Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

“I’m delaying Social Security until age 70. How do I pay for Medicare before then?”

Q. If I enroll in Medicare Part B when I turn 65 but delay taking Social Security benefits until age 70, how do I pay for Medicare in the meantime? Aren’t Medicare premiums typically deducted from Social Security benefits?

A. You can pay your Part B premiums by check or electronically, according to a Social Security Administration spokesperson. After you enroll in Medicare, you’ll get a bill for your premiums every three months. The bill will include an address telling you where to send the payments. You can mail Uncle Sam a check, or you can automatically transfer the payment from your bank or other financial institution. When you start receiving your Social Security benefits, the government will automatically deduct the Medicare Part B premium from your monthly payments.

© RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Exodus from U.S. equity funds continues in July

Investors withdrew $11.4 bn from U.S. equity funds in July, according to Morningstar’s monthly report on mutual fund asset flows. It was the third consecutive month of outflows, following net withdrawals of $8.3 bn in June and $6.9 bn in May.  

Overall flows into long-term mutual funds remained positive in July at $14.4 billion, but this total is noticeably lower than in recent months. Morningstar estimates net flow by computing the change in assets not explained by the performance of the fund. 

Other highlights from the report were:

  • Taxable-bond funds continued to see strong inflows despite declining interest rates. For the past three months, taxable-bond funds have seen the greatest inflows among all category groups.
  • Despite the strong month for the taxable-bond category group overall, high-yield bond funds saw outflows of $7.9 bn in July after much milder redemptions of $466 million in June and inflows of more than $1.2 bn in each of the previous months of this year except January. Bank-loan funds also saw sizeable outflows of $1.9 billion.
  • Even though U.S. equity funds saw outflows, Vanguard Total Stock Market Index, Vanguard Institutional Index, and Vanguard Total International Stock Index recorded July inflows of $2.6 bn, $2.2 bn, and$1.8 bn, respectively.
  • With four of the five top-flowing funds for the month, Vanguard topped all providers in terms of July inflows, while Fidelity suffered the greatest provider-level outflows as a result of large redemptions from two of its flagship active U.S. equity funds.
  • Passive funds continued to dominate, collecting $14.1 bn in July compared with inflows of $0.3 bn for active funds.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Talk exceeds progress on state-run private retirement plans

Six states have considered legislation this year that would create state-run individual retirement accounts for private-sector workers, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In the past, a handful of other states have passed laws to assess the costs and benefits of offering state-run retirement plans for private-sector workers who don’t have access to them at work. So far no state has such a plan, but California and Massachusetts are close.

About half of U.S. workers do not have access to a 401(k) or other types of retirement plans. Workers without access can open personal IRAs, but backers of state-run plans say people want the convenience of a workplace savings option. 

Advocates say the state legislatures are the best place to address this issue. Despite the recent announcement of the federal “MyRA” savings plan, the National Institute on Retirement Security maintains that a uniform federal solution may not be ideal, because the states’ private-sector workforces are at different levels of retirement readiness.

“New York is not going to have the same need as Alabama,” said Hank Kim, executive director and counsel for the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems (NCPERS), in a press release. “Let the politics and needs of each state dictate how they address retirement security.”

NCPERS’ model plan for the states, the Secure Choice Pension, is a defined benefit cash balance plan where workers’ retirement savings would be reported like a 401(k) balance. The plan would be fully portable. 

California is the closest to implementing a state-run plan. In 2012, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law requiring all private-sector businesses with five or more employees that do not offer a retirement plan to automatically enroll workers into the plan via existing payroll deduction systems. The system startup hinges on a market and feasibility study that is due at the end of the year.

Some observers think states should stay out of the retirement business for private workers. In Connecticut, where a task force is studying the concept, the business community argued that a state-run plan could compete with private plan providers and create headaches for business owners. Oregon is also studying the idea. A 2013 study from AARP showed that half of Oregonians ages 45 and older don’t have retirement plans through a previous employer.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Bucket

DB pension funded status declines in July: Milliman

In July, the 100 largest defined benefit pension plans sponsored by U.S. public companies fell by $5 billion in funded status, the result of a $3 billion decrease in liabilities and an $8 billion decline in asset value, according to Milliman Inc.’s Pension Funding Index. 

“For months it’s been interest rates driving up the deficit, but in July the rates cooperated and it was instead poor financial market performance negatively impacting funded status,” said John Ehrhardt, co-author of the Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index. “We’ve seen the deficit increase by more than $70 billion so far in 2014.”

This month’s study includes perspective on how the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 (HATFA) may affect pension contributions next year.

If the Milliman 100 pension plans achieved the expected 7.4% median asset return for their pension portfolios, and if the current discount rate of 4.10% were maintained, funded status would improve, with the funded status deficit shrinking to $237 billion (86.1% funded ratio) by the end of 2014 and to $202 billion (88.2% funded ratio) by the end of 2015.

To view the complete study, go to http://us.milliman.com/pfi/. 

New York Life receives highest strength rating from Fitch

Fitch Ratings has affirmed New York Life Insurance Company’s (New York Life) Insurer Financial Strength (IFS) rating at ‘AAA’, the highest rating. Fitch has also affirmed all other ratings assigned to New York Life and certain subsidiaries.  The rating outlook is Stable.

In explaining the rating, Fitch cited New York Life’s “leading market position, extremely strong capitalization, and solid operating profile with favorable risk-adjusted profitability. The ratings also consider the company’s above-average exposure to risky assets and ongoing challenges related to the protracted low interest rate environment.”

The mutual insurer has a leading position in the U.S. life insurance and annuity markets, diversified business mix, and low-risk product strategy, Fitch said in a release. Key competitive strengths included a strong brand name, well-established market positions, effective career distribution system, and predictable cash flows from individual participating whole life insurance, income and market value-adjusted annuities, and variable annuities without aggressive living benefit guarantees.

Fitch noted that New York Life expanded its statutory surplus by 10% to $21.5 billion at year-end 2013, largely driven by earnings and unrealized investment gains during the year. Fitch estimated the insurer’s NAIC risk-based capital (RBC) ratio of 578% as of March 31, 2014. New York Life’s financial leverage, defined as surplus notes to total adjusted capital (TAC), remains low at 9.3% at year-end 2013.

New York Life reported higher operating earnings in 2013, partially due to greater asset-based fees driven by favorable capital market performance and sales activity, which was somewhat offset by modest spread compression in interest rate-sensitive business. Fitch believes that New York Life’s exposure to potential economic headwinds and the low interest rate environment is manageable.

New York Life’s risky assets ratio (measured by below investment-grade bonds, common stocks, schedule BA other invested assets, and troubled real estate as a percentage of total adjusted capital) remained above industry average at 120% as of March 31, 2014. The company’s asset-liability management strategy matches a diversified portfolio of limited partnerships and other private equity investments with participating business lines. New York Life’s well-diversified, liquid investment portfolio continues to perform well with minimal credit-related impairments in 2013.

Hedge fund assets reach six-year high in June

The hedge fund industry took in $7.7 billion (0.3% of assets) in June, down from $19.1 billion (0.8% of assets) in May, according to BarclayHedge and TrimTabs Investment Research.

“First-half inflows to hedge funds this year totaled $82.5 billion (3.8% of assets), the most since 2007,” said Sol Waksman, president and founder of BarclayHedge. The industry took in $26.8 billion (1.5% of assets) in the first half of 2013.

Industry assets climbed to a six-year high of $2.35 trillion in June, according to estimates based on data from 3,441 funds.  Assets rose 21.0% in the past 12 months but were down 3.6% from the all-time high of $2.4 trillion in June 2008.

The hedge fund industry gained 1.4% in June, according to the monthly TrimTabs/BarclayHedge  Hedge Fund Flow Report. While this performance was the best in four months, it was less than the S&P 500’s 2.1% gain.  In the past 12 months, hedge funds returned 10.8%, while the S&P 500 gained 24.6%.

“Equity Long-Only funds had the best returns in June, gaining 3.4% and outperforming all other fund categories,” said Waksman, who also noted that Convertible Arbitrage funds fared worst, edging up 0.4%.

