Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

Trust is a scarce commodity: Hearts & Wallets

Less than 20% of Americans fully trust their financial services provider, a five-point drop since 2010, according to Hearts & Wallets, a Boston-area research firm. The study identifies major trust factors and identifies the firms most trusted by their clients.

The study showed that 55% of investors fear being ripped off by their financial advisors. The number of investors who trust their advisors has steadily declined since Hearts & Wallets’ first trust-related study five years ago.

“Trust-building initiatives aren’t necessarily the first thing to come to the mind for firms who want to grow; tactics like a new product launch or rollover initiatives have typically been more common,” Hearts & Wallets said in a release. “But the impact of improving trust should be on the radar screen.”

Trusted providers enjoy average share of wallet that is nearly double less trusted providers, Hearts & Wallets found. Where trust is higher, investors are more likely to make referrals and plan to make future investments. 

The basis of trust

Trust often depends on how well the investor “understand[s] how the advisor and firm earn money.” Knowing specific fees is much less important than understanding how the advisor’s system of incentives works.  

“It’s usually fine with investors if there is a mix of salary, fees and commissions. It’s reasonable for a financial professional to earn a living, and only a few investors truly want to write checks out of pocket for the cost of expertise. The important thing is to ask, to discuss, and to understand,” said Laura Varas, a Hearts & Wallets principal.

Clients say they tend to trust a provider who “is unbiased and puts my interests first,” “understands me and shares my values” and is “responsive.” On average, a person who is anxious about their financial future trusts their providers 0.5 rating points less than a person who feels secure.

Full-service brokerage and insurance firms slightly outperformed self-service brokerage firms in terms of customer base percentage who highly trust them. Edward Jones and Ameriprise lead in full-service brokerage with 46% to 48% of their customers rating them highly trusted. USAA leads in self-service firms at 58%.

The Hearts & Wallets Insight Module, Trust-Building Practices: An Empirical Analysis of What Drives Trust, is the latest report from Hearts & Wallets’ 2012/2013 Investor Quantitative Panel. This annual survey of more than 5,400 U.S. households tracks specific segments and product trends and is both a proprietary database and series of syndicated reports.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Software, Software Everywhere

Search for “bottled water” on Google and you’ll find many brands of thirst-quenching H2O ranging in price from under $5 to over $400 per 750 ml. Yet, you can often find water that’s just as healthy—and much cheaper—running from a tap or bubbling up from a spring.

Planning software programs for advisors are almost as ubiquitous as water and they vary just as much in price. You can find bargains as well as big-ticket software. Fortunately for advisors, market competition is helping drive down prices.

In the past few years, several useful reviews of planning software have been published. These include a 2011 review by David McClure, this publication’s own listing of major software available, and reviews of free online retirement calculators by Steve Vernon (CBS Moneywatch) and Kim Morten, an associate of Dana Anspach (editor of Moneyover55.about.com) [1].

McClure claimed that a successful FPS package meets at least four criteria:

  • Breadth and depth. The software needs to cover the widest possible range of client circumstances and goals.
  • Scenario building. . The software must allow the advisor to create multiple scenarios and present them side-by-side for comparison.
  • Presentation capabilities. The software must be able to generate a financial plan and enable the advisor to present that plan in a manner suited to the needs of the client.
  • Client communication. The software must help the advisor maintain communications with the client over the life of the plan, via email, mobile communications or a shared web portal.

Annual subscription fees for McClure’s favorite packages ranged from $400 to over $6,000, with most between $1000-1300. His review covered eMoney 360 and eMoney 360Pro Version 7.0, MasterPlan, NaviPlan Select, PFP Notebook, PFP Relief, Profiles Forecaster, and Profiles Professional.

Some packages, such as PFP, were developed by accounting experts, not financial planners. Some were standalone packages designed for installation on desktop PCs while others relied on web-based processing. The latter allows the client to log on and lets the advisor know when the client logs on and what pages he looks at.

In May 2012, this publication created a kind of “Michelin Guide” of FPS, which listed 27 programs along with a brief description of each. (References are made in footnotes at the end to reviews of individual programs, including McClure’s review. These can be found here: http://bit.ly/Y2M57O.)

Many of the FPSs cater to brokerage houses and focus more on the accumulation stage rather than the decumulation, RIJ’s review said. It noted however that “other, smaller firms that, although less well known, often have stronger retirement income functionality than the dominant brands, which, like most advisors, still tend to be investment- and accumulation-driven.”

Among those smaller firms were Asset Dedication, Fiducioso Advisors, Wealth2k (whose Income for Life Model uses a time-segmentation or floor-and-upside tool) and LifeYield (a specialty tool that models tax-efficient drawdown). The likely trend is that as more Boomers head towards retirement, software vendors will pay more attention to the retirement income components of FPSs.

