Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

Allianz Life launches new variable annuity through Wells Fargo Advisors

The Allianz Retirement Advantage no-load, $75,000-minimum variable annuity is now available through Wells Fargo Advisors’ Asset Advisor Program, Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America has announced.  

The Advantage variable annuity has three different investment sleeves. Two of the sleeves are intended for accumulation investing: the Heritage Account (for qualified and non-qualified money) has an account fee of 80 basis points a year (maximum 1.75%), a death benefit, and 20 investment options with expense ratios from 52 to 170 basis points a year.

The Portfolio Account (for non-qualified money only) has an account fee of 30 basis points, a death benefit, and 80 investment options with expense ratios from 52 to 170 basis points a year.

Contract owners can annuitize either of those accounts. They can also shift assets to and from a third sleeve, the Retirement Protection Account, which offers a living benefit option. The current mortality and expense ratio is 1% for single life and 1.15% for joint (maximum 1.75%). The account offers 20 investment options with expense ratios from 52 to 170 basis points a year.

The lifetime income payout rate for contract owners ages 65 and older depends on the 10-year U.S. Constant Maturity Treasury rate, according to the prospectus. If the rate is under 3.49%, 3.50-4.99%, 5-6.49% or over 6.50%, then the annual payout rates are 4%, 5%, 6%, or 7%, respectively.

“Designed exclusively for professionals working within the growing advisory services market, the product is a cost-effective retirement solution that provides opportunities for tax-deferred growth potential or guaranteed lifetime income,” the company said in a release.

Allianz Retirement Advantage offers account choices with varying levels of protection, guarantees, and investment options to complement a retirement portfolio, each with its own cost.

© 2012 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

MassMutual jumps into DIA market

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MassMutual) has launched RetireEase Choice, a flexible premium deferred income annuity that guarantees a specific amount of future income at the time a purchase payment is made. The only distributions made from the contract are in the form of annuity payments or a death benefit.

“Although payouts can start as soon as 13 full months after the contract issue date, MassMutual RetireEase Choice is specifically designed to address future predictable income needs,” the company said in a release.

“MassMutual RetireEase Choice is the newest component in our Sound Retirement Solutions retirement planning philosophy,” said Dana Tatro, vice president, U.S. Insurance Group, Annuity Products, at MassMutual.   

Key features of RetireEase Choice include:                                      

  • Flexible purchase payments Customers can make a single initial purchase payment with a minimum of $10,000.  They also can make subsequent purchase payment(s) of at least $500. Each purchase payment purchases a specific amount of guaranteed lifetime income, based on annuity rates that are in effect at the time each purchase payment is made. Multiple purchase payments are combined into a single guaranteed income stream that begins on the selected annuity date. 
  • A variety of payout options – Annuity options can provide guaranteed income for one life or two – and many of these options provide beneficiary protection. 
  • Annuity date adjustment feature – Because a loss of a job, serious health issues and other factors can derail even the most carefully planned retirement strategy, the contract permits a one-time change to the annuity date for many annuity options, although this feature may be limited or unavailable due to Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) rules. 
  • Return of purchase payment(s) – In most cases, if death occurs prior to the annuity date, any purchase payment(s) made will be paid to the beneficiary (except for the Single Life—No Death Benefit annuity option). 
  • Annuity payment acceleration – Owner(s) of non-qualified contracts with a monthly annuity payment frequency can opt to receive three or six monthly annuity payments in a lump sum through a temporary change in annuity payment frequency. This option may be exercised up to five times over the life of the contract.
  • Protection against inflation – This optional benefit can help offset the effects of inflation on annuity payment purchasing power.

© 2012 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

MassMutual jumps into DIA market

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MassMutual) has launched RetireEase Choice, a flexible premium deferred income annuity that guarantees a specific amount of future income at the time a purchase payment is made. The only distributions made from the contract are in the form of annuity payments or a death benefit.

“Although payouts can start as soon as 13 full months after the contract issue date, MassMutual RetireEase Choice is specifically designed to address future predictable income needs,” the company said in a release.

“MassMutual RetireEase Choice is the newest component in our Sound Retirement Solutions retirement planning philosophy,” said Dana Tatro, vice president, U.S. Insurance Group, Annuity Products, at MassMutual.   

Key features of RetireEase Choice include:                                      

  • Flexible purchase payments Customers can make a single initial purchase payment with a minimum of $10,000.  They also can make subsequent purchase payment(s) of at least $500. Each purchase payment purchases a specific amount of guaranteed lifetime income, based on annuity rates that are in effect at the time each purchase payment is made. Multiple purchase payments are combined into a single guaranteed income stream that begins on the selected annuity date. 
  • A variety of payout options – Annuity options can provide guaranteed income for one life or two – and many of these options provide beneficiary protection. 
  • Annuity date adjustment feature – Because a loss of a job, serious health issues and other factors can derail even the most carefully planned retirement strategy, the contract permits a one-time change to the annuity date for many annuity options, although this feature may be limited or unavailable due to Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) rules. 
  • Return of purchase payment(s) – In most cases, if death occurs prior to the annuity date, any purchase payment(s) made will be paid to the beneficiary (except for the Single Life—No Death Benefit annuity option). 
  • Annuity payment acceleration – Owner(s) of non-qualified contracts with a monthly annuity payment frequency can opt to receive three or six monthly annuity payments in a lump sum through a temporary change in annuity payment frequency. This option may be exercised up to five times over the life of the contract.
  • Protection against inflation – This optional benefit can help offset the effects of inflation on annuity payment purchasing power.

© 2012 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

 

U.S. stock funds lose another $14.3 billion in August

Long-term mutual fund inflows were just $20.7 billion in August 2012, as open-end U.S.-stock funds tallied yet another month of outflows, losing $14.3 billion, according to Morningstar, Inc.’s latest report. Other highlights from the report include:

  • Investors poured $26.4 billion into taxable-bond funds ($30.0 billion if ETF flows are included) and another $5.6 billion into municipal-bond funds in August. Altogether, inflows into these funds surpassed $1.1 trillion since the end of 2008 when the Fed cut rates to zero.
  • U.S.-stock mutual funds and ETFs bled $22.4 billion in August, making it the worst month in two years and the fifth worst during the past five years for the asset class.
  • International-stock funds had $2.8 billion in outflows, the group’s worst showing since December 2011.
  • World-bond and inflation-protected bond funds absorbed just over $600 million in combined August inflows.
  • Old Westbury experienced inflows of $1.4 billion, while the American Funds saw another $5.5 billion in outflows.

© 2012 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Alpha, Beta, and Now… Gamma

When it comes to generating retirement income, investors arguably spend the most time and effort on selecting ‘good’ investment funds/managers—the so-called alpha decision—as well as the asset allocation, or beta, decision.

However, alpha and beta are just two elements of a myriad of important financial planning decisions, many of which can have a far more significant impact on retirement income.

We introduce a new concept called “Gamma” designed to quantify the additional expected retirement income achieved by an individual investor from making more intelligent financial planning decisions.

Gamma will vary for different types of investors, but in this article we focus on five fundamental financial planning decisions/techniques:

  • A total wealth framework to determine the optimal asset allocation
  • A dynamic withdrawal strategy
  • Incorporating guaranteed income products (i.e., annuities)
  • Tax-efficient decisions 
  • Liability-relative asset allocation optimization

We estimate a retiree can expect to generate 29% more income on a “utility-adjusted” basis using a Gamma-efficient retirement income strategy when compared to our base scenario, which assumes a 4% constant real withdrawal and a 20% equity allocation portfolio.

This additional income is equivalent to an annual arithmetic return increase of +1.82% (i.e., Gamma equivalent alpha), which represents a significant improvement in portfolio efficiency for a retiree.

Unlike traditional alpha, which can be hard to predict, we find that Gamma (and Gamma equivalent alpha) can be achieved by anyone following an efficient financial planning strategy.

Alpha and beta: Defining value

The notions of beta and alpha (in particular alpha) have long fascinated financial advisors and their clients. “Alpha” allows a financial advisor to demonstrate (and potentially quantify) the excess returns generated, which can help justify fees. In contrast, beta (systematic risk exposures) helps explain the risk factors of a portfolio to the market, i.e., the asset allocation.

Quantifying beta

The importance of the asset allocation decision (the beta decision) has been one of the most controversial and emotional subjects of the past 25 years. The firestorm began with Brinson, Hood, and Beebower (1986), which finds that the variance of a portfolio’s asset allocation, or policy return, explained 93.6% of the variation in the 91 large U.S. pension plans tested. Brinson, Singer, and Beebower (1996) confirm the results in the original paper, but found a slightly lower number, 91.5%.

While the results of the Brinson studies became an accepted and often misinterpreted “truth,” other researchers were more circumspect. In an important but little noticed paper, Hensel, Ezra, and Ilkiw (1991), points out that a naïve portfolio must be chosen as a baseline in order to evaluate the importance of asset allocation policy. They point out that in the Brinson studies the baseline portfolio is 100% cash so that these studies are demonstrating the self-evident fact that investing in risky assets produces volatile returns. Janke (1997) caused a great deal of debate with an article titled “The Asset Allocation Hoax.”

In our view, the debate was nearly settled by Ibbotson and Kaplan (2000), which concluded that “while asset allocation explains about 90% of the variability of a fund’s returns over time, it explains only about 40% of the variation of returns across funds.” The settling of the debate and the proper interpretation of the “40% of the variation of returns across funds” was finally provided by Xiong, Ibbotson, Idzorek, and Chen (2010), who found that after controlling for interaction effects, about three-quarters of a typical fund’s variation in time-series returns comes from general market movement, with the remaining portion split roughly evenly between the specific asset allocation and active management. For an excellent summary of the asset allocation debate, we recommend Ibbotson (2010) and Idzorek (2010).

