Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

Money trumps sports in the hearts of men, survey shows

A survey by ING DIRECT USA, a direct bank, and Men’s Health magazine has revealed that 42% of men “spend more time working on their personal finances (including investments) each week than watching sports.” Additionally, 44% percent of men have $100,000 or more in net worth.

ING DIRECT and Men’s Health partnered to survey the level of financial fitness among men in America. Among the findings about men: 

  • 91% would spend no more than $1,000 to ensure that “what happened there stayed there” at a bachelor party. 
  • 11% of men spend $100 to $199 on entertainment per week; 405 spend $49 or less. 
  • 31% of men have saved more than six months of living expenses in an “emergency fund” (cash, not including retirement savings).
  • A plurality of men (40%) preferred to deposit an extra $1,000 into the emergency fund instead of contributing to their retirement fund or spending it on themselves or a significant other.
  • 51% of men said they “always or usually” pay their monthly credit card balances in full.
  • 56% of male homeowners are current in their mortgage payments and have some equity; 35% own their homes outright.

The national phone and online survey was conducted within the United States by TNS on behalf of ING DIRECT USA March 30 through April 3, 2011 among 1,000 adults age 18 and over, half of whom were men. 

Academics propose solution to “annuity puzzle”

“The notion that consumers are simply not interested in annuities is clearly false,” write Shlomo Benartzi, Alessandro Previtero and Richard H. Thaler in “Annuitization Puzzles,” a forthcoming paper in the Journal of Economic Perspectives.

The paper was distributed by the Allianz Global Investors Center for Behavioral Finance, of which Benartzi, a professor at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management, is Chief Behavioral Economist and Thaler, a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, is a member of the Center’s Academic Advisory Board.

In the paper, the academics argue that the popularity of Social Security and of corporate defined benefit pensions suggest that Americans would be more likely to buy private annuities if the annuity purchase decision were properly framed and if more Americans saved enough to make the purchase of an annuity worthwhile.

Annuity sales are low in part because “people simply have not saved up enough to make buying an annuity a viable option” and because “few defined contribution plans offer annuities,” the paper said.

“The tiny market share of individual annuities should not be viewed as an indicator of underlying preferences but rather as a consequence of institutional factors about the availability and framing of annuity options,” the authors concluded.

“A substantial proportion of retirees choose an annuity when they are presented with that option at an appropriate age and have accumulated enough of a stake to make annuitization sensible,” they wrote. “We believe that many participants in defined contribution retirement plans would prefer to annuitize as well, but not if they have to do all the work of finding an annuity to buy, as well as bear the risk and responsibility for having picked the annuity supplier.” 

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

In Netherlands, industry-wide pension plans struggle

The five largest industry sector pension funds in the Netherlands saw their funded ratios fall in the third quarter and said that indexation to wages was “out of the question,” while benefits cuts were increasingly likely, IPE.com reported.

Funding decreases were blamed on volatile markets and falling long-term interest rates—the criterion for accounting liabilities—which dropped from 3.8% to 2.7%.

Although the assets of most of the five industry-sector, multi-employer plans rose on positive investment returns, liabilities have surged.  

The €235 billion civil service plan ABP—the world’s third-largest pension plan—saw its funded ratio drop by 22 percentage points to 90% at quarter-end, while its assets fell €2 billion due to a return of -2.9%. Its fixed income portfolio returned 1.3%, with government bonds, inflation-linked bonds and credits returning 3.5%, -1.6% and 1.1%, respectively.

Equities fell by 11.4%, with developed market and emerging market stocks losing 15.1% and 16%, respectively.

Joop van Lunteren, vice-chairman, said indexation was very unlikely given the situation and that measures such as a benefits reductions were on the cards if the funded ratio failed to improve this year.

Fellow vice-chairman Xander den Uijl added that ABP was now falling short of its recovery target and would consider a contribution rise.

ABP wants a review of the current accounting method for liabilities, which makes pension funds dependent on the volatility of daily interest movements.

The €39 billion metal industry plan, PMT, saw its assets rise by €2.2bn on the back of a 3% return, but closed the quarter with a funding ratio of no more than 84.3%; its recovery plan aims for a funding of 96% at year-end.

Increasing interest rates caused its funded ratio to rise to 89% at present, it noted.

PMT said it benefited from the effect of decreasing interest rates on its 58% fixed income portfolio, which generated 12.4%. The value of its equity assts fell 11%, however.

Despite a quarterly return of 5.9%, the coverage ratio of the €24.5bn metal industry plan PME dropped 12 percentage points to 86%. PME reported positive returns for fixed income and property of 13% and 4%, respectively, while equity and alternatives delivered losses of 12.5% and 5.3%, respectively.

