Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

Despite DOL rule, A.M. Best raises outlook for indexed annuity issuer

A.M. Best has revised the outlooks to positive from stable and affirmed the financial strength rating (FSR) of A- (Excellent) and the issuer credit ratings (ICR) of “a-” of the members of Athene Group:  

  • Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company
  • Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company of New York
  • Athene Annuity and Life Company
  • Athene Life Insurance Company of New York
  • Athene Life Re Ltd.

Athene Group is the consolidating rating unit for the U.S. operating companies, which is focused on the fixed indexed and fixed annuity market segments, along with Athene Life Re Ltd. (ALRe) (Bermuda), its affiliated reinsurance company.

Concurrently, A.M. Best has revised the outlook to positive from stable and affirmed the ICR of “bbb-” of Athene Holding Ltd. (AHL) (Bermuda). AHL operates as the holding company for the U.S. and Bermuda operations.

The outlook revision for Athene Group is based on strong risk-adjusted capitalization, which was further enhanced by additional cash capital contributed to the company in 2015, a trend of generally strong profitability following its acquisition of Aviva, and recent sales growth through retail initiatives.

A.M. Best considers any potential remaining integration issues relating to the Aviva acquisition as unlikely and immaterial to the company’s future financial performance. The company is led by a strong management team with proven ability to grow capital both organically and through new capital generation, a trend that has not abated since the company’s inception.

The company’s strong trend of earnings and capital growth has enabled AHL and its operating companies to strengthen their balance sheets while providing sufficient capital support for retail growth and new product development.

A.M. Best also notes that the quality of the group’s capital is high, as the capital structure currently employs no financial leverage. The company recently filed an S-1 registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding a planned future initial public offering.

Partially offsetting these positive rating factors are the pressures associated with managing assets in an extended low interest rate environment, as well as the embedded exposures present in changing credit cycles. Additionally, the pending Department of Labor fiduciary rule has the potential to result in higher compliance costs and may provide a sales headwind going forward, particularly for fixed indexed annuities.

Positive rating actions could occur if the company diversifies its product offerings into more creditworthy product lines, resulting in sales growth in products other than fixed indexed annuities. Continued positive trends in top-line and bottom-line earnings could also result in a positive rating outcome.

Negative rating actions could occur if the company experiences operating losses through poor investment performance or if the company holds lower levels of risk-based capitalization at the group or operating entity level, which could in turn lower A.M. Best’s view of the company’s capital adequacy.

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Platform plays matchmaker between fiduciary advisors and prospects

GuideVine Technologies, Inc., an online platform that helps consumers find a right-fit financial advisor, announced an alliance with the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (NAPFA).  

GuideVine, which was founded by former McKinsey & Co. consultants and software entrepreneurs, said in a release that it can serve as a digital marketing partner for financial advisors, enabling them to:

  • Reach prospects through the platform. 
  • Get help crafting marketing messages and content.
  • Outsource digital marketing chores.

Participating NAPFA advisors can obtain onboarding services at a discounted rate. These include developing messaging for videos and shooting the videos to be included with the advisor profile, as well as discounted annual platform fees.

In addition, GuideVine will conduct a digital marketing consulting review to help strengthen the advisor’s various online profiles. NAPFA advisors will also be included on the new fee-only/NAPFA specific portion of the GuideVine site to further promote their fiduciary standing.
Consumers can use Guidevine to evaluate more than 250 pre-screened financial advisors from firms that collectively manage over $50B in assets. Consumers can access videos, profiles, community experiences, advisor regulatory histories and authenticated reviews from their personal network on GuideVine.com. 

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Robos force advisors to step up their games: Cerulli

Technological advances are pushing financial services providers to keep up with investor expectations, and, ultimately, be the center of their clients’ financial lives, according to the second quarter 2016 issue of The Cerulli Edge – U.S. Retail Investor Editionexamines, a publication of Cerulli Associates. 

“Wealth management providers, in particular, feel pressure from technology solutions (such as digital advice), changing financial planning expectations, and the commoditization of investment management services,” said Shaun Quirk, senior analyst at Cerulli, in a release.

“The retail investor is demanding more, forcing these firms to offer a deeper client experience,” Quirk said. “Many advice providers tout a ‘holistic’ planning model to bolster their perceived value. However, this overused term in wealth management is vague and heavily focused on investment management as opposed to true financial planning.

“As financial planning opportunities become available to a broader investor demographic, providers will need to leverage technological advances to scale the solutions, and streamline everything from the onboarding and information-gathering stage to the recurring planning conversations. The providers that can take the abstract nature of financial and retirement planning and make it an engaging, tangible process will win client assets.”

Investors desire deeper online, goal-oriented resources, research, and content to satisfy their investment management and financial planning needs. But they lack the bandwidth or attention span to dedicate significant time toward their financial well-being and the multitude of investment services used, according to Cerulli.

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Three Advisor-Friendly Reverse Mortgage Strategies

Financial fads run hot and cold among advisors and planners, but interest in home equity conversion mortgages (HECMs, or reverse mortgages), which allow people over age 62 to tap their home equity without leaving their homes, continues to be lukewarm.

That’s not for lack of promotion by thought-leaders in the planning world, like Harold Evensky, Barry Sacks and Wade Pfau. All have published persuasive articles in the Journal of Financial Planning that portray HECM lines of credit as a no-brainer income-generating tool for retirees—even for those in the “green zone,” with plenty of savings. 

Pfau, a professor at The American College, wrote recently that those articles “could very well lead to the strategic use of home equity in a retirement income plan to become the next hot topic for client and adviser education, similar to how Social Security claiming strategies have been ubiquitous in recent years.”

If a tipping point in favor of HECMs is ever going to arrive, the time is now. The low interest-rate environment, which reduces annuity payouts, raises HECM loan amounts. Collectively, Boomers have trillions of dollars in home equity. And, as Pfau has suggested, a “loophole” in the HECM rules that currently favors HECM lines of credit (HECM-LOCs) may not stay open forever.

RIJ is agnostic on the advisability of using reverse mortgages. But it seems clear that fiduciary-minded advisors or planners who practice “life-cycle” planning, and even those who don’t, should consider every asset on “household balance sheet” when looking for sources of retirement income. And that includes home equity.  

In this fifth installment of our series on HECMs, we review three HECM strategies that are tailor-made to entice advisors: the HECM-for-purchase, the “standby” HECM-LOC to supply cash after a year of negative returns, and the HECM-LOC created at age 62 but tapped only if all other sources of cash are exhausted.

A new home, financed with a HECM

We’re used to thinking about reverse mortgages as tools to help older Americans “age in place,” but since 2009 the Department of Housing and Urban Development has allowed people to finance the purchase of new FHA-approved home or condo—not a vacation home or assisted-living unit, however—with the help of a reverse mortgage.

Michael Banner, a Florida-based HECM broker, has been on a campaign to popularize HECMs-for-purchase. Via online courses sponsored by his company, AmericanCEInstitute, he said he has educated 14,000 financial advisors, real estate agents and others in the past five years about the benefits of this strategy.

Consider this hypothetical: A 65-year-old couple wants to sell a paid-off $500,000 home in the Northeast and move to a $500,000 home in the Southwest. According to Banner, they can put down about $250,000 on the new home and borrow the rest in a reverse mortgage.

The result: The couple moves into a new home with equity in the form of a $250,000 down payment (net of closing costs and real estate commissions) from the sale of the departure home. This component is excluded from capital gains tax. The other half of the purchase price is financed with a reverse mortgage, on which the couple has the option but not the requirement to make any payments. 

Banner told RIJ that when he tells advisors that their clients can move into a new home without having to make mortgage payments and with half of the equity of the previous home available for any purpose they wish, advisors get excited. “When certified financial planners hear this, they say, ‘Whoa. What did you just say?’” he told RIJ recently. When the heirs sell the house and settle the HECM, he added, any remaining equity passes to the estate and any accrued interest is deductible, under current law.

In his view, a synergy between HECM brokers, real estate agents and financial advisors is waiting to be tapped. “The reverse mortgage world hasn’t gotten out and knocked on the doors of the realtors,” Banner said. “The industry has been too lazy to build rapport with them. Last year five million homes were sold in the U.S. and 14%, or 700,000, involved sellers over age 62. Of those, there were only about 2,500 HECMs for purchase.”

HECM-LOC vs. longevity risk

In an article in the Journal of Financial Planning, Wade Pfau of the American College, whose work in recent years has served as a touchstone for retirement planners, demonstrated the benefits of opening a reverse mortgage line of credit as early as age 62 and then leaving it untapped unless or until it is absolutely necessary. 

