Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

The Best Retirement Research of 2012

The retirement financing challenge is a worldwide phenomenon. Almost every advanced nation has its Boomer generation, its massive debt and its rising retiree-to-worker ratio. Many emerging nations have no safety net at all for their aged. Governments, companies, families and individuals from Singapore to Honduras, from Germany to Australia, all feel the pain.

Not surprisingly, the search for solutions to this complex demographic, political and financial problem has elicited a river of academic research. Each year, social scientists use the latest survey techniques and mathematical models to illuminate different aspects of the problem and to test potential solutions. 

For the second consecutive year, Retirement Income Journal is honored to bring some of the leading English-language research in this area to your attention. We asked researchers to identify their favorites among the research that they first read during 2012 (even it did not appear in published form until 2013). They recommended the 16 research papers that we describe below (with some links to webpages or pdfs).

Here you’ll find research that emanates from Croatia, Denmark and Germany, in addition to the U.S. There’s research from at least 20 different universities. There are papers that apply to advisors of individual clients and to sponsors of institutional retirement plans. There’s research for annuity issuers and for distributors of annuity products. At least one paper calls for a major change to U.S. retirement policy. As a group, the papers shed light on many of retirement financial challenges that individuals, financial services providers, and governments face today.

 

A Utility-Based Approach to Evaluating Investment Strategies

Joseph A. Tomlinson, Journal of Financial Planning, February 2012.

In exploring the often-overlooked “utility” or insurance value of annuities, this actuary and financial planner ventures where few others care to tread. He rejects the popular notion that an annuity represents a gamble with death. “Immediate annuities are often viewed as producing losses for those who die early and gains for those who live a long time, whereas I am portraying no gain or loss regardless of the length of life,” he writes. “This is an issue of framing or context. If one thinks of an annuity as providing income to meet basic living expenses, both the income and the expenses will end at death.” He also asked 36 people how much upside potential they would require—i.e., how much surplus wealth at death—to justify a retirement investment strategy that carried a 50/50 risk of depleting their savings two years before they died.

 

Spending Flexibility and Safe Withdrawal Rates

Michael Finke, Texas Tech University; Wade D. Pfau, American College; and Duncan Williams, Texas Tech. Journal of Financial Planning, March 2012.

The “4% rule” is a needlessly expensive way to self-insure against longevity risk, this paper suggests. “By emphasizing a portfolio’s ability to withstand a 30- or 40-year retirement, we ignore the fact that at age 65 the probability of either spouse being alive by age 95 is only 18%. If we strive for a 90% confidence level that the portfolio will provide a constant real income stream for at least 30 years, we are planning for an eventuality that is only likely to occur 1.8% of the time,” they write. They also show that a mixture of guaranteed income sources and equities burns hotter and more efficiently than a portfolio of stocks and bonds: “The optimal retirement portfolio allocation to stock increases by between 10 and 30 percentage points and the optimal withdrawal rate increases by between 1 and 2 percentage points for clients with a guaranteed income of $60,000 instead of $20,000.”

 

Should You Buy an Annuity from Social Security?

Steven A. Sass, Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, Research Brief, May 2012.

In a financial version of “The Charlie’s Angels Effect,” Social Security went from misbegotten child to Miss USA last year. Returns on low-risk investments were lower than the step-up in Social Security income that comes from postponing benefits to age 66 or even 70. It thus made more sense for a 62-year-old retiree to delay Social Security and consume personal savings than to hoard his own cash and claim Social Security benefits. “Consider a retiree who could claim $12,000 a year at age 65 and $12,860 at age 66—$860 more,” the author writes. “If he delays claiming for a year and uses $12,860 from savings to pay the bills that year, $12,860 is the price of the extra $860 annuity income. The annuity rate—the additional annuity income as a percent of the purchase price—would be 6.7% ($860/$12,860).”

 

Lifecycle Portfolio Choice with Systematic Longevity Risk and Variable Investment-linked Deferred Annuities

Raimond Maurer, Goethe University; Olivia S. Mitchell, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; Ralph Rogalla, Goethe University; Vasily Kartashov, Goethe University. Research Dialogue, Issue 104, June 2012. TIAA-CREF Institute.

Deferred income annuities—often purchased long before retirement—are in vogue. To offset the risk that a medical breakthrough could lift average life expectancies, annuity issuers could raise prices. But that would suppress demand. The authors of this study propose a “variable investment-linked deferred annuity” (VILDA) that might solve that problem. The owner would assume the risk of rising average life expectancy by agreeing to a downward adjustment in the payout rate should average life expectancy rise. In return, he would enjoy a lower initial price. Access to such a product, perhaps through a 401(k) plan, could increase the annuity owner’s income at age 80 by as much as 16%, the researchers believe.

 

Retirement Income for the Financial Well and Unwell

Meir Statman, Santa Clara University and Tilburg University, Summer 2012.

In this paper, the author of What Investors Really Want calls for a mandatory, universal workplace-based defined contribution plan in the U.S. that would make Americans less dependent on Social Security for retirement income. “It is time to switch from libertarian-paternalistic nudges to fully paternalistic shoves,” the author writes. He argues that automatic enrollment, which has been shown to increase 401(k) participation, is not strong enough a measure to make a difference in the amount of retirement savings available to most people. He recommends tax-deferred private savings accounts similar to 401(k) and IRA accounts but mandatory and inaccessible to account owners before they reach retirement age.

 

Harmonizing the Regulation of Financial Advisers

Arthur B. Laby, Rutgers University. Pension Research Council Working Paper, August 2012. 

In this paper, a law professor analyzes the debate over harmonized standards of conduct for advisors. On the problem of principal trading, he writes, “Any broker-dealer that provides advice should be required to act in the best interest of the client to whom the advice is given [but] imposing a fiduciary duty on dealers is inconsistent, or not completely consistent, with the dealer’s role. A dealer’s profit is earned to the detriment of his trading partner, the very person to whom the dealer would owe a fiduciary obligation.” He identifies three obstacles to harmonization: the difficulty of analyzing its costs and benefits, the presence of multiple regulators, and the question of whether advisors should have their own self-regulatory organization.

 

A Framework for Finding an Appropriate Retirement Income Strategy

Manish Malhotra, Income Discovery. Journal of Financial Planning, August 2012. 

No two retirees have exactly the same needs, and advisors need a process for finding the best income strategy for each client. The author has created a framework that advisors can use to tackle this challenge. His framework includes two “reward metrics” (income and legacy) and three “risk metrics” (probability of success, the potential magnitude of failure, and the percentage of retirement income safe from investment risk). “Using this framework, advisers can incorporate a variety of income-producing strategies and products, and decisions about Social Security benefits, into their withdrawal analyses—lacking in much of the past research focused purely on withdrawals from a total return portfolio,” Malhotra writes.


An Efficient Frontier for Retirement Income

Wade Pfau, Ph.D. September 2012 (Published as “A Broader Framework for Determining an Efficient Frontier for Retirement Income.” Journal of Financial Planning, February 2013.

Just as there’s an efficient frontier for allocation to risky assets during the accumulation stage, so there’s an efficient frontier for allocation to combinations of risky assets and guaranteed income products in retirement, this author proposes. He describes “various combinations of asset classes and financial products, which maximize the reserve of financial assets for a given percentage of spending goals reached, or which maximizes the percentage of spending goals reached for a given reserve of financial assets” and asserts that “clients can select one of the points on the frontier reflecting their personal preferences about the tradeoff between meeting spending goals and maintaining sufficient financial reserves.”

 

How Important Is Asset Allocation To Americans’ Financial Retirement Security?

Alicia H. Munnell, Natalia Orlova and Anthony Webb. Pension Research Council Working Paper, September 2012.

Asset allocation may be important when it comes to building a portfolio, but “other levers may be more important for most households,” according to this paper. “Financial advisers would likely be of greater help to their clients if they focused on a broad array of tools—including working longer, controlling spending and taking out a reverse mortgage,” the authors write, claiming that decisions in these areas can have a bigger impact on retirement savings than merely transitioning from a typical conservative portfolio to an optimal portfolio. “The net benefits of portfolio reallocation for typical households would be modest, compared to other levers,” they write. “Higher income households may have slightly more to gain.”

 

The Revenue Demands of Public Employee Pension Promises

Robert Novy-Marx, University of Rochester; Joshua D. Rauh, Stanford. NBER Working Paper, October 2012.

The cost of fully funding pension promises to state and local government workers is startlingly large, according to these authors. Assuming that pension assets earn only a risk-free real return of 1.7% (the yield of TIPS in 2010) and that each state’s economy grows at its 10-year average, government contributions to state and local pension systems would have to rise to 14.1% of own-revenue to achieve fully funded systems in 30 years, the authors say, or $1,385 per household per year. “In twelve states, the necessary immediate increase is more than $1,500 per household per year, and in five states it is at least $2,000 per household per year,” they calculate, adding that a switch to defined contribution plans would cut the pension burden dramatically.

 

What Makes Annuitization More Appealing?

John Beshears, Stanford; James J. Choi, Yale; David Laibson, Harvard; Brigitte C. Madrian, Harvard; and Stephen P. Zeldes, Columbia. NBER Working Paper, November 2012.

