Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

Journal of Retirement Publishes Winter 2014 Issue

The Journal of Retirement has just released its Winter 2014 issue. The journal is published by Institutional Investor Journals, edited by George A. (Sandy) Mackenzie and sponsored by Bank of America Merrill Lynch. It features academic articles on, as the editor puts it, “a broad range of issues in retirement security.”

The latest issue features the following articles:

“Contribution of Pension and Retirement Savings to Retirement Income Security: More Than Meets the Eye,” by Billie Jean Miller and Sylvester J. Schieber.

“Retirement Income for the Wealthy, Middle and Poor,” by Meir Statman.

“The Tontine: An Improvement on the Conventional Annuity?” by Paul Newfield.

“Low Bond Yields and Efficient Retirement Income Portfolios,” by David Blanchett.

“The Role of Annuities in Retirement,” by Steve Vernon.

“Annuities, Credits and Deductions: An Experimental Test of the Relative Strength of Economic Incentives,” by John Scott and Jeffrey Diebold.

“Structured Product–Based Variable Annuities: A New (and Complex) Retirement Savings Vehicle,” by Geng Deng, Tim Dulaney, Tim Husson, and Craig McCann.

“Defined Contribution Plans and Very Large Individual Balances,” by John A. Turner, David D. McCarthy, and Norman P. Stein.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Bucket

Prudential debuts interactive retirement income website

Prudential Annuities has launched www.IncomeCertainty.com, a website that gives consumers answers to common questions, helps them share information with their advisers, and alerts them to the risks of retirement. Along the way, it repurposes some of the themes, images and music of Prudential’s Day One and Blue Dot ad campaigns.

Investors can access the site via computer, mobile phone or tablet devices.

The domestic annuity arm of Prudential Financial, which rolled out the site this month, wants to make retirement income planning more accessible to investors. IncomeCertainty.com features quizzes, retirement income calculators and “educational snacks” or infographics related to retirement.

The “Know Your Challenges” tab on the website unveils different retirement risks and ways in which investors can mitigate them. Challenges that are illustrated include the risk of outliving one’s income, market risk and inflation risk.    

The website also enables users to create a virtual binder or folder. It allows investors to save the content they find most relevant and share it with their financial adviser during face-to-face meetings.

Brochures, videos and research are also available on the site. They offer tips on avoiding costly Social Security mistakes, on preparing for rising healthcare costs, and other practical advice.

Woodbine: Are you ready for the Volcker Rule?

A new report that outlines compliance and business requirements for banks under the Volcker Rule has been released by Woodbine Associates. The Volcker Rule requirements are set to go into effect April 1, 2014.

The report, Volcker Rule Readiness Assessment, was written by Sean Owens, director of fixed income research and consulting at Woodbine. It provides guidance in preparing for trading and covered fund investments.

Woodbine reminds clients that, under the rule, banks must meet several new requirements, from establishing comprehensive compliance programs to making improvements in corporate governance. Banks will also be required to implement new reporting metrics, describe compensation policies and enforce modified risk management measures.

Woodbine warns that:

  • Banks that engage in underwriting, market making and hedging must develop and implement a comprehensive business and compliance framework that includes detailed policies and procedures for trading, risk management, internal control and oversight.
  • The complexity of the new regulation will require banks to create multi-functional teams to develop and implement necessary measures. 
  • Qualified external and independent analysis of business practices, policies, procedures, and internal controls is essential to ensure compliance without business disruption.

The full report can be purchased at www.woodbineassociates.com.

NIRS to host retirement conference in D.C. March 4

The National Institute on Retirement Security will host its fifth annual retirement policy conference, “On the Money? A Close Up Look at Americans’ Retirement Prospects,” on Tuesday, March 4, 2014, from 8:00 AM – 2:30 PM at the Washington Court Hotel, 525 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

The event will feature the release of a new report, The Financial Security Scorecard: A State-by-State Analysis of Economic Pressures on Future Retirees. This report ranks the 50 states and the District of Columbia relative to three areas: potential retirement income; major retiree costs such as housing and health care; and labor market conditions.

Conference speakers include:

  • Ray Boshara, Assistant Vice President, St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank
  • Jack Ehnes, CEO, CalSTRS
  • Mark Iwry, Senior Advisor to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Treasury Department
  • Mark Miller, Author and Journalist
  • Earl Pomeroy, Former U.S. Congressman and Senior Counsel, Alston and Bird
  • David M. Rubenstein, Co-Founder and Co-CEO, The Carlyle Group
  • Dallas Salisbury, President and CEO, Employee Benefits Research Institute
  • Damon Silvers, Director of Policy and Special Counsel, AFL-CIO
  • Christian Weller, Professor, University of Massachusetts Boston and Fellow, Center for American Progress

USAA CEO to retire next year

USAA CEO and President, Major General Josue “Joe” Robles Jr., U.S. Army (Ret.), announced today that he will retire from USAA in the first quarter of 2015.

Robles has been instrumental in expanding USAA membership eligibility to all who have ever honorably served in the U.S. military and their eligible family members. Under Robles’ leadership, USAA has grown 53 percent in members, 45 percent in revenue, 68 percent in net worth, and 59 percent in assets owned and managed – all during one of the worst U.S. economic downturns in recent history.

During that same period, which included some of the costliest catastrophe years in USAA history, USAA returned $7.3 billion to members and customers through dividends, distributions, bank rebates and rewards, and remained among just a handful of companies to earn the highest possible ratings for financial strength from Moody’s, A.M. Best and Standard & Poor’s.

After serving on the USAA Board of Directors from 1990 to 1994 while on active duty, Robles joined the company in 1994 as CFO and Controller. He also served as Corporate Treasurer and Chief Administrative Officer before assuming the role of CEO and President in 2007.

Consumer debt reached $11.52 trillion at end of 2013

Aggregate consumer debt increased in the fourth quarter by $241 billion, the largest quarter-to-quarter increase seen since the third quarter of 2007, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

As of December 31, 2013, total consumer indebtedness was $11.52 trillion, up by 2.1% from its level in the third quarter of 2013.

The four quarters ending on December 31, 2013 were the first since late 2008 to register an increase ($180 billion or 1.6%) in total debt outstanding. Nonetheless, overall consumer debt remains 9.1% below its 2008Q3 peak of $12.68 trillion.

Mortgages, the largest component of household debt, increased 1.9% during the fourth quarter of 2013. Mortgage balances shown on consumer credit reports stand at $8.05 trillion, up by $152 billion from their level in the third quarter. Furthermore, calendar year 2013 saw a net increase of $16 billion in mortgage balances, ending the four-year streak of year over year declines.

Balances on home equity lines of credit (HELOC) dropped by $6 billion (1.1%) and now stand at $529 billion. Non-housing debt balances increased by 3.3%, with gains of $18 billion in auto loan balances, $53 billion in student loan balances, and $11 billion in credit card balances.

Delinquency rates improved for most loan types in 2013Q4. As of December 31, 7.1% of outstanding debt was in some stage of delinquency, compared with 7.4% in 2013Q3. About $820 billion of debt is delinquent, with $580 billion seriously delinquent (at least 90 days late or “severely derogatory”).

Delinquency transition rates for current mortgage accounts are near pre-crisis levels, with 1.48% of current mortgage balances transitioning into delinquency. The rate of transition from early (30-60 days) into serious (90 days or more) delinquency dropped, to 20.9%, while the cure rate—the share of balances that transitioned from 30- 60 days delinquent to current—improved slightly, rising to 26.9%.

About 332,000 consumers had a bankruptcy notation added to their credit reports in 2013Q4, roughly flat compared to the same quarter last year.

Housing Debt

  • Originations, which we measure as appearances of new mortgage balances on consumer credit reports, dropped again, to $452 billion.
  • About 157,000 individuals had a new foreclosure notation added to their credit reports between October 1 and December 31.
  • Foreclosures have been on a declining trend since the second quarter of 2009 and are now at the lowest levels seen since the end of 2005.
  • Mortgage delinquency rates have seen consistent improvements; 3.9% of mortgage balances were 90+ days delinquent during 2013Q4, compared to 4.3% in the previous quarter.
  • Serious delinquency rates on Home Equity Lines of Credit decreased to 3.2%, down from 3.5% in 2013Q3.

Student Loans and Credit Cards

  • Outstanding student loan balances reported on credit reports increased to $1.08 trillion (+$53 billion) as of December 31, 2013, representing a $114 billion increase for 2013.
  • About 11.5% of student loan balances are 90+ days delinquent or in default.
  • Balances on credit cards accounts increased by $11 billion.
  • The 90+ day delinquency rate on credit card balances increased slightly to 9.5%.

Auto Loans and Inquiries

  • Auto loan originations decreased in the fourth quarter of 2013 to $88 billion.
  • The percentage of auto loan debt that is 90+ days delinquent remains unchanged at 3.4%.
  • The number of credit inquiries within six months – an indicator of consumer credit demand – remained virtually unchanged from the previous quarter at 169 million.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

U.S. ranks 19th of 20 in Natixis Global Retirement Index

The United States narrowly holds its spot among the top 20 nations globally in its capacity to meet retirement security needs and expectations, according to the 2014 Global Retirement Index, published today by Natixis Global Asset Management. The U.S. scored 19th among 150 nations analyzed, as the benefits of increasing U.S. economic stability are moderated by the potential for rising interest rates and inflation, as well as persistent income inequality.