Financial Planning Calculators (FPCs)

In early 2012, Kim Morten tested and reviewed seven online FPCs, including ESPlanner Basic, Vanguard, AARP, T. Rowe Price, Schwab, Fidelity, and CNNMoney. She created a review for for each one, using an outline which describing its main function, target audience, best feature, pros, cons, visual appeal, ease of use and shortcomings.

Her work showed that every calculator was constrained by its own underlying assumptions. Some calculators, she found, allow you to change some of the assumptions, while others do not. Monte Carlo simulation was featured on three of them. All handled pre-retirement clients but only a few accommodated retirees as well. Most of them did not handle taxes well, Morten noted, and none gave advice on a tax-efficient order of withdrawal from various accounts.

In her opinion, ESPlanner, used in “conventional” mode, was the best calculator. Ironically, Boston University economist Lawrence Kotlikoff, the creator of Esplanner.com, has gone to great length explaining why conventional planning is not good.

While ESPlanner allows for a conventional planning mode for purposes of comparison, it favors an approach called “consumption smoothing”. Under this approach, a family should use a combination of earned income, investments, debt and insurance to maintain a smooth and steady level of consumption over the entire “lifecycle” of its client.

The full version of ESPlanner (Morten tested only the free online version) takes into account all of the financial variables linked to a household as a unit of consumption, including education, first and second homes, Social Security, and in particular, taxes and tax-advantaged retirement accounts[2].

In August 2012, financial planner Steve Vernon wrote a four part series in which he reported his tests of seven online calculators. Like Morten, he tested free calculators offered by AARP, CNNMoney, Schwab, and T. Rowe Price. He also reviewed calculators provided by FINRA, Microsoft Network (MSN) and the now-defunct Smart Money magazine and website. Going a step farther than Morten, Vance challenged each tool to generate a plan for the following hypothetical client:

  • A married couple, both age 45
  • A $50,000 annual income from each spouse
  • A 401(k) account worth $50,000 for each
  • A 401(k) savings rate of 9% of pay each (6% deferral with 3% match)

The couple contributes $9,000 to their retirement account each year. Neither expects an employer-sponsored defined benefit pension. Both want to retire at age 65, and they’re targeting an income replacement rate in retirement of 85% of final pay.

If not prompted to provide specific information, Vance allowed each calculator to use its default assumptions. He found that the calculators recommended a savings rate for the couple that ranged from a low 9% to a high of almost 70%. His results are summarized in Figure 1 below (chart used with permission).

 Barnett chart

Of the seven calculators Vernon reviewed, he preferred the ones offered by AARP and MSN. He advised anyone who attempts to plan for retirement on their own to use two or three different calculators, to vary their assumptions with each one, to cross-check their results and to repeat their calculations as they get older.

“Every two or three years, revisit your calculations of how much you should be saving and run the numbers again,” Vernon wrote. “It’s definitely worth the effort to try a few different assumptions to see how they affect the results.” He recommended picking answers to the following questions and sticking to them:

  • What rate of return do I expect on your retirement savings?
  • When do I expect to retire?
  • How long do I expect to live?
  • How much retirement income will I need?
  • What will my Social Security benefits be?

It’s interesting to note that Vernon selected his calculators on the basis of what showed up on the first page of search engine. That they were the most popular (or frequently used) doesn’t necessarily indicate that they are the best.

Closing thoughts

I have searched the web extensively over the past couple of years for some additional free or low-cost online calculators. Two programs that were good in terms of the features offered and/or the robustness of underlying methodology were Firecalc.com and I-ORP.com.

In addition, Excel-based calculators available for downloading can be found atwww.Analyzenow.com and www.retirementoptimizer.com/.[3] Tip$ter (www.prospercuity.com/) and Forecaster (http://www.retirementforecaster.com/default.html) are two downloadable self-executing programs that can be installed onto Windows based PCs. The features of these calculators will be presented in the next article in this series.

Ideally, an objective third-party should test all of the major professional FPSs the same way that Steve Vernon tested the online calculators. Criteria need to be defined, and two or three scenarios need to be created and applied to each FPS (and Excel-based calculators) to determine the best accumulation-stage software, the best decumulation-stage software, and the best overall package (if there is one).

The test results should be clearly presented in graphical form, and each product’s features should be tabulated to make comparisons easy. Until someone does that, many FPs will struggle to find the best programs for their clients, and will likely end up sticking with whatever program is most familiar to them.

 

D. Alan Barnett, a mid-stream Boomer who will shortly launch his second career, by training to become a Retirement Income Counselor.


[2] All of these features are found in the full version, which costs $150. She tested the free online calculator.

