Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

My Dad’s Reverse Mortgage, Part II

No one has turned on a faucet or flushed a toilet in my late father’s vacant Pennsylvania condo for as long as I can remember. He died more than 18 months ago, and I’m certain—almost absolutely certain—that somebody in our family cancelled the utilities soon after the funeral.

So a few weeks ago I was genuinely surprised to receive a bill from the condo’s water and sewer vendor for the use of 84,670 gallons of water and 86,000 gallons of sewage at the condo during April 2014 alone. The year-to-date charges were about $4,000.   

Stirred but not shaken (four-figure disasters are a dime-a-dozen these days), I called the utility company and left a message. Then I called my brother the engineer, who lives near the condo. A numbers guy from birth, he punched a key on his iPhone, thumbed through a few websites, and said we’d filled the equivalent of 10 swimming pools. He agreed to meet me at the condo the next morning.

Two facts need to be re-established here: My father had taken out a reverse mortgage on his condo, and I’m the executor of his estate. I wrote about this adventure some months ago, and one reader responded that I had messed up royally by not getting a “deed in lieu of foreclosure.” Since my father refused to open his books to us kids, I’d like to blame him for whatever I did wrong. But let’s not go there.    

My understanding, based on what little the old man told me a few years ago, is that he’d put $200,000 down on a new condo after my mother died and soon afterward levered that equity into a $125,000 reverse mortgage. He used the $125,000 loan to pay off the condo so that he could live the rest of his life rent-free.  

After he died in January 2013—he was 83, and failing—I phoned the reverse mortgage company, Freedom Financial. I urged a customer service representative to please take ownership of the condo as soon as possible. She told me to await further instructions, which I did.

That may have been a mistake. No instructions ever arrived, and the next time I called Freedom Financial, the representative told me that, under Pennsylvania law, the condo was already in some kind of foreclosure queue, which could take up to “600 days”—a Biblical-sounding length of time.

Months passed. One day I began receiving crude, photocopied solicitation letters from bankruptcy lawyers. They evidently knew what I didn’t: that a sheriff’s deputy would soon appear at my front door and serve me with papers stating that my father’s estate—which had no assets–owed about $245,000 and that I could fight foreclosure if I chose.

I didn’t want to fight. I wanted to quit. The next time I called Financial Freedom, I asked, out of curiosity, why the company didn’t have a faster, more efficient process for taking possession of its property. “It’s not our property,” the phone rep said coolly. “It’s your property.” But didn’t Financial Freedom stand to lose money on a condo that sat empty for a couple of years, attracting toxic mold and copper thieves? 

“We’re not going to lose any money,” she said. “Whatever we don’t get back from the sale of the house, the government will make up.” Meanwhile, she said, the estate and its executor were liable for maintaining the condo, paying the monthly condo fees, etc.

Ah-ha, a moment of illumination: Taxpayer-funded insurance backed up the reverse mortgage. Of course. I was staring into the smirking face of Moral Hazard itself. The stain of it was smeared on me too, because I was wishfully thinking that the condo might not involve me after all. But it did, and it was proving hard to shake loose. (Did I mention that vacant houses aren’t insurable?)

Time passed. On June 27 of this year, I received a notice from the prothonotary of my father’s county declaring that a judgment of foreclosure on the condo would be entered against me by default, pursuant to an action by a law firm that specializes in debt collection. An accompanying note, in English and Spanish, urged me to “take this paper to your lawyer at once.”

Wonderful, I thought. If I couldn’t afford an attorney, the document said (Who can? I wondered), the legal aid society could provide one. Instead, I called my nemeses at the debt-collection law firm in Philadelphia. A young lawyer told me, confidentially, not to fret about my credit rating, or about the risk of a suit for breach of fiduciary duty as the executor, or about a potential lien on my meager personal assets. It would probably all be over in four to six months, he said, after the sheriff’s sale. 

But about that water and sewer mess. My brother and I arrived at the condo on a bright Saturday morning, expecting to find wastewater still gushing from the windows and a sheriff’s padlock on the door. We were relieved to find neither. From the outside, nothing looked amiss. Inside, the same: we found no stained or soggy carpeting, no watermarks halfway up the walls, and no flotsam or jetsam piled in corners—not a drop of water damage at all.

When I phoned the water & sewer office on the following Monday and described what we had found, the clerk told me that, despite the lack of evidence at the scene, the condo’s water use had in fact surged in February and continued to surge for four months.

Perhaps the toilets had been trickling night and day, she speculated. Or perhaps a pipe had burst under the slab during a cold snap. If the meter said 84,670 gallons of water per month were used, then 84,670 gallons were used, she assured me: The meter never lied. As for the $4,000 bill, she said, the W&S had already placed a lien on the property. I sighed. With any luck, it would soon be somebody else’s problem.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

 

Voya files for ‘structured’ variable annuity

ING USA Annuity, the Iowa-domiciled life insurance unit of Voya Financial (ING U.S. until its divestiture by ING NV) has filed a prospectus with the SEC for ING Potential Plus, a new flexible premium “deferred combination variable and fixed annuity contract.”

Like other “structured” variable annuity contracts issued in recent years by AXA, Allianz and MetLife, Potential Plus provides investors with credits based on the performance of an equity index, up to a cap, while the issuer absorbs some of the losses, depending on the size of the downside “buffer.”

ING Potential Plus offers four term periods (1, 3, 5 or 7 years) and three buffer options that absorb either the first 10%, 20% or 30% of market losses. The equity index is still unnamed. The cap on interest crediting varies over time, depending on market conditions and the issuer’s discretion.

The minimum premium is $25,000 for non-qualified money and $1,000 for non-qualified. There’s an eight-year surrender period with a first-year penalty of 8% for withdrawals in excess of 10%.

Investors who want better returns than bonds currently offer but who lack the risk appetite or tolerance to invest directly in equities can use these products to hedge their bets. The products resemble fixed index annuities, but generally offer higher caps and, in return, require the investor to share a portion of the downside risk exposure.

Where FIA owners are guaranteed against any investment loss, structured VA owners typically agree to bear any loss that exceeds the buffer that they choose. For instance, if the client chooses a 10% downside buffer and the linked equity index falls 12% between the beginning and end of the chosen term, the investor loses only 2%. Generally, risk is proportional to reward: The shallower the downside buffer, the higher the cap.

Not all structured VAs offer a buffer that, in effect, caps the issuer’s potential loss at 10, 20 or 30 percent. The CUNA Mutual Members Zone VA caps the policyholder’s annual loss at 10%.    

The first and most successful of the structured VAs, AXA Structured Capital Strategies, sold $293.4 million in the first quarter of 2014, down from $417 million in the fourth quarter of 2013.

ING Potential Plus requires the contract owner to establish a “Rate Threshold” after allocating all or part of his assets to one or more Interim Segments. When the cap on an Interim Segment’s crediting rate exceeds the client’s Rate Threshold, those assets are linked to the performance of the index for the designated period. Assets not allocated to an Interim Segment remain in the Liquid Assets Portfolio. 

Current expenses are not yet filed. Maximum expenses were 1.50% per year (assessed on business days) on assets in the Liquid Assets Portfolio and 1.50% on assets in the Interim Segments.   

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Global equity funds and ETFs are hot in 2014: TrimTabs

U.S. investors have overwhelmingly favored non-U.S. equities this year, according to TrimTabs Investment Research. While U.S. equity mutual funds and exchange-traded funds have received $12.6 billion, global equity mutual funds and exchange-traded funds have taken in $84.3 billion.

“Global equity funds have received almost seven times as much money as U.S. equity funds this year,” said David Santschi, CEO of TrimTabs.  “Fund investors are as convinced as ever that the grass is greener overseas.”

In 2013, U.S. equity funds received $150.5 billion, or 78% of the inflow of $193.1 billion into global equity funds.

“This year’s flow disparity is occurring even though the average global equity fund’s 5.1% gain is not much more than the average U.S. equity fund’s 4.2% rise,” Santschi said.