The 2014 Global Retirement Index is based on an analysis by Natixis Global Asset Management of 20 key trends across four broad categories: Health and healthcare quality, personal income and finances, quality of life and socio-economic factors. Together, these trends provide a dynamic measure of the life conditions and wellbeing expected by retirees and near-retirees.

The U.S. scored higher year over year in all four broad categories, yet was surpassed by other nations trending higher in areas such as healthcare and government debt. For overall retirement security, the U.S. remains behind the majority of countries in Western Europe and Canada, and ahead only of Israel on the list of the top 20 nations. Despite ranking sixth highest in per capita income, the U.S. ranks first in per capita healthcare expenditures, yet 33rd for life expectancy and relatively low (81st) for income inequality.

The 2014 Global Leaders
Retirees in European countries enjoy the greatest financial security in retirement, with eight of the top 10 places among the 150 nations. Countries heading the global list include top-ranked Switzerland, second-ranked Norway (last year’s no. 1), Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Finland and Luxembourg. Australia and New Zealand are the only non-European countries to break into the top 10 globally.

New Zealand, Iceland and the Republic of Korea are the most improved performers in the top tier of the rankings, with each climbing at least 10 places from last year to enter the top 20. In contrast, Japan dropped from the top 20, as did export-dependent European nations Slovenia and Slovakia. The following table highlights the top 20 countries for 2014 and shows their ranking from last year.

Top 20 Nations for 2014
1. Switzerland (ranked 2nd in 2013)
2. Norway (1)
3. Austria (5)
4. Sweden (4)
5. Australia (11)
6. Denmark (8)
7. Germany (9)
8. Finland (6)
9. New Zealand (22)
10. Luxembourg (3)
11. Iceland (23)
12. Belgium (14)
13. Netherlands (7)
14. Canada (13)
15. France (10)
16. Czech Republic (17)
17. Republic of Korea (27)
18. United Kingdom (20)
19. United States (19)
20. Israel (12)
For a more detailed overview of the Natixis Global Retirement Index, including the rankings of all 150 nations evaluated, go to www.durableportfolios.com.

Trade groups give one cheer for Maryland retirement proposal

Following California, the Maryland legislature is considering legislation that would require nearly all private businesses in the state to provide a workplace retirement savings plan for their employees, according a report in NAPA.net.

The bill would also establish the Maryland Secure Choice Savings Trust, a state-run auto-IRA program for private employers that do not wish to use a private provider to satisfy the requirement.

Private employers who currently offer a private retirement savings plan of any type for employees would not have to do anything new.

In a release, ASPPA and NAPA, trade groups of retirement plan administrators and advisers, said:

“Proposals mandating retirement plan coverage for private employers remain attractive to state legislators who recognize that a failure to address the retirement plan coverage gap means future retirees could be more dependent on social services, straining state resources. As a result, there has been a flurry of legislative activity in multiple states addressing this issue.

“ASPPA and NAPA have been actively engaged in these state legislative efforts. Our goal: to ensure that these bills include four key criteria:

• Any legislation must require private employers above a certain size to offer some type of retirement savings program to employees.
• Any type of private retirement savings product must be allowed to meet the requirement.
• If state legislators believe that a state-run retirement program is necessary, then that program must be an IRA-based program exempt from ERISA.
• Any legislation must include the creation of an online private vendor clearinghouse — a convenient place for private employers to learn about private retirement products that satisfy the requirement.

As a result of offering constructive solutions that make sense to address the coverage problem, ASPPA and NAPA have been given a seat at the table. In the case of the Maryland legislation, for example, Brian Graff, executive director/CEO of ASPPA and NAPA, was invited to participate in a Feb. 20 legislative hearing on the proposal.

“ASPPA and NAPA will continue to work closely and collaboratively with the sponsors of the Maryland bill to ensure that this legislative effort will squarely address the problem of workplace-based retirement plan coverage and access.

“In Maryland and other states, we will not allow the process to be derailed by other agendas; if a proposal does not meet our criteria, we will do everything we can to oppose and defeat it.”

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

How to improve public pensions: SoA panel

Public pension experts issued recommendations this week outlining how plans could achieve fully funded status. The “Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Public Pension Plan Funding” recommended that public plans should:

  • Improve their financial management, risk analysis and information by disclosing plan maturity, investment risks, stress tests, plan costs, and the ratio of contributions paid to the recommended contribution.
  • Create a standardized contribution benchmark that would allow sponsors to measure the aggregate level of funding risk. This information should be disclosed in actuarial reports, said the panel in a press release. The standardized plan contribution would use a stipulated rate of investment return.
  • Direct their actuaries to disclose the information mentioned above and be required to provide an opinion on the reasonableness of the assumptions and analysis in the funding plan.
  • Implement strong governance practices. That includes the establishment of governance structures to support payment of recommended contributions. Additionally, plans should create a strong risk oversight function at the board level that would consider the cost and risks of proposed plan changes.

Members of the SoA panel were:

Bob Stein, FSA, MAAA, CPA, retired, former global managing partner of actuarial services of Ernst & Young; panel chair

Andrew G. Biggs, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; panel co-vice chair Douglas J. Elliott, Fellow, The Brookings Institution; panel co-vice chair

Bradley Belt, vice chairman, Orchard Global Capital Group and chairman of Palisades Capital Management; former CEO of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Dana K. Bilyeu, former executive officer of the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada

David Crane, Stanford University, former special advisor to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Malcolm Hamilton, FSA, FCIA, retired, former partner with Mercer; Senior Fellow, C. D. Howe Institute

Laurence Msall, president, The Civic Federation, Chicago, Ill.

Mike Musuraca, managing director, Blue Wolf Capital Partners LLC; former designated trustee to the New York City Employees Retirement System

Bob North, FSA, FSPA, FCA, MAAA, EA, chief actuary, New York City Retirement Systems
Richard Ravitch, co-chair, State Budget Crisis Task Force; former lieutenant governor of the State of New York

Larry D. Zimpleman, FSA, MAAA, chairman, president and CEO, Principal Financial Group

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

LIMRA: Annuity sales strongest in 11 years

Annuity sales soared 17% in the fourth quarter, reaching $61.9 billion. It was the largest quarterly percentage increase in 11 years, according to LIMRA Secure Retirement Institute.

Overall for 2013, annuity sales were $230.1 billion, a 5% increase over 2012.

Indexed annuity sales set a new quarterly record of $11.9 billion, an increase of $1.7 billion from the third quarter. For 2013, indexed annuity sales totaled $39.3 billion, up 16% over 2012.

Other significant increases:

  • Overall fixed annuity sales reached $25.6 billion in the fourth quarter of 2013. It was the highest sales total since the second quarter of 2009, up 45% over the fourth quarter of 2012. Total fixed annuities sales grew 17% in 2013, to $84.8 billion.
  • Fixed-rate annuity sales earned $8.5 billion in the fourth quarter. For the year, fixed-rate annuities grew 19% to $29.3 billion.
  • Variable annuity sales grew 4% in the fourth quarter, to $36.3 billion. 
  • Deferred income annuity sales reached $710 million in the fourth quarter, up 82% from the fourth quarter of 2012. In 2013, DIA sales reached $2.2 billion, more than double (113%) 2012 results.

LIMRA attributed the overall growth to improved interest rates, product innovation and organic growth in the banking and broker-dealer channels.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Prudential’s New Edge: Dynamic Rate-Setting

Our February 13 report on the new 3.0 version of Prudential’s Highest Daily variable annuity income rider failed to reveal the critical role played by Prudential’s relatively new “dynamic rate-setting” process. Annuity issuers seem to applaud this development; broker-dealers, not so much.

We had never heard of dynamic rate-setting. But in a conversation with RIJ last week, Bruce Ferris, the head of sales, distribution product management and marketing for Prudential Annuities, explained.

Dynamic rate-setting means Prudential can tweak the rider’s payout rates and roll-up rates as frequently as every month, if necessary, Ferris said. In the past, the insurer needed nine months or so to change certain rates. (There can be no retroactive rate changes, he noted. New rates affect only contracts issued after each change.)

This kind of flexibility is valuable. It narrows the product’s window of exposure to interest rate volatility to just 30 days. With less risk exposure, the carrier can afford to strengthen the benefit. Indeed, because of dynamic rate setting, Prudential was able to raise the new rider’s annual payout rate to a more competitive 5.0% at age 65 for single contracts, from 4.5% in the 2.1 version of HD.

(The new contract has additional risk management measures. It requires at least a 10% allocation to a fixed return account, and the entire portfolio is still subject to Prudential’s risk management algorithm, which automatically shifts money in or out of equities when equity prices rise or fall, respectively.)

