Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

The “income message” isn’t getting through: EBRI/MetLife survey

As hard as the Department of Labor and insurance companies try to convince American workers to frame their 401(k) balances in terms as monthly income instead of lump sums, the effort doesn’t seem to be winning many hearts or minds. 

Eight-five percent of respondents to a recent survey of 501 retirees and 1,000 workers contributing to employer-sponsored retirement plans described an income projection similar to the type produced by the Department of Labor’s Lifetime Income Estimate Calculator as “useful.”

But there was no evidence that the tool will encourage significant numbers of plan participants to think about converting their savings to income at retirement.

That’s reassuring news for mutual fund companies eager to retain plan participants’ assets after they retire. But it’s not what issuers of income-producing annuities hope to hear. 

The survey, part of the 2014 Retirement Confidence Survey, was conducted by Greenwald & Associates, underwritten in part by MetLife and commissioned by the Washington, D.C.-based Employee Benefits Research Institute.

The illustration tool estimates monthly lifetime income based on a participant’s current account balance, contributions to their account and the projected value of their account balance at retirement, according to an EBRI release.

Just over half of current workers contributing to plans (54%) provided estimates about their own balances and contribution rates when they were asked how the calculator’s income projections compared with their own expectations for future income  from their defined contribution (DC) savings.

Only 17% of those who answered the questions said the projections would cause them to increase their contributions to their plan. Among the 27% of those who said their estimate was “much” or “somewhat” less than expected, just over a third indicated they would increase their contributions.

Why? “The main reason cited by workers at all income levels… is the need to pay for day-to-day expenses, particularly since many are living paycheck-to-paycheck,” said Roberta Rafaloff, vice president, Institutional Income Annuities at MetLife.

Current retirees say they rely primarily on Social Security (62%) and defined benefit (DB) pensions (36%) as major sources for retirement income. But more than two-thirds of workers expect future Social Security benefits to be weaker than today’s, according to the release.

Only 33% and 29% of workers believe major sources of their retirement income will come from Social Security and DB pensions, respectively. While only 19% of retirees say employer-sponsored retirement plans such as a 401(k) are a major source of income in retirement, 42% of current workers do.

Thirty-percent of those surveyed didn’t know if their current plan offered an annuity option or not. Only one in five believed he or she had access to an annuity through their plans.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Bucket

Rising VA account values boost Prudential operating income in 1Q 2014

 

Prudential Financial, Inc. reported after-tax adjusted operating income for its Financial Services Businesses of $1.137 billion ($2.40 per Common share) for the first quarter of 2014, compared to $1.072 billion ($2.27 per Common share) for the year-ago quarter.

 

Net income for the Financial Services Businesses attributable to Prudential Financial, Inc. was $1.225 billion ($2.59 per Common share) for the first quarter of 2014, compared to a net loss of $735 million ($1.58 per Common share) for the year-ago quarter. Information regarding adjusted operating income, a non-GAAP measure, is provided below.

 

“Our Annuities, Retirement, and Asset Management businesses are benefiting from sustained growth of account values and assets under management, driving strong underlying earnings momentum,” said Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Strangfeld, in a release.

 

Adjusted operating income was not calculated under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), Prudential said. It provided a reconciliation of adjusted operating income to the most comparable GAAP measure.

 

The U.S. Retirement Solutions and Investment Management division reported adjusted operating income of $945 million for the first quarter of 2014, compared to $769 million in the year-ago quarter.

 

The Individual Annuities segment reported adjusted operating income of $388 million in the current quarter, compared to $372 million in the year-ago quarter. Current quarter results include a charge of $21 million and results for the year-ago quarter include a benefit of $62 million, in each case reflecting an updated estimate of profitability for this business driven largely by market performance in relation to our assumptions.

 

Excluding the effect of the foregoing items, adjusted operating income for the Individual Annuities segment increased $99 million from the year-ago quarter, primarily reflecting higher asset-based fees due to growth in variable annuity account values.

 

The Retirement segment reported adjusted operating income of $364 million for the current quarter, compared to $228 million in the year-ago quarter. The increase reflected a $123 million greater net contribution from investment results.

 

“We estimate that returns on non-coupon investments in the current quarter were about $80 million above average expectations. The remainder of the increase in Retirement segment adjusted operating income reflected higher fees associated with growth in account values,” the release said.

 

The Asset Management segment reported adjusted operating income of $193 million for the current quarter, compared to $169 million in the year-ago quarter. The increase was driven by higher asset management fees reflecting growth in assets under management, net of expenses.

 

Jefferson National adds more alternative funds to its low-cost VA

In an ongoing effort to help registered investment advisors and other fee-based advisers trade liquid alternatives on a tax-deferred basis, Jefferson National has added eight new investment options, including six alternative strategies, to its low-fee Monument Advisor deferred variable annuity.

The new options include Tortoise VIP MLP & Pipeline Portfolio, PIMCO All Asset All Authority Portfolio, along with Direxion VP Indexed Managed Futures Strategy Fund, Goldman Sachs Variable Insurance Trust Multi-Strategy Alternatives Portfolio, Oppenheimer Diversified Alternatives Fund/VA, and Legg Mason BW Absolute Return Opportunities, a non-traditional bond fund.  4  

Jefferson National’s suite of Dimensional Funds now includes with DFA VA Global Moderate Allocation Portfolio. The new lineup also includes the actively managed, socially responsible Calvert VP SRI Balanced Portfolio. and social responsibility factors.

In late March, Jefferson National launched the JNF SSgA Retirement Income Portfolio, a managed volatility fund.  

T. Rowe Price launches new “unrestrained” high-yield bond fund

Calling all fixed income investors with an appetite for higher returns and a tolerance for higher risk (but not much appetite for fixed indexed annuities).

T. Rowe Price, which manages $26.6 billion in so-called junk bond funds, has launched the Credit Opportunities Fund, a high-yield bond fund whose managers will have “few restraints” in bond selection and looking for “opportunities in credit that extend beyond traditional fixed rate bonds,” the Baltimore-based no-load fund company said in a release.

The fund will be managed by Paul Karpers, who also serves as portfolio manager for the T. Rowe Price Institutional High Yield Fund for U.S. institutional investors and the T. Rowe Price Funds SICAV–Global High Yield Bond Fund for non-U.S. institutions domiciled in qualifying jurisdictions.

Karpers will have considerable latitude to invest across a range of securities and credit situations:

    • No limits on below investment-grade or unrated bonds. These may include distressed or defaulted securities.
    • Up to 50% of assets in bank loans. These floating rate securities, with periodically resetting coupons, typically involve borrowers with significant debt loads and can offer the potential for high yields.
    • Up to 20% in securitized instruments backed by a pool of assets, such as residential or commercial mortgages and loans.
    • Up to 10% in equities or equity-like securities, typically with a focus on deep-value situations and credit themes.
    • Up to 10% in trade claims—outstanding obligations of companies in bankruptcy. Investors can purchase these claims from creditors, often at a deep discount.
    • May purchase both U.S. and non-U.S. issuers, including emerging markets securities.
    • Up to 50% in nondollar-denominated securities (although holdings denominated in other currencies are expected to typically be hedged back to the U.S. dollar).
    • May use derivatives, such as credit default swaps and options, to express a positive or negative view of an issuer’s credit quality.

Investors can access the strategy through Investor Class shares of the fund, Advisor Class shares (PAOPX), or the Institutional Credit Opportunities Fund (TRXPX). The net expense ratio is estimated to be 0.90% for the Investor Class shares, 1.00% for the Advisor Class shares, and 0.65% for the institutional fund.  The minimum initial investment in the Credit Opportunities Fund is $2,500, or $1,000 for retirement accounts or gifts or transfers to minors (UGMA/UTMA) accounts. The Institutional Credit Opportunities Fund generally requires a $1 million minimum initial investment.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Correction

In our cover story two weeks ago about Nationwide Financial’s New Heights indexed annuity, our calculation of a hypothetical return under one of the product’s two-year crediting methods was over-simplified. To annualize a two-year return, we divided by two instead of taking a square root. We blame deadline pressure and age-related innumeracy for the error.

Our calculation

To annualize a hypothetical two-year gain of 30%, we divided by two to get 15%. We then multiplied that number by the participation rate (60%) and got 9%, from which we subtracted the annual spread (1.85%) for an annualized return of 7.15%. For simplicity’s sake, we ignored the extra return generated by participation in a fixed account with a one percent annual return, which would have added about 0.40%.

The right calculation

According to Nationwide, we should have multiplied the two-year index return (30%) by the participation rate (60%) to get (18%). Then we should have multiplied the compound two-year return of the fixed rate account (1.01 squared minus 1 = 2.01%) by its participation rate (40%) to get 0.804%. We should then have combined the 18% and the 0.804% to get a total two-year return of 18.804%.

