Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

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.

Vanguard fees fall to as low as two cents per $1,000

Vanguard has announced expense ratio reductions for several of its funds, including the world’s two largest bond funds and two largest stock funds, the Valley Forge-based direct marketer of mutual funds and ETFs said in a release this week.

The funds and their expense ratio reductions included:

Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund. The world’s largest bond fund, with $158 billion in assets, reduced its expense ratio for Investor Shares by four basis points, to 0.16%; for Admiral Shares, by one basis point, to 0.06%; for ETF Shares, by one basis point, to 0.06%; for Institutional Shares, by one basis point, to 0.05%; and for Institutional Plus Shares, by one basis point, to 0.04%.

Investor Shares have a $1,000 to $3,000 investment minimum, depending on the fund, Admiral Shares have an investment minimum of $10,000 to $100,000, depending on the fund, and Institutional Shares have a $5 million investment minimum.

Vanguard Total Bond Index II Fund. The world’s second-largest bond fund, with $96.3 billion in assets, reduced its expense ratio for Investor Shares by one basis point, to 0.09%. For Institutional Shares, the expense ratio fell by three basis points, to 0.02%.

Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund. The world’s largest stock fund, with $418 billion in assets, reduced its expense ratio for Investor Shares by one basis point, to 0.16%. 

Vanguard 500 Index Fund. The industry’s oldest stock index fund and the world’s second-largest stock fund, with $227.5 billion in assets, reduced its expense ratio for Investor Shares by one basis point, to 0.16%.

Vanguard clients pay an average asset weighted expense ratio (the average shareholders actually pay) of 0.13%, which is five basis points below the firm’s average expense ratio of 0.18%, the Vanguard release said. 

Other fee reductions

Seventeen Admiral Shares and fourteen ETF Shares also reported expense ratio reductions. Eighty-nine Vanguard funds, including 51 index funds and 38 actively managed funds, offer Admiral Shares. These shares represent combined assets of $1.2 trillion, or more than a third of Vanguard U.S. mutual fund assets.

Seventy of Vanguard’s index funds offer ETF shares, with combined assets of $506.7 billion. Three duration-specific bond ETFs saw their expense ratio drop one basis point, to 0.09%. These included:

  • The $18.6 billion Vanguard Short-Term Bond Index ETF (Ticker: BSV)
  • The $8.5 billion Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index ETF (Ticker: BIV)
  • The $2 billion Vanguard Long-Term Bond Index ETF (Ticker: BLV).  

Expense ratio reductions of one basis point (to 0.08%) were also reported for:

  • The $20 billion Vanguard Growth ETF (VUG)
  • The $19.8 billion Vanguard Value ETF (VTV)
  • The $13.6 billion Vanguard Mid-Cap Fund ETF (VO)
  • The $11.8 billion Vanguard Small Cap ETF (VB)

The expense ratio reductions span five fund share classes (Investor, Admiral, ETF, Institutional, and Institutional Plus) across five fund categories: Domestic stock index, domestic bond index, balanced index, managed payout, and tax-managed.

Vanguard investors saved $71 million as a result of lower expense ratios reported for 73 shares classes offered by a variety of Vanguard mutual funds, the firm said in its release. Vanguard said its clients saved about $215 million in fiscal 2015 on investments in shares of 200 funds.   

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

In DC plans, managed accounts and TDFs suit different wealth tiers: Cerulli

Managed accounts in defined contribution (DC) plans should be seen as a complement to target-date funds, not as a replacement for them, according to the April 2016 issue of The Cerulli Edge-U.S. Monthly Product Trends Edition.

Highlights from this research:

Despite added customization features, a number of hurdles exist for managed accounts if they are going to effectively replace target-funds as a QDIA. They have a place in DC plans, but are more fitting as a complement to target-date funds. Managed accounts are an appropriate solution for older, wealthier investors who are solidifying their retirement plans.

The four largest managed account providers in the U.S., with about 95% of the market, include Financial Engines (60%; $113.4 billion), Morningstar (21%; $40.3 billion), Fidelity (8%; $14.5 billion) and Guided Choice (7%; $12.3 billion).

