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.

Pension Quiz

Source: Pension Quiz

Is it better to have 10% ROA or reduce Funding Costs by 10%?

The primary objective of a pension is to secure benefits (Retired Lives) in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. The secondary objective is to enhance the funded status by maximizing the efficiency of asset allocation. However, most pensions have the stated objective as a… target absolute % return on assets (ROA).

Achieving a 10% ROA

History has proven that achieving the ROA does not mean you achieved a fully funded plan or even enhanced the funded status such that the $ deficit and contribution costs have been reduced. Simple math can prove this assertion as shown in Exhibit 1 where pension assets achieved the ROA growth target of 8% consistently for last 6 years. Liabilities are assumed to have the same 8% growth rate (actuarial discount rate = ROA). As a result, the funded ratio stays stable at 60% but the funded status $ deficit increases by 59.6% ($40 to 63.44) which would increase contribution costs accordingly. In order for contribution costs to remain stable or go lower, assets would have to match or outgrow liabilities by 5.33% annually (13.33% ROA minimum):

‍Exhibit 1
Funded Ratio = 60% ($40 Deficit)
Assets and Liabilities grow at ROA = 8%

Assets			Liabilities		Funded Status/Ratio
Year	Begin	End	Begin	End	$ Deficit	Funded Ratio
1	$60.00	$64.80	$100.00	$108.00	$43.20	60%
2	64.80	69.98	108.00	116.64	46.66	60%
3	69.98	75.58	116.64	125.97	50.39	60%
4	75.58	81.63	125.97	136.05	54.42	60%
5	81.63	88.16	136.05	146.93	58.77	60%
6	88.16	95.21	146.93	158.65	63.44	60%

If the actual asset growth rate was 10% instead of 8% (Exhibit 2), assets would grow to $106.29 over six years which creates a 67% funded ratio but a growing deficit of $52.36 or 30.9% greater than the initial $40 underfunding which increases contribution costs accordingly. Even a 70% funded ratio would increase the deficit to $45.91 or 14.78% greater. The pension return objective should be for assets to outgrow liabilities in economic dollars not actuarial dollars… it is relative $ returns that count not an absolute % return (ROA)! It is the economic funded status that counts not the funded ratio! Asset allocation needs to know the economic relative return needed to enhance the economic funded status.

Exhibit 2
Funded Ratio = 60% ($40 Deficit)
Assets grow at 10% but Liabilities grow at ROA = 8%

Assets			Liabilities		Funded Status/Ratio
Year	Begin	End	Begin	End	$ Deficit	Funded Ratio
1	$60.00	$66.00	$100.00	$108.00	$42.00	61%
2	64.80	72.60	108.00	116.64	44.04	62%
3	69.98	79.86	116.64	125.97	46.11	63%
4	75.58	87.85	125.97	136.05	48.19	65%
5	81.63	96.63	136.05	146.93	50.30	66%
6	88.16	106.29	146.93	158.65	52.36	67%

If we use market (economic) values for liabilities (ASC 715 discount rates), liabilities become highly interest rate sensitive… the economic truth. Using ASC 715 (AA corporates as a zero-coupon yield curve) as the discount rate for liabilities, a small increase in interest rates (+60 bp per year) would create negative growth in liabilities! Accordingly, any positive growth in assets would enhance the economic funded ratio and funded status. In just five years a 60% funded ratio could be 91% funded with just 5% asset growth while a 70% funded ratio would be 106% funded… and at no time did assets earn the ROA!

‍5-year Horizon
Liabilities ASC 715 Discount rate goes from 2.00% to 5.00%
Liabilities Growth Rate = (3.40%) at 12-year duration

	----- Annual Growth Rate -----
Assets	5.00%	6.00%	7.00%
Liabilities	-3.40%	-3.40%	-3.40%
Alpha (Annual)	8.40%	9.40%	10.40%
Funded Ratio @ 60% ...	91.0%	94.5%	100.1%
@ 70% ...	106.2%	111.4%	116.7%

Achieving a 10% Funding Cost Savings

The primary objective of a pension is to fund liabilities in a cost-effective manner. It is a liability objective with cost considerations. Since 1999, most pensions have been hard hit by spiking contribution costs which were unexpected and not a budget forecast. For many plan sponsors, the contribution cost has risen as much as 5x to 10x from the fiscal 1999 level. Such costs are a product of the size of the funded status deficit where asset $ growth did not match liability $ growth over time. Indeed, it is the relative $ growth of pension assets vs. liability $ growth that is critical… not the absolute % return on pension assets.