This strategy, as Pfau explains, takes advantage of what may or may not be an intended aspect of the HECM law. Under the regulations, a borrower’s HECM-LOC, even if not tapped, starts with the same upper limit as a HECM loan. What’s more, the HECM-LOC’s limit grows at the same rate as a comparable loan balance would grow—currently, at about 4% a year fixed or 2.75% adjustable.

Because the upper limit is HECM-LOC is growing over time, whether the retiree dips into or not, this strategy was likely to provide the retiree with more borrowing power later in life than if he or she postponed opening the HECM-LOC until a later age. As Pfau wrote:

 “The strategy that used home equity as a last resort, but which opened a line of credit at the start of retirement in order to let the line of credit grow before being tapped, provided the highest increase in success rates. Especially when interest rates were low, the line of credit would almost always be larger by the time it was needed when it was opened early and allowed to grow, than when it was opened later.”

Pfau hypothesized a 62-year-old investor with a $1 million in a tax-deferred retirement account, a $500,000 home with no mortgage, a 25% tax rate, a 50/50 investment portfolio, and after-tax income needs of $40,000 a year. He then compared the success rates (in terms of never having less than $40,000 a year from investments) and legacy outcomes (the amounts left in the client’s portfolio at death) for these strategies:

  • Ignoring home equity and withdrawing $40,000 (inflation adjusted) each year from investments
  • Waiting until portfolio depletion to open a HECM-LOC
  • Opening a HECM-LOC at beginning of retirement and exhausting it before tapping personal savings
  • Receiving a HECM in the form of a $17,972 annual “tenure payment” until death or departure from the home
  • Opening a HECM-LOC living expenses only to avoid distressed selling in down markets and either paying it back down or not paying it back down
  • Opening a HECM-LOC at the beginning of retirement, paying the closing costs out of pocket, and ignoring it unless or until other sources of income failed to provide at least $40,000 in real purchasing power.

On the basis of Monte Carlo simulations, all of these strategies provided a better-than-50% chance that the client would not run out of money if he didn’t live past age 85. But the last option—opening a HECM-LOC early but tapping it last—was the only one that offered a chance of portfolio success greater than 70%, even if the client’s retirement lasted 40 years. The best strategies for maximizing legacy value, however, were those that employed the $17,972-a-year tenure payment or the use of the HECM-LOC before tapping personal savings.

Escape from tyranny of 4%

Retirees can also use reverse mortgages as a hedge against sequence of returns risk. “Sequence” risk refers to the rapid depletion of savings that can occur if the retiree has to generate income by selling depressed assets. The risk is considered greatest during the five years directly before and after the retirement date. 

Some advisors handle this risk through a bucketing strategy. They tell retiree to hold a bucket of cash or near-cash large enough so that, during a bear market, they can dip into cash rather than lock in losses by selling stocks. In 2012, Barry Sacks, Harold Evensky and others suggested in articles in the Journal of Financial Planning that a HECM-LOC could be used as a substitute for the cash bucket.

The payoff was that the retirees, immunized from sequence risk, could then afford to spend from savings at, for instance, a rate of six percent per year for 30 years, rather than at the proverbially safe rate of 4%, without increasing their risk of running uncomfortably short of money before they died.    

In their 2012 article, Barry H. Sacks and Stephen R. Sacks published “Reversing the Conventional Wisdom: Using Home Equity to Supplement Retirement Income.” Searching for an answer for retirees who resisted living within an annual budget of 4% of savings but who didn’t want to increase their longevity risk, they suggested that the clients use a reverse mortgage.

But instead of using the reverse mortgage as a last resort (if and when the clients ran out of money), or as a first resort (before spending a cent from savings), they suggested that retirees only tap their lines of credit during the years that followed a year of negative returns. 

Evensky and his co-authors John Salter and Shaun Pfeiffer, also writing in 2012, took a slightly different approach. Unlike the Sackses, they suggested that the retirees apply some of their returns during the profitable years to the HECM-LOC, thereby protecting the equity in their home for their heirs.  

David Peskin, president of Reverse Mortgage Funding LLC of Bloomfield, NJ, told RIJ that, as it stands today, hundreds of thousands of retirees are opening conventional home equity lines of credit today to supplement their incomes. If they used HECM-LOCs instead, which he claims to be able to set up for about $1,000, they’d have the option of not making any payments on it.

“Advisors should find this more and more appealing because it puts their clients in complete control of their finances,” Peskin told RIJ. “The reverse mortgage used to be marketed as a no-payment product but it’s really a flexible payment product. The unused portion continues to grow, and it’s guaranteed. It can’t be taken away from you in a financial crisis.”

What’s not to like?

Despite the logic behind these three uses of HECMs, only a small minority of advisors seems to be pursuing them. Peskin said that if he conducts a HECM seminar with 500 advisors, only about 10% request further information. Similarly, Pfau said his columns about HECMs on the Forbes magazine website attract only about a tenth as many views as his other columns do.

Regarding Pfau’s untapped HECM-LOC strategy, he believes that the Department of Housing and Urban Development may eventually change the HECM-LOC rules to preclude a scenario where interest rates have risen, housing prices have fallen, and the upper limit of an untapped HECM-LOC has been allowed to grow for 20 or 30 years. A borrower could use HECM-LOCs to bet against the housing market, and engineer his or her own miniature “big short.”   

“I think this was unintended. It sounds too good to be true. I expect the government will put an end to it at some point, especially if the line of credit strategies become more popular,” Pfau told RIJ. “I don’t think these strategies were anticipated. Also, I don’t think it was anticipated how these strategies become that much more attractive in a low interest rate environment.”

At the same time, HECM lenders have little to gain from creating empty HECM-LOCs. Most of them make their money reselling the loans, and an empty HECM-LOC gives them nothing to sell. “If it turns out that planners and consumers are putting them in place and never using them, we’d have to rethink that strategy,” Peskin said. “So far that hasn’t been the case. People are using it to supplement living expenses.”

Regarding the problem that advisors often don’t see a clear path to compensation for recommending a HECM, Peskin hopes advisors don’t look at it that way. “If it was my financial planner,” he said, “I’d like them to look at every available option, even if they don’t make money on it.”

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Wealthier, The Quicker to Sell in a Downturn?

Part of the debate over the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule and the related debate over “robo” financial advice has focused on investor behavior during periods of extreme market volatility—like the ones we all endured back in 2008-2009.

Critics of the fiduciary rule argued that it would eliminate commission-based advisors. And skeptics of digital advice predicted that, if it replaced advisors and brokers, middle-class investors wouldn’t have any options (other than, say, to a Vanguard or Fidelity phone rep) when the VIX spiked and they needed someone to talk them out of dumping equities.

These arguments puzzled me, because I thought that ordinary savers—retirement plan participants, for instance—were more inclined to inertia than panic during market upheaval. It was all the more puzzling because I also assumed that rich people—the upper 5%—are too smart to sell in a panic. On the contrary: I assumed they were scooping up bargains (as did the Sage of Omaha back in 1975).

But if both those assumptions were true, then who is responsible for the panicky selling? In a new research paper, entitled “Who Sold During the Crash of 2008-2009? Evidence from Tax Return Data on Daily Sales of Stock” (NBER W22209), a group of Big Ten economists and an IRS analyst say that wealthy people and older people are the most likely to sell in scary market downdrafts.    

Older people, I can understand. Wealthy people? That’s somewhat surprising. It contradicts the conventional wisdom that they have financial advisors who can pull them away from the TV and Internet and calm them down. 

The jittery ‘one percent’

But no. “We find that, starting in September 2008, the share of sales volume attributed to the top 0.1% of income recipients rises sharply until the beginning of 2009. More generally, we find that high-income taxpayers have a greater propensity to sell during periods of market tumult,” the six authors of the study wrote. Four were economics professors at the University of Michigan, one was an Ohio State University economist, and the sixth works for the Internal Revenue Service.

“Sales volume rises much more strongly with lagged VIX changes for the top 95-99, 99-99.9, and 99.9-100 income percentiles than for other income groups over the period 2008 to 2009,” they continued. The same was true for people over age 60. “In multi-dimensional analysis, both high income and age over 60 are associated with a strongly positive sales volume-VIX relationship, as are income and receipt of Social Security income.”

