Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

Cost of elderly care in 2011 was >$400bn: CBO

The total value of long-term services and supports for elderly people, including the estimated economic value of informal (or donated) care, exceeded $400 billion in 2011, according to a the Congressional Budget Office report released June 26.

Expenditures for institutional care—provided in skilled nursing facilities, nursing homes, and nursing facilities located in continuing care retirement communities—totaled $134 billion in 2011, or about 31% of all expenditures for LTSS (long-term services and supports) expenditures. Expenditures for home- and community-based service providers, such as home health and personal care agencies and adult day care providers, totaled $58 billion.

Informal care, usually provided by family members and close friends, accounts for more than half of the total economic value of long-term services and supports. The economic value of informal care in 2011 was about $234 billion, CBO estimates.

Choosing to provide informal assistance to a frail elderly person may entail a substantial sacrifice of free time on the part of a caregiver; more than half of all informal caregivers work full time in addition to providing such care, and the burdens for caregivers who do not work full time may also be substantial.

By 2050, one-fifth of the total U.S. population will be 65 or older, up from 12% in 2000 and 8% in 1950. The number of people age 85 or older will grow the fastest over the next few decades, constituting 4% of the population by 2050, or 10 times its share in 1950. That growth in the elderly population will bring a corresponding surge in the number of elderly people with functional and cognitive limitations.

On average, about one-third of people age 65 or older report functional limitations of one kind or another; among people age 85 or older, about two-thirds report functional limitations. Functional limitations are physical problems that limit a person’s ability to perform routine daily activities, such as eating, bathing, dressing, paying bills, and preparing meals. Cognitive limitations are losses in mental acuity that may also restrict a person’s ability to perform such activities.

One study estimates that more than two-thirds of 65-year-olds will need assistance to deal with a loss in functioning at some point during their remaining years of life. If those rates of prevalence continue, the number of elderly people with functional or cognitive limitations, and thus the need for assistance, will increase sharply in coming decades.

LTSS expenditures for elderly people now account for an estimated 1.3% of gross domestic product (GDP).

That share is likely to rise in the future as the population ages. To explore the potential implications of the growing elderly population, CBO developed three alternative scenarios regarding the future prevalence of functional limitations among the elderly, holding constant other factors affecting those expenditures, such as growth in prices for LTSS, changes in family structure that could affect the provision of informal care, and changes in how services and supports are delivered.

In those scenarios, LTSS expenditures were projected to range from 1.9% of GDP to 3.3% of GDP by 2050. (The combination of actual future prevalence of functional limitations and changes in those other factors could result in LTSS spending that was less than 1.9% of GDP or more than 3.3 percent of GDP by 2050. Spending could be higher, for example, if the provision of informal care fell relative to the provision of formal care as a result of a shrinking average family size.)

Projections of LTSS expenditures are subject to considerable uncertainty. In addition to estimates of the prevalence of functional limitations, they require judgments about future innovations in the delivery of care, changes in the use of services, and future rates of growth in the costs of labor and other inputs to long-term care.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

A Sudden U-Turn in Bond Flows

Is it time for bond owners to panic? That may depend on why they’re holding bonds in the first place, or how they financed their bond positions.

Some people are panicking. U.S.-listed bond mutual funds and exchange-traded funds posted an all-time record net outflow of $61.7 billion in June (through June 24), according to TrimTabs Investment Research. That broke the previous record of $41.8 billion set in October 2008.

“Before June, bond funds had posted inflows for 21 consecutive months,” said David Santschi, CEO of TrimTabs. He attributed the reversal to Fed chairman Ben Bernanke’s hints in May that he might scale back the Fed market interventions that have propped up prices for bonds of all credit qualities and durations. 

On June 24, San Diego financial pundit Bill Gunderson sent out an e-mail blast that said, “Here’s the one thing people do not know about the market right now: This is no time to be in bonds. At some point, Bernhanke [sic] must take away the punch bowl. And when that happens, bonds will be punished even more than the 8% decline they have suffered since the beginning of the year.”

In case words alone weren’t sufficiently scary, Gunderson also issued a newsletter with a picture of the Massacre at Little Big Horn (aka Custer’s Last Stand) and a chart illustrating the fall in share the price of Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund—to $80, a 5% paper loss—since May 1.  

Since I (full disclosure) own shares in Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund, I felt compelled to fret. So I spoke with Chris Philips, a senior market strategist in Vanguard’s Investment Strategy Group. The conversation went as follows:

RIJ: I comfort myself that during periods of rising rates a bond fund’s price is supposed to recover in a time period roughly equal to its average duration, because the manager keeps reinvesting at higher yields. Is that a valid rationale?

Philips: It almost never holds up in reality because of credit-spread timing and other factors. But it’s based on a kernel of reasonable intuition and relationships over time. It’s one of those rules of thumb that [bond fund owners] can use to gauge their general risk exposure.

RIJ: Still… there’s been an 8% decline in six months. Time for a gut-check, no?

Philips: The Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund is down 3.2% year-to-date. Its worst year historically was negative 9.2%. Gunderson says bonds are off 8%; he might be talking about long-term Treasuries, which is the worst-case scenario. To put the risk of bonds in perspective, we would point out that during the financial crisis, housing prices dropped 50% in some places, dividend-paying stocks lost 55% and the overall market lost 50% at one point. While there are other income sources, they come with different or greater risks than bonds.

RIJ: Let’s suppose that I restrain myself from panicking, but millions of my fellow bond fund owners don’t. Won’t the bond fund manager have to start dumping bonds at big losses to cover all the redemptions?

Philips: There’s the possibility of a forced sell-off, but the amount of [negative] cash flow that would have to occur is tremendous. If you look at all of the sources of cash flow in the Total Bond Market Index Fund, including money from institutional investors and target date fund investors in 401(k) plans, the probability of everyone deciding to pull money out is small. In large funds like Total Bond Market or PIMCO Total Return, you always have a lot of securities coming to par. There’s a lot of money to work with. Even in 2010 and 2011, when we had the perceived crisis in the municipal bond market, not one of our muni-bond funds experienced forced selling.

RIJ: It’s hard to accept the fact that the 30-year bull market in bonds is actually over.

Philips: Despite all the fear about rising rates, it would be worse for yields in all income securities to remain low. In contrast to an environment of financial repression, where people who rely on certificates of deposit have been penalized not only by the Fed but also by the flight to fixed income, rising yields is a good thing. We’d rather have a market with historically normal rates than rates that are historically high or low. Ultimately, it gets down to how rising rates occur. In the period of 2003 to 2006, the Fed was very open about how and when they would raise short-term rates, and the market had a lot of room to price in the changes.

RIJ: Is there a buying opportunity here? Can you ‘buy the dips’ in bond prices as you might in stock prices?

Philips: ‘Buying the dips’ is a timing mentality, which we don’t recommend. On the other hand, if your target allocation for fixed income is 50% and you’re below that because of the share price decline and you had the cash, it might make sense. That’s where dollar cost-averaging comes in.

RIJ: Thanks, Chris.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Wharton professor challenges value of annuities

“We find that most households should not annuitize any wealth. The optimal level of aggregate net annuity holdings is likely even negative.”

So write Kent Smetters of the Wharton School and Felix Reichling of the Congressional Budget Office in their introduction to a research paper that was disseminated by the National Bureau of Economic Research this week. It is an extension of work published in 2004 by Smetters.  

The authors were not immediately available for comment.

The introduction defines annuities as “investment wrappers” rather than as insurance contracts. According to a preface to the paper, they discussed its content with several members of the RIJ community, including Zvi Bodie of Boston University, Jeff Brown of the University of Illinois, and Boston-area advisor Rick Miller.  

The papers offers two main arguments against tying up money in an annuity:

  • Illness or mishap might shorten your lifespan and/or create demand for cash to pay medical bills or make up for lost wages. 
  • By shifting purchasing power toward the end of your life, it deprives you of spending power earlier in life, when you might value it more.

