Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

The Missing Document

Long before my father’s death three weeks ago at the age of 83, I and my brother and sister often asked him to unveil the details of his finances to us. We wanted to minimize any unnecessary legal or procedural confusion after his… you know. We hinted, we cajoled, we insisted. To no effect.

“Are you after my money?” my father would respond. “Pushing me to an early grave?” No, we were just worried that some important documents might go missing. “Call my secretary,” he’d say. “She’ll know where they are.” Or, “Just wait for the bills to arrive in the mail.”

The notion that we were eager to lay our hands on an inheritance may have been, for him, a useful fiction. We knew better. My father intended to leave nothing—less than nothing, if possible—on the proverbial table when he ascended from this earthly Server to The Cloud.

He had always been close-mouthed about money. No, that’s not true: he talked frequently about money in general, as most men do. But, like most men, he didn’t talk about his own money. He must have shared a few details with my mother, but only on a need-to-know basis.  

During my father’s middle years, when we kids were raising families of our own, he never referred to any preparations for retirement. Knowing him, I’d guess that he had built a sturdy wall of denial between himself and the inevitable.

A strip-mall lawyer, he evidently never planned to retire completely. A heart attack survivor at age 46, and a bypass patient in his 60s, he probably didn’t expect to see the far side of 80. Not that he was reconciled to the idea of death or decline; I suspect he tried not to think about it. 

Some people prudently plan and save for retirement. They forego luxuries and ponder their legacies. My father was not one of them. Living for today is undeniably a virtue, and he practiced it. Or, as someone who was self-employed, he may have been too busy juggling accounts in the present to think much about the future.  

It’s possible that he simply weighed the price of saving against the price of denying himself and his family the emblems of success—college educations for his children, a diesel Mercedes for himself, a diamond anniversary band for his wife, a small condo in Florida for the winter—and opted to direct his cash flow to the latter. His family would be his beneficiaries in life, not death. Who can argue with that?

Shouldn’t he have saved for my mother’s likely widowhood? Yes and no. My mother, a dabbler in oil painting and furniture decoupage, started chain-smoking Chesterfields as a bobbysoxer. She smoked for almost 60 years, more or less avoiding doctors and the risk of an unpleasant diagnosis. Her lungs failed nine years ago, in Florida, when she was only 74. Perhaps she and my father expected it to end that way.     

Three weeks ago, the phone rang at my house and, nine years on, my sister was once again the bearer of sad news. My father, who was never in vigorous health but was stubbornly self-sufficient, happened to be visiting the condo in Florida. He had not returned phone calls from friends for a couple of days. His condo superintendent opened his unit with a passkey, eventually reached the bathroom, and screamed.   

After the funeral, after the eulogies, after the “This Is Your Life” display of old family photographs, and after the reception, we turned to the resolution of my father’s affairs. We called my father’s secretary of 36 years, and she told us where most of the documents were. They were in a filing cabinet in the garage of his townhouse in Pennsylvania.

My brother, sister and I are now learning to be co-executors and co-trustees. We’ve identified and notified my father’s bank, his credit card companies, his reverse mortgage company, his auto insurer and so forth about his death. He left a revocable trust that apparently has little legal import, a scattering of unsecured debt, and a two-bedroom condo whose value is depressed and whose title needs to be transferred.

Everything that experts say about this somber rite of passage is true, I’ve found. It’s better to put the paperwork in order before death comes. It’s best to spare the survivors any complex legal chores while they’re dealing with complex emotions. It’s of particular importance—perhaps the most important thing of all, in applicable situations—for the siblings to work harmoniously and as a team. 

We’re still searching sifting through my father’s papers, trying not to miss anything important. I had half-hoped that, among the copies of the wills and codicils and quarterly statements, there’d be an envelope, addressed to “My Children,” containing a letter, handwritten in my father’s backward-sloping southpaw script, that would answer all of our unanswered questions and resolve all of our family mysteries. So far, we haven’t found such a document and I doubt we will.    

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Who Do You Love (in the Retirement Income Space)?

For its just-published 2012 Advisor In-Retirement IncomeTM report, Cogent Research of Cambridge, Mass., asked financial planners, RIAs and broker-dealer representatives to name the product manufacturers they consider to be retirement income thought-leaders.

The co-authors of the study, Cogent’s Meredith Lloyd Rice, a senior project director, and Tony Ferreira, managing director, surveyed over 400 advisors who manage at least $25 million and manage at least 25% of those assets for retirement income.

On last week’s RIJ homepage, we published Cogent’s list of 10 companies that the advisors named most frequently as income thought leaders. PIMCO and Jackson National were tied at the top of the list, with 54% of advisors naming them. Vanguard (53%) ran a very close third.

Six fund companies and four life insurers made the list. Besides Vanguard and PIMCO, the fund companies included American Funds, BlackRock, Franklin Templeton and Fidelity Investments. After Jackson National, the insurers were Prudential, MetLife and Lincoln Financial.

All of these are familiar brands in the advisor world, of course. Both Vanguard and PIMCO (passive and active bond fund specialists, respectively) enjoyed bumper positive fund flows in 2012, as rattled investors added a net $266 billion to taxable bond funds. All four of the insurers are sales leaders in the individual variable annuity space.

Some advisors evidently think of bonds when they think about retirement income, while others think of annuities. Almost half of all advisors surveyed (48%) said insurance companies were “bested suited to offer a retirement income product,” followed distantly by brokerage firm (26%) and mutual fund company (19%).

“Despite some concern about product pricing increases and the exodus by several companies from the variable annuities market, they still do believe that insurance firms offer the best solutions. That comment was consistent throughout our research,” Ferreira told RIJ last week.

Within the advisor community, sentiment is more nuanced. Registered investment advisors, whose clients have the highest average account balances, tend to identify mutual fund firms as retirement income thought leaders. Broker dealer representatives are more likely to identify an insurance company.

Individual investors, perhaps because they’re more familiar with fund companies, tend to associate them with retirement income. Only 14% retirees and pre-retirees interviewed by Cogent Research in a survey last year named insurance companies as best suited in that respect; 34% chose mutual fund companies and chose 25% brokerage firms.