Quantifying alpha

The concept of alpha is far more difficult to quantify. Sharpe (1992) concludes that style and size explain 80%-90% of mutual fund returns, while stock selection explains only 10%-20%. There have been numerous active versus passive studies, the majority of which suggest that alpha (when correctly measured) likely does not exist after taking fees into account. Therefore, if a financial advisor’s value proposition is focused on the notion of “adding alpha” and he or she is not able to generate alpha (which should hold in aggregate), has the advisor still added value? The answer to this question depends on a variety of factors, but primarily the scope of the relationship with the client.

Beyond beta and alpha

If an advisor is paid solely to manage a portfolio of assets, and does nothing else, i.e., offers no additional advice regarding anything other than the investment of the client assets, the concepts of alpha and beta should be relatively good measures of the value of the advisor. However, in more complex engagements, in particular as it relates when providing financial planning services to clients, value can- not be defined in such simple returns as alpha and beta, since the objective of an individual investor is typically to achieve a goal, and that goal is most likely saving for retirement.

It may be that a financial advisor generates significant negative alpha for a client (i.e., invests the client’s money in very expensive mutual funds that underperform), but still provides other valuable services that enable a client to achieve his or her goals. While this financial advisor may have failed from a pure alpha perspective, the underlying goal was accomplished. This is akin to losing a battle but winning the war.

Individual investors invest to achieve goals (typically an inflation-adjusted standard of living), and doing the things that help an investor achieve those goals (i.e., adding Gamma) is a different type of value than can be attributed to alpha or beta alone, and is in many ways more valuable. Therefore, asset-only metrics are an incomplete means of measuring retirement strategy performance.

Gamma factors

In this paper, we examine the potential value, or Gamma, that can be obtained from making “intelligent” financial planning decisions during retirement. A retiree faces a number of risks during retirement, some of which are unique to retirement planning and are not concerns during accumulation. We will explore five different Gamma factors:

            1. Total wealth asset allocation. Using human capital in conjunction with the market portfolio to determine the optimal equity allocation. Most techniques used to determine the asset allocation for a client are relatively subjective and focus primarily on risk preference (i.e., an investor’s aversion to risk) and ignore risk capacity (i.e., an investor’s ability to assume risk). In practice, however, we believe asset allocation should be based on a combination of risk preference and risk capacity, although primarily risk capacity. We determine an investor’s risk capacity by evaluating his or her total wealth, which is a combination of human capital (an investor’s future potential savings) and financial capital. We can then either use the market portfolio as the target aggregate asset allocation for each investor (as suggested by the Capital Asset Pricing Mode) or build an investor-specific asset allocation that incorporates an investor’s risk preferences. In both approaches, the financial assets are invested, subject to certain constraints, in order to achieve an optimal asset allocation that takes both human and financial capital into account.

            2. Dynamic withdrawal strategy. The majority of retirement research has focused on static withdrawal strategies where the annual withdrawal during retirement is based on the initial account balance at retirement, increased annually for inflation. For example, a “4% Withdrawal Rate” would really mean a retiree can take a 4% withdrawal of the initial portfolio value and continue withdrawing that amount each year, adjusted for inflation. If the initial portfolio value was $1 million and the withdrawal rate was 4%, the retiree would be expected to generate $40,000 in the first year. If inflation during the first year was 3%, the actual cash flow amount in year two (in nominal terms) would be $41,200. Under this approach, the withdraw amount is based entirely on the initial income target, and is not updated based on market performance or expected investor longevity. The approach we use in this paper, originally introduced by Blanchett, Kowara, and Chen (2012), determines the annual withdrawal amount annually based on the ongoing likelihood of portfolio survivability and mortality experience.

            3. Annuity allocation. Outliving one’s savings is perhaps the greatest risk for retirees. For example, a study by Allianz Life noted that the greatest fear among retirees is not death (39%) but rather outliving one’s resources (61%) (See Bhojwani [2011]). Annuities allow a retiree to hedge away this risk and can therefore improve the overall efficiency of a retiree’s portfolio. The contribution of an annuity within a total port- folio framework, (benefit, risk, and cost) must be considered before determining the appropriate amount and annuity type.

            4. Asset location and withdrawal sourcing. Tax-efficient investing for a retiree can be thought of in terms of both “asset location” and intelligent withdrawal sequencing from accounts that differ in tax status. Asset location is typically defined as placing (or locating) assets in the most tax-efficient account type. For example, it generally makes sense to place less tax-efficient assets (i.e. those where the majority of total return comes from coupons/dividends taxed as ordinary income), such as bonds, in retirement accounts (e.g., IRAs or 401ks) and more tax-efficient assets (i.e. those where the majority of total return comes from capital gains taxed a rate less than ordinary income), such as stocks, in taxable accounts. When thinking about withdrawal sequencing, it typically makes sense to withdrawal monies from taxable accounts first and more tax- efficient accounts (e.g., IRAs or 401ks) later.

            5. Liability-relative optimization. Asset allocation methodologies commonly ignore the funding risks, like inflation and currency, associated with an investor’s goals. By incorporating the liability into the portfolio optimization process it is possible to build portfolios that can better hedge the risks faced by a retiree. While these “liability-driven” portfolios may appear to be less efficient asset allocations when viewed from an asset-only perspective, we find they are actually more efficient when it comes to achieving a sustainable retirement income.

For a copy of the entire Blanchett-Kaplan paper, click here.

© 2012 Morningstar, Inc.

Your Clients’ Toughest Retirement Decision

(To view this article at Advisor Perspectives.com, click here.) 

Want to trigger an impassioned debate? Ask a group of advisors about the choice between systematic withdrawal plans (SWPs) and single-premium immediate annuities (SPIAs).

Fee-only advisors are loath to cede control of client assets to an insurance company that might someday default, while annuity advocates fire back that only their strategies provide a lifetime income guarantee.

While I’m not taking sides in this feud, I would like to highlight some of the key issues that divide these opposing camps. These include:

  • The value of the historical record
  • The validity of research assumptions
  • Biases in advisor recommendations
  • The role of fraud and cognitive decline
  • Taxes
  • The potential for self-annuitization

A client following an SWP invests her assets at the start of retirement and withdraws funds over her lifetime. The key determinants of whether such a plan will succeed—meaning that the client will not outlive her funds—are the rate-of-return on the invested assets and the rate at which the client withdraws funds.

By contrast, a retiree could instead purchase a SPIA from an insurance company and receive known payments for the rest of his life.

Basic cases

The basic case for systematic withdrawals is that, by calibrating a client’s withdrawal rate to what would have always worked in the past, a client can obtain a sustainable income stream for life similar to what SPIAs currently provide.

Even better, systematic withdrawals allow clients to maintain control over and flexibility of their assets, and they retain the ability to bequeath any remaining assets. More often than not, using a safe withdrawal rate will allow a client’s wealth to continue multiplying throughout retirement, except in the unfortunate case when that client’s portfolio suffers a sharp decline shortly after the onset of retirement, which is the absolute worst-case scenario for such investors.

Michael Kitces of the Pinnacle Advisory Group recently emphasized in an important blog entry that safe withdrawals rates also provide a floor-with-upside approach, with the potential for greater spending or a growing legacy.

What’s more, aside from the uncertainty of health expenses, which complicate any strategy, available evidence suggests that discretionary expenses decrease with age. With some flexibility to make mid-course spending adjustments, systematic withdrawals from a well-diversified portfolio should safely support a spending plan without wealth depletion while also preserving the client’s liquidity and upside potential.

As for SPIAs, each client only gets one opportunity to enjoy a sustainable retirement, and averages are irrelevant when dealing with volatile investments. With an SWP, one may hope for a risk premium from equities, but there is no guarantee that markets will comply. Especially when considering basic spending needs, relying on withdrawals from a volatile SWP portfolio exposes retirees to greater market risk than they may realize. The U.S. record is much too short to have any confidence about a safe withdrawal rate, uncertainty that is amplified in today’s low interest rate environment. The consequences of being unable to meet basic needs because of a bad sequence of market returns could be severe.

While systematic withdrawals force retirees to plan for a longer lifespan than average, the mortality credits provided by annuities (those who die sooner subsidize the payments to those who live longer) allow for payouts to be connected to life expectancies. Annuities provide a risk management tool that helps to protect clients from sequence-of-returns, longevity and market risk.

So there are countervailing benefits to each approach. The question, I’d argue, is not whether to annuitize, but how much to annuitize. Most Americans will find that the optimal answer is not 0% or 100%, but somewhere in between.

An illustration

Figure 1, below, illustrates the link between real interest rates and annuity payout rates. I adjusted the fees on SPIAs so that payouts are fairly realistic. The figure also includes sustainable withdrawal rates over 30 and 40 years under a simplifying assumption that real portfolio returns will be fixed at the interest rates shown on the axis for the entirety of the retirement period.


For SWPs, this is of course unrealistic, as a bad sequence of returns in early retirement could result in lower payouts than implied by a fixed average return. But a diversified portfolio would, on average, support a higher withdrawal rate than what the figure shows as based on current real yields reflecting future portfolio returns.

The figure illustrates three key concepts:

1. Mortality credits allow for higher payouts, because the annuity provider can plan for customers to survive to their life expectancy, whereas those planning for systematic withdrawals must assume and save for a longer lifespan to avoid outliving their wealth.

2. Sustainable withdrawal rates are closely linked to expected portfolio returns. Simply looking at what worked in the past may not be sufficient, especially as bond yields are currently at historic lows.

3. Current low interest rates do not imply that SPIAs are unfavorable at present, as any strategy must accommodate lower interest rates.

The value of the historical record

For both sides of the debate, important points of contention center on the underlying support provided by the historical record. Annuity supporters argue that the U.S. historical record is much too short to reliably determine sustainable spending rates from portfolios of volatile assets.