The pension objective is best achieved by separating the assets into liquidity (Beta) and growth (Alpha) assets. The job of the liability Beta (liquidity) assets is to secure benefits (Retired Lives) in a cost-efficient manner with prudent risk. This is best accomplished through cash flow matching net liabilities chronologically. Ryan ALM has built a liability cash flow matching product, named the Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP), as a cost optimization model that matches and funds the net liability benefit payment schedule (minus contributions) at the lowest cost given the investment policy restrictions of our clients.

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 15% bond allocation could cash flow match the next 10 years of net Retired Lives payments chronologically. Based on the Ryan ALM Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP) model we show a cost savings of about 8% to 15% on cash flow matching the first 10 years of liabilities versus the ASC 715 discount rates (AA corporate zero-coupon bonds). For every $100 million in bonds used in our LBP model could save about $10 million or 10% in funding cost savings vs. the projected net liabilities. This cost savings is received immediately upon implementation of the Liability Beta Portfolio™ rather than over several years as forecasted returns suggest would happen, if at all. This is a serious cost reduction that reduces the volatility of the funded status and contributions and should be a major consideration of any pension asset allocation as the core portfolio.

Matching liabilities chronologically should also buy time for the growth assets (Alpha assets) to perform and outgrow liabilities without being diluted or unencumbered to partially fund liabilities as is the case so often today. Given time (10 years) most non-bond asset classes tend to outperform bonds. Since liabilities behave like bonds there is a high probability that Alpha assets (i.e. equities) could outperform liability growth over an extended time horizon especially at today’s low yield on bonds (and liabilities).

Given time, equities (S&P 500) perform well. The more time you give equities… the better the returns. Below are historical average S&P 500 return measurements for rolling 10-year, 15-year and 20-year periods ending 12/31/19 over a 50-year horizon starting 1969. The table shows an average return of 7.75% for rolling 10-years, 8.00% for rolling 15-years and 8.31% for rolling 20-years. The table below also suggests how difficult it is to average a 10% return for any extended period of time… even 9.00% is not a proven performance attainment:

Best, worst, and average returns

Solution: BUY TIME!

So how do you buy time? The answer is… cash flow match liabilities

How do you buy time? Cash flow match liabilities for the time you need.for the time you need. We recommend funding net Retired Lives out 10-years or more chronologically as the historical equity returns document. Our cash flow matching model (Liability Beta Portfolio™ or LBP) will calculate with precision the cost to fund net liabilities + expenses in a cost-effective manner chronologically.for the time you need. We recommend funding net Retired Lives out 10-years or more chronologically as the historical equity returns document. Our cash flow matching model (Liability Beta Portfolio™ or LBP) will calculate with precision the cost to fund net liabilities + expenses in a cost-effective manner chronologically.

Benefits: Cash Flow Matching
Our LBP also has numerous benefits that enhance the pension plan:

Secures Benefits

• Cash flow match monthly Retired Lives benefits chronologically

Reduces Costs

• LBP reduces Contribution, Funding and Asset Management Costs:

• (LBP Fee = 15 bps… much less than most active bond managers)

Reduces Volatility

• Reduces volatility of Contributions and Funded Ratio

Reduces Risk

• Risk = Uncertainty of Funding Benefit Payments
  (LBP funds benefits with certainty)

• Projected Benefit Payments are Future Values

  (FV have NO Interest Rate Sensitive)

Enhances ROA

• LBP should out yield most active management bond portfolios

Buys Time

• LBP matches & funds liabilities chronologically

• Moves deficit out longer extending the investment horizon

• Buys Time for Non-bond assets (Alpha assets) to grow

• No dilution of Alpha assets to fund benefits

However, most bond allocations are for active bond management versus a generic index benchmark(s). As the designer of the Lehman bond indexes from my days as the Director of Fixed Income Research at Lehman, I can tell you unequivocally that generic bond indexes look nothing like a projected pension benefit payment schedule. Such a mismatch will distort the cash flows and risk/reward behavior of assets vs. liabilities. The major issues and differences are:

Bond Assets Managed Versus Generic Bond Indexes

• Does not fund benefits + expenses

• Aggregate Index = low yielding @ 1.42%

• Generic bond index =/= plan sponsor’s liabilities

• Cash flows do not match plan sponsor’s liabilities

• Index skewed to long bonds + Government securities

• Performance (value added) = small to none (after fees)

But the worst difference and discrepancy is… all about cash flows. Active bond management is usually focused on outperforming the returns of a generic bond index benchmark. As a result, cash flows are not a consideration. But no matter what generic bond index is chosen; the fixed income assets cannot produce enough income cash flow to fund benefits + expenses. As a result, bonds will require help from performance (Alpha) assets to fund benefits + expenses. This will create dilution and disruption of the growth rate of such performance assets. With the Liability Beta Portfolio™ in place as the core portfolio to fund the shorter Retired Lives net liabilities (1-10 years), the Alpha assets are now free to grow long-term without being diluted or unencumbered to pay any benefits. The example below shows the cash flow difference of bonds managed to a generic index versus cash flow matching to liabilities:

It’s All about Cash Flows!

Bond allocation = $150 million

Liabilities (Net Benefits + Expenses) = $20 million per year

Bond management vs. generic bond index

• YTM = 2.50%

• Income Cash flow = $3.75 million annual ($2.50% x $150m)

• Annual cash flow shortfall= $16.25 million ($20m - $3.75m)

• Requires dilution of Alpha assets cash flow to fully fund liabilities

Cash Flow Matching next 10 years

• YTM = 3.50% (skewed to A/BBB corporate bonds)

• Cash flow = $20 million annual (fully funds liabilities)

  (Cash flow includes principal + income + income reinvested)

• No dilution of Alpha assets (allowed to grow unencumbered)

Observations:

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

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

• Alpha assets need time to perform without any dilution of their cash flows to pay benefits

• Cash flow matching (Beta assets) matches plus funds benefit payments chronologically

• Cash flow matching will out yield current bond managers and enhance ROA

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

Let the performance (Alpha) assets perform (grow) as the liquidity (Beta) assets provide cash flow sufficient to fund net benefits plus expenses. Pension consultants and plan sponsors should consider installing an LBP as the core portfolio in asset allocation. The best value in bonds is the certainty of their cash flows. Bonds are usually not considered performance assets especially vs. pension liabilities which behave like bonds. As the Alpha assets perform vs. liability growth, enhancing the funded ratio, such excess returns could be transferred over to the Liability Beta Portfolio™ (LBP) to fund and de-risk more liabilities… Portable Alpha. Had this Portable Alpha discipline been in place during the 1990s when funded ratios grew to their highest historical levels with true surpluses… there would be no U.S. pension crisis today!

Conclusion (Logic)

So, is it better to have a 10% cost savings that is immediate and certain with numerous benefits itemized in this report? Or is it better to have an uncertain 10% ROA in the future that may or may not enhance funding (could increase the deficit)?

10% cost savings = $100 million reduced funding costs per $1 billion

10% ROA = 60% funded ratio on $1b = $400m deficit that grows to $522.60m in 6 years or 30.7% higher contribution costs = $122.6m.

Compare: $122.6m more in costs vs. $100m cost savings!!!

I think the facts speak clearly that… cost savings is the better goal and better fit with the primary objective of a pension… but you can have both:

To achieve the primary and secondary pension objective:

Primary = cash flow match net Retired Lives chronologically (Beta assets)

Secondary = have asset growth > liability growth not % ROA (Alpha assets)

Pension Alert: Spread between ROA and Bonds Narrowest in 20+ Years

Source: Pension Alert: 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 6.75%. This is in sharp contrast to the history of reported discount rates (ROA) for funding purposes as reported in the Milliman Public Funding Surveys.