Ferris said the shift in strategy required infrastructure modifications, but not regulatory or legal changes. Some of those modifications were internal, others between the carrier and broker/dealers. With annuities, “the essential element of speed to market is speed to the broker/dealers,” observed Joan Boros, a securities and insurance attorney in Washington, D.C.

‘Sweet spot’

“We didn’t change our fees, our step-up frequency, our minimum issue age and, at introduction, our roll-up rate. We merely introduced the same rate-setting process that we used for our PDI (Prudential Deferred Income) product,” Ferris said. “This allowed us, at launch, to raise the withdrawal rates at age 65 to the sweet spot of 5% level for single and 4.5% for spousal contracts. It lets us control our interest rate risk.”

PDI is the company’s entry in the three-year-old, $2.2 billion deferred income annuity (DIA) market, currently dominated by New York Life and Northwestern Mutual Life. PDI is essentially a portfolio of bonds with a guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit attached.

“We developed PDI with the idea of creating a dynamic rate-setting ability for it. The need to do that was a function not just of the volatility but also the absolute value of interest rates. We had been living in an environment where rates of 5% to 6% were normal. Then they dropped to 1.45%,” Ferris said.

“That was new. It caused us to rethink our infrastructure and our product design for PDI. The original PDI roll-up and withdrawal rates were 6% and 6%, and even though interest rates pulled back later, we could afford to pull back our roll-up and withdrawal rates to only 5.9%. Without dynamic rate-setting, we would have needed to make a larger reduction.

“Now we’re doing the same thing with the variable annuity as with the PDI. That’s good news for the marketplace and for the consumer. It lets us be sustainable over the long-term,” he added.

Prudential’s new procedure is noted in the latest contract prospectus, dated February 10, 2014.  A cover sheet announces that “This Rate Sheet Supplement Prospectus” supersedes all previous supplements. It makes clear that the current 5% roll-up and 5% payout rates for singles ages 65 to 84 apply only to applications signed between February 10 and March 14, 2014.

On page 44 of the prospectus, there’s a further disclosure that, for people who sign a contract now but elect the income rider later, “the Withdrawal Percentages and Roll-Up Rate applicable to your optional living benefit will be those in effect at the time you elect the optional living benefit, which may be different than the Withdrawal Percentages and Roll-Up Rate available at the time your Annuity is issued.”

Ferris said he expects other annuity issuers to adopt dynamic rate-setting, if they haven’t already. But, while others know about it, they haven’t necessarily begun to use it. At Lincoln Financial, which competes with Prudential in the VA space, a spokesman told RIJ, “We’re aware of Prudential’s approach. But we can’t provide input on Lincoln’s future plans.”

An executive at a major mutual life insurer told RIJ in an e-mail, “I am aware of what Pru did and I think it makes great sense. The cost of providing the guarantees can fluctuate considerably. If manufacturers can be more dynamic in reacting to changing conditions they don’t have to set prices as conservatively. That should benefit investors. I agree it will be a more widely adopted practice.”

“I’m not hearing any specifics about whether other companies will offer similar features,” said a Washington, D.C. attorney who counsels life insurers. “To the extent it represents a product evolution that is financially attractive to both carriers and customers, it would be logical to assume that other carriers will consider offering something similar.”

But not everyone is cheering dynamic rate-setting. One broker-dealer executive told RIJ in an e-mail, “I can certainly understand why they want to do this, but I hope it doesn’t become a trend. It creates some operations issues for the broker/dealers. 

“First, there needs to be a process to lock in the current rates prior to them changing. We do this for fixed and indexed annuities (when rates and caps change) now and we have had to do it with VAs when they change their product. But it’s never been a regular thing on the VA side. 

“Next you have to make sure the advisers know what the current rates are. Again, this is not different from what we do for fixed and indexed products, but it’s new for VAs. Finally, several broker/dealers have tools that calculate the guaranteed minimum income from all of the VA riders they offer. Something has to update this tool every time Prudential changes rates. None of this in itself is a big deal, but it’s just one more headache.”

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Prudential’s New Edge: Dynamic Rate-Setting

Our February 13 report on the new 3.0 version of Prudential’s Highest Daily variable annuity income rider failed to reveal the story within the story: the role of Prudential’s “dynamic rate-setting” process.  

In a conversation with RIJ last week, Bruce Ferris, the head of sales, distribution product management and marketing for Prudential Annuities, explained what dynamic rate-setting means.

It means Prudential can tweak the rider’s payout rates and roll-up rates as frequently as every month if it needs to. In the past, it needed nine months or so to file a new prospectus and wait for approval before changing those rates. There can be no retroactive changes, Ferris noted. The new rates affect only contracts issued after the change. 

This new flexibility narrows the product’s window of exposure to interest rate volatility to 30 days. Ferris characterized the change as requiring infrastructure modifications, internally and at the broker/dealer level, rather than a regulatory or legal change.

With less risk exposure, the carrier can afford to strengthen the benefit. Indeed, because of dynamic rate setting, Prudential was able to raise the new rider’s annual payout rate to 5.0% at age 65 for single contracts, from 4.5% for the previous version. (The new contract does require at least a 10% allocation to a fixed return account, as a further risk-reduction measure, and the entire portfolio is still subject to Prudential’s risk management algorithm, which automatically shifts money in or out of equities when equity prices rise or fall, respectively.)

‘Sweet spot’

“We didn’t change our fees, our step-up frequency, our minimum issue age and, at introduction, our roll-up rate. We merely introduced the same rate-setting process that we used for our PDI (Prudential Deferred Income) product,” Ferris said.

“This allowed us, at launch, to raise the withdrawal rates at age 65 to the sweet spot of 5% level for single and 4.5% for spousal contracts. It lets us control our interest rate risk.”

PDI is the company’s entry in the three-year-old, $2.2 billion deferred income annuity (DIA) market, currently dominated by New York Life and Northwestern Mutual Life. PDI is essentially a portfolio of bonds with a guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit attached.

“We developed PDI with the idea of creating a dynamic rate-setting ability. The need to do that was a function of not just the volatility but also the absolute value of interest rates. We had been living in an environment where 5% to 6% was normal. Then it dropped to 1.45%,” Ferris said.

“That was new. It caused us to rethink our infrastructure and our product design. That’s what we did with PDI. The original roll-up and withdrawal rates were 6% and 6%, and even though rates pulled back later, we could afford to pull back to only 5.9%. Now we’re doing the same thing with the variable annuity as with the PDI. The good news for the marketplace and for the consumer, is that this lets us be sustainable over the long-term,” he added.

Ferris expected other annuity issuers to adopt dynamic rate-setting, if they haven’t already. At Lincoln Financial, which competes with Prudential in the VA space, a spokesman told RIJ, “We’re aware of Prudential’s approach. But we can provide input on Lincoln’s future plans.”

An executive at a major mutual life insurer told RIJ in an e-mail, “I am aware of what Pru did and I think it makes great sense. The cost of providing the guarantees can fluctuate considerably. If manufacturers can be more dynamic in reacting to changing conditions they don’t have to set prices as conservatively. That should benefit investors. I like it. I agree it will be a more widely adopted practice.”

“I’m not hearing any specifics about whether other companies will offer similar features,” said a Washington, D.C. attorney who counsels life insurers. “To the extent it represents a product evolution that is financially attractive to both carriers and customers, it would be logical to assume that other carriers will consider offering something similar.”

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Must-Read Income Research of 2013

Have you ever wondered what the retirement market would look like from 30K feet up? Or how you might respond when someone says, ‘Annuities are great—unless you love your kids’? Or, if you’re a policymaker, how to make people eager to work longer and claim Social Security later?  

If you said yes to any of the above, then keep reading. The answers to those questions and many more can be found in the ten outstanding research articles described here, written by some of the most inquisitive retirement-minded academics in the world. 

Because RIJ has both “town” and “gown” readers, we try to promote the exchange of ideas between the two realms. By town, we mean the executives and entrepreneurs of the retirement industry. By gown, we mean the academics who try to crack the so-called “annuity puzzle.”

So, every winter, RIJ publishes a list of ten praiseworthy research papers that surfaced (as working papers or journal articles) during the previous calendar year. We used to call them the “best” papers of the year, but starting now we’ll call them “notable” or “must-read.” We just can’t claim to be aware of all the good decumulation research that’s produced around the world.

Below, you’ll find synopses of the articles in the class of 2013 (in alphabetical order, by title). Of all the hundreds of eligible papers that emerged last year, it was hard to choose ten. In the end, (after soliciting nominations from experts in the field) we concentrated on articles that contain at least one idea that retirement product developers, marketers or advisers can apply to their work.

Note: We don’t have the discretion to provide direct links to the papers. To obtain copies, you may need to e-mail the authors, or search the article database at the National Bureau of Economic Research, or visit the websites of the journals where the articles appeared.