Whether actively or passively managed, target-date funds have a demonstrated track record of bringing multi-asset-class solutions to retirement plans, and investors have been overwhelmingly receptive. According to a Cerulli survey, 64% of asset managers rate being the primary manager of a target-date fund as a major opportunity.

Mutual fund flows increased in size during March, with the vehicle gathering $17.9 billion. Overall, 1Q 2016 flows totaled $16.2 billion. Flows, coupled with strong March equity returns, led to asset growth of 4.9% in March and 0.2% during the first quarter.

Bolstered by March’s equity market rebound, ETF assets shot up 7.3% during the month to finish at $2.16 trillion. Flows steadied after a disappointing start to the year, with the vehicle bringing in $30.6 billion during March.

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Manager who helped launch three-insurer in-plan annuity rejoins AllianceBernstein

Jeff Eng has rejoined AllianceBernstein as managing director of custom defined contribution solutions, the global investment management firm announced this week. 

He will be responsible for sales of AB’s existing custom target-date offerings and Lifetime Income Strategy solution, while “supporting the firm’s broader initiative in digital delivery of retirement planning advice.” Prior to rejoining the firm, Jeff was Director of Retirement Income Solutions at Russell Investments.

Eng originally joined AB in 2001 as a product director in defined contribution, where he helped develop and launch Lifetime Income Strategy, the first multi-insurer target-date fund with a guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit. The insurers on the platform include Prudential, Nationwide and Lincoln Financial.

When they reach a certain age, participants who own Alliance Bernstein target-date funds can start buying protection for their TDF savings in the form of a guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit (GLWB) rider from one of those three insurers, who share the business by bidding for it. The program has been in use at United Technologies for several years.

The rider guarantees a certain benefit base, a percentage of which (minus prior withdrawals) the investor can receive for life. If the clients outlive their own assets, they will still receive that same percentage of the guarantee amount each year until they die.

By involving three insurers rather than one, the plan sponsor avoids the risk of relying on a single issuer for its in-plan annuity. That risk has discouraged many plan sponsors from including any annuity option within their plans.

AB manages more than $46B in total defined contribution assets. The asset manager introduced a multi-manager target-date mutual fund series for the DC market in 2014, co-managed with Morningstar, and a multi-manager target-date series in a collective investment trust (CIT) format in 2015 partnering with Mercer Investments for third-party manager selection.

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Those who work longer live longer, study shows

Working past age 65 could lead to longer life, while retiring early may be a risk factor for dying earlier, a new study from Oregon State University indicates.

Healthy adults who retired one year past age 65 had an 11% lower risk of death from all causes, even when taking into account demographic, lifestyle and health issues, the researchers found.

Even self-described “unhealthy” adults were likely to live longer if they kept working, the findings showed, which indicates that factors beyond physical health may affect post-retirement mortality.

“Work brings people a lot of economic and social benefits that could impact the length of their lives,” said Chenkai Wu, a doctoral student in epidemiology at the College of Public Health and Human Sciences.

The findings were published recently in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Besides Wu, the authors include Robert Stawski and Michelle Odden of OSU and Gwenith Fisher of Colorado State University. The research was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging.

Wu took an interest in the effects of retirement on health in part because of China’s mandatory retirement age laws, which are often debated. Retirement age is also an issue for debate elsewhere around the world, including the United States, he said.

“Most research in this area has focused on the economic impacts of delaying retirement. I thought it might be good to look at the health impacts,” Wu said. “People in the U.S. have more flexibility about when they retire compared to other countries, so it made sense to look at data from the U.S.”

Wu examined data collected from 1992 through 2010 through the Healthy Retirement Study, a long-term study of U.S. adults led by the University of Michigan and funded by the National Institute on Aging. Of the more than 12,000 initial participants in the study, Wu narrowed his focus to 2,956 people who began the study in 1992 and had retired by the end of the study period in 2010. 

Poor health is one reason people retire early and also can lead to earlier death, so researchers wanted to find a way to mitigate a potential bias in that regard.

To do so, they divided the group into unhealthy retirees, or those who indicated that health was a factor in their decision to retire – and healthy retirees, who indicated health was not a factor. About two-thirds of the group fell into the healthy category, while a third were in the unhealthy category.