The financial crisis helped spark outflows of $547.8 billion from U.S. equity mutual funds from 2008 through 2012. Inflows resumed in 2013, totaling $12.4 billion, as the S&P 500 shot up 30%. Despite this year’s string of record highs on the S&P 500, U.S. equity mutual funds have lost $10.5 billion.

“The combination of highly disproportionate inflows into global equity funds and their less than stellar performance should be a red flag for contrarians,” said Santschi. “We advise investors to favor U.S. equities over non-U.S. equities now.”

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

A look at women and money, via Prudential

Although women say they are taking control of household finances, they are no more prepared to make financial decisions than they were ten years ago, according to Prudential Financial’s latest study of women and money.

The study, which is Prudential’s eighth biennial study of this topic, revealed that women are less concerned about their financial security today than they were after the 2008 financial crisis. But even though they don’t necessarily feel prepared to make wise financial planning decisions, fewer women say they are seeking professional financial advice.

The Prudential study, titled “Financial Experience & Behaviors Among Women,” was based on a poll of 1,407 American women and 606 American men ages 25 to 68. According to the study:

  • About a third of women give themselves an “A” for their knowledge of managing money (33%) and managing debt (29%).
  • While three out of four women believe it is very important “to have enough money to maintain their lifestyles in retirement,” only 14% are very confident they will. This gap is virtually unchanged from 10 years ago.
  • Only 33% of women feel “on track” or ahead of schedule in planning for retirement, down from 46% in 2008.
  • 66% of women surveyed said it was very important to keep pace with rising health care costs, but only 9% are confident they will be able to.
  • Only 38% of women understand mutual funds and only 31% understand annuities “very” or “somewhat well.”

Across almost all products and planning options–life insurance, retirement plans, IRAs, stock and bonds, estate plans, wills and trusts–understanding is now lower than it was in previous years. But only 31% of women use a financial professional, down from 48% percent in 2008.

In addition, one in five women say the financial services industry doesn’t understand their needs, and many say the industry needs to use less jargon and maintain a strong code of ethics.

Generational differences may play a factor in determining use of advisers. Forty-five percent of Baby Boomers use a financial professional, while 31% of Gen Xers and just 15% of Millennials do. Millennials and Gen Xers may be using the tools available for free on the Internet instead of seeking advisors, the study said.

Women are now the primary breadwinners in 44% of households, down from 53% in 2012. But the drop among married men as primary breadwinners is even greater, suggesting a leveling off of income among spouses and partners, and the fact that major financial decisions are made jointly.

This year 27% of married women say they have taken control of financial and retirement planning, up from 14% in 2006. Among married women who are their family’s primary breadwinner, 65% say they take the lead role in financial and retirement planning. Even among women who simply contribute to household income or were not wage earners, nearly half said they share equally in the financial planning process.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Bucket

Envestnet acquires Klein Decisions

Envestnet Retirement Solutions (ERS) has acquired Klein Decisions, Inc., a firm that provides managed accounts for retirement plan participants, according to a release this week by Envestnet, Inc., which provides technology and services to retirement advisors. 

The acquisition includes Klein’s “patented behavioral and financial analysis-based participant advice solutions,” according to the release.

In a statement, Babu Sivadasan, group president of Envestnet Retirement Solutions, said, “The addition of Klein’s technology to our retirement platform consisting of fund research, compliance assistance and practice management tools, and reporting and data aggregation… advances our ability to work with key record-keeping partners.” 

Guardian’s new fixed deferred annuity facilitates systematic withdrawals 

The Guardian Insurance and Annuity Co., a unit of Guardian Life, has introduced Guardian Fixed Target Annuity, a single premium, non-market value adjusted fixed deferred annuity with multiple guaranteed interest periods.   

The contract also offers a completely liquid account. At the end of the selected maturity period, an investor can renew the contract for a new term at the prevailing interest rate or transfer into a one-year Guaranteed Interest Period. Any amount of money in the one-year account can be withdrawn free of surrender charges.

When ready, the client may partially withdraw, fully surrender, transfer 100% of the annuity’s value into any available guaranteed interest period, or select one of the annuity payment options available to create a stream of income through annuity payments.

Retirement plan expenses continue to decline: ICI

In the continuation of a decade-long downward trend, the expense ratios of long-term mutual funds (equity, hybrid and bond funds) in 401(k) plans were lower in 2013 than in 2012, according to an annual research report from the Investment Company Institute. 

The report, “The Economics of Providing 401(k) Plans: Services, Fees, and Expenses, 2013,” also showed that plan participants who hold mutual funds tend to invest in lower-cost funds, the ICI said in a release. According to the report: 

At year-end 2013, equity mutual funds accounted for almost 38% of 401(k) plan assets. Equity fund investors in 401(k) plans paid an average annual expense ratio of 0.58%, down from 0.63% in 2012.

Average expense ratios of hybrid mutual funds in 401(k) plans fell to 0.58% percent in 2013 from 0.60% percent in 2012. For bond mutual funds, the average expense ratio fell to 0.48% in 2013 from 0.50% in 2012, according to ICI. 

Relative to all investors, participants in 401(k) plans tend to pay lower average fees than fund investors overall. The 0.58% paid by 401(k) investors in equity funds is lower than the average expense ratio paid by all equity fund investors (0.74%) and less than half the 1.37% simple average expense ratio on equity funds sold in the United States. The experience of hybrid and bond fund investors is similar.

Part of the savings comes simply from participants choosing cheaper funds, like index funds. 401(k) participants investing in mutual funds tend to invest in lower-cost funds,” said Sean Collins, senior director of industry and financial analysis, in a release.  

ChFC to include retirement income planning education

The American College of Financial Services announced that it has redesigned its Chartered Financial Consultant (ChFC) designation with an eye toward “offering applied knowledge to address real world family and business planning issues.”

The redesigned designation will now require expertise in several areas, including:

  • Divorce
  • Blended families
  • Providing for special needs children and family members
  • Issues impacting the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community
  • Retirement income planning
  • Behavioral finance      

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.                    

Danish DC Model Draws a Crowd in Britain

In 1016, Denmark’s King Canute conquered England, uniting the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian kingdoms. Just shy of a thousand years later, in 2012, Denmark invaded the U.K. again, this time bringing a new kind of employer-based defined contribution savings plan.

The plan is called Now: Pensions. It’s a low-cost, single-investment-option, portable, multi-employer retirement savings fund designed for the small- and mid-sized UK company market. A new market for such plans flared open in 2012, when the UK required all employers to auto-enroll every worker into a retirement savings plan by 2017.

Though new to Britain, Now: Pensions isn’t a start-up. It’s a subsidiary of ATP, Denmark’s $113 billion national employer-based pension fund, a DC/DB hybrid. When Now: Pensions participants in the UK make payroll deferrals, their money goes into an absolute-return fund that’s run separately but almost identically to ATP’s fund in Denmark.          

NOW: Pensions’ 90 employees in London work out of two floors in an office building opposite Liverpool Street Station. Each one is a Now: Pensions participant, explains Morten Nilsson, president and CEO (right), who welcomes me to a glass-encased conference room, next to an open floorplan of sales and marketing employees. Morten Nilsson Now Pensions

Nilsson reports directly to ATP’s CEO, but he and his staff have established their own entrepreneurial culture in the UK. “ATP provides us with money and the brand to leverage, and gives us autonomy. We can make fast decisions. People who join us enjoy the startup atmosphere,” he told me. Now: Pensions is marketed to UK companies through financial advisers and through payroll management firms.

The formula is working. After only two years, Now: Pensions serves over 2,500 employers and hundreds of thousands of participants. It ranks among the top three multi-employer DC plans in the UK, along with NEST [the government-supported National Employment Savings Trust] and the People’s Pension. (Big UK employers, like Tesco or Sainsbury’s, tend to build their own in-house pension platforms.) NOW: Pensions, unlike NEST, also coordinates with payroll companies to provide back office functions.

Not exactly the Danish model

Although Now: Pensions copies ATP’s absolute-return, even-keeled approach to investing, it departs from ATP during the income stage. ATP pays its participants a monthly income when they retire—an income that can fluctuate with the performance of the permanent underlying fund. But when Now: Pensions’ participants retire, they, like typical DC participants in the U.S., take a lump sum based on the value of their own shares at the time they retire.     

