Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

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.

With so many tools, why are participants still so worried?

Retirement confidence is “alarmingly low” among defined contribution plan participants polled in the US, UK and Ireland, according to a new survey of more than 2,000 plan participants by State Street Global Advisors. U.S. participants are somewhat more confident than UK participants and much more confident than Irish participants.

The study’s authors urged employers to emphasize saving rather than investing to their plan participants, because participants are highly averse to investment risk. Most participants face a conflict between their needs for safety and adequacy: They can’t grow their savings enough without taking risks, but they’re reluctant to put any of their savings at risk. 

The persistent anxiety among high percentages of plan participants suggests that the benefits of the solutions that the marketplace has provided in recent years—target date funds and managed accounts, for instance—are not being communicated adequately. Or perhaps those tools can’t compensate for a failure to save enough.    

The findings indicate that 31% of US participants, 26% of UK participants and 17% of Ireland participants feel confident that they will “have enough saved through their employer sponsored DC plan to afford the lifestyle they want in retirement,” SSgA said in a release.

“The latest DC survey highlights yet again that “DC members principally view themselves as savers, not investors. Understanding this mindset is critical for providing the right kind of support to encourage increased contributions in workplace DC plans,” said Nigel Aston, managing director and head of UK DC at SSgA said in a statement.

“We’re seeing consistently high levels of discomfort around market volatility, so it is more important than ever to ensure that pension plans offer investments that address this concern. Default strategies that balance risk and return can help increase the effectiveness of long-term saving efforts.”

Investment knowledge remains low, with only 22% percent of respondents, on average, rating themselves as “very or extremely” knowledgeable about financial matters such as savings and investments. Only 27% of US participants, 15% of UK participants and 10% of Ireland participants would take “somewhat high risk or high risk” investments in order to achieve better returns.

The bulk of respondents across the US, UK and Ireland find retirement planning information from websites, advisors and financial publications most useful, ahead of guidance from the government and their employer.

SSgA’s research into DC plan participants’ attitudes toward retirement, retirement planning habits and current level of savings was conducted in February and March 2014. Respondents were aged 22 to 65, working at least part-time, and participating in their employer-sponsored DC plan.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. 

What’s Your ZIP Code’s Annuity Potential?

If you ever read or watched Moneyball, the book and movie about the Oakland Athletics, you know that the application of statistical analysis to the chore of identifying under-valued ballplayers helped turn a mediocre club into a contender, if not a champion.

Bill Poll, co-founder of a New Jersey-based market research firm called Information Asset Partners, wants to help annuity producers, wholesalers and manufacturers sell more annuities with less wasted effort by using a similarly data-driven approach.       

As Poll explained it to RIJ recently, his company uses data from a massive biennial survey of household finances, called MacroMonitor, to create a profile of likely annuity buyers. Then it grades U.S. ZIP codes on their annuity sales potential, as indicated by their density of such people.

That’s Step One. In Step Two, his firm uses regularly updated annuity sales information, from DTCC, the giant securities clearinghouse, to grade U.S. ZIP codes on their actual level of sales. By cross-referencing sales potential with actual sales, he can tell if a territory is saturated, underdeveloped, concentrated or diffuse.

IAP’s product is the Annuity Market Assessment, and Poll, a former Dun & Bradstreet marketer with an MBA from Columbia, has been pitching it to prospective customers—insurance companies, insurance marketing organizations (IMOs), broker-dealers, individual producers and journalists—since last February.

“Someone compared my solution to fracking,” Poll (right) told RIJ recently. He meant it in the sense that the fracking industry locates resources that are widely dispersed and not amenable to traditional mining techniques. “It’s a new technique for extracting more sales from the same territory.” Bill Poll

“For instance, we can look back at 2013 and ask, ‘How much business did you write in the most highly competitive ZIP codes? Give me your production numbers and we’ll see if you’re getting your chunk of the competitive markets.’ Or I can show them some ZIP codes that are not highly developed and suggest that they hold their seminars there. I’m giving them a sense of what the grass roots look like.” 

That may sound straightforward, but it takes rocket science to build the algorithms that distill the characteristics of likely annuity buyers, to create independent benchmarks for every state in the Union, and to keep sharpening the blade with new data. IAP’s resident rocket scientist is Raisa Suhir, a graduate of Moscow University and Dun & Bradstreet veteran who co-founded IAP with Poll in 2003.

Actual sales per ZIP code

IAP’s annuity sales data comes from the Analytic Reporting for Annuities service of the Insurance and Retirement Services division at DTCC, the Manhattan-based, user-owned organization that clears trillions of dollars in securities trades every day for financial industry.

DTCC can provide annuity sales flows and numbers of contracts sold, which it gets from participating insurance carriers and broker/dealers. In 2013, 117 carriers and 138 distributors reported $94 billion in sales of 3,467 annuity products.