High-net-worth and older investors were more likely to sell equity mutual funds than individual stocks. They weren’t more likely to sell financial stocks than other stocks, but they were less likely to sell consumer-durable stocks than stocks in other sectors. While high wealth levels tend to overlap with higher ages, the researchers saw separate effects for age and income.

“Younger high-income investors were also selling much more than younger, lower-income investors,” co-author Daniel Reck of the University of Michigan told RIJ in an email. “Basically, we see strong relationship between age and crisis sales at all income levels, and also a strong relationship between income and crisis sales at all age levels. So we conclude that the income relationship isn’t driven purely by the fact that high-income investors are older.”  

“Other aspects of investors—gender, marital status, region and state of residence, presence and amount of a mortgage interest deduction, and 2007 zip-code-level house price growth—are not related to the volatility sensitivity of stock sales,” the paper said.

The study was based on data from federal tax returns with the names removed. The economists matched asset sales reported for capital gains taxation purposes with some demographic information on each taxpayer. Asset purchases were identified indirectly, from dividend receipts and a supplementary brokerage account data set “suggesting that individuals with high levels of gross sales are also, to a substantial extent, net sellers of stocks,” the authors wrote.

The study didn’t cover trading in tax-deferred accounts, such as IRAs and employer-sponsored retirement plans, because it was based on IRS data and trades in tax-deferred accounts don’t leave a tax trail.

Reasons for selling

The tendency of high-income investors to sell in high-volatility episodes, the authors wrote, could exist because:

  • They tend to pay greater attention to their portfolios. 
  • They perceive themselves better able to time the market.
  • They are more likely to own stocks on margin, which potentially multiplies their losses.
  • They blame their money managers for stock market losses and withdraw their funds in response.
  • They lose trust in financial intermediaries in response to market turmoil.

“Some investors may be forced to sell due to constraints on their risk-bearing capacity (e.g., leverage constraints, liquidity shocks), some may be less tolerant of short-run risk than the average investor (e.g., close to retirement), some may perceive themselves to be better informed than others and anticipate a further price decline, and some investors may lose trust in the stock market altogether and perceive it as a rigged game,” the paper said.

“Individuals trading in mutual funds as opposed to individual stocks are likely more risk-averse and thus more prone to reduce the risk in their portfolios during the crisis by moving their wealth from mutual funds to something safer. Mutual fund investors could also be less confident in their own ability to pick winning stocks, which could make them more likely to sell off in tumultuous times than investors who are confident enough to pick individual stocks.”

The researchers added, “The greater sensitivity of older investors is consistent with the idea that investors close to retirement (with less opportunity to make up losses through future labor income) should be particularly sensitive to a perceived rise in risk.”

The researchers couldn’t rule out the possibility that plan participants and IRA owners were trading just as frequently as the top 5% during volatile markets. They noted that high-income and older people hold a higher share of their wealth in taxable accounts “perhaps due to the limits on contributions to tax-deferred retirement accounts. The same is true of older individuals.” Overall, the researchers found it easier to understand why older people sell in choppy markets than to understand why the wealthiest do.

The authors of the paper included Jeffrey Hoopes of Ohio State University, Stefan Nagel, Daniel Reck, Joel Slemrod and Bryan Stuart of the University of Michigan, and Patrick Langetieg of the IRS.

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Athene Holdings, a major fixed indexed annuity issuer, registers for IPO

Athene Holding Ltd., one of the offshore, private-equity-backed insurers that injected fresh competition—and controversy—into the fixed indexed annuity market after the financial crisis, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for a proposed initial public offering of its Class A common shares.

The number of shares to be offered and the price range for the proposed offering have not yet been determined. The IPO was announced last fall and then postponed. Renaissance Capital IPO Center estimated that Athene Holding would try to raise up to $1 billion and said that underwriters have not been chosen.

In 2015, one of its subsidiaries, Athene USA, was the fifth biggest seller of indexed annuities in the US, with $2.55 billion in sales and a 4.8% market share. It trailed Allianz Life, American Equity, Great American, and AIG.

Most indexed annuities are sold by commissioned independent insurance agents and about two-thirds are funded with tax-deferred savings. This business model is widely expected to be adversely affected by the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule, issued in early April. The rule will make it tougher to justify the sale of products with high commissions to IRA owners.

Athene Holding Ltd. (Athene) is a $86 billion in GAAP(and $59.9 in invested assets)insurance holding company whose operating subsidiaries’ business is primarily issuing and reinsuring retirement savings products, including fixed annuities and funding agreements, according to the Athene website.

Not long after the financial crisis, private equity firms, including Guggenheim Partners, Harbinger and Apollo, swept into the life insurance business, buying depressed companies, hoping to capitalize on rising demand for retirement income products, and confident that they could raise the firms’ profitability.

Athene was founded in 2009 by James Belardi, former president of SunAmerica Life Insurance Company and now CEO of Athene Holding Ltd., and Chip Gillis, former head of Bear Stearns’ Insurance Solutions Group and now CEO of Athene Life Re.
The Pembroke, Bermuda-based company was founded in 2008 and booked $2.6 billion in sales for the 12 months ended December 31, 2015. It plans to list on the NYSE under the symbol ATH. No pricing terms were disclosed.

Athene  was purchased in 2012 by Apollo Global Management, the private equity firm co-founded by Michael Millken and Leon Black in 1990. Apollo had been managing assets for Athene before buying it. Apollo subsequently paid $2.6 billion for Aviva USA, the Des Moines-based life insurer issuer, renaming it Athene USA and divesting its life insurance business. Athene’s largest shareholder is AP Alternative Assets, a publicly traded investment vehicle controlled by Apollo, according to Bloomberg.

The products offered by Athene include:

  • Retail fixed and equity indexed annuity products;
  • Co-insurance and reinsurance arrangements with third-party annuity providers; and
  • Institutional products, such as funding agreements.

Athene’s principal subsidiaries include Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company and Athene Life Insurance Company, Delaware-domiciled insurance companies, Athene Annuity and Life Company, an Iowa-domiciled insurance company, Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company of New York and Athene Life Insurance Company of New York, New York-domiciled insurance companies, Athene Deutschland, a Germany-based life insurance company, and Athene Life Re Ltd., a Bermuda-domiciled reinsurer.

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conning study assesses pension risk transfer (PRT) market

“Pension Risk Management Market: Key Opportunities and Challenges,” a new proprietary research study from Conning Inc., analyzes the pension risk transfer market in the U.S. and U.K., and provides details on the insurers in the U.S. market and the issues insurers face in this developing market.

The study also examines key liability-driven investment concepts. It is available for purchase from Conning by calling (888) 707-1177 or by visiting the company’s web site at www.conningresearch.com.

Conning analyzed data from the 20 largest U.S. corporate DB plans that accounted for 43% of aggregate DB plan assets of the 238 U.S. corporate DB plans with $1 billion or more in assets.

“With the improvement in funding status in 2015 for these companies, plan sponsors broadly experienced a smaller impact on their balance sheets, long-term financial obligations, and contributions than in 2014,” Conning said in a release.

But that improvement hasn’t removed the pressure on DB plan sponsors. “Plan sponsors have a continued interest in pension risk management, which stems from the ongoing funding volatility and resulting negative impact on balance sheets, long-term financial obligations, and contributions,” said Scott Hawkins, Director, Insurance Research at Conning, Inc., in a prepared statement.

“Plan sponsors’ chief financial officers face uncertainty in planning future funding obligations, and the underfunded defined benefit liabilities are yet another form of long-term financial obligations. Significant funding status volatility can directly affect both credit ratings and the cost of capital.”

“Insurers and asset managers are well-positioned to help plan sponsors remove or mitigate their pension risk and the funding volatility that creates cash-flow and other management issues,” said Steve Webersen, head of Insurance Research at Conning. “Insurers have the expertise to assume a plan’s pension liabilities through pension risk transfers using annuity buyouts or annuity buy-ins.

“Asset managers, meanwhile, can help plan sponsors develop and implement liability-driven investment solutions that can reduce funding status volatility for the plan sponsor that chooses to retain the risk. Our analysis finds continued growth and interest in both solutions.”

But insurers do face limitations on the amount of longevity risk they can assume in PRTs. “Longevity risk may be a future issue for U.S. insurers since they currently do not incur a longevity charge under RBC,” Hawkins told RIJ in an email. “However, the NAIC is looking into the possibility of including such a charge. Should that happen, some insurers may reduce their PRT appetite to maintain RBC levels, or seek out longevity reinsurance deals as U.K insurers have done.”