The €103 billion healthcare sector pension plan PFZW said it returned 0.6%, but saw its funding drop 19 percentage points to 91% during the past three months.  

The €31bn pension fund for the building industry, Bpf BOUW, returned -4.3% on investments, but said its final result was improved by 9.2 percentage points following its extensive interest hedge on its liabilities.

Meanwhile, pension supervisor De Nederlandsche Bank has said that pension funds will be exempt for a year from the legal obligation that their premium contribute to recovery, in case of a financial shortfall.

A Closer Look at the Wealth of the Wealthiest

(The following excerpts from an October 2011 Congressional Budget Office study, Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007, shed light on the composition of the wealth of the wealthiest Americans.)

Composition of income for the top 1%   

Between 1979 and 2007, the composition of market income for the 1% of the population in households with the highest income changed significantly. The share of market income from wages and other labor compensation rose and then fell for little net change, while the share of income from capital assets declined. Business income was the fastest growing source of income for the top 1%.

Wages

Because of the volatile nature of income from capital gains realizations and its significance for the highest- income households, it is more illuminating to look at sources of income as shares of market income excluding capital gains. Wages and other labor compensation rose from 40% of market income excluding capital gains in 1980 to close to 50% in 2000 and 2001 before dropping back to about 40% in 2007.

Capital income

Capital income excluding capital gains—in other words, interest, dividends, and rents—has generally been a declining source of income among the highest-income households. Its share dropped from 42% of market income excluding capital gains in 1979 to 21% in 2002 and then increased to about 30% by 2007. Over the same period, the share of income from business activities grew sharply, increasing from a low of 10% of market income excluding capital gains in 1981 to a high of 27% in 2005 before dipping slightly in 2006 and 2007.

Capital gains

Capital gains are the most volatile source of income, and their importance as a share of household income for the top 1% of the population has fluctuated. That fluctuation appears to reflect movements in stock prices and changes in tax law. Between 1979 and 1985, capital gains for the top 1% were equal to 20% to 30% of market income excluding capital gains; in 1986, they spiked to more than twice that share. The ratio of income from capital gains to other market income declined in the late 1980s and then began to pick up in the mid-1990s before entering a period of rapid growth starting in 1995. That ratio peaked at 35% of market income in 2000 before falling to 16% in 2002 and then rebounding to 37% in 2007.

From C to S corporations

The fall in capital income and the increase in business income may in part reflect a recharacterization of income. Following the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top statutory tax rate on individual income below the top rate on corporate income, many C corporations (which are taxed separately from their owners under the corporate income tax) were converted to S corporations (which pass corporate income through to their shareholders, where it is taxed under the individual income tax). As a result, corporate dividend income and capital gains from the sale of corporate stock were converted into S corporation income, which is counted here as part of business income. Business income jumped in the 1986–1988 period as those conversions began, and it continued to grow rapidly throughout the 1990s and 2000s as more conversions occurred and new businesses were formed as S corporations rather than C corporations.

Capital income declines in importance

The changing composition of income for the highest-income households reflects a much longer trend. Over the entire 20th century, capital income declined sharply in importance for high-income taxpayers. The labor share of income for the top income groups was higher in 2007 than before World War II, as highly compensated workers have replaced people whose income is from property or securities at the top of the income distribution.


 Growth in Average Real After-tax Household Income

(1979-2007, by Income Quintile)

  • For the 1% of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 275%.  
  • For others in the 20% of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 65%.
  • For the 60% of the population in the middle of the income scale, the growth in average real after-tax household income was just under 40%.
  • For the 20% of the population with the lowest income, average real after-tax household income was about 18% higher in 2007 than in 1979.
  • Between 2005 and 2007, the after-tax income of the 20% of the population with the highest after-tax income exceeded that of the remaining 80%.

Source: Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007, Congressional Budget Office, October 2011.

The Bucket

Transamerica Retirement Services enlists Mesirow Financial as plan fiduciary  

Transamerica Retirement Services now offers a new ERISA Section 3(21) fiduciary service to help retirement plan advisors and sponsors mitigate investment fiduciary risk.

The service, provided by the Investment Strategies group at Mesirow Financial, provides plan-level investment advice related to the selection and monitoring of the plan’s investment line-up. Mesirow Financial acts as an investment fiduciary to the plan along with the sponsor, who maintains ultimate control over the plan’s investment menu.