“We find that 63% of households should not annuitize any wealth, even with no transaction costs… The ‘true annuity puzzle’ might actually be that we do not see more negative annuitization [i.e. life insurance],” the authors write.

But they acknowledge that annuities have a role.

“For retirees, annuitization becomes more desirable at larger values of wealth,” they write. “After a negative survival shock, a wealthy retiree has enough assets to pay for any potentially correlated long-term care cost from the annuity stream itself… Hence, a wealthy retiree can ‘hold to maturity,’ in much the same way that a long-term bond holder is less concerned with duration risk.”

In an email to RIJ, the University of Illinois’ Brown wrote, “In spite of [Smetters’] work, I still believe [annuities] make sense as a way of ensuring that real people don’t outlive their resources.”  

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Going Dutch on pension reform

The Netherlands’ deadline for overhauling its rules for private pensions with a new “Financial Assessment Framework” (FTK) has been pushed back to January 1, 2015, due to the complexity of the changes. But in the meantime there’s been lots of debate over it and how it might affect workers.

Expectations for retirement have changed in the Netherlands. Dutch workers both young and old expect smaller pensions than their predecessors. But their expectations may need to drop even lower if the “tax-facilitated accrual rate” falls to 1.75% a year, according to an IPE.com report based on interviews with the VvV, or Dutch Association of Insurers. 

In 2012, the Netherland’s new government announced a measure that included a reduction in tax-advantaged pension accrual rate to 1.75% per year of service and tax-facilitated pension accrual would no longer be possible above an income of €100,000, according to a report by Ernst & Young.

As a rough example, the pension of a Dutch worker who had a final salary of €50,000 (One euro = US$1.30) after 40 years would be €35,000 (1.75% x 40 x €50,000), while at 2.25% the pension would be €45,000. The highest tax-facilitated pension accrual would be €70,000 after 40 years on the job.

So far, the pensions would like a compromise between the old and new rates. The civil service scheme ABP and the unions FNV, CNV and MHP, as well as the VvV, have called on Parliament to allow for a 2% pensions accrual to ensure young workers receive adequate pensions.

Dutch employees between 18 and 35 years of age expect to receive 64% of their final average salary in retirement, according to a survey of almost 1,000 consumers by the polling firm GfK on behalf of the VvV. But they may need 74%, VvV said.

Suggested government proposals to decrease the yearly accrual rate to 1.75% from 2.25% will hit young people particularly hard, even if promised permanent compensation measures lift the new rate to 1.85%, studies have shown.

Dutch workers over 50 believe they will require 79% of their average salary in retirement, yet the VvV estimates that they will receive on average 69% at most. Among young employees, 79% said worried that their pension might be under 50% of their average salary; while 76% of older workers said this was a threat.

Both age groups expect to retire at 65.5, on average; less than 8% expect to work until 70, GfK found. But 31% of the younger generation and 25% of older workers said they would need a part-time job after retirement.

The government should not “economize” on pensions but rather reduce the civil service headcount, cut back on Social Security benefit, or reduce the mortgage interest tax break.  

Nearly 70% of surveyed young workers said it made little sense for them to carry on working until the age of 72, assuming the Dutch Cabinet’s plans on the retirement age are embraced by Parliament.

Generational conflict

The Dutch pension system has another problem that prevents the government from overhauling it: younger plan members subsidize older members by means of an average contribution rate. So said professor emeritus Jean Frijns at a recent conference in Amsterdam.

“The average contribution methodology is the elephant in the room,” he said. “And, so far, everybody has been giving it a wide berth. This is a relic from the past. It amounts to a considerable chunk of pay-as-you-go financing hidden in our system of capital funding.”

Young plan members presently pay higher contribution premiums, which he said could be seen as pay-as-you-go subsidies to older scheme members. “The moment a scheme is closed to new members, this creates a pension deficit for older workers,” he said.

“I don’t see how they can close that cap in the 10-15 years that remain for them before retirement. This is a tremendous risk we are depositing at the doorstep of a particular group of workers.”

Government plans to limit fiscally facilitated pension savings are now bringing the problem into sharper focus. “This means 20% of pension funds are being closed off,” he said. If the proposed FTK favors current retirees, older active plan participants would be at a disadvantage.

“Pension funds have implicitly promised to treat all scheme participants equally, so the problems caused by this average contribution methodology must be solved together, with the pain borne by pensioners, older workers and younger workers alike,” he said.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. Based on reporting by IPE.com.

Measuring You for an ERISA Suit

Across America, providers of ERISA-regulated retirement are lowering their fees for defensive and proactive reasons. Some want to avoid being sued by participants for not being good fiduciaries of the plan. Some may want participants to accumulate more money at retirement. And, in some cases, they may simply not have realized until recently that they had a problem. “A lot of plan sponsors just never really thought about fees before,” said Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

But they think a lot about them now. Just this week, Cigna Corp. and Prudential, which bought Cigna’s retirement business in 2004, reached a $35 million settlement in the case of Nolte v. Cigna, filed in 2007. It was alleged that participants were overcharged for proprietary investment options, that plan assets were misused and that Cigna used plan assets and revenue to pump up the value of its retirement business in the sale to Prudential.  

Targets on our backs

Plan sponsors, providers and sponsors have been on alert since March 2012, when Missouri Federal District Judge Nanette Laughrey awarded $36.9 million to the plaintiffs in Tussey v. ABB. The plaintiff’s attorney in that case, like the Cigna case and other similar cases, was the St. Louis law firm of Schlichter, Bogard & Denton.

Judge Laughrey ruled that ABB, a construction firm, and its 401(k) plan provider, Fidelity Management Trust Co., breached fiduciary duty by providing services to management at participants’ expense, shifting plan assets from Vanguard Wellington Fund to the proprietary Fidelity Freedom Fund, and, on Fidelity’s part, profiting from the “float” on plan contributions and distributions. ABB management and Fidelity have appealed Laughrey’s ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Courts have made conflicting decisions in such fee cases, which means that one or more of them is bound to wind up before the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, however, the fact that substantial damages are being awarded by some courts has many plan sponsors looking to see what their potential liability could be, and what they can do now to minimize the risk.

 “I’m starting to have conversations with plan sponsors who say, ‘We look like we have a target on our back. We want to just go to the lowest cost provider for our 401(k) plan,’” said Jason C. Roberts, founder and CEO of the Pension Resource Institute in Manhattan Beach, Calif. “That’s dangerous, though, because if you cut fees, you could get stuck with even more liability, because the cheap plans don’t do the advisory work you need.”

Besides, he adds, if you suddenly cut your fees, your employees might scrutinize what you were charging before. There are “people out there” who are “running algorithms to spot good targets for excessive fees lawsuits,” he told RIJ.

Industry-wide risk: large, unknowable

“It’s hard to put a number on the plans that are at risk of lawsuits over excessive fees. But being conservative as we are here, I would say that the number is very high,” James Holland, director of business development at Millennium Investment and Retirement Solutions in Charlotte, NC, told RIJ. “Remember, 80% of the cost of most of these plans comes from the investments. And, especially in the smaller space, any time the plans are product-driven, you’ve got a problem. Brokers who sell these plans are driven by commissions, so I’d say the risk in plans is pretty high.”

David Witz, managing director of FRA PlanTools, said, “No one knows the scale of the excessive fee problem. Without knowing the services rendered, we can’t know if the fees charged are excessive. [But] “if you [as a plan sponsor or provider] have a relationship that is five or more years old, you’re vulnerable” simply because the potential damages involved can be so large.

“The perception of the industry is that the plaintiff attorneys in these cases are just ambulance chasers. I think that assessment is off-base,” Witz added. “These attorneys do a lot of research before that will take a case, and won’t bring one unless they think they have a good chance to win. The marketplace doesn’t get this.”