[3] Analyze now has a free version, and a low-fee version. Retirementoptimizer has an annual fee of $99 whether it is for personal use or used by a FP. I hesitate including ESPlanner in this group as well, because its personal version is slightly more expensive at $150-$199 (including Monte Carlo) while its professional version is $950. Each has an annual update fee of $50.

VA Net Flows ‘Grim’ in 4Q 2012: Morningstar

Net cash flows into variable annuities dipped into negative territory for the first time in over a decade in the fourth quarter of 2012, but finished the year in the black, according to Morningstar Inc.’s latest Variable Annuity Sales and Asset Survey.

“The industry net cash flow number for fourth quarter was grim at $(598.5) million, the first quarter of net redemption reported since VARDS began the net flow survey in 2001,” wrote Project Manager Frank O’Connor of Morningstar’s Annuity Research Center in his quarterly report.

“A spike in outflows from group contracts and continued large outflows from companies that have exited the business were the major components of the precipitous drop, while continued strength was observed in the net cash flows of the active retail market providers,” he noted. “Net cash flow for the year remained in positive territory at $14.0 billion.”

Babyboomers in 403(b) plans are reaching retirement age, and older blocks of group annuity business are maturing and calving off, like icebergs from a glacier. At the same time, advisors are moving clients’ money out of variable annuities that were issued by companies that have left the individual VA business, such as The Hartford and ING, and not moving it to another variable annuity.

More money went into VAs than came out, however. The exodus was offset by the demographically-driven demand for lifetime income products—evidenced by the fourth-quarter 2012 gross sales of $34.4 billion (down 5.4% from the third quarter) and $143.4 billion for the year, down 6.5% from $153.7 billion in 2011. 

A large chunk of the decline could be attributed to MetLife’s intentional curtailment of VA sales. In 2011, MetLife sold $28.44 billion worth of VAs. In 2012, the company collected $17.7 billion in new VA premium.

The top five issuers alone accounted for more than half of gross VA sales last year; the top ten sellers captured 77.7%. In 2012, Jackson National led all sellers in the fourth quarter with a 13% market share ($4.43 billion), followed by Prudential (11%; $3.78 billion), MetLife (10.5%; $3.56 billion), TIAA-CREF (9.9%; $3.36 billion) and Lincoln Financial (9.3%; $3.16 billion).

Although rising stock prices in 2012 pushed the outstanding asset value of variable annuity subaccounts to a record $1.64 trillion (up slightly from $1.62 trillion in the third quarter of 2012 and up 9.1% from $1.5 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2011), VA sales didn’t seem to climb in tandem with equities, as they have in the past.

“That might be exuberance—people thinking they don’t need protection. They might be saying, ‘I don’t need it because look how well the market is doing,’” O’Connor told RIJ. But he added that last year’s bull market might have been different from previous one.

“It doesn’t look like the individual investors are back in the market,” he said. “You’ve got a lot of institutional money and buybacks—there are other things going on that have helped to drive equity prices higher.”

Protection from cat food

O’Connor, who has analyzed variable annuity sales data for more than a decade, said that the pendulum may have swung back too far in the past five years—from an era of under-pricing and generous benefits to one of high prices and stingy benefits. In the first era, carriers hurt their own balance sheets; they may now be hurting their own value proposition.

Fees may have reached an intolerable point, relative to benefits. Fees shouldn’t matter much to people who are buying VAs for  lifetime income, O’Connor believes, because the potential insurance value dwarfs the cost. But if people are buying living benefit riders as investment risk protection rather than as longevity risk protection, then high fees are clearly counter-productive.

“If you sell the product that way”—as a hedge for market risk—“then of course fees will make a big difference,” O’Connor said. “But there has been widespread misunderstanding of what the product is supposed to do.”

Articles in the media about variable annuities tend to stress the investment aspect, he said. “Especially in articles when the product is panned, the author will explain in detail how fees will eat away at the nest egg. I’ve yet to see an article that mentions that when you’re 95, these products can protect you from a diet of cat food. That part gets completely ignored or glossed over.”

VAs were misunderstood in another way, he said. Anecdotally, many people seemed to believe that a VA with an annual benefit base increase of 6% (a “rollup”) offered a 6% guaranteed return. “I’ve heard that from relatives and from friends, and from friends who would relay what their relatives had been told. I’ve heard it more than once,” O’Connor said. 

Asked to assess the VA business from a historical perspective, O’Connor said: “I see an industry that innovates, and that tries to capitalize on innovation. At the same time, I wonder if the me-too activity that got the industry into trouble has come home to roost. There was a mad drive for sales, then a throttling back.

“The really solid players—Prudential, MetLife, Jackson—seem to have gotten a better handle on risk than the others. But is it really a handle? Before the financial crisis, the life insurers all said they had the risk challenge knocked. Who knows what will happen in the next downturn. Will it blow up the models they’re using today?”