“Analyzing an Income Guarantee Rider in a Retirement Portfolio.” Wade D. Pfau. Journal of Retirement, Summer 2013. Americans invested $145.3 billion in variable annuity contracts in 2013. That one product category accounted for almost two-thirds of the premium paid for all annuities in the U.S. last year. Its main income feature is the guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit (GLWB) rider. This article assesses the pros and cons of the VA with a GLWB. The cons include lack of inflation-adjusted income and fee attrition. The pros include protection against wealth depletion in retirement and from panic during market downturns.

“Complexity as a Barrier to Annuitization: Do Consumers Know How to Value Annuities?” Jeffrey Brown, Arie Kapteyn, Olivia Mitchell and Erzo F. P. Luttmer. NBER and the Pension Research Council, June 2013.

In this deconstruction of the so-called “annuity puzzle”—i.e., Why don’t more retirees annuitize their retirement?—Jeffrey Brown of the University of Illinois and others reject the usual explanations for low annuitization rates. The most likely explanation, they argue, is that most people don’t buy what they can’t easily value, and that annuities are too complex for most people to evaluate. “Valuing an annuity is particularly complex inasmuch as it involves both uncertainty and events that will unfold far in the future,” the authors write. “As a result, individuals are only willing to buy or sell an annuity when it is an exceptionally good deal, and this tendency is strongest among the least financially sophisticated.”

“Consumer Preferences for Annuities: Beyond NPV.” Suzanne Shu, Robert Zeithammer and John Payne. Unpublished working paper.

The authors approach the annuity purchase as a marketing/psychology problem. They apply conjoint analysis (sometimes called “trade off” analysis) to understand consumer preferences vis-à-vis annuities. It’s a popular statistical tool for deciding the relative importance that consumers place on product attributes, such as brand and price. The authors found that an annual $200 increase in income is a more attractive annuity feature than an annual percentage increase, that demand for annuities increases when you add a 10-year to 20-year period certain (but goes down for a five-year or 30-year period certain) and that middle-aged people like annuities more than people who are about to retire. People with middle-level numeracy and $75,000 to $150,000 in savings are especially amenable to annuities. “We find that careful ‘packaging’ of a given net present value into the optimal mix of the attributes can more than double demand for the product,” the authors conclude.

“Exchanging Delayed Social Security Payments for a Lump Sum: Could This Incentivize Longer Work Careers?” Jingjing Chai, Raimond Maurer, Olivia Mitchell and Ralph Rogalla. NBER Working Paper 19032, May 2013.

Americans tend to claim Social Security benefits sooner rather than later, thereby locking in less annual lifetime income (for themselves and often for their surviving spouses) than if they waited a few years. Policymakers would love to see people work longer and claim later. The authors of this paper, three from Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany, and one from Penn, propose making the reward for postponing benefits a one-time lump sum rather than a larger annual income. On average, they argue, that would incentivize Americans to work 18 to 24 months longer and, in the process, help stabilize the Social Security system without adding costs or reducing benefits. Workers could use the lump sum to invest in equities, fund a bequest or buy the proverbial bass boat.

“The Floor–Leverage Rule for Retirement.” Jason S. Scott and John G. Watson. Financial Analysts Journal, September/October 2013. In this paper, two researchers at Financial Engines propose a retirement risk management technique that calls for building a retirement portfolio roughly along the lines of a structured note. The rule that the title refers to—“floor-leverage”—suggests that a retiree invest 85% of his or her wealth in safe, income-producing floor assets such as an income annuity or a bond ladder. The other 15% would be invested in a triple-leveraged equity fund, where the costs and mechanics of leverage are built into the NAV of the fund. This technique is suggested as an alternative to a 4% systematic withdrawal plan or a bucketing strategy. “It’s for people who want material upside but who also want security,” Scott told RIJ last autumn. “You’re trying to concentrate the risk in the risky assets and create safety in the floor asset.”  

“Legacy Stabilization Using Income Annuities.” Matthew B. Kenigsberg and Prasenjit Dey Mazumdar. Journal of Retirement, Fall 2013. Conventional wisdom has it that income annuities and bequests play a zero-sum game: The more lifetime income the parents buy, the less money they can leave to the children. In this paper, the authors, both from Fidelity Investments, show evidence for the reverse: that annuities can protect a potential bequest from the risk that parents will live long enough to consume all their wealth. In short, annuities have the potential to relieve rather than intensify inter-generational tension by unlinking the parents’ deaths from the transfer of wealth. 

“Optimal Portfolio Choice with Annuities and Life Insurance for Retirement Couples.” Andreas Hubener, Raimond Maurer and Ralph Rogalla. Review of Finance, February 2013. This paper evaluates the use of term life insurance and annuities in retirement by couples. It finds that term life insurance becomes most important when the wife is younger than her husband, when the husband’s pension income ends when he dies, and when the wife has little additional liquid savings to fall back on. (The paper doesn’t evaluate the use of whole life policies for bequest purposes.) The availability of Social Security’s generous joint life annuity currently crowds out much of the need for private annuities, the authors suggest. But they say that demand for private annuities could rise if Social Security benefits are reduced and as the number of retirees with defined benefit pensions declines.  

“Optimizing Retirement Income: An Adaptive Approach Based on Assets and Liabilities.” Yuan-An Fan, Steve Murray and Sam Pittman. Journal of Retirement, Summer 2013.” Advisers of retirees know that most financial plans will undergo periodic changes or “course corrections” in response to market performance or new personal circumstances. Recognizing that, analysts at Russell Investments suggest an “adaptive” approach to retirement investing. Taking a cue from pension fund risk management and echoing the principle of constant proportion portfolio insurance (CPPI), the model calls for assessing a client’s funded status at specific points during retirement and adjusting the equity allocation as needed. “The adaptive model suggests that retirees should consider adapting their exposure to equity based on their level of wealth relative to the value of their spending goal, instead of maintaining a constant mixture of equity and fixed income,” the authors write. The model suggests reductions in equity allocations for retirees who are barely funded and more aggressive equity allocations for those who are well funded.   

“Recent Changes in the Gains from Delaying Social Security.” John B. Shoven and Sita Nataraj Slavov. NBER Working Paper No. 19370, August 2013.

In 2013, Social Security’s reputation changed significantly. Our national pension was no longer villified as a poor investment, as it often was during the reform debates of the mid-2000s. Instead, many people realized that the rate of gain in income from delaying Social Security past full retirement age was much greater than the return on safe assets. In addition, many people began to discuss the “file-and-suspend” strategy by which primary earners can receive spousal benefits while delaying their own benefits. Shoven and Slavov’s paper explains when and how (as well as for whom and by how much) Social Security benefits became more generous. “If the primary earner was born in 1951,” they write, “a one-earner couple could gain more than $85,000, and a two-earner couple could gain more than $100,000 through optimal claiming relative to claiming at 62… For singles born in 1951, the gains from delay are more than $30,000 for men and more than $50,000 for women.”

“The RIIA Balance Sheet: The Head Office Perspective.” Elvin J. Turner and Larry Cohen. Retirement Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2013. This article describes the “topology” of the retirement market. Using a kind of multi-dimensional prism, it reveals the many segments of the market, their attributes, and their relationships to one another. Consumers are segmented by age and asset levels, household assets are segmented by financial and other types of assets, distributors are segmented by their revenue models, and products are segmented by individual annuities, retail mutual funds and defined contribution plans. This article, based on ideas that the members of the Retirement Income Industry Association have been refining for a decade, provides a roadmap for people who are trying to orient themselves within the complex retirement marketplace.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.     

BlackRock’s Non-Insured Path to Predictable Income

Last year BlackRock launched a free new “razor” called the CoRI Retirement Index. Last week it introduced the “blades” for that razor: the CoRI Funds, a series of five actively managed target-dated mutual funds that invest primarily in investment-grade bonds.    

The new funds, which are intended to attract the tax-deferred assets of Boomers ages 55 to 64, are managed (with the CoRI Index as a guide) to grow to a specific value in a specific number of years. The target value is the cost of an inflation-adjusted income annuity that (at age 65) delivers the level of income predicted at time of purchase. BlackRock has been talking about the CoRI Funds for months, and now they’re available.

This non-insured product appears to deliver some of the same benefits as deferred income annuities or deferred annuities with lifetime withdrawal benefits. But, while the future income stream of a DIA is guaranteed and the contract owner must annuitize at the end of the deferral period, CoRI Funds are not guaranteed to hit their target value, nor must the client annuitize.

The CoRI Funds could also serve as an alternative to bond index funds, offering a haven from interest rate risk for near-retirees who currently have a lot of money in bond funds but fret that those funds will fall in value as rates rise. In that scenario, the CoRI Funds could help protect them from sequence-of-returns risk while they pass through the so-called Retirement Red Zone.

Calculating your CoRI Index

What’s the CoRI Retirement Index? It’s a benchmark that tracks the current price of a dollar of future inflation-adjusted income. Using an online calculator, prospects can, by inputting their current age, discover their personal Index value, which is the cost today of a dollar of lifetime income at age 65.  By dividing their investable assets by the Index value, they can find out about how much income their savings will deliver—assuming that they invest in an age-appropriate CoRI Fund now and convert the assets to an inflation-adjusted single premium immediate annuity at 65.