Referring to the recent Cigna settlement, he says, “That is a huge win for the plaintiffs, and the message is that this isn’t going away.” He notes that the first audits of current year plans subject to the new 408(b)(2) rules will be coming out late this year or early next year, and he predicts “a wave of lawsuits over excessive fees next year.” Witz’ firm has a site, ERISA Litigation Index, that tracks the trend.

Marcia Wagner, a partner at the Wagner Law Firm in Boston, says the problem of excessive 401(k) fees is “gradually going to be resolved going forward, because of litigation, and because of new disclosure rules.” But she believes the existing retirement industry is rife with examples of such excessive fees. “I’d say at least half the plans out there have excessive fees,” she said. “Right now you’re seeing these lawsuits against the big guys, but it’s even more of a problem with the smaller plans.”

Excessive fees will also need to be addressed in the 403(b) plans offered in the public education and not-for-profit sector, she added. “I’ve seen plans where the fees are extremely excessive,” she said, but adding that because the DoL’s transparency rules don’t apply to 403(b) plans, high fees are harder for participants in those plans to spot.

Statute of limitations

ERISA’s statute of limitations on 401(k) fees is complex. Participants can sue within up to three years after they first learn of an alleged fiduciary violation by a plan sponsor or provider. But they can also sue within up to six years after the last action that arguably represented a breach in fiduciary behavior, even if it was unknown to participants at the time. Damage awards can therefore reach back a number of years.  

One takeaway for plan providers and broker-dealers: You need to be aware of the risk that your own intermediaries, who sell plans to plan sponsors, might be named as co-defendants in an ERISA suit. If an advisor knows that he or she is selling a retirement plan with excessive fees, or knows of any self-dealing between the plan sponsor and the plan provider, “the advisor shouldn’t touch it ,” cautioned Gretchen Obirst, a plaintiff’s attorney at Seattle-based Keller Rohrback. “If the fees are too high, you could be in trouble even if you disclosed them.”

If you need a sign that plan sponsors and providers are concerned about recent fee-related court cases and the possibility that participants might sock them with a multi-million dollar federal class action lawsuit, the director of Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research, Alicia Munnell, has one.

Less than three weeks ago, she told RIJ, Boston College’s 403(b) plan provider, TIAA-CREF, reduced its plan fees by introducing an institutionally priced share class of its CREF Equity Index and closing the retail share class. The retail shares had cost only 42 basis points a year—hardly predatory—but the institutional shares cost a miniscule seven basis points. 

Plan providers like TIAA-CREF are lowering their plan fees for defensive and proactive reasons. They want to avoid being sued by participants for not being good fiduciaries of the plan. They want participants to accumulate more money at retirement. And, in many cases, they didn’t know until recently that they had a problem. “A lot of plan sponsors just never really thought about fees before,” Munnell said.

Editor’s note: A TIAA-CREF spokesperson responded to Munnell’s comments, saying: “TIAA-CREF works closely with plan sponsors and consultants to determine the most economical mutual fund share class for institutional clients. In line with industry standards, TIAA-CREF offers lower-priced mutual fund share classes when plan economics allow.”

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Cigna, Prudential settle ERISA lawsuit for $35 million

Cigna Corp. and Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Co., have agreed to pay $35 million to settle a six-year-old fee-related federal class action lawsuit, Nolte et al. v. Cigna Corp., et al., according to a release by Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, the St. Louis law firm that represented the plaintiffs.

The initial complaint was filed in 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Cigna sold its retirement plan business to Prudential Financial for $2.1 billion in 2004, and the lawsuit claimed that Cigna improperly used plan assets to enhance its revenue from the sale.

According to a 2011 amended complaint, Cigna “invested more than $1 billion of Plan assets directly into [its] General Account, even though that investment imposed excessive and undiversified risk upon the Plan; and (5) used Plan assets in [its] business by placing more than $2.4 billion with Defendants as assets under management so as to increase the ongoing revenues and profits, including the eventual sale price, of CIGNA’s retirement business to Prudential while not accounting to the Plan for such use.”

A spokesperson at Prudential Retirement declined to comment.

Part of the settlement, which remains to be approved by Judge Harold A. Baker, will go to plan participants’ accounts and part will compensate the plaintiffs’  law firm, which has made a specialty over the past several years of suing plan sponsors and providers for alleged breach of their fiduciary duty to protect plan participants against excessive fees. In 2012, the same law firm won a $36.9 million judgment in a fee-related class action lawsuit, Tussey vs. ABB. The plan provider in that case was Fidelity.

According to the release:

“The case involves disputes over the handling of the Cigna 401(k) plan, the prudence and level of fees of certain plan investment options, and the sale of Cigna’s retirement business to PRIAC… The Nolte plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the fiduciaries responsible for overseeing the plan breached their legal duties by allowing the plans to pay excessive investment management and other fees while allegedly benefiting Cigna and that Cigna improperly benefited from the sale of Cigna’s retirement business. 

“The defendants dispute these allegations and assert that the plan has always been appropriately managed to offer a menu of sound options for participants’ retirement savings. Cigna and PRIAC maintain that they have fully complied with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which covers such plans…

“As part of the settlement… Cigna has agreed to continue not to include in the plan’s investment lineup any investment options managed by it or its affiliates and has agreed to continue to exclude retail class mutual funds from the plan’s lineup—as it has since the 1990s.”

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Equity correction a buying opportunity: Prudential

Stocks are likely to continue to struggle and volatility remains high in the near term as investors worry about Fed QE “taper,” uncertainty about further Bank of Japan stimulus efforts to re-flate Japan, global growth concerns, and continued political tensions in Turkey, says John Praveen, chief investment strategist at Prudential International Investments Advisers LLC.

In his July 2013 strategy report, Praveen therefore says he is reducing his equity market overweight “on a tactical basis.” But he sees the dip in equity values as a buying opportunity. According to a summary of his report:

Strategically, global equity markets remain supported by:

  • Low interest rates and plentiful liquidity;
  • Improving global growth; 
  • Improving risk appetite as Euro-zone continues to re-stabilize with resolution of the crises in Italy and Cyprus; 
  • Healthy earnings rebound; and 
  • Valuations have become more attractive with the recent correction.

“We see the equity correction as a buying opportunity,” Praveen writes. The equity rally is likely to resume as the liquidity and policy uncertainties ease with the Fed reassuring about QE buying continuing through late 2013, Abe-Kuroda deliver the next tranche of stimulus and policy measures in Japan, and global growth picks up.  

Praveen also observed:

  •  We raise bonds to Neutral as yields are likely to remain range bound with upward pressure on yields from QE taper fears, easing of Euro-zone risks and improving growth offset by low inflation in the developed economies and continued central bank buying, even with QE taper.
  •  Among global stock markets, we reduce overweight in Japan as market likely to remain volatile until fresh Bank of Japan stimulus and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe outlines “third arrow.” Reduce Euro-zone to neutral on Fed taper fears. Remain Neutral on EM stocks with sluggish growth and slow rate cuts. We raise U.S. to Neutral status; it is likely to be a defensive hedge amidst increased volatility.
  • Among global bond markets, we remain Overweight in Euro-zone bonds as the economy remains in recession and inflation remains low. Raise U.S. Treasuries to modest Overweight on Q2 GDP slowdown and low inflation. Remain Neutral on JGBs. Remain Underweight U.K. Gilts.
  •  Among global sectors, we are Overweight on Financials and Information Technology; Modest Overweight on Industrials, Healthcare and Telecoms; Neutral on Consumer Discretionary; Underweight on Energy, Materials, Consumer Staples and Utilities.
  •  Among currencies, the U.S. dollar is likely to strengthen against the yen and be range bound against the euro. Further Bank of Japan stimulus and Abe government’s reform measures should push the yen back above ¥100/$.

Investing in Gold: Does It Stack Up?

Gold has a timeless allure—especially if you worry about stock market volatility, inflation, a decay of ordinary currency or the collapse of civilization. Yet not everyone agrees that gold offers the safe haven its promoters describe. After soaring for a dozen years, it has plummeted in 2013.