To find the annualized return, we should have taken the square root of 18.804% (the square root of 1.18804 minus 1) to get 8.997%. Finally, we should have subtracted the annual spread (1.85%) to arrive at a total annual credit under the contract of almost 7.15%. The client would receive the square of that amount, or 14.8% for the two years.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Ten Images that Explain Retirement

Longevity risk, Social Security maximization, diversification—these concepts are fundamental to conversations between advisers and their older clients. But they can be hard to explain in words alone, without an illustration or diagram. 

You’d think it would be easy to find such images. Tons of relevant charts and graphs can be found on most financial services company websites. And financial planning software can generate multitudes of colorful retirement projections in a flash. 

But just as the department stores are filled with beautiful clothes but no one looks especially well dressed, images that produce a shock of financial recognition in clients’ brains evidently aren’t so plentiful. A while ago, we asked retirement advisers to share some of their most effective visual aids with us. The most common response: “When you find some, let us know!”

So we searched for some, and we found ten examples that you and your clients might find useful and entertaining. There’s no magic pill here to banish client confusion; adviser input will still be needed. But, according to Catherine Mulbrandon, author of An Illustrated Guide to Income in the United States and founder of Visualizingeconomics.com, that’s the most you can hope for.

“A well-designed graphic will help people find the patterns in the data and highlight the out-liers,” Mulbrandon told RIJ recently. But “its true power is how it can be used in a conversation between the expert and the person unfamiliar with the subject by making the data clear and accessible.”

Inflation: Postage stamps tell a story

With today’s e-mail and texting, postage stamps are one of the buggy-whips of the information age. But many older people will remember, as children, collecting rare stamps in glassine sleeves or peeling the foreign stamps from airmail letters.

Six stamps image

You can’t lick old stamps when it comes to illustrating inflation. David Laster, director of Investment Analytics at Merrill Lynch, shared a slide of vintage stamps (right) at the Retirement Income Industry Association conference last March. By showing clients that the price of a first-class stamp tripled from 1975 to 2005, he gives them an idea how much the price of most things could rise during their lifetimes.

Inflation is central to any retirement income discussion. Pre-retirees and retirees worry as much about inflation as they do about health care, surveys show. Advisors know that inflation protection is a big reason for retirees to own equities. If you decide to use the stamp method, try creating your own progression of old stamps (search for “commemorative stamps” at Google Images). For more precise inflation estimates, use this calculator.  

Prioritizing: Maslow’s pyramid

Wealthy clients (unless they remember the Depression) don’t always differentiate between needs and wants, advisers are known to say. Even their necessities are luxurious. They tame snowy roads with BMW X-5s, even if Toyota Highlanders will do. Bosch D-Ws clean their dishes, even when a high-end Kenmore would suffice. And the habit may extend right into retirement.   

Maslow

Retirement usually requires budgeting, however. A retirement income planner’s typical first chores include helping clients identify their baseline expenses or needs (often to calculate the amount of safe or guaranteed income they’ll need). Another important step is to help clients prioritize their goals (and figure out how to finance them).    

To illustrate his theory about the hierarchy of human needs, the 20th century psychologist Abraham Maslow created a pyramid (a simplified version is at left). It’s been adapted for many purposes, including financial advice. New retirees or near-retirees may feel strong but vague needs for security and fulfillment; advisers can use the multi-colored pyramid as a prism to help clients get more specific. You can design your own pyramid, leaving the layers blank so that clients can ink in their own personal hierarchy of needs and goals.  

Savings adequacy: Otar’s zones

The Toronto-area adviser and public speaker Jim Otar doesn’t like to waste time finding out if prospective clients have enough assets to retire on. He has a system. It involves simple but mathematically explicit diagrams. He asks clients to divide their total assets ($1 million, say) by their first year withdrawal during retirement. This number is the Client Asset Multiplier, or CAM.

Otar zone chart

The CAM can help people determine whether they don’t have enough money even to buy an inflation-adjusted life annuity large enough to pay for their basic retirement needs (Red Zone), if they have more than enough money, even without the safety net of an annuity (Green Zone) or if they are somewhere in between (Gray Zone).

This little diagram, Otar says, can tell the adviser which emotion he or she needs to focus on when talking to clients (hope or fear), whether the client can afford to retire with what he or she has now, and whether an income-generating annuity should be part of the discussion. 

Asset inventory: Bachrach’s “Financial Road Map”

Bill Bachrach of Bachrach & Associates is a successful adviser who successfully trains other advisers. His online store sells items that other advisers can use in their practices. Among the items is a 17” x 22” piece of heavy stock printed in money-ish green and black on both sides and called “Financial Road Map for Living Life on Purpose.”

It’s really just a large worksheet with blank tables embellished with just enough map-like imagery to give clients a sense of planning a trip. There’s plenty of space for advisers and the clients to document the clients’ current cash reserves, debt, investments and insurance policies. There’s also space to list personal goals, along with blank cells for noting the date targeted for achieving the goal, the estimated cost of achieving the goal, the priority of the goal and two or three words that describe how the client will feel when the goal is reached. “The Financial Road Map” isn’t fancy, but its potential for helping advisers make clients feel more comfortable about sharing sensitive personal financial information is obvious. Packs of 30 can be purchased at Bill Bachrach’s website.

Asset diversification: Callan’s “periodic table” of investment returns

Some images produce enlightenment without much explanation. Callan’s annual “periodic table” of returns, which ranks the performance of 10 stock and bond indices for each of the previous 20 calendar years, is one of them. It’s a vivid wake-up call for clients who don’t fully grasp the volatility of market returns or the importance of diversification. “The Table highlights the uncertainty inherent in all capital markets,” says Callan’s caption.

The rankings are relative, not absolute. For instance, the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index returned only 5.24% in 2008 and the MSCI Emerging Markets Index returned 79.02% in 2009, yet they stand shoulder-to-shoulder as the performance leaders for their respective years. A printable copy of the periodic table is available at www.callan.com.

Behavioral economics: Carl Richard’s line drawings

Some advisers just use a pencil or a pen and a legal pad to illustrate financial concepts to their clients.

Carl Richards drawing Anybody can draw a simple cross-section of a descending staircase, for instance, with steps showing the drop in income when a wife stops working, and when a husband stops working. The now-common income graph that almost every computer-generated retirement planning workup uses probably started out as a back-of-the-envelope drawing or a sketch on a legal pad.

The guru of simple Sharpie drawings is Carl Richards, a certified financial planner, author of The Behavior Gap, and New York Times columnist. He’s responsible for at least hundreds of simple graphs and Venn diagrams drawn on napkins or blank pieces of paper, each dedicated to illustrating a home truth about investing. One of the simplest and most direct is at left. You can see many of his drawings at behaviorgap.com, and buy high-res copies of any of them for $99 each. Or you can try drawing your own. 

Time-segmentation: Macchia’s pillars

Few of us are CPAs but behavioral economists say that most of us practice “mental accounting.” We divide our wealth into notional categories. We distinguish between “play money” and “pay money,” or “college savings” and “retirement savings” and so forth.

Macchia time segmentation

That may explain the popularity of “bucketing” and “time-segmentation” as retirement income planning methods. The technique of designating different chunks of wealth for use soon (cash), later (bonds) or much later (stocks), or for necessary or discretionary purchases, etc., can lend a reassuring architecture to the fog of retirement. Ladders of bonds or income annuities also qualify as forms of bucketing. Purists call bucketing an illusion (especially if it implies that stocks are safe in the long-run). But illusions can help get clients through the night.

Creating an illustration of bucketing—perhaps as a cascade of periodically rebalanced accounts—is as easy as clicking-and-dragging pictures of buckets from a free graphics website onto your desktop. If you’re not a do-it-yourselfer, you can take advantage of images like the one above, which Wealth2K, creator of the Income for Life Method, uses to illustrate a time-segmentation method.    

The complexity of decumulation: Pfau’s bulls-eye chart

Retirement income planning involves a lot of moving parts. There are as many potential solutions to the income challenge as there are retirees. Accumulation was so much easier. The bulls-eye chart developed by Wade Pfau, Ph.D., a professor at the American College and widely-published retirement researcher, can serve as a mental organizer for all those moving parts.

“The Retirement Income Challenge” is the title of his copyrighted chart, which consists of a circle in the center labeled “PROCESS: Combine Income Tools to Balance Goals and Risks” surrounded by three concentric rings labeled, from outermost to innermost: “Income Tools” (containing 20 sources of income), “Risks” (14 hazards) and “Goals” (six basic financial goals). Pfau posts a pdf of the chart on his blog.