When offered an annuity or a lump sum at retirement, many defined benefit plan participants choose the lump sum. While this behavior obeys the principle that “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush,” it can be shortsighted for healthy people who need to finance a long retirement. How can policymakers help cure this form of myopia? These researchers surveyed DB plan participants and found them more willing to choose annuitization if they could annuitize part of their savings instead of 100%, if their annuity income were inflation-adjusted, and if they could receive an enhanced payment once a year, in a month of their own choosing, rather than identical amounts every month. 

 

Home Equity in Retirement 

Makoto Nakajima, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia; Irina A. Telyukova, University of California, San Diego. December 2012.

The retirement savings crisis notwithstanding, many older Americans reach the end of their lives with too much unspent wealth, rather than too little. Some academics call it “the retirement savings puzzle.” The authors of this study think they’ve solved the mystery. Much of the unspent wealth is home equity, they believe. “Without considering home ownership, retirees’ net worth would be 28% to 53% lower,” they write. A number of homeowners tap their home equity by downsizing, purchasing reverse mortgages or simply neglecting to invest in home maintenance as they get older. But retired homeowners rarely downsize unless an illness or death of a spouse occurs, the study says.   

 

Active vs. Passive Decisions and Crowd-Out Retirement Savings Accounts: Evidence from Denmark

Raj Chetty, Harvard University and NBER; John N. Friedman, Harvard University and NBER; Soren Leth-Petersen, University of Copenhagen and SFI; Torben Heien Nielsen, The Danish National Centre for Social Research; Tore Olsen, University of Copenhagen and CAM. National Bureau of Economic Research, December 2012.

Are tax subsidies the best way to encourage retirement savings? Not in Denmark, say these authors. “Each [dollar] of tax expenditure on subsidies increases total saving by one [cent],” they write, because 85% of Danish retirement plan participants are “passive savers” who ignore tax subsidies. If employers simply put more money into retirement plan participants’ accounts, it would do much more to raise retirement readiness, the authors assert, finding that every additional [dollar] added by employers enhances savings by 85 cents. Though their study is based on Danish data and Danish currency, the authors suggest that the results cast doubt on the effectiveness of America’s $100-billion-a-year tax expenditure on retirement savings.

 

Wealth Effects Revisited: 1975-2012

Karl E. Case, Wellesley College; John M. Quigley, University of California, Berkeley; Robert J. Shiller, Yale University. NBER Working Paper Series, January 2013.

Changes in housing wealth have a much bigger effect on consumption than changes in stock market wealth, the authors assert. During the housing boom of 2001-2005, the value of real estate owned by households rose by about $10 trillion, and “an average of just under $700 billion of equity was extracted each year by home equity loans, cash-out refinance and second mortgages,” the authors write. In 2006-2009, real estate lost $6 trillion in value, reducing consumption by about $350 billion a year. “Consider the effects of the decline in housing production from 2.3 million units to 600,000, at $150,000 each. This implies reduced spending on residential capital of about $255 billion,” they note. The paper builds on a 2005 paper by these authors, which remains the most downloaded article on the B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics website.

 

Optimal Initiation of a GLWB in a Variable Annuity: No Arbitrage Approach

Huang Huaxiong, Moshe A. Milevsky and Tom S. Salisbury, York University. February 2013.

Most owners of variable annuities with in-the-money guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefits  (GLWBs) should activate their contract’s optional income stream sooner-rather-than-later and later-rather-than-never, these authors recommend. “The sooner that account can be ‘ruined’ [reduced to a zero balance] and these insurance fees can be stopped, the worse it is for the insurance company and the better it is for the annuitant,” they write, noting that even the presence of a deferral bonus or “roll-up” feature in the product doesn’t justify postponing drawdown. With over $1 trillion in GLWB contracts in force, the paper suggests, the behavior of contract owners will have major implications for them and for the annuity issuers. 

 

Empirical Determinants of Intertemporal Choice

Jeffrey R. Brown, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Zoran Ivkovic, Michigan State University; Scott Weisbenner, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. NBER Working Paper, February 2013).

Croatia’s bloody war of independence from Yugoslavia in the 1990s yielded a natural experiment in behavioral finance. To save money from 1993 to 1998, the Croatian government began indexing pensions to prices instead of wages. After the war, the courts ordered the government to reimburse pensioners for the reduction. In 2005, about 430,000 Croatians were offered either four semi-annual payments—totaling 50% of the nominal amount owed—or six annual payments—totaling 100% of the nominal amount owed. Seventy-one percent chose the first option. “As one might expect,” the authors write, “those with higher income and wealth were more willing to accept deferred payment from the government.”

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

No surprise: Most Americans still not saving

Less than half of U.S. workers are taking the steps necessary to prepare for retirement, according to the 23rd annual Retirement Confidence Survey from the Employee Benefit Research Institute and Mathew Greenwald & Associates, a survey firm.

Among workers surveyed, 57% reported less than $25,000 in total household savings and investments (excluding the value of their primary homes and any defined benefit pension plans).

The report adds additional evidence to the well-known facts that a significant percentage of America’s full-time workers don’t have access to a workplace retirement savings plan and only a small minority of those who do are on track to save enough to retire on—now estimated to be as much as 10 times their final salaries.

Some people can’t win for losing: 55% of workers and 39% of retirees report high debt loads. According to Matt Greenwald, “Only about half of workers and a comparable number of retirees say they could definitely come up with $2,000 if an unexpected need arose within the next month.”

Among the other major findings in this year’s RCS:

Job uncertainty falling. Thirty percent of workers and 27% of retirees say “job uncertainty” is their biggest problem, down from 42% of all workers a year ago. 
Savings prevalence declines.  Sixty-six percent of workers report that they and/or their spouses have saved for retirement, down from 75% in 2009.
Those who have workplace retirement plans use them.  Eighty-two percent of eligible workers say they participate in such a plan with their current employer; and another 8% of eligible workers report they have money in such a plan, but are not contributing.
Daily expenses hurt savings. Forty-one percent of eligible workers say they don’t contribute or don’t contribute more to their plans because of the “cost of living” and “day-to-day expenses.”  
Health care costs are a worry. Sixteen percent of workers are “not at all confident” about their ability to pay for basic expenses, 29% were concerned about medical expenses and 39% were concerned about long-term care expenses. 
Many ignorant about retirement needs. Forty-five percent of workers guess at how much they will need to accumulate for retirement; 18% did their own estimate, 18% asked a financial advisor, 8% used an on-line calculator and 8% read or heard how much was needed.
Few seek or take professional advice. Just 23% of workers and 28% of retirees report obtaining investment advice from a professional financial advisor who was paid through fees or commissions. Of those, 27% followed all of it, 41% followed most and 27% followed some. 
© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Lump sum DB payouts represent rollover opportunities: Cerulli

The number of separated defined benefit (DB) plan participants has been rising since 2004, and the lump-sum distributions they received represent asset acquisition opportunities for advisors and IRA providers, according to Cerulli Associates. 

“The number of separated participants in private DB plans totaled more than 12.4 million at the end of 2011, up from 10 million in 2004,” Kevin Chisholm, associate director at Cerulli Associates, said in a release. “It is likely plan participants will select a lump sum rather than a monthly payout,” he added.

DB plans, DB plan participants and lump-sum distribution trends, including de-risking, are the main topics of the first quarter 2013 issue of The Cerulli Edge–Retirement Edition.

IRA providers and advisors should develop marketing plans to reach separated participants in private DB plans, Cerulli suggested. These individuals are not retired, and may be contributing to a defined contribution plan that could create additional rollover opportunity in the future.  

Direct channel grabs market share from advisors  

The U.S. retail direct channel is growing at the expense of advisor-sold channels, according to a new report from Cerulli, The Retail Investor Product Usage 2012.

“Assets in the direct channel grew from $3.4 trillion in 2010 to $3.7 trillion in 2011,” said Roger Stamper, a senior analyst at Cerulli. “As direct providers continue to increase their advice and guidance services, they have been able to acquire and retain clients who may have sought advice in the advisor channel,” he added.

Cerulli director Scott Smith said, “Direct providers were largely unscathed by reputation issues facing their advisory counterparts during the market downturn, and therefore have not faced the same level of client distrust.

“Compared to advisory firms, direct firms are more advanced in their client portals as well as online and mobile client access. Direct clients are able to complete the majority of their requests and transactions online or over the phone themselves, which provides an advantage in maintaining a greater number of client accounts.”

Institutional investors account for 57% of equity ETF assets

Institutional investors dominated the equity exchange-traded fund (ETF) market in 2012, holding roughly one-half of total equity ETF assets, according to Strategic Insight’s new report, “ETF Trends by Channel and Investor Type.”

Within international equity ETFs, institutions accounting for an estimated 57% of total assets, while individual investors and their financial advisors own the rest. ETFs give investors quick exposure to liquidity in emerging wealth regions, said Dennis Bowden, Assistant Director of U.S. Research at Strategic Insight.