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

UK investors more open to robo-advice than Americans

Most wealthy people “recognize the potential of robo-advisors and automated investment services to add value to their wealth management services,” according to Investors’ Attitudes towards Robo-Advisors – Evidence from the US and the UK , a new report from MyPrivateBanking Research. The report is based on interviews with 600 affluent and high net worth individuals in the US and the UK.

In the US, Charles Schwab Intelligent Portfolios is the brand investors associate most with robo advice (43%). In the UK, Nutmeg leads the field, also with 43% brand recall, a MyPrivateBanking release said.

Rich investors evidently like their wealth managers to use digital channels. According to the release, more than 70% of those surveyed think that such tools can “positively influence their wealth manager’s advice and decision-making process and that automated advice potentially speeds up onboarding processes such as registration and account opening, making these processes more efficient and convenient.”  

Possibly because they’re more engaged with investing, “the adoption of automated wealth advice is happening faster in the high-net-worth segment than mass affluent, with current usage of online wealth management tools at 43% and 17%, respectively,” said Carmela Melone, analyst at MyPrivateBanking Research, in a statement.  

Only 34% of those surveyed consider robo-advisors are “not trustworthy,” but 56% worry that advisors who use or offer robo tools to clients might over-rely on them, and fail to think and do research on their own. Half of the respondents rated the quality of human based advice as unmatched by robo’s. 

Overall, UK and US investors have similar attitudes toward automated/robo advice, with some differences. UK investors would pay 10 basis points more on average for robo (and human-only) advice.  In the US, 28% of those surveyed said they don’t think they will use robo advice tools in the future, compared with only 12% in the UK.

MyPrivateBanking offered these conclusions and recommendations for wealth managers:

  • Offer the right tools: Financial planning and tax optimization wizards are the most important. 
  • Know your target segments: The youngest discretionary investors are the early adopters of robo, but automated services also appeal to self-directed middle age clients.
  • Use multiple channels: Face-to-face, telephone and e-mail still dominate contact methods but use of social media is increasing.
  • Look for opportunities to automate any link in the chain, from onboarding new clients to delivering specific advice.    

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Extra, extra! It’s a real-time event-based API!

In the future—no, make that the present—you won’t have to ask for the financial news that’s most important to you. Your phone will tell you that it is ready for your inspection.

Barchart, a provider of financial market data and technology, has released a “real-time event-based API,” a new managed service that allows firms to integrate event-based alerts, that use market data and related information, into their websites, software, mobile apps and internal systems. 

According to Barchart:

A firm can use the API (application programming interface) to build its own interface with the service which then monitors user specified conditions in real-time and notifies the user via SMS, email and/or push notification when the condition is met. 

Alerts can be sent when the price or volume of a financial instrument crosses a specified level, or when news on a company is released. More sophisticated conditions can be created using technical and fundamental data or by stacking conditions together, the Barchart release said. 

The cloud-based service is built upon Amazon Web Services (AWS) infrastructure. “It offers a complete managed service for financial data monitoring and alerting that is auto-scalable, resilient and redundant throughout multiple AWS availability zones,” the release said.

“The storing, monitoring and sending of the event based alerts are managed by Barchart inside of AWS,” said Eero Pikat, president of Barchart, in a release.  “We also supply the underlying market data, news, fundamental or technical data required, though we can also integrate and apply your own set of data.  The service is designed to be extremely robust and scalable, as it is fully leveraging the power of cloud computing.”  

Wealth management firms, brokers, exchanges, trading software providers and fintech start-ups can use the service, which can monitor price data, news, public company financials and ratios, and technical data like moving averages and stochastics. It can monitor price data on stocks, futures, options, forex, mutual funds, ETFs and indexes. 

The service can also be configured to monitor real-time, delayed or end-of-day data.  As a web services based solution, the API is compatible with any operating system, such as Windows, Linux, iOS or Android, and any programming language, such as Java, PHP or ASP.NET.

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The ‘Kosher’ Reverse Mortgage (IV)

“Kosher,” or “kashrus” in Hebrew, means clean or pure. It refers to food and food preparation that’s consistent with Jewish dietary laws. But kosher is also established in several languages as a synonym for legitimate, suitable, proper, and aboveboard.

Which brings us to reverse mortgages. Jack Guttentag (below right), an emeritus professor of Penn’s Wharton School and a reverse mortgage authority, has a website where he promotes relatively low-cost “kosher” reverse mortgages and warns against the non-kosher, allegedly over-priced HECMs that are advertised on television and online.

In Guttentag’s view, the growth of the reverse mortgage market is held back in large part by its lack of price transparency, which hides inefficiencies—i.e., middleman profits—that in a more competitive market would be arbitraged away. Through his website and publications, he’s led a campaign to shed light on HECM pricing.Jack Guttentag

As he and others explained to RIJ, a kosher reverse mortgage lender will share some of profit that he or she makes when selling the loan on the secondary market with the end client by reducing or waiving the origination fee, which HUD caps at the greater of $2,500 or 2% of the first $200,000, plus 1% of the amount more than that, up to a maximum of $6,000.

A non-kosher lender, he says, will charge the highest possible origination fee and keep the “mark up” or profit on the resale of the loan. If the lender’s costs are high—from employing hundreds of call center employees and buying ads on TV and the Internet—those higher profits help cover the costs.

“The lenders on my site will offer rebates, but a firm like AAG [American Advisors Group, the largest HECM company, with a 25% market share] will spend money on television commercials, so they’ll charge the maximum origination fee on every loan, on top of the higher interest rate, which lets them sell the loan balance for a higher price,” said the 92-year-old Guttentag, who is known online as “the Mortgage Professor.”

Not surprisingly, the leader of the HECM lender’s advocacy group differs. “I don’t agree with a lot of things that Jack says,” said Peter Bell, the executive director of the National Reverse Mortgage Lenders Association. “He’s made a lot of comments about calculators. I think his comments have been way off base. I don’t know anyone who is charging the full origination fee. Most are in $2,500 range. I see very few instances where people are paying the full amount.”

Less-than-transparent pricing isn’t solely responsible for the state of the HECM market, in Guttentag’s opinion. “The market ought to be ten times larger than it is,” he told RIJ. “It’s small because you’re dealing with the elderly, because their home is their most prized possession, and because the instrument is complex. All of these factors generate anxiety.

“To top it off, the press has been pretty negative for reasons that are hard to understand. That has begun to change, fortunately, because the need is growing by leaps and bounds.” While three million homeowners reached age 65 in 2015, he estimates, only about 60,000 HECM loans were written. For a list of HECM lenders, click here

Caveat emptor

Unless the borrower, or the borrower’s financial advisor, does the proper homework, and finds a mortgage broker with better pricing, they run the risk of paying many thousands of dollars more for their loans than they should. (Even when they do shop around, they discover that cost of a fixed-rate reverse mortgage—the kind that appeals to consumers but pose risks to HECM lenders—offer only about half the payout of a variable or an adjustable rate reverse mortgage.)

In short, a buyer-beware ethical standard prevails in the HECM world. It naturally breeds mistrust among the sophisticated, and it persists even though the lenders are insured against loss by government guarantees. Because seniors don’t know exactly who to trust in the HECM market, many avoid the category entirely.  

“What Guttentag said is true. Pricing in reverse mortgages is extremely opaque,” concedes Shelly Giordano, author of the 2015 book, What’s The Deal with Reverse Mortgages? “That’s why people have to get proposals from several brokers or banks and then try to get them to drop their prices. There’s no substitute for doing your homework. If you just call one [lender] they’ll hit you with everything they can. It’s just human nature.”

Another prominent participant in the HECM market, who asked not to be identified, told RIJ, “I don’t like it at all, the fact that the TV/Internet folks often quote a higher interest rate and, sometimes, the maximum HUD allowable origination fee. But I do understand why they may do it.”  

Reverse mortgages “have always had a black eye [with consumers and financial advisors] because the cost to the consumer has been high,” said Cliff Auerswald of AllReverse, a 10-employee firm in Orange County, California that approves about 30 reverse mortgages per month—far less than the 1,000 mortgages that the industry leader underwrites.

“The fees have come down a bit since FHA reorganized its insurance premiums. But the atmosphere is still dominated by companies that run huge call centers and teach their reps to keep the cost up. They can do that because they are selling the most loans. AAG and others by default charge the maximum origination fees. They come down only when they find that the consumer is comparison-shopping. That’s the biggest problem.”