“There’s no way around that, for a mutual system, with no shareholders or capital, where the assets remain inaccessible, legally separated accounts under a custodian,” says David Blake, professor of Pension Economics at Cass Business School. 

“From our point of view, all we can do is hold their hands until retirement, and see they end up with a decent-sized pot,” says Nigel Waterson (below left), chairman of the board of Now: Pensions, and former Conservative Minister of Pensions. (Other board members are Jocelyn Blackwell of Dunnett Shaw, former government actuary Christopher Daykin, John Monks of the House of Lords, and Win Robbins, former head of fixed income at Barclays Global Investors.)

Nigel Waterson

Income solutions are on Now: Pensions’ to-do list, however. As people live longer, and many choose to continue working part-time after retirement, retirees will need more than a straightforward annuity. The cost of retail annuities in the UK is expected to go up because a recent law made the purchase of an annuity with tax-deferred savings voluntary instead of semi-mandatory. In a voluntary annuity market, only the healthiest people tend to buy annuities, and manufacturers adjust by raising prices and reducing payout rates. 

Even if Now: Pensions develops less expensive, in-plan annuity options for its participants, it will still be offered on a voluntary basis, Waterson said. “Internally we are looking at all new options that might be available to make sure members have all the information they need,” he told me. “We might develop our own products that they might want to look at. But they themselves must make the choices.”

Early last month, after a UK government official said he would propose a change in UK pension laws to accommodate an ATP-style DC/DB hybrid, Now: Pensions CEO Nilsson immediately issued a press release saying that DC/DB hybrids are premature for the UK, which is still adjusting to a DC environment after a long tradition of DB.

“Whilst innovations such as collective DC schemes have been successful in Denmark and the Netherlands, both of these markets are highly unionized and have had mandatory or quasi-mandatory pension saving for many years.

“The populations are relatively homogenous and the collective DC schemes operate on an occupational basis with people from similar professions sharing risk with one another—a much fairer approach than manual workers sharing risk with white collar workers. The UK is a much more fragmented market and while changing legislation to allow these schemes could have merit, in many ways it feels as though we are running before we can walk.”

Keeping it simple—and cheap

NOW: Pensions brings two attractive features to the U.K. retirement market: low costs and a one-option investment lineup. Most competitors in the new auto-enrolled DC space offered at least five or six investment options, but ATP’s research showed that, in practice, participants don’t like to be presented with too many decisions. They tend to make one choice and then forget about it.

So the firm decided to offer each age cohort a single target date fund with three actively managed components: a diversified growth fund, retirement protection fund and cash protection fund. The assumption was that participants would be less baffled by multiple choices and more able to engage meaningfully with the plan.  “Most welcome packs are huge, but ours consists of only two pages,” Nilsson said. But taking on the full investment responsibility also puts pressure on the company’s ability to deliver.

Blake and his researchers have looked at the research for that proposition, and agrees that, “evidence shows you can’t buy better performance from hiring more expensive investment managers. The single fund keeps costs down, with economies of scale and low expenses.”

The cost structure is the other attraction. It consists of a flat 0.3% of fund per annum plus £1.50 (about $2.50) per month per member. “We’re a bit proud of that, and think it’s fairer,” Nilsson says. Compare those costs with the charges for the publicly mandated system NEST, which also comprise 0.3% of asset under management, but charge 1.8% of individual contributions.

Under NEST’s expense ratio fee structure, higher-income participants pay more. The fixed fee from NOW: Pensions, on the other hand, means that everyone bears the same cost. The firm doesn’t believe that different groups of workers should cross-subsidize each other. “Moreover, we can take any members, because they cover their own administrative costs,” says Nilsson. “We don’t mind having low earners or dealing with churn.”

Waterson also takes professional pride in the distinctive characteristics of the NOW: Pension model. In his prior political role, he spoke for his Conservative party on all major pension legislation, including the establishment of NEST and provisions for auto-enrollment.

In 2010, he left Parliament after national elections, but he can continue to see his legislative efforts bear fruit. When he joined the board of NOW: Pensions, he  explains that he “leaped at the chance to see those ideas work in practice, which is what we’re doing.”

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

It Just Keeps Getting Better

“Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau” — Irving Fisher, economics professor, Yale University, 1929.

Irving Fisher was a brilliant economist who learned a lesson from his 1929 quote above: forecasting is hard. As we entered 2014, many observers, including me, thought there would be a price to pay for the 2013 extraordinary 33% gain in the U.S. stock market.Surz 2014 Chart 1

In my end-of-year commentary I forecast a 16% loss for U.S. stocks in 2014, and in January it looked like I was going to be right (see graph on the right). But then stock markets, both here and abroad, rallied in the next five months. 2014 isn’t over yet, but it’s looking like I’m going to be wrong.

In fact, everything is performing very well so far this year, and it just keeps getting better.

The June 28 issue of The Wall Street Journal carries the headline, “Financial Markets Enjoy Broadest Rally Since ‘93.” It’s very unusual for all asset classes—stocks, bonds, commodities, etc.—to all go up in value at the same time, but that’s what has happened in the first half of 2014, as shown in the graph on the right. The last time this happened was more than 20 years ago, in 1993. As the song says: “Don’t worry. Be happy.”

I’ll resist the temptation to double down on my market forecast for the remainder of the year and turn instead to an examination of what has been driving U.S. and foreign stock markets in the first half. History is much easier to get right than the future.

But before I dive in, I’d like to draw your attention to the hottest investment in pension land: target date funds. This $trillion train is speeding down a rickety track. You may want to get off the train, or you could help us fix the track. You can read more at “Understanding the Hidden Risks in Target Date Funds,” a short introduction to the situation.

U.S. Stocks

This is one of those time-periods where the stuff in the middle has surprised by not performing in between the stuff on the ends. Mid-cap stocks have outperformed large and small companies, earning 8.4% in the first half. Similarly, large cap core stocks outperformed both large-cap value and large-cap growth, earning 9.2%. Small companies have lagged, earning 4.8%. I use the Surz Style Pure classifications throughout this commentary.

Sector analysisSurz 2014 Chart 3

On the sector front, there has been a wide range of performance, with energy stocks earning 15% while consumer discretionary companies have lagged with a mere 1% return. Consumer discretionary stocks led last year’s rally with a 45% return, and energy companies were among the worst performing sectors. There have been reversals in economic sector performance, which leads us to heat maps and clues to momentum and reversals.

The interesting details lie in the cross-sections of styles with sectors, as shown in the heat map below. A heat map shows shades of green for “good,” which in this case is good performance relative to the total market. By contrast, shades of red are bad, indicating underperformance. Yellow is neutral.

In the table below, we see that the best performing market segment in the first half of 2014 was comprised of large-cap growth companies in the energy sector, earning 34.2%. And the worst performing segment was small-cap core in the utilities sector, losing 9.1%. Many quantitative managers employ momentum in their models, buying the “green” and selling the “red.” Non-quants, also known as fundamental managers, use heat maps as clues to segments of the market that are worth exploring, for both momentum and reversal potential.

 

Surz Heat Map 2014 1

Foreign stocks

Looking outside the U.S., foreign markets earned 7.7%, exceeding the U.S. stock market’s 7% return and EAFE’s 5% return. For those with a broad foreign mandate, EAFE has been easy to beat because the better performing regions are not included, namely Emerging Markets and Canada. Emerging Markets have led in the half with a 16% return. By contrast, the U.K. and Japan have earned only 3.5%.

On the style front, value led in the half with an 11% return while growth stocks earned less than half that amount. Further insights into overseas market behavior are provided by heat maps, as shown below. As you can see, both the UK and Japan were red in most styles. The best performing segment was Latin American technology stocks with a 43.3% return, while the worst performing companies were utilities in the U.K. with a 20.5% loss.

Surz 2014 Chart 6

It just keeps getting better, until it doesn’t. Everything is up this year, but will it continue? Which asset classes will continue to deliver strong returns (momentum) and which will not (reversals, also known as regressions to the mean). We’ve already seen reversals in U.S. economic sectors. I’d like to hear your thoughts. As Yogi Berra said, “The future ain’t what it used to be.”