Other Morningstar data

Sales rankings stayed much the same in 2012 as in 2011, with a few notable position changes. MetLife moved down two notches to third place, Nationwide slipped from 6th to 11th and Allianz Life moved down to 16th place from 11th place. Going in the opposite direction, Protective moved up to 13th place from 16th, Ohio National moved up to 15th place from 18th, and Fidelity Investment Life jumped to 17th place from 22nd.

In terms of product rankings, there were several fast-growing contracts: Lincoln Financial’s Choice Plus Fusion (to 22nd from 134th), Protective’s Dimensions (to 25th from 140th), AXA Equitable’s Structured Capital Strategies B (to 17th from 42nd),  Fidelity’s Personal Retirement Annuity I (to 14th from 27th), Ohio National’s OnCore Premier (37th from 62nd) and OnCore Lite II (to 43rd from 75th).

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Bucket

New York Life promotes Matthew Grove 

New York Life has promoted Matthew Grove, a force behind the firm’s billion-selling deferred income annuity, to senior managing director, responsible for the Retail Annuities business, including product development, product management, marketing, in-force business and annuity service operations.  He reports to Senior Managing Director Drew Lawton.

Grove joined New York Life in 2009 to lead the company’s effort to establish guaranteed lifetime income as an asset class, and he was also responsible for the distribution of mutual funds and annuity products through Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs). 

In 2011, Grove played a central role in developing and marketing the Guaranteed Future Income Annuity (GFIA), a deferred income annuity. Attracting $1 billion in premium in its first 18 months on the market, it is the most successful new annuity product in the company’s history, New York Life said in a release. 

Before joining New York Life, Grove was the chief marketing officer of Jefferson National, an insurance company focused on serving the needs of the RIA market.  At Jefferson National, he was responsible for developing and marketing the leading annuity product distributed through the RIA channel. 

Earlier, Grove ran his own technology consulting firm focused on building enterprise software for financial services firms. He has an MBA from Columbia University and a BS degree in computer science from the University of Pennsylvania.   

Curian Capital iPad ‘app’ for managed account proposals             

To enable financial advisors to generate on-the-spot proposals for their clients, Curian Capital LLC has launched the Curian Select Portfolios iPad application, or app. The app lets advisors:

  • Create proposals directly from the iPad anywhere, even without Internet access
  • Review presentation materials with clients in an attractive and easy-to-understand format
  • Select from 25 different account types and six different managed Select Portfolios
  • Capture client information and offer clients the option to sign proposals electronically 

The Curian Select Portfolios iPad app has many of the same features available for the Select Portfolios on Curian’s existing proposal generation system, allowing advisors to seamlessly transition to the new iPad version.

In addition, the app provides investor-facing educational messages and informational videos, including details on Curian’s asset management process used in generating its new Select Portfolios.

The Curian Select iPad app is a free download for financial advisors authorized to do business with Curian, and is available via the Apple iTunes Store, under “Curian Select.”

Genworth sells wealth management business for $412.5 million

Genworth Financial, Inc. has agreed to sell its Wealth Management business, including Genworth Financial Wealth Management and alternative solutions provider, the Altegris companies, to a partnership of Aquiline Capital Partners and Genstar Capital.

The sale price is expected to be about $412.5 million. The company will record an after-tax loss of approximately $40 million related to the sale with approximately $35 million recorded in the first quarter of 2013 and the remainder upon closing. 

The sale is expected to close in the second half of 2013, subject to customary conditions and regulatory approvals.  Net proceeds from the transaction will be used to address the 2014 debt at maturity or before. 

Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP advised Genworth on this transaction.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Deficits at largest pension funds keep growing: Milliman

Pension funds continue to suffer from the low-rate environment, according to Milliman’s 2013 Pension Funding Study, which cover the 100 largest US corporate pension plans. These plans ended 2012 with a $388.8 billion deficit—a $61.1 billion increase over 2011.

Since the end of 2010, declining discount rates (4.02% at year-end 2012) have widened the pension funding deficit by more than $150 billion, driving record deficits in each of the last two years, Milliman said in a release.

The pension funding ratio stood at 77.2% at year’s end, down from 79.2% at the end of 2011. The deficit increase and reduced funding ratio in 2012 occurred despite plan sponsors’ efforts to halt the decline through de-risking and despite rising stock prices. 

 “There was no fighting the inevitable gravity of these low interest rates, as the 100 pension plans in our study saw a cumulative deficit increase in excess of $60 billion. All this in spite of strong asset performance that exceeded the expectations of most plan sponsors,” said John Ehrhardt, Milliman consulting actuary and co-author of the study.