Advisors appear to believe that a household with an annual income of $200,000 before retirement will need $150,000 to maintain the same standard of living. “Generally, they’re trying to replace 75% of their clients’ pre-retirement income,” Rice said, adding that on average advisors rely on a dozen investment vehicles and seven different product providers to accomplish that.

The survey also revealed that advisors’ faith in Social Security has softened. “As always, they tend to look at retirement funding as a three-legged stool,” Ferreira said. “But they no longer think that Social Security, a pension and personal savings will each provide about one-third of retirement income.

“Now they see it as 20% from Social Security, about 36% from a employer sponsored plan and the rest from personal savings. They’re hedging their bets about Social Security’s long-term future. If the money is there, that’s great. But if not, they want to be prepared.”

Although many pre-retirees express a willingness to work longer if necessary, advisors tend to recommend postponing retirement only as a last resource, Rice told RIJ. “If their clients don’t have enough money to fund their desired retirement, advisors are more likely to recommend a change in lifestyle or a change in the size of the legacy,” she said.

Also, high net worth clients tend to worry less about running out of money in retirement than about experiencing income volatility, Rice added. Regarding the use of annuities, she noted that RIAs tend to be process-oriented while broker-dealer representatives are more open to purchasing products. RIAs also tend to be confident that their clients can afford to self-insure against longevity risk or rely on risk-management techniques other than insurance.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Second-Guessing the Fed

Critics of the US Federal Reserve are having a field day with embarrassing revelations of its risk assessments on the eve of the financial crisis. By law, the Fed is required to publish the transcripts of its Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings with a five-year lag.

While the full-blown crisis did not erupt until the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, it was clear by the summer of 2007 that something was very wrong in credit markets, which were starting to behave in all sorts of strange ways. Yet many Fed officials clearly failed to recognize the significance of what was unfolding. One governor opined that the Fed should regard it as a good thing that markets were starting to worry about subprime mortgages. Another argued that the summertime market stress would most likely be a hiccup.

Various critics are seizing on such statements as evidence that the Fed is incompetent, and that its independence should be curtailed, or worse. This is nonsense. Yes, things could and should have been done better; but to single out Fed governors for missing the coming catastrophe is ludicrous.

The Fed was hardly alone. In August 2007, few market participants, even those with access to mountains of information and a broad range of expert opinions, had a real clue as to what was going on. Certainly the US Congress was clueless; its members were still busy lobbying for the government-backed housing-mortgage agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, thereby digging the hole deeper.

Nor did the International Monetary Fund have a shining moment. In April 2007, the IMF released its famous “Valentine’s Day” World Economic Outlook, in which it declared that all of the problems in the United States and other advanced economies that it had been worrying about were overblown.

Moreover, it is misleading to single out the most misguided comments by individual governors in the context of an active intellectual debate over policy. It is legitimate to criticize individual policymakers who exercised poor judgment, and they should have a mark on their record. But that does not impugn the whole FOMC, much less the entire institution.

Central banks’ state-of-the-art macroeconomic models also failed miserably – to a degree that the economics profession has only now begun to acknowledge fully. Although the Fed assesses many approaches and indicators in making its decisions, there is no doubt that it was heavily influenced by mainstream academic thinking – including the so-called real business cycle models and New Keynesian models – which assumed that financial markets operate flawlessly. Indeed, the economics profession and the world’s major central banks advertised the idea of the “great moderation” – the muting of macroeconomic volatility, owing partly to monetary authorities’ supposedly more scientific, model-based approach to policymaking.

We now know that canonical macroeconomic models do not adequately allow for financial-market fragilities, and that fixing the models while retaining their tractability is a formidable task. Frankly, had the models at least allowed for the possibility of credit-market imperfections, the Fed might have paid more attention to credit-market indicators as a reflection of overall financial-market conditions, as central banks in emerging-market countries do.

Last but not least, even if the Fed had better understood the risks, it would not have been easy for it to avert the crisis on its own. The effectiveness of interest-rate policy is limited, and many of the deepest problems were on the regulatory side.

And calibrating a response was not easy. By late 2007, for example, the Fed and the US Treasury had most likely already seen at least one report arguing that only massive intervention to support subprime loans could forestall a catastrophe. The idea was to save the financial system from having to deal with safely dismantling the impossibly complex contractual edifices – which did not allow for the possibility of systemic collapse – that it had constructed.

Such a bailout would have cost an estimated $500 billion or more, and the main beneficiaries would have included big financial firms. Was there any realistic chance that such a measure would have passed Congress before there was blood in the streets?

Indeed, it was precisely this logic that me led to give a very dark forecast in a widely covered speech in Singapore on August 19, 2008, a month before Lehman Brothers failed. I argued that things would not get better until they got much worse, and that the collapse of one of the world’s largest financial firms was imminent. My argument rested on my view that the global economy was entering a major recession, and I had the benefit of my quantitative work, with Carmen Reinhart, on the history of financial crises.

I was not trying to be sensational in Singapore. I thought that what I was saying was completely obvious. Nevertheless, my prediction gained bold front-page headlines in many major newspapers throughout the world. It gained headlines, evidently, because it was still far from a consensus view, although concerns were mounting.

Were concerns mounting at the Fed as well in the summer of 2008? We will have to wait until next year to find out. But, when we do, let us remember that hindsight is 20-20.

Kenneth Rogoff is professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University. He won the 2011 Deutsche Bank Prize in Financial Economics.

© 2013 Project Syndicate.

CFP Board releases survey and guidebook on using social media

Although about 73% of Certified Financial Planner professionals say they use social media, only about 45% use it for professional purposes, according to a recent survey of 3,532 CFP designation holders by the CFP Board.  

CFPs cited three main reasons for not using social media for professional purposes:

  • Compliance prohibitions and limitations (mentioned by 37%)
  • Uncertainty over compliance and regulatory requirements (33%) 
  • Lack of time (20%).

The CFP Board also released a new Social Media Guide for CFP® Professionals. The guide is intended to help the nation’s 67,000 CFP professionals promote their designations through social media. The document can be found here and on CFP Board’s website. 