During the study period, about 12% of the healthy and 25.6% of the unhealthy retirees died. Healthy retirees who worked a year longer had an 11% lower risk of mortality, while unhealthy retirees who worked a year longer had a 9% lower mortality risk. Working a year longer had a positive impact on the study participants’ mortality rate regardless of their health status.

“The healthy group is generally more advantaged in terms of education, wealth, health behaviors and lifestyle, but taking all of those issues into account, the pattern still remained,” said Stawski, senior author of the paper. “The findings seem to indicate that people who remain active and engaged gain a benefit from that.”

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Reverse Mortgage Puzzle: Part III

During lunch at a recent financial industry conference, an advisor was asked for his opinion of reverse mortgages. “I might recommend them to certain types of clients,” he said, chewing on his farm-raised salmon. “But don’t see how I could get paid for it.”

With rare exceptions, the nation’s hundreds of thousand of securities licensed investment advisors—a likely source of retirement advice for millions of Americans—don’t recommend Home Equity Conversion Mortgages, as reverse mortgage are formally called, nor do they typically consider them, even when circumstances might be appropriate.     

There are understandable reasons for this avoidance. As a practical matter, advisors who don’t have mortgage licenses can’t make direct commissions from a HECM or earn a finder’s fee for a HECM referral. Second, most brokerage advisors don’t practice “life-cycle” investing, which considers an investors entire “household balance sheet,” including home equity. Third, FINRA, the self-regulator of broker-dealers, has long regarded them with suspicion.    

The suspicion was well earned. Before 2009, the HECM market went through a Wild West phase. Some advisors steered people into reverse mortgages as a way to fund annuities. Some borrowers took out lump sum loans, squandered the money and skipped out on their taxes and insurance, leading to foreclosures. These episodes led to legislative outcry, regulatory alerts and changes to the HECM program that the public still hasn’t digested. The reputation of the reverse mortgage has yet to recover.        

“There’s still a dark cloud over HECMs,” said Michael Banner, a long-time advocate of reverse mortgages who has a CE-accredited business devoted to teaching financial advisors about HECMs.

The upshot is that, in addition to post-financial-crisis reductions in the generosity of the HECM program and the retreat of large financial institutions from the HECM business—plus a mandatory, client-paid pre-sale counseling requirement—the HECM program is hobbled by lack of demand on the part of broker-dealers and advisors. Little wonder that it isn’t thriving.

‘Not even discussed’

Reverse mortgages aren’t investments, so it should not come as a great surprise that investment advisors don’t promote them. “In my 10+ years here, I’ve never heard reverse mortgages used in any way,” Scott Stolz, vice president at Raymond James, the national broker-dealer, told RIJ recently. “I haven’t even heard them discussed. We don’t compensate the advisors in any way for recommending them.” 

“I am not aware of a prohibition on the use of reverse mortgages, but I am also not aware of a source of the product for the financial advisors,” he added. If a Raymond James advisor wanted to recommend a HECM, he would be inviting scrutiny regarding the use of the loan proceeds. “We prohibit the use of HECM funds for investment purposes,” Stolz said.

This sort of purposeful indifference to HECMs, of course, frustrates reverse mortgage advocates, who understand the gatekeeping role that financial advisors play in their clients’ choices. “We hear this every day,” said Shelly Giordano, principal at Longevity View Associates, a Washington, DC, HECM broker. “I am mystified that a planner would intentionally ignore a valuable asset just because he does not get paid to access it,” she added. If advisors make recommendations about Social Security claiming, Giordano believes, it makes equal sense for them to advise on the use of reverse mortgages.

Compliance officers at many financial advisory firms and brokerages still tell their advisory staffs to “steer clear” of HECMs, she has found. “It can be extremely frustrating for someone to go to an advisor to whom they’re paying a 1% fee, and say they want information about a reverse mortgage, only to hear the advisor say, ‘I can’t talk to you about that,’” Giordano, who is chairman of a HECM lenders group, Funding Longevity Task Force, and author of What’s the Deal with Reverse Mortgages (People Tested Media, 2015), told RIJ.   

But advisors know that their own self-regulatory agency, FINRA, is wary of the product.