After all, while gold has some practical uses in electronics and a few manufacturing processes, most of it ends up as jewelry on people’s wrists and necks—or rests quietly as stacks of ingots in rooms with thick doors and strong floors. How reliable can demand be for a commodity that very few people actually need? What is the proper role for gold in an investment portfolio? Why has its price been falling?

“People call it an insurance policy. I call it a very expensive insurance policy,” says Wharton finance professor Jeremy Siegel.   

“I would never recommend a specific investment in gold,” adds Kent Smetters, professor of business economics and public policy at Wharton, who adds that investors have better ways to hedge against inflation—one of gold’s presumed benefits.

A spotty record

There is no denying that gold has held value for humans for thousands of years. It is found in the graves of the elite all over the world. The search for it drove much of the exploration of the New World. Treasure hunters risk their lives pursuing chests of it lost at the bottom of the sea.

But its record as a store of wealth is spotty. From early 2001 to late summer 2011, the price of gold soared from just under $300 an ounce to nearly $1,900, confirming gold proponents’ view that the metal is a terrific investment. But there have been long periods of disappointment, too. Gold peaked just shy of $700 an ounce in 1980, then fell and did not again hit that level for 27 years. It started this year at $1,657, and has fallen about 18% to around $1,355, while the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has gained about 18%.

The cause of these ups and downs is always open to debate. When the price of steel rises or falls, the reason can usually be found in the pace of world economic growth. Grain prices are heavily influenced by the weather. But gold rides waves of emotion.

Most gold becomes jewelry. In fact, among the largest consumers of gold are jewelry buyers in India, says Wharton finance professor Franklin Allen. “India has not been doing well, so that may be a factor” driving gold prices down, he notes. “There may also be some selling by central banks and hedge funds that we aren’t aware of.” Big sales, perhaps to raise money for economic stimulation, would increase gold supply, undercutting prices.

Gold prices are also affected by the ebb and flow of demand for other investments. If stocks look good, some investors will switch from gold to stocks, and falling demand will help drive gold prices down. Gold’s fall this year coincides with a fast climb in stock prices. “Gold and silver are suffering because people are moving money to the stock market,” Smetters says.

Siegel maintains a long-run chart of real returns for various asset classes—returns adjusted for inflation. Because of inflation, a dollar acquired in 1802 would have been worth just 5.2 cents at the end of 2011. A dollar put into Treasury bills at the same time would have grown to $282, or to $1,632 had it gone into long-term bonds. Held in gold, it would have grown to $4.50. True, that’s a gain even with inflation taken into account. But the same dollar put into a basket of stocks reflecting the broad market would have grown to an astounding $706,199.

As an investment, gold has some flaws. Anyone who owns it in significant quantity would be wise to ante up for secure storage, which creates a cost that drags on the return, says Siegel. And, unlike bank savings, bonds or dividend-paying stocks, gold does not provide income. “It’s a very volatile asset with no yield,” according to Allen.

Nor does gold provide rights to share in corporate profits—a perk enjoyed by any stockholder. Investors who want safety can use government bonds, knowing the government can use its taxing power to make good on its commitments to bond owners. No one stands behind the price of gold.

Paying a ‘big price’

In a period of hyperinflation, when currency becomes virtually worthless, or a time of great distrust in the economy or banking system, gold may indeed become a safe haven, Siegel notes. “There isn’t anything that’s clearly better if you’re concerned about those sorts of events.” But he adds that people who turn to gold tend to be “overly concerned” about catastrophe. Putting a large portion of one’s wealth into gold would therefore mean sitting on the sidelines waiting for an unlikely event while other assets, such as stocks, produced better long-term returns. “I think you would be paying a big price,” Siegel says.

Currently, inflation is very low, which eliminates that factor as an immediate reason to hold gold, Smetters points out. Investors who want a guaranteed hedge against any future inflation have better options in inflation-indexed U.S. savings bonds, he adds. I-bonds guarantee a modest return on top of the inflation rate, while also insuring against loss due to deflation, or falling prices.

According to Smetters, there is another option: Treasury inflation-protected securities, or TIPS. These U.S. government bonds provide annual interest earnings plus a rise in principal, or the face value of the bond, tied to the inflation rate. (TIPS are best held in retirement accounts like IRAs and 401(k)s to avoid annual tax on “phantom income” from the inflation adjustments, Smetters notes.) Allen agrees. “I would say TIPS are a better strategy [than gold] to protect against inflation, unless things are very bad indeed in the U.S. Swiss francs would also be a good bet.”

A well-diversified investment portfolio can also help guard against inflation, says Smetters. “I generally believe in a multi-part investment process that starts with a safe layer of bonds, internationally diversified.”

Another option, of course, is stocks, which, as Siegel’s data show, have a good long-term track record against inflation. A key reason: Companies can increase prices for goods and services as inflation drives up costs of raw materials and labor. Inflation can also lift customers’ incomes, enabling them to pay higher prices.

Real estate investment trusts, or REITS, also offer an inflation hedge, Allen adds. REITS are a form of mutual fund that own residential, commercial or industrial real estate. Property values and rents generally rise with inflation, making REITS a good hedge. For those worried about a collapse in the stock market, he suggests “put options,” which hedge against loss by giving their owners the right to sell at a guaranteed price a block of shares or a broad index, like the S&P 500. To minimize costs—the premium paid for an option—the investor can buy “out of the money” puts. These are cheaper because they require the investor to accept some loss before the protection kicks in—similar to getting an insurance policy with a very large deductible.

Investors who worry deeply about other asset classes can put a small portion of their holdings into gold for peace of mind, so long as they are willing to pay a price in storage costs and weak returns, Siegel says.

Buy the mine

Most experts caution against investing in jewelry and collectable coins, because it’s hard to assess the artistic or collectable value that comes on top of the value of the raw gold. Professional investors trade gold on the futures market—but this is very complex, and futures are generally used for short-term bets rather than long-term investments.

As a compromise, investors can buy stocks in gold mining companies, says Allen. These stocks give shareholders the right to share in cash flows, and they tend to benefit when gold rises, though investors must also assess the quality of management, the firm’s competiveness in the market and any other factors typically involved in a stock purchase.

To avoid the cost of storing gold, investors can buy shares in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that own physical gold kept in vaults in places like Switzerland. ETFs are a kind of mutual fund that trades like stocks, making buying and selling of gold very easy. They are a good way of speculating on spot prices, or holding gold for the longer term to diversify a portfolio. Gold ETFs might not be so good, however, as a hedge against financial, social or political chaos, because ETF trading depends on the financial markets, and the gold itself is inaccessible.

What’s a better remedy than gold for investors worried about social crisis? “For those worried about social chaos, a move to Canada might be advisable,” Allen quips.

© Knowledge@Wharton.

Evaluating Retirement Advisor Designations

With more than 50 certification programs based on the withdrawal phase of the planning lifecycle, advisors are faced with a paralyzing choice about which designation provides the most valuable curriculum. The issues surrounding withdrawal planning differ starkly from those encountered during the accumulation phase.

An April 2013 report by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau highlighted the consumer confusion over this issue. This confusion undoubtedly extends to financial advisors as well. Let’s look at which programs are best positioned to allow advisors to guide their clients through retirement. I will highlight three of the more prominent and rigorous programs aimed at building knowledge about retirement income.

These include the International Foundation for Retirement Education’s (InFRE) Certified Retirement Counselor® (CRC®), The American College’s Retirement Income Certified Professional® (RICP®), and the Retirement Income Industry Association’s (RIIA) Retirement Management AnalystSM (RMASM).

Full disclosure: I am personally involved with two of these designation programs. I am employed by the RICP® sponsoring organization and contribute to its curriculum. I am a former curriculum director for the RMASM, and I still participate in educational programs.