Here’s an example. You go to the CoRI website and input the datum that you’re 57 years old. The calculator will tell you that your CoRI Index is $14.53. Then you input the datum that you have $800,000 in savings. The calculator will tell you that, based on your CoRI Index of $14.53, your savings could buy an immediate inflation-adjusted annuity that will pay $55,058 a year starting when you reach age 65.

Since time is money, the older you are (up to age 64), the higher your CoRI Index will be and the more your future income will cost. A 60-year-old’s Index today would be $16.58 and he or she would have to invest $913,000 to get a $55,058 income at 65, not the $800,000 that a 57-year-old would pay.  

The five initial CoRI Funds, which were filed with the SEC last July 30, are limited-term mutual funds. They’re designed for Boomers who will reach retirement age in 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021, and 2023. They’re actively managed to track the CoRI Index for each of those years. The managers will generally invest 80% of the assets in investment grade bonds and the rest in riskier assets, including derivatives. 

Each fund has a current expense ratio of 0.83% (1.17% if and when fee waivers expire) and 0.34% for institutional class (0.58% if waivers expire). There’s a front-end load that starts at 4% for initial investments below $25,000 but gradually declines to zero for investments of $1 million or more.

CoRI Funds aren’t designed to be held indefinitely. It’s up to the individual to decide if or when to sell the funds and whether to buy an annuity or tap the bonds for systematic withdrawals. But in the year the investor turns age 75, “the fund will be liquidated and your remaining investment returned to you,” according to BlackRock.

While there’s no guarantee that investments in a CoRI Fund will deliver the projected income on the projected date, BlackRock evidently will apply a lot of active, quantitative management toward meeting that goal. Instead of watching the NAV of their traditional bond funds fluctuate between now and retirement, 55-year-olds, for example, could rely on the presumed predictability of their CoRI 2023 Fund.

“Understanding what a lump sum savings provides in estimated retirement income is difficult,” said Chip Castille, managing director and head of BlackRock’s U.S. Retirement Group, in a release last week. “The CoRI Indexes enable pre-retirees to quickly estimate the annual lifetime income their current savings may generate once they turn 65.”

In essence, these are target date funds whose managers try to track a benchmark that’s based on the age of the investor, the prevailing interest rates, the anticipated future prices of income annuities and other variables. By all accounts, that’s not an easy task.

As someone familiar with CoRI Funds explained at the Morningstar Ibbotson Conference in Phoenix today, it’s one thing to create an inflation-adjusted annuity price index; It’s quite another thing to successfully track that index, given all the variables involved. Others have noted the complexity of the CoRI concept. The mere fact that the CoRI Index and the client’s future annual income are inversely related (the lower the Index, the more income per dollar invested) may be confusing to some investors.

“My sense is that the CoRI Index is a sophisticated process that may go over the head of the average investor,” said one annuity industry participant. “It may be more for advisory use.”

Alternative to an annuity

As noted above, investors could probably accomplish the same goal with a deferred income annuity (which would require annuitization) or with a fixed-rate deferred annuity (which permits but doesn’t require annuitization). But investors who are averse to annuities might prefer BlackRock’s non-insurance approach. Owners of tax-deferred accounts, who don’t need another layer of tax-deferral over their investments, may also find the CoRI mutual fund approach less redundant than an annuity.

Indeed, the funds are intended for, but not limited to, tax-deferred accounts, according to the prospectus. It’s not hard to see how the CoRI Funds might appeal to 401(k) plan sponsors or IRA advisers who want to encourage participants or clients to adjust their mindsets from accumulation to decumulation without necessarily bringing the complexities of annuities into the picture.

The CoRI concept, not unlike Financial Engines’ Income Plus and Dimensional Fund Advisors’ Managed DC, seems able to help guide a participant’s portfolio toward the fulfillment of an income goal while remaining agnostic on the purchase of an annuity. This is one direction in which the retirement industry seems to be moving.

Plan sponsors today arguably feel more pressure to reduce fees than to provide income solutions, however, and CoRI Funds cost much more than bond index funds. If the contract’s temporary fee waivers ever expire—they’re good at least until March 1, 2015, according to BlackRock—and the expense ratios jump to 1.17% (for individual accounts) and to 0.58% (for institutional accounts), plan sponsor advisers may have a harder time justifying the higher cost.  

But individual investors and their advisers might like the CoRI Funds’ combination of semi-certainty and full liquidity. An investor can always decide to sell his or her CoRI Fund and put the money somewhere else. That scenario wouldn’t necessarily be bad for BlackRock. The CoRI concept might still have served as a hook for attracting, at least temporarily, many millions of dollars in 401(k) and IRA money from near-retirees.  

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

MetLife exits U.K. bulk annuity market

MetLife Assurance, a U.K. subsidiary of the U.S. insurance giant, has sold its bulk annuity book to Rothesay Life Ltd., a British-based pensions insurance provider, IPE.com reported. The sale marks MetLife Assurance’s exit from the U.K. and Irish markets.

Rothesay Life was founded by Goldman Sachs in 2007. Last fall, Goldman Sachs sold 64% of the firm to Blackstone (28.5%), GIC (28.5%) and MassMutual (7%), according to Artemis.bm.

The MetLife-Rothesay deal, still subject to regulatory approval, will move around £3bn (€3.7bn and $5.1 billion) in assets between the insurers. In the U.K. bulk annuity market, insurers buy the annuity contracts of members in defined benefit (DB) plans in return for assets and premiums.

That market opened up in the middle of the 2000s. MetLife entered the market around 2007 and soon gathered vast assets. But conditions changed, and hedging replaced risk-transfer as a de-risking measure. Other insurers, such as Aviva and Lucida, downsized or abandoned their involvement in the bulk annuity business.

The purchase by Rothesay Life boosts its position in the market, as it steps up competition with market leader Pension Insurance Corporation (PIC). Addy Loudiadis, chief executive at Rothesay Life, said the acquisition of MetLife Assurance would turn Rothesay into the largest dedicated provider of bulk annuity assets, in terms of assets under management. With the transfer of MetLife’s 20,000 policies from the U.K. and Ireland, and £3bn in assets, Rothesay now has more than £10bn in AUM.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

In the U.K., “collective DC” beats “pure DC”: Aon Hewitt

U.K. employers who find the costs of their defined benefit (DB) plans unmanageable should move toward collective defined contribution (CDC) instead of pure defined contribution plans, according to Aon Hewitt, IPE.com has reported.

A shift to DC plans would only drive up DB sponsor costs because the DC plan sponsors can’t “contract out” of participation in the so-called S2P—the supplemental state pension. They would have to start contributing to S2P, which would raise costs by about 3% a year, according Aon Hewitt.

“We urge them to start considering CDC now,” said Matthew Arends, a partner at Aon Hewitt. “It can be a desirable alternative to implementing a DC arrangement in 2016.” Aon Hewitt also called on the government to provide more certainty on the timetable for legislative changes required before CDC can be implemented.

In any event, the S2P will be gone entirely by 2016, when the U.K. moves to a simpler, single-tier pension like our Social Security program. And CDC—a hybrid of DB and DC with centrally managed assets and a variable income stream—may be the next big thing in the U.K. anyway. 

The U.K. pensions minister, Steve Webb, has been a promoter of U.K.-style CDC, which he calls “Defined Ambition.” He was inspired by the Dutch and Danish retirement systems, where collective defined contribution, in which participants and employers share risks, is often the model. In a speech last October, Webb said it was one of the core options he envisaged for the future of U.K. pensions.

CDC has received support from several sections of the U.K. pensions industry and across the political spectrum. Even the opposition Labor Party’s representative for pensions, Gregg McClymont, has backed the exploration of CDC, reversing the sentiments of a 2009 Labor government white paper. 

One big question is whether the government will be able to pass legislation supporting Defined Ambition/CDC by 2016, when the single-tier pension will be instituted. If a CDC option isn’t available, DB plan sponsors may choose pure DC instead.

Aon Hewitt said it also expected CDC to be enshrined into legislation by 2015, taking effect as contracting-out comes to an end. Arends called on the government to provide certainty on the timetable for implementing CDC, in a bid to avoid employers having no alternative to pure DC.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

What Boomers want, and when they want it: Hearts & Wallets

“Responsiveness,” “certifications or credentials,” and being “proactive” are all attributes that consumers who are on a “Retirement Learning Curve” look for in advisers, according to a report on new research by Boston-area consulting firm, Hearts & Wallets, LLC.

The Retirement Learning Curve, as defined by H&W principals Chris Brown and Laura Varas, is much bigger than the so-called retirement “red zone.” It starts seven to 10 years before full-time work ends and lasts for 11 or more years after retirement, they said.

“Some [adviser] attributes, or service dimensions, like being ‘proactive,’ peak in importance before work stops and remain somewhat high after retirement. Others, like being ‘easily reachable by telephone,’ also peak but increase even more after retirement,” Brown said in a recent press release.