“This is a flexible, fiduciary solution for plan sponsors who want to reduce their fiduciary risk, and for advisors who do not currently offer fiduciary services,” said Stig Nybo, president of Transamerica Retirement Services. “Transamerica is offering small- to mid-market retirement plans and their advisors additional, professional tools to assist in managing the plan’s investment menu.”

Mesirow Financial independently analyzes Transamerica’s investment platform, creating an “Elite List” of approved investments for sponsors seeking ERISA Section 3(21) fiduciary coverage.

Sponsors must choose at least one Elite List investment in each of five designated, core asset classes in order to maintain coverage. Alternatively, the sponsor may use one of Mesirow Financial’s suggested, sample investment line-ups based on the plan’s demographics.

Transamerica Retirement Services Corporation, headquartered in Los Angeles, designs custom retirement plans for small- to mid-sized businesses. The company and its affiliates serve some 15,500 plans with more than $19.5 billion in assets.  

“Annuity information hub” and sales site launched

JD Mellberg Financial has launched website designed to be “your independent authority on annuities.” The site, located at http://www.annuitynational.com, is meant to work as a “public clearinghouse” for retirement planning strategies as well as an “annuity information hub,” the company said in a release.

The site offers a kit of online resources that include descriptions of different types of annuities, along with annuity companies, rates and an annuity calculator.

Also included are articles about annuities and Mellberg’s seven-part online video series, “The Truth About Annuities in Plain English.” The sites offers a toll-free number that visitors can call to talk to a licensed financial advisor.

Allianz Life animated video series “demystifies” annuities 

The ABCs of Annuities,” a new animated three-video series that “demystifies today’s annuities,” has been launched by Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, the company announced in a release.

Each three- to five-minute segment addresses a separate topic, indicated by its name: “Retirement Realities,” “Annuity Basics,” and “Annuity Myths and Truths.”

More than half of the respondents in the recent Allianz Life study, “Reclaiming the Future,” expressed distaste for the word “annuity”—even after they described an annuity-like product as their ideal financial vehicle. Annuities continue to be seen as “confusing.” Many people say they formed their opinions about annuities decades ago and they haven’t studied annuities since then.  

To access The ABCs of Annuities, visit www.allianzlife.com/GetInformed/ABC_Annuities.aspx.

Hal Downing joins Security Benefit as regional VA sales director

Security Benefit, a Guggenheim Partners Company, announced that Hal Downing has joined its Personal Retirement Savings (PRS) Group as a regional director for the Midwest region.

Downing will be responsible for marketing the EliteDesigns variable annuity, which offers 200 investment options, to Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs) and other fee-only advisors and their clients.

Downing has previous experience in annuity sales at Traveler’s Group, New England Funds, Sun America mutual funds, AIM mutual funds, and Prudential-Bache Securities. He studied business and finance at Fogelman College of Business and Economics at the University of Memphis and holds securities, real estate, and insurance licenses.

 

“Income” Funds with High Price Tags

This week, Putnam Investments introduced three Retirement Income Lifestyle Funds (numbered 1, 2, and 3) which it will market to advisors as potential “core holdings” for decumulation portfolios. The funds are intended for use as part of systematic withdrawal plans in retirement. 

The Boston-based fund company, led by CEO Robert Reynolds and other former Fidelity executives, simultaneously announced an online calculator that shows clients how much monthly income they might expect from the funds, how long the income stream might last and how much money might be left over for heirs.   

A conversation with Jeffrey Carney, Putnam’s Global Marketing and Products chief, showed that these funds-of-funds are, well, just fancy balanced funds. They don’t provide guaranteed income, either for life or for any specific period. They’re not managed payout funds. They aren’t intended for use as providers of “floor” income in retirement. Advisors who are looking for protection against longevity risk won’t find it here—although the funds do contain portions of Putnam’s family of Absolute Return funds, which use volatility hedges.

What’s new?

So what is new or different here? A marketing insight. According to Carney, the amount of money in final-stage target date funds (“Maturity” funds) is going to balloon over the next 20 years, from about $50 billion to $780 billion.

After owners of those funds roll them into IRAs, they and their advisors are likely to seek more flexible long-term alternatives, Putnam believes. It expects its three Retirement Income funds to appeal to those investors. Their rich compensation (4% for the A share and a 5% CDSC for the B share) should appeal to certain advisors.

Only one of these three funds is truly new. Retirement Income Lifestyle Fund 1 is simply a relabeled version of Putnam’s existing capstone target date fund, the former Retirement Ready Maturity Fund. The Retirement Income Lifestyle Fund 3 is the new name of what had been the Putnam Income Strategies Fund. Only the moderate fund, Retirement Income Lifestyle Fund 2, might be considered freshly minted.