FINRA once characterized HECMs as a “last resort” strategy for retirees who exhaust all other sources of liquidity. In 2014, it acknowledged the reforms made to the HECM program by HUD and, after lobbying by the Funding Longevity Task Force, revised its position and recommended that home equity be “used prudently.”

Still, FINRA’s May 2014 Investor Alert on HECMs hardly endorses the product. Titled, “Reverse Mortgages: Avoiding a Reversal of Fortune,” its first paragraph says, “As more Americans near retirement age, some financial institutions are aggressively marketing reverse mortgages as an easy, cost-free way for retirees to finance lifestyles—or to pay for risky investments—that can jeopardize their financial futures.”

The alert points out that HECMs can be “quite expensive” and that the HECM loan will come due if the borrower needs to move into a nursing home. It reminds prospective borrowers that “reverse mortgages were originally designed as a tool for allowing aging, low-income homeowners to keep their homes by providing a source of additional monthly income to meet expenses.”

Much of this wariness is grounded in the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which extends back to 1974 and whose enforcement is now under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. RESPA stops anyone without a mortgage license from getting paid in a mortgage transaction. To prevent financial advisors and others from getting finder’s fees for sending clients to mortgage brokers, RESPA specifically “outlaws kickbacks that increase the cost of settlement service.”

‘Type A brokers’

A certain number of planners do say, [reverse mortgages] are better than I thought, but then they ask, ‘How do I make money on this?’” said Michael Banner, founder of the AmericanCEInstitute, which teaches financial advisors about HECMs. “The only legal and ethical answer is: by becoming a licensed mortgage loan officer. No one can make money on any FHA loan, forward or reverse, unless they are properly licensed.”

“If an advisor wanted to get licensed, and licensed with FHA-approved correspondent, they can earn a fee. They would have to take part in the transaction and adhere to the cross-selling law,” he added.

But getting a license may not be as easy as taking an exam. If a certified financial planner (CFP) who is also securities licensed wanted to get a mortgage license, Banner said, he or she might have to get their broker-dealer’s permissions first. And that permission may not be forthcoming.

“The majority of broker-dealers are still against their reps being able to do reverses. They’re afraid that a type-A investment advisor will convince grandma to take a reverse mortgage loan and put the money into the stock market. FINRA knows that many of its 430,000 registered reps want to be the next Gordon Gekko, and it’s afraid that it can’t regulate all of them. Fear of the ‘bad eggs’ stops them from taking the risks that might help the masses.”

Banner is talking about brokers’ inclination to “cross-sell”—that is, to use reverse mortgages simply as a way to fund a product, such as long-term care insurance or a variable annuity, that will pay the broker a large commission. That practice inspired the so-called McCaskill amendment to the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, which specifically outlawed cross-selling. The sponsor was Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri.

A fee-only perspective

Of course, that was several years ago, when the wounds of the financial crisis were still fresh. Changes in the design of HECMs and new regulatory safeguards, such as counseling requirements, are beginning to bring reverse mortgages in from the cold. They appeal to “life-cycle” planners, who prescribe different strategies for different stages in a person’s life, rather than treating the entire lifespan as a wealth-gathering period.

One fee-only life-cycle planner, Paula Hogan, CFP, of Milwaukee-based Hogan Financial, is open to reverse mortgages. In a blogpost last fall titled, “Reverse Mortgages: Yes! Worth a fresh look,” she wrote, “Thanks to some recent and welcome regulatory changes and the continuing low interest rate environment, reverse mortgages are now another tool” in the financial planning tool kit. 

In a recent email, Hogan described some of the precautions that people over 62 should take when considering a reverse mortgage. She noted for instance, that paying upfront settlement costs out of pocket rather than financing them might be wise in some cases, that clients should be prepared for a long and detailed administrative process, that some people prefer to be debt-free in retirement, and that “with aging and dementia research, it’s clear that simplicity for finances in old age has appeal.”

But Hogan, a thought-leader in the fee-only advisor world, believes that some of the new uses for reverse mortgages are valid. “No longer relegated to late-night TV ads, reverse mortgage are becoming mainstream,” her post said. “The traditional use of a reverse mortgage, providing cash when all other retirement wealth has been depleted, is no longer the go-to option. Instead, reverse mortgages are now being used for a range of other planning purposes. We anticipate that many of our clients will want to put a reverse mortgage in place.”