Year	ROA (%)	Year	ROA (%)	Year	ROA (%)	Year	ROA (%)	Year	ROA (%)
2000	9.4	2005	8.3	2010	8.0	2015	7.7	2020	7.2
2001	9.3	2006	8.3	2011	7.8	2016	7.5	2021	7.0
2002	9.2	2007	8.2	2012	8.0	2017	7.5	2022	6.75E
2003	8.5	2008	8.1	2013	7.8	2018	7.3	2023	6.75E
2004	8.4	2009	8.1	2014	7.8	2019	7.3

Sources: Milliman Public Funding Surveys
Ryan ALM estimates for 2022 + 2023

As the Milliman Surveys show, the reported ROAs as discount rates for Public pension liabilities has trended downward from a high of 9.40% in 2000 to somewhere around 6.75% today. Corporate pensions are under ASC 715 discount rates (AA corporate zero-coupon yield curve) and have been reflective of market rates which are consistently much lower than the ROA discount rates. Plotting the ROA discount rates for Public pensions versus the history of 10-year Treasury rates (source: Ryan Treasury Indexes) shows that the yield difference is now at a 22-year low of around 283 basis points (as of 12/31/22). This trend would support a greater allocation to fixed income.

Ryan ALM Advisers uses and promotes A and BBB corporate bonds to cash flow match and defease clients projected liabilities. As a result, the yield spread versus the ROA gets even narrower. The current yield spreads for 10-year corporate bonds versus the 10-year Treasury are:

AA +56 bps

A +75 bps

BBB +114 bps

Using an average yield spread versus the 10-year Treasury for A/BBB corporate bonds = 95 basis points would narrow the ROA – Corporate Bond Yield Spread to 187 basis points. This suggests that fixed income can provide 72% of the target ROA. More importantly, using A/BBB corporate bond portfolio would outyield the BB Aggregate index (bond ROA) by around 75-100 basis points. The BB index YTW levels prove this point:

12/31/22 1/17/23

BB Aggregate = 4.68% 4.32%

BB Corporates = 5.42% 5.03%

Benefits of Higher Bond Allocation to Cash Flow Matching:

• Improve Liquidity

• Reduce Volatility (risk)

• Outyield Index Benchmark and bond ROA

• Create CORE portfolio as anchor to earning ROA

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

• Buy TIME for performance assets to grow unencumbered

Ryan ALM Pension Monitor 4Q’22

Source: Ryan ALM Pension Monitor 4Q’22

‍(Through December 31, 2022)

Pension plan liabilities need to be measured and monitored regularly. Without knowledge of plan liabilities, the allocation of plan assets cannot be done efficiently or appropriately. The funded ratio/status of pension plans are present value calculations. Each type of plan is governed by accounting rules and actuarial practices, which determine the discount rate used to calculate the present value of liabilities. Single employer corporate plans are under ASC 715 (FASB) discount rates (AA corporate zero-coupon yield curve); multiemployer plans and public plans use the ROA (return on asset assumption) as the liability discount rate. The difference in liability growth between these plans can be quite significant (see 2022), which will affect funded status and contribution levels.

The table below compares these different liability growth rates (based on a 12-year average duration) versus the asset growth rate based on the P&I asset allocation survey of the top 1,000 plans which is updated each year. The graph below shows the contrasting annual differences of asset versus liability growth for corporate and public plans since 2015. The impact of different accounting rules is massive, and none greater than this year.

ASSET ALLOCATION	YTD Return	Corporate	Public	Union
Domestic Stock International Stock Global Equity Domestic Fixed Income Global Fixed Income Cash Private Equity Real Estate Equity* Other	-18.1% -14.0% -18.0% -13.0% -18.3% 1.1% 12.0% 10.8% 10.3%	11.1% 6.5% 10.4% 46.7% 1.3% 2.0% 8.5% 4.1% 9.4%	24.4% 16.3% 5.3% 20.2% 1.7% 2.0% 12.7% 7.9% 9.5%	24.7% 8.6% 11.4% 28.0% 0.9% 0.6% 8.2% 9.3% 8.3%
TOTAL ASSETS Growth Rate		-8.7%	-7.2%	-8.7%
LIABILITIES Growth Rate		-26.6%	7.0%	7.3%
Asset Growth – Liability Growth		17.9%	-14.2%	-16.0%

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

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

The question that must be asked: If two pension systems (one public and the other private) have similar asset allocations and are investing in the same markets, how is it possible that they have such meaningful differences in outcomes? These differences, caused by different reporting requirements, may distort contributions and funded status, and may influence benefit decisions unnecessarily.