“Pension funding status will continue to be tied to interest rates. If rates stay low—and all indications are that they will through 2014—these pension plans will struggle to fill their funding gap.”

Major pension stories for 2012 include:

De-risking results in shakeup at the top of the Milliman 100. IBM’s plan replaced General Motors’ in 2012 as the largest in the Milliman 100, after GM sold much of its obligation to Prudential. Other large plan sponsors, including Ford and Verizon, also pursued de-risking. Across the entire Milliman 100, de-risking by at least 15 plan sponsors resulted in a cumulative $45 billion reduction in plan obligations.

Asset increases and $61.5 billion in contributions were not enough to close the deficit. With an 11.7% investment return in 2012, the Milliman 100 pension plans performed better than they expected but not enough to offset the ballooning deficit. Nor were contributions in excess of $60 billion.

Record contributions in 2012—but not at the level expected. While the $61.5 billion in contributions during 2012 was significantly greater than most prior years, it exceeded the 2011 total by only $6.3 billion and the 2010 total by only $1.8 billion. Many plan sponsors apparently changed their contribution strategy after the MAP-21 interest rate stabilization legislation passed.  

Another record year for pension expense. Following a $38.5 billion charge to earnings in 2011, the Milliman 100 pension plans again set a new record for total pension expense, with a $55.8 billion charge to earnings. The $17.3 billion increase in pension expense is consistent with the prediction of $16 billion reported by last year’s study. This year’s study predicts a $7.6 billion increase in pension expense in 2013.

Asset allocations relatively stable. In 2011, plan sponsors decreased their equity allocation by more than 5%. In 2012, the equity allocation dropped just 0.2% (to 38% from 38.2%), as the move toward liability-driven investments (LDI) slowed. In 2012, the bull market favored plans with relatively higher equity allocations.

What to expect in 2013. With the Federal Reserve Board indicating its intention to keep interest rates low through 2014, pension obligations will remain high. The bull market has continued into 2013, and de-risking may continue this year. But the pension funding deficit is likely to last until interest rates rise.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Most middle-income Americans ignore longevity risk: Bankers Life

Although one in four of today’s 65-year olds will live past age 90, 87% of Americans don’t discuss longevity risk, according to a new study, Longevity Risk and Reward for Middle-Income Americans, from Bankers Life’s Center for a Secure Retirement (CSR).   

Ironically, those surveyed for the study accurately estimated the average life expectancy of American adults.  On average, respondents with a median age of 65 said they think they will live to age 86, irrespective of gender, income or health.

Two-thirds say that genetics (65%) is the determining factor in how long they will live. Fewer linked longevity to eating right (46%), exercising (44%) or smoking (37%). 

The survey also showed that:

  • Middle-income Americans, ages 55 to 75, tend to believe that wisdom arrives at about age 56, but old age doesn’t necessarily start until age 78.
  • 60% middle-income Americans age 55 and older say their best years are ahead of them.   
  • For the 40% who report that their best years are behind them, they attribute the realities of aging, their health and an overall negative outlook as the primary reason.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

 

Bloomberg publishes new edition of ERISA: The Law and the Code

Bloomberg BNA has published the 2012 edition of ERISA: The Law and the Code, Annotated, a desktop reference that provides updated text of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and relevant portions of the Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code) and Public Health Service Act (PHSA).

The latest edition provides comprehensive updates on:

  • Changes to the pension funding rules for single-employer defined benefit plans
  • Additional information required in the annual funding notice that defined benefit plans must provide to participants and beneficiaries, labor organizations, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
  • Increased PBGC premiums as the result of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

This treatise provides the complete “before” and “after” picture of changes enacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The PPACA mandates that group health plans and health insurance issuers providing coverage to group health plans must comply with certain provisions of the PHSA and that these PHSA provisions will prevail over any conflicting ERISA or Tax Code provisions. Part 3 of ERISA: The Law and the Code, 2012 Edition, Annotated, provides the PHSA sections as amended by the health care reform laws, and Part 4 includes relevant sections of the PHSA prior to PPACA and other amendments.

This reference also features “Recent Amendment” notes that provide a complete history of every amendment made to each reprinted section of ERISA, tracks all of the changes made to the Tax Code sections back to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, and supplies the history of each reprinted section of the PHSA (post-PPACA), all in an easy-to-follow format. Amendment notes also track relevant non-amending legislative material helpful to understanding ERISA and the Tax Code.

ERISA: The Law and the Code, 2012 Edition, Annotated, may be purchased from Bloomberg BNA, Book Division, by phone or online.  

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Customers are people, British asset managers remind themselves

In a story that sounded like a parody from The Onion, the CEO of Britain’s Investment Management Association (IMA) was reported to have admitted that his industry’s clients are real people—presumably with flesh, nerves, brains and emotions.