Even in the wake of such events as the Great Depression and the Great Stagnation of the 1970s, U.S. markets have generally recovered quickly, but, as I have explained in a past column, safe withdrawal rate guidelines based on U.S. data have not performed nearly as well in most other developed-market countries.

For advocates of systematic withdrawals, this criticism of the historical record may be tolerable as long as it is well understood that the critique applies just as much to annuities. Guarantees should not be accepted at face value. Any market scenario adverse enough to jeopardize an SWP would also affect the balance sheets of annuity providers. Credit risk for annuity providers is a real concern, and clients must be aware of potential risks to their guaranteed income. During a systemic crisis, state guarantee associations may be overwhelmed. For some SWP advocates, mistrust of the insurance industry leads to the belief that there are scandals or misdeeds waiting to be uncovered, or that the guarantees built into SPIAs are not as safe as their supporters assert. Joseph Tomlinson provided a recent deeper analysis of annuity-provider credit risk.

Validity of safe withdrawal rate research assumptions

Annuity supporters can also make the point that the basic underlying assumptions for safe withdrawal rate studies do not match the experience of real-world investors. Clients must pay fees to their portfolio managers and investment advisors. As well, the underlying 30- year planning horizon for the 4% rule may not be long enough for today’s retirees. The probability of surviving beyond that timeframe is rising because of medical advances.

Investors must also deal with the tracking risk that their own investment returns may not match those of the precisely rebalanced underlying indices of the hypothetical retiree. For historical safe withdrawal rates to be relevant, clients must rely on very low-cost index funds and rebalance periodically while avoiding temptations to buy high and sell low. The implication is that the hypothetical withdrawal rates found in existing studies are too high and cannot realistically be compared with annuity payout rates.

As Bob Seawright of Madison Avenue Securities wrote in The Annuity Imperative, “The reality is that there will be a significant number of catastrophic outcomes using the 4% rule. This alleged safe withdrawal rate is anything but.”

Biases in advisor recommendations

Retirement planning is a process whose goal is to find the best solutions for each client’s personal circumstances. But in the debate between systematic withdrawals and annuities, a central point of contention is how often recommendations are based on the personal interests of advisors more so than what is in the best interests of their clients.

Advisors working for insurance companies are more likely to recommend annuities or other insurance solutions, while fee-based advisors are more likely to suggest systematic withdrawals from a portfolio of assets. Advisors who charge fees for assets under management act against their own self-interest by recommending annuitization, since fewer assets will remain on which to assess fees. SPIAs also limit the frequency of future contacts between clients and advisors, a disincentive for advisors whose fee structures are based on provided services.

This is a tough issue to adjudicate. One certainly hopes we can expect that good advisors will put their clients’ interests first, though research in other areas of finance and psychology has increasingly demonstrated that even unconscious biases can have pervasive effects on financial decisions.

Fraud and cognitive decline

An argument in favor of annuities is that by locking up savings with fixed payouts, a client is better protected from the travails of cognitive decline, which could someday limit his or her ability to make complex decisions about withdrawals and suitable investments, and which might increase the likelihood of falling victim to financial fraud.

Recent research, such as this article by Texas Tech University and University of Missouri professors Michael Finke, John Howe, and Sandra Huston, suggests that cognitive skills for making financial decisions decline with age, while confidence in one’s ability to make those decisions may even increase slightly.

Given such findings, Harvard economist David Laibson has referred to annuities as “dementia insurance.” Though fraud could also lead to the siphoning of annuity payments, the process would move more slowly and might prove easier to thwart than the one-time capture of an elderly client’s financial assets.

Another consideration is that when the spouse who took primary care of investments dies, a joint and survivor’s annuity provides a smoother transition for the surviving spouse, who may not be as familiar with investing.

Those opting for an SWP can still mitigate such considerations, of course. Though flexibility with spending is desirable, make sure that a plan is put in place while clients still have full command of their faculties. And there are methods for advisors to continue helping a client with reduced capacities without relying on annuities, such as a medical power of attorney or a waiver allowing an advisor to discuss the client’s finances with others.

Taxes

Taxes are another important consideration, which Joseph Tomlinson delved into extensively in a recent column. To briefly summarize this important issue, SPIAs benefit from deferring taxation by spreading out income over time, whereas systematic withdrawals will tend to frontload the taxation, since the portfolio and accruals are larger early on.

However, SPIAs treat all interest as ordinary income, a disadvantage given that some portion of portfolio withdrawals will benefit from lower dividend and long-term capital gains tax rates. The portfolio cost basis at time of retirement is also important; clients must watch for a potentially large tax hit if selling assets to annuitize. These complexities call for an independent judgment for each client about which strategy is more tax-efficient.

Potential for self-annuitization

Advisor Perspectives’ Robert Huebscher considered safe withdrawal rates from portfolios other than the typical diversified collection of stocks and bonds. He identified municipal bonds as securities that may offer similar cash flows and risk characteristics as an annuity.

For retirees who are able to find such bonds with coupons matching the post-tax income provided by the annuity, it makes sense to buy the bonds instead. Payouts would be the same over the maturity of the bonds, and the bonds also provide liquidity and the return of principal.

The bottom line

Given the complexities described above, in this debate I tend to side with noncombatants such as York University finance professor Moshe Milevsky, who advocates retirement portfolio construction that consists of allocating resources among a traditional diversified portfolio, SPIAs, and variable annuities with guarantee riders.

Only in a rare case would a retiree’s optimal strategy rely on just one of these components. Rather than choosing sides, advisors can best serve their clients by becoming familiar with the benefits and disadvantages of each retirement income tool.

© 2012 Advisor Perspectives.

Bullish sentiments follow central bank easing

The chief investment strategist of Prudential International Investments Advisors, John Praveen, expects stock markets to post further gains, thanks to the U.S. Federal Reserve’s “open-ended” QE3 purchases and the ECB’s “unlimited” bond-buying plan, according to his Global Investment Outlook, September-October 2012.

Highlights of Praveen’s latest report include:

  • The ECB’s plan to buy “unlimited” quantity of debt provides the dysfunctional Eurozone bond markets with an “effective backstop” thereby reducing tail risks from Eurozone.
  • QE 3 is open-ended with Fed buying bonds and keeping interest rates low until there is a meaningful and sustained decline in the unemployment rate. While there is a debate about the effectiveness of QE measures in stimulating the economy, there is little doubt that they have provided a boost to equity markets. Stocks posted healthy gains following QE 1 and QE 2.
  • Other central banks are also likely to undertake further easing measures. Further, Eurozone policy makers continue to take small, but steady, steps to resolve the debt crisis. However, stocks continue to face risks/challenges from fresh Middle East geo-political tensions, slower global growth and the drag on earnings, fears of the U.S. fiscal cliff and lingering Eurozone uncertainty. These headwinds are likely to limit equity gains and encourage profit-taking, but are unlikely to reverse the stock market uptrend.
  • Global bond yields are likely to remain range-bound, caught between improving risk appetite versus weak growth outlook and central bank bond purchase programs. Bond’s safe haven appeal has diminished with improving risk appetite as the ECB’s plan and other policy measures have reduced tail risks from Eurozone.
  • However, the global growth outlook remains weak with the U.S. limping at a below-trend pace, while Japan and Eurozone are struggling. Weak growth outlook and asset purchase programs by the ECB, Fed and BoE are likely to support bonds.    

A Chat with the President of Prudential Annuities

The president of Prudential Annuities spoke with RIJ on Tuesday, three days after a New York Times story put a decidedly negative spin on his firm’s recent decision not to allow owners of its generous, but discontinued, variable annuity contracts with HD6 or HD7 lifetime income riders to make new contributions to their contracts.

Bob O’Donnell, who helped design and launch the HD or “Highest Daily” products five years ago, acknowledged that the Times apparently erred in saying that the products offer “guaranteed returns” (instead, they offer guaranteed increases in the “income base” on which annual payouts are calculated). But he disagreed with any assumption that that misconception was widespread.

“I have observed a big increase in the understanding of the variable annuity industry’s value proposition over the past five or six years,” O’Donnell said in a phone interview. “At one time the guarantees were perceived to be applied to the account balance, but I think that misunderstanding has been remedied.”

O’Donnell added, “With $120 billion in assets and 70% percent of those assets in the living benefit riders, we have no complaints around people alleging that they assumed one thing and got another. We’re not seeing that. If there was that misunderstanding, someone would have complained to us or the broker-dealer.”

As for the decision not to accept new contributions from closed contracts, even from existing owners of those contracts, O’Donnell said that Prudential wasn’t the first variable annuity issuer to take that step and said that it was motivated to protect Prudential shareholders, customers and intermediaries alike. 

“It’s only when you meet the needs of all three constituents, only when you have a value proposition that meets the needs of all of them, that you can have a sustainable business strategy. If we didn’t consider the shareholder, then they shouldn’t be investing in our business,” he said.

O’Donnell was also asked to comment on Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke’s recent announcement that U.S. interest rates would be suppressed until 2015, and on the impact that such rate suppression might have on annuity issuers.

“I think that our industry can sustain low interest rates, period,” he said. “The challenge comes in when rates are moving so much. If you price a product assuming a 3% environment—let’s use 10-year Treasuries as a proxy—and rates drop to 2%, the cost of doing business is going to be higher at 2% than 3%. Your product is now selling in a 2% environment and putting pressure on the profits, relative to what you expected.

“But we can price a compelling value proposition at 2% or 1.5%. The industry can price a compelling longevity value proposition that generates an appropriate return for the shareholder. I’m less concerned about ratings staying at 1.75% than I am about rates going from 2% to 1%. It’s the volatility that creates the strain.

“Yes, low interest rates do mean that we have to put more capital against the business. But as long as we have a pretty stable outlook we can respond with a sustainable value proposition. But at Prudential we spend less time trying to predict what will happen than trying to prepare for what might happen. That’s what the regulators look at too.”