Within the core U.S. equity ETF space, institutional market segments accounted for an estimated 46% of ETF assets, but a larger share of aggregate activity in 2012. Institutional investors deposited an estimated net $33 billion into US equity ETF strategies during the year (led by $26 billion into S&P 500 Index ETFs). Demand for core U.S. equity ETFs within the retail space was estimated at about $10 billion.    

Retail investors dominated aggregate holdings in the bond ETF space, however, accounting for 70% of assets as of the end of 2012, with institutional investors owning 30% of bond ETF assets.

Overall, 58% of ETF assets were held in the retail marketplace at the end of 2012, compared with 42% held by institutional investors. The Private Bank channel held the largest ETF asset total at the end of 2012 with roughly $276 billion, and gained $46 billion in 2012 flows. The RIA channel followed with approximately $267 billion of aggregate ETF holdings and an estimated $28 billion in 2012 net inflows.

Strategic Insight based the research on the new intermediary-sold fund distribution data transparency contained in the Simfund Pro, 7.0 database, which encompasses asset and net flow information (updated monthly) for roughly $7 trillion of open-end stock and bond mutual fund and ETF assets across over 900 distributors and nine distribution channels.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Bucket

Strong start for MassMutual’s Retirement Services Division in 2013

MassMutual, which acquired The Hartford’s retirement plans business in 2012, announced that its Retirement Services Division’s sales in the first two months of 2013 were 25% ahead of plan.  

About 71% of the overall sales pipeline is with large broker-dealer firms, but sales through independent firms has increased, the company said. In the emerging markets (under $5 million in assets), 80% of new plans are coming through third-party administrators (TPAs).  

New York Life agents sold $1.6 billion worth of income annuities in 2012   

New York Life’s primary distribution channel of 12,250 agents in the U.S. posted a second consecutive year of record sales in 2012, the large mutual life insurer said in a release.

Individual recurring premium life insurance sales through agents were up 4% over 2011. Life insurance policies sold through agents also rose 4% in 2012, with 45% of the company’s new life insurance policies produced by agents serving the African-American, Chinese, Hispanic, Korean, South Asian, and Vietnamese markets in the U.S.

Agents also sold $4.7 billion of annuities of all types in 2012, a 9% increase from 2011. Sales of guaranteed lifetime income annuities through agents, including the new deferred income annuity, jumped 20% over 2011, reaching a record $1.6 billion.

Sales of mutual funds through agents rose 34% in 2012 over the prior year, to $807 million. The company’s investment boutiques in both income oriented and capital appreciation funds remain in high demand from customers.

Barron’s named New York Life’s MainStay funds the #1 fund family for the 10-year period in its annual ranking of mutual fund families. MainStay ranked in the top three for the 10-year period for the fourth consecutive year.

Fitch affirms stable outlook for Hartford

Fitch Ratings has affirmed all ratings for the Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (HFSG) and its primary life and property/casualty insurance subsidiaries. The Rating Outlook is Stable.  

Fitch’s rating action incorporates HFSG’s near-term capital management initiative, announced in February 2013, which reflects the company’s focus on its property/casualty, group benefits and mutual funds businesses.   

HFSG’s recent sale of its individual life business to Prudential Financial, Inc. and its retirement plans business to Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance generated a positive net statutory capital impact to Hartford life of approximately $2.2 billion. This is comprised of an increase in U.S. life statutory surplus and a reduction in the U.S. life risk-based capital requirements.

As a result, the company’s U.S. life subsidiaries paid approximately $1.5 billion to the holding company in the first quarter of 2013. This included a $1.2 billion extraordinary dividend from its Connecticut domiciled life insurance companies, primarily Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company (HLAIC).

The company also dissolved Champlain Life Reinsurance Co., a Vermont-based captive subsidiary of HFSG, and returned approximately $300 million of surplus to the holding company.

HFSG expects to use this capital for approximately $1.0 billion of debt repayments over the next year, including maturities in July 2013 ($320 million) and March 2014 ($200 million). This should help the company to reduce its financial leverage and improve its debt service, Fitch said.

HFSG also anticipates returning capital to shareholders through a $500 million multi-year share repurchase program that expires at Dec. 31, 2014.

Fitch expects HFSG to maintain a financial leverage ratio at or below 25% following the successful execution of the company’s capital management actions. HFSG’s financial leverage ratio (excluding accumulated other comprehensive income [AOCI] on fixed maturities) increased to 27.2% at Dec. 31, 2012 from 22.5% at Dec. 31, 2011, due to additional debt issued to redeem the company’s 10% junior subordinated debentures investment by Allianz SE.

HFSG’s operating earnings-based interest and preferred dividend coverage has been reduced in recent years, averaging a low 3.5x from 2008 to 2012. This reflects both constrained operating earnings and increased interest expense and preferred dividends paid on capital over this period.

The key rating triggers that could result in an upgrade to HFSG’s debt ratings include a financial leverage ratio maintained near 20%, maintenance of at least $1 billion of holding company cash, and interest and preferred dividend coverage of at least 6x.

The key rating triggers that could result in a downgrade include significant investment or operating losses that materially impact GAAP shareholders’ equity or statutory capital within the insurance subsidiaries, particularly as they relate to any major negative surprises in the runoff VA business; a financial leverage ratio maintained above 25%; a sizable drop in holding company cash; failure to improve interest and preferred dividend coverage; and an inability to execute on the company’s strategic plan.

Tom Johnson appointed senior advisor at Retirement Clearinghouse    

Retirement Clearinghouse, LLC has appointed E. Thomas Johnson Jr. as a senior advisor. Johnson “will promote RCH solutions that enable sponsors of 401(k) and other retirement plans to help employees when changing jobs,” the company said in a release.

Johnson has been an executive in the retirement savings and retirement income industries with Federated Investors, MassMutual Financial Group and, most recently, New York Life Insurance Co. 

“Tom, whose late father is known as the ‘godfather’ of the 401(k) for his role in creating the first 401(k) plan, will use his unique combination of experience, commitment and relationships to raise awareness of the challenges facing our retirement system and to elevate our brand in the marketplace,” said J. Spencer Williams, president and CEO of RCH.  

NPH announces record full-year results

National Planning Holdings, Inc., the large network of independent broker-dealers, reported record revenue of $837.2 million in 2012, up 6.3% over 2011. NPH’s total product sales rose almost 2% over the prior year to more than $16.6 billion, representing record volume for the firm.

NPH 2012 Results: Year-Over-Year Comparison

                                             FY 2012                                     FY 2011                                  % Change

Revenue                           $837,191,813                           $787,839,218                                    6.3%

Sales                            $16,629,239,440                        $16,314,874,804                                 1.9%

No. of Reps                              3,540                                         3,636                                        -2.6%

The NPH network consists of INVEST Financial Corporation (INVEST), Investment Centers of America, Inc. (ICA), National Planning Corporation (NPC), and SII Investments, Inc.

Protective announces new FIA  

Protective Life today announced the release of the Protective Indexed Annuity, a fixed indexed annuity with a range of withdrawal charge schedules and three interest crediting strategies. It also has available principal protection.

In addition to a fixed interest crediting strategy, the Protective Indexed Annuity offers two indexed interest crediting strategies, annual point-to-point and annual tiered rate. The latter credits an interest rate enhancement when index performance meets or exceeds a pre-determined performance tier.

The product also offers access to contract value for unforeseen circumstances, such as unemployment, terminal illness and nursing home confinement.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

 

 


Was That a Prohibited Transaction?

A thickset man in an open collar shirt, who advises a small-plan 401(k) sponsor, approached the microphone stand during the Q&A portion of a breakout session on ERISA litigation at the recent ASPPA/NAPA Summit at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas.

His question was this: Twenty years ago, he sold his client a retirement plan. The plan was worth $300,000 at the time, and his one percent annual fee yielded $3,000. He considered himself paid fairly for the hours he put in.   

Since then, the plan assets have swollen to $2 million, and his 1% now yields $20,000 a year. He feels a responsibility to tell the plan sponsor that it could buy the same services elsewhere for $5,000, but that would reveal the fact that he was being overpaid.

Should he inform the sponsor? he asked the panel on the dais, which included David Cohen of Evercore Trust, Michael Kozemchak of Institutional Investment Consulting and David Wolfe of Drinker, Biddle & Reath.  

“Well, it goes against human nature,” observed Wolfe. “But it makes sense.” Laughter burst from the audience, helping to relieve a perceptible buildup of tension in the room.

Such is the type of dilemma in which many professionals in the retirement plan industry find themselves since the Labor Department’s Employee Benefits Security Administration began crusading for greater fee transparency and higher fiduciary standards among providers.        

Several anecdotes in the spirit of the one related above could be heard at the ASPPA/NAPA conference. It didn’t take much digging to elicit ERISA war stories from attendees, who spoke on the assumption that their names wouldn’t appear in print.  

For instance, after the same breakout session, a somewhat distressed plan advisor from Tennessee approached one of the panelists and began telling a complex tale that had no obvious beginning, middle or end but was compelling nonetheless.

The young man had just begun advising a plan sponsor who several years ago had bought a group variable annuity from a registered rep associated with a major life insurance company. A few years later, the rep exchanged the annuity for a new contract, netting a $45,000 commission.