Speaking at a conference organized by the University of Warwick and the Financial Services Knowledge Transfer Network, the IMA’s Daniel Godfrey admitted that his industry had a tendency to forget that, IPE.com reported.

“What we have to do as asset managers, and a responsibility we have, is to look through that transmission chain and say, yes, our client may be a pension fund, our client may be a life company, but at the end of that chain is a real person that is relying on us to do something that is very, very important to them,” he said.

Godfrey’s comments followed a mea culpa of sorts from David Norman of TCF Investment, who alleged that the asset management industry was “negligent, incompetent and systematically corrupt.” He cited specific instances where fees had not been disclosed fairly, to the detriment of retail investors.

If the asset management industry recognized its importance to “real people,” it could then begin to address a number of concerns, Godfrey said. “If we are going to fulfill this purpose for real people, whether they are direct customers or at the end of some transmission chain, [the first step] is to have excellent fiduciary standards and operating practice,” he said.

“I don’t mean fiduciary standards in some legal sense,” he added. “I’m thinking about fiduciary standards more as a moral code, a way of behaving, a form of conduct – so that you understand what you are supposed to do in any given circumstance, by being aligned to an understanding of what your purpose is.”

A new standard of conduct could drive down costs, improve client outcomes, and build trust among consumers, he suggested.

“If you base your conduct around trying to always improve your standards of fiduciary excellence, you will look for ways in which you can bear down on costs for your clients,” he said. That “can bring costs down, and have a very big impact on long-term outcomes.”

As costs were addressed and made clear and transparent, it would allow his industry to enter a “trusted partnership” with financial regulators, politicians and consumer groups, which could lead to “a regulatory and tax regime that helps asset managers do a great job for their customers.”

To foster transparency, he suggested that costs could be expressed both in sterling and percentages, and providers could disclose how much an investor’s unit has appreciated in value, measured in pounds, along with the fee cost that went towards bringing about this increase.

We want “to see if there is a way through this quagmire of suspicion and smoke to try to get something that helps people understand what’s happened in their fund and what the costs have been,” Godfrey said.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Customers are people, British asset managers remind themselves

In a story that sounded like a parody from The Onion, the CEO of Britain’s Investment Management Association (IMA) was reported to have admitted that his industry’s clients are real people—presumably with flesh, nerves, brains and emotions.

Speaking at a conference organized by the University of Warwick and the Financial Services Knowledge Transfer Network, the IMA’s Daniel Godfrey admitted that his industry had a tendency to forget that, IPE.com reported.

“What we have to do as asset managers, and a responsibility we have, is to look through that transmission chain and say, yes, our client may be a pension fund, our client may be a life company, but at the end of that chain is a real person that is relying on us to do something that is very, very important to them,” he said.

Godfrey’s comments followed a mea culpa of sorts from David Norman of TCF Investment, who alleged that the asset management industry was “negligent, incompetent and systematically corrupt.” He cited specific instances where fees had not been disclosed fairly, to the detriment of retail investors.

If the asset management industry recognized its importance to “real people,” it could then begin to address a number of concerns, Godfrey said. “If we are going to fulfill this purpose for real people, whether they are direct customers or at the end of some transmission chain, [the first step] is to have excellent fiduciary standards and operating practice,” he said.

“I don’t mean fiduciary standards in some legal sense,” he added. “I’m thinking about fiduciary standards more as a moral code, a way of behaving, a form of conduct – so that you understand what you are supposed to do in any given circumstance, by being aligned to an understanding of what your purpose is.”

A new standard of conduct could drive down costs, improve client outcomes, and build trust among consumers, he suggested.

“If you base your conduct around trying to always improve your standards of fiduciary excellence, you will look for ways in which you can bear down on costs for your clients,” he said. That “can bring costs down, and have a very big impact on long-term outcomes.”

As costs were addressed and made clear and transparent, it would allow his industry to enter a “trusted partnership” with financial regulators, politicians and consumer groups, which could lead to “a regulatory and tax regime that helps asset managers do a great job for their customers.”

To foster transparency, he suggested that costs could be expressed both in sterling and percentages, and providers could disclose how much an investor’s unit has appreciated in value, measured in pounds, along with the fee cost that went towards bringing about this increase.

We want “to see if there is a way through this quagmire of suspicion and smoke to try to get something that helps people understand what’s happened in their fund and what the costs have been,” Godfrey said.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Buybacks are Buoying the Bull

The stock market surge seems to have stalled a bit lately. There’s Cyprus, a slowing global economy and nervousness by portfolio managers as the quarter comes to a close. But for as long as the Fed keeps creating billions of fake money daily and companies keep shrinking the number of shares outstanding, there is little doubt that more money chasing fewer shares has to inflate stock prices to new nominal highs, at least for the near term.