Product allocation: Cloke’s glidepath

The retirement glidepath chart is now almost universally used by retirement planners. The x-axis of these columnar charts represents the years of retirement and the y-axis represents cash flow. Designs vary, but it’s common for the columns, like a row of test tubes, to be filled with the amount of income the client will receive each year. Different sources of income are typically represented by different colors.

Thrive glidepath

The Burlington, Iowa adviser Curtis Cloke uses the chart at left to illustrate his proprietary retirement income method, known as Thrive. This particular chart includes both the accumulation and decumulation years. It uses the color green for the protection products, yellow for cash reserves and red for equities. Glidepath charts, which many financial planning software products can generate, are often able to speak more clearly to clients than spreadsheets can.

Glidepaths are easy to abuse, however. Depending on the underlying assumptions about investment returns and spending rates, they can easily be manipulated to give clients the reassuring impression that they will have far more wealth at the end of retirement than when they started.       

Social Security claiming: The Impact Technologies grid

Ever since someone realized that the annual deferral bonus for delaying Social Security from age 62 to age 70 is far higher than the return on any other low-risk asset, there’s been unprecedented excitement around the much-maligned Old Age and Survivors Insurance program. A lot of advisers now use Social Security claiming strategies as a hook for client meetings and prospecting seminars. Software vendors have come up with a variety of Social Security maximization tools.

Impact SS heat map

The Social Security Explorer software from Impact Technologies Group in Charlotte, N.C., uses a color-coded, nine-by-nine grid to make the claiming process more transparent. Each square represents a combination of ages (62-70) when spouses can choose start benefits.

Depending on the couple’s inputs, the software considers seven Social Security claiming strategies and executes 567 calculations for 81 age combinations. Then it puts a star in the box that represents the best ages for them to start benefits, and explains how to file. The grid, in blue, greens, magenta and beige, lends visual interest to a potentially dry task.

Websites referenced in the story, plus a few more:

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

RetirePreneur: Stan Haithcock

What do you do? The name, ‘Stan The Annuity Man,’ speaks for itself. I sell only annuities, and only fixed annuities. I do not believe that annuities should be considered as market growth products. I don’t think you can have your cake and eat it too. If you want growth, buy growth. Not an annuity.

This belief puts me on an island. Annuities should be owned for four things—principal protection, income for life, legacy and long-term care. If you don’t need one or more of those four things, you don’t need an annuity. But too many people buy the dream, pushed by some agents, that they can have all the upside and none of the downside, or that one annuity can address all of their needs. Stan Haithcock R-Preneur box2

Why do clients hire you? I’m brutally honest and abrasively factual. I’ve been called the walking-middle-finger-of-annuity truth. I love that description and I embrace that role. Most agents use ridiculous catch-phrases to sell annuities. It’s not right. Annuities aren’t for everyone, and I’m not afraid to say that. I tell the good, the bad and the truth about these products. I’m Clark Howard, Ralph Nader, and Jim Kramer rolled into one… but angrier, bigger, louder, and more outspoken.

Where did you come from? Both my parents were basketball coaches, and I played for the University of Central Florida. Professionally, I was a wirehouse brat. I started out with Dean Witter, which was absorbed by Morgan Stanley. Then came Paine Webber, which was purchased by UBS. I took some time off and was kicking around and stumbled upon annuities. A friend suggested that I take a serious look at them because of my ‘to the point’ personality. At first I thought, ‘Give me a break.’

But then I got serious about it. I hired a PR branding specialist. We talked about names and held focus groups. My parents named me after ‘Stan the Man’ Musial, the St. Louis Cardinal Hall of Famer, so ‘Stan the Annuity Man’ stuck. I started speaking to large groups about annuities and writing articles for Marketwatch. I tell people that my ‘Stan the Annuity Man’ writings are actually me speaking, but without the cuss words.  My articles and my new book, The Annuity Stanifesto, reflect that tone.

What’s next for the annuity business? Eventually, the consumer will tell to the industry, ‘Please, stop. We want simple, transparent products that we can understand.’  That will put pressure on the agent/advisor business. In the not too distant future, I predict, most annuities will be sold direct. We’ll see a shift toward simplistic products that you could explain to a nine-year-old. The consumer will demand it.

What is your own retirement philosophy? One word comes to mind—lifestyle. Lifestyle means different things for different people, but annuities can help provide the lifestyle people want through a contractually guaranteed transfer of risk. Baby Boomers and retirees need to stop chasing yield and growth and figure out how much income they need and just go live their life. The contrarian in me feels like I’m screaming into a hurricane with this simplistic message. Sometimes I feel like I’m one-of-none.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

In 2013, Jackson National Broke Sales Records; VA Industry Broke Even

New variable annuity sales rose 1.1% in the fourth quarter of 2013, to $35.2 billion from $34.8 billion in the third quarter, a 1.1% increase. But year-over-year sales were off 1.5%, to $141.2 billion from $143.4 billion in 2012, according to the most recent Variable Annuity Sales and Asset Survey from Morningstar, Inc.

“These results are slightly better than our earlier prediction of a 2-3% drop in sales in 2013,” wrote Frank O’Connor, the project manager of Morningstar’s Annuity Research Center, in his quarterly VA sales and asset report.

Net cash flow was positive by only $1.3 billion for the year, meaning that the $141.2 billion in new sales was offset almost entirely by redemptions, surrenders and exchanges.

“Run off business from major companies that have exited the industry (notably Hartford, ING, and Sun Life) and the continued cash drain from group plans (e.g. TIAA-CREF) were responsible for net cash flow sinking into negative territory in the fourth quarter,” O’Connor commented.

“While the drag resulting from the resolution of high-liability blocks of business is temporary, expect the drag from group plan rollouts to only intensify as more Baby Boomers retire and cash out their annuity-funded plans.”

The VA industry may be starved for net sales growth but the issuers are presumably still making money on existing books of business. The surreal bull market in 2013 (surreal because the buying binge that buoyed the S&P500 by over 30% didn’t buoy the nation’s spirits much) pushed total VA assets to a record $1.87 trillion. Every 100 basis points earned on that notional sum represents $18.7 billion in revenue. The top 10 companies accounted for about 75% of total assets. Group annuity giant TIAA-CREF, which pioneered the variable annuity in 1952, alone had a 23.34% share.

In terms of their share of total annuity assets, 2013 saw significant advances by Jackson National, Ohio National, Protective, Minnesota Life and Jefferson National. The Hartford, Genworth Financial, Great-West and Cuna Mutual all saw double-digit declines in their market share of assets. Jackson National’s share of on-the-books VA assets jumped to $115.3 billion at the end of 2013 from $86.76 billion at the end of 2012.

Sales ranking were shuffled from the previous year. Prudential and MetLife ended 2013 in fifth and sixth place after finishing 2012 in first and third place, respectively. Prudential’s VA sales dropped almost 43% (to $11.4 billion) and its market share fell to 8.1% from 13.9%. MetLife’s market share fell to 7.5% from 12.4% on sales of $10.6 billion. Both companies were “grappling with ‘too many eggs in one basket’ and a need to rebalance their lines of business,” according to O’Connor.

Jackson National was the sales leader ($20.9 billion in new sales and 14.8% market share), followed by Lincoln Financial ($14.3 billion and a 10.1% share), TIAA-CREF ($13.9 billion and 9.9% share) and SunAmerica/VALIC ($12.1 billion in sales and an 8.6% market share).

Lincoln, SunAmerica, and Aegon notched 36.9%, 39.3%, and 59.3% sales gains, respectively. Prudential and MetLife were still major players with $11.4 billion and $11.0 billion in sales, and 8.6% and 8.1% of the market, respectively.

Three of Jackson National’s products were among the five best-selling contracts. Its Perspective II and Perspective L were familiar members of that group, but they were joined in the top five at the end of 2013 by the firm’s Elite Access B share, which topped a billion in sales ($1.02 billion) in the quarter, and gathered premia of $3.79 billion for the year. Elite Access B is a tax-deferred accumulation vehicle replete with alternative investment options but without a living benefit. Its success has forced other top issuers to follow its lead by creating similar products (see today’s article on the new Prudential Premier Investment VA).

On the distribution front, Jackson National was the top seller in the bank channel, the independent broker-dealer channel and the wirehouse channel. It was fourth in large regional broker-dealer channel sales. TIAA-CREF was the top-seller in the captive agent channel by a wide margin. Lincoln Financial was number one in regional broker-dealers. Fidelity was the leader in direct sales.

The top 10 variable annuity fund sub-advisors, as of year-end 2013, were: Wellington Management ($40.7 billion); T. Rowe Price ($37.8 billion); PIMCO ($34.1 billion); Quantitative Management Associates ($34 billion); BlackRock Investment Management ($31.5 billion); ING Investment Management ($29 billion); AllianceBernstein ($28.4 billion); AEGON USA Investment Management ($23.1 billion); Mellon Capital Management ($22.6 billion); John Hancock (Manulife) Asset Management ($21.1 billion).