The plan sponsor wasn’t happy with the new contract, and asked the rep if the company could back out of it. The rep reported that a surrender charge would apply.

The new plan advisor and his client are both unhappy with the situation. Part of the problem is that neither the plan sponsor nor the advisor fully understands the exact costs or benefits of the contract.

They are under the impression that even the youngest participants are locked into a lifetime of fees for a lifetime income guarantee. They also don’t know whether or not the new contract was better than the old one, or if it might even be valuable enough to hang onto. (It was purchased before the financial crisis, when VA riders were rich.)

The point here is that neither the plan sponsor nor advisor knows what to do next.  

Here’s another tale, this one from a worried 401(k) broker. Like many of his brethren, he often used creativity to help close a deal. Given the new environment, he’s wondering if he may have transgressed in the past. 

For instance, he described a negotiation where he offered the plan sponsor certain discounts on services if the plan sponsor would let him run the plan’s money and some of the sponsor’s corporate money as well. Is that OK, he asked?

It depends, said Evercore Trust’s Cohen: “You can offer to manage the plan assets for less if the sponsor also hires you to manage the corporate assets for the regular price. But it doesn’t work the other way. You can’t offer to manage the corporate assets for less if the sponsor also hires you to manage the plan assets.”  

When brokering a 401(k) deal, which might involve a five-figure commission, intermediaries may overlook such subtleties, said one consultant who audits and advises broker-dealers on ERISA fiduciary matters. He trains brokers to recognize and avoid what ERISA regulations call “prohibited transactions.”

These are transactions that involve conflicts of interest and/or revenue-sharing arrangements that are indistinguishable from kickbacks, to use a quaint expression. Such arrangements can easily occur, for instance, in the provision of “bundled services” where there’s not always a clear and direct link between a fee and the service it covers.   

Does the typical broker have a voice inside his head, or a tiny angel who sits figuratively on his shoulder, that helps him distinguish between prohibited and fiduciary actions at such moments, the consultant was asked. No, the consultant said. Usually not.

Indeed, a broker-dealer whose reps have been mis-selling 401(k) plans for years may have hundreds of toxic contracts on its books, each of them tainted with actionable, prohibited transactions and each of them a fiduciary liability time bomb, the consultant suggested. (Under ERISA, there is a six-year and a three-year statute of limitations on such violations, depending on the situation, David Levine of Groom Law Group told RIJ. But a deal made 10 years ago, for instance, may still be questionable if a recurring payment was recently received under the terms of the deal, he said.)

It’s not all gloom and doom on the moral front, however, Most people in the 401(k) services business want to do the right thing, a woman who has worked in the retirement industry in a variety of capacities for 25 years told RIJ during a cab ride from Caesar’s Palace to McCarran Airport after the ASPPA/NAPA conference adjourned.

Many of them consciously avoid both the opportunity and the temptation to commit conflicted transactions simply by advising plans without selling products to them or selling products to them without advising them. But a few try to do both, and when deep in the weeds of a complex bundled deal they may forget that they’re working both sides of the street—and that they may be headed toward a prohibited transaction.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

401(k) Litigation: The ‘Next Asbestos’?

Short-sellers and the plaintiff’s bar have a lot in common. Short-sellers attack companies they consider over-valued. Plaintiff’s attorneys file class-action suits on contingency against firms they think are committing fraud. Both can win big or lose big. Both are widely hated.

Enter Jerry Schlichter, a plaintiff’s attorney whose St. Louis worker injury law firm Schlichter Bogard & Denton last year won a judgment in federal district court against technology firm ABB and its 401(k) provider, Fidelity Management Trust.

In a March 2012 ruling that has roiled the retirement world, the court awarded plan participants at ABB $36.9 million, plus court costs and legal fees of $50 million. It was a big victory for Schlichter, who since 2006 has filed a raft of lawsuits over allegedly excessive fees charged to employees for their 401(k) plans.

Although Schlichter (at right) and other attorneys have also lost their share of excessive fee class action suits, the ABB verdict, now on appeal in the 8th Circuit, as well as hefty settlements with Caterpillar and General Dynamics, is nonetheless a shot across the bow of the 401(k) industry.

Jerry SchlichterIt warns plan sponsors large and small that they need to analyze the plans they offer their employees better and to accept their ERISA-mandated fiduciary responsibility to provide retirement plans with reasonable recordkeeping, administrative and investment fees.

Throughout the retirement industry, people are talking about the implications of Tussey et al v. ABB. Some fear it will trigger a tsunami of similar cases, creating the kind of legal boondoggle that asbestos and tobacco liability cases once provided. Others say it is headed for the US Supreme Court. Either way, it’s widely acknowledged that a new era of fee transparency, fee competition and fee compression has arrived. 

The long-term cost of fees

Why all the fuss about fees? Small differences in such fees, compounded over a lifetime, can obviously make a huge difference in the amount of savings a worker has at retirement. The Department of Labor estimates that each additional 1% in fees reduces retirement assets by 28% over 25 years.

The DoL offers this hypothetical: Imagine two young workers with 35 years until retirement each of whom puts $25,000 into a retirement fund averaging a 7% return. One worker’s plan charges a management fee of 0.5% while the other’s plan charges 1.5%. At retirement, the nest egg of the worker with the low-fee plan is $227,000. The other worker accumulates only $163,000.

These fee levels are not unusual. A BrightScope survey of 401(k) plans with assets over $1 billion found that the average expense ratio for the 30 largest plans was just 0.29%. The typical fee for plans with assets of less than $10 million was 1.45%.

As those numbers suggest, large plans with economies tend to have the lowest, but not always. For years, through so-called revenue sharing, some plan providers routinely used over-sized investment fees to cover the costs of other plan services, sometimes including specialized services—such as non-qualified plans for senior management—that most participants helped pay for but did not receive.  

When the DoL’s new disclosure rules, 408(b)(2) and 404(a)(5), went into effect last summer, many such arrangements began coming to light. Under ERISA, plan sponsors have long had a strong fiduciary obligation to assure that the plans they offer to their workers have “reasonable” fees, but the new rules have made it possible, finally, for employees to know whether that was actually happening.

Another ‘asbestos’ or ‘tobacco’?

Rules are just rules unless they are enforced, but landmark legal cases get people’s attention. Last summer’s ruling for the plaintiffs in Tussey et al v. ABB has been called “a game changer” in the retirement world. The size of the judgment and the prominence of the plan provider in the case were impossible to ignore.

In that case, Missouri Federal District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey ruled that employer ABB owed its employees a total of $35.2 million for failure to monitor recordkeeping fees charged by Fidelity and failing to negotiate rebates, as well as for shifting over participants in the plan’s Vanguard Wellington fund to the proprietary Fidelity’s Freedom Fund.

The judge also told Fidelity to reimburse employees for $1.7 million in lost float income, with the judge saying the investment firm had “used float income for its own benefit when it used interest earned from plan assets to pay for bank expenses that should have been borne by Fidelity.”

Plaintiffs’ attorneys were also awarded $50 million in court costs. Fidelity and ABB have appealed. Fidelity is appealing the separate judgment against it, which a company spokesperson characterized as a “technical violation.”

With courts in different circuits coming down differently in the complaints against 401(k) plans, it seems likely that the US Supreme Court will eventually have to consider the complex issue of employer and plan provider fiduciary responsibility and disclosure requirements for 401(k) fees.

 “A lot will depend upon which cases the Supreme Court decides to take on,” Marcia Wagner of Wagner Law Group in Boston told RIJ. “If it wants to rule in favor of fee disclosure and of upholding fiduciary responsibility, they’ll choose a case where the fiduciaries really screwed up. But this court tends to be a bit conservative, so it’s a crap shoot what they’ll do.”

If the high court waits a bit to weigh into this issue, it could have many more cases to choose from. Indeed, the plan providers’ worst fear is that Tussey et al v. ABB could trigger a wave of class action lawsuits that will be as big as the wave of asbestos litigation that started in the 1970s or the wave of tobacco litigation that followed.

“The vast majority of 401(k) funds are at risk of lawsuits over excessive fees,” said James Holland, director of business development at Millennium Investment and Retirement Advisors, a fiduciary consultancy in Charlotte, NC.

“Why? Responsible plan fiduciaries have traditionally outsourced plan management to brokers who are perceived as experts and who may be knowledgeable. However, they are not fiduciaries. They are distributors, so their ‘advice’ is product-driven. Because the costs are built into the products they recommend and are asset-based, there is an inherent conflict of interest. Thus there’s the absolute assurance that fees will sooner or later become excessive.”

[Editor’s note: A dozen attorneys from six different law firms are participating in a February 5 suit filed against Fidelity on behalf of participants of 401(k) plans at Avanade Inc., Hewlett-Packard and Delta Airlines. The suit charged Fidelity Management Trust and others with fiduciary self-dealing under ERISA in the handling of the plans’ float income. A similar suit was filed this month on behalf of the participants of 401(k) plans at Bank of America, EMC Corp., and Safety Insurance Co.]