The survey also revealed that:

  • LinkedIn is the most popular social media channel for professional use (81.9%), followed by blogs (71.8%), Twitter (45.9%), Google+ (34.5%) and Facebook (19.6%).
  • CFP professionals’ compliance departments prohibit them most often from using:
    • Facebook (33%)
    • Twitter (29.4%)
    • YouTube (28.7%)
  • Planners use social media professionally to:
    • Network with other planners (44.8%)
    • Follow professional news and trends (43.1%)
    • Marketing and business promotion (33.1%)
  • 61.2% of CFP® professionals post to social media channels “infrequently”
  • 70% said their firm or company has a formal social media policy that addresses compliance procedures, restrictions and requirements for prior approval.  
  • 41% of respondents use “CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ professional” to describe themselves to clients. They also use the terms “financial advisor” and “financial planner.”   

Taxable bond funds gain $266.1 billion in 2012: Cerulli

The January 2013 edition of The Cerulli Edge, a monthly mutual fund and ETF product trends bulletin from Boston-based research firm Cerulli Associates, showed that for calendar year 2012 U.S. taxable bond mutual funds gained $266.1 billion while U.S. stock mutual funds lost a net $105.3 billion.

DoubleLine’s Total Return Bond Fund had $19.6 billion in 2012 flows, the most of any mutual fund. Five of the top ten funds in terms of 2012 flows were Vanguard index funds and two were PIMCO funds.

Despite seeing a $105 billion net outflow in 2012, U.S. stock funds remained the largest asset class, with a market value of $3.48 trillion at year-end, compared with $2.51 trillion in taxable bond funds, which added $266 billion last year. There’s also $1.4 trillion in international stock funds and $584 billion in municipal bond funds.  

Alternatives funds and commodities funds, though trendy, account for just 1% and 0.5%, respectively, of mutual fund assets. Even though index investing continues to gain favor, as of December 2012 active mutual funds held far more assets than passive mutual funds, by a margin of $7.855 trillion to $1.413 trillion.

PIMCO’s alternative mutual funds contributed net flows of $4.7 billion to the alternatives asset class in 2012, the largest contribution to that class by any manager. PIMCO’s Income Fund and Total Return Fund took in $12.6 billion and $18.0 billion, respectively, to place second and fourth among the ten best-selling funds in 2012.

Several Vanguard index funds were also among the most popular. Vanguard Total Stock Market Fund, Total Bond Market II Fund, Total International Stock Index Fund, Total Institutional Index Fund and Total Bond Market Index gained $13.8 billion, $12.3 billion, $11.6 billion, $8.5 billion and $8.0 billion respectively.

Cerulli also found:

  • Mutual fund assets increased 16.3% in 2012 and garnered $269 billion, almost triple their 2011 net flows of $97.8 billion. Municipal bond and balanced asset classes had net flows of $50.1 billion and $21.3 billion, respectively.
  • ETF assets grew 27.4% as flows totaled $187 billion. U.S. stock ETFs posted the best flows among the asset classes, with $54.8 billion.
  • Economic and capital market uncertainty has shaped both Retail and institutional investors want portfolio solutions that can boost returns, subdue volatility, and address liabilities.
  • Alternative investments’ ability to reduce volatility and provide diversification in portfolios was ranked by third-party-distribution-focused managers as the most important product attribute (4.6 on a 5.0 scale) to financial advisors, followed by risk reduction (3.7 on a 5.0 scale).
  • About one-fourth (24%) of asset managers marked taxable bond for new product development within the next 12 months.
  • Of the top-10 flow-gathering Morningstar categories in 2012, intermediate-term bonds had the most net flows with $112.3 billion, and only two were not fixed-income-focused: diversified emerging markets and conservative allocation.

 

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Trading volume in VIX futures rose to new record in January

Trading activity in futures on the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) set several new records in January 2013, including total monthly volume, total monthly average daily volume, single-day volume and open interest, the CBOE Futures Exchange (CFE) said.   

The record 2,897,739 VIX futures contracts traded during January was an increase of 258% from the 808,784 contracts traded in January 2012 and a gain of 19% from the 2,435,648 contracts traded in December. The previous record for VIX futures monthly volume was 2,734,248 contracts traded during November 2012.   

Average daily volume (ADV) in VIX futures during January was 137,988 contracts, also a new record, and up 241% and 13%, respectively, when compared with 40,439 contracts a year ago and 121,782 contracts the previous month.  The previous record for VIX futures monthly ADV was 130,202 contracts during November 2012. 

VIX futures set consecutive single-day volume records on January 2, 2013 and December 31, 2012 with 221,323 contracts and 212,800 contracts traded, respectively, surpassing the previous high of 190,081 contracts on September 13, 2012. 

During January, open interest in VIX futures reached a new high on four consecutive trading days, culminating on January 16 when open interest stood at a record 472,403 contracts.       

Total trading volume at CFE during January was a record 2,927,613 contracts, up 261% from the January 2012 volume of 811,283 contracts and an increase of 20% above the 2,446,471 contracts traded during December. The previous record for total monthly volume at CFE was 2,744,177 contracts traded during November 2012.  

Total exchange-wide ADV during January reached a new high of 139,410 contracts, a gain of 244% from January 2012 ADV of 40,564 contracts and up 14% from the ADV of 122,324 contracts in December. 

The previous record for CFE total monthly ADV was 130,675 contracts during November 2012.  Consecutive CFE single-day volume records were set on January 2, 2013 and December 31, 2012 with 226,951 contracts and 212,984 contracts traded, respectively.

These records surpassed the previous high of 191,228 contracts on September 13, 2012. January was the first month in CFE history where daily volume exceeded 100,000 contracts each trading day. On January 16, exchange-wide open interest stood at 501,559 contracts, a new all-time high, and the first time CFE open interest surpassed the 500,000-contract benchmark. 

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

In BlackRock asset allocation contest, the winners were…

The three co-winners of an asset allocation contest, in which BlackRock challenged sophomores and juniors at Duke University to design an ideal balanced portfolio for a volatile, low-yield world, were revealed last week in a New York Times article.

