How Bonds Can Enhance the ROA

Source: How Bonds Can Enhance the ROA

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s Better For a Pension?

Source: What’s Better For a Pension?

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

1995= 37.20%

1996= 22.68%

1997= 33.10%

1998= 28.34%

1999= 20.89%

2003= 28.36%

2009= 25.94%

2013= 32.15%

2017= 21.83%

2019= 31.49%

2021= 30.92%

2023= 26.29%

2024= 25.02%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• AET will calculate proper allocation between liquidity and growth assets

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

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

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

• Reduces volatility of the funded ratio and contributions

• Buys time for the Alpha assets to grow unencumbered

• No need for a cash sweep to meetliquidity needs

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

Pension Strategy to Reduce Funding Costs by 20%+

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

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

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

Cash Flow Matching – Provides Liquidity

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

Cash Flow Matching - Provides TIME

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

Cash Flow Matching – Provides Inflation Hedge

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

Cash Flow Matching – Outyields Benchmark and Bond ROA

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

Higher Yields are Good for Cash Flow Matching… and Pensions

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

Reminder: The ROA is Plural… ROAs

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

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

How To De-risk a Pension

Source: How To De-risk a Pension

Risk is best defined as the “uncertainty” of meeting the client objective. The pension objective is to fund liabilities in a cost-effective manner such that contribution costs remain low and stable. Pension plans also want to de-risk their plans over time. The lowest risk assets for a pension are those that match the liability benefit payment schedule 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 (STRIPS) or have high fees (annuities). Given that the pension objective is to secure benefit payments in a cost-efficient manner, then solving for cost while matching and fully funding the liability payment schedule would be the ideal way to de-risk a pension.

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 each pension liability payment requires a matching cash flow from assets. Only bonds (and annuities) produce a certain cash flow. That is why bonds have been used for decades as the best way to defease, immunize, and de-risk a pension plan.

Problems with Hedges

Duration-matching strategies (Immunization), Interest Rate Swaps, futures, derivatives, risk overlays, etc. are all hedging tools to help assets match the liability growth rate. They are NOT de-risking strategies since they do not match the liability cash flows. Duration matching has several difficult, if not erroneous, data gathering choices it uses:

1. Average duration of liabilities
   Where do you get the average duration of liabilities? Most, if not all, actuarial reports do not provide this calculation. Moreover, they usually do not provide the projected liability benefit payment schedule which you would need to calculate duration. In addition, actuarial reports are, at a minimum, annual reports usually three to six months delinquent so there would be serious delayed information. The duration calculation is at a precise moment in time… like a balance sheet. As time and interest rates change… so will duration. Only A Custom Liability Index (CLI) based on each pension’s unique liability benefit payment schedule could provide an accurate and monthly duration profile.

2. Discount Rates
   Since the duration of liabilities changes with interest rates (discount rates) this calculation needs to be refreshed and updated on a frequent and accurate basis. According to pension accounting rules (FAS 158, GASB 67) and federal funding standards (PPA – MAP 21 and spot rates) there is an assortment of discount rates required to price liabilities. Which one is best? The FASB accounting language says it best… you are use a discount rate that settles the liability payments. This means discount rates you can buy to settle or defease the liability payment schedule. ASC 715 comes the closest by using an AA corporate bond yield curve. Treasury STRIPS would be ideal, but no one seems to favor this approach since STRIPS are low yielding causing the present value of liabilities to be higher. The yield difference in these discount rates could be significant. Any difference in yield creates a difference in the calculation of duration and liability growth rates.