In an e-mail statement, AAG told RIJ:

“The cost to close a HECM loan varies upon by each individual’s situation and the specific loan they choose. During the process, we cover with them their ability to meet the financial obligations associated with the selected loan.

“Borrowers are also required to undergo independent third-party reverse mortgage loan counseling to discuss the pros and cons, process and anticipated costs associated with their loan.

“We offer competitive pricing. During the loan process, if borrowers state they received a better price from a competitor, we’ll review the competitor quote with them and the loan option selected. Closing costs are an included part of the conversation.

“We’re the leader in reverse mortgage lending by over two times the volume, and the reason why is based on our best efforts to ensure borrowers are informed about how home equity can help supplement their retirement income.

“We firmly believe that without the level of investment we make to build awareness about the product, fewer seniors would understand about HECM loans and the market would be smaller than it is today.”

Kosher v Mainstream HECM Chart

Kosher mortgage math

At AllReverse, Auerswald applies part of his profit on the sale of a HECM on the secondary market to the origination fee and closing costs. He described a hypothetical kosher adjustable-rate reverse mortgage loan. “Let’s say the client was born in 1940 and had a home worth $500,000,” he told RIJ. If the house had no existing mortgage, that 76-year-old could borrow up to $306,000. Up to $181,000 would be available at closing. The rest would be available 12 months after closing. (A younger borrower would not be able to borrow as much because he or she would have more years of life expectancy and, consequently, a more distant payoff date). 

The mortgage insurance premium (MIP) would be 0.5% the loan amount ($950) if the borrower took no more than $181,000 at closing. If the borrower took more—if he or she needed to pay off a $200,000 existing mortgage, for instance—the MIP would be rise to 2.5%, or $4,750. If the client wanted a fixed-rate HECM, he or she could probably borrow only about $150,000 against a paid-off $500,000 home. That’s because the lender would bear the risk that interest rates might go up dramatically in the future.

Under federal rules, the origination fee on a $306,000 loan could be as high as $5,060. But lenders don’t have to charge that much. If the client were opening a line of credit and “not drawing any funds,” Auerswald said, “we would be likely to charge $3,500 to originate the loan. It might cost $7,500 in total closing costs. But if you drew $50,000 at closing, we’d waive the origination fee. And if you borrowed $100,000 or more, we’d cover all costs.”

Auerswald can afford to pay the $7,500 costs himself because, depending on interest rate spreads, he can sell the borrower’s $100,000 IOU on the secondary market for well over that amount. (He didn’t wish to be quoted on the markup, which varies.) The margin exists in part, he said, because the loans are bundled into highly marketable securities and are insured by the Government National Mortgage Association, or GNMA.

“Securitization has made the pricing so favorable that almost all of the lenders could live with no origination fee,” Auerswald told RIJ. “Counselors will tell people to shop around, but it is up to the consumer to do it. “The largest HECM lenders don’t lower their prices, he added, because “they might have as many as 1,000 employees inside their call centers. Their cost per acquisition is high and that’s why they have to be costly to consumers.”

Give the complexities of the HECM, most 70-something retirees arguably face them at their peril, and need a trustworthy guide. On a large loan, a client could save $10,000 in mortgage insurance premiums by taking less than 60% of the loan value at closing, and save an additional $7,500 in origination fees and other costs by working with a “kosher” HECM lender.

“At certain interest rates,” Auerswald said, “I have customers who can save $20,000 in closing costs alone by using us.”

Referring to Guttentag’s kosher mortgage numbers, Don Graves, the president of the HECM Advisors Group in Wyncote, Pa., said, “I think Jack’s analysis of the fees of the major call center-based lenders is observable in some cases. But the vast majority of HECM funds are fair to the customer and the company.   

“I have seen certain larger lenders starting with a product mix that is consistent with their costs of customer acquisition, which may involve a slightly higher interest rate as well as a higher origination fee. But the mortgage insurance premium and third party charges will not change from lender to lender. Origination fees will typically be based on secondary market factors and the interest rates of associated programs.”

NEXT: Innovations that Could Spark a Bigger HECM Market

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Fed’s Risky New Mandate

“In this world, there are only two tragedies,” Oscar Wilde once wrote. “One is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it.” As the US Federal Reserve inches closer to achieving its targets for the domestic economy, it faces growing pressure to normalize monetary policy. But the domestic economy is no longer the Fed’s sole consideration in policymaking. On the contrary, America’s monetary authority has all but explicitly recognized a new mandate: promoting global financial stability.

The US Congress created the Fed in 1913 as an independent agency removed from partisan politics, tasked with ensuring domestic price stability and maximizing domestic employment. Its role has expanded over time, and the Fed, along with many of its developed-country counterparts, has engaged in increasingly unconventional monetary policy – quantitative easing, credit easing, forward guidance, and so on – since the 2008 global financial crisis.

Now, the unconventional has become conventional. A generation of global market participants knows only a world of low (or even negative) interest rates and artificially inflated asset prices.

But the Fed’s dual mandate remains in force. And while the Fed’s recent rhetoric has been dovish, the fundamentals of the US economy – particularly those that supposedly matter most for the Fed – indicate a clear case for further rate hikes.

Consider, first, the Fed’s employment mandate. The unemployment rate is down to just 5%, job growth is strong and consistent, and jobless claims have been on a clear downward trajectory for several years.

As for the price-stability mandate, the oil-price collapse has naturally affected headline figures over the past year, but the trend in core inflation (excluding the energy component) suggests that the Fed is falling behind the curve. Core CPI is at a post-crisis high, having risen 2.3% year on year in February, and 2.2% in March.

Moreover, inflationary pressures will likely mount as the year progresses. With the household debt-to-asset ratio now approaching levels last seen in the 1990s, consumers have plenty of capacity to ramp up their borrowing. At the same time, the cost drag on inflation is set to diminish as the oil price stabilizes, and the dollar’s recent softness implies further inflationary pressure.

But this domestic progress puts the Fed in a difficult position. As a result, the Fed is effectively trapped between a US economy that increasingly justifies normalization of monetary policy and the interest of fragile global markets – in which about 60% of the world’s transactions are dollar-denominated – in further dovishness.

Messaging from financial markets increasingly influences the Fed’s decision-making. Any suggestion that the Fed will hike faster or sooner than anticipated leads to fears of tighter financial conditions, and violent risk-off moves. After a multi-year bull market in equities and fixed-income securities, stimulated by the very monetary policies the Fed is trying to leave behind, there is no valuation support to dampen the reaction. In the absence of genuinely robust global growth, which is unlikely in the near term, financial markets are relying on extremely loose monetary policy to prop up prices.

The Fed’s rate decision in March, and Fed Chair Janet Yellen’s commentary, was a case in point. The Fed apparently could not stomach the sell-off in global financial markets in January and February, which was driven largely by concerns about further tightening.

This is odd, because effects on consumption from changes in financial wealth (stocks and bonds) are small. What matters far more are changes in house prices, which have not deteriorated. Similarly, changes in the cost of capital, including the equity cost of capital, have a minor impact on business investment.

In other words, from the standpoint of its dual mandate, the Fed should not be terribly concerned about market volatility, even of the magnitude seen in January and February. But every signal sent from Yellen and the Fed was that policymakers were very concerned about exactly this. And the rally in markets that came after the Fed backpedaled on the pace of rate increases has only served to strengthen the feedback loop between the probability of US interest-rate hikes and global market volatility.

The loop has become calcified into a new mandate for the Fed, with other global policymakers becoming increasingly overt in referring to it. China’s deputy finance minister recently praised Yellen for her communication and cautious approach, which “takes us into consideration.”

The implications of this are worrying. If Yellen and the Fed feel beholden to financial markets, the risk of sharper rate hikes further down the road, as the Fed increasingly falls behind the inflation curve, will rise.

Beyond this, there are important longer-term considerations. Given the low base, and the Fed’s obvious caution, nominal interest rates are unlikely to climb too far by the next US recession. With a lack of traditional rate-cutting firepower, the next downturn could be longer than usual, compelling further reliance on unconventional monetary policy – even beyond the negative nominal interest rates now being pursued in Europe and Japan.

Indeed, Yellen’s predecessor, Ben Bernanke, recently addressed such possibilities, notably the potential for a permanent increase in the money supply (so-called helicopter money). This could take a number of forms: quantitative easing combined with fiscal expansion (for example, higher infrastructure spending), direct cash transfers to the government, or, most radically, direct cash transfers to households.

Such extreme policies are still only theoretical, and implementing them would most likely spur heightened congressional scrutiny. Nonetheless, the pressure to support global financial markets and other external economies suggests why the issue is being debated.