Regarding the issue of not accepting new contributions to closed contracts from existing contract owners, a MetLife executive confirmed that it took that step over the summer.

“We have suspended purchase payments for many of our GMIB riders, and we did so effective August 20,” said Bennett Kleinberg, a MetLife vice president and actuary. “There were some benefits that we restricted earlier in the year, but the great majority of the older products were accepting subsequent purchase payments. We are suspending them due to the challenging economic environment and particularly the lower interest rate environment.”

MetLife began contacting contract owners in mid-July, he said, and the last date for contributions was August 20.

AXA Equitable, which sold large amounts of rich VA riders in 2007, made a similar move last winter. “Not all Accumulator contracts have been closed to new contributions, just the contracts prior to version 9.0, which launched in June 2009. We sent out letters to shareholders in February 2012,” said Discretion Winter, an AXA Equitable spokesperson.

Jackson National is an exception to the trend. “Currently, Jackson does not restrict sub pays into existing contracts,” said Melissa Hernandez of Jackson National’s communications department.

Steve McDonnell of Soleares Research, told RIJ that Ameriprise had recently placed limits on contributions to certain versions of its SecureSource benefit series, and that John Hancock and Protective were limiting premium going into certain variable annuity contracts or riders.

© 2012 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

NY Times Plays ‘Gotcha’ with Prudential

The folks at Prudential Annuities were greeted Saturday morning by a five-column story on page B5 of the business section of The New York Times. The headline read, “A Guaranteed Return on an Annuity Has Limits After All.”

The story became quite ripe with emotion near the end, when the owner of a Prudential HD variable annuity living benefit rider said he compared the closing of his contract to additional purchase payments to the closing of his town’s swimming pool on Labor Day, which apparently broke his son’s heart. 

But the Times’ headline was wrong, and much of the story was wrong, and the Times writer wronged Prudential. Nonetheless, the VA industry helped sow the seeds of those errors when it hyped the value of VAs with GLWBs and roll-ups in the first place.

Three errors by the Times

The story was wrong on three specific counts. First, the story did not say that Prudential wasn’t the only, or even the first, VA issuer to close rich old contracts to new contributions from existing contract owners. AXA Equitable did it last winter. MetLife did it in August, about the same time as Prudential. According to Soleares Research in New York, John Hancock and Ameriprise made similar moves this year.

A second, and more important, misunderstanding began with the headline, which referred to a “guaranteed return.” According to the Times, Prudential’s “Lifetime Seven annuity guaranteed annual growth of 7 percent of the highest balance.”

Wrong. As those in the industry know, VAs with GLWBs with deferral bonuses (“roll-ups”) don’t offer a guaranteed return. The roll-ups typically offer a guaranteed increase in the value of the benefit base on which the annual payout rate is calculated.

There’s not space enough in this column to attempt a translation of those last two sentences. To explain exactly how the Prudential Highest Daily product works to a layperson would take perhaps an hour. Before five minutes had elapsed, the MEGO effort would probably frustrate the effort.

The Times’ third error or lapse, and this was odd for a story in the business section of the paper of record, was in not covering the protecting-the-shareholder angle. The story was told almost entirely from the aggrieved contract owner’s angle.

That was surprising, because Prudential executives, in my experience, have almost always prefaced their defense of any benefit cutbacks by citing the need to shield the company from undue risk and thereby protect shareholder value.

On the contrary, the article twice quoted Bruce Ferris, senior vice president for sales and distribution, Prudential Annuities, to the effect that “the decision to suspend future contributions was driven by the desire to protect current annuity holders.” Perhaps he did mention shareholders, as he customarily does, and those comments didn’t make it into the final version of the story.

A bigger error by the VA industry

To some extent, the story was an example of “gotcha” journalism. Considering the pressure from the interest rate environment, the decision by annuity issuers to block new contributions from existing owners of generous old contracts should not have been especially newsworthy. If those riders aren’t available to new investors, there’s no reason why they should be available to existing shareholders. Both types of contributions  heighten the risk of the product. That doesn’t help anyone.

But this is arguably a case of offsetting penalties. The VA industry allowed, or perhaps even encouraged, too many clients to believe that GLWB deferral bonuses were much more intrinsically valuable than they ever actually were. Too many of the people who bought VAs with GLWBs with roll-ups clearly thought they were earning a guaranteed return on their assets. They were allowed to believe that. Blowback of the type we saw in Saturday’s Times was predictable.

And the bad news may not be over. If contract owners haven’t read their 150-page prospectuses closely, and evidently many of them have not, they probably also don’t know that in some cases the issuers have the discretion to raise fees substantially and to restrict investment options. Economic adversity may bring more of these “rusty nails” to light. If so, the bad publicity that follows will further hurt the industry’s reputation. In that event, the industry will deserve part of the blame.          

© 2012 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Living benefit buyers live longer: Ruark

Purchasers of variable annuities with guaranteed living benefits have shown lower mortality rates than non‐buyers, according to Ruark Consulting LLC’s 2012 Variable Annuity Mortality Study. The difference may indicate “product selection decisions made by these purchasers,” Ruark suggested.

 “This is important information for insurance companies because they need to establish appropriate price and reserve levels for these benefits,” said Peter Gourley, vice president of Ruark Consulting, based in Simsbury, Conn.

The study also found that “mortality levels by age and sex are not well matched to any of the standard mortality tables used by the industry.” To correct for this, Ruark has created a proprietary mortality table and provided it to insurance company risk managers to use as a point of reference in their modeling. 

Seventeen major insurance companies contributed over 30 million policy years of exposure and 340,000 deaths to the study, covering the time period January 2007 through December 2011, Ruark said in a release.

Ruark Consulting has performed surrender, partial withdrawal, and mortality studies for the variable annuity industry since 2007, and produced the industry’s first Fixed Indexed Annuity Surrender Study in 2011.

Variable annuity surrender, partial withdrawal and annuitization studies are currently in process and will be released later this year. The annuitization study will analyze utilization under Guaranteed Minimum Income Benefits (GMIB’s) and will be the firstindustry study of its kind, providing insurance company participants with unique insights into the early usage of GMIB’s.

Highlights of the Variable Annuity Mortality Study include:

  • Mortality levels among purchasers of guaranteed living benefits (GMIB’s, GLWB’s and GMWB’s) are lower than those who did not buy a guaranteed living benefit, suggesting that buyers of these benefits have an accentuated concern for longevity risk.
  • Mortality levels have declined since the prior study was completed in 2007. However, this is largely accounted for by the increase in volume of policies containing guaranteed living benefits, which were pointed out to have lower mortality. After adjusting for this difference, there is little statistical support for mortality levels declining from 2007 through 2011.
  • None of the standard industry tables, such as 94MGDB or A2000, are a good proxy for the level and slope of variable annuity mortality. Actual mortality levels vary by both sex and age, relative to the standard industry tables. To facilitate accurate modeling, the Ruark Mortality Table has been created to reflect the true level and slope of the variable annuity mortality experience.
  • Mortality levels generally increase as policy size increases. Since socio‐economic differences are typically expected to have the opposite effect, this study result may indicate a selection affect occurring among buyers of variable annuities.

U.S. insurance industry regulators have established principle‐based standards for statutory reserves and capital on variable annuity business. C3 Phase II for capital came first in 2005, followed by Actuarial Guideline 43 (also known as VA CARVM) in 2009. Principle‐based calculations require companies to perform financial projections that utilize assumptions believed to be appropriate.

Establishing these appropriate reserve and capital levels requires the selection of assumptions for future expected mortality, persistency and partial withdrawal activity. Historical results are important input to the selection of future anticipated experience. The valuation of guaranteed living benefits offered on variable annuities is particularly sensitive to the selection of these assumptions.

Study results are only available to the participating insurance companies who contribute data to the study. Participating companies receive extensive analysis of their own experience, as well as the aggregate experience of all companies who participate.

The ability to compare their results to that of the aggregate study provides a valuable benchmarking function to the insurance company participants, providing standards against which they can manage their business and their risk profile.

Ruark Consulting has performed surrender, partial withdrawal, and mortality studies for the variable annuity industry since 2007, and produced the industry’s first Fixed Indexed Annuity Surrender Study in 2011.           

Variable annuity surrender, partial withdrawal and annuitization studies are currently in process and will be released later this year. The annuitization study will analyze utilization under Guaranteed Minimum Income Benefits (GMIB’s) and will be the first industry study of its kind, providing insurance company participants with unique insights into the early usage of GMIBs.

© 2012 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

DoL pursues 2004 group annuity kickback case against PA broker

Six years after The Hartford settled with prosecutors in Connecticut and New York over taking kickbacks from insurance brokers on defined benefit pension plan termination deals, the Department of Labor is still trying to get one of the brokers in the case to pay back at least $522,000.

A complaint filed August 27, 2012 by Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis against Kurt E. Dietrich & Associates, Plymouth Meeting, Pa., alleges that Dietrich inflated the competing bids of five other group annuity providers to conceal the fact that Hartford’s bid of $26.1 million included a 2% brokerage fee, or $522,047, which was paid to Dietrich in early 2004.

The fee was over 10 times larger than the $50,000 that Memorial Hospital-West Volusia had contracted to pay Dietrich for helping it solicit bids from insurance companies and select the low bidder for a group annuity to replace its defined benefit pension.

The Hartford settled the dispute separately with then-Attorney General Ralph Blumenthal of Connecticut and then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer of New York in May 2006 without admitting or denying their claim that it had conspired to pay incentives to brokers for steering terminal funding agreements for defined benefit plans its way while participating in what should have been a fair bidding process for the business. The incentives were then built into the cost that the DB plan sponsor paid for the group annuity.