We all have outlooks on the economy and the stock market, and adjust our thinking as results roll in. I personally remain surprised and grateful that stocks have performed so well in the past five years, following the 2008-2009 meltdown; it’s been a long-term reversal. You can use the information above to test your personal outlooks, to see which are unfolding as you think they should and which are not, with the intention to clear the haze from those crystal balls.

© 2014 PPCA-Inc.com

Thirteen Life and Annuity Specialists Rated ‘Successful’ by Conning

Great American, Jackson National, and Thrivent Financial were named “successful” large companies that specialize in the life insurance and annuity market in the fifth edition of a survey that Conning Research began publishing in 2004.

In the proprietary study, “Successful Individual Life-Annuity Specialists,” Conning analyzed companies active in the individual life and annuity market and divided them into four size categories based on their amount of capital and assets and their rankings of direct premium by product.

Conning singled out “successful” companies based on their operating margin, return on surplus, premium growth, and sales. Large, highly diversified, publicly-held insurers like Lincoln National, MetLife and Prudential were generally excluded from the study because they weren’t believed to have a special focus in life insurance and annuities.

The five mid-sized life and annuity specialist firms deemed successful were FBL Financial Group, Indiana Farm Bureau, Modern Woodmen of America, Symetra and USAA. The five small life and annuity specialists named in the report were Bankers Life, First Catholic Slovak Union of the U.S. and Canada, Manhattan Insurance Group, Liberty Bankers Group and Tennessee Farmers.

 “Our ongoing study of successful individual life-annuity companies continues with the 2014 edition, which for the first time includes a detailed analysis of the large company segment,” said Terence Martin, analyst at Conning, in a statement. “One overriding characteristic of these companies was the consistency in their product mix over time; they appear to have found and kept true to the optimal mix for their firm.” 

Conning divided companies active in the individual life and annuity market into four size categories based on their amount of capital and assets and their rankings of direct premium by product. Conning also identified “successful” companies based on their operating margin, return on surplus, premium growth, and sales.

Among its findings:

  • The Successful Small group had less of a dependence on single-premium sales than the Small group overall, while the Successful Large had a higher proportion of single premium.
  • Successful companies maintained a higher allocation to NAIC Category 2 bonds and had slightly higher credit leverage.
  • Using the average maturity as a rough measure of portfolio length shows the Successful Small and Successful Large companies had shorter portfolios than their corresponding overall groups.
  • Successful companies had lower investment expense ratios than their respective overall groups.
  • Successful companies in all three company size categories were found issuing policies of the same face amount, which means success can be found issuing policies of a broad range of size and does not require chasing ever-larger policies.
  • The Successful companies generally have higher distributor productivity than their corresponding groups overall. This advantage becomes more pronounced when agency expenses are included in the analysis.

“In our analysis we see a greater focus on annuities among the successful insurers than we had previously,” said Steve Webersen, director of research at Conning. “Yet no specific mix of individual life and annuities appears more conducive to success, although stability of that mix does contribute.

“Dependence on single premium products works for larger companies, which can absorb the corresponding volatility, while smaller companies are more likely to succeed if they avoid single premium products. We identified a number of other interesting findings related to geographic mix, investments, policy size and distributor productivity.”

The annual study series now analyzes ten years of data (rather than the six years in the earlier editions of the series), includes fraternal organizations, and identifies successful Small, Midsized, and Large companies, rather than identifying just Successful Small companies.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Skads of Data about Americans over 65

For all you demographic information junkies, the U.S. Census Bureau has dedicated its June 2014 Current Population Report to a study of Americans ages 65 and over, using data collected in 2010.  

The study, replete with charts, graphs and tables, contains data that marketers and actuaries might use: e.g., the ratio of male to female 90-somethings (about 40:100), what the rich elderly live on (mainly earnings), how many elderly smoke (9.8%) or drink to excess (9.7%), and what portion are obese (28.7%).

Here are a few other things you can learn from this document:

The housing crash hurt the nursing home business. According to the report, the Great Recession, perhaps temporarily, delayed the transition to senior housing (assisted living facilities and independent living facilities) by reducing home values. The occupancy rate at independent living facilities fell from a peak of 92.7% in the first quarter of 2007 to 87.1% in the third quarter of 2010. The occupancy rate for assisted living facilities also fell from a peak in the first quarter of 2007 (90.7%), bottoming out at 87.6% in the first quarter of 2010.   

More people are carrying mortgages into retirement. The percentage of people over 50 with a mortgage climbed over the three periods for which data is available: from 47% in 1998-2001 to 52% in 2001-2004 and to 57% in 2004-2007. Thirty-percent had recently borrowed on refinanced. The percentage of people who extracted money from their home equity rose from just 11% in the 1998-2001 period to 24% in 2004-2007. The latter period was coincidental with the housing and credit boom.

Dixie has more than its fair share of poor retirees. The deep South, emblematic of rural poverty at least since the publication of Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, James Agee and Walker Evans’ Depression-era book on sharecropper families, not surprisingly has a high concentration of states with high rates of poverty among those age 65 and older. A swath of 12 southern states, stretching from New Mexico in the West to North and South Carolina in the East, and as far north as West Virginia, all had elderly poverty rates of 9.5% or higher.

Ironically, one of the largest and wealthiest states, New York, also had above average elderly poverty rates well above average, as did California. Only a handful of states—Washington, Wyoming, Utah, Indiana, Vermont and New Hampshire had elderly poverty rates lower than 7%.

Marriage protects against hunger in old age. Married pays a handsome dividend in retirement, especially for women; that’s evident from this report, like others before it. For the general U.S. population and within ethnic groups, couples are at much lower risk of being poor in retirement than single people are. Among the entire 65+ population, only 4.1% of couples are in poverty, compared to 6.7% for single men and 13.6% for women. Single black (18.7%), Asian (16.8%) and Latino (20.3%) women have poverty rates significantly higher than single white women (11.7%). 

The “replacement rate” declines over time. When people talk about income replacement rates in retirement—70% of final pay is often cited—they seem to assume that it will stay constant throughout retirement. But the latest Census data shows that, generally, retirees’ real replacement rates fall as they age. For instance, among retirees born in the years 1931 to 1936, their median replacement rate fell from 75.5% in the first or second year of retirement to 57.7% in the ninth or tenth years. 

About one-in-four retirees makes money the old-fashioned way. If you assumed that the retirees with the highest incomes were those who saved the most, you might be surprised to learn that their advantage comes, in many cases, from the simple fact that they’re not exactly retirees. They’re still working. (Whether by choice or necessity, the report doesn’t say.) According to the Census Report, those in the 65 and older crowd who are in the highest quintile for income get, in aggregate, almost 45% of their income from earnings. About one in four people ages 65+ have earned income.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

To raise retirement security, ban DC cash-outs: EBRI

Unlike many other advanced countries, the U.S. has a voluntary employer-based defined contribution savings system. Under our system, people have the option to cash out their DC balances when they change jobs. And, despite the tax consequences of cashing out, many do.  

But if regulations were tweaked to eliminate the “cash-out” option, significantly more Americans would likely end up with adequate savings when they reach retirement, according to research submitted at a Congressional hearing last June 17 by the Employee Benefit Research Institute’s research director, Jack Vanderhei. 

The elimination of cash-outs during job changes would mean that 38.3% of the people in the lowest income quartile who would not otherwise have saved enough to replace 60% of their pre-retirement income in retirement would have reached that threshold when they combined their DC savings and Social Security benefit. 

Though the impact of eliminating cash-outs was weaker for higher replacement rates and higher income quartiles was not as pronounced, it was still significant. For instance, it enabled 15.6% of the people in the highest quartile who would have fallen short of a 70% replacement rate to reach it.

Eliminating cash-outs had a much bigger effect, in fact, than eliminating either loans or hardship withdrawals from DC plans, according to the data. Vanderhei used the proprietary EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model to produce the results.

The model assumed a population of workers currently ages 25 to 29 who would have more than 30 years “of simulated participation in a 401(k) plan,” who retired at age 65, and who used their DC savings to buy an inflation-adjusted life annuity at a purchase prices of $18.62 per $1 of monthly lifetime income.  