Ryan ALM Pension Monitor 3Q’22

Source: Ryan ALM Pension Monitor 3Q’22

‍(Through September 30, 2022)

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

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

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

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

*Liabilities = Ryan ALM Custom Liability Indexes (CLI)

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

Greatest Asset of a Pension… TIME!

Source: Greatest Asset of a Pension… TIME!

I recently spoke at the FPPTA conference in Orlando on pension risk management. One of the speakers was Mike Welker, CEO of AndCo Consulting, who I thought had the most incisive comment of the conference. Mike said,“the greatest asset of a pension is time.” He was referencing that pensions have a long-time horizon to work in… perhaps, perpetuity. With such a long horizon, short-term distractions and corrections should not make a pension detour from its long-term goal and strategy. Mike is very right.

Ryan ALM believes that the best way to buy time is to cash flow match a pension plan’s liabilities chronologically. Almost any performance return study on asset classes shows that given time most, if not all, asset classes perform in line with their return and risk expectations. We’ve also observed that pension plans generally sweep cash from all asset classes each month to fund current benefits and expenses (B + E). We urge plan sponsors not to provide liquidity in this way, as S&P 500 data suggests that 47% of the S&P 500 index returns come from dividends and the reinvestment of dividends over 10-year rolling periods since 1940.

We urge plan sponsors and their consultants to separate liquidity assets from growth assets. Let bonds be the liquidity assets. Let bonds fund B + E chronologically for as long as the time you need for the growth assets to grow unencumbered. Based on S&P data, equities outperform bonds 82% of the time on a rolling 10-year basis, which seems like a proper time horizon for a cash flow matching strategy. Buying time should be a major strategy for pension plans and its liquidity needs.

Cash Flow Matching

Cash flow matching is a very old and well tested fixed income strategy. It used to be called Dedication in the 1970-1990s. It is an accurate and tedious process to build a bond portfolio whose cash flows (principal + interest) will cash flow match the liability cash flows (B + E) monthly. It is a future value (FV) matching process not present value (PV), which differentiates it from Immunization and duration matching strategies that are subject to great volatility and uncertainty of cash flows since they are focused on present value matching. Interest rates change every day across the yield curve and term structure of liabilities making PV matching mission impossible. The greatest value of bonds is the certainty of their cash flows (FV). Liability cash flows tend to be quite certain as well, especially for Retired Lives. That is why bonds have been used historically to fund liability cash flows. Today it is referred to as cash flow driven investing (CDI) especially in Europe and Canada. Ryan ALM believes that the value in bonds is the certainty of their cash flows. We do not view bonds as performance or growth assets. We see bonds as the liquidity assets!

Buy Time!

By cash flow matching B + E for the time you need

Let bonds be the liquidity assets and fund B + E chronologically

Let the performance assets grow unencumbered for the time you need (7-10 years)

Ryan ALM Pension Monitor 2Q

Source: Ryan ALM Pension Monitor 2Q

Ryan ALM Pension Monitor

(Through June 30, 2021)

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

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

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

ASSET ALLOCATION	YTD Return	Corporate	Public	Union
Domestic Stock International Stock Global Equity Domestic Fixed Income Global Fixed Income Cash Private Equity Real Estate Equity* Other	-20.0% -19.2% -20.5% -10.4% -14.8% -0.1% 6.2% 6.9% 6.2%	11.1% 6.5% 10.4% 46.7% 1.3% 2.0% 8.5% 4.1% 9.4%	24.4% 16.3% 5.3% 20.2% 1.7% 2.0% 12.7% 7.9% 9.5%	24.7% 8.6% 11.4% 28.0% 0.9% 0.6% 8.2% 9.3% 8.3%
TOTAL ASSETS Growth Rate		-9.2%	-9.5%	-10.3%
LIABILITIES Growth Rate		-18.3%	3.7%	3.7%
Asset Growth – Liability Growth		9.1%	-13.2%	-14.0%

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

Liabilities: ASC 715 discount rate, produced by Ryan ALM, is 2.35% and GASB ROA is 7.0% annually

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

The Pension ROA is Plural…ROAs

Source: The Pension ROA is Plural…ROAs

The pension return on assets (ROA) assumption is a critical calculation since it affects both assets (asset allocation) and liabilities (discount rate). Most plan sponsors and their consultants focus on the ROA as the assets hurdle rate. Asset allocation models use the ROA as the target return. Public and multiemployer pension plans tend to also use the ROA as the liability discount rate.