“Hartford paid back the plans affected through its settlement with the states of New York and Connecticut and, as part of that agreement, Hartford represented that it would not seek contributions from any other party,” said DoL spokesperson Joanna Hawkins in a recent email to RIJ.  

By concealing the fee and passing the cost through to the hospital, all in violation of his advisory contract with the hospital, the DoL alleged, Dietrich had engaged in a prohibited transaction and violated his ERISA fiduciary duties to the hospital. The action was filed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania, on August 27, 2012.  

“By deceiving the Pension Plan and its fiduciaries, and by receiving and retaining impermissible compensation from the insurer, Dietrich & Associates and Kurt E. Dietrich were unjustly enriched by violations of ERISA,” the complaint said.

“Moreover, they prevented the Pension Plan and its sponsor from knowing the true cost of Dietrich & Associates’ services; concealed their financial arrangement with Hartford and the resulting conflict of interest with respect to the Hartford bid; and deprived the Pension Plan and its sponsor of the opportunity to negotiate the amount of any insurer-paid commission or other payment as an element of the total cost of the annuity.

“Instead of honoring their contractual commitments and adhering to their fiduciary obligations under ERISA, Dietrich & Associates and Kurt E. Dietrich pocketed more than a half-million dollars in unjust profits, representing ten times more than their agreed-upon fee.”

According to the complaint, Dietrich testified that in his own view he wasn’t bound by his advisory contract with the hospital. 

Whether or not Dietrich violated his fiduciary responsibility to the plan sponsor, the DoL charged, he engaged in transactions prohibited under ERISA. The DoL also asked the court for an injunction that would prevent Dietrich & Associates from advising an ERISA-covered employee benefit plan in the future. 

© 2102 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

‘The Future of Lifetime Income’

A variable annuity introduced this summer by Symetra Life offers a combination of conventional fund options as well as a selection of “Pension Reserve” funds that allow contract owners to buy units of retirement income between four and 16 years ahead of their income commencement date.

The 14 Pension Reserve Funds in the Symetra True Variable Annuity were engineered for the Bellevue, Wash.-based life insurer by Seattle-based Russell Investments, according to Dan Guilbert, executive vice president of Symetra Life’s Retirement Division.

The no-load product is aimed at registered investment advisors (RIAs), a segment of the advisor community that tends to have the wealthiest clients but historically has shown little interest in buying variable annuities. The mortality & expense fee is only 60 basis points a year and the expense ratio of each Pension Reserve fund is only 40 basis points.

For Symetra, a publicly traded company, the product poses little risk to the enterprise. Unlike a variable annuity with a guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit, this product relies on bonds held to maturity to fund an income floor rather than on a mix of fixed income and equity mutual funds. That means it needs no equity hedging, which becomes prohibitively expensive in a low interest rate environment. And because these are no-load contracts, Symetra doesn’t face the potential risk of failing to recover commissions because of a market downturn.

“We’re doing ALM—asset/liability matching,” Guilbert told RIJ. “The underlying investments are long-dated Treasuries. We haven’t seen this type of unbundling from anyone else. It’s pretty transparent and straightforward. You can put money in the pension funds at the beginning. And you can change your mind and sell out of them a month later.”

The product offers some of the peace of mind of a deferred income annuity, because it allows contract owners to lock in a future income stream that can increase but not decline. It also offers some of the flexibility of a variable annuity with a lifetime income benefit, because contract owners can access their account values at any time before income begins if they prefer.

“We also sell the Freedom Income Annuity, which is a typical deferred income annuity where you give $100,000 today and it will provide you with an income in five years. But between now and five years from now, you have no access to that money. With this product, you buy the True variable annuity, and allocate all or part of your money to one of the Pension Reserve Funds,” Guilbert said.

Aspects of the product resemble elements of past or existing products, such as The Hartford’s Personal Retirement Manager, AXA Equitable’s Retirement Cornerstone, or the proposed BlackRock-MetLife SponsorMatch product for 401(k) plan participants, in the sense that they all offer opportunities for upside potential and downside protection in separate investment sleeves while allowing opportunities for transfers between the two.  

The Symetra True contract offers the owner considerable but not unlimited flexibility in choosing an income start date. There are 14 Pension Reserve Funds, corresponding to four different target retirement years (2016, 2020, 2024 and 2028; see chart) and four eligible age ranges based on birth year (1942-47, 1948-52, 1953-57, and 1958-62). Someone born in 1951, for instance, could start income in any of four different years, depending on whether they wanted income to begin at age 65, 69, 73 or 78.

The current unit price of each dollar of future income depends on the length of time between the purchase date and the income date, on the age of the person at the time income begins, and on the prevailing interest rate on the purchase date. As with any pension, future benefit units are cheaper when interest rates are higher, and vice-versa.

Current prices of units in Symetra’s Pension Reserve Funds reflect today’s low interest rates, so they’re not dazzling. As the chart below shows, a 50-year-old who wants annual income starting in 2024 would pay almost $19 per dollar of it ($189,400 for $10,000 a year for life) today. A 65-year-old would pay only $115,300 today for the same income on the same date. For comparison, the purchase price of a hypothetical $10,000 annual income starting today would be about $150,000 for a 65-year-old man, according to immediateannuities.com.

Symetra Pension Reserve (Income year and birth-year range)

Price* per dollar of future annual income for life, as of Sept. 14, 2012

2016 b. 1942-1947

$17.64

2016 b. 1948-1952

  20.20

2016 b. 1953-1957

  22.83

2020 b. 1942-1947

  14.32

2020 b. 1948-1952

  16.91

2020 b. 1953-1957

  19.49

2020 b. 1958-1962

  22.00

2024 b. 1942-1947

  11.53

2024 b. 1948-1952

  13.97

2024 b. 1953-1957

  16.47

2024 b. 1958-1962

  18.94

2028 b. 1948-1952

  11.39

2028 b. 1953-1957

  13.78

2028 b. 1958-1962

  16.16

Source: Symetra Financial. *Rounded to nearest penny.

Symetra True contract owners have the option of investing in conventional fund options and then moving the money to the Pension Reserve funds. They can also invest in more than one Pension Resesrve fund, and thereby build a ladder of income annuities. There is no joint-and-survivor payout option in the income-producing funds, but owners of those funds can use the assets at retirement to buy a Symetra immediate income annuity. If the SPIA is paying a higher rate, they can get the higher rate.

What’s the catch? Flexibility isn’t free. With New York Life’s deferred income annuity, for purposes of comparison, you can get a higher level of guaranteed future income because there’s no liquidity during the waiting period, unless the annuitant dies and triggers the death benefit. At the same time, the Symetra True’s Pension Reserve funds offer less potential upside than the latest version of New York Life’s DIA, which offers equity exposure during the deferral period. 

Instead, Symetra offers a bit more flexibility before the income start date. In terms of growth, it does allow the contract owner to benefit from rising interest rates, because the market price of income units will go down as rates rise. By the same token, if the owner decides to pull money out of the Pension Reserve funds after rates go up, he or she will take a haircut because the unit price of the Pension Reserve Fund will have moved in the opposite direction as rates. 

© 2012 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Can layoffs shorten lifespans?

Past research has shown that periods of high unemployment, for unknown reasons, can coincide with periods of generally lower mortality rates. But a new paper from economists at Wellesley College suggests that laying people off in their 50s can shave a few years off of their lifespans.

The paper, “Recessions, Older Workers, and Longevity: How Long Are Recessions Good For Your Health?”, was written by Courtney C. Coile, Phillip B. Levine and Robin McKnight, all of Wellesley College. The paper said in part:

“If workers experience an economic downturn in their late 50s, they may face several years of reduced employment and earnings before “retiring” when they reach Social Security eligibility at age 62.  They also may experience lost health insurance, and therefore higher financial barriers to health care, through age 65, when Medicare becomes available.  

“All of these experiences could contribute to weaker long-term health outcomes.  To examine these hypotheses, we use Vital Statistics mortality data between 1969 and 2008 to generate age-specific cohort survival probabilities at older ages.  We then link these survival probabilities to labor market conditions at earlier ages.  We also use data from the 1980-2010 March Current Population Surveys and the 1991-2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys to explore potential mechanisms for this health effect.  

“Our results indicate that experiencing a recession in one’s late 50s leads to a reduction in longevity.  We also find that this exposure leads to several years of reduced employment, health insurance coverage, and health care utilization which may contribute to the lower long-term likelihood of survival.

“In terms of survival probabilities, we find that a one percentage point increase in the unemployment rate at, say, age 58 reduces the likelihood of surviving through age 79 by 0.045 percentage points. This means that if the entire impact on survival is generated from those initial workers who suffered long-term unemployment resulting from a recession, an additional one in ten of those workers would not survive to age 79 as a result of the labor market downturn.

“An alternative way to interpret these numbers is to estimate the impact on life expectancy assuming that all of the survival effect was transmitted through employment reductions. These calculations suggest that a worker who lost their job at age 58 as a result of a recession could be expected to live three fewer years (19 years instead of 22) as a result.

“We find that unemployment shocks at ages 57 to 61 have the biggest long-term effect on survival, while shocks at earlier (ages 55 to 56) or later (ages 62 to 65) ages have no significant long-term effect. A plausible mechanism for this longer-term finding is the long period of lower rates of employment, health insurance coverage, and access to health care that we find comes with exposure to an economic downturn in one’s late 50s or early 60s.”

© 2012 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Now boarding: Southwest pilots onto Hueler’s Income Solutions annuity platform

Dallas-based Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association (SWAPA), which represents 6,300 Southwest Airlines pilots, will offer the Hueler Income Solutions annuity platform to all of its current and retired members, Hueler Companies announced.

The Income Solutions platform is a web-based annuity purchase system where people transitioning from 401(k) plans to retirement or in retirement can receive competitive bids from several income annuity providers without the intervention of a commissioned sales person.