The latest announcement from Hearts & Wallets highlights two of its proprietary studies, “Insight Module 9: Approaching Retirement & the Retirement Learning Curve”and “Insight Module 8: State of Retirement Funding & Household Finances in 2013.” Module 9 is a guide for providers and advisors to understand changes in consumer income, attitudes, and the desired products, services and provider attributes during the pre- to post-retirement transition.

Module 8 includes these topics: Income Sources, Savings, Spending, Debt, Real Estate & Retirement, and Explore: Surprises of Modern Retirement: How Pension Status and Timing is Key to Approaching the Biggest Segment of U.S. Investors as well as the bonus: Retirement Market Income Marketing-Sizing Data, including 2020 Projection.

Module 8 is part of Hearts & Wallets’ annual Quant Panel of more than 5,000 U.S. households, a representative cross-section of the American population, which tracks specific segments and product trends and forms a flexible and inquisitive proprietary database of insights into investor needs and wants as the source for a series of syndicated reports and customized client analyses.

H&W’s research adds some documentation to what advisers may already know from experience. “Advice source consolidation begins three to four years ahead of retirement, heats up during the retirement event and continues the first three to four years of retirement,” according to the firm’s release. “Well before stopping full-time work, most Americans also shift to more conservative portfolios and have a growing risk aversion.”

They’ve identified a window in which they think consumers will be receptive to a pitch from an adviser. “Acquisition opportunity is greatest three to seven years before the retirement event. That’s when households are most likely to try a new provider,” the release said.  

Income generation capacity seems to fall two years before people leave the last full-time job, H&W found. Gross household income drops 16% on average ($93,000 to $78,000) during the last two to four years before retirement. To offset the decline, some near-retirees tap into their nest egg prematurely. 

Anxiety about finance, especially inflation, mirrors this two-year pre-retirement pattern. Anxiety peaks at 29% within two years of stopping full-time work and declines sharply after retirement. As people become accustomed to their new retirement lifestyle, the share of households with little or no anxiety rises.

Only about half of those within 10 years of stopping full-time work are ages 55 to 64. Many are younger. Seventeen million households believe they are within 10 years of the breadwinner stopping full-time work, although only six million households self-identify as pre-retirees.

American households that are transitioning out of full-time work have about $350,000 of investable assets, on average. Median savings is less than $100,000, however, and 12% of households retire with no savings at all. The study also found, oddly, that 58% of households are still “saving something” even 10 years after retirement.

The Hearts & Wallets study also found that near-retirees start to shift money away from self-service investment firms and toward shift banks and full-service providers during the years directly before and after retirement.  

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

2014 will be a good year for insurers: Conning

Analysts at Conning Research are bullish on the U.S. and global insurance industry. Their new study, “2014: U.S. and Global Insurance Industry Outlook,” suggests that insurers worldwide should benefit from “improved operating conditions and the initiatives they have been pursuing in response to the challenges of the past few years.”

“Our outlook for the U.S. insurance industry in 2014 is for stable results and some gradual improvement across most segments, but with increasing uncertainty brought on by economic, political or regulatory developments unfolding in the period,” said Stephan Christiansen, a managing director and head of Insurance Research at Conning in a release.

“In 2013, we discussed continuing struggles in the U.S. and global economies, along with capital markets volatility and rising regulatory challenges, and cautioned that insurers needed to take action to improve performance, rather than waiting for a better time.
It was prescient. Market performance does appear to be improving, though the economic and market environments do not appear to be the primary cause,” said the introduction to the report.

Steve Webersen, director of research at Conning, said in a statement that “three key factors: economic climate, interest rate environment and regulation” will shape the global insurance industry.

“Fragmented economic growth is creating new pockets of opportunity, while challenging established markets. As in the U.S., growing regulatory convergence and complexity are increasingly commanding insurer attention and resources,” he added.

Conning is an investment management company for the global insurance industry, with more than $83 billion in assets under management as of Dec. 31, 2013 through Conning, Inc.

The new report has three parts:

  • The first part includes Conning’s views on likely events and conditions in 2014, in terms of the economy, segment performance, regulatory changes, etc.
  • The second level considers what the insurance industry is investing in and committing resources to in 2014, with an analysis of the potential impact of those efforts in subsequent years.   
  • The third level covers competitive reshaping of the industry, longer-term implications of regulatory trends, and possibilities opening up with technology and marketplace changes.


According to the introduction:

“Our outlook for the U.S. insurance industry in 2014 is for stable results and some gradual improvement across most segments… This broad view is accompanied by increasing uncertainty; improvements may be interrupted or reversed through economic, political, or regulatory developments unfolding in 2014.


“Our outlook for the global insurance industry is focused primarily on Europe (including the U.K.) and Asia. Regulatory and economic changes dominate in both regions. Growing regulatory convergence and complexity are commanding insurer attention and resources. Fragmented economic growth is creating new pockets of growth, while challenging established markets.

“We also discuss some emerging drivers of opportunity, and emerging challenges, in the rest of the world: in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

U.S. economy faces four headwinds, economist warns

A new paper from a Northwestern University economist posits that the growth rate in the U.S. over the next several decades, at least for most people, will be lower than the 2.0% average per capita GDP growth that the country experienced between 1891 and 2007.   

“Future growth will be 1.3% per annum for labor productivity in the total economy, 0.9% for output per capita, 0.4 % for real income per capita of the bottom 99% of the income distribution, and 0.2 % for the real disposable income of that group,” wrote Robert J. Gordon in NBER Working Paper 19895.

  • Gordon identified four “widely recognized and uncontroversial” headwinds:  Demographic shifts will reduce hours worked per capita, due to the retirement of the Baby Boom generation and an exit from the labor force both of youth and prime-age adults.
  • Educational attainment will stagnate at a plateau as the U.S. sinks lower in the world league tables of high school and college completion rates.
  • Inequality continues to increase; the bottom 99% of earners will see a rate of real income growth that is fully half a point per year below the average growth of all incomes.
  • A projected long-term increase in the ratio of debt to GDP at all levels of government will eventually lead either to higher tax revenues and/or slower growth in transfer payments.

Gordon disagrees with the “techno-optimists” who believe that the U.S. is on the cusp of a surge in technological change. He thinks we’re already well into an innovation slowdown. “In the eight decades before 1972 labor productivity grew at an average rate 0.8% per year faster than in the four decades since 1972,” his paper said.  

Historical examples cited in the paper suggest that “the future of technology can be forecast 50 or even 100 years in advance.” The paper assesses innovations anticipated to occur over the next few decades, including medical research, small robots, 3-D printing, big data, driverless vehicles and oil-gas fracking.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Send in the Robots (Don’t Bother, They’re Here)

The market for financial planning software is huge, and no wonder. The need among financial advisers for productivity-enhancing tools ensures a steady demand. The vast computing power and algorithmic creativity of techno-geeks generates a steady supply.

Advisers in search of the latest planning software could find a lot of it in one place at Joel Bruckenstein’s and David Drucker’s annual T3–Advisor’s Edition conference and trade show, held last week at the Hilton in sunny, palm-studded Anaheim, Calif.

One takeaway from the conference: FAs who still rely on Excel spreadsheets or scratch pads—and many still do, evidently—will find it hard to compete in a world where everybody has an iPhone or ‘Droid. “You’re in danger of falling behind your own clients,” warned one presenter.  

Undisputably. But of the dozens of products available, which should an adviser choose? If income distribution is your game, a product with strong distribution capabilities is a must. Unfortunately, distribution wasn’t a strong theme at T3—but it wasn’t absent.   

In this article, rather than explore the distribution-related features of products from the better-known exhibitors at T3—MoneyGuidePro, Advisor Software Inc., and Advicent (NaviPlan), for example—in this article I’ll focus on my visits to the booths of three smaller outfits whose products were new to me: RetireUp, AskTRAK, and Riskalyze.    

RetireUp. As its name implies, this may have been the only firm at T3 that clearly positions its product as a decumulation tool. Created by LPL Chairman’s Council advisor Jeff Feinendegen and physicist/songwriter Dan Santner, this program aims at replacing time-intensive retirement plans with a process that advisers and their clients can complete “in minutes.”    

The demo on the RetireUp website (a 14-day free trial is offered) walks you through a multi-step process that starts with the creation of a client Profile, proceeds to an analysis of “Assets,” “Liabilities,” and Custom Goals, and ends with the creation and presentation of a Retirement Plan.

RetireUp graphicOne of the demos involved a fictional couple named Brian (age 55) and Michelle (age 56). They hoped to generate an after-tax retirement income in about 10 years of $80,000 (with an annual 2.5% inflation adjustment and survivor’s income of $60,000).

Their assets included Brian’s 401(k) (currently $750,000; projected to be $1.22 million at retirement) and their joint savings ($300,000; $403,000 at retirement). At full retirement age, they’d get about $38,000 from Social Security, and Brian had a $12,000-a-year pension with a 50% spousal benefit.

Probably to keep the example simple, the Brian and Michelle were blessed with no liabilities and their only “Custom Goals” were the anticipated expense of their five-year-old daughter’s wedding ($25,000) and a $5,000 vacation once every three years throughout retirement. Potential college expenses were not listed.