3. Generic Bond Indexes
   A common proxy for the average duration of liabilities is to use a generic bond market index… usually the Barclay’s long corporate index. Such a proxy creates several erroneous data issues. This index has no bonds shorter than 10 years and no durations longer than 16 years. This certainly does not represent any pension liability schedule even if the average durations were similar. Accounting standards and actuarial practices price liabilities as a portfolio of zero-coupon bonds with a single average discount rate based on the present value of this zero-coupon liability portfolio. There are no generic bond indexes that use zero-coupon bonds as their portfolio. There are no generic bond indexes that use pension discount rates in accordance with FASB, GASB and PPA guidelines. Each pension plan’s liabilities are different and unique to that plan due to a different labor force, salaries, mortality, and plan amendments. There is no way any generic bond market index could represent any pension plan liability term structure.

   Only a Custom Liability Index could properly represent and measure any pension plan’s liabilities providing all of the critical data calculations needed to de-risk the plan. In 1991, Ron Ryan designed the first Custom Liability Index (CLI). Based on each client’s unique projected liability benefit payment schedule, Ryan ALM produces monthly CLI reports on:
   
   Structure (Present Value, Average Duration, YTM, Price, etc.)

   Growth Rate (Liability growth for month, year, and since inception)

   Interest Rate Sensitivity (PV change in % and $ given rate changes)

4. Interest Rate Sensitivity

   Every 1 year of duration difference between the liability proxy and the actual duration of each plan’s benefit payment schedule would represent a 1% mismatch in liability growth for every 100 bps of discount rate change. In truth, the duration mismatch is more likely to be three to five years rather than one year. Given that pension cost for the actuary, administration, asset managers, and consultant are usually less than 50 bps a year; such a duration mismatch could be very costly representing years of pension cost.

5. Funding Liabilities

   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 100% of the assets in a 12-year duration bond portfolio. If interest rates rose 50 basis points in one-year, 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 = 5% they would match again. However, if the duration matching assets are used to fund liabilities as they come due then a -1% loss (-6% + 5% = -1%) on assets could be funding a short liability which will have a small positive growth rate. So, the assets could be taking a loss each year to fund the next liability payment if interest rates continue to rise. This could get to be a serious costly mismatch if interest rates continue their secular trend to higher rates for the next few years. But the point is……there is no cash flow match here, only a duration match so there is both a funding and interest rate risk!

6. Derivatives

   Interest rate swaps and futures are contracts not 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 proxy data gathering… as listed with duration matching.

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 built 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.

The LBP provides about a 2% per year funding cost savings (1-15 years = 30%). This is a serious 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 corporate bonds with a credit filter (no bonds on negative watch list) plus the cost savings provides a large value-added cushion.

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. With funded ratios at 120% and above then, why didn’t pensions immunize and secure this victory? Amazingly, instead of increasing their bond allocation in response to a growing funded ratio they reduced it consistently because of low interest rates to the lowest bond allocations in modern history by 1999.

The allocation to bonds should determine how much of the liabilities we can cash flow match (i.e. a 25% bond allocation might fund the next seven years of gross liabilities). Ryan ALMrecommends: funding the next 10 years of Retired Lives on a net liability basis (after contributions). Indeed, current assets fund the net liabilities not the gross liabilities. Our LBP model will calculate with precision the cost to fund liabilities (gross or net) in a cost-effective manner either as a % of total liabilities or liabilities chronologically, as 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 20% 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 cost savings of about 20% on cash flow matching the first 10 years of liabilities, in this interest rate environment.

Matching liabilities chronologically should also buy time for the non-bond assets (Alpha assets) to perform and outgrow liabilities. Given time (7-10 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 could outperform vs. liability growth over an extended time horizon.

Since the pension objective is a cost focus, cash flow matching a % of total liabilities would produce the optimal cost savings since the longer the bond the less it costs given the same future value. Our LBP model is back tested since 2009. Every $1 billion in bonds used in our LBP model could save about $200 million in cost savings on a 1-10 year liability schedule and $400 million on a 1-20 year liability schedule.