With the Fed deciding in their just-concluded April meeting, yet again, to hold rates, their dilemma is set only to intensify this year: normalize monetary policy in line with domestic fundamentals, or cede to the pressures of global financial markets. The former is sure to usher in a highly volatile future; the latter would further entrench the Fed’s new mandate – one that undermines any semblance of central-bank independence.

© 2016 Project Syndicate.

The Latest from an RIJ Competitor

The Spring 2016 edition of The Journal of Retirement, the quarterly magazine published by Institutional Investor Journals, edited by Sandy Mackenzie and underwritten by Bank of America Merrill Lynch, arrived in mailboxes this week, bringing its usual mix of scholarly articles about retirement.

Financial advisors might be especially interested in Nancy Foster-Holt’s article on the transition to retirement for small business owners and in the piece on Social Security claiming for widows and widowers by Social Security gurus William Reichenstein and William Meyer.

Several of the articles are aimed at public policy wonks. The articles on longevity annuities, on “in-plan” annuities, and on defined benefit plans all involve suggestions for government action that would resolve some of the obstacles to the use of products and strategies whose popularity with academics is not matched by success in the marketplace.  

Here’s a list of the articles in the new issue, along with brief descriptions: 

The Market for Longevity Annuities. In the past three years, longevity annuities, aka deferred income annuities (DIAs), which provide income beginning more than a year after purchase, have become a multi-billion dollar business. Yet demand for DIAs, as for all income annuities, is still relatively weak. 

In this article, Katherine G. Abraham of the University of Maryland and Benjamin H. Harris, a former deputy director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institution, propose ways to “remove obstacles to a robust market for longevity annuities.” Among their suggestions:

  • “Issuance of a new financial security graphic,” modeled on the old Department of Agriculture food pyramid, reminding Americans to include annuities in their financial planning.
  • Federal certification and favored tax treatment for certain financial products, including longevity annuities;
  • Allowing longevity annuity issuers to advertise the presence of state guaranty programs;
  • Offering longevity annuities in the federal Thrift Savings Plan;
  • Encouraging use of DIAs in employer-sponsored retirement plans;
  • Creating longevity-protected bonds or mortality indices allowing insurers to hedge against unexpected increases in human lifespans.

Regulatory Recommendations for the Department of Labor to Facilitate DC Lifetime Income, Robert J. Toth Jr. and Evan Giller. The authors of this article, both attorneys, would like to see a resolution of the legal uncertainty that prevents most 401(k) plan sponsors from offering an annuity option to participants. They recommend that the DOL and Treasury Department create an online “clearing house” for information about annuity products and providers and “how to use annuities in DC retirement plans.” 

U.S. Corporate DB Pension Plans—Today’s Challenges.Two attorneys,Martin L. Leibowitz and Antti Ilmanen “examine why so many [defined benefit] plans have closed and/or shifted to more conservative asset/liability allocations [and] discuss the challenging balancing act for underfunded plans when making their asset class allocation, duration-matching, and contribution choices.”

Financial Illiteracy Meets Conflicted Advice: The Case of Thrift Savings Plan Rollovers, John A. Turner, Bruce W. Klein, and Norman P. Stein. This article, whose research involved mystery-shopping into the advice that participants in the ultra-low-cost federal Thrift Savings Plan receive about rolling over their money to an IRA at a higher-cost bank, fund company or broker-dealer, concludes that participants are often urged into rollovers that will result in increased annual fees, and that participants as well as advisors underestimate or disregard the impact of fees when making a rollover decision.  

Addressing the Retirement Savings Crisis in the United States: The Role of Employer-Provided Financial Education, Barbara A. Smith. This economist in the Social Security Administration’s Office of Retirement Policy reviews recent research on the effectiveness of financial education at the workplace. She concludes that its effect “will be greater in workplaces with younger, less-educated workers who have fewer retirement savings options.”

Social Security Claiming Strategies for Widows and Widowers, William Reichenstein and William Meyer. “Many financial advisers are not aware… that for many clients their Full Retirement Age for retirement and spousal benefits is earlier than their FRA for retirement and spousal benefits,” write the authors, and this article goes on to show that Social Security claiming strategies for widows and widowers may vary, depending on the age of the surviving spouse.

The Retirement Preparedness of the Business Owner. Nancy Folster-Holt. America’s small business owners tend to be well off, in the aggregate, but “worlds collide,” writes this professor at the Husson University College of Business in Bangor,  Maine, when a “business owner must exit a business as well as prepare for retirement.” The business can become a trap, she finds, and too many business owners “continue to answer ‘Never’ when they are asked, ‘When do you intend to retire?’”

Book Review: Retirement on the Rocks: Why Americans Can’t Get Ahead and How New Savings Policies Can Help. George A. (Sandy) Mackenzie, the editor of The Journal of Retirement, reviews Christian E. Weller’s 2016 book describing our flawed retirement system and prescribing remedies for what ails it. Weller, a professor at the University of Massachusetts–Boston and fellow at the Center for American Progress, recommends establishing a minimum Social Security benefit of 125% of the federal poverty line for workers who have contributed 30 years, auto-enrolling workers without workplace plans into state-sponsored savings plans, and limiting options in IRAs to low-cost, low-risk investments. The book, writes Mackenzie, “is an excellent review of the thesis that the U.S. does confront a retirement crisis, and its proposal deserve serious consideration.

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

FINRA fines MetLife $20 million for VA replacement misconduct

MetLife Securities, Inc. (MSI) has been fined $20 million by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and ordered to pay $5 million to customers for “making negligent material misrepresentations and omissions on variable annuity (VA) replacement applications for tens of thousands of customers,” a May 3 FINRA release said.

“Each misrepresentation and omission made the replacement appear more beneficial to the customer, even though the recommended VAs were typically more expensive than customers’ existing VAs,” a FINRA release said. The following statements were issued by FINRA.

MSI’s VA replacement business constituted a substantial portion of its business, generating at least $152 million in gross dealer commission for the firm over a six-year period.

In settling this matter, MSI neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings.

From 2009 through 2014, FINRA said, MSI “misrepresented or omitted at least one material fact relating to the costs and guarantees of customers’ existing VA contracts in 72% of the 35,500 VA replacement applications the firm approved, based on a sample of randomly selected transactions.”

For example:

  • MSI represented to customers that their existing VA was more expensive than the recommended VA, when in fact, the existing VA was less expensive;
  • MSI failed to disclose to customers that the proposed VA replacement would reduce or eliminate important features in their existing VA, such as accrued death benefits, guaranteed income benefits, and a guaranteed fixed interest account rider;
  • MSI understated the value of customers’ existing death benefits in disclosures mandated by Reg. 60.

Replacing one VA with another involves a comparison of the complex features of each security. Accordingly, VA replacements are subject to regulatory requirements to ensure a firm and its registered representatives compare costs and guarantees that are complete and accurate. For investors in New York, a firm also must adhere to the disclosure requirements set forth in Regulation 60 (Reg. 60).

FINRA also found that MSI failed to ensure that its registered representatives obtained and assessed accurate information concerning the recommended VA replacements, and did not adequately train its registered representatives to compare the relative costs and guarantees involved in replacing one VA with another.

MSI’s principals did not consider the relative costs and guarantees of the proposed transactions. The firm’s principals ultimately approved 99.79% of VA replacement applications submitted to them for review, even though nearly three quarters of those applications contained materially inaccurate information.

FINRA further found that MSI failed to supervise sales of the GMIB rider, the firm’s bestselling feature for its VAs. The rider was marketed to customers (many of whom were already holding MetLife annuities) as a means of providing a guaranteed future income stream.

The GMIB rider is complex and expensive—annual fees during the relevant period ranged from 1% to 1.5% of the VA’s notional income base value. A frequently cited reason for MSI’s recommendation of VA replacements was to allow a customer to purchase the GMIB rider on the new VA contract. Nevertheless, MSI failed to provide registered representatives and principals with reasonable guidance or training about the cost and features of the rider.

In addition, FINRA found that since at least 2009, firm customers have received misleading quarterly account statements that understate the total charges and fees incurred on certain VA contracts.

Typically, the quarterly account statements misrepresented that the total fees and charges were $0.00 when, in fact, the customer has paid a substantial amount in fees and charges.

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

AXA and BlackRock make news, separately, in the UK

AXA is negotiating with unnamed companies to sell its remaining life insurance and savings business in Britain, including its SunLife unit, after a strategic review, the French insurer, which has a large presence in the U.S., said in a release this week.  