The platform services, launched by Minneapolis-based Hueler Investment Services in 2004, are now available to many retirement plans, including all Vanguard 401(k) plans, as well as through non-exclusive partnerships with other financial service firms, employers, and non-profit member organizations, Hueler said in a release.

SWAPA members will be able to use Income Solutions to buy annuities with IRA rollover assets or with non-qualified savings. The platform will include fixed deferred, single premium immediate, and longevity annuity contracts.

“Our collective goal is to empower individual members as they seek to build a personal pension or create a paycheck for life from their retirement savings,” said Kelli Hueler, CEO Hueler Companies.

According to a release, “SWAPA members will now be able to convert their hard earned savings into lifetime income on the most competitive terms possible while retaining control over timing, features, dollars invested, and providers selected.”

“We are excited to offer our pilots an institutionally priced annuity distribution option, so that they can establish a lifetime income stream to help meet their core costs in retirement,” said John Nordin, SWAPA 401(k) Committee chairman.

Hueler Companies, Inc., based in Minneapolis, was founded in 1987 as a consulting/data research firm. It offers resources for the analysis, selection, and implementation of stable value and annuity products.

© 2012 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

 

Fed pledges action until economy shows gains

Reprinted from the New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve opened a new chapter on Thursday in its efforts to stimulate the economy, announcing simply that it plans to buy mortgage bonds, and potentially other assets, until unemployment declines substantially.

The Fed said that it would expand its holdings of mortgage-backed securities and potentially take other steps to encourage borrowing and financial risk-taking. But perhaps more significant was the basic change in its approach: For the first time, the Fed pledged to act until the economy improved, rather than creating another program with a fixed endpoint.

In announcing the new policy, the Fed sought to make clear that its decision reflected not only an increased concern about the health of the economy, but an increased determination to respond – in effect, an acknowledgment that its approach until now had been flawed.

The Fed also acknowledged its limits. “Monetary policy, particularly in the current circumstances, cannot cure all economic ills,” the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, said at a news conference.

The Fed’s policy-making committee said in a statement that its efforts would continue for “a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens.” Specifically, it said it would act until the outlook for the labor market improved “substantially,” although it did not offer a numerical target.

In a separate statement, the Fed said its senior officials now expected the economy to expand from 1.7 to 2 percent this year, down from their June projection of growth of 1.9 to 2.4 percent. The officials continued to predict that the unemployment rate would not fall below 8 percent.

“The weak job market should concern every American,” Mr. Bernanke said at the news conference. “The modest pace of growth continues to be inadequate to generate much improvement in the current rate of unemployment.”

Fed officials predicted that growth would be somewhat faster in coming years, and that unemployment would decline somewhat more quickly, presumably reflecting the impact of the measures the Fed announced Thursday.

“The idea is to quicken the recovery, to help the economy begin to grow quickly enough to generate new jobs and reduce the unemployment rate,” Mr. Bernanke said.

On Wall Street, traders welcomed the moves. The benchmark Standard & Poor’s 500-share index was up 1.6 percent by the close of trading. The Dow Jones industrial average also ended with a gain of 1.6 percent, or about 200 points.

The Fed’s plan went further than many investors had expected by providing an open-ended commitment. But stocks have been rising in recent weeks, partly in anticipation of the Fed taking more measures to support the economy.

“There weren’t many more accommodative options the Fed could have gone with,” said Dan Greenhaus, the chief global strategist at BTIG, an institutional broker.

In its measures, the Fed said it would add $23 billion of mortgage bonds to its portfolio by the end of September, a pace of $40 billion in purchases each month. It will then announce a new target at the end of this month, and every subsequent month, until the outlook for the labor market improves “substantially,” as long as inflation remains in check. The statement did not further explain either standard.

The Fed’s statement made clear, however, that it would continue to stimulate the economy even as the recovery strengthened, suggesting that it was now willing to tolerate somewhat higher inflation in the future to encourage growth in the present.

“A highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens,” the Fed’s policy-making committee said in its statement, issued at the end of its regular two-day meeting in Washington.

Asked what improvement in unemployment would satisfy the Fed, Mr. Bernanke said: “We are looking for ongoing, sustained improvement in the labor market. It is not a specific number we have in mind, but what we have seen the last six months, that isn’t it.”

The committee’s statement said that the Fed now expected to hold short-term interest rates near zero at least through the middle of 2015, and that it would take other measures as necessary – including purchasing other kinds of assets. The projections of senior Fed officials showed, however, that almost all of them expect to start raising short-term rates before the end of 2015.

Eleven members of the committee voted for the action; Jeffrey Lacker, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, dissented, as he as throughout the year.

The scale of the new effort is significantly smaller than the Fed’s previous rounds of asset purchases. The Fed’s most recent expansion of its portfolio added about $75 billion in securities each month. Its first round was even larger. It said Thursday that it would target a rate of about $40 billion a month during the current campaign, although unlike those earlier efforts, the volume is now subject to adjustment.

The Fed also said it would continue through the end of the year a program it announced in June to exchange short-term securities for longer-term securities, taking the total volume of purchases to roughly $85 billion a month.

The new purchases will be the first time in more than two years that the Fed has expanded its holdings of mortgage bonds. That decision reflects the Fed’s view that the housing market still needs help, and that lower rates on mortgage loans could provide significant benefits for the broader economy.

The committee said in its statement that the new actions “should put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, support mortgage markets and help to make broader financial conditions more accommodative.”

The Fed had given unusually clear indications in recent weeks that it was ready to act. An account of its last meeting, published in mid-August, suggested action was imminent unless the economy showed “substantial and sustainable” improvement.

A few weeks later, Mr. Bernanke spoke of his “grave concern” about the high rate of unemployment and said that in his judgment, the likely benefits of additional action outweighed the potential costs. A number of longtime observers of the central bank said they could not recall a Fed chairman using stronger language.

Since then, the economy has shown little evidence of substantial improvement. The government estimated last week that employers added only 96,000 jobs in August, and other economic indicators have been similarly lackluster.

The political climate has complicated the Fed’s efforts. Republicans including Mitt Romney, the party’s presidential nominee, have argued against new action. Mr. Romney has promised to replace Mr. Bernanke, and Republicans are seeking to impose new limits on the Fed’s management of monetary policy.

Fed officials insist that they do not consider politics in making their decisions, and history shows that the central bank often has acted during presidential campaigns – it has announced policy changes in September or October during 10 of the last 15 presidential election years, according to research by Credit Suisse.

Moreover, the political situation also has provided a motivation for the Fed to act. The nation’s fiscal policy – including the tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to take effect next year – increasingly looms as the largest threat to growth, many experts say. Fed officials have said that it could tip the economy back into recession, and Mr. Bernanke has repeatedly urged Congress to dismantle this “fiscal cliff.” Some Fed officials have argued that the central bank should seek to strengthen the economy as much as possible in the meantime to cushion the potential shock.

The Fed has struggled to define its role over the last three years. Its big and unprecedented actions helped to arrest the 2008 financial crisis, economists maintain. But as the economy has settled between crisis and prosperity, Fed officials have become divided over their ability and responsibility to do more.

Mr. Bernanke has presided over a gradual intensification of the central bank’s stimulus campaign, but the central bank has repeatedly underestimated the depth of the nation’s economic problems, and the unemployment rate has remained stubbornly high. The Fed has said its current policies will not reduce unemployment to normal levels for years to come.

There is broad disagreement among economists about the effects of the Fed’s expansion of its balance sheet. The Fed’s own research shows it may have raised economic output by 3 percent and created more than two million jobs. Most independent analyses have reached more modest conclusions, and some experts argue that there is little evidence of any meaningful economic impact.

Experts also disagree about the likely impact of additional purchases. Mr. Bernanke said last month in Jackson Hole, Wyo., that he was confident such a program would stimulate the economy. Significantly, he also said that he had concluded the likely benefits of such a program would outweigh the potential costs.

Many outside economists share Mr. Bernanke’s conclusion that the Fed retains considerable power to bolster the economy. However, some economists argue that the Fed has exhausted its power or that the costs now outweigh the benefits.

The Bucket

NY Life to sell Mexican surety bond operation 

New York Life has agreed to sell Fianzas Monterrey, its wholly-owned surety bonnd busiess in Mexico, to ACE Group for $285 million in cash. New York Life acquired Fianzas Monterrey in 2000 when it purchased Seguros Monterrey from Aetna Inc. and Grupo Financiero Bancomer S.A. 

Ted Mathas, chairman and CEO of New York Life, said in a release that Fianzas Monterry was “outside of our primary focus on the life insurance and investments businesses.

“In terms of life insurance, our focus is now exclusively on the U.S. where we have the leading market share, and on Seguros Monterrey New York Life, our wholly-owned Mexican subsidiary and the second-largest life insurer in Mexico. Additionally, ACE is a well established global insurer,” Mathas said.

Phoenix Cos. boasts $1.5 billion in fixed index annuity assets

The Phoenix Companies, Inc., says that it now has $1.5 billion in fixed indexed annuity assets under management, only two and a half years after entering the FIA space.

The former variable annuity player shifted its focus to the middle market in 2009 and began building a fixed indexed annuity product line. Broker-dealers generally sell VAs with lifetime income guarantees only from A-rated companies, and Phoenix has a strength rating from A.M. Best of B+ with a positive outlook.

“Our focus is on developing competitive and profitable products, establishing partnerships with strategically positioned Insurance Market Organizations (IMOs) and investing in technology infrastructure to meet the needs of these partners as well as our end clients,” said Phoenix president and CEO James D. Wehr in a release.

FIAs first became popular during the low-interest rate environment following the dot.com crash, when investors shied from equities but wanted higher returns than bonds offered. FIAs traditionally offer guaranteed principal (after fees) and upside exposure through equity options.