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. 

Prudential adds an accumulation VA

Prudential Annuities, a unit of Prudential Financial, is the latest variable annuity issuer—Jackson National and Jefferson National paved the way—to introduce an accumulation-stage variable annuity that has no living benefit.

The product, called Prudential Premier Investment VA, is designed for tax-deferred growth rather than retirement income. This is how most VAs were designed and marketed before the advent of living benefits in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Prudential has curtailed sales of its contracts with the Highest Daily living benefit. After selling almost $20 billion worth of that product in 2012, Prudential sold $11.4 billion in 2013, and fell from second place to sixth place in the VA sales rankings, according to Morningstar.

The new product is positioned as a hedge against potentially rising taxes. “An estimated 77% of Americans will have paid more taxes in 2013 than they did in the previous tax year,” said Bruce Ferris, president of Prudential Annuities Distributors, in a statement. “Prudential Premier Investment fills a market need by helping investors more efficiently manage their taxes and grow their wealth.”

The new VA contract will be offered in B-shares and no-surrender-period C shares. The insurance charge for the B series contract, which has a seven-year, 7% maximum surrender period, is 110 basis points per year (55 basis points for a premium-based insurance charge and 55 basis for an account value-based insurance charge). For the C series, the insurance cost is 135 basis points (67 basis points for the premium-based insurance charge and 68 basis points for the account value-based insurance charge). The contract has an optional return of purchase payments death benefit.

Contract owners can use either a “managed,” “guided,” or “customized” investment approach. The managed approach allows the investor to choose from among eight pre-built portfolios. In the guided approach, Prudential provides the asset allocations for five portfolios, ranging from conservative to aggressive, but the investor picks the specific portfolios. The customized option gives the investor free rein in choosing investment options.  

The investment options include portfolios advised or sub-advised by: AQR, BlackRock, ClearBridge, Cohen & Steers, Franklin Templeton, Goldman Sachs, Herndon, Jennison, Loomis-Sayles, Lord Abbett, MFS, Neuberger Berman, PIMCO, QMA, T. Rowe Price, Western Asset Management and others. Portfolio operating expense ratios range from 59 basis points a year for the money market portfolio to 148 basis points a year for one of the asset allocation portfolios.

In one of the collateral documents on the new contract, a disclosure warns prospective policyholders about the potential consequences of investing in portfolios that owners of Prudential’s Highest Daily variable annuities with lifetime income riders might also be investing in. Some of the same portfolios are offered to purchasers of both types of contracts.

The disclosure said that because of the dynamic asset allocation formula that Prudential uses to manage risks in its contracts with lifetime income riders:

“the operation of the formula… may result in large-scale asset flows into and out of the underlying Portfolios through a series of transfers. In addition to increasing the Portfolios’ expenses, the asset flows may adversely affect performance by (i) requiring the Portfolios to purchase or sell securities at inopportune times; (ii) otherwise limiting the sub-adviser’s ability to fully implement the Portfolios’ investment strategies; or (iii) requiring the Portfolios to hold a larger portion of their assets in highly liquid securities that they otherwise would hold.”

Prudential advised owners of the new Premier Investment variable annuities to “consider the impact the formula will have on each Portfolio’s risk profile, expenses and performance” and to “work with your financial professional to determine which Portfolios are appropriate for you.”

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

New issue of The Journal of Retirement appears

The Spring 2014 issue of The Journal of Retirement appeared this week, with articles by Moshe Milevsky, Jeffrey Brown, Richard Fullmer, Jack Vanderhei and other prominent retirement researchers.

The following articles were listed in the table of contents:

  • Defined Contribution Plans as a Foundation for Retirement Security, by Jeffrey R. Brown and Scott J. Weisbenner.
  • Can Collars Reduce Retirement Sequencing Risk? by Moshe Milevsky and Steven E. Posner.
  • Retirement Adequacy through Higher Contributions: Is This the Only Way? by Michael Drew, Pieter Stoltz, Adam Walk and Jason West.
  • Evaluation of Target-Date Glide Paths within Defined Contribution Plans, by Richard K. Fullmer and James A. Tzitzouris.
  • Why Does Retirement Readiness Vary: Results from EBRI’s 2014 Retirement Security Projection Model, by Jack Vanderhei.
  • Retirement Income Research: What Can We Learn from Economics? by Gordon Irlam and Joseph Tomlinson.
  • Why Don’t People Annuitize? The Role of Advice Provided by Retirement Planning Software, by John A. Turner.
  • A review of  “Retirement Income: Risks and Strategies,” by Journal of Retirement editor George A. (Sandy) Mackenzie.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

 

New York Life paid out more than $1 billion to SPIA owners in 2013

New York Life’s 129,000 income annuity policyholders received more than $1 billion in payouts in 2013, an increase of 12% over 2012, the company said in a release this week. Of the $1 billion in payouts:

  • Nearly 20% went to policyholders between the ages of 65 and 69.   
  • More than 30% went to policyholders between the ages of 70 and 79.
  • More than $500 million went to policyholders 80 years old and older.  
  • The average monthly payout in 2013 was $682, or about half the average Social Security benefit.

New York Life leads the $10 billion income annuity market with a 33% market share for single-premium immediate income annuities and a 40% market share for deferred income annuities, according to industry data. The mutual company has been the SPIA sales leader since 2006 and had total income annuity sales of over $3 billion in 2013, according to the release.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Retirement Industry Conference

At the Retirement Industry conference in Chicago two weeks ago, researchers from LIMRA’s Secure Retirement Institute presented annuity sales data for 2013. They also predicted 6% average annual growth for fixed annuities, 2% growth for variable annuities and 4% for annuities overall between now and the end of 2018.

Slides from the presentation by Joseph Montminy and Jafor Iqbal of LIMRA can be found here.

With sales of $145.3 billion in 2013, variable annuities remained the top selling type of annuity in the U.S. But despite the bull market in equities last year—higher equity prices don’t coincide with higher VA sales the way they did a few years ago—gross sales fell slightly from 2012 levels.

The reasons: reduced life insurer appetite for selling VAs, less generous living benefit riders and a greater emphasis by manufacturers on less capital-intensive VAs that are designed for tax-deferred accumulation rather than guaranteed retirement income.

Difference companies are using different product strategies. Jackson National (with its popular Elite Access VA,) Guardian, AXA, and Protective are among the leaders in promoting accumulation-focused VAs, according to LIMRA. AXA, Allianz Life, MetLife and CUNA are promoting structured VAs that give investors upside potential with a cap and a buffer against downside losses.   

According to the presentation, all of the major VA issuers, including Prudential, MetLife, Jackson National, Lincoln Financial, AXA and others, have cut their risk exposure either by reducing their distribution, requiring contract owners to use managed-volatility funds, offering to buy back in-the-money contracts, or blocking additional contributions to existing contracts.

(On the upside, last year’s bull market helped drive up VA account values, on which part of VA fee revenue is based.) 

VA contract owner behavior

Because VA policyholder behavior has a big impact on profitability, LIMRA has tracked it on behalf of its life insurance members. As the data show, withdrawal and surrender behavior is largely determined by the kind of money the annuity was purchased with (qualified or non-qualified), the age of the owner and whether the owner is systematically withdrawing the assets for retirement income.

The guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit (GLWB) rider has been a mixed blessing for VA issuers. It brought in lots of premium, but it attracted qualified money (seeking retirement income), mainly from IRAs, instead of the after-tax money (seeking tax deferral on large sums) historically associated with VA purchases.

Qualified contracts with GLWBs are less likely to lapse, and to the extent that those riders were underpriced (as many were during the VA “arms race” of the mid-2000s), the cost of maintaining them and managing their market risks and longevity risks can make them long-term liabilities.

According to LIMRA, contract owners who elected guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefits (as opposed to guaranteed minimum income benefits, withdrawal benefits or account balances) who purchased their contracts with qualified money, who set up systematic withdrawal plans, and who keep their annual withdrawals close to the percentages dictated by the rider, were the least likely to surrender their contracts in  2012.  

Assessing the 2.36 million existing VA contracts with living benefits in 2012, LIMRA found that 71% were owned by Boomers ages 48 to 66 and two-thirds were purchased with qualified money. The average contract was “in the money” by $16,300 in 2012. (Thanks to the bull market, the amount of in-the-moneyness has probably shrunk since then, a LIMRA spokesman said.)  

Owners of qualified contracts with living benefits had an average surrender rate of only 4.2% in 2012, and those with a GLWB had an average surrender rate of just 2.9%. Surrenders by GLWB owners with systematic withdrawal plans were rare (2-3% at any age).