Fee compression

But the nation’s highest court may not need to weigh in on the issue of reasonable 401(k) fees. Because of the new transparency rules, the die may already have been cast, many experts say. (The DoL itself has yet to sue a plan sponsor or plan provider for charging unreasonable fees. The agency has left that job to private attorneys like Schlichter. The DoL has filed amicus briefs in a number of these cases, however).

“There’s going to be a lot of pressure to ratchet down the fees charged for 401(k) plans going forward,” said Dan Notto, senior vice president and senior retirement plan counsel at Alliance Bernstein. “The class action suits have opened the eyes of a lot of big employers. They’re saying, ‘We’re going to have to do something to lower these fees.’ That pressure will continue whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides.” The RIAs who run money for 401(k) plans will be equally affected, he added.

Plan sponsors should simply offer employees index funds instead of actively-managed funds, attorney Schlichter suggests. “You have all these Nobel Prize winners saying that, over time, active management can’t beat the market, yet companies keep putting actively-managed plans with high fees in their 401(k)s,” he told RIJ. But he doesn’t rely on that argument in court. Faith in fund manager expertise is so widespread, he said, “No judge in America would buy it.”

Notto doesn’t expect plan sponsors to make a wholesale shift from active funds to low-fee index funds. Noting that his own company offers actively-managed funds and believes in their merits, he said, “I don’t think plan sponsors will just throw up their hands and go to index funds. The big funds that have experts may still try to retain actively-managed investments. But the active managers will have to prove that they are earning their fees.”

Wagner agrees. “I think plan providers can still justify higher fees, but they will have to justify them. And fee-sharing is going to be sharply reduced.” She expects fees to decline overall. “You’re going to see massive margin compression as competition pushes all fees downward. Why? Competitors will know what other firms are charging, so people will undercut each other. It will be like the airlines in the ’80s when they were deregulated. The minimum fee will get a lot more minimum, so the industry will have to figure out how to provide services that people will still want to buy,” she told RIJ.

Devil incarnate?

David Witz, managing director of Fiduciary Risk Assessment, a Charlotte-based consulting firm, said that the ball is now in the court of the plan sponsors. “The service providers are now providing sponsors with the required fee disclosures. Now the burden is on plan sponsors to compare disclosures to the regulations and secure the exemptions that the regulations provide.”

The problem, he said, is that far too few plan sponsors have enough in-house expertise to evaluate the disclosures. “And so far, unfortunately, most of them are not retaining the right expertise to do it.”

While many of the larger employers “are assuming that their corporate counsel has everything under control,” Witz thinks otherwise. So does Heath A. Miller of the Boston ERISA law firm Shepherd Kaplan LLC.

“Plan sponsors can’t use corporate counsel alone. They need to hire a plan counsel,” he said. “It’s not just a matter of expertise. Corporate counsel can have a conflict of interest in dealing with matters involving a 401(k) plan.”

In defending themselves against 401(k) fee litigation, plan sponsors can’t simply argue that their fees are low in comparison to some benchmark or to another sponsor’s fees, said Witz, who was an expert plaintiff’s witness in Tussey et al v. ABB.

“The courts aren’t going to get put into the position of deciding whether a fee is high or low,” he said in an interview. “They’re looking at process. Judges want to know what process the sponsor used in evaluating a provider’s fees. Fiduciaries will be given the benefit of the doubt if they use a reasonable procedure to evaluate the fees.”

To some degree, the 401(k) fee controversy brings to mind the adage, “Be careful what you wish for.” Defined contribution plans were supposed to be a lighter burden for employers than defined benefit plans. But employers are finding that they do bear serious responsibilities as sponsors of DC plans, including the responsibility to demonstrate that plan fees are reasonable. Plan providers, meanwhile, are seeing unprecedented pressure on their profits.

Attorney Jerry Schlichter deserves some of the credit—or blame, depending on your point of view—for altering the paradigm. “There are many fine attorneys who work in the law,” Witz said, “but very few who actually change the law. Schlichter is one of those—and that’s high praise for a guy who some in the industry have called the devil incarnate.”

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Opposite of Austerity

With much of the global economy apparently trapped in a long and painful austerity-induced slump, it is time to admit that the trap is entirely of our own making. We have constructed it from unfortunate habits of thought about how to handle spiraling public debt.

People developed these habits on the basis of the experiences of their families and friends: when in debt trouble, one must cut spending and pass through a period of austerity until the burden (debt relative to income) is reduced. That means no meals out for a while, no new cars, and no new clothes. It seems like common sense – even moral virtue – to respond this way.

But, while that approach to debt works well for a single household in trouble, it does not work well for an entire economy, for the spending cuts only worsen the problem. This is the paradox of thrift: belt-tightening causes people to lose their jobs, because other people are not buying what they produce, so their debt burden rises rather than falls.

There is a way out of this trap, but only if we tilt the discussion about how to lower the debt/GDP ratio away from austerity – higher taxes and lower spending – toward debt-friendly stimulus: increasing taxes even more and raising government expenditure in the same proportion. That way, the debt/GDP ratio declines because the denominator (economic output) increases, not because the numerator (the total the government has borrowed) declines.

This kind of enlightened stimulus runs into strong prejudices. For starters, people tend to think of taxes as a loathsome infringement on their freedom, as if petty bureaucrats will inevitably squander the increased revenue on useless and ineffective government employees and programs. But the additional work done does not necessarily involve only government employees, and citizens can have some voice in how the expenditure is directed.

People also believe that tax increases cannot realistically be purely temporary expedients in an economic crisis, and that they must be regarded as an opening wedge that should be avoided at all costs. History shows, however, that tax increases, if expressly designated as temporary, are indeed reversed later. That is what happens after major wars, for example.

We need to consider such issues in trying to understand why, for example, Italian voters last month rejected the sober economist Mario Monti, who forced austerity on them, notably by raising property taxes. Italians are in the habit of thinking that tax increases necessarily go only to paying off rich investors, rather than to paying for government services like better roads and schools.

Keynesian stimulus policy is habitually described as deficit spending, not tax-financed spending. Stimulus by tax cuts might almost seem to be built on deception, for its effect on consumption and investment expenditure seems to require individuals to forget that they will be taxed later for public spending today, when the government repays the debt with interest. If individuals were rational and well informed, they might conclude that they should not spend more, despite tax cuts, since the cuts are not real.

We do not need to rely on such tricks to stimulate the economy and reduce the ratio of debt to income. The fundamental economic problem that currently troubles much of the world is insufficient demand. Businesses are not investing enough in new plants and equipment, or adding jobs, largely because people are not spending enough – or are not expected to spend enough in the future – to keep the economy going at full tilt.

Debt-friendly stimulus might be regarded as nothing more than a collective decision by all of us to spend more to jump-start the economy. It has nothing to do with taking on debt or tricking people about future taxes. If left to individual decisions, people would not spend more on consumption, but maybe we can vote for a government that will compel us all to do that collectively, thereby creating enough demand to put the economy on an even keel in short order.

Simply put, Keynesian stimulus does not necessarily entail more government debt, as popular discourse seems continually to assume. Rather, stimulus is about collective decisions to get aggregate spending back on track. Because it is a collective decision, the spending naturally involves different kinds of consumption than we would make individually – say, better highways, rather than more dinners out. But that should be okay, especially if we all have jobs.

Balanced-budget stimulus was first advocated in the early 1940’s by William Salant, an economist in President Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, and by Paul Samuelson, then a young economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. They argued that, because any government stimulus implies higher taxes sooner or later, the increase might as well come immediately. For the average person, the higher taxes do not mean lower after-tax income, because the stimulus will have the immediate effect of raising incomes. And no one is deceived.

Many believe that balanced-budget stimulus – tax increases at a time of economic distress – is politically impossible. After all, French President François Hollande retreated under immense political pressure from his campaign promises to implement debt-friendly stimulus. But, given the shortage of good alternatives, we must not assume that bad habits of thought can never be broken, and we should keep the possibility of more enlightened policy constantly in mind.

Some form of debt-friendly stimulus might ultimately appeal to voters if they could be convinced that raising taxes does not necessarily mean hardship or increased centralization of decision-making. If and when people understand that it means the same average level of take-home pay after taxes, plus the benefits of more jobs and of the products of additional government expenditure (such as new highways), they may well wonder why they ever tried stimulus any other way.

© 2013 Project Syndicate.

America needs, but isn’t getting, more female advisors: Pershing

Although women now make up nearly two-thirds of the U.S. workforce, only about 30% of investment advisors are women and the numbers are dropping, according to a new study from Pershing LLC, a unit of BNY Mellon.

According to The 30% Solution: Growing Your Business by Winning and Keeping Women Advisors, several factors account for the decrease in women advisors:

  • More than a third of advisors today are less than 10 years from retirement.  
  • Women advisors earn just 58% of what their male peers earn, a gap that can cost women an average of $1.25 million each over a 35-year career, according to the Department of Labor.
  • More than half of respondents at Fortune 500 companies said that developing women executives was not on their agenda, according to a University of North Carolina Business School study.

According to the study, female investors are significantly more likely to engage advisors than men (46% vs. 34%). Additionally, nearly two-thirds of female millionaire investors and 82% of female ultra-high-net-worth investors prefer working with an advisor.  