Junior economics majors Mike Du, Alex Kim and Jenny Zhang’s winning allocation was 43% stocks (30.3% Russell 2000 Index and 12.7% Russell mid-cap fund) and 57% bonds (32.1% Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, or TIPS, and 24.9% aggregate bond fund).

The students projected an average annual return of 9.7% for this hypothetical portfolio, based on historical back-testing. The winners will get an interview at BlackRock and a shot at a summer internship at the Manhattan-based asset manager.

The team’s assumptions included an optimistic future average return of 5.91% a year from bonds in general and a 5.66% return from TIPS.  They made no allocation to international equities, which many professional portfolio managers recommend.

The Times compared the Duke undergrads’ allocation with Vanguard and Fidelity target date fund allocations. Vanguard’s Target Retirement 2020 Fund puts 64% in stocks (20% in international equities). Fidelity’s Freedom 2020 Fund calls for 56% stocks (15% in international equities) and eight percent TIPS.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.     

Different Floors, Different Ceilings

Investors who seek both upside potential and downside protection on their tax-deferred savings can now find several types of annuity contracts to help them do precisely that. And the number of available choices appears to be growing.   

Fixed index annuities, of course, preserve principal (if held long enough) while offering a taste of equity-linked gains during bullish markets. More recently, a spate of variable annuities has appeared that include performance-smoothing managed-volatility funds.

For investors who seek a different balance of risk and reward, there’s a third possibility: Structured annuities where investors can increase their upside potential by sharing the downside risk with the product issuer.

The first product in this category was AXA Equitable Life’s Structured Capital Strategies variable and index-linked deferred annuity. Launched in late 2010, the product features a design and a value proposition that initially baffled regulators when it was first submitted for approval.

For instance, a high-level SEC staff attorney said during a Practicing Law Institute meeting in New York last month that the new contract puzzled him on first reading. An AXA securities lawyer conceded at the same meeting that the SEC review process for the product took seven or eight months. “The terminology was new,” the attorney said. “We wanted to call it Protected Capital Strategies but the SEC said no.”  

Sincerest form of flattery

What was so new about it? Structured Capital Strategies has an index-linked crediting method where gains are tied to the increases in several optional indices, up to a certain cap, over a one-year, three-year or five-year term. It can offer more generous caps than, say, index annuities in part because the issuer doesn’t guarantee zero loss of principal.

Instead, the investor assumes the so-called tail risk by agreeing to absorb losses beyond a chosen downside buffer (-10% for one year, up to -20% over three years, or up to -30% over five years). In 2012, a year when rising equity markets made protection more costly than helpful, Structured Capital Strategies owners were in a position to earn more than most owners of managed volatility funds and much more than indexed annuity owners.

“We like the simplicity of the product,” said Kevin Kennedy, head of new business for AXA Equitable’s Retirement Savings division. “Traditional variable annuities solve a need but they’re subject to the three Cs: cost, complexity and commitment. The nice thing about this product is that the costs are embedded in the caps, so there’s no additional cost. It’s simpler than traditional VAs: You just choose the index you want, the maturity and the amount of downside protection. And the commitment is as little as one year.”

Last June, after about 18 months on the market, sales of Structured Capital Strategies surpassed the $1 billion mark. At least two other life insurers—MetLife and Allianz Life—have flattered AXA by filing prospectuses for SEC approval of more or less similar products. Bear in mind that these are all contracts—assets that are index-linked are not held in separate accounts (though assets in optional variable strategies are). The index-linked credits come from the issuers’ investments in options and are backed purely by the claims-paying abilities of the issuers.

Flex Market Shield

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut filed a Form S-3 prospectus early this year for a proposed Flex Market Shield single premium deferred annuity. Where AXA’s Structured Capital Strategies offers three downside buffer options, MetLife offers four “shields.”

MetLife customers can take either a little risk or a lot. Pending SEC approval, owners of Flex Market Shield will be able to protect themselves from accumulated losses of up to 10%, 15%, 25% or even 100% over either a one-year, three-year or six-year term.

On the upside, owners can choose either a predictable “step rate” of return (credited only if the performance of the chosen index is equal or greater than zero) or opt for whatever net gain (up to a cap) the index achieved between the beginning and end of the chosen term.   

Given the gaps in the current filing, it’s difficult to evaluate this product yet. MetLife’s preliminary prospectus did not name the indexes that contract owners would be able to tie their investments to. But it did say that there would be a choice among several securities indices and at least one commodity index.

The cap rates were not specified and, characteristically for this type of product, will not be fixed until the purchase date. The minimum purchase premium is $25,000 and the penalty in the first year of the six-year surrender period is 9%.      

Index Advantage

On January 3, Allianz Life filed an N-4 form for a flexible premium deferred variable and index-linked annuity called Index Advantage. Contract owners can choose between three strategies, a conventional variable annuity strategy or either of two indexed strategies, the Index Protection Strategy or the Index Performance Strategy.

The Protection Strategy works like a traditional fixed indexed annuity. The contract owner is protected against loss of principal. The credited gains are tied to increases in the S&P 500 Index, up to a cap that’s fixed at the time of purchase, depending on market conditions.

The second, or Performance Strategy, resembles the AXA and MetLife index-lined strategies described above. The credits are determined by gains in the S&P 500, the Russell 2000 Index or the NASDAQ 100 Index. For either strategy, there’s a six-year surrender period with a maximum withdrawal charge of 8.5%.

Unlike the AXA or MetLife products, the Index Advantage doesn’t appear to have fixed term options or fixed buffer options. Instead, it appears that Allianz Life will reset the caps and the buffer at the commencement of the contract and on every contract anniversary.

Competition welcomed

According to AXA Equitable’s Kennedy, Structured Capital Strategies has sold well both to yield-starved fixed income investors and to cautious equity investors. “The B share is still the best-selling share class, mainly to financial planners, and sales in the bank channel run a close second,” he told RIJ last week.

“In the banks you see more of the five-year product being sold, mainly as an alternative to fixed income products for people looking for better returns than they can get from a CD or money market fund. On the planner side, a lot of people are using our one-year product. It’s for the equity investor who says, ‘Why not protect my downside this year?’”