FIA sales soar

The abrupt rise in sales of fixed indexed annuities (FIAs) during the last three quarters was the big annuity sales story of 2013. Sales rose to $11.9 billion in the fourth quarter from $7.9 billion in the first quarter.

Fixed indexed annuities are selling better for several reasons. The five-year Treasury rate more than doubled after May 3, to 1.72% from 0.68%, offering fixed annuity issuers about 100 basis points of breathing room. Aggressive private equity-owned insurers, particularly Security Benefit, made their presence felt. FIAs with GLWBs probably absorbed some of the demand for lifetime income that VA issuers lacked the appetite or the capacity for.      

The Boomer retirement wave continued to drive demand for guaranteed income. In 2013, $105 billion of the $230 billion in annuity sales involved income guarantees, according to LIMRA. VAs with GLWBs accounted for $61.7 billion, VAs with GMIBs for $11.9 billion, and FIAs with GLWBs for $20.7 billion. Single premium immediate annuities ($8.3 billion) and deferred income annuities ($2.2 billion) both posted record annual sales.

Resignation in retirement

Mathew Greenwald of Greenwald & Associates, the research survey firm, and Carol Bogosian of the American Society of Actuaries presented the findings of a recent survey and focus groups involving 1,000 near-retirees, 1,000 retirees, and 200 retired widows ages 45 to 80.

The research, part of the Society of Actuaries’ ongoing analysis of the cluster of risks associated with aging and retirement, found that most people drift into retirement without much planning or preparation, nor do they worry much about their ability to adapt to the challenges of retirement if and when they arise.

Middle-aged and older Americans tend to be either confident, optimistic or resigned about retirement. They appear to underestimate their need to tap savings in retirement (as a supplement to pensions, Social Security, dividends, capital gains and interest), tend not to recognize the risk of cognitive decline in old age, and don’t appreciate the potential impact of inflation on their future purchasing power, the data showed.

As earlier research has shown, many pre-retirees seem to overestimate their ability or willingness to extend their working years. In focus groups, retirees confessed that retirement is often thrust upon people rather than chosen.

“When the company reorganized and showed that they weren’t interested in people my age and opportunities came and went. Opportunities came to younger people and to me it was a sign that you’d better start thinking about it,” said one focus group participant. Another said, “I was on the road constantly. I found that I was getting less and less enjoyment out of it… It was just too much.”

Keynote by Thaler

The celebrity speaker at the Retirement Industry conference was Richard Thaler, the well-known behavioral economics expert at the University of Chicago and the co-author of “Nudge,” a book that promoted the use of default options such as auto-enrollment and auto-escalation in 401(k) plans to raise participation rates in employer-sponsored retirement plans.  

To break the rhetorical ice, Thaler posed this riddle to the presumably math-adept LIMRA crowd:

Consider two one-mile lengths of iron rail meeting at a single junction. If a heat wave caused the length of each rail to expand by an inch, how high would the junction have to rise off the ground to accommodate the expansion (assuming that both lengths of rail stayed rigid and straight and didn’t buckle)?

Vastly underestimating the leverage effect created by the length of the rails, the vast majority of the audience thought the junction would have to rise by less than one foot. The answer was almost 30 feet.

That’s the number you get by applying the Pythagorean theorem, which says the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle (in this case, 5,280 feet plus an inch, or 5280.0833 feet) minus the square of the base (5,280) will equal the square of the triangle’s height, which is what you’re trying to solve for.    

At the end of his speech, which described the successes and limitations of auto-enrollment and auto-escalation, Thaler made two parting suggestions. He recommended that people maximize their Social Security benefits by claiming at age 70, even if it means spending their tax-deferred savings in the meantime. He also suggested that Uncle Sam allow people to buy higher Social Security benefits before or at retirement.    

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Waiting for the Fiduciary Train

Don’t expect the second draft of the Department of Labor’s proposal for a new fiduciary rule to arrive in August of this year, as scheduled. It still needs to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, and it may be the target of a time-consuming lawsuit while it’s there. The final draft may not appear until after November’s mid-term election.  

So said David C. Kaleda, a principal in the Fiduciary Responsibility practice of the Groom Law Firm, at a half-day seminar at the Practicing Law Institute in grimy, glistening Manhattan on Tuesday. The seminar’s timely title: “Financial Services Fiduciary Duties: Navigating the Emerging Regulatory Maze.”

Kaleda, a tall young attorney in a light-grey suit and yellow medallion necktie, was one of the expert panelists who appeared before an audience of several dozen compliance lawyers, many of them seeking guidance on how to help their advice-giving clients or companies avoid future trouble with the fiduciary police.  

Opponents of the DoL proposal will likely challenge it with a lawsuit during the up-to-90-days review by the OMB, he said. If that happens, the expected line of attack will be that a stronger standard of conduct for advisers will make advice too expensive for middle-class investors. “The lawsuits will likely be based on costs,” Kaleda told RIJ.

No one from the Department of Labor spoke at the seminar, which didn’t focused on pension law. The comments of two of the regulators who were at the PLI seminar—Angela Goelzer of FINRA and David Blass of the SEC—were mostly conciliatory.

“We need to be careful not to shut down a whole business line,” Blass, the chief counsel, Division of Trading and Markets at the SEC, said at one point. “We’re not looking to ban commissions,” he later added. Blass stressed that Mary Jo White, the SEC commissioner, has made it a priority to determine whether to seek a unified investment adviser–broker/dealer standard of conduct—not to seek such a standard, as she was evidently misquoted.

Those were not fighting words. (The regulators did express special concern about “hat-switching,” i.e., about the potential for double-billing when an adviser wearing his registered rep “hat” earns a commission for selling a product and later, acting as a registered investment adviser, charges a fee for managing the same assets.)   

The seminar, chaired by Clifford Kirsch of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, a prominent D.C. law firm, was ornamented by the presence of Arthur Laby, a Rutgers University Law School professor and expert on fiduciary matters, and of Andrew J. “Buddy” Donohue, a former director of the Division of Investment Management at the SEC who is now a managing director at Goldman Sachs. (Let’s pause a moment to appreciate the implications of that.)

Equally noteworthy speakers and panelists included, along with those already mentioned, lawyers William Delmage and David Blass of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Melanie Fein, Claudia Marmolejo of Morgan Stanley, James Shorris of LPL Financial and Steven Yadegari of Cramer Rosenthal McGlynn, an asset management firm. 

I attended the seminar to absorb as much detail about the never-ending fiduciary issue as a non-lawyer can hope to. I have to admit that, years ago, the fiduciary issue seemed simple to me.  What about honesty is so hard to understand, I wondered. Of course, it’s not that easy, especially in situations where multiple stakeholders with finely divided loyalties are involved.

For an individual, self-employed, fee-only financial adviser, the fiduciary ideal may in fact be achievable. But for financial advice-givers at huge publicly-traded firms like Morgan Stanley, which conduct proprietary trading, which underwrite and distribute new issues, who may represent clients on opposite sides of the same deal and so forth—this is the situation at Morgan Stanley as Marmolejo described it—the opportunities for conflicts of interest are countless and hard to manage. On the contrary, the firm may value the conflicts as synergies.

Judging by comments from Marmolejo, Shorris and Yadegari, many firms are preparing for more intense management of fiduciary risks, regardless of what the DoL’s next proposal looks like. Morgan Stanley, LPL Financial and Cramer Rosenthal McGlynn are all are either adding new compliance positions, setting up cross-disciplinary committees, learning to identify conflict-of-interest “triggers,” and developing policies designed to reduce or disclose those conflicts.

How expensive, and how dull, that must be. The reality, in my experience, isn’t dull at all. Throughout the whole fiduciary debate (whose roots stretch back at least to the 1999 “Merrill Lynch Rule,” which muddied the line between compensation for sales and for advice), I have often wished that the discussions included more of the war stories that I routinely hear.

 “War” is not an exaggeration in this context. I’ve heard eyewitness accounts of wirehouse managers slamming their fists on desks and screaming at novice reps: “No matter what you do here, it will never be enough!” Ex-brokers have described former supervisors who characterized client appointments purely as “opportunities” to reach monthly sales targets. I know mutual fund clients who didn’t know that their transactions cost them a dime, unless or until they asked.

In private, the sales side of financial services is often a Glengarry Glen Ross [Warning: This video clip is for mature brokers only] world that few investors see, that arbitration conceals, and that industry veterans rarely kiss-and-tell about. Because this world is largely invisible, the DoL’s quest for a higher standard of conduct for intermediaries can easily be made to seem like a solution in search of a problem.

But a problem does in fact exist. Millions of Americans don’t seek the financial advice they need because they don’t know whom to trust. What’s the estimated cost of all that lost business, compared with the cost of regulation? We’re not likely to hear that question raised, let alone answered, in the months ahead.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Losing Interest

Two of the world’s most prominent economic institutions, the International Monetary Fund and Former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, warned that the global economy may be facing an extended period of low interest rates. Why is that a bad thing, and what can be done about it?