(To read further, go to: http://advisorperspectives.com/newsletters13/Retirement_Income_Designations.php)

How to court Gen X and Gen Y clients

Most do-it-yourself, affluent 20- and 30-somethings are open to future relationships with financial advisors. But the technology savvy of young investors can create challenge for advisors, according to the Boston-area research firm, Hearts & Wallets.

The firm’s latest report shows financial service providers and advisors how to connect with this market segment. It describes Gen X & Y’s financial goals, their reasons for seeking financial advice and the ways they use technology.    

“Gen Y and the younger Gen X… can perform investment selection and retirement planning tasks that could only be done with an advisor just a few years ago,” said Chris Brown, Hearts & Wallets principal, in a release. As a result, they expect more from a financial advisor.  

Eighty percent of investors ages 21-29 and 68% of investors ages 30-39 say they “make decisions and manage money on my own,” according to the Hearts & Wallets 2012/2013 Investor Quantitative Panel, an annual survey of more than 5,400 U.S. households.

The Hearts & Wallets report, “Generations X & Y Won’t Be DIY Forever: Managing the Intersection of Advice and Technology to Gain Favor with the Young Affluent,” includes the results of focus groups with investors ages 25-39 with “good savings habits and/or a minimum of $100,000 in investable household assets.”

The focus groups included “Peak Accumulators,” who were defined as good savers who engage to varying degrees in six financially responsible behaviors. They represented 40% of households led by members of Generations X and Y. 

Across all affluent young investors, three main financial goals repeatedly surfaced:

  • The need for an emergency fund.
  • The need to save for the costs of college educations
  • Retirement

More affluent investors cited additional goals:

  • Paying off a mortgage early
  • Saving for specific situations, such as the arrival of a new baby 

Opportunities for advisors

Younger affluent investors (“Emerging Peak Accumulators”) look for unbiased advise, often from family, friends, co-workers and bloggers, the report said.

“They use information sources from workplace providers, online brokerages and media sources to friends and family. Only occasionally will they use professional advisors,” said Laura Varas, Hearts and Wallets principal. “[But] certain key moments open the door for the advisor relationship.”

While young investors often seek advice when buying a home or buying life insurance after the birth of a child, heavy-handed life insurance sales tactics can sour them on financial professionals. Banks don’t necessarily provide an optimal experience during the home-buying experience or may not offer investment or retirement products.  

“To attract Gen Y and X clients, lead with a message of competence and credibility, and then deliver that competence and credibility,” Varas said.  

12 best practices for web-based advice and apps

The Hearts & Wallets’ 12 best practices for web-based advice and apps:

Strategy

  • Include your firm’s mission statement
  • Explain what differentiates the firm’s offering
  • Offer a score or report card to help users gauge their progress

Marketing

  • Consider offering different tools for users based on financial sophistication
  • Use mobile technology (iPhones, tablets, etc.) in app/web imagery; have a professional look
  • Include many categories of life events, not just the basic ones

Service model/pricing

  • Offer various support channels (online chat, phone assistance, email)
  • State pricing clearly and explain how the firm offer differs from the competition; consider offering a fee comparison relative to competitors
  • Offer new users a free trial

Technology functionality

  • Offer both app(s) and a web tool(s) and differentiate functionality appropriately (quick/on-the- run vs. work)
  • Offer users the option to include other accounts in the firm’s app/tool to view their entire portfolio, but don’t require it
  • Include an automatic withdrawal/savings option

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

DTCC launches ‘Producer Management Portal’

A new service that will allow insurance carriers and distributors to “share, track and verify state-mandated annuity training completions by their agents and brokers” has been launched by the Insurance & Retirement Services unit of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. (DTCC).

The Producer Management Portal, or PMP, as the new service is called, is a response to a new National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) rule that requires producers to complete two levels of training—one specific to the annuities class of insurance and the other for the carrier-specific product the producer sells.

“The tool supports insurance industry participants as they navigate this increasingly complex web of regulations and agent training requirements that differ across states and product lines,” said a DTCC release.

Within the annuity industry, the frequent failure by intermediaries to understand the details of the complex annuity products they sell has often been cited as a contributor to unsuitable sales, to bad publicity, and lack of wider acceptance by the public.  

“While legislation has not drastically shifted on suitability requirements nationwide, the insurance industry is seeing a rapid rate of adoption for NAIC model legislation that outlines suggested producer training requirements for annuity products. Twenty-two states have already implemented regulation based on the model, with another ten on the horizon,” says a notice on the DTCC website.

PMP’s centralized database, consisting of information from insurance carriers and education vendors, is intended to help eliminate redundant manual processing and unauthorized sales, enable better compliance with state-mandated rules, and provide secure access to confidential data.

I&RS will add license and appointment (LNA) data management and authorization service to PMP’s functionality in the next development phas. LNA automates and standardizes the flow of producer management information between insurance carriers and distributors, according to the DTCC release.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Deficient Frontier

A Vanguard investor went online the other day to check his account balance—sadly, it was off 3.5%—and read the fund giant’s familiar reminder that his allocation to stocks was about half the “suggested target… for people in his age group.”

Adjacent to those words, however, the emptor saw this caveat: “The illustration and tools on this page are educational only, and do not take into consideration your personal circumstances or other factors that may be important in making investment decisions.”

OK, so what was this self-directed investor supposed to do? Obey Vanguard’s initial suggestion to hike his equity exposure? Or, as Vanguard’s disclaimer seemed to allow, follow his gut, which was based partly on his native conservatism but also on the knowledge that his spouse was taking a lot of risk with her retirement portfolio. 

This is the sort of dilemma that Meir Statman, Ph.D. (right), and Joni L. Clark, CFP/CFA, seem to be addressing in “End the Charade: Replacing the Efficient Frontier with the Efficient Range,” a research paper to appear in the July issue of the Journal of Financial Planning.

Meir StatmanA professor at Santa Clara University in California and author of What Investors Really Want (McGraw-Hill, 2010), Statman is one of the behavioral economists who have argued that Harry Markowitz’ mean-variance optimization algorithm, which generates the efficient frontier, excluded certain valid real-world qualifiers even as it refined a powerful insight.

As Statman and Clark, chief investment officer at Loring Ward in San Jose, Calif., write in their current paper:

 “Mean-variance portfolio theory is not a ‘consumption’ theory as it is silent about investors’ consumption goals, such as a secure and comfortable retirement, college education for children and grandchildren, and bequests to family and charities. Ultimately, however, investors care about their consumption goals, and portfolios are merely production means for reaching consumption goals.”

“End the Charade” suggests that the concept of the efficient frontier should be replaced—and in practice is often replaced by many financial planners and advisors—by the concept of the “efficient range.” They define efficient range as “the location of portfolios that acknowledge imprecise estimates of mean-variance parameters and accommodate investor preferences beyond high mean and low variance.”

By investor preferences, the two authors give the examples of socially-conscious investors who might want to avoid shares in certain companies no matter how profitable they may or who might want to under-weight international equities for no other reason than that they’d rather invest in their home country.

By “imprecise estimates,” the authors are referring to the arbitrary assumptions that almost by necessity go into any individual calculation of the efficient frontier. In fact, they say, advisors sometimes make whatever assumptions are necessary to arrive at the results they want. Hence the title, “End the Charade.”

“We place the estimated parameters in the mean-variance optimizer and give it a spin. Out comes an efficient frontier with portfolios such as the one with 70 percent in European stocks and 30 percent in gold. We find this portfolio unappealing, so we push down the estimated return of European stocks or add a constraint that limits European stocks to 10 percent of portfolios. We give the optimizer another spin and get another efficient frontier. We continue spinning until we get an efficient frontier with portfolios that really appeal to us, the ones we wanted all along,” they write.

But the article has good news for advisors: Their instincts that inspire them to “massage” the parameters are valid:

 “Advisers share a guilty feeling. They are eager to note that asset allocation matters most in investment success, and that they derive their asset allocation from the mean-variance portfolio optimizer of Nobel Prize winning modern portfolio theory.