Andrew Blumberg, group director of Analytic Reporting at DTCC, has been collaborating with Poll. The two worked on webinars in July for members of the Retirement Income Industry Association. DTCC is active in RIIA and RIIA’s research director, Elvin Turner, brought IAP and DTCC together last summer.

“Bill may be the only one out there who, besides looking at what’s happening in each ZIP code, has the extra dimension that measures what the market potential is,” Blumberg told RIJ. “That allows him to be prescriptive on ZIP code by ZIP code basis. That kind of information can tell whether the area is producing up to potential or if it’s saturated. 

“You could give IAP’s analysis to a branch manager at a broker/dealer, and he or she could tell, within a 15 or 20-mile radius of the office, where the business is: what types of products are selling and what types of accounts it’s going to. For a wholesaler, this helps develop the picture of a market in a way that people haven’t been able to do until now.

“DTCC doesn’t do this kind of work itself, but we always envisioned that our partners would use our data and combine it with data that we don’t have to develop entirely new views of the market. We think it’s unique and potentially powerful for our customers.”

“Using the DTCC data, we can see, at the state level, names of companies and their market share,” Poll said. “That’s useful from a marketing perspective, but you still need it brought down to the branch or practice level. So the solution we’ve created is as much for the wholesaler calling on the RIA or the branch so they can understand how this market is similar or different from another.”

Potential sales per ZIP code

DTCC’s data is only half of what IAP needs to fuel its Annuity Market Assessment. It also needs the MacroMonitor, a storehouse of detailed information on the attitudes and buying habits of American households, based on survey of 4,200 representative households and refreshed every other year.

“The MacroMonitor uses statistical survey technology, employing random probability sampling, to gather a representative national sample of 4,200 household decision-makers, including all of their personal balance sheet items and their attitudes about financial needs,” said Larry Cohen, vice president, Strategic Business Insights.

The household survey captures over 3,600 variables, and asks about ownership of products from 160 specific financial services companies. “The goal is to have a complete household balance sheet and an understanding of the goals and motivations, and to do it in a way that projects to the entire nation. We’ve been doing it since 1978,” Cohen told RIJ.

Retail Annuity Market by State

“IAP can go to the MacroMonitor, pull out a sample that shows the characteristics of people who own or who have recently bought or who are likely to buy annuities, and find ZIP codes with those people,” he added. “The DTCC data tells IAP what was sold, and MacroMonitor tells them the potential for sales”—based on the match-up between the characteristics of people in a specific ZIP code and the people who buy annuities.

“We look at the underlying characteristics of annuity buyers, and ask, ‘Who looks like a buyer?’” Poll told RIJ. “We don’t just look at age or investable assets. Hundreds of variables go into each equation. Each has its own weight. And that’s how we score the micro-geographic markets.”

Locating opportunity

Those buyers are scattered in ZIP codes all over the country. At present there are 2.6 million households in the U.S. (and four to five million individuals in those households) that resemble households that have recently purchased annuities, according to a slide from a recent IAP webinar.

In terms of sales, annuities traditionally hew closely to the 80:20 rule. Seventy percent of these households are located in just 22% of America’s 30,000 ZIP codes, and 57% or 956,000 of those households are located in 12 large states: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia.    

To locate high-potential ZIP codes anywhere in the country, IAP works state by state, classifying each ZIP code according to two criteria: actual sales and households with potential. Each ZIP code is graded, in Tier 1 through 4, according to whether it’s three times the state benchmark, twice the benchmark, at the benchmark or below the benchmark for each criterion. When he merges the two grids, he can tell if the annuity market is saturated, undeveloped, concentrated, or diffuse. He can do custom work by integrating a company’s or a producer’s own data.

The significance of this is demonstrated in one of IAP’s webinar slides. It compares ZIP code 32034, Fernandina Beach, Fla., with ZIP code 33311, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Both had Tier 1 sales potential, but Fernandina Beach had Tier 1 sales flow in 2013 ($17.3 million) while Fort Lauderdale had Tier 4 sales flow ($3.6 million).

The two ZIP codes offered different kinds of opportunity. Fernandina Beach was a strong but highly competitive market, where growth could come by grabbing a larger share. Fort Lauderdale was relatively undeveloped, with lots of untapped high-potential households and room for multiple companies to grow.

The applications for this type of data, Poll believes, are significant. By overlaying their own sales data, individual manufacturers, distributors and producers can see how they are doing relative to the overall market. Companies can decide where they should send their wholesalers. Sales managers can set sales quotas or expectations based on the characteristics of the territory.