Adjusted for inflation, interest rates have been falling for three decades, and their current low level encourages investors, searching for yield, to take on additional risk. Low rates also leave central banks little room for loosening monetary policy in a slowdown, because nominal interest cannot fall below zero. And they are symptomatic of an economy that is out of sorts.

Identifying the problem, much less prescribing solutions, requires diagnosing underlying causes. And here, unfortunately, economists do not agree. Some point to an increase in global saving, attributable mainly to high-saving emerging markets. Readers will detect here echoes of the “savings glut” argument popularized nearly a decade ago by the likes of former US Federal Reserve Board Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke.

There is only one problem: the data show little evidence of a savings glut. Since 1980, global savings have fluctuated between 22% and 24% of world GDP, with little tendency to trend up or down.

Even if global saving slightly exceeds 24% of world GDP in 2014, it is unlikely to remain that high for long. China’s saving will come down as its GDP growth slows, the authorities decontrol interest rates on bank deposit, and the economy rebalances toward consumption. That will be true of other emerging markets as well, as their growth rates similarly fall from the exceptional peaks scaled at the end of the last decade.

The same empirical objection applies to arguments that blame low interest rates on the increasing concentration of income and wealth. It is plausible that the wealthy consume smaller shares of their income, and recent trends in income and wealth distribution certainly are troubling on many grounds. But to affect global interest rates, these trends have to translate into increased global savings. And the evidence is not there.

A second explanation for low interest rates is a dearth of attractive investment projects. But this does not appear to be the diagnosis of stock markets, notably in the United States, where equities are trading at record-high prices. And it sits uneasily with the enthusiasm with which venture capitalists are investing in firms commercializing new technologies.

Some economists, led by Northwestern’s Robert Gordon, argue that, stock market valuations notwithstanding, all the great inventions have been made. The commercial potential of the Internet, the human genome project, and robotics pales in comparison with that of the spinning jenny, the steam engine, and indoor plumbing.

Maybe so, but it is worth observing that technology skeptics have been consistently wrong for 200 years. History suggests that, while we may not know what the high-return inventions of the future will be, we can be confident that there will be some.

Still others, like the Fed’s current leader, Janet Yellen, suggest that investment and interest rates are depressed as a result of the damage done to the economy and the labor force during the Great Recession. Specifically, the skills and morale of the long-term unemployed have been eroded. Detached from the labor market, they lack incomes to spend; and, stigmatized by long-term unemployment, they are not regarded as attractive employees.

As a result, firms see inadequate demand for their products, and a shortage of qualified workers to staff their assembly lines. The result is low capital spending, one of the striking anomalies of the current recovery, which in turn can explain other troubling aspects of the recovery, from slow growth to low interest rates.

This argument has considerable merit. But, though it can explain why capital spending has been weak and interest rates have been low for the last three years, it cannot account for why capital expenditure has been insufficient to prevent rates from trending down for more than three decades. Here, the only explanation still standing is the shift in the composition of activity away from capital-intensive forms of production, like manufacturing, to less capital-intensive activities, like services.

If the disorder has multiple causes, then there should be multiple treatments. There should be tax incentives for firms to hire the long-term unemployed; more public spending on infrastructure, education, and research to compensate for the shortfall in private capital spending; and still higher capital requirements for banks and strengthened regulation of nonbank financial institutions to prevent them from excessive risk-taking.

Finally, central banks should set a higher inflation target, which would give them more room to cut nominal interest rates in response to a future slowdown. This is not something that a new Fed chair, anxious to establish her anti-inflation bona fides, can say out loud. But that is what her arguments imply.

Barry Eichengreen, author of Exorbitant Privilege, is an economist at the University of California–Berkeley.

© 2014 Project Syndicate.

AIG and nine IMOs launch income-oriented FIA

In a deal announced this week, American General Life, part of American International Group (AIG), will issue a new fixed index annuity (FIA) with a lifetime income rider, to be distributed by Market Synergy Group, which represents nine IMOs (independent marketing organizations) that claim to broker over $8 billion in annual FIA sales.

The president of Topeka, Kansas-based Market Synergy Group is Lance Sparks, a former senior vice president of annuity marketing at Aviva USA. Aviva USA became Athene Annuity & Life Assurance (Athene Annuity) following its acquisition in 2013 by Athene Holding Ltd., a unit of Apollo Global Management.

In a phone interview, Sparks, who is 43, said he and other former Aviva USA executives who left after the Athene acquisition started Market Synergy Group with equity investments from nine large IMOs that had been selling Aviva USA annuities. Mark Heitz, a former Aviva USA executive, came out of retirement to join Sparks at Market Synergy Group.

Market Synergy Group was created negotiate distribution deals between carriers and these IMOs: CreativeOne, Brokers International, Financial Independence Group, DMI Inc., M&O Marketing, InsurMark, Insurance Agency Marketing Services, Magellan Financial and Kestler Financial Group.  

The contract to be issued by AIG is the Power Select Plus Income Index Annuity. The product has a 10-year surrender period, a $25,000 minimum premium and uses the S&P 500 as its linked equity index. Sparks conceded that the crediting methods are “vanilla,” but said the product’s value is intentionally concentrated in the living benefit: Specifically, in the flexibility of the deferral bonus or “roll-up” of the income benefit base, which is automatically included for an annual fee of 1.1%.

During the first ten years of the contract, contract owners can earn a full 7.5% roll-up in every year when they don’t take a withdrawal, and they can earn a partial bonus equal to the difference between the full roll-up percentage and the percentage of the income base that they withdraw, if positive. Liquidity during the deferral period and benefit bonuses aren’t mutually exclusive. There’s also a premium bonus of up to 7%, Sparks said.

No deferral bonus is credited if the withdrawal is larger than permitted under the contract. The benefit base is automatically double the premium if no withdrawals are taken before the tenth contract anniversary.

The AIG product is positioned more as a substitute for an income annuity than for a bond. FIAs are “definitely an income play right now,” Sparks said. “We’re focusing on providing people with a piece of guaranteed income.”

“Once we had an A-rated carrier, we wanted to focus on the best income payouts,” Sparks said. “In other products you cease to get the roll-up after a withdrawal. We went to what we call a ‘keep the difference’ feature.” He declined to name the actuarial firm that helped design the product.

The product has three crediting options: sn annual point-to-point index interest account, a monthly point-to-point additive index interest account, and a monthly average index interest account, with a spread.  

The age-bands and percentages for guaranteed lifetime withdrawals for single persons is 4.25% for ages 60 to 64, 5.25% for ages 65 to 69, 5.75% for ages 70-74, 6.25% for ages 75-79  and 6.5% for ages 80+.  For couples, the payout is 50 basis points lower in each age band.

As for the wisdom of partnering with AIG, a company whose reputation was more than sullied during the financial crisis and subsequent government bailouts, Sparks described AIG’s redemption story as an asset rather than a liability.  

“It’s a classic comeback of an American company,” he said. “AIG signified the Great Recession, but the people who stayed have accomplished a big turnaround. AIG is a huge player, and it wants to make a significant entrée into the index annuity industry.”

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Symetra doubles its YOY sales of deferred and immediate annuities in 1Q2014

Symetra Financial’s first quarter 2014 adjusted operating income was $65.7 million, or $0.56 per diluted share, up from $49.4 million, or $0.36 per diluted share, for the first quarter of 2013, the company reported this week.

For the first quarter of 2014, net income was $79.3 million, or $0.68 per diluted share, compared with $66.0 million, or $0.48 per diluted share, in the same period a year ago.

Deferred annuity sales for the quarter were $627.5 million, nearly double the $322.0 million of the year-ago quarter. Higher interest rates and wider distribution of Symetra annuity products through banks and broker-dealers drove sales of fixed index and traditional fixed annuities.

Income annuity sales were $87.5 million for the quarter, up from $40.7 million in the prior-year quarter. “The continued effectiveness of our sales strategies and a more favorable interest rate environment” helped grow sales of single premium immediate annuities (SPIAs) in the first quarter, according to a Symetra release.

“We continued to achieve strong year-over-year sales growth in annuities, individual life insurance, and group life and disability income insurance,” said Tom Marra, Symetra president and CEO, in the release.

Other performance highlights:

  • Benefits loss ratio improved to 57.1% from 68.5% in first quarter 2013.
  • Higher fixed indexed annuity account values delivered a significant earnings contribution in deferred annuities.
  • Strong year-over-year growth in sales of annuities, individual life, and group life and disability income.
  • Guidance range for 2014 Operating EPS raised to $1.80-$2.00.

