded status while keeping the plan on a sound funding trajectory.

‍Resume
Ronald J. Ryan, CFA

——

CEO and founder of Ryan ALM, Inc. in 2004. Ryan ALM provides a turnkey system for pensions that reduces cost and risk based on three synergistic and proprietary models:

• ASC 715 Discount Rates

• Custom Liability Index (CLI)

• Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP)

The CLI and LBP cash flow matching model are both unique in the pension industry. The index division of Ryan ALM also provides custom indexes for ETFs.

Prior to creating Ryan ALM, Mr. Ryan founded Ryan Labs, Inc. in 1988 which became one of the largest Enhanced Bond Index Fund managers in America. In 1982, he founded the Ryan Financial Strategy Group (RFSG) which was a fixed income quantitative firm focused on helping bond managers outperform bond Indexes. At RFSG, he and his team created many unique financial models and index innovations. Mr. Ryan is the former Director of fixed income research at Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb from 1977–1982 where he designed most of the popular Lehman bond indexes.Prior to Lehman, he was the head of fixed income for the First in Dallas from 1973-1977, the largest bank holding company in Texas. From 1966-1973 he was a security analyst at Pan-American Life Insurance company, the largest institutional investor in Louisiana.

Mr. Ryan has a CFA degree, and a MBA and BBA from Loyola University.