A similar market environment after the 2008-2009 crisis revived consumer interest in FIAs, and they have been posting record sales. FIA sales have been helped by the fact they now offer guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefits. FIAs have also tried to seize the sales opportunity created by the pullback of many VA-GLWB issuers from the market.  

Phoenix has been aggressive in creating flexible annuities, including contracts that offer immediate or deferred income or that allow contract owners to choose among lifetime income, chronic care or enhanced death benefit options.  

“Consumers approaching retirement face many challenges including access to adequate income, protection against the high costs of chronic care and transfer of wealth to heirs. The current trend in annuities is to address multiple needs like these in a more affordable way than standalone products,” said Phil Polkinghorn, SEVP and president of Business Development, said.

Some of Phoenix’s most recent products add even more flexibility by allowing an annuity holder, for an additional fee, to choose from up to three different benefits (including lifetime income, chronic care and an enhanced death benefit) to create a customized solution that meets their particular retirement needs.

Phoenix’ distribution company, Saybrus Partners, Inc., works with about two dozen insurance marketing organizations, each of which has access to between 1,200 and 1,500 agents.  

Phoenix works with its IMO partners in a variety of ways, including Phoenix co-develops proprietary products with its IMOs and provides proprietary client education, sales training and support, and technology to support the agents. that all make it easier for agents to find suitable products for their clients and complete the sale.

After launching the first two products in its new fixed indexed annuity line at the end of 2009, Phoenix had nearly $200 million in deposits in 2010. In 2011, that number approached $1 billion, and the company has said it expects about $1 billion in deposits again in 2012. Since the end of 2009, fixed indexed annuity funds under management have grown to $1.5 billion at June 30, 2012.

Long-term funds receive net $23 billion in August, nearly $220 billion YTD

So far in 2012, U.S. Stock fund investors benefitted from over $600 billion of wealth creation as stock indices reached and eclipsed multi-year records, and stock funds’ appreciation exceeded 10%. Yet, stock fund investors continued to redeem some of their holdings, with August net stock fund redemptions estimated at $11 billion, the highest monthly redemptions so far in 2012, according to Strategic Insight. (Flow data in open-end and closed-end mutual funds, excluding ETFs and funds underlying variable annuities.)

While stock fund redemptions have risen modestly in August, the amount withdrawn represents just $2 for every $1,000 invested in U.S. stock funds (internationally-invested stock funds continued to exhibit modest inflows in August). “Overall, stock investors remain in a holding pattern, with many watching the rising stock prices with regret or disbelief, while others take some of their recent profits of the table,” said Avi Nachmany, SI’s Director of Research.

Nachmany added, “Stock prices continue to rise in a background of lingering economic, employment, and political anxiety. But investors’ wall of worries will be easier to climb as confidence on Main Street slowly improves with the budding real estate recovery taking shape, with further employment gains, and with political clarity achieved.”

An insatiable search for investment income and stability remains behind strong inflows to bond funds, which are on path to exceed $300 billion for the full year, with August flows adding $34 billion. Since year-end 2008 assets held in bond funds more than doubled, now exceeding $3 trillion. Demand to bond funds remained widespread, spanning high-quality and high-yield strategies, U.S. and emerging market bond funds, as well as municipal bond funds. Almost all bond fund strategies experienced positive flows during August.

“We anticipate recent investors’ preference to persist in the coming months, but that a slow rotation towards stock funds may emerge in early 2013,” added Mr. Nachmany.

Fund-of-funds inflows so far this year eclipsed $54 billion, with August adding $7 billion. Fund of funds’ assets under management now exceed $900 billion. In addition, fund-of-funds used by investors in variable annuities gained about $20 billion so far in 2008, with assets in such funds over $400 billion. “Lifecycle and other asset allocation solutions have become ‘go-to’ products for those seeking balanced retirement portfolios,” added Bridget Bearden, head of Strategic Insight’s Defined Contribution and Target Date funds practice.

Money-market funds saw net positive flows of $10 billion in August, but redemptions in such funds exceeded $140 billion so far in 2012.

ETFs: Exchange-traded products enjoyed $2 billion in net inflows in August 2012, bringing total ETF net inflows (including ETNs) to $94 billion for the first eight months of 2012. The most popular ETF categories in August were Gold / Precious Metal as returns of such funds surged in August. At the end of August 2012, US ETF assets (including ETNs) stood at $1.2 trillion.

BlackRock joins DST Vision lineup  

BlackRock, Inc., is now participating in DST Vision, the Web-based account management tool for financial intermediaries. The provider of investment, advisory, and risk management solutions, went live with its Vision participation on June 16, 2012. The firm joins more than 415 mutual fund, insurance, and real estate investment trust companies currently on the DST Vision platform.

With the addition of BlackRock, all of the top 25 wholesale-distributed fund families now participate in Vision.

DST Vision has become the market leader by consistently delivering vital functionality and advanced technology to help advisors simplify their day-to-day practice management. Vision provides one-stop access to client account information consolidated across its participating companies for an aggregated book-of-business. Providing advisors access to real-time, critical information and self-servicing tools, Vision helps them spend less time managing information and more time on their clients’ investing needs. With more than 130,000 advisors accessing it every month, DST Vision enables product companies to reduce support costs and optimize distribution. 

BlackRock serves a broad range of investors in more than 100 countries. The firm’s retail and high-net-worth investors are served primarily through intermediaries, including broker-dealers, banks, trust companies, insurance companies, and independent financial advisors. At year-end 2011, assets under management for these investors totaled $403.7 billion. 

AXA Equitable introduces Fiduciary Educator

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company has launched Fiduciary Educator (www.axa-equitable.com/fiduciaryeducator), a retirement plan fiduciary education website created for 401(k) and 457 retirement plan sponsors and the financial professionals who work with them.

Applying leading edge technology and best practices in interactive adult online education, the site guides users through the basics of what it means to be a plan fiduciary and shares strategies that can help them fulfill a fiduciary obligation.

Through a series of short videos, Fiduciary Educator helps plan sponsors understand:

  • Who is a plan fiduciary?
  • Consequences of a breach in fiduciary obligations
  • Due diligence and procedural prudence
  • Participant communication
  • How to alleviate and shift fiduciary burden

Interactive quizzes follow each video to help assess if fiduciary duties are being fulfilled, and whether a fiduciary service provider might be helpful.
Fiduciary Educator provides users with access to a library full of education materials shared by an array of leading industry firms. Users can preview the materials online or save them in “knowledge baskets” for later reference.

Financial professionals are also invited to visit Fiduciary Educator. The site offers educational materials tailored to financial professionals who work with plan sponsors.

Access the Fiduciary Educator at www.axa-equitable.com/fiduciaryeducator

Principal Retirement+ website offers resources for advisors

To help financial professionals work with clients to fill this gap and address their retirement needs, the Principal Financial Group has introduced a new suite of tools and resources.

“Our top-tier product portfolio includes products designed specifically for the business market with flexible funding options, coupled with traditional and innovative policy riders”

Through Principal Retirement+, financial professionals have access to comprehensive information, education and resources including:

  • A simple online retirement gap calculator to prepare a customized gap analysis for clients.
  • Consultative expertise including one-on-one case design, analysis and presentation.
  • Post-sale support and ongoing administrative services.

The new Principal Retirement+ site, www.principal.com/retirementplus, leads financial professionals through the entire sales process from identifying the savings gap to creating an action plan. Financial professionals have direct access to a team of CPAs, attorneys and plan design consultants with years of experience in the business market. Choosing from a wide range of possible supplemental retirement solutions, professionals at The Principal will develop a customized proposal to help meet each individual client’s needs.

DST introduces IRA functionality to retirement income solution

DST Systems, Inc., a leading provider of sophisticated information processing solutions to the asset management, insurance, retirement, and brokerage industries, today announced the addition of IRA functionality to its recently-introduced Retirement Income Clearing Calculator (“RICC”).

RICC, the industry’s first middleware solution designed specifically to support guaranteed retirement income products through traditional recordkeeping platforms, was initially designed to support retirement income products in defined contribution plans.

The introduction of IRA functionality presents new opportunities for mutual fund companies, investment managers, and other wealth management providers to support retirement income products in IRAs and other retirement-focused investment accounts. 

First introduced in February, the RICC solution was built to provide investment product providers an efficient way to offer income products outside of direct servicing on policy administration systems which are typically but not limited to insurers. Beyond facilitating broader distribution, the new DST recordkeeping platform allows for greater portability of income products.

RICC’s design contemplates a broad array of income solutions, enabling the platform to incorporate any number of functionalities to deliver an income solution to the market.

Fitch upgrades select AIG ratings following government sale

Following the Treasury Department’s sale of about $18 billion of American International Group, Inc., common stock, which reduced government ownership of AIG from to 21.5% from 53%, Fitch Ratings has upgraded the firm’s Issuer Default Rating (IDR) to BBB+ and affirmed AIG’s unsecured senior debt is BBB.

The move created “standard notching” between those two ratings. The notching was compressed during the period of government majority ownership.

Consistent with the upgrade of the IDR, the ratings on AIG’s existing subordinated debt and junior subordinated debentures are upgraded to ‘BBB-‘ and ‘BB+’ respectively. All other AIG ratings, including the ‘A’ Insurer Financial Strength (IFS) ratings on AIG’s core property/casualty and life insurance subsidiaries, are affirmed. The rating outlook is Stable.

The upgrade in the IDR considers AIG’s success in restructuring and deleveraging efforts over the last three years that have strongly improved the organization’s stand alone rating profile. Further, AIG has created an adequate liquidity position and has demonstrated access to capital markets through execution of several recent financing transactions.