The monthly TrimTabs/BarclayHedge Survey of Hedge Fund Managers finds hedge fund managers narrowly divided on the short-term prospects for U.S. equities. July’s survey found 37.2% of respondents were bullish on the S&P 500 over the next 30 days, while 34.6% were bearish.  Optimism on the U.S. Dollar Index rose to a two-year high, while bullish sentiment on gold hit a five-month high.  The proportion of managers expecting crude oil prices to rise dropped to the lowest level in six months.

Liquid-alts option created for qualified plans

Alta Trust Co. and ETF Model Solutions LLC have collaborated to launch the Endowment Collective Fund (CUSIP: 26923F105), an investment option for the defined contribution market.

The Endowment Collective Investment Fund (CIF) is designed to give qualified plan participants exposure to “liquid alts”—exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that hold private equity, hedge strategies, real assets and other alternative assets. Its current allocation is 40% global equity, 20% global fixed income and 40% liquid alternatives.

CIFs are pooled investment funds available only to qualified retirement plans. They are regulated by state and federal organizations, such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Like mutual funds, CIFs are priced daily through the NSCC. 

The Endowment CIF is intended to improve on target date or balanced funds in four ways:

  • Added protection for the plan sponsor; both the trustee and the manager of the CIF serve in a fiduciary capacity;
  • Lower portfolio volatility than portfolios with greater equity allocations due to its hedge strategy holdings;
  • Protection from inflation due a greater allocation to real assets, such as commodities, precious metals, real estate and infrastructure investments; and,
  • Lower interest rate risk due to a smaller allocation to fixed income investments.

The Endowment CIF uses a core-satellite portfolio construction. Low-cost, cap-weighted equity and fixed income ETFs comprise the core allocation of the asset class. Fundamentally weighted funds are used to pursue alpha.  

Alta Trust maintains selling agreements with most major retirement plan platforms. Plan advisors can offer the Endowment CIF to their plan sponsor clients through their existing platform relationships. Plan sponsors can add the Endowment CIF to their plans through a simple participation agreement, while maintaining their current investment options as well as their existing advisor/TPA/recordkeeping relationships.

ETF Model Solutions LLC is a third-party ETF strategist specializing in customizable ETF-based asset allocation models. Alta Trust (Fund Trustee) acts as trustee for collective investment funds and provides daily oversight of fund trading activity and accounting as well as annual auditing for qualified plans. 

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

AllianceBernstein launches fiduciary-minded TDFs

AllianceBernstein is launching a new series of target date funds called “AllianceBernstein Multi-Manager Select Retirement Funds,” the $480 billion asset manager announced this week.

Craig Lombardi, head of AllianceBernstein’s DCIO (defined contribution investment-only) business, told RIJ that the new series was designed to fit plan sponsors’ demands for funds and fund structures that meet rising fiduciary standards—standards that have been heightened by Department of Labor initiatives and class action lawsuits against plan sponsors.

According to a AllianceBernstein release, the development of the multi-manager series “addresses issues that the U.S. Department of Labor (DoL) has identified in its ‘Tips for ERISA Plan Fiduciaries,’ noting that non-proprietary target-date funds could offer advantages to plan participants by diversifying their exposure to investment providers.”

The all-in costs of each fund will be 65 to 90 basis points and AllianceBernstein will market them mainly to small and mid-sized plans. The funds are expected to be available for purchase by early November 2014.

Co-managed with Morningstar Associates, LLC, the registered investment advisor unit of Morningstar, Inc., the series will invest in funds managed by AQR, Franklin Templeton, MFS, PIMCO and others, in addition to AllianceBernstein.

“Our question was, what’s the next stage in the evolution of target date funds? After talking to advisers and plan sponsors, we decided that ‘2.0’ in TDFs will be a multi-manager concept” as opposed to proprietary funds managed by a single firm, Lombardi told RIJ in an interview this week.

To help ensure objectivity, AllianceBernstein will serve as general manager of each TDF but rely on Morningstar to choose the sub-managers. “Morningstar will have full discretion over the selection of the managers of the underlying funds,” he added. “The funds will have our expertise on glide path design. We’ll be able to dynamically de-risk or re-risk, in order to get better outcomes through good or bad markets.”

AllianceBernstein will market its new series mainly to small and mid-sized firms rather than the already crowded large-plan market, which is dominated by the three big proprietary TDF managers, Vanguard, Fidelity and T. Rowe Price.

“We already manage more than $21 billion in custom target-date portfolios for large defined contribution plans and we will continue to design offerings for plans of all sizes that assist sponsors and their advisors with their evolving needs,” said Richard Davies, head of defined contribution and co-head of North America Institutional at AllianceBernstein, in a statement.

To meet plan sponsors’ concerns about fund fees, the new series will include the least expensive fund class, Lombardi said. “We tried to price this product line at a slight premium over the large proprietary active TDF managers—such as Fidelity Freedom funds—but at a slight discount to competing multi-manager funds,” Lombardi told RIJ.

He noted that AllianceBernstein hopes to capture up to two percent of the $1.7 trillion TDF market with its new series, which would be $34 billion. The multi-manager series will run parallel to AllianceBernstein’s existing Retirement Strategies series of TDFs, he said.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Fidelity settles suit for $12 million, revises its own 401(k) plan

Fidelity has settled two lawsuits filed last year by its own employees over allegations that they violated ERISA in the administration of their own 401(k) plan by charging excessive fees and committing prohibited transactions.

The motion for settlement filed in Bilewicz v. FMR LLC and in Yeaw v. FMR LLC and the accompanying settlement agreement provides for $12 million to be paid to the class and for the plan to make available a wide selection of both Fidelity and non-Fidelity mutual funds.

“Fidelity’s settlement of this case is somewhat surprising as [the firm has] typically vigorously defended itself in other excessive fee litigation. On the other hand, no substantive decisions had yet been made in the case and the cost of litigating this case through summary judgment had their motion to dismiss been denied, would likely have been multiples of the $12 million paid to settle the case,” wrote Thomas E. Clark of FRA PlanTools on his blog

“For plan sponsors that have Fidelity, the affirmative relief should be of particular interest, as it may serve as a road map of what kind of services are considered best in class when provided by Fidelity (such as K share classes or offering funds from multiple families).”

Fidelity’s plan will continue to offer the Fidelity Freedom Funds–Class K as the qualified default investment alternative and Fidelity’s portfolio advisory service, Portfolio Advisory Services at Work (PAS-W), as a free source of guidance.    

For eligible employees, Fidelity is increasing the contribution rate upon auto-enrollment to 7% from 3% of eligible compensation, and will default current participants who are currently deferring less than 7% to 7% of eligible compensation. Fidelity will apply its match to those increased contributions.

The Plan shall provide that revenue sharing attributable to non-Fidelity mutual funds shall be credited to participants in the same way as revenue attributable to Fidelity mutual funds and collective trusts pursuant to the 8th amendment to the 2005 restatement of the Plan is credited to participants. This revision to the Plan shall remain in effect for at least three years.

The lawyers representing the plaintiffs have been appointed as class counsel for the purposes of settlement and will be filing a motion for attorney’s fees at a later time. The amount they will be requesting was not disclosed in the settlement agreement.

Each named plaintiff has asked for a specific request of $5,000 for their work in bringing the case. In exchange for the monetary payment and affirmative relief, the plaintiffs have agreed to an extensive release of claims related to the allegations in the complaint.

However, the claims against Fidelity regarding float interest in “In re Fidelity ERISA Float Litigation” have specifically been carved out and that case will continue to move forward.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Denmark’s ATP pension switches to 15-year guarantee

The Danish statutory pension fund ATP is shortening the length of its return guarantees on pension contributions to 15 years to increase its investment flexibility and therefore the potential pensions it pays out, IPE.com reported. The new regime starts January 2015.

ATP manages Denmark’s workplace-based pension, which supplements the basic state pension. Contributions to the plan finance a lifetime income rather than a lump sum at retirement, with payments based on a guaranteed rate of return.  