Although all annuities come with guaranteed payout options, AXA doesn’t see Structured Capital Strategies as an income product. “We see it as a gateway to an income product,” he said. You buy this today and use it as a capital appreciation product. And maybe in five years you have some growth and you move to an income type product.” (For SCS index choices, see fact sheet.)

Structured Capital Strategies was a brainchild of necessity in the aftermath of the financial crisis. AXA sought to maintain sales volume without adding to the risk already incumbent in its large variable annuity book. AXA calculated a way to afford to offer clients higher caps by capping its own downside exposure and relying on the client to assume losses that exceeded their chosen buffer.

“We looked at a bunch of different alternatives, and asked, ‘How do we give clients an upside that’s attractive?’ If you look at indexed annuities right now, the caps are down so low. That’s because the cost of full protection against loss is so high right now,” Kennedy said.

AXA also figured that advisors would not object to the tail risk exposure if wholesalers explained that such exposures were, historically, quite rare. Over the past 324 rolling five-year periods, he said, “the market was down more than 30% only once. If you can give people 99.7% certainty, that’s a robust offer.”

As for the prospect of competition from MetLife and Allianz Life, Kennedy welcomed it. “The category makes a lot of sense,” he told RIJ. “We were the only player initially, and it’s hard to be first sometimes. We think it’s great that competitors are coming in because they help validate the product.”

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Matrix Financial Solutions releases practice guide for plan fiduciaries

ERISA Fiduciary Issues: A Practice Guide for Advisors, which outlines the opportunities as well as responsibilities of ERISA fiduciaries, has just been released by Matrix Financial Solutions, a unit of Broadridge Financial Solutions. 

The guide explains the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary rules and standards that may apply when advisors deliver investment advice to retirement plan clients.

It also details a “three-step action plan” that advisors can use to review their current business model and, potentially, to expand the range of services they offer plan sponsors:

1.  Assess Your Current Business Model. Fiduciary advisors should periodically self-audit and analyze their current practices both for regulatory compliance under ERISA and market viability. For non-fiduciary advisors, a self-assessment can confirm that their current practices do not render them an unintentional fiduciary and can also help evaluate whether they would benefit from serving as fiduciaries.  

2.  Define and Communicate Your Value Proposition Relative to Fiduciary Support. Advisors should emphasize their special licensing or credentials, honors or recognition, retirement plan training programs completed, experience in working with other plan sponsors, and success stories.

3. Help Plan Sponsors Meet Their Fiduciary Duty. Few plan sponsors understand what ERISA demands of them. Advisors can provide sponsors with educational resources, explain their fiduciary role and then help them meet their obligations.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Lincoln Financial to use Fiserv’s Retirement Income Illustrator

Fiserv, Inc., a Wisconsin-based provider of financial services technologies, said that Lincoln Financial Group will be the first client to use its new retirement income technology.

The Fiserv solution, called Retirement Income Illustrator, will “support an enhanced participant experience” in Lincoln’s Retirement Plan Services business and will be offered to Lincoln-affiliated advisors for use with their clients, said a Fiserv release.   

Using Monte Carlo simulations, the Fiserv technology will help clients calculate and visualize the impact of potential savings and investment strategies on their cash flow in retirement.

Retirement Income Illustrator is designed to present retirement spending requirements and distribution alternatives in the context of withdrawal risk, longevity risk, survivor needs and healthcare risks, Fiserv said.

On its Unified Wealth Platform, Fiserv currently has more than 3.7 million accounts and over 1.3 million unified managed account sleeves. Fiserv said that its acquisitions of AdviceAmerica financial planning technology and CashEdge data aggregation capabilities allow it to deliver integrated, end-to-end solutions to wealth management firms.  

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Multiple-employer plans should file only one Form 5500: ASPPA

The American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries (ASPPA) has asked the federal government for “clarification and transitional relief” regarding filling of Forms 5500 and 8955-SSA for ERISA multiple employer plans (MEPs). 

Attorneys for plan sponsors have interpreted two Department of Labor opinions issued last May to mean that many of today’s MEPs may not qualify as single plans under Title I of ERISA and that each employer jointly sponsoring the MEP might have to file its own Form 5500.

But plan sponsors had relied on Revenue Procedure 2001-21 of the Internal Revenue Code to mean that only one Form 5500 need be filed for all sponsors of the MEP.

“It would appear that, for purposes of the reporting provisions of the IRC, MEPs should continue to file a single Form 5500 covering all the employers jointly sponsoring the plan,” wrote ASPPA general counsel Craig P. Hoffman in a letter to the DoL and the IRS.

Hoffman’s letter said that neither agency had yet shown sponsors of MEPs how to “resolve the inconsistent rules that apply to the singular reporting form (i.e., Form 5500) mandated by both agencies as the vehicle for satisfying a plan sponsor’s statutory reporting obligation… As might be expected, the lack of guidance on how to deal with this inconsistency has caused a great deal of consternation.”  

ASPPA recommended that the DoL and IRS resolve the apparent inconsistency and that the IRS should make it clear that the plan administrator for any plan subject to IRC §413(c) need file only a single Form 8955-SSA under IRC §6057.   

“Until clarified, transitional relief should be provided that would deem a plan sponsor participating in a MEP to have satisfied its reporting obligations under Title I of ERISA and the IRC if a Form 5500 has been filed for the MEP as a single plan,” Hoffman wrote.

“The relief should be made available for any plan year that begins on or before formal coordinated guidance is issued by the Department and IRS. Affected plan sponsors should also be given the option to file individually prior to this deadline.” 

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

IRI announces enhanced members-only website

A new website for members of the Insured Retirement Institute (IRI), called “myIRIonline.org,” will offer access to IRI’s print and electronic publications as well as public policy resource centers designed for financial advisors and broker-dealer/distributor members.

Known until 2008 at the National Association of Variable Annuities, the IRI has more than 500 members, including insurers, broker-dealers and distributors, asset managers, solution providers, and financial advisors.  