A copy of the study is available at http://www.pershing.com.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

To use more liquid alternatives, advisors need support

Manufacturers and distributors of liquid alternative investments will need to provide more sales support to advisors if they want to expand the use of those investments beyond a “small group of heavy users.”

So says a new report from Practical Perspectives, an independent consulting and research firm that works with wealth management providers and distributors.

The report, “Financial Advisors and Liquid Alternatives 2013 – Insights and Opportunities,” examines the types of advisors who use liquid alternatives and what they look for when selecting alternatives.

The analysis reviews how advisors use mutual funds, ETFs, and variable annuity sub-accounts across a variety of alternative strategies, including:

  • Real estate
  • Commodities/natural resources
  • Managed futures
  • Multi-strategy
  • Global macro
  • Absolute return
  • Long short
  • Market neutral
  • Hedged equity
  • Managed volatility
  • Currency
  • Private equity strategies

According to the report’s authors, most advisors who use alternatives prefer liquid alternatives to enhance portfolio diversification and to manage portfolio volatility and risk. While many advisors use alternatives are used by many advisors, some use them much more than others.

“Only a small number of advisors have significant assets in liquid alternatives, with many others needing enhanced sales support for these products and strategies. It’s critical for product providers and distributors to understand how advisor use of liquid alternatives is evolving and to focus resources on helping advisors apply these solutions for clients,” said Howard Schneider, president of Practical Perspectives co-author of the report, in a release.

The analysis was based on some 330 online surveys conducted in January 2013 with financial advisors and representatives, as well as interviews with advisors and industry executives. Full service brokers, independent brokers, financial planners, Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs), and bank/insurance representatives were interviewed.

Other highlights of the report include:

  • More than 90% of advisors who use alternatives rely on liquid alternatives, but most advisors have less than $10 million in total assets across liquid alternative strategies.
  • Real estate and commodities/natural resources are the most popular alternatives among advisors, but at least seven other alternative strategies including multi-strategy, global macro, and absolute return are used by more than 60% of advisors.
  • Advisors prefer to access liquid alternative strategies through mutual funds, although many also use ETFs or variable annuity sub-accounts.
  • Only a few product providers can claim significant user “mindshare” among advisors.

Many advisors express limited satisfaction with the performance of alternative investments in 2012, but most believe that alternative asset classes are important in constructing portfolios. The detailed report includes 47 exhibits and is available for purchase by contacting [email protected]

© RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Demand for stable value funds is stable: MetLife

Most (86%) plan sponsors have offered stable value as an investment option in their defined contribution (DC) plans for more than two years, and about 78% don’t plan to make changes to their stable value offerings within the next year, according to MetLife’s just-released 2013 Stable Value Study.

Among plan sponsors that added stable value funds within the past two years, 47% said they did so to provide participants with a “capital preservation fund,” 37% said stable value “offers higher interest rates than other comparable investments” and 37% said it was recommended by their recordkeeper/TPA.

MetLife commissioned this study of 140 plan sponsors and 19 stable value fund providers to gain updated insights into the current landscape of stable value products since its inaugural study, released in 2010. The new study can be found at www.metlife.com/stablevaluestudy.

Among the study’s findings:

  • About half of all DC plans offer a stable value fund as an investment option. Estimates of the percentage of DC assets allocated to stable value range from 17% to 37%. At least $540 billion associated with Stable Value Investment Association (SVIA) member companies is allocated to stable value funds.
  • Among plan sponsors that offer stable value as an investment option in a 401(k) or 457 plan, 48% say that their stable value option is backed in part by traditional Guaranteed Investment Contracts (GICs); 31% say they include separate account GICs and 19% have synthetic GICs.
  • The largest plans (10,000 or more participants) are likelier than small plans (100 to 999 participants) to say their offering is backed in part by a synthetic GIC (45% vs. 12%). About 75% of stable value fund providers said their offerings included more than one investment type.
  • More than one in five plan sponsors (22%) that offer stable value funds to their participants did not know what types of stable value contracts back their offering. The low percentage of smaller plans identifying synthetics as elements of their stable value option suggests they may not be aware that pooled stable value funds often incorporate all three types of contracts. This finding is consistent with the results of MetLife’s 2010 Stable Value Study.  
  • When accessing stable value funds, 62% of plan sponsors say they predominantly access or arrange their stable value offerings through a recordkeeper or full-service provider; an additional 13% of plans access stable value funds through a TPA.
  • Only 5% of plan sponsors access stable value through a pooled fund offered by an investment-only stable value manager, and just 4% use a qualified professional asset manager (QPAM) to access their stable value offerings.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Annuity inflows increase in January: DTCC

The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) Insurance & Retirement Services (I&RS) has released a report on activity and trends in the annuity products market for January. The data is available through DTCC’s online Analytic Reporting for Annuities information service.

Annuity inflows processed by I&RS in January increased by 7.4%, to $7.1 billion, from $6.6 billion in December. Inflows were up almost 15% compared to January 2012.  Other data showed that:

  • Out flows, at $6.8 billion, changed insignificantly from December.
  • Net flows increased by almost $466 million in January, from negative $140 million in December, to more than $325 million.
  • IRA accounts attracted 47% of all inflows in January, while non-qualified accounts attracted 41% of inflows.
  • Factoring out flows into the equation, non-qualified accounts experienced negative net cash flows of more than $546 million in January compared to IRA accounts, which had positive net cash flows of more than $884 million for the month.
  • Five large states accounted for over one third of all annuity flows in January: California ($565 million), Florida ($434 million), New York ($408 million), Texas ($386 million), and Pennsylvania ($305 million).
  • Five large metropolitan areas accounted for over 18% of all annuity flows in January: New York, including N. New Jersey and Long Island ($434 million), Los Angeles, including Long Beach and Santa Ana ($213 million), Chicago, including Naperville and Joliet ($166 million), Philadelphia, including Camden, NJ and Wilmington, DE ($154 million), and Detroit, including Warren and Livonia ($153 million).

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

HNW investors more bullish on equities this year: Fidelity

A survey of Fidelity customers with at least $250,000 in investable assets was taken during the “Fidelity Viewpoints: Inside/Out” event in Atlanta on March 5. The poll found:

  • Return expectations. High net worth investors (HNW) feel bullish about 2013, with 38% expecting to beat market averages (up from 31% a year ago) and only 15% expecting to lag the market (down from 22% a year ago).   
  • Moving to equities. 49% of HNW investors expect to increase their equity positions in 2013, by an average of 8% each, and 39% expect no change. Only 11% intend to trim their equity allocation.
  • U.S. equities favored. 65% of HNW investors chose U.S. equities as the asset class in which they expect to invest the most over the next year; 9% chose foreign equities and 6% corporate bonds.  
  • Mid and large caps favored. 40% of HNW investors believe that mid cap equities offer the greatest potential upside in the coming year, followed by large cap equities (39%) and small cap equities (21%).
  • Sector leaders. Investors’ favorite sector is health care (17%), followed by energy (15%) and information technology (13%).
  • Tax concerns. Potential income tax increases trouble 34% of respondents, followed by capital gains tax increases (25%).
  • Inflation hedges. 76% of HNW investors worry about inflation; 35% favor fighting inflation with equities and 12% with higher-yielding bonds. 

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

 

Fed’s Bubbles to Slaughter Middle Class

When central bankers dedicate their existence to re-inflating asset bubbles, it shouldn’t at all be a surprise to investors that they eventually achieve success. Ben Bernanke has aggressively attempted to prop up the real estate and equity markets since 2008. His efforts to increase the broader money supply and create inflation have finally supported home prices, sent the Dow Jones Industrial average to a record nominal high and propelled the bond bubble to dizzying heights.

The price of any commodity is highly influential towards its consumption. This concept is no different when applied to money and its borrowing costs. Therefore, one of the most important factors in determining money supply growth is the level of interest rates. The Federal Reserve artificially pushed the cost of money down to 1% during the time frame of June 2003 thru June 2004. It is vitally important to note that these low interest rates were not due to a savings glut; but were rather created by central bank purchases of assets. This low cost of borrowed funds affected consumers’ behavior towards debt and was the primary reason for the massive real estate bubble.

Today, the Fed Funds rate has been pushed even lower than it was in the early 2000’s. In addition, unlike a decade ago when the Fed held the overnight lending rate at 1% for “just” one year, the central bank is in the process of pegging short-term rates at near zero percent for what will amount to be at least seven years. However, this time the primary borrower of the central bank’s cheap money isn’t consumers as much as it is the Federal government. Mr. Bernanke has already increased the monetary base by over $2 trillion since the Great Recession began in late 2007, which has helped cause the M2 money supply to grow by $3 trillion–an increase of 40%!

Therefore, it isn’t such a mystery as to why there are now partying down on Wall Street like it is 1999; and we are once again amused with anecdotes of real estate buyers making millions flipping homes.