These deleveraging efforts have led to the repayment of all government related borrowings by AIG. The company’s financial leverage as measured by the ratio of financial debt and preferred securities to total capital (excluding the impact of FAS 115) declined from 77% at year-end 2010 to approximately 21% currently. Fitch’s Total Financial Commitment (TFC) ratio, while still high compared to most insurance peers, has improved from 2.5x at year-end 2010 to a current level of 1.3x.

Fitch’s ratings on AIG and its subsidiaries continue to reflect the benefits of the AIG organization’s strong competitive positions in life and non-life insurance partially offset by the comparatively poor recent operating results of the company’s core insurance operations.

AIG reported a significant improvement in first half 2012 profitability as net income increased by 76% relative to the prior year to $5.5 billion. This earnings improvement was largely attributable to investment income growth, as well as better underwriting performance within Chartis property/casualty insurance operations. Chartis combined ratio improved to 102.3% in the first half of 2012 from 111.1% in first half 2011 largely due to sharply lower catastrophe losses. Core operating subsidiary interest coverage on financial debt was 5.5x in the first half of 2012.

Key triggers that could lead to future rating upgrades include:

  • Demonstration of higher and more consistent earnings at insurance subsidiaries’ Chartis and SunAmerica that translate into average earnings-based interest coverage above 7.0x;
  • Further improvement in AIG’s capital structure and leverage metrics that reduce the company’s TFC ratio to below 0.7x.

Key triggers that could lead to a future rating downgrade include:

  • Increases in financial leverage as measured by financial debt to total capital to a sustained level above 30%, or a material increase in the TFC ratio from current levels.
  • Large underwriting losses and/or heightened reserve volatility of the company’s non-life insurance subsidiaries that Fitch views as inconsistent with that of comparably-rated peers and industry trends;
  • Deterioration in the company’s domestic life subsidiaries’ sales or profitability trends;
  • Material declines in RBC ratios at either the domestic life insurance or the non-life insurance subsidiaries, and/or failure to achieve the above noted capital structure improvements.

Treasury expects $2.7 billion from AIG stock offering : AIG

The U.S. Treasury expects to receive an additional $2.7 billion from its underwritten public offering of AIG common stock, American International Group has announced.

On September 10, Treasury had priced an offering of approximately 553.8 million shares of its AIG common stock at the initial public offering price of $32.50 per share, for expected proceeds of approximately $18.0 billion.

Combined with the exercise of the over-allotment option, Treasury’s proceeds from the public offering are expected to be approximately $20.7 billion and the total number of shares sold in the offering is expected to be approximately 636.9 million.

The underwriters, led by Citigroup, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman, Sachs and J.P. Morgan Securities, have exercised their over-allotment option in full to purchase approximately 83.1 million additional shares of AIG common stock at the initial public offering price of $32.50 per share.

AIG agreed to purchase approximately 153.8 million shares of AIG common stock in the offering at the initial public offering price for an aggregate purchase amount of approximately $5.0 billion.

Treasury currently owns approximately 53.4% of AIG’s common stock outstanding. With the completion of this offering and the exercise of the over-allotment option, and an approximately $5 billion share purchase by AIG, Treasury will still own about 15.9% percent of AIG’s common stock outstanding.

BofA Merrill Lynch, Barclays Capital Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, UBS Securities LLC, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC have been retained as joint book-runners for the offering.

U.S. spends $3.4 trillion in 11 months

CBO estimates in its Monthly Budget Review that the Treasury Department will report a deficit of $1.17 trillion for the first 11 months of fiscal year 2012, almost $70 billion less than the deficit at the same point last year.

In CBO’s most recent budget projections, the agency estimated that the deficit for fiscal year 2012 (which will end on September 30, 2012) will total $1.13 trillion, about $175 billion less than last year’s shortfall.

Receipts in the first 11 months totaled $2.2 trillion, $126 billion more than those in the same period last year. Compared with collections during the same period in fiscal year 2011:

  • Net receipts from corporate income taxes grew by $45 billion (or 31 percent). Corporate income taxes contributed the largest amount to the overall increase in revenues, largely because of changes in tax rules in recent years—in particular, the rules governing how quickly firms may deduct the cost of their investments in equipment.
  • Individual income tax receipts grew by $39 billion (or 4%). Growth in wages and salaries boosted withholding by $30 billion (or 3%), and nonwithheld payments increased by $11 billion (or 4%). Those gains were partially offset by an increase of $2 billion (or 1%) in tax refunds.
  • Receipts from social insurance taxes rose by $26 billion (or 3%). Withholding for payroll taxes grew by about $15 billion (or 2%). The current 2 percentage-point reduction in the payroll tax was not in effect for the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 (October through December 2010); if it had been in effect during that time, the year-over-year increase in withholding for payroll taxes would have been larger by about $25 billion, CBO estimates (yielding growth of 6% percent in that source of revenue). In addition, collections of unemployment insurance taxes rose by $11 billion (or 19%) through August 2012, as states continued to replenish trust funds depleted by the recent recession.
  • Receipts from other sources increased, on net, by about $17 billion (or 9%). Collections of excise taxes grew by $7 billion; receipts of estate and gift taxes rose by $6 billion; and, together, revenues from customs duties and miscellaneous fees and fines increased by $6 billion. Those gains were partially offset by a decline of $2 billion in receipts from the Federal Reserve.

Outlays through August totaled $3.4 trillion, $57 billion (or 2%) more than spending in the same period last year. As adjusted for shifts in the timing of payments, outlays were 1 percent higher. Some of that increase reflects changes recorded in the budget for the estimated cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP): Adjustments to the estimated cost of the program were recorded as a $42 billion reduction in outlays in 2011 and as a $21 billion increase in outlays in 2012. Excluding those revisions to previous estimates and the effects of shifts in payment dates, spending through August 2012 was about 1% less than spending in the first 11 months of fiscal year 2011.

By CBO’s estimates, outlays decreased for several major categories of spending:

  • Medicaid—Outlays fell by $26 billion (or 10%) because legislated increases in the federal share of the program’s costs expired in July 2011.
  • Unemployment benefits—Spending dropped by $24 billion (or 22%), mostly because fewer people have been receiving benefits in recent months.
  • Defense—Outlays fell by about $16 billion (or 3%), in part because of lower spending for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  • Education programs—Net outlays were lower by $28 billion (or 31%), excluding changes recorded in the budget in the estimated cost of student loans. That decline has occurred largely because of waning spending from funding provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. (Most of that spending occurred before 2012.)
  • Making Work Pay tax credit—The refundable portion of this credit is recorded in the budget as an outlay. That spending declined by $14 billion because the credit expired last year.

For some major programs, spending increased:

  • Social Security—Payments for benefits increased by $39 billion (or 6%).
  • Medicare—Net spending was up by $18 billion (or 4%).

‘Near-record’ sales for indexed and income annuities in 2Q: Beacon

Second quarter 2012 indexed annuity sales advanced 8.3% from the prior quarter and income annuities were up 6.1% according to the Beacon Research Fixed Annuity Premium Study. Both product types had their second-best quarter ever.

Total fixed annuity sales increased 1% sequentially. Total fixed annuity sales declined 17.2% from the year-ago quarter and 13.2% year-to-date despite stronger sales of indexed and income annuities.

“Both indexed annuities with GLWBs and lifetime payout immediate/deferred income annuities provide much-needed guaranteed retirement income,” said Jeremy Alexander, CEO of Beacon Research.

“Carriers also may have emphasized sales of both product types over fixed rate annuities because their profitability was somewhat less affected by second quarter’s record-low interest rates,” he added. “Indexed and income annuities should continue to do well,” Alexander concluded. “But much will depend on the interest rate environment and the collective decisions by carriers to expand or pull back on sales.”

Estimated Fixed Annuity Sales by Product Type ($thousands)

 

Total

Indexed

Income

Fixed Rate

Non-MVA

Fixed Rate

MVA*

2Q 2012

17,106

8,845

2,287

4,783

1,191

2Q 2012

16,943

8,166

2,156

5,253

1,368

∆%

1.0%

8.3%

6.1%

-8.9%

-12.9%

2Q 2012

17,106

8,845

2,287

4,783

1,191

2Q 2011

20,667

8,438

2,280

8,286

1,663

∆%

-17.2%

4.8%

0.3%

-42.3%

-28.4%

As of 6-30-12

34,049

17,011

4,442

10,036

2,559

As of 6-30-11

39,241

15,936

4,033

16,082

3,190

∆%

-13.2%

6.7%

10.1%

-37.6%

-19.8%

*Market value adjusted fixed rate annuities.

Allianz remained the leading company. New York Life and Aviva USA switched placed to come in second and third, respectively. American Equity continued in fourth place and Great American again came in fifth. Second quarter results for the top five study participants were as follows:

Total Fixed Annuity Sales (in $ thousands)

Allianz Life

1,437,004

New York Life

1,272,222

Aviva USA

1,129,323

American Equity

917,336

Great American

876,610

Lincoln National took the lead in direct/third party sales and Pacific Life was the new wirehouse channel leader. The other distribution channel leaders were unchanged from the prior quarter, as were the top issuers by product type.

A Security Benefit Life indexed annuity was among the top five for the first time, with Secure Income Annuity taking second place. New York Life’s Lifetime Income Annuity remained the bestselling product. Indexed annuities issued by Allianz, Aviva USA and American Equity continued in the top five as well.

Rank

Company

Product

Type

1

New York Life

NYL Lifetime Income

Income

2

Security Benefit Life

Secure Income (MVA and non-MVA)

Indexed

3

Allianz Life

MasterDex X

Indexed

4

Aviva USA

Balanced Allocation Annuity 12

Indexed

5

American Equity

Bonus Gold

Indexed

The Beacon Research quarterly study tracks and analyzes product-level fixed annuity sales on an ongoing basis. Historical industry, company and product sales information is available at www.annuitymarketstudy.com.