The new myIRIonline.org offers:

  • A new “advocacy headquarters” offering news and analysis related to the public policy issues affecting the insured retirement industry.  
  • A new education sub-site equipped with webinars, podcasts, and FINRA-reviewed client materials.
  • A revamped research hub offering the latest economic commentary and data from across the insured retirement industry as well as IRI’s exclusive studies and research publications.
  • New areas dedicated to providing the latest IRI news, conference information, and updates from the operations and technology sector.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Columbia creates blog to monitor securities law enforcement

Columbia Law School has launched the CLS Blue Sky Blog, a blog on corporations and the capital markets that will offer “analysis of noteworthy developments in the worlds of financial reform, securities regulation, [and] corporate governance.” 

A special column called the “Filter” will also collect each business day’s five most interesting news items or blog posts. 

The brainchild of law professor John C. Coffee Jr., the director of the law school’s Center on Corporate Governance, the blog will be a forum for debate over the effectiveness of SEC enforcement in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

Coffee’s January 16 post, “SEC Enforcement Rhetoric and Reality,” has already been cited for praise by Compliance Week columnist Bruce Carton, a former senior counsel in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. 

The CLS Blue Sky Blog is edited and managed by Jason W. Parson, a former corporate and securities law practitioner who is currently a lecturer-in-law and a post-doctoral research scholar at Columbia.

The blog will feature commentary on the Dodd-Frank Act, securities regulation, mergers and acquisitions, finance and economics, corporate governance, and related international developments, as well as a searchable library of memos from leading law firms. 

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Jefferson National VAs to offer Braver Capital tactically managed portfolios

Jefferson National, issuer of flat-fee deferred variable annuities primarily for RIAs interested in tax deferral, has added four new “tactically managed model portfolios” from Braver Capital Management to its VA investment options.

The four portfolios, Braver’s Tactical Balanced, Tactical Core Bond, Tactical Opportunity and Tactical Sector Rotation portfolios, all use “quantitative algorithms applied to asset class price movement to identify trends in numerous asset classes and the broad market, while employing specific stop loss and position size limits for additional risk control. They are completely transparent, with no swaps, no leverage and no derivatives,” according to a release by Jefferson National. 

The Louisville-based insurer’s flagship VA contract, Monument Advisor, already offers 390 underlying investment options, including 70 of the so-called alternative options that advisors increasingly use to help improve the risk/return profiles of their client’s portfolios.

Mutual funds that use tactical strategies characteristically have high turnover, and therefore generate lots of short-term capital gains. That makes them relatively tax-inefficient. Variable annuities, which can accept virtually unlimited amounts of after-tax money for tax-deferred growth, are therefore attractive vehicles for tactically managed investments. 

According to the Jefferson National release, “Morningstar estimates that over the 74-year period ending in 2010, investors who did not manage investments in a tax-sensitive manner gave up between 100 and 200 basis points of their annual returns to taxes.”

The threat of ongoing volatility was cited as a primary concern by more than 67% of the RIAs and fee-based advisors recently surveyed by Jefferson National. “A majority of advisors see tactical management and alternative investments as key to navigating the current market,” Jefferson National said in its release.

“Our research confirms that it is more important to be out of the market during the ten worst days than it is to be in the market on the ten best days—which is why our models seek to stay in the market when it’s rising, but strive to move to the safety of cash when it declines,” said Dave D’Amico, president and chief market strategist, Braver Capital Management, in the release. “As taxes rise following the fiscal cliff and the ongoing budget deficit debate, tax-deferral is only going to grow in importance.”

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Allianz Life Launches New Bonus-Laden FIA

Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America has introduced the Allianz 222 Annuity, a new fixed indexed annuity (FIA) contract. It is available in 44 states to field marketing organizations, broker/dealers, and agents on the “Allianz Preferred” platform.

The new contract offers a 15% bonus to the guaranteed benefit base (“Protected Income Value”) on premiums paid during the first three contract years. During the payout phase, it offers annual bonuses of 50% of the credited interest to clients who have taken no withdrawals for at least 10 years and who use a lifetime withdrawal method rather than traditional annuitization.     

Allianz 222 Annuity is the third FIA offered through the Allianz Preferred platform, joining the previously issued 360 and 365i contracts. Like other FIAs on the market, it offers principal protection, tax deferral and growth potential through indexed crediting methods or from a fixed interest rate. It also offers annuitization options.

Owners of the Allianz 222 Annuity can choose among eight indexed interest allocations and a fixed interest option. The accumulation value can be taken as a lump sum after the 10-year surrender charge period, or the account value can be annuitized after five years.

Contract owners may begin taking lifetime income withdrawals from the Protected Income Value if they’ve held the contract at least 10 years and if they elect income between the ages of 60 and 100.

Owners who are confined to an eligible nursing facility, hospital, or assisted living facility for at least 90 days in a consecutive 120-day period can receive up to double the annual maximum income withdrawal with the Allianz Income Multiplier (AIM) Benefit.

The contract offers two death benefit options. Beneficiaries can receive the full remaining accumulation value as a lump-sum distribution (not including bonuses) or they can receive the value of any remaining benefit base (PIV) – including the premium and interest bonuses – in payments over a minimum of five years.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Big Blue Longevity Dots

“We went out and asked people a simple question,” says Harvard professor Daniel Gilbert in a commercial for Prudential Financial that will run during this Sunday’s Super Bowl broadcast. “How old is the oldest person you’ve known?”

Shot in Austin, Texas, shortly after Superstorm Sandy hammered the Northeast, the 30-second spot serves as the opening kickoff of Prudential’s spring 2013 “Stickers” ad campaign, which follows Prudential’s award-winning 2012 campaign, “Day One.”

The Newark-based insurer thus joins at least 33 other major firms who are paying up to a reported $4 million per 30-second spot to advertise in America’s annual football extravaganza. Prudential’s ad will appear several times, but primarily during the pre-game show and with all but one spot reaching only the New York and Austin markets.   

The Stickers campaign was created for Prudential by Droga5, the same firm responsible for “Day One.” Both campaigns find a simple but sophisticated way to breathe life into the potentially dry (and even morbid) retirement income story by enlisting the participation of distinctly ordinary people in real-life, real-time events. 