Asset Allocation

The ROA is usually calculated by first looking at the average historical returns of the index benchmark for each allowable asset class except bonds and cash where the current yield is used. Each asset class is then weighted to come up with the ROA calculation for the total pension fund. The ROA has to be verified by auditors and/or actuaries that such return assumptions used for each asset class are realistic. The range of return assumptions usually stretch from a high of 10% to 12% for Private Equity and Alternatives to a low of 1% for cash and 3% for fixed income.

As a result, each asset class is asked to earn the ROA assigned to them by using their index benchmark as the target return proxy. They are NOT required to earn the pension fund ROA assumption (@ 7% 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 3% bonds to earn our ROA (of 7%)? The answer is bonds do NOT need to earn the pension ROA… just their assigned ROA in the asset allocation model.

Better yet, the ROA is usually calculated annually. Interest rates have risen significantly in 2022 allowing current bonds to easily outyield the ROA (even the 1-year Treasury Bill outyields the bond ROA). Since the asset allocation model traditionally uses the Bloomberg Barclay (BB) Aggregate as the fixed income index benchmark (initially the Lehman Aggregate I designed as the head of Fixed Income Research in the late 1970s and early 1980s). This index is heavily skewed to low yielding Government securities (1.77% as of December 31, 2021 and 2.92% on March 31, 2022). If you buy a fixed income portfolio that outyields the BB Aggregate with similar or shorter duration, you are in a good position to earn the ROA assigned to fixed income. Remember… the asset allocation model uses yields not returns for the fixed income ROA. In fact, if you could buy a one-year bond at the yield of the BB Aggregate… you would achieve your annual ROA objective!

But bonds can do better… much better:

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 shorter 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? 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 Alpha assets have to compound their growth. This could significantly enhance the ROA.

2. Yield on Bonds – As described previously, the ROA forecast for fixed income is based on the current yield of its index benchmark. The Bloomberg Barclay Aggregate is most favored as the bond index benchmark. The Aggregate is a very large, diversified and low yielding portfolio of bonds with the following summary statistics as of December 31, 2021:

# of issues	9,982	Treasury	39.76%	AAA	68.92%
YTM	1.77%	Agency	4.04%	AA	2.92%
Duration	6.58 yrs.	Mtg. Backed	29.91%	A	11.16%
Avg. Maturity	8.78 yrs.	Corporates	26.29%	BBB	15.38%

As a result, most asset allocation models would have a ROA for bonds of about 2.00%. If you can build a bond portfolio that outyields the Aggregate index with similar or shorter duration, 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 1-10 years of net liabilities. Usually, the longer the term structure of the LBP, the higher the yield. The LBP will outyield the Aggregate index by over 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 an LBP yield of 5.00% is 75 bps value added to the ROA while 15% at BB Aggregate yield of 3.00% is only 45 bps. Said differently, you would need a 25% allocation to a bond total return focus versus the Aggregate yielding 3% today to equal the same ROA value as a 15% allocation at a LBP yield of 5.00%.

3. Higher Interest Rates – bonds are interest rate sensitive as to their market value (present value). Rising US interest rates may or should cause negative returns. However, cash flow matching is focused on funding B + E (Benefits + Expenses) 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.

4.Cash – many pension plans have a cash allocation of around 1% to 3%. 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 other Alternative Investments. The LBP should significantly increase the yield margin versus cash since the LBP is using coupon income from all maturities of the LBP and is skewed to A/BBB corporate bonds. With the LBP fully funding B+E, the cash allocation can be reduced to around 1%. Replacing most of the cash allocation to fund B+E with the LBP allocation is another ROA enhancement… it all adds up.