Each fund has a bond allocation of up 60%. According to the Putnam website, Lifestyle Funds 1 and 2 currently have equity allocations of about 13%. Lifestyle 3 has an equity allocation of about 19%.  But the equity allocations can vary over time, to as high as 50% for the relatively aggressive Lifestyle Fund 3, according to the discretion of the fund managers.

All three Lifestyle Funds are “funds of funds,” to the extent that they contain either the Putnam Conservative Asset Allocation Fund or varying amounts of Putnam’s 100, 300, 500 and 700 Absolute Return Funds. These funds aim to beat the rate of inflation over three years by 1%, 3%, 5% or 7%, respectively, using volatility hedges as stabilizers.

Ask Mr. Wizard

So how does income enter the picture? That’s where Putnam’s online Retirement Income Analysis Tool comes in. This wizard helps prospective owners of the Retirement Income Lifestyle Funds anticipate how much income they might draw down from the funds each month through a systematic withdrawal plan. It also shows how clients long that income might last and how confident they can be in the wizard’s forecast.   

To its merit, the wizard involved only a few steps and required no homework. On the initial page, it directed me to enter my “current assets.” I typed in $200,000. (There are separate windows for “taxable,” “tax-deferred” and “tax-free” savings. Only the total amount seemed to affect the calculation, however).

On the second page, the wizard provided two sliders, one for choosing age at retirement (50 to 85) and one for choosing a desired “confidence in meeting income goals” (50% to 99%). I set the first slider at age 65 and the second at 90%. The screen also required me to choose me a male or female mortality table.

The wizard instantly showed me that I could spend about $1,200 a month (7% of my savings) each year. The results for all three Lifestyle funds were virtually identical, oddly enough. If I experienced median results, the tool implied, I’d die in 18 years with about $35,000 left over (give or take about $40,000). 

By clicking on a tab, I was able to reveal a third page. A new slider allowed me to set my desired payout rate and showed me how long my money was likely to last. I chose a spending rate of 5% per year, or $833 a month, and the wizard told me that my money would last for 24 years, with a 90% chance of success. If I spent only 4% a year—the textbook sustainable retirement payout percentage—my money was likely to last until I reached age 97. 

That was an interesting exercise—the type of financial exercise every pre-retiree should get more of—but what did it have to do with these new Putnam funds? I suspected that any number of broadly diversified balanced funds or funds-of-funds could have produced similar results.

These funds, by the way, aren’t cheap, which implies a drag on returns and therefore on the income they produce. Aside from the load (mentioned earlier), Lifestyle Fund 1 costs 103 basis points a year, Lifestyle Fund 2 costs 163 basis points, and the Lifestyle Fund 3 costs 185 basis points, according to Carney. (According to the product fact sheet, investors would pay only 99, 103, and 113 basis points for these funds, respectively, on top of any distribution fees, because of a Putnam management decision to cap the fees, at least temporarily.)

A retiree who invests $100,000 in these funds and averages a 5% return would end up paying about $24,000 in fees over 10 years, according to the prospectus. Incidentally, the best performer of these three funds has gained an average of less than 1.5% a year (net of fees) since 2006.

Unless I’ve missed something, the Putnam Retirement Income Lifestyle Funds, as “income funds,” seem long on promises and short on proven delivery—particularly in light of costs that, judging by the prospectus, can be significant.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.     

‘Decumulation is Like a Rubik’s Cube’

Putting men on the moon was easy, a NASA scientist once said. Bringing them home safely was hard. People have drawn similar comparisons between saving for retirement and spending in retirement.

As one advisor recently commented to the Money Management Institute, “Accumulation is like a tile puzzle. It’s difficult but you can figure it out. Decumulation is like a Rubik’s Cube. It’s very difficult to figure out.”

During accumulation, a household’s earning power and a long investment horizon help smooth out many economic shocks. It’s much harder, however, to deal with inflation, taxes, market volatility and poor health in retirement, when you’ve got finite or shrinking resources.

Wealthy retirees, of course, may never face decumulation per se. That is, they may not need to dip into principal. But most Americans won’t enjoy that luxury. Even for the so-called mass affluent, diligent planning will be crucial.

Some financial services companies have adapted faster than others to the changing needs of their Boomer customers. In a recent whitepaper, the Money Management Institute identified firms that have embraced the decumulation challenge by creating what MMI calls Personal Retirement Income Solution Management (PRISM) tools.

Jack Sharry, chair of MMI’s Retirement Solutions Committee and an executive vice president at LifeYield, which makes a tax optimization tool for the decumulation phase, said it was time to shed light on this trend.