Why do I speak of nominal highs? The fact is that if we adjust stock prices for the asset-inflation bubble created by the Fed, stocks are not at real highs. Even Fed Chairman Bernanke admitted that at his most recent press conference. And there’s every indication that the Fed will keep inflating this asset-price bubble.

For example, the Fed will keep creating $4 billion in fake money daily to buy back its previously created fake money. And as the new fake money enters the system, there is more money available to buy the same number of assets. That is a classic definition of inflation. So everything else being equal the Fed’s fake money creation results in inflated stock and bond prices.

But there is more bullish stuff happening on top of that, also as a result of the Fed’s zero interest rate policy. Over the past seven weeks, since the start of February, companies have been reducing the total number of shares outstanding by $120 billion.

There are two ways the number of shares shrink: buybacks and cash takeovers. No surprise, then there has been a record number of buybacks announced since the start of February. There has also been a bumper crop of new cash takeovers.

The number of shares grows when companies and or insiders sell new shares. Bottom line, since the start of February the trading float of shares has shrunk by $120 billion. That translates into an annual rate of over $900 billion and that would compare with $248 billion in total float shrink for all of 2012.

Here’s why this is such a big deal. In essence, over the last seven weeks companies have given shareholders $120 billion in cash in exchange for shares. Compare that $120 billion with just $50 billion of new money going into all equity mutual and exchange traded funds so far for all of 2013.

Remember, 80% of US stocks are held by institutions. Institutions typically have a constant rate of cash holdings, whether 1% or 5%. When the number of shares held by institutions shrinks by $100 billion, or around 80% of $120 billion, that means those institutions have more money with which to buy the fewer shares available in the equity markets. Therefore, the price of the remaining shares should go up.

Yes, some self-styled market gurus poo poo buybacks and even claim they are a contrary indicator. That might be so if you only look at buybacks. However add in float shrink and the track record is much better.

Looking back, I started tracking supply and demand of stock and money in 1995. Since then, the market has gone up 11 of the 13 years that the trading float has shrunk. Moreover, the stock market has gone down three of the five years the trading float has grown. In other words, float shrink by itself has correctly predicted market direction in 14 of the last 18 years. In the other four years, demand for shares overwhelmed the impact of float change.

Bottom line, all there is in the stock market are shares of stock and the money available for investment.

Charles Biderman is chairman of TrimTabs Investment Research and portfolio manager of the TrimTabs Float Shrink ETF.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Income-Generating Annuities Prospered in 2012

The end-of-year 2012 results for fixed annuity sales are in, and, despite a few bright spots, they suffer from the effects of the Fed’s equity-friendly rate-suppression policy. Here are the important news headlines for fixed annuities, according to the latest Beacon Research Fixed Annuity Premium Study:

  • Total fixed annuity sales fell 6.5% in 2012, to $66.8 billion from $75.6 billion in 2012. Fourth quarter sales were down 2.2% from the previous quarter.
  • Allianz Life was the top fixed annuity seller for calendar 2012, but Security Benefit Life was the top seller in the fourth quarter. Its Total Value Annuity, a fixed indexed annuity, broke into the ranks of the five top-selling fixed annuity products in the fourth quarter.
  • Indexed annuities with guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefits—a product with features that can help mitigate market risk, inflation risk and longevity risk—continued to thrive, with sales up 3.7% to an annual record $34.2 billion.
  • Sales of income annuities grew 8.5% to $9.2 billion in 2012, with deferred income annuities (DIA) accounting for all of the gains. DIA sales increased 150% from the first to fourth quarters and surpassed $1 billion by year-end.
  • Sales of fixed-rate non-MVA (market-value adjusted) annuities, their yields suppressed by Federal Reserve policy, saw a 33% drop in 2012 compared to 2011, falling to $18.8 billion from $28.1 billion.

Fourth quarter sales 

Total fixed annuity results were $16.2 billion in fourth quarter, down 6.5% from a year ago and 2.2% sequentially. Annual sales fell 11.6% to $66.8 billion. Large losses in fixed rate annuity sales were responsible for the annual decrease. Most issuers of these products chose to lose sales rather than cut prices further, Beacon said. 

Fourth quarter’s income annuity results of $2.4 billion were up 7.2% from a year ago and 0.3% from the prior quarter. It was the third consecutive quarterly improvement. Indexed annuity sales were $8.5 billion in fourth quarter, 1.2% above a year ago but 3.2% below the prior quarter.

Looking ahead, Beacon Research CEO Jeremy Alexander said, “We think that 2013 will be another record year for indexed and income annuities. But we don’t expect overall fixed annuity sales to change significantly.”

The surprise success of deferred income annuities on the part of New York Life has inspired other carriers, including MetLife, MassMutual, Guardian and others to either step up sales of existing products or enter the market for the first time.