“The purpose of the current adjustment is to better safeguard the purchasing power of pensions, while taking the lower liquidity [of long-dated bonds] into account,” said ATP chief executive Carsten Stendevad.

ATP took the step largely to decrease the interest-rate sensitivity for young members, he said. Today’s 20-year-old plan members, for example, are highly dependent on the initial return guarantees they are given. All existing guarantees will remain unchanged, and the change will apply only to new contribution payments, affecting members born in 1964 or later, ATP said.

While current guarantees set a return for as long as 80 years, under the new system, each year’s contribution will be guaranteed a certain return for 15 years, based on prevailing interest rates.

When this 15-year period ends, that year’s contribution will be guaranteed a return for another 15 years, again set at the latest market interest rate, and so on until retirement.

From the participant’s point of view, the guarantee will only increase, and never decrease, ATP said.

This is because the initial 15-year guarantee assumes a zero rate of return following that 15-year period, whereas in reality that portion of the pension will then grow at the rate set under a subsequent guarantee.

Under this new method, ATP members technically have a very low level of guaranteed lifelong pension income at the beginning, but are given a prognosis of the amount their eventual pension is expected to be under subsequent 15-year return guarantees.

By promising scheme members a rate of return on their contributions that is only fixed for 15 years at a time, ATP reasons it will be able to get higher returns with lower costs because it will have a wider variety of financial instruments to choose from to hedge those promises than is the case now. This is because liquidity at the long-end of the yield curve is much lower than it is around the 15-year mark.

“Giving a guarantee for 80 years forces us to the longest end of the curve where liquidity has been falling,” Stendevad said. “Here, it gets us to the point of the curve where it’s more liquid.”

Apart from this, interest-rate derivatives, which are used for hedging, have become more expensive at longer maturities of 40 years, for example, and are expected to become still more costly in the future, according to ATP.

Stendevad said the most important aspect of the change was that it helped scheme members because it was more reflective of the actual level of interest rates over the years, while for ATP as an investor, the move provided more investment flexibility.

ATP said it would still hedge the new guarantees fully, but that the interest-rate sensitivity of these guarantees would be considerably lower than that of the current guarantees.

The change should be seen in the context of the new discount yield curve ATP implemented last autumn to value its existing pension liabilities, the pension fund said.

It said this had reduced the interest-rate sensitivity of existing guarantees by 25%.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Many participants would prefer bigger match, lower pay

If the choice were offered, 43% of workers would accept lower take-home pay in exchange for a bigger employer contribution to their 401(k), a Fidelity Investments survey showed. Only 13% of those surveyed said they would take a job with no company match, even if it came with a higher pay level.

Employer contributions represent more than 35% of the total contributions on average to an employee’s workplace savings account, Fidelity said in a release. The giant retirement plan provider recommends a total retirement saving rate of 10% to 15% of salary.

According to the study, 42% of those surveyed are not saving outside of their 401(k). Fidelity recommends that individuals save enough to replace 85% of their net final pay, and more than half of that income is expected to come from personal savings.

Current Fidelity 401(k) data on almost 13 million plan participants show that 79% of workplace savings plans offer an employer match or profit-sharing. As of June 30, 2014, the average employer contribution was 4.3%, and employers contribute an average of $3,540 per employee annually, which is more than $1,000 higher than the average employer contribution 10 years ago.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Bucket

Inertia continues to dominate 401(k) behavior: TIAA-CREF

Over one-third of Americans who contribute to an employer-sponsored retirement plan (36%) have never increased the percentage of salary that they contribute to their company’s plan, according to a new TIAA-CREF survey of 1,000 adults nationwide.

An additional 26% of workers have not increased their contribution in more than a year. According to TIAA-CREF, these findings, coupled with the fact that 44% of American employees save 10% or less of their annual income, indicate that many employees could improve their retirement readiness by regularly upping their contribution rate.

The survey found that more than half (53%) of employees with company retirement plans were not automatically enrolled in their companies’ plans. About 37% of respondents who were not automatically enrolled in a plan reported waiting six months or longer to enroll, and one in four employees (24%) waited a year or more.

The survey also found 57% of workers did not increase their plan contribution after their last raise, usually citing the need to pay pressing bills. One-quarter (25%) of respondents say they did not increase their contributions after their last raise because they were already contributing the maximum amount to their retirement plan, although men (33%) were nearly twice as likely as women (17%) to be contributing the maximum amount allowed.

Millennials (ages 18-34) were more likely than any other age group to increase savings after a raise (52%). Of those Millennials who did not increase savings after a raise, 23% did not do so because they were already contributing the maximum.

In other findings:

  • One-quarter (25%) of workers have never changed to the way their money is invested.
  • 28% have not changed to how their money is invested in more than one year.
  • Millennials were much more likely to have changed how their money was invested in the past year than those 35 and older (59% vs. 42%).
  • One-third (34%) of those age 55 and older say they have never changed the way their money is invested; they are less likely to have taken the steps necessary to transition from saving to generating lifetime income.  

 

Jackson reports 20% higher income in first half of 2014

Jackson National Life generated a record $1.1 billion in IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) pretax operating income during the first half of 2014, an increase of 20% percent over the first half of 2013, a subsidiary of Prudential plc announced.

The increase was driven by higher fee income on higher separate account assets under management (AUM), both of which were driven by strong net flows and positive market appreciation during the first half of 2014. Jackson recorded sales and deposits for the first half of $15.9 billion, up 16% over same period last year.

“This excellent first-half performance allowed Jackson to remit a $580 million dividend to our parent company while maintaining a strong capital position,” said Mike Wells, Jackson president and CEO, in a statement. As of August 11, 2014, Jackson had the following financial strength ratings:

  • A+ (superior) — A.M. Best (second-highest of 16 rating categories);
  • AA (very strong) — Standard & Poor’s (third-highest of 21 rating categories);
  • AA (very strong) — Fitch Ratings (third-highest of 19 rating categories);
  • A1 (good) — Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (fifth-highest of 21 rating categories).

 

BNY Mellon promotes Michael Gordon

BNY Mellon, a global leader in investment management and investment services, has named Michael Gordon to head its new Retirement and Strategic Solutions group.  This unit is dedicated to meeting current retirement needs, anticipating next-generation needs and developing customized, comprehensive and transformational investment solutions for its clients.   

Most recently, Gordon was Managing Director of Non-Traditional Solutions and Special Situations for BNY Mellon Investment Management.  In that role, he led and will continue to lead the Home Equity Retirement Solutions business, which plans to purchase, securitize and service reverse mortgages and provide advisory services to brokers, financial advisors and asset managers on how reverse mortgages fit into retirement planning. 

Prior to BNY Mellon, Gordon was an executive at New York Life Insurance Company, leading investment and insurance product management, actuarial/liability pricing, asset-liability matching, product/platform development and sales and marketing functions. Gordon will report to Mustin. 

Prudential executes fourth longevity reinsurance transaction

Prudential Retirement, a business unit of Prudential Financial Inc., today announced a longevity reinsurance transaction with Rothesay Life Limited and its affiliates. Under the terms of this new transaction, Prudential will provide reinsurance of longevity risk to Rothesay Assurance Limited for a block of 93 pension schemes. The transaction covers pension liabilities of $1.7 billion (approximately equal to 1 billion Pounds Sterling) for 20,000 pensioners and deferred members in the U.K.

This is the second longevity reinsurance transaction that Prudential has closed in the past month, following its groundbreaking agreement to reinsure $27.7 billion of longevity risk associated with BT Pension Scheme liabilities, and its fourth longevity reinsurance transaction since 2011.

Rothesay Life is an insurance company established in the U.K. Rothesay Life provides annuity and other longevity products to corporate defined benefit pension plans, tailored to meet the specific needs of corporate sponsors, trustees and pension plan members. Rothesay Life is authorized and regulated by the U.K.’s Prudential Regulation Authority.