“Yet advisers find asset allocation in optimized portfolios unappealing. They modify optimized portfolios by constraints, whether maximum constraints on commodities or minimum constraints on bonds. But they often feel guilty for straying from modern portfolio theory. We argue that advisers’ guilt is misplaced.”

“The argument is that any diversified portfolio, such as the ones offered by Vanguard, is in the efficient range,” Statman told RIJ in an email. “In other words, we should use the mean-variance optimizer as a calculator rather than as an optimizer.”  

© RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Details of Hartford’s VA benefit rollback

 The Hartford filed a new variable annuity prospectus last May 1 with the Securities Exchange Commission, asking the SEC to approve some changes that it wants to make to in-force variable annuity contracts that would curtail some contract owner privileges but would also reduce the risk that the Hartford could end up losing money on the lifetime income riders in the contracts.

The new restrictions would be effective on October 4. According to the new prospectus, “These restrictions are intended to reduce the risk of investment losses that could require the Company to use its General Account assets to pay amounts due under the rider.”

As of the end of the first quarter of 2013, the Hartford still had about $65.5 billion in VA assets, which generate fees. But it wants to reduce the size of the shortfall that might occur if those contract assets won’t be large enough to meet the contract obligations.

To prevent or minimize those losses, it is not only no longer selling new contracts, but also taking advantage of whatever escape clauses it wrote into the original contracts—which may shock some contract owners and advisors.

“It is a surprise to many and I’m sure some never imagined that it could happen,” said Tamiko Toland, an annuity expert at Strategic Insight, who has reviewed the new Hartford filing. But she said that Hartford is only doing things that the contract’s fine print allowed them to do all along.

Clients still have options, she added. They can accept the changes in the contract (which mainly require more conservative investments) and preserve the rider, they can reject the changes and let the income rider expire, or they can surrender the contract and take their money somewhere else.

“[Hartford is] giving people a few months to make the adjustment. Then there is a 15-day [grace] period,” she added. Of course, Hartford will be just as happy to see go away—but they don’t necessarily want them to go away mad. Yet that seems to be the risk the company is willing to take to avoid or reduce potential billion-dollar losses down the road on guarantees that are under water.

“I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be beneficial, actuarially, to the Hartford to have people default on their benefits. [But] as much as they are happy to let VA clients fade away, I doubt that they want to get a reputation for conniving with their other clients. Though they don’t have a VA reputation to protect [since the divestiture], they do have a reputation to protect.”

Here are the new VA contract restrictions for which the Hartford has requested SEC approval: 

Fixed accumulation feature. Effective October 4, 2013, we will no longer accept new allocations or Premium Payments to the Fixed Accumulation Feature.  The following information applies only for Contract Value allocated to or in the Fixed Accumulation Feature prior to October 4, 2013.

We guarantee that we will credit interest to amounts you allocate to the Fixed Accumulation Feature at a minimum rate that meets your State’s minimum non-forfeiture requirements. Non-forfeiture rates vary from state-to-state. We reserve the right to prospectively declare different rates of excess interest depending on when amounts are allocated or transferred to the Fixed Accumulation Feature. We will account for any deductions, Surrenders or transfers from the Fixed Accumulation Feature on a “first-in, first-out” basis. The Fixed Accumulation Feature interest rates may vary by State. 

Dollar cost averaging. Effective October 4, 2013, the DCA Plus program will no longer be available and we will no longer accept initial or subsequent Premium Payments into the program. Contract Owners who have commenced either a 12-month or 6-month Transfer Program prior to October 4, 2013 will be allowed to complete their current program, but will not be allowed to elect a new program.  These programs allow you to earn a fixed rate of interest on investments. These programs are different from the Fixed Accumulation Feature. We determine, in our sole discretion, the interest rates to be credited. These interest rates may vary depending on the Contract you purchased and the date the request for the program is received. Please consult your Registered Representative to determine the interest rate for your Program.

Reinstatement. Effective October 4, 2013, we will no longer allow Contract Owners to reinstate their Contracts (or riders) when a Contract Owner requests a Surrender (either full or Partial).

Commencement date extension. Effective October 4, 2013 we will no longer allow Contract Owners to extend their Annuity Commencement Date even though we may have granted extensions in the past to you or other similarly situated investors.

Investment restrictions. Effective October 4, 2013, we are exercising this contractual right for the products described in Appendix D to require that you allocate your Contract Value and future Premium Payments in accordance with the investment restrictions described in Appendix D. Your selected allocations will be automatically re-balanced quarterly. If your allocations do not currently comply with the investment restrictions described in Appendix D, we must receive allocation instructions from you prior to October 4, 2013 that comply with the investment restrictions described in Appendix D. These restrictions are intended to reduce the risk of investment losses that could require the Company to use its General Account assets to pay amounts due under the rider.

If your allocations do not currently comply with the investment restrictions described in Appendix D, we must receive allocation instructions from you prior to Oct. 4, 2013 that comply with the investment restrictions described in Appendix D.

These restrictions are intended to reduce the risk of investment losses that could require the Company to use its General Account assets to pay amounts due under the rider.  We may modify, add, delete, or substitute (to the extent permitted by applicable law), the asset allocation models, investment pro-grams, Funds, portfolio rebalancing requirements, and other investment requirements and restrictions that apply while the rider is in effect.

For instance, we might amend these asset allocation models if a Fund (i) merges into another fund, (ii) changes investment objectives, (iii) closes to further investments and/or (iv) fails to meet acceptable risk parameters. These changes will not be applied with respect to then existing investments. We will give you advance notice of these changes. Please refer to “Other Program considerations” under the section entitled “What other ways can you invest?” in Section 4.a for more information regarding the potential impact of Fund mergers and liquidations with respect to then existing investments within an asset allocation model. 

15-day reinstatement window. If the rider is terminated by us due to a failure to comply with these investment restrictions, you will have one opportunity to rein-state the rider by reallocating your Contract Value in accordance with then prevailing investment restrictions.

You will have a 15-business day reinstatement period to do this. The reinstatement period will begin upon termination of the rider. Your right to reinstate the rider will be terminated if during the reinstatement period you make a subsequent Premium Payment, take a partial Surrender or make a Covered Life change. Upon reinstatement, your Payment Base will be reset at the lower of the Payment Base prior to the termination or Contract Value as of the date of reinstatement. Your Withdrawal Percentage will be reset to equal the Withdrawal Percentage prior to termination unless during the reinstatement period the relevant Covered Life qualifies for a new age band.

Investment in any asset allocation model could mitigate losses but also hamper potential gains. The asset allocation models that you must invest in under the rider provide very different potential risk/reward characteristics. We are not responsible for lost investment opportunities associated with the implementation and enforcement of these investment requirements and restrictions. If the restrictions are violated, the Withdrawal Benefit will be revoked but the Guaranteed Minimum Death Benefit will continue to apply.

Investment restrictions. You must allocate your Account Value in accordance with the following investment restrictions prior to October 4, 2013: 

  • CATEGORY 1: FIXED INCOME     RULE: MINIMUM 40% OF ALLOCATION
  • CATEGORY 2: ACCEPTABLE INVESTMENT OPTIONS (EQUITY OR MULTI-ASSET RULE: MAXIMUM 60% OF ALLOCATION, MAXIMUM 20% IN ANY ONE FUND
  • CATEGORY 3: LIMITED INVESTMENT OPTIONS (EQUITY, MULTI-ASSET, OR BOND) RULE: MAXIMUM 20%OF ALLOCATION, MAXIMUM OF 10% IN ANY ONE FUND.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Harbinger unit offers fixed deferred annuity with GLWB

Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Co., the Baltimore-based annuity issuer that diversified holding company Harbinger acquired from Old Mutual two years ago, has introduced a line of one-year guaranteed rate fixed annuities that offers a guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit like that of a variable annuity or fixed indexed annuity.