The two campaigns tell the story in different ways, however. Designed to dramatize the fact that 10,000 Baby Boomers are retiring every day, the Day One ads are slow-moving video vignettes that capture the musings of individuals on their first day of retirement.   

The Stickers commercial, which dramatizes the fact that more and more people are living longer, is livelier. On November 3, the filmmakers built a giant white wall in the middle of a park in Austin and recruited hundreds of more or less random passersby to take turns climbing a 20-foot rolling ladder and attaching pie-sized blue stickers to the wall.   

When the camera zooms out to reveal what they’ve created, viewers see that the hundreds of blue stickers have formed a giant Gaussian distribution in which each sticker corresponds to the age of the oldest person that each participant has known.

You’ve heard of populating a chart with data. In this commercial, people literally populate a chart with their own hands.

“When we landed on this idea, it was Eureka,” said Colin McConnell, Prudential’s in-house ad director. “We’re focusing on the idea that we all know people who are living longer. Living longer has usually been positioned as a dark sinister thing. We wanted to say that living longer is a good thing.

“Financial services advertising is very challenging,” he added. “We’re always looking for a type of messaging that can balance the need for emotional and cognitive connection in a way that seems right for our category.” The TV ad is tied to a participatory Web and social media campaign in which people can “dedicate” blue stickers to older people they’ve known.

Prudential is not the biggest financial services advertiser, but it’s among the leaders. Citing SNL Financial figures, LifeHealthPro reported last August that among life insurers, MetLife was the top spender on advertising in 2011, at $540.5 million. Next in order were New York Life ($139.5 million), Mutual of Omaha ($117.5 million) and Prudential ($91.3 million).

According to the 2012 AdAge Financial Services Report, published last October and based on Kantar Media data, Prudential was ninth in spending when benchmarked against investment and retirement-product firms, with $35.2 million in 2011, up 64% from $21.4 million in 2010. Fidelity (FMR Corp.) topped that list with 2011 media spending of $148.5 million.

The “host” of the Prudential Stickers commercial, Harvard social psychology professor Daniel Gilbert, 55, is a celebrity in his own right. Millions know him as the bestselling author of Stumbling on Happiness (Random House, 2007) and as the co-author and host of “This Emotional Life,” a six-part series aired on public television in 2010.  

Prudential’s agency, Droga5, was started by former Saatchi & Saatchi chief creative officer David Droga and others in 2006. It has become one of world’s most admired agencies, with a client list that, besides Prudential, includes American Express, Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Puma and Unilever. It was Adweek’s 2012 Agency of the Year.

In a 30-second spot, simplicity is a big asset, and close viewings of the Stickers commercial show how simple its structure is. Using what looks like the kind of basic A-and-B roll technique that first-year film students learn, shots of people receiving their blue dots and attaching them to the white wall are sandwiched between opening and closing shots of Gilbert, whose affable voice-over narration ties the whole piece together.  

The color blue—Prudential’s trademark blue—is used as a brand-reinforcing theme throughout the commercial. Gilbert wears a blue shirt, for instance, as do three of the four people—a young girl, a woman, and two men—who are prominently featured.

At about the midpoint of the commercial, in what might be a subliminal nod to the male-dominated Super Bowl audience, we see a curvy young blond woman in a close-fitting blue dress stooping to affix her sticker to a low spot on the wall. We never see her face, and the image lasts only a second. But at these ad rates, every second counts.   

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

CDAs and the Law

“We don’t even know all the questions, let alone all the answers,” said insurance and securities lawyer Joan Boros at the start of the annual seminar on Securities Products of Insurance Companies at the Practicing Law Institute in Manhattan yesterday.

Boros, an attorney of counsel with the Washington law firm of Jorden Burt, who has chaired the event with fellow attorney Jeffrey S. Puretz of the Dechert law firm for many years, was describing the uncertainty that seems to dominate Wall Street and Washington these days.

“This is the present theme of our economy and regulation,” she pointed out to a roomful of lawyers who came to acquire continuing education points and to learn the latest on the regulation of insurance products whose value is linked in some way to the securities markets. She was talking specifically about the difficulty of risk management and risk assessment in the current environment.

For instance, contingent deferred annuities (CDAs), aka stand-alone living benefits, are on the minds of certain life insurers these days, and took up part of yesterday’s seminar. These products, which Prudential and Great-West are impatient to bring to market, wrap a guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit around a portfolio of mutual funds for an annual fee of about one percent.

The products have been closely scrutinized by state regulators. A working group of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) removed one hurdle to sales of the product last March by determining that CDAs were insurance products and not financial guarantees, which life insurers can’t sell.

But the group decided that it needed more time to study the consumer protection issues and the solvency (i.e., reserve requirement) issues that the products raise. The working group met again in late November, but the proceedings haven’t been made public. Since CDAs are deemed regulated securities as well as insurance guarantees, the working group has also consulted with the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) and with FINRA, the investment industry’s self-regulator.  

James R. Mumford, first deputy secretary of the Iowa Insurance Department, fielded Boros’ questions about CDAs.

“CDAs themselves are very simple products,” he said. “They aren’t as complex as variable annuities, but their administration and regulation is complex. Administration is so complex that only the largest insurance companies can issue them. Smaller companies won’t be able to handle the administration unless they outsource it to third parties” at prohibitive expense.  

He was emphatic in distinguishing CDAs from variable annuities. “You have to be careful in saying that CDAs should be regulated like VAs. They aren’t VAs. In the SEC’s eyes, and in FINRA’s eyes, they are not subject to Securities Act of 1940, and the FINRA variable annuity rules wouldn’t apply to them. The SEC looks at them as securities.”

“We are looking closely at the reserve requirements [for CDAs]. Insurance regulators want to make sure that the reserves are adequate for claims in 40 or 50 years from now. The regulators have learned a lot about reserving for variable annuities since 2008, so they feel fairly comfortable with CDAs. Most of us agree that AG43 is the more appropriate actuarial guideline for CDAs. The recommendations coming from the CDA working group are very important, will set precedent for products coming in future.”

At yesterday’s seminar, Bill Kotapish, assistant director of the Office of Insurance Products at the SEC, was asked about the types of product disclosures that his agency wants to see when it receives so-called S-1 or S-3 filings for new CDA products.