Deferred annuities

  • Pretax adjusted operating income was $30.2 million for the quarter, up from $29.1 million in the previous period. Higher fixed indexed annuity (FIA) account values contributed $6.0 million to interest margin compared to $0.8 million in the prior-year period.
  • Earnings for the quarter included $2.1 million of investment prepayment-related income, net of related amortization, compared with $7.4 million in the prior period.
  • Total account values were $13.9 billion at quarter-end, up from $12 billion a year ago. Strong FIA sales drove this growth, with FIA account values rising to $2.1 billion from $539.1 million a year ago.

Income annuities

  • Pretax adjusted operating income was $9.4 million for the quarter, up from $8.8 million in the prior-year period, primarily due to more favorable mortality experience. This was partially offset by a lower interest spread on slightly lower reserves.
  • Mortality gains were $5.3 million for the quarter, compared with mortality gains of $1.0 million in the previous period. Mortality experience can fluctuate from period to period.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Only 6% of DC plan participants contribute the max: GAO

Despite an increase in the limits on tax-deferred contributions to defined contribution plans in recent years, the number of retirement plans declined in 2011 and only 6% of participants—about 2.4 million people—contributed as much or more than the limits, according to study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office that was published in March and released this week.

The latest GAO study, like its 2011 study of the same issue, found that high-income participants are most likely to contribute the maximum. “An estimated 76% of participants who contributed at or above the 2010 limits were in the top tenth percentile of earners; 47% were in the top fifth percentile. By contrast, an estimated 2% of participants who contributed at or above any of the 2010 limits had median incomes or below.” Only one-tenth of one percent of participants contributed the maximum combined employer/participant amount of $49,000 in 2010.

According to a summary of the study:

“Since 2000, the dollar amount of these limits has increased over time,” the GAO said in the summary of the report published in March and released to the public on April 21. “However, from 2009 through 2011, the number of new pension plans formed each year in the private sector remained relatively flat, and was below the levels reported previously for 2003 through 2007.

“Specifically, from 2009 through 2011, private-sector employers sponsored about 81,000 new pension plans, including 75,000 defined contribution (DC) plans and 6,000 defined benefit (DB) plans. DC plans with fewer than 100 participants accounted for about 90% of all new plan growth over this period.

“Moreover, the net change in the number of pension plans over this period was negative, with the number of terminated plans more than offsetting new plan formation by nearly 34,000 plans. Over the three-year span from 2009 through 2011, private-sector employers terminated about 106,000 DC and 9,000 DB plans.

“Overall, there were about 52,000 fewer employer-sponsored pension plans in the private sector in 2011 than there were in 2000. Thus, while tax incentives from increased contribution limits may have spurred new plan formation, other events—such as company consolidations and bankruptcies stemming from the recent recession—may have discouraged it. Nevertheless, despite the overall decline in number of plans, the total number of participants rose throughout the decade.

“The percentage of DC participants affected by the 2010 statutory limits and their income characteristics were similar to those reported previously for participants affected by the 2007 limits. In 2011, GAO reported that an estimated five percent of all DC participants who contributed to their plans in 2007 were affected by the statutory limits.

“Based on an analysis of the most recent data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, about six percent of all DC participants who contributed to their plans in 2010 were affected by the statutory limits in that their annual contributions in 2010 reached or exceeded one or more of the three limits examined. Of this group:

  • About three percent were under age 50 and contributed at least $16,500 (the elective deferral limit). 
  • About three percent were aged 50 or older and contributed at least $22,000 (the combined elective deferral and catch-up contribution limits). 
  • Another one-tenth of one percent of all ages contributed at or above the combined employer-participant contribution limit of $49,000. 

Participants affected by the 2010 statutory limits shared similar income characteristics with their counterparts in 2007. When compared with other DC participants who contributed below all of the 2010 statutory limits, this group had disproportionately higher earnings (90th percentile and higher) and were more likely to have additional assets of greater average value in their households.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

 

With New Indexed Annuity, Nationwide Takes a Walk on the Wild Side

Nationwide isn’t known for selling fixed indexed annuities, but the big re-mutualized insurer introduced an FIA two months ago with the audacious name of New Heights. This product can be explained in only two ways: briefly and at length. 

The short take: Nationwide has partnered with Annexus and its actuarial affiliate, Genesis Financial Development, to market a variation of a similar balanced index annuity that Annexus and Genesis first built for Aviva (now Athene) back in 2006.

The longer version: It will require many paragraphs of text and a link or two to describe the accumulation and income phases of this 10-year product, whose collaborators are betting that its uncapped equity exposure, the generous-looking payout percentages of its living benefit and Nationwide’s strength (A+ rating from A.M. Best) will generate wide interest.   

There are no slam-dunks in this business, of course. New Heights will still have to compete with top-selling FIAs like Allianz 360, which uses dynamic index allocation, and Security Benefit TVA, which is pegged to a volatility index.

It’s also unclear whether this ambitious product, whose design (like that of most FIAs) may strike traditionalists as an unnecessarily complicated way to get exposure to the equity premium and generate retirement income, will make FIA-believers of the many remaining skeptics in the broker-dealer and wirehouse channels.    

The timing is obviously favorable. Given the 50% spike in FIA sales in the second half of 2013 (thanks in part to modest interest rate relief), along the life insurers’ reduced appetite and capacity to sell variable annuities with living benefits, and the Boomer income wave, it may be a no-brainer.

Mike Morrone, Nationwide’s associate vice president of individual products and solutions, thinks so. “Every carrier sees that the FIA market is growing fast,” he told RIJ this week. “And it will only continue to grow at this pace. We thought it was the right time to enter that market.”

Morrone stressed that New Heights, like all FIAs, should be thought of a substitute for fixed income investments, not stocks. But references to equity performance are hard to avoid in any discussion about FIAs.

“The uncapped design helps maximize upside potential,” he said. “It will take advantage of big ups and downs in the market. If you think equity prices will bounce around in a tight range, this design may not be for you. It harnesses volatility.”

An ‘uncapped’ accumulation strategy

FIAs can be thought of as structured notes in insurance wrappers. The managers classically invest more than 90% of the available assets in bonds and the rest in call options on an equity index. The bond returns protect the principal and the options, by appreciating when equity prices go up, offer upside potential.     

But creative actuaries can tailor the outward features of FIAs in countless ways. With New Heights, Nationwide currently offers a choice of three “uncapped” strategies with two-year terms. The three strategies promise investors three levels of “participation” (up to 70%) in the gains of the S&P 500 Index that are in excess of a “spread” of up to 1.85%. In addition, a portion of the account value grows at a declared annual rate of one percent.

Nationwide explained how the crediting calculation would work if you used the 60% participation rate and the 1.85% spread. Suppose, for instance, that the S&P 500 rose 30% over two contract years. You’d multiply 30% by 60%, to get 18%. Then, to find the two-year return from the fixed account, you’d square one percent (and get 2.01%, or 1.01 squared minus 1) and multiply that by its participation rate (40%). The result would be 0.804%.

Add those two and you get 18.804% over two years. To annualize that return, you’d take the square root of that number (the square root of 1.8804, minus 1) to get 8.997%. You would then subtract the 1.85% annual spread from that number and get 7.15%. Finally, you would square 7.15 (1.0715 squared minus 1) to find the two-year credit of 14.8%.  

The uncapped crediting strategy (also known as “term yield spread”) appears at first glance to promise a greater potential for upside gain than FIA crediting strategies, such as participation rates or capped rates do. It doesn’t necessarily.

According to Jack Marrion’s classic 2003 book on FIAs, Index Annuities: Power & Protection, “the participation rate method produces more credited interest in fair markets, the yield spread approach maximizes returns in great markets, and they come out about the same in good markets.”   

Aside from the fear of missing out on the next bull market, New Heights addresses other perceived client concerns. “We tried to take care of some of the pitfalls that we see in current FIAs,” Morrone told RIJ. “Clients today expect to see if their investments have appreciated or depreciated each day. They can’t see that in current FIAs. They’re black boxes. In point-to-point contracts, no daily values are available. We thought that was a defect. People should be able to see the contract value daily.”

“Because we evaluate the performance daily, we can calculate the full gains to date. People can see what their values are.” That allows another innovation: If the client takes a penalty-free withdrawal of no more than 7% of the contract during any of the five two-year terms of this 10-year product, he or she gets the credit earned up to that point, as if it were the end of the term.

Anxious investors have access to another stress-reliever. If they think the market is going to drop, they can freeze the crediting process at any point during a term and lock in the accrued gain. This feature addresses potential investor concern about using a two-year crediting term instead of the more common one-year term.  

New Heights’ living benefit 

The product’s guaranteed lifetime income benefit is also structured in an innovative way. Most living benefits on VAs and other FIAs offer annual increases (roll-ups or deferral bonuses) that double the benefit base (the amount used to calculate annual income payments) after a ten-year deferral period. With its High Point 365 New Heights reaches a similar payout level by a different route, Morrone said.