Marketing the tool

Poll is now pounding the pavement, literally and virtually, in search of customers who can use his Annuity Market Assessment. He has gotten some coverage in the trade press. He has done webinars hosted by RIIA. “I’m talking to anyone who sells annuities. I’m selling solutions. I just got off the phone with a producer in Dallas–Fort Worth who wants to understand his market and the Lubbock market,” he said.

IAP can use the same data to create different solutions for different clients. “For carriers and broker-dealers, the AMA is a market share improvement tool and sales/marketing performance tool. For IMOs, there are the added recruiting and direct marketing applications. For the producer, it’s about evaluating adjacent markets and improving direct marketing performance.  There are lots of ‘end customer’ insight applications but now I’m focusing on the wholesalers and producers who have quotas to meet this quarter.”  

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

 

 

Booming Until It Hurts?

In recent months, concern has intensified among the world’s financial experts and news media that overheated asset markets—real estate, equities, and long-term bonds—could lead to a major correction and another economic crisis.

The general public seems unbothered: Google Trends shows some pickup in the search term “stock market bubble,” but it is not at its peak 2007 levels, and “housing bubble” searches are relatively infrequent.

But the experts’ concern is notable and healthy, because the belief that markets are always efficient can survive only when some people do not completely believe it and think that they can profit by timing the markets. At the same time, this heightened concern carries dangers, too, because we do not know whether it will lead to a public overreaction on the downside.

International agencies recently issued warnings about speculative excesses in asset markets, suggesting that we should be worried about a possible crisis. In a speech in June, International Monetary Fund Deputy Managing Director Min Zhu argued that housing markets in several countries, including in Europe, Asia, and the Americas, “show signs of overheating.” The same month, the Bank for International Settlements said in its Annual Report that such “signs are worrying.”

Newspapers are sounding alarms as well. On July 8, the New York Times led its front page with a somewhat hyperbolic headline: “From Stocks to Farmland, All’s Booming, or Bubbling: Prices for Nearly All Assets around World Are High, Bringing Economic Risks.” The words “nearly all” are too strong, though the headline evinces the newfound concern.

It is not entirely clear why the alarms are sounding just now, after five years of general expansion in markets since they hit bottom in early 2009. Why aren’t people blithely expecting more years of expansion?

It seems that this thinking is heavily influenced by recent record highs in stock markets, even if these levels are practically meaningless, given inflation. Notably, just a month ago the Morgan Stanley Capital International All Country World Index broke the record that it reached on October 31, 2007.

The International Monetary Fund announced in June a new Global Housing Watch website that tracks global home prices and ratios. The site shows a global index for house prices that is rising, on a GDP-weighted basis, as fast as during the boom that preceded the 2008 crisis, though not yet reaching the 2006 record level.

There is also the US Federal Reserve’s announcement that, if the economy progresses as expected, the last bond purchase from the round of quantitative easing that it began in September 2012 will be in the month after the Federal Open Market Committee’s October 2014 meeting. That kind of news story seems also to affect observers’ thinking, though it is not really much in the way of news, given that everyone has known that the Fed would end the program before long.

The problem is that there is no certain way to explain how people will react to such a policy change, to any signs of price overheating or decline, or to other news stories that might be spun as somehow important. We simply do not have much well-documented history of big financial crises to examine, leaving econometricians vulnerable to serious error, despite studying time series that are typically no more than a few decades long.

Until the recent crisis, economists were talking up the “great moderation”: economic fluctuations were supposedly becoming milder, and many concluded that economic stabilization policy had reached new heights of effectiveness. As of 2005, just before the onset of the financial crisis, the Harvard econometricians James Stock (now a member of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers) and Mark Watson concluded that the advanced economies had become both less volatile and less correlated with each other over the course of the preceding 40 years.

That conclusion would have to be significantly modified in light of the data recorded since the financial crisis. The economic slowdown in 2009, the worst year of the crisis, was nothing short of catastrophic.

In fact, we have had only three salient global crises in the last century: 1929-33, 1980-82, and 2007-9. These events appear to be more than just larger versions of the more frequent small fluctuations that we often see, and that Stock and Watson analyzed. But, with only three observations, it is hard to understand these events.

All seemed to have something to do with speculative price movements that surprised most observers and were never really explained, even years after the fact. They also had something to do with government policymakers’ mistakes. For example, the 1980-82 crisis was triggered by an oil price spike caused by the Iran-Iraq war. But all of them were related to asset-price bubbles that burst, leading to financial collapse.

Those who warn of grave dangers if speculative price increases are allowed to continue unimpeded are right to do so, even if they cannot prove that there is any cause for concern. The warnings might help prevent the booms that we are now seeing from continuing much longer and becoming more dangerous.

Robert J. Shiller, a 2013 Nobel laureate in economics, is Professor of Economics at Yale University and the co-creator of the Case-Shiller Index of US house prices.

© 2014 Project Syndicate.