Reinsurance contracts are issued by Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (PRIAC), Hartford, CT 06103. PRIAC is not a U.K. authorized insurer and does not conduct business in the United Kingdom or provide direct insurance to any individual or entity therein. Prudential Financial, Inc. of the United States is not affiliated with Prudential plc, which is headquartered in the United Kingdom.

MetLife enhances life insurance portfolio

MetLife said that it is enhancing its life insurance portfolio by reducing rates on its Guaranteed Level Term product. Guaranteed Level Term is a fully underwritten policy. Clients who purchase it can convert to any of MetLife’s permanent policies at a later date.

“MetLife is committed to ensuring that consumers have access to the life insurance coverage they need,” said Gene Lunman, senior vice president of Retail Life and Disability Insurance Products at MetLife. “By continually evaluating our life insurance portfolio, we are able to evolve our product offerings to help consumers protect themselves and their families, and provide financial professionals with products that can meet the needs of a wide array of customers.”

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Forethought launches two new FIAs

Forethought Life, a unit of Global Atlantic Financial Group Ltd., a spinoff from Goldman Sachs, has issued two new fixed index annuities for broker-dealer distribution, the Indianapolis-based insurance company said in a release.

One of the new index annuity products, ForeAccumulation, is designed for clients seeking savings potential and protection while the second, ForeIncome, offers a guaranteed lifetime income stream for retirement.

The insurer now offers fixed index annuities, fixed annuities and a fixed annuity with long-term care benefits through multiple distribution networks, as well as variable annuities sold exclusively through broker-dealers.

The two new FIAs are the company’s first index annuities designed exclusively for broker-dealers, which have been selling increasing amounts of FIAs in the past year. Index annuities now account for 17% of annuity sales, according to LIMRA.

“With these new offerings, we have combined our experience in the index annuity market with our strong partnerships with broker-dealers and their advisors,” said Paula Nelson, head of Forethought’s annuity distribution. “These products address specific retiree concerns while fitting the unique needs of our broker-dealer partners.”

Index annuities offer the opportunity to earn tax-deferred interest based in part on the positive movement of an equity index, with zero percent credited in negative years.  

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

New report assesses future of ‘liquid alts’

U.S. alternative mutual fund assets are expected to double their share of total mutual fund assets, according to new proprietary research from global analytics firm Cerulli Associates.

“Alternative assets are expected to grow with robust momentum, and double their share of total mutual fund assets in the next two years,” said Michele Giuditta, associate director at Cerulli, in a release.

The research is contained in a new Cerulli report, “Alternative Products and Strategies 2014: Identifying Opportunities in a Dynamic Investment Landscape,” a sourcebook focused on the U.S. retail and institutional alternative product landscape, including distribution and product development trends.

“As of year-end 2013, alternative mutual fund assets made up just 3% of total mutual fund assets, and asset managers expect this to grow to 6% by 2015,” Giuditta said.

“Steady growth of alternative mutual fund use is expected by advisors and individuals in the years to come,” Giuditta said. “Current allocations are well below target levels, so there is an opportunity for investment managers to raise assets.”

As asset managers and advisors continue their efforts to close the educational gap that currently exists with alternative products and strategies, Cerulli concurs that alternative assets’ share of total mutual fund assets will grow with solid momentum.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Two new annuity contracts from Midland National

Midland National Life has issued a new fixed indexed annuity and enhanced its LiveWell variable annuity with new investment options, Sammons Retirement Solutions Inc. announced this week.

Joining the trend toward marketing variable annuities primarily as tax deferral vehicles, Midland National Life has added new fund options and made other changes to the  LiveWell VA, the Sammons release said.

Midland National Life has also issued a new fixed indexed annuity contract, the LiveWell Fixed Index Annuity (FIA), with a lifetime income rider that can be turned on and off, Sammons Retirement Solutions Inc. announced this week.

For an annual fee of 85 basis points, the income rider offers an 8% simple rollup until it doubles and lifetime payments of 5% at age 65.

Owners of the LiveWell VA can reduce their annual separate account annual expenses to 1.15% from 1.35% if they give up some liquidity and accept a surrender schedule. The contract also offers an optional return of premium death benefit.

The addition of American Funds, Alps, Oppenheimer Funds and Transparent Value gives the LiveWell VA more than 135 investment options from 28 money managers. The minimum investment is $10,000. The product is available for non-qualified and qualified assets.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Inequality Reduces GDP: S&P

Only months after the inequality debate sparked by Thomas Piketty’s book, “Capital,” the chief economist at Standard & Poor’s has weighed in with a new, much briefer critique of inequality called, “How Increasing Income Inequality is Dampening U.S. Economic Growth, and Possible Ways to Change the Tide.” 

The report suggests that an extra year of education, on average, for the American workforce would boost productivity enough to add significantly to GDP.

According to the report:

  • At extreme levels, income inequality can harm sustained economic growth over long periods. The U.S. is approaching that threshold.
  • Standard & Poor’s sees extreme income inequality as a drag on long-run economic growth. We’ve reduced our 10-year U.S. growth forecast to 2.5% from 2.8% five years ago.
  • With wages of a college graduate double that of a high school graduate, increasing educational attainment is an effective way to bring income inequality back to healthy levels.
  • It also helps the U.S economy. Over the next five years, if the American workforce completed just one more year of school, the resulting productivity gains could add about $525 billion, or 2.4%, to the level of GDP, relative to the baseline.
  • A cautious approach to reducing inequality would benefit the economy, but extreme policy measures could backfire.

“Aside from the extreme economic swings, … income imbalances tend to dampen social mobility and produce a less-educated workforce that can’t compete in a changing global economy. This diminishes future income prospects and potential long-term growth, becoming entrenched as political repercussions extend the problems,” the report said.

“Alternatively, if we added another year of education to the American workforce from 2014 to 2019, in line with education levels increasing at the rate of educational achievement seen from 1960 to 1965, U.S. potential GDP would likely be $525 billion, or 2.4% higher in five years, than in the baseline. If education levels were increasing at the rate they were 15 years ago, the level of potential GDP would be 1%, or $185 billion higher in five years.

“Our review of the data, [and] a wealth of research on this matter, leads us to conclude that the current level of income inequality in the U.S. is dampening GDP growth, at a time when the world’s biggest economy is struggling to recover from the Great Recession and the government is in need of funds to support an aging population.”

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Flight from DC plans could roil Polish markets

About seven out of eight workers in Poland with 10 or more years until retirement would rather direct their payroll deferrals to the Polish Social Insurance Institution (ZUS), which is like our Social Security program, than to the twelve “second pillar” national defined contribution plans (OFE), IPE.com reported.

Of the 14 million workers with 10+ years until retirement who were allowed to opt out or stay in the DC plans, only 12% (1.75 million) chose to stay in—well below the 20% predicted by the Polish government.

Some 16.7 million participants had been contributing 2.92% of their gross wages to the plans, so inflows are expected to drop substantially. In the first six months of 2014 alone, according to the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF), contributions totaled PLN6bn (€1.5bn or about $2 billion), boosting OFE net assets to PLN153bn.

Polish pension reforms, signed into law in January 2014, made the formerly mandatory second pillar DC plan voluntary. Because higher-paid workers have been more likely to choose the second pillar than low-wage workers, the share of contributions could reach 15-17%, said Paweł Cymcyk, investment communication manager at ING IM Poland.

All Polish state and state-guaranteed bonds were moved from the DC plans to the first pillar pension last February, lowering net assets by 48% in a single month. The next asset shrinkage starts in October. Under the so-called ‘slider’, the funds have to transfer the relevant proportion of all the assets of members with 10 or fewer years left until retirement to ZUS, which under the new law takes responsibility for second-pillar, as well as first-pillar, payouts.

A total of about PLN4.2bn is expected to flow into the first pillar fund this year. The second pillar funds are expected to liquidate equity holdings to fund the transfers. This could hurt the Warsaw Stock Exchange, where pension funds account for a big share of trading and capitalization. Small-cap stocks are particularly at risk because of their low turnover, said Cymcyk.

“If there is a significant small-cap sell-off, their prices will go down,” he warned.The next decision window is in 2016, and every four years thereafter, by which time it is unlikely many of the 12 OFEs will be around.