Asset Allocation (AA)

Pension consultants and plan sponsors should consider installing an LBP as the core portfolio in asset allocation and as the liquidity assets to fund liability cash flows chronologically. The intrinsic value in bonds is the certainty of their cash flows. Bonds are usually not considered performance assets (Alpha assets) especially vs. pension liabilities which behave like bonds. Cash flow matching liabilities chronologically will buy time for the Alpha assets (non-bonds) to perform vs. liability growth, thereby enhancing the funded ratio. Such excess returns 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 article 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 asset(s) being analyzed and dividing the net return by the volatility of the return of the asset(s) 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 reports. I had the unique pleasure to meet and debate with one of the finest intellects I have 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 Professor Sharpe what is the risk-free asset for a 10-year liability payment? Professor Sharpe answered… a 10-year Treasury zero-coupon bond. 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 excess return vs. the objective return. This is commonly called today… the Information Ratio.

Ryan ALM Pension Alert Q2’23

Source: Ryan ALM Pension Alert Q2’23

Spread between ROA and Bonds Narrowest in 20+ Years

Most Asset Allocations for pensions are based on achieving the ROA. The ROA is an annual forecast of asset returns. Each asset class is assigned a ROA then weighted by the target allocation to get an average or target ROA. Currently, the ROA for most Public pensions is around 7.00%. Yields on A and BBB corporates have risen significantly in the last two years and are now fast approaching the ROA target return. With A and BBB corporate yields at 78.6% to 85.0% of the ROA, a strong argument should be made to increase the allocation to fixed income. The 2023 Milliman Public Funding Survey suggests that the ROA will continue its trend lower. With the Milliman 2024 estimate of a 6.75% ROA, A and BBB corporate bonds would approach 81.5% to 88.2% of the target return. Ryan ALM recommends using bonds for their intrinsic value… the certainty of their cash flows. Cash flow matching liabilities chronologically would be in harmony with the true objective of a pension… to secure the promised benefits in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk.

Benefits of Higher Bond Allocation to Cash Flow Matching:

• Improve Liquidity

• Outyield ROA = liability Alpha

• Reduce Volatility (risk) of Funded Ratio

• Create CORE portfolio as anchor to earning ROA

• Reduce costs to fund Benefits + Expenses (B + E)

• Buy TIME for performance assets to grow unencumbered
  

Cash Flow Matching Overview

Source: Cash Flow Matching Overview

Pension Objective	Fund benefits in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk
Pension Needs	Liquidity to fund benefits Reduce Contribution costs Reduce Volatility of Funded Status
Strategy	Cash flow match liability cash flows (benefits + expenses)
Value in Bonds	Certainty of cash flows (only asset class with such value) Maturity selection = yield curve (term structure) Cash flows every month as portfolio
Methodology	Ryan ALM creates a Custom Liability Index (CLI) Provides all calculations needed for ALM Based on actuarial projections of B+E Discount rates = ASC 715 and ROA Ryan ALM creates Liability Beta Portfolio (LBP) Cost Optimization Model Investment grade bond portfolio Target area of liabilities to fund chronologically Cash flow matches + duration matches liabilities
LBP Benefits	Fully funds B+E and secures benefits with certainty Reduces funding costs by 2% per year (1-10 years = 20%) Eliminates cash sweep of growth assets (Alpha assets) Buys time for Alpha assets to grow unencumbered Reduces volatility of funded ratio/status Outyields liabilities creating alpha Enhances funded status and ROA Reduces Contribution costs Mitigates interest rate risk Hedges pension inflation Low fee
Note:	LBP does not change any accounting, actuarial and asset allocation (AA) actions. LBP is a less risky & less costly alternative to active bond management. LBP is a best fit to the true pension objective.
Interest Rate Risk (IRR)	Biggest and dominant risk on bonds present values (PV) Benefits + expenses = future values (FV) B+E are not interest rate sensitive LBP funds Benefits + Expenses LBP mitigates IRR
Pension Inflation	Actuarial projections unique to each pension plan Inflation assumptions =/= CPI
Generic Bond Indexes	Not a proper benchmark Do not represent pension liabilities Liabilities are like snowflakes, unique to each plan sponsor Only a Custom Liability Index could measure/monitor liabilities
Value Added	Ryan ALM offers clients a series of synergistic values: Experience More than 160 years with more than 40 years in cash flow matching Model Proprietary cost optimization model unique in the bond business Educators Wealth of fixed income research produced over the last 50 years Indexes Separate division to create Custom Liability Indexes (CLI) Focus Dedicated to only one asset management product Team Four asset managers working as a team Fees Very low at 15 bps (includes CLI) Expertise Award winning bond expertise
Awards	Gold Medal Winner – The U.S. Pension Crisis book of the year Bernstein, Fabozzi, Jacob Levy – Research Paper of the year William F. Sharpe Index Lifetime Achievement Money Management Letter Lifetime Achievement Capital Link – Most Innovative ETF IMN - ETF of the year