The roll-up is only two percent per year for 10 years, instead of the usual seven. But the annual payout percentages at age 65 or 70 can be higher than the five percent that’s common with seven percent roll-ups. In addition, there’s an opportunity for daily increases in the benefit base, as opposed to annual or quarterly increases. (Income can’t be taken before the five-year contract anniversary).

A table of examples in the New Heights product literature for a single-life contract shows that someone who bought the contract at age 55 would qualify for an annual payout rate of 6.65% after 10 years and 9.4% after 15 years. A 60-year-old purchaser would receive a payout rate of 7.4% after 10 years and 11.40% after 15 years. Payouts of joint contracts would be lower.  

The basic High Point 365 rider costs 95 basis points a year. The cost increases to 1.25% for contract owners who elect a 3% bonus to the contract value, the benefit base and the return of purchase payment guarantee. The rider can only be elected at purchase and generally can’t be dropped as long as the contract is in force.  

The FIA ‘gospel’

The same caveats that apply to other FIAs also apply to New Heights. The product brochure promises “unlimited growth potential,” but broker-dealer reps and their clients could be disappointed if they purchase this product and get average earnings that are only a few percentage points more than bonds. Nationwide’s Morrone insists that New Heights isn’t intended for people looking for equity-like performance.

The profusion of options that New Heights offers will probably strike some advisors and clients as a welcome source of flexibility. But for others the number of choices could represent unwelcome complexities. It’s clear no two contract owners will experience exactly the same results.     

The actuaries who built this product made some interesting cost-reducing choices. They extended the crediting term to two years; two-year options are cheaper than one-year options. To allay liquidity concerns, they credited earnings to mid-term withdrawals. They also cut the annual penalty-free withdrawal percentage to seven percent from the usual 10%, and required contract owners to choose either a living benefit or death benefit, not both. These adjustments created room for lower spreads, which translate into higher crediting rates, and a reported seven percent commission.  

One FIA marketer interprets the recent hockey-stick increase in FIA sales and the entry of companies like Nationwide into the FIA market as signs of a gradual but inevitable thaw in attitudes toward FIAs.

 “I’ve been preaching the FIA gospel since early 1996, and I never thought I’d see them treated as just another annuity in the annuity space, as a peer with variable annuities,” said Paul McGillivray of CreativeOne, a prominent insurance marketing organization. McGillivray is responsible for wholesaling FIAs, including New Heights, to broker-dealers.

“But I knew things were changing when I was accepted on the program of [last week’s] LIMRA Retirement Industry conference,” where he gave a presentation on FIAs. “I’m still in shock.” He believes that Boomer demand for longevity protection, which VAs and income annuities alone can’t satisfy, will continue to drive FIA production and sales.

“I have recently heard three times from three different people that the demand for annuities and lifetime income will far exceed the capacity of VA issuers,” he told RIJ. “So it’s natural that more carriers would take a serious look at the FIA.”

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

SEI Ups its TDF Game

SEI, the $232 billion asset manager in suburban Philadelphia—not far down Route 202 from the campus of fund giant Vanguard—wants to grow its target date fund (TDF) business at the expense of Vanguard, Fidelity and T. Rowe Price, who together dominate the TDF world today.

Six months ago, SEI, which specializes in multi-manager TDF funds, recruited veteran defined contribution specialist Scott Brooks away from Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management to start making presentations to large DC plan sponsors, including those with a history of offering defined benefit pensions.

Brooks, who has also worked at JPMorgan and Oppenheimer, is leveraging several recent developments to catalyze his sales calls. For instance, the Department of Labor’s “Tips” for ERISA plan sponsors on TDFs inspired many plan sponsors to reconsider their current TDF options in light of their fiduciary requirements to offer low-cost funds that suit their workforce demography, risk-tolerance and needs.

In addition, according to Brooks, employers are becoming more interested in having their DC plans serve the purpose that DB plans were first designed to serve: financing the rotation of older, more expensive employees out of the workforce to make room for younger, less expensive employees. They can do that only by helping them save enough to retire.

Another conversation starter for Brooks and other TDF vendors is liquid alternatives, which include such investments as real estate, TIPS and commodities. Marketers of “liquid-alts” are eager to distribute them through DC plans, not as individual investment options but as components of TDFs.

Liquid-alts are potentially appealing to plan sponsors because they help diversify a TDF or investment portfolio. Their performance isn’t necessarily correlated with the performance of stocks, bonds or cash. DB fund managers have long used liquid-alts, so the migration of the strategy to DC plans and TDFs is a natural one.

“Anytime a plan sponsor expresses an interest in liquid alts, it’s an opportunity to have a conversation about custom TDFs,” Brooks told RIJ recently. “We feel the liquid alts add a level of diversification in custom TDFs. We or another provider can embrace the broadest potential set of investments, to fund the glidepath. With liquid alts, which include real estate, hedge funds, private equity, commodities, you can take a pension-like approach to the design of the custom TDF. Yes, that certainly gives us a foot in the door.”

Brooks described SEI’s approach to TDF design. “We have a long history of de-risking defined benefit glidepaths. In trying to achieve a certain income replacement ratio, we take an asset/liability matching approach.

“We ask, What’s the current funding status for the individual? It’s a type of goals-based investing. We take best practices from the defined benefit world. I would broadly define us as a designer of ‘through’ TDFs rather than ‘to,’ but those terms are less applicable today than in the past.“

SEI also likes to incorporate managed-volatility funds into TDFs, Brooks said. “We are active users of managed volatility funds in our off-the-shelf TDFs. We feel managed-vol is an important component of the equity exposure, especially when the investor is in the ‘red zone.’ Although we favor the ‘through’ design, we’re sensitive to the fact that as you get close to your goal, you need to reduce risk. Volatility management is one way to do that.”   

“SEI sees increased interest in this area. My position was newly created. I was brought in to lead the defined contribution business and to deliver the manager-of-managers solutions as part of that. SEI is substantially upping its game in that area. Formerly I was with Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management. I was focused on alternatives. At Oppenheimer I worked with consultants. I was always in defined contribution, but each role has been slightly different.”

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Happy Fifth Anniversary, RIJ

Every so often one of the many caring people I’ve met in the retirement industry over the past five years will buttonhole me at a conference and ask, often with a piercing look of concern, how my publication is doing. At first the question puzzled me, because I feel like my life is an open book. Or, in my case, like an open e-newsletter.

But then I realized that, although Retirement Income Journal reaches almost 7,000 people every week, I only converse with, by phone or personal e-mail, half a dozen or a dozen of my readers every weekday. That’s a fairly modest sampling of the entire group. 

So I thought that today’s issue of RIJ, which represents our 250th issue and marks our five-year anniversary as a publication, could serve as an appropriate vehicle for a brief message about how we’re “doing” and our plans for the future.

As many executives like to say, we’re doing very well, but we’re capable of doing much more.

Financially, I think we’ve proven that, if you focus on a niche and choose an industry where legitimate news and analysis has real value to readers, it’s possible to make a healthy profit putting out a paid-subscription publication on the Internet. 

It’s obvious but I’ll say it anyway: we couldn’t have done it without our subscribers. They include our corporate site-licensees (too many too name, but including AXA, Ernst & Young, Fidelity, LPL, MetLife, New York Life, Thrivent, TIAA-CREF, and ING) and hundreds of individual subscribers (financial advisors, regulators, academics, attorneys and consultants). Revenue from advertising is an important but smaller part of the business.

Circulation expansion is the big goal for 2014. We’ve hired a talented circulation consultant. We’ll start by reaching out to the thousands of people who receive our e-mails and read our headlines and summaries but who can’t access the content because they haven’t paid yet. (Come on, lurkers! Don’t miss any more of our priceless prose.)

We’ll also double our ongoing effort to make more advisors aware of RIJ and to convert them to subscribers, either individually or as affiliates of broker-dealers or marketing organizations. To serve that audience better, we’ll bring back RIJ-Advisor, the supplement we published twice a month in 2012-2013. In it, we’ll keep making the case that a combination of insurance and investment products can produce more income (and “utility,” as academics say) in retirement than either product class alone. 

We’ll be working hard to make a subscription to RIJ pay for itself, by negotiating discounts to select retirement-related products and services for paid subscribers. We also plan to make more of the data that we’ve gathered over the past five years available to subscribers through www.retirementincomejournal.com.

Enough said. Publishing this newsletter has given me an opportunity, previously unimaginable, to meet hundreds of brilliant, committed people in the U.S. and Canada and from as far away as Denmark, Australia and Taiwan. I look forward to providing news and analysis about the Boomer retirement opportunity for another prosperous and productive five years.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.