After plugging in these and other numbers, the adviser and client could generate a Retirement Plan page. In the demo, the Plan screen was filled with the inevitable but potentially bewildering rows and columns of numbers, all populated with precise but hypothetical values.

But it wasn’t overwhelming. By toggling back and forth between different spending rates or assumptions about longevity, Brian and Michelle could experiment with various drawdown scenarios that could (or failed to) satisfy their income needs and neutralize their longevity risk exposure.

One of the dashboard indicators on the Plan page was an Income Stability Ratio, which provided a calculation of the percentage of Brian and Michelle’s income that was coming from guaranteed sources such as pensions and Social Security. RetireUp also allows comparisons of variable annuities with living benefits through its “Compare It” function. “We believe our software does a good job of identifying when it is or isn’t appropriate to move into a variable annuity,” said Brian Bossler, RetireUp’s vice president of business development.

AskTRAK. Dallas, Ore.-based Trust Builders, Inc., developed the TRAK planning and education tool (TRAK stands for The Retirement Analysis Kit) largely to help plan sponsor advisers. Defined contribution plan advisors can use it show participants how much to save. In public pensions, it can be used to project future income streams or to coordinate the drawdown of pension and after-tax savings in the most tax-efficient manner. But individual advisers and their clients can evidently use it too.

The AskTRAK toolkit is chock-full of calculators. A Multi-Tiered Split Annuity calculator, for instance, allows advisers to show clients how to split a given lump sum into income from a succession of as many as five tiers of deferred and/or immediate annuities. 

AskTRAK imageIn one strategy that’s illustrated on the AskTRAK website, a newly retired 62-year-old with an after-tax $500,000 lump sum decides to build a three-tiered split annuity. The first tier, which uses $118,300 of the $500,000, provides a $2,300 monthly income until age 67.

Over those five years, a $102,500 piece of the original asset grows (at an assumed rate of 6%) to a projected $137,200, which provides $2,600 a month until age 72. The remaining $279,200 is allowed to grow (at an assumed 6%) for 10 years, reaching a projected $500,000. That amount can be used to buy more income, if needed, or to fund a legacy.    

Like other software, TRAK’s Tax Wise Distribution Strategy can generate the now-familiar Rock of Gibraltar-shaped retirement income chart. But instead of refracting each year’s income into colored bands that correspond to its sources, this chart refracts income into colored bands that correspond to tax brackets.

A client who is drawing down savings from both pre-tax and after-tax accounts, for example, can use this chart as a guide to spending the pre-tax money first (so that it is taxed at the lowest rate) and then relying on after-tax money when income climbs into the higher tax brackets.  

For retirees who anticipate using qualified plan assets for legacy purposes, AskTRAK also has a Stretch IRA calculator. It can illustrate the projected annual withdrawals and the declining value of a 401(k) account as it passes from the original account owner to a surviving spouse and then to children or grandchildren. 

Riskalyze. This specialty software applies Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky’s Nobel Prize-winning “prospect theory” to the task of quantifying a client’s risk tolerance. It aims to replace the traditional risk tolerance questionnaire with a more quantitative and scientific approach.

Every client gets a “Risk Number” from one to 100. Like many risk assessment tools, it’s based on the client’s professed tolerance for loss and desire for gain, along with the his or her “financial devastation” amount—defined by Riskalyze as the amount of paper loss that compels the investor to panic-sell.

Riskalyze image

The Risk Number is presented to the client in the form of a speed limit sign. The greater the risk tolerance, the higher the Risk Number will be. Portfolios are also assigned risk numbers, enabling the adviser to match clients and portfolios with similar scores.

Using the tool, the adviser can also generate a Risk Number for a new client’s existing portfolio, to see how far it varies from the client’s risk tolerance. The Risk Number is only a starting point in terms of portfolio building. Many different combinations of assets might all generate a score of 45, for instance.

“Heat maps” are popular these days, and Riskalyze offers a “risk/reward heat map” of the investments in a client’s portfolio. It allows the adviser and client to see the projected range of a specific asset’s performance over the subsequent six months.

Aside from showing the possible gain and possible loss, the heat map displays how much of each investment’s downside risk is likely to be buffered by the other investments in the portfolio.   

Fans of Kahneman’s 2011 book, “Thinking Fast and Slow,” might be impressed to hear that Riskalyze applies his prospect theory to the task of assessing risk tolerance. A pillar of behavioral finance, this theory has helped describe how people actually weigh and choose between risky alternatives, rather than how a hypothetical “rational investor” might behave.   

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Bucket

ING U.S. announces fourth quarter and full year 2013 results

ING U.S., Inc., which will rebrand as Voya Financial, Inc. in 2014, reported fourth quarter 2013 after-tax operating earningsof $198 million, up from $136 million in 4Q’12, and net income available to common shareholders of $548 million, up from a loss of $23 million in 4Q’12.

Full year 2013 after-tax operating earnings were $825 million, compared with $597 million in 2012. Net income available to common shareholders was $601 million, compared with $473 million in 2012.

Fourth quarter 2013 net income available to common shareholders included:

  • Actuarial gains on pension and postretirement benefits, after-tax, of $263 million primarily due to rising interest rates and strong performance of assets in the pension plan.

The Closed Block Variable Annuity (CBVA) segment’s after-tax loss of $147 million, which was driven by an after-tax loss of $177 million related to nonperformance risk. The CBVA segment includes the effect of its hedge program, which focuses on protecting regulatory and rating agency capital from market movements, rather than minimizing GAAP earnings volatility.

Annuities adjusted operating earnings were $56 million, compared with $51 million. The following items primarily accounted for this increase:

  • Lower DAC/VOBA and other intangibles amortization ($5 million positive variance) due to a decrease in the amortization rate;
  • Higher fee based margin ($3 million positive variance) on increased levels of mutual fund custodial assets; and
  • Higher trail commissions ($2 million negative variance) due to increased mutual fund sales and AUM.

Net outflows were $172 million, as lapses on fixed rate annuity policies, especially older products with higher fixed rate crediting levels such as Multi-Year Guarantee Annuities, exceeded new sales.

Retirement business

Retirement adjusted operating earnings were $134 million, compared with $117 million. The following items primarily accounted for this increase:

  • Higher fee based margin ($17 million positive variance) on higher variable assets partially offset by reduced recordkeeping revenue;
  • Higher investment spread and other investment income ($12 million positive variance) stemming largely from higher limited partnership income and prepayment fee income, as well as reduced crediting rates;
  • Higher administrative expenses ($11 million negative variance) partially due to volume-related expenses and ongoing investment in systems infrastructure;
  • An increase in other revenue ($8 million positive variance) related to changes in market value adjustments related to surrendered retirement plans;
  • Higher DAC/VOBA and other intangibles amortization ($5 million negative variance) as a result of higher gross profits, partially offset by a reduced amortization rate; and
  • Higher trail commissions ($4 million negative variance) due to higher AUM.

Retirement net flows were $363 million, compared with $1.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 2012 and $234 million in the third quarter of 2013. (Net flows vary in size and timing, sometimes substantially, from one quarter to the next.) Retirement AUM totaled $105 billion as of December 31, 2013, up from $90 billion as of December 31, 2012 and up from $100 billion as of September 30, 2013.

Annuities segment

AUM for the Annuities segment totaled $27 billion as of December 31, 2013, up slightly from $26 billion as of September 30, 2013 and $26 billion as of December 31, 2012. Included in AUM is the company’s mutual fund custodial product (Select Advantage), which increased to $3.4 billion as of December 31, 2013, up from $3.1 billion as of September 30, 2013 and $2.4 billion as of December 31, 2012.

Closed block variable annuity

Closed Block Variable Annuity had a net loss before income taxes of $226 million, including a loss before income taxes of $272 million due to changes in the fair value of guaranteed benefit derivatives related to nonperformance risk, which the company considers a non-economic factor.

This compares with a fourth quarter 2012 net loss before income taxes of $167 million, which included a loss before income taxes of $401 million related to nonperformance risk.

ING U.S.’s CBVA hedge program is designed primarily to protect regulatory and rating agency capital from equity market movements, rather than minimize GAAP earnings volatility. During the quarter, the hedge program resulted in a net gain to regulatory surplus as a result of the difference between the decline in reserves and the decline in hedge assets related to equity market movements. GAAP earnings were favorably impacted by lower volatility, which offset market appreciation related net hedge program losses.

The retained net amount at risk for CBVA living benefit guarantees improved to $2.2 billion as of December 31, 2013 from $3.0 billion as of September 30, 2013, primarily due to favorable equity and interest market movements.

 

MassMutual announces new seminar series for plan participants  

MassMutual’s Retirement Services Division announced that its RetireSmart interactive participant education series will have a new “lineup” in 2014, its fifth year. The series will include six seminars, each led by an industry expert.

The series opens Feb. 26 with returning guest speaker Dr. Jerry Webman, Ph.D, CFA and Chief Economist for OppenheimerFunds Inc. He will review 2013’s market performance, discuss factors driving the global economy and identify key economic indicators to watch for retirement investors.