Next Week: Repositioning HECMs for a comeback.

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Case Against Helicopter Money

Despite years of expansionary monetary policy, the European Central Bank has failed to push inflation back up to its target of “below but close to 2%.” The latest measures—a zero interest rate on the ECB’s main refinancing operations, an increase in monthly asset purchases from €60 billion ($67 billion) to €80 billion, and an even lower deposit rate of -0.40%–are unlikely to change this. That is why some economists are urging the ECB to go even further, with so-called “helicopter drops” – that is, financing private consumption by printing money.

The idea of helicopter money dates back to the monetarism debates of the 1960s. A central bank, it was argued, never runs out of options for stimulating aggregate demand and stoking inflation, provided it is willing to resort to radical measures. But what was once a theoretical notion now seems to be a concrete possibility.

In practice, helicopter drops would arrive in the form of lump-sum payments to households or consumption vouchers for everybody, funded exclusively by central banks. Governments or commercial banks distributing the money would be credited with a deposit or be given cash, but no claim would be created on the left-hand side of the central bank’s balance sheet.

This type of single accounting would reduce the central bank’s equity capital, unless it realized (sold) valuation reserves on its balance sheet. Proponents defend this approach by claiming that central banks are subject to special accounting rules that could be adjusted as needed.

The proponents of helicopter drops today include some eminent figures, including former US Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke and Adair Turner, former head of the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority. And while ECB President Mario Draghi has highlighted the technical, legal, and accounting obstacles that stand in the way of helicopter drops by his institution, he has not ruled them out.

The question now is: Is such an extreme step really justified?

The answer is no. While helicopter drops are a viable policy option if deflation is spiraling downward, as it was in the late 1920s and early 1930s, that is not the case today—neither in the eurozone nor in the global economy.

True, demand growth is subdued, reflecting the lingering fallout from the global financial crisis that erupted in 2008. Banks, firms, and households are still cleaning up their balance sheets and working off the heaps of debt they amassed during the credit boom that preceded the bust. But they have already made significant progress, meaning that the drag on growth is set to diminish.

Consumers today are not holding back on spending because they expect goods and services to become cheaper, as one would expect during a period of deflation. Instead, they are gradually increasing their spending, taking advantage of restored income growth and large gains in purchasing power caused by collapsing oil and commodity prices. As a result, most advanced economies are once again producing at close to capacity.

Data on corporate profits also contradict the view that we are mired in deflation. Price stability has not put profit margins under pressure. On the contrary, in many advanced economies, profits are high—even reaching record levels—owing partly to lower input costs.

In this environment, distributing largesse financed by the central bank would have dangerous systemic consequences in the long run, because it would create perverse incentives for everyone involved. Policymakers would be tempted to resort to helicopter money whenever growth was not as strong as they would like, instead of implementing difficult structural reforms that address the underlying causes of weak economic performance.

All of this would raise expectations among financial-market actors that central banks and governments would always step in to smooth out credit bubbles and mitigate their consequences, even if that meant accumulating more debt. These actors’ risk perception would thus be distorted, and the role of risk premiums would be diminished.

Add to that the impact of the depletion of valuation reserves and the risk of negative equity—developments that could undermine the credibility of central banks and thus of currencies—and it seems clear that helicopter drops should, at least for now, remain firmly in the realm of academic debate.

© 2016 Project Syndicate.

 

We’re 10X Too Fearful of a Crash: Shiller

Humans are notorious for exaggerating the risk of catastrophic but rare events. A well-known Nobel Prize-winning economist calculates that, on average, investors worry about big stock market crashes about 10 times more than their actual frequency would warrant. He blames the news media and evolutionary biology.    

Since 1989, that economist, Robert Shiller of Yale, has overseen the distribution of regular surveys to 300 high net worth individuals and institutional investors chosen scientifically by a market survey firm.

Among other things, respondents are asked to estimate the probability that a 10% to 20% drop in equity prices will occur during the next six months. Shiller uses the responses to calculate his Stock Market Confidence Indices.