With these products, “there’s a very real risk, and it needs to be pointed out, that [contract owners] might not live long enough to receive the income benefit. If you don’t outlive your assets, you won’t reap the benefit,” Kotapish said. He added that people need to be clearly warned that excess withdrawals can scotch the lifetime income guarantee.  

The SEC has other concerns. “In the case of the CDAs, when there’s a relationship between the insurance company and manager of the assets and the benefit is attached only to assets managed by that entity, what happens if that relationship is terminated for any reason?” he said.

Kotapish also saw a “huge risk” to the contract owner if the insurance company suddenly decides that the underlying assets have become too volatile and says that the investments initially covered by the lifetime income guarantee no longer meets its risk/return parameters. 

CDAs differ from variable annuities, and aim at a different market. In a variable annuity, the underlying investments dwell in a separate account at the insurer. In a CDA, the investments are held in an advisory account at a broker dealer. Significantly, withdrawals from a CDA-protected account aren’t taxed like withdrawals from variable annuities, where gains must come out first and are taxed as ordinary income.

CDAs could open up a huge new market for insurance companies, since they might appeal to Boomers, who currently hold hundreds of billions of dollars in savings in managed accounts or brokerage accounts, who want some protection from running out of money in their old age but who resist buying an annuity for tax or liquidity reasons.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Europe moves toward financial transactions tax

A month after a majority of multi-employer pensions gave 11 members of the European Union their blessing to introduce a “Tobin tax,” EU finance ministers have given those member states the green light to implement the controversial Financial Transaction Tax (FTT), according to IPE.com. 

In September 2011, the European Commission issued a proposal for the introduction of a directive containing an FTT of 10 basis points (0.1%)for bond and equity transactions and one basis point (0.01%) for derivatives transactions.

While France and Germany, which had originally pushed for the tax, received support from Belgium, Austria, Slovenia, Portugal and Greece, additional member states’ approval had been needed in order to employ ‘enhanced cooperation’.

In October 2012, Italy, Spain, Estonia and Slovakia pledged support for the tax, bringing the number of member states backing the FTT to 11, higher than the minimum of nine countries required under Commission rules to trigger enhanced cooperation.

 “It is a milestone for EU tax policy, as it paves the way for more ambitious member states to progress on a tax file, even when unanimity could not be achieved,” said Algirdas Šemeta, European commissioner for taxation and customs union, audit and anti-fraud. 

“Those who want to move ahead, and who appreciate the merits of working more closely on taxation at EU-level, can do so.”

According to Šemeta, the FTT will be applied regionally by a group of countries representing approximately two-thirds of European GDP.

Under enhanced cooperation, other European member states wishing to implement the tax will be able to do so at any time.

In April last year, a resolution passed by the EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (EMAC) sought to exempt pension funds from the FTT. After a number of MEPs requested various exemptions, the final resolution included a provision waiving the tax on transactions carried out by pension funds.

Last October, the Dutch pensions industry welcomed the new government’s plan to introduce the FTT with an exemption for pensions funds. Harmen Geers, spokesman at APG, the asset manager for civil service scheme ABP, told IPE at the time that APG had emphasised that pension funds should not fall victim to measures meant to curb commercial players and risk seekers.

Geers also pointed out that APG needed to trade derivatives to hedge against risks and protect pension assets. “We are not pursuing maximum profits but stable returns for our clients,” he said.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Nationwide enhances VA alternative asset options

In response to rising demand for alternative asset classes as variable annuity investment options, Nationwide Financial has added 10 new guidance models and two new fund options sub-advised by Loring Ward to its America’s marketFlex VAs.
The new guidance models, known as Nationwide Guided Portfolio Strategies (GPS), allow advisors and clients to choose among 10 pre-packaged options focused on alternatives. The new GPS models are anchored around Cardinal funds, which are actively managed.
The addition of two new funds sub-advised by Loring Ward will expand upon the existing broad range of marketFLEX investment options, which includes a total of 18 fund families.
In mid- 2012, Nationwide Financial announced plans to integrate its alternative and fee-based annuity solutions sales team with its larger traditional annuity sales force. This move effectively expands the marketFLEX sales force from seven to over 100 wholesalers.
The product enhancements apply to both America’s marketFLEX Advisor Variable Annuity (for fee-based advisors) and America’s marketFLEX II Variable Annuity (for commission-based advisors). The annuities have a minimum investment of $10,000.

© 2013 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Obama nominates Mary Jo White to chair SEC

On January 24, President Obama is expected to nominate Mary Jo White, a former U.S. Attorney, director of the NASDAQ Stock Exchange, and current white-collar defense lawyer, to be the next chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The White House was also expected to re-nominate Richard Cordray, another former prosecutor, to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which he has done for the past year under a recess appointment.

White, a partner at Debevoise and Plimpton, spent almost 10 years as the U.S. Attorney in New York, the first woman appointed to that job. She oversaw the prosecution of John Gotti, the mafia boss, as well as the individuals responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

In private practice, however, she has defended some of Wall Street’s biggest names, including Ken Lewis, the former head of Bank of America. Debevoise and Plimpton’s list of clients has included AIG, AXA, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, MetLife and Prudential Financial, among many others.

White’s husband, John W. White, was head of the S.E.C.’s division of corporation finance, which oversees public companies’ disclosures and reporting, from 2006 through 2008.

As the attorney general of Ohio, Mr. Cordray sued Wall Street companies, including Bank of America and American International Group, in the wake of the financial crisis.

White will replace Elisse Walter, a longtime S.E.C. official, who served as chairwoman since Mary L. Schapiro stepped down as the agency’s leader in December. Mr. Cordray joined the consumer bureau in 2011 as its enforcement director.

The Senate already declined to confirm Mr. Cordray, with Republicans vowing to block any candidate for the consumer bureau, a new agency created to rein in the financial industry’s excesses.  

Other people said to have been considered for the SEC chairman’s job included Sallie L. Krawcheck, a longtime Wall Street executive, and Richard G. Ketchum, chairman and chief executive of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.