Plans were also assumed to have automatic escalation with a three percent default contribution rate and an annual increase in contributions equal to one percent of annual compensation. Employees are assumed to revert their level of contributions to the default rate when they participate in a new plan and opt-out of automatic escalation.

The EBRI findings, entitled “The Impact of Leakages on 401(k) accumulations at Retirement Age.” They were submitted at a hearing on Lifetime Participation in Plans that was held by the ERISA Advisory Council of the U.S. Department of Labor in Washington, D.C., in June.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.   

How does an unshackled pension fund invest? Ask Sweden’s SPK

Hungry for yield and free from a mandate to hold mainly long-dated Swedish government bonds, the Swedish pension fund SPK has begun executing a plan to diversify into foreign bonds, infrastructure and “alternative risk premia,” IPE.com reported.

The SEK24bn (€2.6bn, $3.54bn) pension fund for savings bank employees is switching from an allocation of 70% Swedish government bonds and 30% equities to a “more diversified and modern” approach, according to its chief executive, Peter Hansson. Planning for the switch began about 18 months ago.

“Our allocation looks completely different now, and we have about 10 asset classes instead of just two,” said Hansson. The fund has split its portfolio into liability-hedging and return-seeking sections. It also diversified its bond allocation and intends to invest 20% of its assets in alternatives, including real estate.  

Swedish manager Brummer & Partners will manage a small part of the fund’s 12% hedge fund exposure in a multi-strategy fund. Most of the fund’s 12% hedge fund exposure will be dedicated to an alternative risk premia strategy – the latest fashion in institutional asset management. A manager is expected to be named by end of summer.

Alternative risk premia strategies aim for exposure to the types of uncorrelated return sources that hedge funds typically pursue, but at half the cost. Two other Scandinavian institutional investors, the Danish pension company PKA and Swedish state fund AP2, already invest in alternative risk premia. 

SPK’s fixed income portfolio has been completely overhauled. Formerly, under a government mandate to match its long-dated liabilities with long-dated assets, the fund invested only in long-term domestic government and mortgage bonds. Since a change in regulations, it will now invest in foreign government and mortgage bonds as well as a domestic corporate fund run by Handesbanken. Swedbank Robur also manages some of SPK’s bonds. 

“We’ve invested in a Goldman Sachs fund, which includes everything you can think of—credit, high yield and emerging market debt. It’s a broad mandate that we believe has the ability to make money in a rising interest-rate environment,” said Stefan Ros, SPK’s chief investment officer.

SPK’s 8% allocation to real assets is equally split between infrastructure and real estate. The infrastructure fund is a global core fund run by an as-yet unnamed manager. “Our real estate exposure is made up of a more cautious Aberdeen euro-zone fund we are topping up with a Nordic value-added strategy, a mandate that will be finalized shortly,” Ros said.

The fund’s total equity exposure remains unchanged, but it has added a Handelsbanken Swedish small-cap fund and reduced the number of global equity managers to two from four. T. Rowe Price and Carnegie will stay on as external equity managers, but SPK has sold its Aberdeen and JP Morgan funds.

Although SPK, which invests only in funds, manages the money internally, it turned to Danske Bank, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Nordea for help shaping the new strategy.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Bucket

Nevin Adams to leave EBRI

In his mid-year report, Dallas Salisbury, president of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, wrote, “Nevin Adams, who has been a highly prized contributor to the EBRI team, has accepted a position with another organization. I am, however, pleased to note that he has agreed to continue his work here through mid-August.”

Adams, a former global editor-in-chief of PlanSponsor magazine who joined EBRI in 2011 as director of Education and External Relations, director of the American Savings Education Program and co-director of the EBRI Center for Research on Retirement Income, told RIJ in an email that his new employer would be announced in a few weeks. 

A.M. Best upgrades Voya, with caveat   

Citing “favorable trends in Voya’s statutory and GAAP operating earnings, sound risk-adjusted capitalization and renewed focus on its retirement and employee benefit business, A.M. Best has upgraded the outlook for Voya Financial (formerly ING U.S.) to positive from stable.

The ratings agency also affirmed the issuer credit ratings (ICR) of “a” for Voya’s key life insurance entities, affirmed with a stable outlook the financial strength rating (FSR) of A (Excellent) of Voya’s life subsidiaries and revised the outlook to positive from stable and affirmed the ICR of “bbb” of Voya as well as the ratings on Voya’s outstanding debt.  

In explaining the upgrade, A.M. Best acknowledged Voya’s successful IPOs since May 2013, which have reduced ING Group’s ownership of Voya to about 43%.

“While some execution risks remain surrounding the completion of the process of becoming independent and rebranding to Voya, A.M. Best believes this risk has somewhat diminished as demonstrated by recent successful debt issuances totaling approximately $3 billion and favorable demand for its public shares,” the agency said in a release.

“With the proceeds from the longer-term debt issuances, Voya has been able to eliminate its short-term debt while reducing overall financial leverage to approximately 20% with interest coverage improving to approximately five times.” A.M. Best also cited:

  • Voya’s favorable debt maturity profile, with no debt maturing before 2018.
  • Voya’s established positions within the U.S. retirement, investment management and life insurance markets.
  • Its reduced exposure to higher-risk assets in its general account.
  • Its discontinued sales of variable annuities and certain capital-intensive life insurance products.
  • Its focus on enhancing risk management practices.
  • Improvements in the net amount at risk for its closed block of variable annuities (CBVA) the past several quarters, driven primarily by favorable market conditions.

The ratings agency also noted a need for caution regarding the “impact on earnings of Voya’s CBVA segment and susceptibility of future earnings to spread compression and fluctuations in the equity markets.”

“A.M. Best notes that Voya has managed interest spreads by actively reducing crediting rates in recent periods,” the release said. “However, A.M. Best believes the company may be challenged to maintain current spreads over the near to medium term as approximately 80% of interest-sensitive account values are at guaranteed minimum interest rates. “Moreover, while A.M. Best acknowledges that Voya’s hedging program protects statutory capital primarily against fluctuations in the financial markets, the company has taken material statutory charges in recent periods due to revisions to policyholder behavior assumptions on its CBVAs.

“As uncertainty remains whether current assumptions will be in line with policyholder experience, Voya is susceptible to additional and potentially significant charges in the near to medium term. Voya recently announced that it has retained the expertise of an outside actuarial firm to perform actuarial valuation, modeling and hedging functions for its CBVA segment, which A.M. Best views favorably.

“Finally, Voya’s operating companies utilize significant levels of reinsurance – both affiliated and unaffiliated – as a capital management and risk mitigation tool for its term and universal life insurance business. As such, the group’s regulatory risk-adjusted capitalization and statutory earnings benefit from the use of captives to fund Regulation XXX and Guideline AXXX reserves. A.M. Best expects statutory capital and earnings growth of Voya’s insurance operating companies to continue despite dividend payments to the holding company for debt servicing and share repurchase.

“Factors that may lead to future positive rating actions for Voya include sustained favorable operating results across its core business lines without material drag from the legacy variable annuity business as well as maintenance of strong levels of risk-adjusted capital.

“Factors that could lead to future negative rating actions include significant operating losses or reserve increases in the variable annuity block, notable spread compression in interest-sensitive lines and/or a material reduction in risk-adjusted capitalization.

The FSR of A (Excellent) and ICRs of “a” have been affirmed for the following life insurance subsidiaries of Voya Financial, Inc.:

  • ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company
  • ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company
  • ReliaStar Life Insurance Company
  • ReliaStar Life Insurance Company of New York
  • Security Life of Denver Insurance Company
  • [The FSR of A- (Excellent) and ICR of “a-” have been affirmed with a stable outlook for Midwestern United Life Insurance Company, a non-core subsidiary of Voya.]

Nationwide offers three new mutual funds

Nationwide Funds, the mutual fund business of Nationwide Financial, is adding three new mutual funds to its fund lineup, providing “investors with greater choice and access to new portfolio managers, while helping Nationwide Funds reach its growth objectives,” the company said in a release.