Shiller, who wrote the books “Irrational Exuberance” and “Animal Spirits,” about market mania, also used the data in a new working paper, “Crash Beliefs from Investor Surveys,” where he and co-authors William N. Goetzmann and Dasol Kim explore possible reasons why the stock market is always “climbing a wall of worry.”    

At a six-month time horizon, the actual likelihood of an extreme crash like the one that ended the Roaring Twenties or that interrupted the cocaine- and junk bond-fueled 1980s, Shiller found, is only about 1.7%. That’s if you look at the trading days between October 23, 1929 and December 31, 1988. If you look at the entire history of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the probability drops to about one percent. A far cry from the 10% to 20% estimates in the Shiller surveys.

“We find evidence that the average, subjective probability of an extreme, one-day crash on the scale of 1987 or 1929 [i.e. greater than 12.82%] to be an order of magnitude larger than would be implied by the historical frequency of such events in the U.S. market. Over the 1989-2015 period, the mean and median probability assessments of a one-day crash were 19% and 10%, respectively,” the paper says. (An “order of magnitude” is a factor of ten. Two orders of magnitude would be a factor of one hundred.)

Shiller, like other researchers before him, suspected the media might be to blame, because of the way it trumpets bad financial news and treats good financial news with relative indifference. So he searched for correlations between bad market news and his survey results.

It turned out that when the market had a bad day, the press tended to emphasize it, and the negative press was correlated with pessimism expressed in Shiller’s surveys among by individual investors. “We find evidence that investors use recent market performance to estimate probabilities about a crash,” the paper said. “We also find that the press makes negative market returns relatively more salient and this is associated with individual investor probability assessments of a crash.” Institutional investors, not surprisingly, the data showed, were less moved by the news that individual investors.

Consistent with the triage standard (“if-it-bleeds-it-leads”) in news placement, the researchers found that negative financial news was more likely than positive financial news to get front-page treatment. “It is also consistent with negative news being potentially more relevant to investors than positive news. There is considerable evidence that negative news garners more attention and reflection,” the researchers wrote.

From the perspective of evolutionary biology, that made sense. Danger demands immediate attention. “Both animals and humans are conditioned to give stronger weight to negative things, experiences and events. Negative experiences engage greater cognitive effort, have greater influence in evaluations, are more likely to be taken as valid, increase arousal, and enhance the memory and comprehension of the event,” the paper said.

The researchers believed that their results had important implications for investors. Normal market volatility, coupled with the media’s tendency to catastrophize, might discourage people from investing in equities and hurting their returns, drive up the demand for insurance against market downturns, and help raise the “equity premium”—the higher average annual returns that equities have historically offered relative to bonds. Without expectations of that higher return, investors would have no reason to take the risks associated with investing in stocks.  

It’s a slightly ironic finding, especially if you consider that one of the supposed lessons of the 2008 financial crisis was that risk tails are “fatter,” and so-called black swan events much more common, than our historically-driven economic models are able to predict.

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Integrity Life enhances popular Indextra indexed annuity

Integrity Life Insurance Co. has enhanced Indextra, a single-premium fixed indexed annuity, according to W&S Financial Group Distributors, Inc., wholesale distributor of annuities and life insurance from companies in Western & Southern Financial Group.

Indextra owners can now use one- and two-year point-to-point allocation options associated with the Goldman Sachs’ GS Momentum Builder Multi-Asset Class (GSMAC) Index. Indextra continues to offer a three-year point-to-point allocation option with the GSMAC Index.

In a release, Mark E. Caner, president of W&S Financial Group Distributors, said that the enhancements came after “consistent requests for additional interest crediting periods” associated with the Goldman Sachs designed index. “Financial representatives now can offer their clients shorter terms that credit interest, as well as ladder multiple terms of varying lengths.”

The GSMAC Index uses a volatility-control design that “aims to minimize swings in the index and smooth returns in both falling and rising markets,” the release said. There is no interest rate cap or interest spread fee on the GSMAC index because none is necessary—a performance “governor” is built into the index and limits the issuer’s liability under the contract.

Caner said that about 80% of the premium flow into Indextra goes to the Goldman index options. Launched Sept. 29, 2014, Indextra has garnered sales to date of more than $800 million, making it the most successful first-year product debut in W&S Financial Group Distributors history.  

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.