How To Hedge Interest Rate Risk

Source: How To Hedge Interest Rate Risk

Pension funds are faced with numerous risk factors. Perhaps, the greatest risk factor is Interest rate risk. If affects assets but especially liabilities. How pensions cope with Interest rate risk could determine the funded status and solvency of the plan.

The funded ratio of a pension is assets / liabilities based on either market value or actuarial valuations. The funded status is assets - liabilities with the same valuations. This funded ratio/status determines the contribution costs of a plan, amortizations, actuarial gains/losses and perhaps, affects credit ratings. The funded ratio and status are both based on present value calculations and valuations. As a result, how the present value of pension assets are calculated plays a major role In the funded ratio/status situation.

Assets

There are numerous assets that are interest rate sensitive such as: ABS, bank loans, bonds, cash equivalents, CLOs, CMBS, CMOs, derivatives, futures, mortgage-backed securities, municipal bonds, Private Debt, REITs, etc. . Since Interest rates are never static, their volatility affects the funded ratio/status of the pension plan. This could be good or bad but most pensions do not want volatility on these critical calculations. As a result, many pensions, especially corporate plans, invest in hedging strategies to reduce or Immunize this volatility. These strategies can be quite sophisticated but all come at an extra cost and new risk factors.

Derivatives such as interest rate swaps and futures are contracts which have no cash flow certainty or exact funds available to make the liability cash flow payments. They are 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 proxy data gathering… as with duration matching. For example, where do you get the average duration of liabilities? Most, if not all, actuarial reports do not provide this calculation. Moreover, they do not provide the projected liability benefit payment schedule which you would need to calculate duration. In addition, actuarial reports are annual reports usually months delinquent so there would be serious delayed information. The duration calculation is at a precise moment in time… like a balance sheet. As time and interest rates change… so will duration. Only A Custom Liability Index (CLI) priced at market rates and based on each pension’s unique liability benefit payment schedule could provide an accurate and current duration profile. Any difference in yield creates a difference in the calculation of duration and liability growth rates.

A common proxy for the average duration of liabilities is to use a generic bond market index… usually the Bloomberg Barclay’s long corporate index. Such a proxy creates several erroneous data issues. This index has no bonds shorter than 10 years and no durations longer than 17 years. This certainly does not represent any pension liability schedule even if the average durations were similar.

Accounting standards and actuarial practices price liabilities as a portfolio of zero-coupon bonds with a single average discount rate based on the present value of this zero-coupon liability portfolio. Note… there are no generic bond indexes that use zero-coupon bonds as their portfolio. Moreover, there are no generic bond indexes that use any of the required pension accounting discount rates… they use market rates! Every pension plan’s liabilities are different and unique to that plan due to different labor force, salaries, mortality, and plan amendments. There is no way any generic bond market index could represent any pension plan liability term structure.