According to the release, sales of Nationwide Funds has grown 200% since the first quarter of 2013 and assets under management have grown to $57.2 billion from $47.1 billion. 

The new funds include:

The Nationwide Herndon Mid Cap Value Fund, which will invest primarily in mid-sized companies perceived to be under-valued. Managed and subadvised by Herndon Capital Management, it is the first mutual fund to offer the Herndon mid-cap value strategy.

The Nationwide Diverse Managers Fund, which will invest in global equity and fixed-income securities. The fund’s four sleeves that are managed by separate minority- and women-owned investment firms, including Garcia Hamilton & Associates, Herndon Capital Management, Strategic Global Advisors, LLC, and Ariel Investments. The fund will be available to Nationwide Financial’s retirement plan clients in mid-July.

The Nationwide Bailard Emerging Markets Fun, which will invest in emerging market equities. The fund is subadvised by Bailard, Inc. Nationwide acquired three Bailard funds when it bought 17 mutual funds from HighMark Capital Management, Inc. last year.

As of March 31, 2014, Nationwide Funds manages 114 funds with approximately $57.2 billion in assets, excluding funds of funds.

Securian guidance program adds tablet-friendly website

Securian has launched RetirementGPS.com, a component of the insurer’s Retirement GPS program, which “is designed to help advisors frame conversations with clients” about retirement in general and annuities in particular, the company said in a release.

“Advisors are looking for ways to start the retirement income conversation,” said Kerry Geurkink, manager, Individual Annuity Marketing, Securian Financial Group, in a statement. “RetirementGPS.com can help “them shift focus from accumulation to developing a retirement income strategy.”

The site helps advisors and clients discuss:  

  • Inflation risk, longevity risk and other financial risks.
  • Questions to consider when planning “a retirement route.”
  • Sources of income for retirement
  • How to keep finances on course throughout retirement.

The site also offers useful tools and resources:

  • An online survey allows visitors to answer retirement questions and compare their responses with others’.
  • A “Destination Retirement” brochure and workbook, which helps clients develop realistic retirement income strategies.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Life Just Got Easier for Qualified DIAs

The new Treasury regulation that relaxes the required minimum distribution (RMD) rules for qualified deferred income annuities (DIAs) was not exactly the regulation that I and some other observers had expected. The regulation, announced this week, was broader and potentially much more useful.

I expected the new regulation to allow near-retirees or retirees to use some of their IRA or 401(k) money to buy so-called “longevity insurance”—life-only annuities whose payments began no earlier than age 80 to 85. Instead, it allows people to spend up to $125,000 on DIAs whose payments don’t have to begin until age 85. What’s more, the DIAs can offer return-of-premium death benefit options.

In short, qualified DIAs sold after July 2, 2014 (the regulation isn’t retroactive) will offer much more flexibility. Contract owners won’t have to start taking income from them by age 70½, when RMDs from their other tax-deferred accounts must begin. (DIAs purchased with after-tax money aren’t subject to RMDs, so they aren’t affected by the new regulation.)

For instance, a 66-year-old with substantial savings in a 401(k) or rollover IRA can now put 25% of that savings (up to $125,000) in a DIA with a ten-year deferral and postpone taxable distributions until age 76. (This type of DIA will be henceforth known as a Qualifying Longevity Annuity Contract, or QLAC—a mouth-filling new acronym that embodies their kinship with QDIAs. Both are blessed for use as options in qualified retirement plans.)    

That’s fairly good news, especially at a time when people are expected to work longer, live longer, and neglect to think about structuring their retirement finances until they reach their mid-60s. It won’t necessarily be a game-changer for leading DIA marketers like New York Life, MassMutual, Northwestern Mutual but, as one product manager told RIJ yesterday, it could give qualified sales a lift. 

An idea evolves

Shame on me for sleeping on the job and expecting a narrower regulation. I was still relying on these words in the Federal Register back in 2012:

“The Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that there are substantial advantages to modifying the required minimum distribution rules in order to facilitate a participant’s purchase of a deferred annuity that is scheduled to commence at an advanced age—such as age 80 or 85—using a portion of his or her account.”

That sounded like a direct reference to pure longevity insurance—low-cost, long-dated, life-only contracts that cover catastrophic longevity “tail risk,” the kind of insurance that people should buy and stuff in a drawer, just as they stuff termite or flood or meteorite insurance contracts in a drawer.     

Indeed, other sensible people assumed the same. John Turner, director of the Pension Policy Center in Washington, D.C., thought what I did. In early 2013, he and David McCarthy published an article about the proposed regulation in Benefits Quarterly. The authors equated the product under discussion at the Treasury with an annuity that “starts at an advanced age, 85.”

“It is very strange that they completely changed the concept from one where it seemed that you had to be at least age 80 to receive payments to one where you can be age 72,” Turner told RIJ yesterday, as he was packing to go on vacation. “In my analysis of the proposal, it was clear to me that such an early age was not envisioned.” (He doesn’t think men should buy DIAs through 401(k)s, because the unisex mortality tables used to price in-plan annuities work against them.)   

But Turner and I obviously weren’t paying close enough attention to the comments that had been filed in response to the proposed regulations two years ago. In their filings and discussions with officials, annuity experts and industry attorneys were evidently telling Treasury what every close observer of DIAs knew by then. Which is that consumers didn’t like pure, life-only, long-dated longevity insurance, but seemed to love deferred income annuities—personal pensions with optional death benefits.  

Thus we have a regulation that’s aligned with the reality of the marketplace, instead of one that merely tries to create a market for an idealized product that nobody wanted. Moshe Milevsky, the York University annuity expert and consultant who was close to some of these discussions, reminded RIJ that nothing in the new rule prevents people from buying pure longevity insurance.

“If you want, you can still purchase the 100% pure ALDA [advanced life deferred annuity] that starts payments at age 80 or 85,” he wrote in an e-mail. “What they [the Treasury department] are allowing is for someone to add [death benefit] riders and still qualify for QLAC treatment—which then opens the market to a much wider set of products as well (e.g., the DIA.) Basically, the intention was to increase the size of the market beyond what was allowed in the proposed regulations, but not too wide.  

“Initially my position was that a QLAC should offer no death benefits, no return of premium, and no ability to turn-on income early, so that it could offer the highest amount of mortality credits possible. That said, I can understand the pressure from industry groups and practitioners who claimed that nobody—other than a few economists—would want to sell or buy these things. There was a need to compromise and allow for features that would make the product easier to sell,” he wrote.

The death benefit mattered

Perhaps sensitive to this point, the Treasury Department fended off any suggestion that its final regulations were shaped by industry pleadings. The official response was that the final regulation in 2014 promised nothing more or less than the proposed regulation had in 2012: that payments could “start no later than age 85.” In fact, the proposal had never referred to a minimum payout age.

A spokesman for one of the lobbying groups that commented on the proposal told RIJ, “Our regulatory affairs folks don’t believe that Treasury ever intended there to be a certain commencement age. It seems that they always wanted there to be flexibility. But at the same time, the longer the deferral period, the further you get beyond age 70½, and the more helpful this QLAC rule becomes. This might be why some folks had age 80 or 85 in mind.”

Others suggested that once the Treasury Department decided to expand the definition of a QLAC to include an optional return-of-premium death benefit, the point of pushing back the earliest start date to age 80 made no sense. The death benefit had already removed some—though not all—of the mortality credit. And, from a revenue standpoint, the government clearly had no interest in forcing people to delay taxable distributions to age 80. If they only want to defer to age 73, that’s a relatively easy dispensation to grant.

On the contrary. In a prepared statement, Mark Iwry, the deputy assistant Secretary of the Treasury for retirement and health policy, addressed that issue:  

“The extent to which a deferred annuity presents challenges in terms of RMD compliance—and the special treatment under the RMD rules that the regulations provide—is generally proportional to the lateness of the annuity starting date,” his statement read. “An annuity that starts at age 85 presents a greater RMD compliance challenge and receives special treatment under the regulations for a longer period of years than one that starts at age 75. The regulation does not create a ‘cliff’ that would limit special RMD treatment to annuities starting after a specified age.”