“We predict around half that number through mergers and acquisitions,” Cymcyk told IPE. With no way to increase assets, only the bigger ones, with economies of scale, are likely to be able to generate the profits and the results to keep their clients.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Anatomy of a Success: Elite Access

The story behind Jackson National Life’s success with the Elite Access variable annuity contract is an interesting one. It’s a business strategy story in which a quiet, foreign-owned life insurer created not just a top-selling new product but also a new product category, and injected much-needed new energy into a flagging industry.

Launched in March 2012, Elite Access B was ranked fifth in sales among all VA contracts in the U.S. at the end of the first quarter of this year. Now attracting over $1 billion in premia every quarter, it’s the dominant contract in the so-called “investment only” segment of the VA market.

The contract started out as a way to leverage the growing interest in “liquid alts,” to give retail investors a convenient, tax-efficient way to get exposure to institutional-style assets like commodities, hedge funds and long/short strategies through actively managed mutual funds. Since then, Elite Access has been repositioned as a versatile, one-stop platform for investing in a volatile market where alts, not bonds, are expected to be the best diversifiers of equity risk.

We were curious about the effort and the strategy behind this successful launch. So we started calling broker-dealers and advisers who have and haven’t sold Elite Access, including a few who were flown to Jackson’s Denver headquarters for all-day immersions in the benefits of Elite Access. We also talked to the heads of annuity sales and of overall marketing at Jackson, which is a unit of UK insurance giant Prudential plc.

Jackson evidently put everything it could into making Elite Access a blockbuster. To differentiate the product and broaden its appeal to VA-hating advisers, it created a dedicated new web portal for hired actor/economist Ben Stein to make droll, disarming videos about the product, and brought in an artist from Disney to illustrate them. It created the usual tools and white papers and webinars, but at a new, intensified level.

The company even inflected its corporate culture. It hired client portfolio managers from asset management firms. It required hundreds of internal and external wholesalers to get Certified Fund Manager designations. On the one hand, it was still supporting and selling billions of dollars a quarter of its lifetime income-oriented VAs. But it wanted to look and sound less like a life insurance company and more like an asset manager.

Alts to the people

For those not familiar with Elite Access, it’s an accumulation-oriented (as opposed to income-oriented) variable annuity contract that makes it easy for retail investors to dabble in so-called liquid alts—mutual funds that hold investments in alternative assets like commodities and real estate or those that use alternative strategies like managed futures or merger arbitrage.

The name Elite Access refers to the fact that alternative investments—which investors prize as portfolio diversifiers because their returns aren’t correlated with the returns of stocks or bonds—are directly accessible only to investors with millions or dollars or to institutional investors like Ivy League universities with multi-billion dollar endowments. By contrast, anyone could invest as little as $5,000 in Elite Access and allocate small amounts of money to actively managed mutual funds whose managers invest in alts.

A variable annuity like Elite Access makes sense for people who want to invest some of their after-tax money in liquid alts. These funds are as a rule actively managed, and their high turnover rates generate potentially taxable gains. If you own liquid alts in a VA, you can defer those tax liabilities into the future, when you take withdrawals from the contract. Also, when a life insurer offers liquid alts in a VA wrapper, the insurer has presumably done all of the necessary due diligence on the underlying investments—and liquid alts require a lot of careful due diligence.

Elite Access offers several ways to invest in liquid alts: smorgasbord, full dinners or a la carte (See list below). Advisers and investors who want to go a la carte can choose among eight alt assets, including infrastructure, listed private equity, commodities and natural resources, and eleven different alternatives strategies, such as managed futures, absolute return, covered calls and convertible arbitrage.

Investors and advisers who prefer a packaged solution can get exposure to alts by investing in one of the portfolios managed by Jackson National’s asset management arm, Curian Capital. These one-stop portfolios combine traditional investments with alts and/or with dynamic or tactical risk management overlays. Active management and packaged solutions are never cheap, of course. Investors can expect to pay about 1% in mortality and expense risk fees and administration fees, and perhaps another 1.5% in investment fees, but many regard the total package as worth it.

“To go into alts on a direct basis and to diversify across the alts, one would need millions of dollars of investable assets. But the Elite Access portfolios provide a diversified approach to alts at a low entry price,” said an annuity specialist at a major distributor, who said that his company’s younger producers like packaged solutions.

“It’s a new business category,” he added. “Historically, the VA issuers have focused on selling the guaranteed income solution to the mass affluent. But Elite Access is geared to higher net worth individuals who are looking to manage their money through retirement rather than insure it. In terms of leveraging a full suite of asset classes, it provides unique exposure. It’s a portfolio construction sale.”

Elite Access’ rapid sales growth shook up the VA industry. First offered in March 2012, Elite Access B gathered sales of $11.4 million, and then accelerated to $676.2 million in the fourth quarter, according to Morningstar. At the end of the first quarter of 2013, it was ranked tenth in sales, with $785.5 million. Sales topped $1 billion in the fourth quarter of 2013, and then again in the first quarter of this year, when it was the fifth best selling VA. Elite Access List of Alts

These sales have generated industry awards—and imitators. AXA Equitable, Guardian Life, Lincoln Financial, Nationwide, Prudential Financial, Protective Life, Security Benefit and other life insurers have issued their own accumulation-oriented, alt-accented variable annuities. Observers say that Jackson National wasn’t necessarily the first to market an “investment-only VA (IOVA)–indeed, most pre-living benefit VAs could be called IOVAs—but they’re credited with creating a new category.

How and why  

Billion dollar products—new drugs, movies or even annuity contracts—don’t fall from trees. Starting in 2011, Jackson National took great care to make Elite Access a success, initiating an internal campaign that involved new hiring, new training, new white papers and videos, a new website just for Elite Access, and even, to some extent, a new corporate culture.

To learn more about Jackson’s strategy for developing and launching Elite Access, RIJ called some of Jackson’s key distribution partners. Scott Stolz, the president of Raymond James Insurance Group and a former Jackson executive, cited three factors that contributed to its sales growth.

Wholesaling prowess was definitely one factor, Stolz said. “They have an army of wholesalers. I’d be surprised if they don’t have 20% of all the wholesalers in the annuity business. They spent a ton of money marketing this product. No other annuity company can supply this much marketing muscle and money.”

Where other large annuity issuers might have 40 to 80 wholesalers, Jackson, which specializes in annuities, has some 210 external wholesalers and another 300 internal wholesalers supporting relationships with some 10,000 financial advisers.

“They could do it because they had one of the largest wholesaling teams on the Street, with proven distribution prowess,” said an annuity manager at one broker-dealer. “No insurer other than Jackson National, or possibly Lincoln Financial, could have executed at that level. It was the quantity and the quality of their distribution.”

Elite Access’ cost structure also played a role in its success, he said. “They were smart enough to set a lower fee and a shorter surrender period than the typical B-share VA,” Stolz told RIJ, referring to the contract’s five-year surrender period instead of the usual seven, and its combined mortality and expense risk and administrative fee of 100 basis points instead of the usual 130 basis points or so.

Finally, he said, Jackson made a deft course correction after the product launch. “They initially positioned it as an alternatives play: ‘Everybody needs to add alternatives to his portfolio; it’s hard to do, but we’ll make it easy for the adviser and client,’” Stolz said.

“But a year or 15 months into it they had an ‘ah-ha’ moment. They decided that it’s not really an alternatives play. It’s an entire portfolio management system, in which they can fill the alt slots. The presentations were geared at first toward putting alts in the portfolio, but now it’s more about portfolio construction with a heavy accent on alts.”

It turned out that advisers were using Elite Access as an investment platform for a big chunk of their clients’ assets, not merely for exposure to alts. “The appetite is more around tax efficiency than about access to alts,” said a wirehouse annuity manager who expects his advisers to sell a lot of Elite Access. “And a tax efficient portfolio should include not only traditional long-only investments but also alternatives—although exposure to those should be limited in scope.”