The concept seems counter-intuitive, considering that fixed income investments are paying next to nothing, fixed deferred annuities are in an unprecedented sales slump, and nobody in recent memory, if ever, has tried it. 

The new product line is called the Simplicity Elite series. According to a product brochure for Simplicity Elite 10, a single person who buys the product with a $100,000 at age 65 and waits 10 years, can take an income of $11,600 a year for life at age 75. For a couple, the payout would be based on the age of the younger of the two, and be $10,600 at age 75. This rider’s price is 85 basis points per year. There’s a guaranteed minimum death benefit available for 40 basis points a year.

F&G is aiming the product at people who want a flexible guaranteed income product but balk at the complexity of fixed indexed annuity. “Agents have told us that they want to lead with the income story and don’t want to complicate it with indexing methods. A traditional fixed annuity chassis provides that simplicity—pun intended,” said Brian Grigg, Fidelity & Guaranty Life’s vice president, annuity distribution, in a release.

 “Consumers tell us they want a product they can easily understand,” he added. “They want to know the dollars in simple terms. With the built-in guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit rider, as an example, we can say that on a guaranteed basis, $100,000 from a 55-year-old provides annual income of $9,600 for life starting at age 65. Consumers understand this.”

“It’s almost like a deferred SPIA,” said Paul Tyler, a Fidelity & Guaranty Life spokesman. “You don’t buy this product for accumulation.” Fidelity & Guaranty carries a B++ rating from A.M. Best. Addressing the topic of whether fixed deferred annuities can generate enough gain to fund a generous income guarantee, Tyler said: “We think rates are going to go up.”

The guaranteed interest rate for the initial product year is 2%, he said, and it will reset annually. Simplicity Elite will sell mainly through independent insurance agents, but the issuer thinks it may appeal to broker-dealer reps who want a lifetime income guarantee but aren’t comfortable with indexed products. “One advantage of a fixed deferred annuity is that some of the broker-dealers won’t sell FIAs,” Tyler told RIJ.

He also rejected the idea that because Fidelity & Guaranty is owned by Harbinger, a holding company, that the product reflects a risk-taking culture. “Yes, our money originally came from a hedge fund, but our parent’s stated objective is to build a diversified conglomerate like a Berkshire Hathaway or Loews Corp.”

Simplicity Elite is available in 7, 10 and 14 year durations. All contracts in the series offers minimum guarantees and guaranteed minimum death benefit (GMDB) rider. A vesting premium bonus is available on the 10 and 14-year product. The minimum premium is $10,000. and Simplicity Elite is available in 7, 10 and 14 year durations.

Fidelity & Guaranty Life and an independent marketing organization collaborated to develop Simplicity Elite “with the soon-to-be-retiree in mind,” Grigg said. Harbinger Group completed its acquisition of F&G from Old Mutual plc in April 2011 for $350 million. Old Mutual had earlier paid $635 million for it.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

ARIA, PIMCO and Transamerica partner on bond-based CDA

A new contingent deferred annuity product (CDA)—aka stand-alone living benefit (SALB) aka unbundled guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit (GLWB)–has been jointly announced by Aria Retirement Solutions, Transamerica Advisors Life and bond giant PIMCO.

[News of this product broke close to deadline for the June 21 issue. More news and analysis of the latest ARIA/Transamerica/PIMCO CDA will be forthcoming.]

Transamerica filed a prospectus for the new product on May 15 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The product, which doesn’t appear to have a trade name at this time, would be marketed to fee-based registered investment advisors (RIAs) who want to offer their typically high-net-worth clients a loose, flexible lifetime income guarantee.

If it works like ARIA’s RetireOne program, each of the three partners plays a different role. ARIA will administer the product through its online platform; PIMCO will provide the underlying pool of fixed income investments, and Transamerica will provide the guarantee that the pool will provide income for life as long as the end-client (or couple) doesn’t exceed a designated annual spending limit.  

CDAs are a compromise built specifically for RIA channel, which isn’t receptive to annuities because they’re too restrictive in terms of investment options and because RIAs, unlike broker/dealer reps, don’t sell products for commission; they earn management fees based on the value of the assets they manage.

But the insurers and RIAs have a motive for working together. Insurers can’t afford to ignore the rich and growing RIA channel, and RIA’s can’t ignore their older clients’ need for lifetime income protection. CDAs are designed to be a compromise. The RIA client gets a lifetime income guarantee and the client’s assets remain with the RIA instead of in an insurance company separate account. (Variable annuities create tax problems; all withdrawals are taxed as ordinary income.)

The asset provider (PIMCO in this case) earns fees based on the market value of the product they supply, the insurance company (Transamerica Advisors Life in this case) earn fees based on the size of the guarantee, and the RIA earns a percentage of the client’s portfolio for financial advice and portfolio management. 

There’s a bit of a catch for the RIAs and their client. They can’t buy a lifetime income rider for any bundle of assets they happen to manage. Risk exposure and insurance costs would be prohibitively high. Instead, the CDA offers RIAs an insurable range of investment options; the riskier the option, the higher the insurance fees. The RIAs, it is hoped, will accept that minor loss of choice as long as the assets are under their control and not in a variable annuity separate account.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

European employers ponder ways to cut pension costs

Pension funds thinking to switch from defined benefit (DB) to defined contribution (DC) could get the best of both worlds by managing for income risk rather than investment risk, according to Jan Snippe, the pensions adviser at Dimensional Retirement Europe.

Speaking at a conference held by the employers’ organization AWVN (General Employers’ Association Netherlands), Snippe said that DC investment management could take into account possible future sources of income, including possible DB rights and “human capital.”

Snippe runs the Dimensional Fund Advisors SmartNest business in Europe. He came to the firm from Royal Philips Electronics, where he was head of corporate pensions. (Philips pioneered SmartNest, which has ties to Nobelist C. Robert Merton.) In this role, he was responsible for developing a company-wide pension strategy and ensuring that pension risk exposures were consistent with the company’s overall risk policies.

He said these additional sources of income might allow participants to take investment risk in DC plans, although he stressed that investment decisions should not be left to participants.

But he also recommended giving participants more influence over their mandatory minimum pensions by giving them more options on increased saving, later retirement or increased investment risk. The administration of such tailor-made DC plans would still be “relatively easy,” Snippe said.

Also during the event, AWVN’s Willem van de Rotte urged employers to use the pending changes in the pensions legislation to drop “expensive and complicated” transitional arrangements for early retirement.

These arrangements, he said, caused workers to be more “inflexible” and increased the cost of pension provision by as much as 30%. “These transitional schemes are hardly appreciated by workers,” he said.

Leon Mooijman, head of AWVN’s advisory team on pensions, said that at least 80% of workers in an early retirement plan had decided to keep on working, earning approximately 180% of their salary as a result.

He argued that employers should compensate their staff for the government plans to limit the tax-facilitated pensions accrual to a salary of €100,000 and decrease the yearly pensions accrual. He also suggested employers’ pensions cost could be decreased by returning at least a part of the contribution to the employer.

The information in this article originally appeared at IPE.com.

The Bucket

Transamerica webinar will focus on DC in-plan income solutions 

Transamerica Retirement Solutions will host a webinar at 2 p.m. June 27 for financial advisors on in-plan income solutions. Titled “In-Plan Retirement Income Solutions: Understanding Participant Interest,” it will focus on a survey of defined contribution (DC) plan participants nearing retirement.   

According to the survey 65% of survey respondents ages 50 and older were interested in having a guaranteed income option in their DC plan. Interest was higher among those 40-49 years old.

Concerns about individual retirement readiness have made guaranteed in-plan income solutions an attractive option for many plan participants. This webinar will help financial advisors understand what drives that interest and how these solutions can be an important part of a participant’s retirement portfolio.