But all this money printing has not, nor will it ever, restore the economy to long-term prosperity. Despite the Fed’s efforts to spur the economy, GDP growth increased just 1.5% during all of 2012 and grew at an annual rate of just 0.1% during Q4 of last year. The future doesn’t bode much better. This year consumers have to deal with higher taxes, rising interest rates and record high gas prices for March. Don’t look for exports to rescue the economy either. Eurozone PMIs are firmly in contraction territory and Communist China is busy dictating the growth rate of the economy by building more empty cities—clearly an unsustainable and dangerous economic plan.

This means that the Federal Reserve will keep interest rates at record lows for significantly longer than the time it took to construct any of its previous bubbles. Also, the central bank will take years to reduce its $85 billion per month pace of monetary base expansion back to neutrality. Meanwhile, surging money growth will continue to force more air into the stock, real estate and bond markets for several years to come.

The ramifications for investors and the economy will be profound. Not only will the economy move gradually toward a pronounced condition of stagflation, but, more importantly, the bubbles being created by the Fed will be far greater and more devastating than any other in history. Equity and real estate prices are already stretched far beyond what their underlying fundamentals can support. But they are nothing compared with the distorted valuations being applied to U.S. sovereign debt. The bursting of the bond bubble will be exponential worse than the deflation brought on by the NASDAQ and real estate debacles. It is sad to conclude that the middle class is set up to get slaughtered even worse than they did when the previous two bubbles burst.

The economy is heading for unprecedented volatility between rampant inflation and deflation courtesy of Ben Bernanke’s sponsorship of the $7 trillion increase in new Federal debt since 2008. Investors need to plan now while they still have time before the economic chaos begins.

Michael Pento is president and founder of Pento Portfolio Strategies.

© 2013 Michael Pento.

Montana Tax Strikers and Me

When I was a cub reporter covering the U.S. District Court in Billings, Montana, I encountered a cabal of men from Whitefish—a small town near Glacier Park in the northwest corner of the state—who called themselves Tax Strikers.

These strict Constitutionalists, vaguely associated with the home-grown militias that were popular at that time, had mailed an open letter to the federal judge—a rangy, stern, red-haired former Republican Congressman—in which they declared the illegality of the income tax and their intention not to pay it.   

In Montana at that time, such eccentrics lived under almost every rock and tree. The sprawling, majestic state was an unofficial asylum for non-conformists from the crowded East. With all that open space, their anti-social tendencies easily went unnoticed.

The Unabomber, for example, once lived in a cabin near Lincoln, Montana.

So, when the Tax Strikers issued their manifesto, the effect was as momentous as the fall of a Ponderosa pine in a National Forest with no one around to hear. The federal judge ignored it. He ignored a follow-up letter and a third one as well. 

Out of frustration at their inability to provoke a response, the would-be revolutionaries turned desperate. They threatened to take a mailman hostage. The court reluctantly stirred. One of the assistant U.S. Attorneys wrote up a complaint. A U.S. marshal drove to Whitefish to serve a summons.

While writing a check last week for my 2012 federal income taxes, I couldn’t help remembering those militant Tax Strikers from Whitefish. Unlike them, I am not bitter about the income tax. I’ve made my peace with it. Here’s why.

I’ve accepted the idea that the main purpose of the federal income tax is to control inflation. Federal tax—but not state or local tax—extinguishes money that would otherwise stay in circulation and drive up prices. 

Wait—there’s a method to my madness. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it seems, spending comes before taxes, not the other way around. I’ve learned this from reading American history.

Before, during and after the Revolution, a variety of governmental bodies spent paper currency into existence. Recognizing the inflationary potential for such a policy, they arrangd to pull some of money back out of circulation each year by levying taxes that were payable in that currency.

Here’s one revealing anecdote. In 1766, the late treasurer of colonial Virginia, John Robinson, was found to have taken paper money tax receipts that he was officially required to burn and instead permanently “loaned” the cash to his friends among Virginia’s elite. The ensuing scandal briefly threatened to undermine the legitimacy of the colonists’ protests against England’s hated Stamp Act.[i]

Here’s another, more famous example. To fight the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress issued a lot of bonds and paper money to pay for supplies and salaries. After the war, the government had to find a tax revenue stream in order to redeem the bonds. It did. It wrested the right to tax imports and exports away from the states. 

Many people were unhappy with that arrangement, even though the new national government assumed the states’ war debts. But Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. treasurer, had the epiphany that the central government would be helpless if it had to beg for revenue every time it needed money to pay for the things Congress had already voted to pay for.[ii]

What difference does it make if spending precedes taxes, or vice-versa? Either way, when the government spends more, it has to tax more, right? That’s true. But the sequence makes a big difference. If spending comes first, the government has lots of muscle, and the main purposes of federal taxes are to keep inflation down and to reassure bondholders.

If taxes came first, the government would perpetually be at the mercy of anti-tax activists, which was the case before Hamilton came along. (And is the case today, to some extent; witness the Fiscal Cliff and the Debt Ceiling crises.) Call me crazy, but I take comfort in the belief that my taxes help reduce inflation and reinforce the value of the dollar. It makes paying them less painful. 

Here’s another way to look at: If Uncle Sam really needed to squeeze income taxes out of us in order to guarantee an uninterrupted flow of checks to military contractors, Social Security recipients, and featherbedding bureaucrats throughout the land, we would surely find ourselves facing a more aggressive Internal Revenue Service and harsher penalties for tax evasion.

And more aggressive judges. The U.S. District judge in Billings could afford to humor the Whitefish Tax Strikers, at least temporarily, in part because he knew that the country didn’t really need their income taxes. As for the Tax Strikers, they eventually appeared in federal court, looking surprisingly sheepish. I’m not sure what happened to them after that. Maybe they became survivalists.    

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.


[i] Einhorn, Robin L. American Taxation, American Slavery: Chicago, 2006.

[ii] Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton: Penguin, 2004. 

Stable Value Funds: Performance to Date – Part II

In Part I of our performance review of stable value investment funds (SVIF), we utilized mean-variance analysis in forming optimal asset allocations for six asset classes, including long-term government bonds, long-term corporate bonds, intermediate-term government/credit notes, large stocks, small stocks, and money markets.

We found that when SVIF were added to the mix, the efficient frontier was significantly improved, and that several asset classes were no longer included in any of the portfolios along the efficient frontier. We also used the Sharpe Ratio and the Sortino Ratio to compare the reward-to-risk ratios of the various asset classes, and found that SVIF scored the highest among all asset classes, and by a substantial margin.

Although widely used, the mean-variance framework and the performance ratios associated with it have serious limitations. Strictly speaking, their use is justified under conditions that are not even closely met in the real world.

Over the past 50 years, volumes have been written in the economic and financial literature on modifications to the mean-variance model, either based on different assumed utility shapes or on more realistic assumptions on return distributions, in an effort to address the deficiencies of the approach while retaining some of its attractive attributes.[1]

Stochastic dominance analysis

A powerful technique was developed in the 1970s to remedy the problems of mean-variance approaches. It is known as Stochastic Dominance (SD), and its validity depends on no particular asset return distribution nor any particular utility function.[2]

Stochastic Dominance comes in various degrees. First-degree stochastic dominance (FSD) imposes only one preference restriction—in­vestors prefer more wealth to less wealth. If an asset class exhibits first-degree dominance over another asset class, it should be preferred by all investors, regardless of whether they are risk seekers, risk neutral, or risk averse, in any degree.

If an asset class exhibits second-degree dominance (SSD) over another asset class, it should be preferred by all who are risk-averse, in any degree. However, investors who are risk seekers or risk neutral may or may not prefer it.

Third-degree dominance (TSD) is for investors who prefer positive skewness of asset returns, and fourth-degree (4SD) takes into account the aversion most investors have for extreme return distributions, where positive and negative outcomes are just as likely.

The table below presents the SD results among the seven asset classes in our study, based solely on historical returns. Only the SVIF historical returns distribution dominates two asset classes in the stochastic dominance sense up to the fourth degree; none of the other asset classes dominates SVIF.

Stochastic Dominance of SVIF


We see that SVIF stochastically dominated money market investments by the first-degree and by any higher degree as well. Con­sequently, any investor who preferred more wealth to less wealth should have avoided investing in money market funds when SV funds were available, irrespective of risk pref­erences.

However, over the longer time period beginning in 1973, SVIF did not dominate money market investments by the first-degree, yet they did dominate by second-degree and higher. This suggests that for investors with any degree of risk aversion, however slight or strong, SVIF should be preferred to money market investments.

Although SVIF failed to dominate intermediate-term government/credit notes by the first degree, they dominated by the second and higher degrees. This result is a direct consequence of the fact that positive intermediate-term bond returns during the period of our study were never large enough, relative to cor­responding SVIF returns, to make at least some risk-averse investors prefer the riskier in­termediate-term bond investment. When our time period of analysis was extended to 1973, the same dominance was maintained.

These results are remarkable. Not surprisingly, there is no stochastic dominance of any one traditional class over another; indeed dominance is rarely encoun­tered among asset classes. Accordingly, it was surprising to find that SVIF dominated two of the major traditional investment classes.

Multi-period optimization analysis

Multi-period investment theory was developed decades ago in response to the drawbacks of single-period models such as the CAPM and others. Contributors to the theory and developers of investment models based on it included such luminaries as Paul Samuelson (MIT), Nils Hakansson and Hayne Leland (Berkeley), Steve Ross (Yale) and Gur Huberman (Columbia), among others.