Liabilities

Liabilities are bond like valuations since their present value is calculated the same way you calculate the present value of bonds. Indeed, FASB and GASB accounting rules require that you price liabilities as if they were zero-coupon bonds. This makes liabilities extremely interest rate sensitive. The longer the average life or duration of liabilities the greater the interest rate risk and present value volatility. Since the duration of liabilities changes with interest rates (discount rates) this calculation needs to be refreshed and updated on a frequent and accurate basis. According to ASC 715 accounting rules (formerly FAS 158) liabilities are to be priced as a high-quality zero-coupon bond yield curve. FASB accepts AA corporates as the interest rates in compliance. Since corporate zeroes do not exist in the market-place, such discount rates are hypothetical interest rates. Ryan ALM is one of few vendors who supply the ASC 715 discount rates. Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) has been our major client since FAS 158 became effective in 2008 (now ASC 715). Our discount rates are consistently higher than most vendors providing clients with a lower present value of their pension liabilities thereby enhancing the balance sheet.

GASB accounting rules allow for liabilities to be priced at a single discount rate equal to the assumed ROA. Such divergence in discount rates between FASB and GASB creates much confusion and conflicts but don’t disagree as to the fact that liabilities are assumed to be priced as and behave as zero-coupon bonds.

Liabilities are a term structure of projected benefits. This becomes a tough job for actuaries to calculate annually so it takes some time. Usually, actuarial reports come out months after the end of the fiscal year (around six months for Public plans). Asset managers need fresh and continuous data to do their job. For asset/liability management (ALM) monthly or even daily updates are critical. Since duration and interest rates change daily, liabilities are certainly dynamic structures requiring constant attention. Without a Custom Liability Index (CLI) it would be hard, if not impossible, for a plan sponsor, its asset managers and consultant to understand the risk/reward behavior and interest rate sensitivity of their liabilities.

Solution: Cash Flow Match Benefits

The funded ratio/status and performance measurement of assets vs. liabilities are all based on present value measurements. This has led to a tower of babel on what is the proper discount rate, funded status, index benchmark, duration calculation, etc. The solution lies in cash flow matching projected benefits… future value projections. The goal of a pension is to secure benefits in a cost-effective manner. Benefits are future value numbers. They have little, if any, interest rate sensitivity. A $100 million benefit payment in 2030 is $100 million whether interest rates go up or down. It is a static non-interest rate sensitive calculation. So it follows… that the best way to hedge interest rate risk is to hedge future values by cash flow matching projected benefits with bonds. Bonds have been used historically to match benefits (i.e. defeasance, dedication, immunization) since they may be the only asset class with certainty of cash flows or future values.

Since benefit payments are future values (FV) suggests that the future value of assets vs. the future value of liabilities is the most critical evaluation. But most asset classes are difficult to ascertain their future value. Only bonds (and insurance annuities) have a known future value and have historically been used to cash flow match liabilities (i.e. defeasance, dedication, buy-out annuities). To prove my point as to the potential misinformation with using a PV calculation, let’s use a simple example below. Two pensions both at $1.0 billion market value would have the same funded ratio in PV$. But pension B is 100% invested in corporate bonds that out-yield pension A (100% invested in Treasuries) by 150 bps per year. Certainly, plan B has a much greater future value (@ 24% higher) and funded status if we used future values. This suggests that the funded ratio and funded status are not that accurate or even good indicators of the true economic solvency:

Pension	Composition	YTM	PV	FV
A	100% Treasuries	2.00%	$1.0 billion	$1.35 billion
B	100% Corporates	3.50%	$1.0 billion	$1.68 billion

The point of all this is… that we need to focus more on the FV of assets vs. liabilities. If we value liabilities at market rates, they would have discount rates of AA corporates (FASB method) or even better U.S. Treasury STRIPS (defeasance method). A corporate bond portfolio matched to liabilities that is skewed to A/BBB securities would out-yield liabilities and would enhance the funded status on a future value basis thereby reducing funding costs and also mitigate interest rate risk. This is why “cash flow matching” of liability future values is the most prudent risk and lowest cost methodology to de-risking a pension through asset liability management (ALM). It secures the benefits in a cost-efficient manner while neutralizing interest rate risk.