Financial advisors can register for the webinar by calling Transamerica at 888-401-5826 and selecting option one, Monday – Friday, 9:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

New Genworth FIA guarantees at least 104% of principal after 5 years

Genworth said it has added a five-year, single premium, fixed deferred annuity with a four percent guaranteed minimum accumulation floor to its lineup of SecureLiving fixed index annuities.     

SecureLiving Index 5 is linked to the S&P 500 Index and guarantees 104% of the premium at the end of the surrender charge period, less adjustments for withdrawals.  

After the first contract year ends, contract owners may withdraw up to 10% of the contract value per year without a surrender charge or market value adjustment.

A “bailout provision” allows the annuity owner to withdraw the entire contract value of the annuity, without penalty, if the declared annual cap on the annual cap strategy falls below the contract’s bailout cap. The bailout cap is declared at contract issue and will not change during the life of the contract.  

SecureLiving Index 5 has two fixed-rate interest crediting options and four index crediting rate options, including Genworth’s patent-pending CapMax interest crediting methodology. The CapMax option provides the potential for the contract value to grow more quickly than with traditional index crediting methods in years of consecutive positive index growth. Each year, SecureLiving Index annuity contract owners can change their strategy allocations. 

The five-year fixed interest crediting strategy is available only at contract issue; in subsequent years, the contract owner can only allocate out of this strategy. The one-year fixed interest crediting strategy is available to allocate into after the first contract year.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

NIRS webinar to review study: ‘Retirement Crisis Worse Than We Think?’

The National Institute on Retirement Security will host a webinar on Thursday, June 20, 2013, at 11:00 AM ET to review the findings of a new study, “The Retirement Savings Crisis: Is it Worse Than We Think?

The study uses the U.S. Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances to analyze retirement plan participation, savings, and overall assets of all working U.S. households aged 25 to 64. The study also compares these results to industry benchmarks for retirement savings by age and income to reveal the true magnitude of the retirement savings crisis for working-age families.

The research will be available in advance of the webinar beginning at 8 AM ET on June 20th at www.nirsonline.org. A webinar replay will be available.

The National Institute on Retirement Security is a not-for-profit organization established to contribute to informed policymaking by fostering a deep understanding of the value of retirement security to employees, employers, and the economy.

Waiting for the DoL’s Fiduciary Do-Over

Anyone looking for conflicts of interest in the retirement world need look no farther than the conflict between the advisors who render advice to 401(k) plan sponsors and participants, on the one hand, and federal regulators like Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis Borzi, director of the Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA), on the other.

Ms. Borzi, a regulator in a Democratic administration and a champion of ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), has positioned herself as a defender of the interests of rank-and-file participants—and especially of their interest in achieving the highest possible income during retirement at the lowest possible cost.

[To hear and see Ms. Borzi’s response to a question from Insured Retirement Institute President and CEO Cathy Weatherford at the IRI Government, Legal and Regulatory Conference in Washington, D.C. this week, see today’s lead feature in RIJ.]

So since 2009 she’s been pushing for a so-called “fiduciary standard” that would require the brokers and similar intermediaries who work with plan sponsors, plan providers and plan participants to set aside all interests except those of the plan participants when they render advice to either the plan sponsor or the plan participants.

The intermediaries, however, would prefer to work under the prevailing caveat emptor or “suitability” standard. Such a standard allows them to put their own direct (or indirect, if they work for a broker-dealer) financial self-interest ahead of that of the participants whom they advise and whose decisions they can easily influence—as long as it doesn’t harm the participants.

But it does harm the participants. In the ERISA-governed retirement plan setting, such a standard leaves room for intermediaries to err on the side of enriching themselves or their firms at the expense of plan participants. It lets them rescommend that plan sponsors select investment options that shift costs to participants. It lets them encourage participants who are no longer employed by the plan sponsor to transfer money from the plans to rollover IRAs, where it can generate higher fees for the intermediaries or their firms.

Pragmatic differences

At first glance, this debate might seem to raise philosophical questions that are ultimately unanswerable. Can anyone, for instance, other than a saint or a Solomon be equally faithful to two masters at the same time, especially when those two masters’ interests are not aligned? Or can a fair-minded intermediary render a solution that maximizes everyone’s interest?

But the question is not really that abstract. It’s comes down to whether you believe that establishing, in the retirement plan space, a standard of zero tolerance for abuse of trust, zero tolerance for asymmetry of information between buyer and seller, and zero tolerance for any mis-labeling of sales pitches as “advice” will A) Clean up Dodge City for the benefit of all or B) Sterilize Dodge City of all commercial activity, to the detriment of all. (Or, as Woody Allen might put it: If you drive the money-changers out of the temple, how will you break a $20?)

Ms. Borzi evidently takes position A. The financial services industry (or the segment of the industry that’s vocal on this issue) takes position B. It’s the more pragmatic position. It says that if you try to create a marketplace where service-providers can’t make a good living, then the intermediaries will leave and you won’t have any services at all.

Reasonable people might eventually be able to compromise here—and perhaps they will. But only to a point. That non-negotiable point will probably involve the acceptability of sales commissions. The sales commission or load is as fundamental to financial services as alcohol is to the 6 p.m. networking sessions at industry conferences. And a strict fiduciary rule would have to outlaw all but capped commissions.

Commissions can’t exist under a fiduciary standard, for at least three reasons. First, there’s no clear relationship between the services rendered and the amount of the compensation. (Sales sessions, it should be universally agreed upon, do not qualify as advisory services. It’s a canard to equate sales with financial advice.)

Second, commissions and similar arrangements like revenue-sharing can’t tolerate sunlight. They deliberately obscure the influence of third-party interests. They rely on so-called asymmetrical information, and always to the disadvantage of the client. Third, manufacturers and distributors calibrate commissions explicitly to satisfy their own interests and not the customers’. Participants don’t have a seat at the table.

It’s been argued, by supposedly serious people, that commissions are good for people with smallish account balances. The idea is that intermediaries can’t afford to spend time with them any other way. But this idea makes no sense. If the IRS, for instance, were to use the same logic, then income tax rates would be graduated in reverse, just as break-points on sales commissions are, on the grounds that the government can’t afford to provide public services to low-income people any other way. You can make that argument—flat-tax advocates do—but it represents a mean-spirited brand of public policy. You can’t claim with a straight face that it’s good for modest earners. You’ll certainly never get a Democratic Department of Labor official to believe that a bad sale is better than no sale.

A strange game

Nonetheless, the odds that the DoL will succeed in establishing a strict fiduciary standard for advisors are not very high. Ms. Borzi’s initial regulatory proposal was withdrawn under a superstorm of negative feedback from corporate attorneys and financial industry lobbyists. Her office has been slow to offer a revision, and at the IRI conference this week she was vague about when it will do so. It’s possible that a new fiduciary rule with enough exemptions might satisfy the retirement industry and squeak through. But Ms. Borzi might as well try to reinstate Prohibition as try to establish a standard of conduct that prohibits sales commissions. 

A very real problem for Ms. Borzi is the lack of solidarity within the government on the fiduciary question. The Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates the activities of investment advisors outside of retirement plans, also needs to weigh in on the fiduciary issue. Its thinking isn’t necessarily aligned with the DoL’s, and its definition of fiduciary conduct is likely to be quite different. (Given the unique legalities of the ERISA world, the chances for a single, “harmonized” standard are nil, one lawyer at the IRI conference said privately.) Meanwhile, industry lobbyists are already working through sympathetic members of Congress to frustrate Ms. Borzi’s designs. Republican legislators seem especially disinclined to let a mere bureaucrat dictate the rules of the $9 trillion 401(k)/IRA game. 

Financial services itself is a strange and serious game. The fees and commissions, which look so small at first, produce mountains of tangible take-home pay for industry professionals. The gains for the amateurs, which loom so potentially limitless at first, can turn out to be insignificant, especially after fees, inflation, volatility, taxes, and unfortunate timing take their toll. In so many cases, only one of the two parties to an investment transaction fully understands how the game is played.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.