Here we provide only an intuitive sense of its underpinnings and insights. Multi-period investment theory has been dubbed the Turnpike Theorem, and for a good reason. Consider the fastest way to drive from point A to point B, located a few miles distant. Generally, the most direct way along local roads is the quickest if the distance is short (assuming that a turnpike does not already connect the two points).

However, if point B is a long way from point A, say 20 or more miles, it might be faster to travel out of your way to connect to a turnpike or freeway, exit as close as possible to point B, and travel the rest of the way on local roads. This turnpike alternative generally becomes more and more attractive as the distance between point A and point B increases, and is almost certainly the preferred path to follow (if speed of arrival is of primary importance) when the distance exceeds a hundred or so miles.

Similarly, in multi-period investment theory, if one’s investment decisions are guided by a single-period optimization model such as the CAPM, among many others, the resulting wealth accumulation in the long run is very likely to be significantly lower than if one were to follow a dynamic investment model.

Dynamic models based on the theory are designed to maximize the investor’s expected utility of wealth where risk is measured by the degree of utility diminishment incurred from investing in risky assets. The economists referenced above uncovered a particular class of power utility functions that is consistent with maximizing long-term wealth for any level of risk aversion. Portfolios based upon such utility functions are known as turnpike portfolios.

One of the nicest features of such long-term investment models is that they are consistent with myopic behavior. In other words, if you invest this period according to the model, your behavior will be consistent with investing in a way that maximizes long-term wealth. However, if you follow investment models based on maximizing alternative utility of wealth functions or otherwise, you will do worse.

In this review we won’t rehearse the considerable safeguards we underwent in designing and implementing the dynamic model to assess asset performance.[3] Instead, we will simply present some representative results from which asset performance can be evaluated.

We derive the optimal asset allocations for each quarter based on the quarterly returns joint distribution across all asset classes considered from the prior 80 quarters. This length of time is sufficient to incorporate two or more business cycles, providing robust estimates. We use the full joint empirical return distri­bution of alternative investments in order to determine optimal wealth allocations that depend on the risk aversion parameter of the investor.

All moments of the joint distribution (e.g., mean, variance, skewness, kurtosis, etc.) are taken into account. The expected returns for the next quarter are derived from market data, but in the case of equities, the risk premium is an input reflecting the investor’s expectations. From this joint distribution, we apply the turnpike utility function to derive those asset allocations consistent with long-run maximization of utility of wealth.

Two fairly typical sets of outcomes are presented below. Each optimal asset allocation will depend on the investor’s level of risk aversion, ranging from 1 to 75 (logarithmic, or only slightly averse, to extremely risk intolerant), and across a variety of assumed annual equity risk premia on large stocks ranging from 2.5% to 5.5%.

Consistent with past research, we consider a risk index of 5 to be fairly moderate, although recent research suggests that the average risk aversion in the population is considerably higher, ranging from 20 to 45.

The figure below, for the first quarter of 2010, reveals that, with the exception of a very small proportion of long-term government bonds for moderate risk aversion levels when the large stocks premium is 5.5% per year, only small stocks and SVIF are relevant in the optimal portfolios, irrespective of the level of risk aversion.

As expected, SVIF represent a larger fraction of the optimal portfolio as risk aversion increases. Also as expected, a larger equity premium in­creases the proportion of small stocks in the optimal portfolio for any given risk aversion level.

Optimal Portfolio Weights

Next we show optimal portfolios for the third quarter of 2008, again using data for the 80 quarters that precede it. The figure below shows the optimal portfolio weights for selected values of the risk parameter, and selected large stocks expected annual risk premiums.

Optimal Portfolio Weights 2

Even though expected returns across all asset classes were significantly different from those used in calculating the 2010 optimal weights, we observe roughly similar optimal allocations, with small stocks and SVIF being the only significant investment classes, except for a small fraction of long-term govern­ment bonds at higher large stocks premiums.

This pattern of optimal portfolios being comprised largely of SV and small stocks is not that uncommon, it turns out, when ex­pected returns are based on historic spreads and current yields. In fact, in our three separate studies, we found these portfolios to be the norm, but with interesting occasional exceptions.[4]

The analyses we have conducted to date conclude that, for moderately and highly risk-averse investors, SVIF are, under reasonable yield curve assumptions, a major component of an optimal portfolio, to the exclusion of money market funds and the near exclusion of intermediate-term bonds.

Since their inception in 1973, SV funds have undergone several severe tests. They survived the market fallout from the OPEC cartels, the severe stock market declines of 1973-4, 2000-2002, the interest rate spikes of the early 80’s, the stock market crash of 1987, the liquidity and credit spread crisis of the late 90s, the plummeting interest rates of the 21st century, economic booms and deep recessions, the terrorist challenges to financial markets in 2001, and countless other daunting circumstances. With very few exceptions, they appear to have weathered the recent financial crisis of 2007-8. 

Concluding remarks

In Part I and Part II of our brief review, we found that despite the different focus of the three performance evaluation methodologies used, the results we obtained under each analysis reinforced each other in the sense that SVIF outperformed some of the alternative investments we considered across one or more dimensions.

Whether SFIV will be appropriate for your clients will depend on their levels of risk aversion, liquidity needs, and other elements of their asset portfolios. If a determination is made that SVIF could be a valuable element of their portfolio, an assessment of providers will need to be made.

David F. Babbel, professor emeritus, The Wharton School, Univ. of Pennsylvania, is a Senior Advisor to CRA (Charles River Associates) and leader of its Insurance Economics practice. Miguel A. Herce, Ph.D., is a Principal at Charles River Associates.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

[1] Either of two strong assumptions can be used to justify reliance on the mean-variance approaches, and the CAPM in particular, to portfolio composition. If investor preferences (utility) can be accurately mapped by a quadratic function (which has a shape similar to the cross section of a dome, indicating that more wealth is preferred to less, but at a diminishing rate as wealth increases, and beyond some point of wealth attainment, less wealth is preferred to more wealth at an increasing rate of repugnance for wealth), or if asset returns can be adequately characterized by a Normal distribution, then the basic mean-variance models including CAPM are supported.

[2] The economic foundations and mathematical support for the stochastic dominance criteria and implementation are given by Haim Levy, Stochastic Dominance: Investment Decision Making under Uncertainty, 2nd Edition, Springer, 2010.


[3] Our previous studies were published in the Working Papers Series of the Wharton Financial Institutions Center website (Babbel and Herce, 2007-#21, 2009-#25, 2011-#1). http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/papers.html The 2011 study features our most advanced implementation of the dynamic investment model.


[4] A thorough review is in Babbel and Herce, 2011, at: http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/papers/11/p1101.htm

 

Morningstar publishes 2012 Global Fund Flows report

“Despite ongoing worldwide economic uncertainty, the global fund management industry grew at a 3.9% organic growth rate in 2012. Excluding money market funds, USD 565 billion flowed into mutual funds during the year,” said Morningstar’s latest Global Fund Flows Report, which measures mutual fund assets in Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan and the U.S.

“These massive inflows, though, fell short of 2009 and 2010, which saw inflows of USD 746 billion and USD 672 billion, respectively,” the report said. “Moreover, the average management fee that the industry gathers from investors has fallen dramatically since 2007 due to the cyclical shift to fixed-income products and a secular inclination toward less expensive funds.”

“The prevailing global trend in 2012 was investors’ hunger for yield and quest for the perceived safety of fixed-income funds. Worldwide, fixed-income funds gathered USD 535 billion in 2012, or nearly 95% of long-term net inflows,” said Syl Flood, product manager, investment research for Morningstar.

The report also showed:

  • U.S. fixed income is by far the largest long-term global category, with nearly USD 2 trillion in assets under management (AUM). U.S. investors contributed USD 199 billion of the category’s USD 227 billion total inflow in 2012. The PIMCO Total Return fund is the world’s largest actively managed strategy, with USD 442 billion in assets (including assets managed for institutional clients). 
  • In 2012, interest from cross-border investors propelled funds in the U.S. fixed-income category to a 47% organic growth rate. Many of the most popular offerings are tended by U.S.-based managers, including AllianceBernstein, Muzinich, Neuberger Berman and PIMCO.
  • While 78% of worldwide mutual fund and exchange-traded fund (ETF) AUM still resides in actively managed funds, passive products captured 41% of estimated net flows—USD 355 billion—in 2012. With the exception of Australia and New Zealand, index funds grew faster than actively managed funds in every geographic region during the year.
  • Newer funds—those without a three-year track record—captured 87% of worldwide inflows in 2012.
  • Vanguard and PIMCO took in 16% and 18%, respectively, of worldwide long-term mutual fund inflows in 2012.

The report examines each key market in detail, analyzing flows by attributes such as broad asset class, Morningstar category, and fund group, as well as new fund launches and the active versus passive dynamic in each market. The commentary encompasses the 71 domiciles in which Morningstar tracks fund flows, accounting for USD 20.7 trillion in assets, and touches on the USD 1.9 trillion ETF universe tracked by Morningstar, when applicable.