Several years ago, these products were called Advanced Life Deferred Annuities. The typical ALDA was envisioned as longevity insurance, since it wouldn’t pay out until or unless the owner lived past age 85. Given mortality rates and a long deferral period, such coverage could be purchased cheaply.  

But that was how academics and actuaries envisioned DIAs (or ALDAs). In practice, babyboomers in their late 50s and early 60s have been buying the latest generation of DIAs for income beginning around 10 years after purchase. As one life insurer put it, people are buying them as “personal replacement” rather than as longevity insurance.   

Estimated Fixed Annuity Sales by Product Type (in $ millions)

 

Total

Indexed

Income

Fixed Rate

Non-MVA

Fixed Rate

MVA

Q4 ‘12

16,200

8,452

2,381

4,369

999

Q3 ‘12

16,570

8,735

2,374

4,434

1,026

% ∆

-2.2%

-3.2%

0.3%

-1.5%

-2.6%

Q4 ‘12

16,200

8,452

2,381

4,369

999

Q4 ‘11

17,330

8,352

2,221

5,409

1,346

% ∆

-6.5%

1.2%

7.2%

-19.2%

-25.8%

YTD 2012

66,810

34,198

9,197

18,840

4,584

YTD 2011

75,570

32,978

8,481

28,117

5,996

% ∆

-11.6%

3.7%

8.5%

-33.0%

-23.6%

 

Allianz was the top fixed annuity company in 2012, followed by New York Life, Aviva, American Equity and Security Benefit Life, a first-time annual top-five company. In fourth quarter, Security Benefit Life moved up from fourth place to take the lead for the first time. Fourth quarter results for the top five Study participants were as follows:

Fixed Annuity Sales ($000), 4Q 2012

Security Benefit Life

1,398,773

Allianz Life

1,247,064

New York Life

1,122,196

American Equity

1,068,853

Lincoln Financial Group

908,694

Source: Beacon Research, March 27, 2013.

 

In specific product sales, New York Life’s Lifetime Income Annuity was the fourth quarter’s best seller, as it was for all of 2012. Indexed annuities from Allianz and American Equity remained top products, with the Allianz Endurance Plus rejoining the top five in third place. Security Benefit Life’s indexed Total Value Annuity joined the top five for the first time. 

Top selling fixed annuities products, 4Q 2012

Rank

Company

Product

Type

1

New York Life

NYL Lifetime Income Annuity

Income

2

American Equity

Bonus Gold

Indexed

3

Allianz Life

Endurance Plus

Indexed

4

Security Benefit Life

Total Value Annuity

Indexed

5

Allianz Life

MasterDex X

Indexed

Source: Beacon Research. March 27, 2013.

 

In the fourth quarter, Security Benefit Life jumped from 14th place to take the lead in bank channel sales. Jackson National regained #1 status in the independent broker-dealer channel. Lincoln Financial Group was the new leader in fixed rate non-MVAs. The other top companies in sales by product type and distribution channel were unchanged from the prior quarter.

Security Benefit’s formula

Some people in the annuity industry have been wondering how Security Benefit, which is owned by private equity firm Guggenheim Partners, has been able to offer such rich benefits and to achieve unprecedented sales levels. Judith Alexander, director of marketing at Beacon Research, said she did not know the answer, but she was willing to speculate.

“There are two possible answers,” she told RIJ. “They may have made some investments that have seen high returns and they are using those returns to back the liabilities and to offer generous rates and rollups. Or they are willing to price the business at a lower margin than the more traditional carriers. They can do that because they’re not publicly held companies. They may have a business plan that calls for taking lower margins in order to grab a larger market share. Both of those things could be true. They’re not mutually exclusive.”

Security Benefit has an A- strength rating from Standard & Poor but only a B++ strength rating from A.M. Best, Alexander said. Traditionally, products with less than an A rating couldn’t make it onto the shelf of broker-dealers and banks, she said, so it surprised her that Security Benefit was able to become the top fixed annuity seller in the bank channel.

“I have heard that banks and broker-dealers are a little less stringent in their financial strength requirements than they used to be,” she said. “In a more normal rate environment you might have needed an A from both A.M. Best and S&P to get in. Now it appears that you need an A- from one of them. Banks are desperate to get some higher-crediting fixed-rate products on their shelves.”  

If insurers elect to buy slightly lower-quality bonds or longer-term bonds in order to earn a bit more yield than is otherwise available, they run the risk that ratings agencies will reduce their strength ratings. But some insurers might be willing to sacrifice a notch of their ratings in order to offer customers more competitive interest crediting rates—especially if the strategy doesn’t disqualify them from distribution by banks and broker-dealers, Alexander explained.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

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.