Besides the death benefit, the retirement industry also requested and got from Treasury a softening of the proposed rule that over-contributions to a DIA would nullify the contract. According to the final regulations, over-contributions can be corrected.

But the industry didn’t get everything it wanted from Treasury. Although the final regulations allow as much as $125,000 to be spent on a QLAC (up from $100,000 in the proposal), Treasury didn’t accept the industry argument that the 25% cap on deferral made it tough for someone with, say, $200,000 in qualified savings, to buy a meaningful income stream.

Some sectors of the industry came away empty-handed. Representatives of the fixed indexed annuity lobbied for the new QLAC regulation to include their products, so that FIA contract owners could postpone RMDs until their living benefits entered the income stage. But Treasury rejected the plea, at least for now, on the grounds that the equity-linked lifetime withdrawal benefits are variable, and the products not easy for retirees to compare. (Oddly, there was no mention of the distinction that DIA contracts are irrevocable and illiquid, while living benefits are liquid.)

Kim O’Brien, president and CEO of the National Association of Fixed Annuities, isn’t satisfied by that answer. She sees no difference between DIAs and FIAs big enough to justify the exclusion of FIAs from being QLACs.

“If Treasury allows a ‘holiday’ from RMDs for DIA owners between age 70½ and an undefined ‘maximum age’ that ‘may be adjusted to reflect changes in mortality,’ then any product with a ‘predictable income payment’ should be allowed,” O’Brien wrote in an email to RIJ. “We are still reading through the entire Rule and will have more information as we get through it.” The Treasury Department did not rule out giving FIAs an exemption. Interestingly, Treasury did extend the QLAC designation to Northwestern Mutual’s DIA, which has a variable payout in the sense that contract owners can receive annual dividends along with guaranteed income.

The proponents of in-plan annuities got what they wanted from the new regulation, but it won’t be enough to fulfill their needs. Cynthia Mallett, a vice president at MetLife, has been working for several years to get deferred income annuities approved as options in 401(k) plans. She saw the new regulation as an important step toward that goal. But the regulation doesn’t resolve an even larger barrier to in-plan annuities: plan sponsors’ reluctance to offer them without a “safe harbor” rule from the Labor Department that would hold them harmless if the annuity issuer went bust.

Still, Mallett was gratified by the new regulation. For much of the past decade, she said, she and others had worked to get legislation introduced that would remove the hurdles to qualified DIAs. But their proposed bills repeatedly fell victim to a political environment where bipartisan initiatives don’t have much chance of passage. Appealing to a retirement-friendly Treasury Department for a regulatory change (as opposed to appealing to Congress for a legislative change) turned out to be much more productive.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Systemic Risk is Worse Now than in 2008

Since the crash of 2008, huge attention has been paid by regulators to systemic risk, the risk that some event will cause the crash of the entire banking system, not just of an individual bank. Tens of thousands of pages of financial regulations have been written, and almost as many thousands of speeches have been bloviated, about how we now understand the dangers of “too big to fail” and therefore a crash such as occurred in 2008 can never happen again.

Needless to say this is nonsense; systemic risk is worse now than it was in 2008. What’s more, the next crash will almost certainly be considerably nastier than the last one.

The main issue addressed by legislation has been “too big to fail,” the idea that some banks are so large that their failure would cause a catastrophic economic collapse and hence they must be propped up by taxpayers. It will not surprise you to learn that I don’t regard this as the central problem.

Most of the risks in the banking system today are present in a wide range of institutions, all of which are highly interconnected and getting more so. Hence a failure in a medium-sized institution, if sufficiently connected to the system as a whole, could well have systemic implications. At the same time, pretty well all banks use similar (and spurious) risk-management systems, while leverage—both open and more dangerously hidden—is high throughout the system. Foolish monetary policy is foolish for all, and if a technological disaster occurs, it is likely to affect software used by a substantial faction of the banking system as a whole. There are a number of good reasons to break up the banking behemoths, but breaking them up on its own would not solve the systemic risk problem.

Systemic risk has been exacerbated by modern finance for a number of reasons. The system’s interconnectedness is one such reason, because of the cat’s cradle of derivatives contracts totaling some $710 trillion nominal amount (per BIS figures for December 2013) that stretch between different institutions worldwide.

Some of these contracts such as the $584 trillion of interest-rate swaps are not especially risky (except to the extent that traders have been gambling egregiously on the market’s direction). However, other derivatives, such as the $21 trillion of credit-default swaps (CDS) and options thereon, have potential risk almost as great as their nominal amount. What’s more, there are $25 trillion of “unallocated” contracts. My sleep is highly troubled by the thought of 150% of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in contracts which the regulators can’t define!

The problem is made worse by the illiquidity of many of these instruments. Any kind of exotic derivative with a long-term maturity is likely to trade very seldom indeed once the initial flush of creation has worn off. These risks have been alleviated by trading standard contracts on exchanges. But even if banks’ risk management were good, failure of a major counterparty or, heaven help us, of an exchange, would cause systemic havoc because of its interconnectedness.

Another systemic risk worsened by modern finance is that of inadequate risk management. This has in no way been improved by the 2008 crash. More than three years after the crash (and nearly two years after Kevin Dowd and I had anatomized its risk management failures in “Alchemists of Loss”), J.P. Morgan was still using a variation on Value-at-Risk to manage its index CDS positions in the London Whale disaster. Morgan survived that one, but there seems no reason from a risk-management perspective why the Whale’s loss should not have been $100 billion just as easily as $2 billion—which Morgan would not have survived. Regulators have done nothing to solve this problem. Indeed, the new Basel III rules continue to allow the largest banks to design their own risk-management systems, surely a recipe for disaster.

You may feel that risk management, at least, is a problem exacerbated by the size of the too-big-to-fail banks. However, this is not entirely so. Each bank will commit its own trading disasters, so that a reversion to smaller banks would equally revert to smaller but more frequent trading disasters, surely an improvement (and the London Whale’s successors would be less likely to get megalomania and attempt to control an entire market). On the other hand, if the market as a whole does things not contemplated by the risk-management system—Goldman Sachs’ David Viniar’s “25-standard deviation moves, several days in a row” as in 2007—then since all banks use risk-management systems with similar flaws, they are all likely to break down at once, producing systemic collapse. As I shall explain below, I expect the next market collapse to take place in pretty well all assets simultaneously, with nowhere to hide. Hence a collapse in the global banking system’s risk management, affecting most assets, will cause losses to pretty well all significant banks. No amount of regulation will sort that one out.

Modern finance has also made systemic risk worse through its incomprehensibility, opacity and speed. Neither the traders nor the “quants” designing new second- and third-order derivative contracts have any idea how those contracts would behave in a crisis, because they have existed through at most one crisis, and their behavior is both leveraged to and separated from the behavior of the underlying asset or pool of assets. Banks do not know their counterparties’ risks, so cannot assess the solidity of the institution with which they are dealing. And in “fast-trading” areas, computers carry out trading algorithms at blistering speed, thus producing unexpected “flash crashes” in which liquidity disappears and prices jump uncontrollably.

The opacity of banks’ operations is made worse by “mark-to-market” accounting, which foolishly causes banks to report large profits as their operations deteriorate, the credit quality of their liabilities deteriorates and their value of those liabilities declines. This makes the banks’ actual operating results in a downturn wholly incomprehensible to investors.

The leverage problem has not gone away, in spite of all the attempts since 2008 to control it. Furthermore, much of the financial system’s risk has been sidelined into non-bank institutions such as money-market funds, securitization vehicles, asset backed commercial paper vehicles and, especially, mortgage REITs, which have grown enormously since 2008. These vehicles are less regulated than banks themselves, and where the regulators have tried to control them, they have got it wrong. For example, huge efforts have been made, backed by the banking lobby, to mess up the money market fund industry, which has only ever had one loss, and that for less than 1% of the value of the fund. Conversely, the gigantic interest-rate risks of the mortgage REITs, which buy long-term mortgages and finance themselves in the repurchase market, are quite uncontrolled and a major danger to the system.