AXA also agreed to sell its portfolio advisory business, known as Elevate, to Standard Life for an undisclosed amount as part of an exit from the life insurance business in Britain.

In April, AXA agreed to sell its offshore investment bonds business, which is based on the Isle of Man, to Life Company Consolidation Group.

AXA’s operations in property and in casualty, health and asset management are not part of the discussions.

AXA said that it expected to receive 650 million pounds, or about $952 million, if it is able to sell its life insurance and savings units in Britain. The sale of the businesses would result in AXA’s losing 400 million euros, or about $462 million, in income.

Any deal to sell the company’s remaining life and savings businesses in Britain would be subject to regulatory approval.

By buying the portfolio advisory business, Standard Life would gain more than 160,000 customers and about £9.8 billion in assets under administration.

After that transaction, Standard Life would have 350,000 customers and £36.4 billion in assets under administration.

“This acquisition is a clear sign of our continued commitment to lead the U.K. adviser platform market,” David Tiller, the head of adviser and wealth manager propositions at Standard Life, said in a news release.

BlackRock divests DC administration

BlackRock has sold part of its UK defined contribution (DC) business to Aegon, deciding to focus on investment management over administration, IPE.com reported. No sale price was disclosed, but BlackRock said in a statement the financial impact of the deal was “not material.”

The asset manager said it agreed to sell its DC platform and administration business, which has £12bn (€15.3bn) in assets under management, to Aegon, boosting Aegon’s DC platform to £30bn.

Paul Bucksey, head of DC at BlackRock, will become managing director of the new combined workplace business, while BlackRock will remain focused on its DC investment management capabilities, where it is responsible for £65bn, according to a statement by the company.

David Blumer, head of BlackRock EMEA, said the changes to the UK pensions landscape over the past five years—such as the end of mandatory annuitization and the resulting focus on drawdown products—had led to its decision to sell part of its business.

“BlackRock believes Aegon’s broad retail product and digital capabilities will best serve the increased demand from employers for holistic retirement solutions in the future,” Blumer said. “[It is a] perfect partner to deliver on our DC platform and administration clients’ growing needs.”

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Free e-book from Society of Actuaries covers diverse aspects of retirement

A free e-book with more than a dozen chapters on retirement risks and various aspects of income planning and public policy is now available from the Society of Actuaries. 

The “Diverse Risks Essay Collection” “explores the diverse risks associated with defined contribution plan risk management strategies; decumulation strategies for retirement; and long-term care financing,” according to the SOA.

The book includes essays that won prizes from SOA: 

  • First prize: “The ‘Feel Free’ Retirement Spending Strategy,” by R. Evan Inglis (First Prize). This essay provides a rule of thumb for decumulation with a range attached to it. The author keeps it fairly simple and provides some analysis as to why this rule is reasonable.
  • Second prize: “Retirement: Choosing Between Bismarck and Copernicus,” by Krzysztof Ostaszewski (Second Prize). This essay suggests an entirely different view of retirement— as in retirement is when you can’t work anymore.

Four third prize articles:

  • “Thinking About the Future of Retirement,” by Anna M. Rappaport. This is a “big picture” approach, focusing on retirement ages as well as a range of issues related to DC plans.
  • “Longevity Insurance Benefits for Social Security,” by John A. Turner. This essay on longevity insurance proposes a change to Social Security to better achieve this goal and then focuses on how that will link to decumulation.
  • “Designing and Communicating Retirement Plans for ‘Humans’” and “Portfolio Approach to Retirement Income Security,” both by Steve Vernon. The first paper proposes a design for a better retirement plan.

Vernon revisits behavioral finance issues and uses them to make recommendations about structuring employee (DC) benefit plans to offer good support for decumulation. The other paper presents a portfolio approach to retirement income security that is built on research sponsored by the SOA with the Stanford Longevity Center.

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

2016 Social Security Claiming Guide now available

The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College has released the 2016 edition of its popular, colorful “Social Security Claiming Guide.”

A pdf of the useful, consumer-friendly guide can be downloaded here
 
According to the CRR, “the Social Security Claiming Guide sorts through all the options, spells out how much you can get, and answers frequently asked questions—all in a clear, easy-to-read, and colorful format. The companion brochure offers highlights of the Claiming Guide.
 
Printed copies of the Social Security Claiming Guide are available for $2.75 each (1-99 copies) or $2.50 each (100 or more copies), plus shipping. Copies of the Claiming Guide brochure are available for $1.75 each (1-99 copies) or $1.50 each (100 or more copies), plus shipping.  

(c) 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Most Americans clueless about fees: Hearts & Wallets

Most Americans believe they pay nothing—or have no idea what they pay— for their financial products, according to a new study by Hearts & Wallets, a research firm that provides data and insights on retail investors.

The study, “Wants & Pricing: What Investors Buy & Competitive Ratings,” shows that 31% of Americans say they don’t know what they pay for their financial products, an increase of four percentage points in one year, and only 28% are certain they are charged a fee at a retail financial store.

Hearts & Wallets defines financial “stores” as retail and defined contribution providers that work directly with investors. Of the 41% who say they pay their financial store “nothing” and instead pay through actual products, 72% say they pay nothing for products.

“We have a major problem,” said Laura Varas, founder and CEO of Hearts & Wallets, in a release. “Consumers should know what they pay. Some consumers want to pay more for things they want, such as higher service levels, while others do not. The industry has a responsibility to price clearly, and should embrace price clarity enthusiastically by laying out the different choices available to consumers. Regulation has a role, but in the end, there’s no substitute for an informed consumer.”

Only one in five consumers understands the incentives of their providers, the same proportion as last year.  “Competition will force traditional financial services firms to confront the pricing issue,” Varas said. “Robo-advisors and other new fintech entrants are explaining pricing clearly.”   

Self-service firms, especially Scottrade and TD Ameritrade, outperform other categories in the proportion of customers who “understand how firms earns money.” USAA, E*Trade, Charles Schwab, and Edward Jones have 25% or more customers who rate their understanding very high. 

In the study, over 5,000 U.S. households ranked the ten things they wanted most financial services providers. All lifestages and income groups are becoming more demanding. At the national level, the top 3 most important attributes are  “fees clear and understandable” (56%), “is unbiased, puts my interests first” (54%), and “explains things in understandable terms” (54%).

About half of investors are highly price-sensitive and want providers to have “low fees” (54%) or “fees that are reasonable for the service provided” (53%).

Mass market (under $100,000 in investable assets) and Millennials grew more demanding in all dimensions year-over-year. Post-retirees became more demanding in access and reliability attributes. High net worth clients ($2 million-plus) are more relaxed, notably on “has Internet account access” and “wide variety of products,” which are becoming must-haves that are no longer competitive differentiators.

“To differentiate services, providers should determine which distinct market segments they want to address,” Varas said. “For example, people close to retirement are more anxious, so the reliability service dimension of ‘is unbiased, puts my interests first’ is much higher than for a millennial.”

Consumers identified and ranked the top one or two firms they use on 27 attributes in six service dimensions. The study focuses on the top 24 big banks, brokerages and mutual fund firms most often cited by participants. Edward Jones performs at or near the top of 24 firms on over 10 different attributes. Wells Fargo Advisors, Scottrade and USAA are top performers on five or more attributes. Ameriprise Financial, Charles Schwab, T. Rowe Price, TD Ameritrade, Prudential, LPL, Vanguard and Capital One lead in at least one or more attributes.

•       On “fees clear and understandable” – Scottrade, Edward Jones and Wells Fargo Advisors are the best performers, each with 60% or more of their customers giving them top marks.

•       Edward Jones, USAA, Ameriprise and Wells Fargo Advisors are top performers on “unbiased, puts my interests first” and “explains things in understandable terms.” LPL also does well on “unbiased.”

•       Scottrade, in particular, made big improvements this year, notably in “well-trained staff,” “investment ideas are knowledgeable, timely and tactical,” “offers personal financial advice,” and “online tools and research.”

•        “Has made me money” is one reason why customers go to full-service firms. 65% of customers of Morgan Stanley, LPL and Edward Jones give it high importance, compared to only 39% of E*Trade customers. “Offers personal financial advice” is most important to customers of Edward Jones (54%), but much less so at Vanguard (28%) customers, who focus more on pricing.