Marc Socol, director of sales for Elite Access, and Dan Starishevsky, senior vice president of marketing for Jackson National, confirmed Stolz’ observations. “Alternatives were the start,” Socol told RIJ. “We had seen the meteoric success that liquid alts had had, and we’d already had success selling liquid alts in the Perspective VA contract.

“But we listened to the wholesalers and advisers, and we started integrating their feedback into the product. We launched Elite Access with 50 investment options. Now we’re up to 120. It evolved into a platform of unique investments that work in rising or falling markets and increasing or decreasing periods of volatility. It was just a matter of listening to what people wanted, and broadening the options.”

The presence of two videos starring Ben Stein on the Elite Access site is one manifestation of that strategic inflection. The most recent video, called Ben Stein’s Storytime, shows Ben Stein himself in an armchair with a large book in his lap and a cup of tea close at hand, a la Alistair Cooke, the long-time host of PBS’ Masterpiece Theater. (Jean-Joseph Mouret’s “Rondeau” plays in the background of the Elite Access video, as it did in Masterpiece Theater.)

In this video, liquid alts aren’t even mentioned by name. Instead, Stein talks about diversification and tax deferral and staying invested in all markets with Elite Access’ 120 investment options. By contrast, an earlier video, entitled “Ben Stein explains Elite Access” (it also can be seen on the Elite Access homepage) features a cartoon version of Ben Stein and explains the importance of adding alternatives to a traditional portfolio as a volatility hedge. This video is all about alts—futures, commodities, arbitrage strategies—and the fact that big institutions have long used them to beat the S&P 500.

Part of the rationale for the videos—which involved an illustrator from Disney as well as Stein—and for the new site on which they appeared was to differentiate Elite Access from annuities and make it more palatable to advisers who had never sold annuities before.

“We wanted to tell a completely different story,” Starishevsky said. “We wanted to change the look and feel of Elite Access, to make it different from anything that had come from an insurance company, because we wanted to extend our reach new advisers. We have healthy relationships with about 10,000 advisers but we wanted to reach a new kind of [non-VA selling] adviser.”

Starishevsky also orchestrated a thought leadership campaign. “We wrote articles and white papers, we sent speakers to the right conferences. Clifford Jack, our head of retail products, made videos,” he said. Last September, there was an online symposium for advisers on the use of alts. While almost every insurer supports an important new product with white papers and videos, Jackson took the process a step farther than most. Starishevsky even acted as the “anchorman” in a series of news-like videos and “interviews” Ben Stein about diversification.

“We introduced a suite of investment-related tools for advisers and investors. The first was a portfolio construction tool that showed people how to build a portfolio using alternative assets. You don’t see a lot of that happening in the traditional insurance space. The micro-site for Elite Access was totally different from our primary website. It had calculators and a video library. Finally we introduced an iPad app that our wholesalers could use to share marketing collateral with advisers. That set us apart from others in that space,” Starishevsky said.

Cultural change

One of Socol’s challenges was to retrain wholesalers who’d been touting living benefits for several years and show them how to talk about investment options. He responded by having all of the wholesalers get their Certified Fund Specialist designation, which armed them with the basics of mutual funds. Portfolio managers from Jackson’s Curian Capital asset management arm helped train the wholesalers.

As part of the effort to refocus on investments rather than insurance, Jackson also hired client portfolio managers from asset management firms and teamed them with wholesalers. As one of Jackson’s strategic distribution partners put it, “They took individuals who had experience in portfolio construction and created separate positions for them in the firm. They traveled with the wholesalers and helped them out.”

Soon the annuity wholesalers weren’t the only ones learning to think with the asset management side of their brains; the whole company was. It was somewhat surprising to hear Starishevsky explain that the launch of Elite Access was the occasion for a top-to-bottom change of culture at Jackson—away from insurance and its language and toward asset management and its unique language.

“We identified asset managers as our competitors,” Starishevsky told RIJ. “We wanted to talk about what the market was talking about. We needed national awareness, so we introduced a comprehensive campaign. Our fear was that any message they’d hear about variable annuities, they would associate with a living benefit product.”

“One of the difference-makers here, part of the recipe, was the change in our culture. It’s really been a metamorphosis of the company. We didn’t stamp out the old culture. We’re still committed to the living benefit space and to the Perspective variable annuity. But we’ve changed from being a life insurance company to being more of an asset manager, at every level of the organization. We changed the way we present ourselves. That change in culture made Elite Access possible.”

The magnitude of the change suggests that something fundamental was at stake in the launch of Elite Access, and Stolz suggested that there probably was. “MetLife or Prudential would never make as big a marketing bet on a new product,” he told RIJ. “Part of the reason Jackson National would is that they had the most to lose from a cutback in living benefit sales.

“MetLife dropped from $28 billion a year in VA sales a year to $7 billion, but in the overall scheme of things that’s not a big deal for MetLife. But if Jackson National went from $28 billion to $7 billion, what would be left? That’s what they do. When it came to variable annuity sales, they had more on the line. If Prudential plc said, ‘We want Perspective II sales at $10 billion,’ Jackson National would be laying people off right and left.

“So they had a greater sense of urgency to make this work. They were smart enough to know that that if you make a major change like this, it has to happen quickly. They’ve seen other companies take years to get traction with a new product. But with Elite Access, Jackson got there in 15 months.”

Not without critics

Not everybody who spoke to RIJ about Elite Access praised it. One of the critics was Jim Moore, an adviser with Citizens National Bank of Paintsville, Kentucky. Moore was the type of adviser that Elite Access was designed to reach. He didn’t like variable annuities, but he wanted to give his clients exposure to alts. He stopped selling Elite Access, ironically, when Jackson repositioned the product as one-stop shopping for an all-weather portfolio.

“I put two of my higher income clients into the alts,” Moore told RIJ. “It allowed them to use managed futures without requiring huge amounts of money. That was very appealing. But then it morphed into your typical VA and I’ve been moving away from it. It still had alts, but now they started pushing your regular moderate-to-aggressive allocation. That’s not why I was there.

“If I were in the decision-making room at Jackson National, I’d say, Let’s cut the costs on the VA and strictly go for alt investments—maybe it would cost 1.5% instead of 2.5%,” he added. “You’d get a niche of people who wanted [access to liquid alts] without needing a million dollars. That’s what I was using it as. But I’m not a fan of variable annuities. I don’t like explaining all the ‘ifs, ands and buts’ that are involved.”

A loyal Jackson National adviser in New Jersey, who was one of the advisers flown out to Denver for presentations on Elite Access, also hesitates to use the product. “Ultimately what discouraged me was that alts are so new,” said Howard Kaplan. “I don’t like using things that are so completely new.”

Kaplan found it difficult to predict how alts would affect his portfolio, and wondered how time-consuming it might be to track them, even if he used one of Curian Capital’s model portfolios. “There’s a question of how much will I have having to manage this?  They have models but there’s an overlay cost to the models,” he said. “How much help can I really get from a wholesaler with questions like, ‘When should I be shifting things around? What if I pick the wrong stuff within the platform?’”

Both of these advisers touched on a problem related more to the nature of liquid alts than to Elite Access per se. Contrary to the ads that say liquid alts offer “more return with less risk,” investors may not like getting lower returns during bull markets and may not appreciate the value of losing less in bear markets.

“I know that the argument for using alts is about reducing risk and volatility, but is it really OK to have an investment that gets you two percent?” Kaplan said. Moore told RIJ, “Alts are not supposed to do well. When my regular portfolio is returning 14% or 15%, I don’t expect alts to hit it out of the park.” In short—as Jackson National itself may have discovered—liquid alts may be novel and important, but their appeal, in terms of performance enhancement, is indirect and limited.

One distributor finds Elite Access too expensive for what it offers, and too narrow in appeal, because it is only suitable for non-qualified money.

“We don’t think that the value is there for the client in how these are priced. I’ll grant you that Jackson has done a wonderful job with the marketing machine, and they have more wholesalers than any other firm out there,” he told RIJ. “They pay their wholesalers more to distribute this product than to distribute their guaranteed products. They were very aggressive with this and that’s why they got traction. It helped last year when tax rates went up. But they missed the boat by pricing this high.