The RetireSmart seminar series will continue bi-monthly throughout 2014 as follows:

  • April 9: Retirement Planning for the Ages. Presented by Farnoosh Torabi, independent Generation Y money coach, best-selling author and personal finance journalist.
  • June 11: Strategies for Pre-Retirees. Presented by Black Rock Investments.
  • Aug. 6: The Art of Negotiating a Deal. Presented by Farnoosh Torabi.
  • Oct. (exact date to be announced on www.retiresmartseminars.com): Calculating your Social Security Retirement Benefit. Presented by a representative from the U.S Social Security Administration.
  • Dec. 3: Maximizing your Workplace Benefits. Presented by Farnoosh Torabi.

 

Securian individual variable annuity sales up 57% over 2012

According to a release this week from Securian:

“In 2013, many variable annuity providers adjusted their product portfolios to reduce risk.

“Some even exited the market as low interest rates continued to pose significant risk exposure for lifetime withdrawal benefit guarantees which are included in some variable annuity products.

“Meantime, Securian Financial Group’s diligent risk management positioned the company’s retirement unit to step up with new annuity products as demand rose and competitors stepped back. Additionally, Securian responded to distributors’ requests for less complex annuities that meet the financial needs of many clients.  

“The result? A 57% surge in individual variable annuity sales, to $900 million.

“‘Our goal has never been to dominate the individual annuity market,’ said Dan Kruse, second vice president, Individual Annuity Actuary, Securian Financial Group. ‘Our goal is to create products that meet the needs of our strategic distribution partners and their clients without exceeding Securian’s risk appetite.’

“Bolstering sales growth is a high customer retention rate of 93% among Securian’s individual annuity owners. Customer satisfaction was 98%. Assets under management rose from $6 billion in 2012 to $7 billion in 2013.”

 

New York Life reports record sales growth in 4Q 2013

New York Life has announced “very strong” fourth quarter gains in sales of life insurance, annuities and mutual funds. According to a release, sales of recurring premium life insurance through agents were up 5% and total annuity sales were up 14% over 2012, both representing a new record for 12-month growth rates in those products. 

The fourth quarter growth of recurring premium life insurance products came from the company’s whole life, universal life and variable universal life products. Of the company’s new life insurance sales, 46% was produced by agents serving the African-American, Chinese, Hispanic, Korean, South Asian, and Vietnamese markets in the U.S.

Agents sold $5.4 billion of annuities of all types in 2013, a 14% increase from 2012.  Sales of single premium immediate annuities and the company’s deferred income annuity, Guaranteed Future Income Annuity, increased 6% through the fourth quarter compared with the same period in 2012.

Sales of New York Life’s MainStay family of mutual funds through agents rose 16% over the prior year, to $938 million. 

In 2013, New York Life hired 3,460 full-time agents.  It seeks to hire 3,600 financial professionals in 2014, with more than half to be women or individuals who represent the cultural markets. New York Life’s operations in Mexico, Seguros Monterrey New York Life, saw 14% sales growth compared with 2012.

 

MetLife hits 2013 target of $10 – $11 billion in VA sales

MetLife reported operating earnings of $1.6 billion for the fourth quarter of 2013, up 14% over the fourth quarter of 2012. On a per share basis, operating earnings were $1.37, up 10% over the prior year quarter. Operating earnings in the Americas grew 13%. Operating earnings in Asia increased 64% on a reported basis and 74% on a constant currency basis. Operating earnings in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA) increased 51% on a reported basis and 48% on a constant currency basis. Partially offsetting these gains were larger losses in Corporate & Other.

Fourth quarter 2013 operating earnings included the following items:

  • Variable investment income above the company’s 2013 quarterly plan range by $101 million, or $0.09 per share, after tax and the impact of deferred acquisition costs (DAC).
  • As previously announced, strengthening of asbestos claim reserves, which reduced operating earnings by $101 million or $0.09 per share, after tax
  • An increase in litigation-related reserves, which reduced operating earnings by $46 million or $0.04 per share, after tax.
  • Favorable catastrophe experience and prior year loss reserve development of $15 million and an $11 million benefit from tax-related items in EMEA, which increased operating earnings by $26 million or $0.02 per share, after tax.

MetLife reported fourth quarter 2013 net income of $877 million, or $0.77 per share, including $242 million, after tax, in net derivative losses. Increases in interest rates, changes in foreign currencies and the impact of MetLife’s own credit during the quarter contributed to the net derivative losses.  

Premiums, fees & other revenues were $13.1 billion, down one percent (up two percent on a constant currency basis) from the fourth quarter of 2012.

Book value, excluding accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI), was $48.49 per share, up from $46.73 per share in the fourth quarter of 2012.

Full year results

For the full year 2013, MetLife reported operating earnings of $6.3 billion, up 11% over 2012. The increase reflects operating earnings growth of 13% in the Americas, 20% in Asia (27 percent on a constant currency basis) and 21 percent in EMEA (18 percent on a constant currency basis). Partially offsetting these gains were larger losses in Corporate & Other. On a per share basis, 2013 operating earnings were $5.63, up 7% over 2012. Growth on a per share basis was dampened by the increase in the number of outstanding common shares resulting from the conversion of $1.0 billion of the equity units issued in 2010 to fund the Alico acquisition.

MetLife reported full year 2013 net income of $3.2 billion, or $2.91 per share.

The Americas

Total operating earnings for the Americas were $1.4 billion, up 13%. Premiums, fees & other revenues for the Americas were $10.0 billion, up one percent, and excluding pension closeouts, up five percent.

Retail

Operating earnings for Retail were $658 million, up 4%. Premiums, fees & other revenues for Retail were $3.3 billion, up 4% primarily due to an increase in separate account fee income as well as higher income annuity sales. Fourth quarter 2013 variable annuity sales were $1.7 billion, down 49%. For the full year 2013, variable annuity sales were $10.6 billion – in line with the company’s plan of $10 to $11 billion.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

 

Mutual funds gain 20% in 2013: Cerulli

U.S. mutual funds showed positive flows of $282 billion in 2013, Cerulli Associates said in its January issue of The Cerulli-Edge–U.S. Monthly Product Trends. Equity funds led the mutual fund field last year, capturing $232 billion in flows.   

Last year, 10 investment managers garnered total inflows of $10 billion or more. With $74.7 billion, Vanguard added the most of net inflows of any mutual fund manager. Dimensional Fund Advisors followed with $22.5 billion, J.P. Morgan with $21 billion, MFS with $18 billion and and Oppenheimer Funds with $16.1 billion.

Among international funds, Vanguard’s Total International Stock Index Fund took in $17.9 billion, followed by Oakmark International Fund with $12.5 billion and Oppenheimer Developing Markets Fund with $6.7 billion.

Among index funds, the top three were Vanguard funds. Vanguard’s Total International Bond Index Fund took in $18.6 billion, the Total International Stock Index Fund, 17.9 billion and the Total Stock Market Index Fund, $17.5 billion.

Of the ten largest asset managers, PIMCO was the only one to show net outflows in 2013. PIMCO’s Total Return Fund saw outflows of $40.4 billion. Cerulli cited regulatory pressures on the fixed-income industry as the cause. Vanguard’s Inflation-Protected Securities and GNMA Fund experienced net outflows of $14.6 and $11.9 billion last year, respectively.

Among municipal bond funds, Vanguard’s Short Term Tax Exempt Fund had the highest inflows, with $1.2 billion, while its Intermediate-Term Tax-Exempt Fund had the highest outflows, at $3.9 billion.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Most plan sponsors shun income options: Callan

Annuity options lost considerable ground in the race for retirement income assets in defined contribution plans, as plan sponsors looked elsewhere, according to a new study by Callan Investments Institute.

Indeed, annuity options fell out of favor last year as a form of distribution payment in DC plans, while managed accounts and income drawdown solutions gained territory, Callan said in its new 2014 Defined Contribution Trends report.

The percentage of plan sponsors offering annuities as a distribution option dropped to 9% in 2013 from 22.1% in 2012. But the number of sponsors offering managed accounts and income drawdown services like Financial Engines rose to 6.4% in 2013 from 3.9% in 2012.

Additionally, annuity placement services (like Hueler Income Solutions) were offered by 5.1% of plans last year, a drop from 6.5% a year earlier. Prevalence of in-plan GLWB (guaranteed lifetime withdrawal products) fell to 2.6% of plans from 6.5%.

This trend is expected to persist. When asked if they would offer an annuity as a distribution payment option in 2014, 59.3% of surveyed sponsors said it was “very unlikely.” Currently, 74.4% of plan sponsors do not offer retirement income solutions at all. Nineteen percent of sponsors said they were “somewhat likely” to offer a GLWB option, but only 4.8% said they were “very likely” to do so. 

The most common reason among plan sponsors for not offering retirement income options was concern about fiduciary implications. Sponsors also cited the administrative complexity of income options, a lack of need or urgency for them, concerns about insurer solvency and lack of participant demand.

© 2014 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.