Let us not forget the role of technology, a substantial and growing contributor to systemic risk. The large banks these days develop very little software of their own, relying instead on packages both large and small from outside suppliers. The “Heartbleed” bug of April 2014 showed that even tiny programs such OpenSSL, universally used, can be attacked in ways very difficult to defend against, and that bring vulnerability to the bank’s entire system. A malicious hacker somewhere in the vast and expanding Russo-Chinese sphere of influence, or even a domestic teenager, could at any time produce a bug that slipped through the protective systems common to most banks, damaging or even bringing down the system as a whole.

However, the greatest contributor to systemic risk, and the reason why it is worse today than in 2008, is monetary policy. It had been over-expansive since 1995, causing a mortgage finance boom in 2002-06 which was anomalous in that less prosperous areas and poorer people received more new mortgage finance than the rich ones. However, its encouragement to leverage has never been so great as in the period since 2009. Consequently, asset prices have risen worldwide and leverage both open and, more importantly, hidden has correspondingly increased.

In general, very low interest rates encourage risk-taking. Monetary policy makers fantasize that this will produce more entrepreneurs in garages. Actually, banks won’t lend to entrepreneurs, so it simply produces more fast-buck artists in sharp suits. The result is more risk. When monetary policy is so extreme for so long, it results in more systemic risk. It’s as simple as that.

Precisely what form the crash will take, and when it will come, is still not clear. It’s possible that it will be highly inflationary. If the $2.7 trillion of excess reserves in the U.S. banking system starts getting lent out, the inflationary kick will be very rapid indeed. However it’s also possible the mountain of malinvestment resulting from the last five years’ foolish monetary policy will collapse of its own weight without inflation taking off. Either way, the banking system crash that accompanies the downturn will be more unpleasant than the last one, because the asset price decline that causes it will not simply be confined to housing, but will be more or less universal.

After that, systemic risk may be very much reduced—mostly because we won’t have much of a banking system left!

© 2014 Prudent Bear.

Introducing the free ‘Social Security Maximizer’

Starting today, thousands of paid subscribers (individual and corporate) to Retirement Income Journal can sign up for and use the Social Security Maximizer, a tool whose name is self-explanatory. The tool is provided by the Omyen Corporation.

Based in Westwood, Mass., Omyen is a producer of software for financial advisers and their clients. Among other things, the company invented the Personal Financial Index, a benchmark that helps consumers monitor their progress toward financial goals.

To access the Maximizer, subscribers (after logging in to the RIJ website) should simply click on the Social Security Maximizer image in the right navigation channel of the RIJ homepage, which can be seen at right. On the subsequent page, click on either the registration or log-in button, depending on whether you are already registered to use the tool or are just getting started.

Please let us know how you like the tool, and whether it proves to be useful to you and your clients.

Retirement assets total $23 trillion in 1Q2014: ICI

Total U.S. retirement assets were $23.0 trillion as of March 31, 2014, up 1.1% from a downward-revised $22.7 trillion on Dec. 31, 2013. Retirement savings accounted for 34% of all household financial assets in the United States at the end of the first quarter of 2014, according to an Investment Company Institute report.

Assets in individual retirement accounts (IRAs) totaled $6.6 trillion at the end of the first quarter of 2014, an increase of 1.5% from the end of the fourth quarter of 2013. Defined contribution (DC) plan assets rose 1.6% in the first quarter to $6.0 trillion.

Government pension plans—including federal, state, and local government plans—held $5.4 trillion in assets as of the end of March, about unchanged from the end of December. Private-sector defined benefit (DB) plans held $3.0 trillion in assets at the end of the first quarter of 2014, and annuity reserves outside of retirement accounts

Defined contribution plans

Americans held $6.0 trillion in all employer-based DC retirement plans on March 31, 2014, of which $4.3 trillion was held in 401(k) plans. Those figures are up from $5.9 trillion and $4.2 trillion, respectively, as of December 31, 2013. Mutual funds managed $3.6 trillion, or 60%, of assets held in 401(k), 403(b), and other DC plans at the end of March.

IRAs

IRAs held $6.6 trillion in assets at the end of the first quarter of 2014, up from $6.5 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter of 2013. Forty-six percent of IRA assets, or $3.0 trillion, was invested in mutual funds.

As of March 31, 2014, target date mutual fund assets totaled $641 billion, an increase of 3.7% in the first quarter. Retirement accounts held the bulk of target date mutual fund assets: 89% of target date mutual fund assets were held through DC plans and IRAs.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Cerulli explains strange bond weather

So far this year, rising prices of long-term U.S. Treasury bonds and other high-quality fixed income investments have surprised many investors, who were girding themselves for higher interest rates and lower bond prices.

In the June issue of The Cerulli Edge, analysts at Boston-based Cerulli Associates have been tracking this trend. According to the publication, investors who expected the Federal Reserve’s slow retreat from massive bond-buying to raise yields have found instead that 10-year Treasury yields have fallen 60 basis points year-to-date through May 31, 2014.

During the same time-period, the Barclay’s U.S. Aggregate Bond Index rose 3.8% and fixed income strategies that were benchmarked to that index saw net asset inflows, not the expected outflows.

Cerulli analysts point to the changing supply and demand in Treasuries as a possible explanation. Net issuance of Treasury debt was down 60% in 2014 when compared to May last year, while global demand for government debt reached $1.2 trillion, or double the current supply.

In addition, the analysts write, de-risking corporate pension plans and other institutional investors have locked in 2013 equity gains by moving assets into U.S. Treasury debt and other high-quality fixed income. What’s more, life insurers, holders of $2.6 trillion in long-term bonds, added about $52 billion in high-quality bonds to general account investment portfolios last year, Cerulli said, citing data from A.M. Best.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

UK creates framework for DB/DC hybrid

The UK government is working hard to steer its private pension industry—which has rapidly devolved from old-fashioned defined benefit plans to US-style defined contribution—toward a hybrid, Danish-style retirement plan design that requires employers and employees to share investment and longevity risk.

It’s still not clear whether this hybrid approach—called “defined ambition” by UK Work & Pensions secretary Steve Webb—has widespread support among employers or if it’s mainly a private passion of Webb’s. But his department has nonetheless forged ahead and published a “framework” for setting up defined ambition plans in the UK.   

For a copy of the publication describing that framework, click here. At present, UK labor law doesn’t accommodate DB/DC hybrids.

The legislative framework will also make room for further types of models, focusing on guarantees for retirement income that come into place as a member ages. It will not provide space for any money-back guarantees within DC schemes, but it will continue analysis and work out how other models fit in within the legal parameters.

These include capital guarantees, which protect the nominal value of member savings midway through the savings cycle; the use of retirement income insurance, which avoids single-event conversion risk; and the Danish ATP-style pension income builder, which uses continuously-purchased deferred annuities.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

AIG to help officers accused of ‘fraud on the market’

American International Group’s insurers have decided to offer immediate funds to persons covered by their primary Directors and Officers (D&O) liability insurance who become defendants in securities lawsuits so they can finance “event studies” as part of their defense.

AIG, one of the largest D&O carriers, made the announcement in anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. In that case, Halliburton is asking the high court to throw out a lower court case in which owners of Halliburton stock had charged that Halliburton committed “fraud on the market” by not telling investors about its exposure to liability claims from workers hurt from working with asbestos. 

The “fraud on the market” theory in class action litigation, established by the Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, asserts that the price of shares traded in an “efficient market” reflects all available information, including alleged misrepresentations by corporate managers. Because investors as a group rely on those alleged misrepresentations, the theory goes, plaintiffs can bring securities suits as class actions.

In its unanimous June 23 ruling, the Supreme Curt did not reject the “fraud on the market” theory, which would have involved overturning the 1988 decision. Instead, it held that defendants could rebut the theory—and head off a potential class action suit even before it got started—by presenting economic evidence (“event studies”) that the alleged misstatements didn’t alter securities prices.

This week, AIG announced that it would advance the money to its D&O clients so that they could pay for the event studies. AIG’s D&O underwriters and claims professionals said they will continue to monitor interpretation of the Halliburton decision to determine whether additional policy endorsements or changes are necessary.

AIG offers primary and excess coverage to directors and officers of domestic and multinational public and private companies, non-profit entities, and financial institutions to protect against board-level risks.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.