“There are other products that clients can buy that use the same funds, at a cheaper price. With the Elite Access contract, for instance, the subaccount fees are higher than they are for Perspective II. While they have lowered the M&E on Elite Access to 100 basis points compared to 130 basis points on the Perspective II, the average fund fees in Elite Access are 22 basis points higher. So it’s almost a wash in fees.”

The distributor also questioned the liquid alt strategy itself. “They’ve loaded up the product with 20 or 25 alt portfolios. But clients don’t understand these investments, and there’s no protection in these products. I don’t care if they’re in alts or managed-vol funds or what; they’re not going to understand why they lose money. People will say, ‘I thought I was in a protected fund.’ At least with the guaranteed product, there’s some protection there. It’s a risky road to go down.”

There are limits to how cheap the product can be. A product’s charges had to be high enough to provide a compelling incentive for the distributors and the advisers, especially for a product that involves such a potentially steep learning curve. Broker-dealer reps don’t sell VAs without competitive incentives, and those incentives are financed in part by the M&E fee and in part by the fees attached to the investment options.

But another broker-dealer thinks Elite Access’ pricing is justifiable and that its value proposition is valid. For the client, “If the alts succeed in managing portfolio volatility and if you’re looking to take income from the portfolio, that has extreme value and it’s worth a price,” he said.

Volatility management also has value for the distributor, he added, and that value makes up for the fact that Elite Access doesn’t pay the broker-dealer as much as earlier VAs did. “From a distribution standpoint, the transactional revenue from the guaranteed product [the VA with living benefits] is higher. But the portfolios in that product were so correlated to the market that when the market went down, our asset-based revenue went down. The managed strategies, to the extent that they protect the client’s asset base from volatility, also protects our revenues from volatility.”

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Consider the Alternatives!

Only yesterday, everybody seemed to be talking up “managed-vol” funds as a retirement portfolio’s best remedy for unpredictable markets. Now the buzz is all about taming volatility by replacing up to 20% of a traditional stock and bond portfolio with “liquid alts.” 

Liquid alts are actively managed mutual funds or ETFs that give retail investors indirect access to the assets and strategies—timberland, hedge funds, private equity, managed futures—that sophisticated institutional investors and wealthy individuals use to smooth their returns.

Exotic and unfamiliar to most people, liquid alts have put their noses under the retirement income tent. They’re showing up as investment options in variable annuities that don’t have living benefits. The rationale, not yet proven, is that liquid alts might reduce volatility well enough to make income guarantees unnecessary as protection against longevity risk.

To learn more about alternatives, and to find out if the claims that liquid alts offer “better returns with less risk” are too good to be true, we talked to Keith Black of the CAIA Association in Amherst, Mass. It sponsors the Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst designation.

Our takeaway: Liquid alts don’t offer a free lunch. Because their price movements aren’t correlated with those of stocks, they’ll tend to reduce losses in down markets. But they’ll also tend to reduce gains in up markets. And liquid alts tend to underperform true alts, which aren’t available to most retail investors.  

RIJ: Is it true that I can increase my returns and lower my risk if I swap out some of the stocks and bonds in my portfolio for liquid alts? That seems like a violation of the law of risk and return.

Black: We aren’t saying, for instance, that you’ll get a higher return, with less risk, from alts than from stocks. When you hear that the portfolio’s risk and return will be better, that might only mean that your risk went down by 4% but your return only went down by 2%. Because you have a lower standard deviation of risk with an alt, you could have a lower absolute return but a higher risk-adjusted return. You might get higher returns from private equity investments than from stocks, but they would typically come with higher risk and less liquidity than stocks.

RIJ: And this has something to do with non-correlation of returns, right?

Black: A prudently chosen package of alts should lower the risk of an equity-dominated portfolio, simply because you’re going into something different. What we care about is correlation, and to the degree that the package of real estate or commodities is doing something different from stocks, you should get enhanced diversification, which should reduce your investment risk.

RIJ: So where do I put liquid alts on the spectrum from very risky to very conservative?

Black: The risk and return profile of most alternatives will be between that of stocks and bonds. Most alts will underperform stocks in a big bull market, but they will tend outperform stocks in a down market. In 2008, for instance, long stocks were down 40% but hedge funds were down only 20%. Alts preserve value better in a bear market. When we say that the risk and return of alts is between stocks and bonds, we’re talking across all managers and all strategies. If you pick one commodity fund at random or one long/short equity fund, we couldn’t guarantee that any single fund will be more or less risky than stocks.

RIJ: How much of my portfolio should I allocate to alternatives?

Black: On average, institutional investors allocate over 20% of assets to alternatives. If you’re talking about universities like Harvard with billion-dollar endowments, alternatives might account for more than half of the assets. But those are perpetuities, not individuals. Right now we see retail investors averaging five percent of assets in alternatives. But to invest directly in alts, you need to be an accredited investor, which means you need to have $1 million in assets outside of your resident, or at least $200,000 in personal income. If you can’t meet those requirements, you can’t do it.”

RIJ: Right. If I invest in liquid alts, do I get the same benefit that the endowment fund managers get?

Black: The liquid alts would have lower returns because there are limits on the amount of illiquidity, leverage and concentration they can have. If you compare the five-year return on a limited partnership hedge fund with the five-year return on a liquid exchange-traded fund that invests in hedge funds, the liquid version will underperform on average by 50 to 150 basis points. Equity long/short funds or managed futures funds will underperform by 40 to 100 basis points over five years. With event-driven or multi-strategy funds, the difference might be as large as 200 basis points over five years.”

RIJ: That’s good to know. How should I now what to expect from liquid alts?

Black: A long/short equity fund might be 100% long and 50% short, so on average it will be 50% net long. Last year, when stocks were up 32%, that long/short fund would have been up 16%. But in 2008 it would have been down only 20% instead of 40%. Commodities can be as volatile as stocks, but in the opposite direction, so you’ll get volatility dampening. If the situations in Gaza and Syria and the Ukraine get uglier, the stock market might go down but commodities would probably rally.

RIJ: We keep hearing that bonds are not portfolio diversifiers any more. If stock prices fall, the Fed won’t be able to boost bond prices by lowering interest rates, because interest rates can’t go any lower. Is that right?

Black: For the last couple of years, people said bond yields can only go up and prices can only go down. But if there’s a flight to the safety of U.S. Treasuries, you could see higher bond prices. So there’s still a diversification possibility in bonds. But the return expectations of bonds will be very low. If you own a 3% bond, the best that you’ll get is 3%. If you’re running a pension fund that has a 7% target return, bond yields aren’t helping you diversify.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. 

Man Bites Vanguard

I worked at the Vanguard Group for nine years, and one day I asked a senior manager—one of a group of us who met at noon for off-campus jogs—how Vanguard invested its money. Did it practice the same principles that it preached? Inquiring minds wanted to know. 

The manager replied that Vanguard didn’t have any money of its own. He didn’t elaborate, perhaps because he didn’t know. But I doubted that. 

The subject of the $2 trillion mutual fund giant and “its money” came up a few days ago when a law firm e-mailed me a copy of what looked like a suit against Vanguard, filed in the civil branch of the Supreme Court of New York, by David Danon, a former Vanguard employee.  

The “qui tam” or “whistleblower’s” complaint, which had been sealed since May 8, 2013, while the New York State attorney general’s office considered whether to pursue it—eventually it chose not to—accused Vanguard of avoiding tens of millions of dollars in taxes by providing management and administrative services to its mutual funds “at cost” instead of at a fair value.

In other words, Vanguard was accused of the equivalent of a person selling a car to a friend and under-reporting the actual sale price in order to avoid taxes. According to the suit, Vanguard does in fact make taxable profits, but puts them in an expense account (which the plaintiff valued at $1.5 billion) marked “contingency reserves.”