In the study, Hearts&Wallets analyzed attitudes and behaviors of investor lifestages from age 21 through post-retirement and are drawn from the Hearts & Wallets Investor Quant (IQ) Database. Results represent a weighted representative cross-section of the U.S. national population based on over 5,000 participants surveyed June 2015. The largest and most detailed U.S. financial dataset, the IQ syndicated research platform serves as the engine for Hearts & Wallets’ qualitative, quantitative, market sizing and competitive intelligence research. The IQ database consists of 10,000 sets of consumer feedback on financial services firms for over 35,000 U.S. households over the past six years.

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Hord and Bradley-Golding join Voya’s large-plan retirement team

Voya Financial, one of the largest defined contribution providers, has hired Bob Hord and Sally Bradley-Golding to support its Large Corporate Market defined contribution plan sales team, reporting to Steve Keating, the company said in a release.

Hord joins Voya as the director of consultant relations and Bradley-Golding will serve as an account executive in the Large Corporate Market business. They will focus on growing Voya’s presence in the large and mega market arena.

Hord and Bradley-Golding joined Voya in early April. Hord is based in North Carolina and Bradley-Golding in Massachusetts. Keating is head of sales for the Large Corporate Market.

Hord previously worked at Wells Fargo, most recently as the vice president, senior consultant relations director. He worked with national consulting firms, broker dealers and niche advisors firms specializing in institutional retirement consulting.

Bradley-Golding previously spent over a decade with Financial Engines, where she led a relationship management team as well as developing partnerships with 401(k) service providers who offer Financial Engines’ investment advisory service to their plan sponsors.

Prior to Financial Engines, Bradley-Golding was with Fidelity Investments and Bankers Trust Company. In her new role at Voya, Bradley-Golding is responsible for bringing retirement solutions to plan sponsors — especially those whose plan assets exceed $1 billion.

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

First Sign of Blood from DOL Fiduciary Rule

In an aftershock of the April 6 release of the Department of Labor’s “fiduciary rule,” American Equity Life, the second larger issuer of fixed indexed annuities in 2015, told analysts on its Q1 earnings call yesterday that the new rule might hurt the distribution and sales of its flagship products.   

The company’s stock fell 10% during the half hour before the 10 a.m. call began. The share price instantly bounced back only to slump again, ending the day at $14.33, down 12.68%. Since last November, AEL stock’s value on the NYSE has fallen by almost half. Its FIA sales in 2015 were $6.95 billion, second only to Allianz Life, and 67% higher than in 2014.

While these events pass largely unnoticed by most the financial world, they loom large within the niche of indexed annuities, whose returns are derived from bonds and options on equity-linked indices. It’s a market long-dominated by Allianz Life. Since the financial crisis, however, private equity firms like Guggenheim Partners have invested opportunistically in issuers of FIAs, stoking competition.

Indexed annuities are complex and profitable, selling well to people who want both protection from any downside loss and more potential upside than bonds alone can provide. They thrive in ultra-low rate environments. Once the province of independent insurance agents, FIAs are increasingly built by highly-rated insurers and sold by brokerage advisors, often as a replacement for slumping variable annuities. FIAs often feature guaranteed lifetime income riders, which appeal to retirement investors. About 65% of the money going into FIAs is from tax-deferred accounts, so at least two-thirds of the industry’s business is affected by the DOL rule.

On the call, AEL executives told analysts the firm’s difficulties stemmed from two main sources: a faulty assumption about interest rates and the DOL’s surprise announcement that sellers of FIAs would be held to a fiduciary-level standard of conduct—enforced by the so-called Best Interest Contract or BIC—if they want to accept commissions from insurance companies.

Regarding the DOL announcement: FIA issuers and wholesalers were unprepared for it. When the rule was proposed, and throughout last year’s public comment period, tighter regulation of FIA sales wasn’t suggested. DC04292016

 But under the final rule, instead of being lightly regulated, like plain-vanilla fixed annuities or income annuities, FIAs will be more tightly regulated, along with variable annuities. The rule is scheduled to go into partial effect in April 2017 and full effect at the start of 2018.

An industry group, the National Association of Fixed Annuities, released a statementThursday saying that it would try to reverse the DOL’s action through legislation or legal action. “We wouldn’t be surprised if law suits are filed in the future,” said AEL CEO John Matovina on the earnings call.  

Regarding the rate mis-assumption: AEL took a write-down on its deferred acquisition cost assets, which resulted in a 57% drop in operating income in 1Q2016, to about $21 million, compared with $48.8 million in 1Q2015. The company discovered, in effect, that it would earn less than expected from reinvesting premiums, relative to what it paid wholesalers and salesmen to bring in those premiums. It had assumed higher yields on new bond investments in the first quarter, according to AEL CFO Ted Johnson.

(For accounting purposes, insurance companies treat the commissions that they pay to agents and advisors for selling their contracts as an investment, not as an expense. The sales activity generates premiums which, when invested profitably, enable the company to more than recoup the investment.)

Because of the DOL’s surprise announcement, Matovina said, the company expected to stop selling indexed annuities in the independent agent channel—the channel where most indexed annuities are still sold—and try to sell fixed multi-year guaranteed-rate fixed annuities with income riders in that channel instead. Those products tend to be less profitable than FIAs.

“The unexpected change regarding FIAs in the final DOL rule and the related Best Interest Contract Exemption has cast a cloud over our future growth rate,” Matovina said. “If the rule isn’t overturned or modified, it will limit access to fixed indexed annuities.”

Annuity wholesalers and independent agents favor indexed annuities in part because they shine in a low-rate environment, but also because the rewards can be singularly high. The total commission on an AEL FIA, for instance, has been as high as 9%, and the surrender period can be as long as 20 years for a product with a 10% initial bonus.

Not coincidentally, this is the type of product whose sale to middle-income senior citizens with large IRAs that the DOL aims to blunt. Agents would find it hard to rationalize the acceptance of such rich compensation under the new DOL rule, which requires sellers to ignore personal reward when recommending products to clients. 

John Matovina American EquityOne of the equity analysts asked if AEL would consider simplifying their FIA, and shifting some of the value to the client and away from the distributors and agents. “We might come up with something simpler to sell in the independent channel,” Matovina (left) said. “Right now we think the risk is too great. That’s the current view. But would the independent agents be willing to sell a lower commission product? We don’t know.”

The DOL rule creates another serious compliance problem for issuers and wholesalers of FIAs. The product can’t be sold on a commission-basis unless a financial institution enters into the BIC contract with the end-client, promising to ensure that the agent or broker acts in the client’s best interest.

But there’s the rub. It’s not clear who can, will or should sign the so-called BIC contract for insurance agents who sell FIAs. Should it be the annuity wholesaler or marketing organization that hires the agents and teaches them how to sell FIAs? Or should it be the insurers who issue the FIAs, appoint the agents and wholesalers, and pay the agent commissions and wholesaler “overrides” that ultimately drive sales? The lack of clarity is one reason why the FIA industry considers the BIC “unworkable.”

Not all annuity wholesalers are financial institutions, technically, and neither they nor the insurers supervise agents closely enough to bear liability for potentially unscrupulous sales practices. Although the insurer appoints agents and approves each new indexed annuity contract, it doesn’t know the exact circumstances under which the contract was sold.

“It would be one thing if the DOL could only come after us for our own conduct. But the weak link is that we’d be responsible for the agent’s conduct, including activities that we’re unaware of,” Matovina said. “Our reading of the fiduciary obligation says that the agent is supposed to look among his menu of FIAs and decide, without regard for any other factor, which would be in the best interest of the policyholder. Even if he picked American Equity for all the right reasons, we would still be responsible for what he did. All we will see is the application. We evaluate it for suitability. But it is impossible to know how the agent conducted his sales activities.”

In other words, the DOL rule is incompatible the FIA business model, and threatens to disrupt what has become a $50 billion-a-year business. (An estimated 60% to 70% of FIA sales are exchanges, not new sales, according to one industry expert.) The situation is very different when a securities-licensed broker sells an FIA, because the broker is more or less supervised by a broker-dealer, and the broker-dealer is a financial institution that can sign the BIC.

One AEL analyst believes that the DOL may have made itself vulnerable to a legal reversal of the new rule by not giving the FIA industry fair warning that there would be such a dramatic change in the legal treatment of the FIA between the proposal that was submitted for public comment and the final rule.

“Someone might argue that this rule is ripe to be overturned, because the DOL didn’t investigate how the fixed indexed annuity market works,” the analyst told RIJ. “So the change in the rule could be considered arbitrary and capricious. That will be the argument—that the DOL didn’t do its homework.”

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.