John Bogle

The implication was that Vanguard’s low-cost advantage—shareholders pay an average of only about 25 cents per $100 to invest in its mutual funds—was built on short-changing the government. Shocking stuff. I had to laugh, because Vanguard seemed to stand accused of playing history’s favorite villian: Robin Hood. 

More interestingly, the complaint—in which the plaintiff asks for at least 15% of any tax money recovered by the state of New York as a result of it—looked like a test case of Vanguard’s business model. Somewhere in this lawsuit, I thought, might be an answer to that elusive question: What did Vanguard do with its money?

Prior to this lawsuit, most of what I knew about Vanguard’s business model—a model simultaneously transparent and opaque—came from the late Robert Slater’s imperfect but singular book about the firm and its founder, John Bogle and the Vanguard Experiment (Irwin, 1997).

Slater’s book explains how in the early 1970s, the legendary Bogle (above), then an equity partner and manager of mutual funds at Wellington Management Company, was about to be forced out for bullheadedness. Instead, he engineered a buyout of Wellington by its own funds. In effect, he mutualized the company. An analogy might be Sunkist, a cooperative in which the orange growers themselves own the company that markets and distributes the oranges.

(Vanguard’s closest competitors, by contrast, all have different ownership structures. Fidelity is family-owned, TIAA-CREF is a not-for-profit, and T. Rowe Price is publicly held.)      

Bogle was proposing an unusual structure for a fund company, and he had to run it by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Raymond Klapinski, a young lawyer for Wellington Management Company at the time, who retired as Vanguard’s top legal officer 14 years ago and still lives in suburban Philadelphia, helped pitch Bogle’s concept to the skeptical regulators. 

“It took us a year to get through the SEC,” Klapinsky told RIJ in a phone call this week. “Vanguard went mutual, like a mutual insurance company. The way most of the fund industry works, the management company provides investment advice and hires someone to do the administration. That entity gets not just a management fee, but also a profit.

“But Vanguard provides all of the administration at cost. So there is no profit margin. I was there for 30 years and I never heard of the tax theories that are being pursued now. We went through a detailed application to the SEC. They didn’t address the tax issue, but they approved the structure. They decided that it was beneficial to the shareholders of the funds.”

The current lawsuit could conceivably reopen the matter. But that seems unlikely, given that the New York attorney general isn’t pursuing the case. Perhaps he’s a Vanguard shareholder. In fact, so many Americans (including this writer) own shares in Vanguard’s low-cost funds that it might be hard to empanel a jury. Or even to locate an unbiased judge.   

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

 

Social Security: Short by 2.9% of payroll

Although millions of Americans worry that Social Security “won’t be there for them” when they are older, the just-released 2014 report of the board of trustees of the Social Security old age and disability trust funds indicate—as have previous iterations of this annual reports—that the program is far from bankrupt.

Unless the government itself defaults on the special-issue bonds that it sold to Social Security in exchange for the program’s surplus revenues over the years, the $2.8 trillion trust fund, interest on the special-issue bonds, and ongoing payroll tax revenues are expected to cover promised old age benefits until 2034. Tax receipts alone will cover 77% of full benefits to 2088, and 72% thereafter.

What would it take to make up that shortfall?

In their new report, the trustees estimate that the 75-year actuarial deficit for the old age and disability trust funds is currently 2.88% of taxable payroll, or slightly above the 2.72% deficit estimated in the trustees’ report a year ago.

Making the Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds fully solvent for the next 75 years, the latest report says, could be accomplished with an immediate and permanent payroll tax rate increase of 2.83 percentage points (to 15.23% from the current 12.40%) or a reduction in benefits for all current and future recipients of 17.4%, or a combination of the two.

“Much larger changes would be necessary if action is deferred until the combined trust fund reserves become depleted in 2033,” the report said. The Trustees did not recommend those specific changes, according to a Society of Actuaries spokesperson, but was only used those numbers to quantify the shortfall. 

The old age benefits aren’t immediately endangered. But the federal disability insurance program is dire straits, with enough reserves to cover full disability benefits only until 2016, after which it will only be able to pay 81% of benefits. The situation could be temporarily fixed, the trustees said, if Congress moves some of the old age insurance trust fund assets into the disability trust fund, as it did in 1994.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

IMCA magazine focuses on alts

Alternative investments are the topic to which the entire July/August issue of the Investments & Wealth Monitor is dedicated, according to the magazine’s Denver-based publisher, the Investment Management Consultants Association

“Alternative offerings are one of the few growth engines in the mutual fund universe. By some estimates, alternative mutual funds will grow to represent 13% of mutual fund assets by 2015, up from 6% at the end of 2010.” writes Fortigent LLC portfolio manager Christopher Maxey in an article entitled, Alternative Strategy Mutual Funds: Opportunity or Mirage?”

Other articles in the issue include:

  • “Alternative Investments: Past, Present, and Future,” by Verne Sedlacek.
  • “Alternatives … Compared To What?” by Craig Israelsen, PhD.
  • “Global Infrastructure Funds,” by Sam Campbell.
  • “Managed Futures: Cyclical Trough or Structural Impairment? Analysis and Proposed Solutions,” by Ryan Davis, CAIA, and Barclay Leib.
  • “Master Limited Partnership Investing: A Case for MLPs as a Core Allocation in Your Portfolio,” by Michael Underhill.
  • “Rethinking Diversification in a Post Bond-Boom Market,” Michael Winchell.
    “Smart Beta: The Second Generation of Index Investing,” by Vitali Kalesnik, PhD.
  • “The Brave, New World of Operational Due Diligence: Responding to a Regulated and Institutional Alternative Asset Industry,” by Christopher Addy, CPA, CA, FCA, CFA.
  • “Thoughts on Endowment Investing in the 21st Century,” by Margaret M. Towle, PhD, CPWA.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Symetra’s income annuity sales double in 2Q2014

Symetra Financial Corp. this week reported second quarter 2014 adjusted operating income of $55.3 million ($0.48 per diluted share), up from $52.7 million ($0.40 per diluted share) for the second quarter of 2013.

Net income in 2Q2014 was $71.5 million ($0.62 per diluted share), compared with $45.0 million ($0.34 per diluted share) in the same period a year ago. Other highlights of the second quarter earnings report included:

  • Sales of deferred annuities in the latest quarter were $650.3 million, up 47% from the same quarter a year ago.
  • Sales of income annuities were $89 million for the quarter, up from $45.5 million in the prior-year quarter.
  • Benefits loss ratio improved to 62.7% from 66.2% in second quarter 2013.
  • Prepayment-related income, net of amortization, of $4.3 million was offset by $4.3 million charge for prior years’ state sales and use tax expense.
  • Net prepayment-related income was $5.8 million in second quarter 2013.
  • All business segments reported strong year-over-year growth in sales.

Deferred annuities

In Symetra’s deferred annuities business, sales for the quarter were $650.3 million, up 47% from the year-ago quarter. Strong sales of both traditional fixed annuities and FIAs were driven by an improved interest rate environment and further expansion of Symetra annuity products on bank and broker-dealer distribution platforms.

Pretax adjusted operating income was $27.4 million for the quarter, unchanged from the previous period. Higher fixed indexed annuity (FIA) account values contributed $7.8 million to interest margin, up from $2.0 million in the prior-year period. This favorable impact was partially offset by higher operating expenses.

Earnings for the quarter included $1.9 million of investment prepayment-related income, net of related amortization, down from a net $3.3 million in the prior period.

Total account values were $14.3 billion at quarter-end, up from $12.2 billion a year ago. FIA account values reached nearly $2.5 billion, up from $852 million.

Income annuities

In Symetra’s income annuities business, sales were $89.0 million for the latest quarter, up from $45.5 million in the prior-year quarter. Effective selling strategies and a more favorable interest rate environment drove increased single premium immediate annuity (SPIA) sales, Symetra said in its release.

Pretax adjusted operating income was $3.5 million for the quarter, down from $10.0 million in the prior-year period, due to less favorable mortality experience and lower interest margin. Mortality gains were $0.8 million for the quarter, compared with mortality gains of $4.5 million in the previous period. Mortality experience can fluctuate from period to period.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.