“A lot of companies are building these tools but they don’t know that other companies are building them,” Sharry told RIJ recently. “We’re writing about the phenomenon, which is well underway.  Companies realize that retirement income is hard and that advisors won’t figure it out on their own unless they have help.”     

Process instead of product

The acronym PRISM encompasses a new class of “products, services, and processes that… enable financial advisors to assist retail investors with the comprehensive management of drawing income over a 20- to 30-year retirement horizon from… multiple accounts and products.”

One recent example would be Retirement Ready, an online “product allocation” tool that John Hancock Financial Network recently introduced to help affiliated advisors model different ways of crafting income streams from mutual funds, variable annuities and income annuities.  

Another example would be Transamerica’s Retirement Transition Service. Designed to help transition older plan participants into retirement, this program is marketed to record keepers, plan sponsors, unions and associations. It provides answers to participant questions like, “Can I afford to retire? When can I do it? How can I do it?”

                            Pioneering Builders of PRISMs                                       (Personal Retirement Income Solution Management tools)

Broker-dealers

Income services and asset mgt. providers

Technology/software firms

Bank of America /Merrill Lynch

 American Funds

Albridge

Edward Jones

Cannex

CashEdge

Fidelity

Envestnet

DST

John Hancock

Financial Engines

DTCC

LPL

GuidedChoice

Ernst & Young

New York Life

New York Life/Mainstay

Fiserv Investment Services

Northwestern Mutual

Russell Investments

GuidedChoice

PNC

Wealth2K

Healthview

Securities America

 

Investigo

SunTrust

 

LifeYield

Transamerica Retirement Mgt.  

 

Morningstar/Ibbotson

USAA

 

QWeMa Group

Wells Fargo

 

Yodelee

Source: Money Management Institute, October 2011

 

Fidelity offers a “Retirement Income Planner” and “Income Strategy Evaluator.” Northwestern Mutual Life has created “Retirement Schools” for its 4,500 advisors, and incorporates tools from LifeYield (for tax optimization), NaviPlan (for investment selection) and Ernst & Young (for income product allocation).

Certain trends in PRISM design are emerging, according to the MMI whitepaper. Product agnosticism, “product allocation,” and open architecture typify the new tools, rather than single-product solutions. Recognizing that no two retirees are like, companies emphasize tools with flexible modeling capabilities. 

The development of these so-called PRISM systems is being driven by the realization that, while investment strategies were largely product-driven, income strategies are much more process-driven, and that a critical mass has been reached: the numbers of new retirees and near-retirees now constitute a market large enough to demand attention.   

“Enough people are coming to the point where they need some help. They say, ‘I don’t want another product. I’ve got a bunch of products. I need some guidance to take out an optimal level of income,’” said Sharry. “I use myself as an example. I hope to retire within the next five years. I’ve got a bunch of ‘stuff.’ I’ll want to start drawing on it. But I don’t know how to pull an income out of multiple IRAs and insurance products.”   

Sons of TAMP

The push to create distribution planning tools actually started several years ago, but the financial crisis interrupted its progress. In the middle of the first decade of the new century, a team at MassMutual was using technology developed by Jerry Golden to create a tool that an advisor could use to move retired clients’ assets gradually from risky assets to a guaranteed life annuity.

“What Jerry Golden was doing was called a Turnkey Asset Management Program,” Sharry said. “Or rather, it was the next step out from a TAMP. MassMutual tried but they couldn’t get it going, and they gave up on pursuing it. We had the recession. The market wasn’t ready.”

Interestingly, several of those involved in the MassMutual project have moved elsewhere to work on various aspects of retirement income, Sharry noted. Tom Johnson went to New York Life, Steve Deschenes moved to Sun Life and Gary Baker joined Cannex, which manages information about income annuities and other products.

Driving all of this, of course, is the broad recognition that retired Boomers will be spending trillions of dollars over the next couple of decades. Financial firms also recognize that their customers’ retirement is a moment of both opportunity and danger—a juncture when many people move money from one provider to another, consolidate assets, and change advisors.

Citing Hearts & Wallets, a Boston-area research firm, the MMI whitepaper noted, “By 2020, over 25% of all U.S. investable assets will be devoted to sustaining older Americans.” Quoting McKinsey & Co. research, MMI said that firms that position themselves as experts in retirement advice as opposed to investment advice stand to increase their share of clients’ assets by 50%.

With the generalized uncertainty that now hangs over the national and global economy, there’s arguably more anxiety than ever about retirement—anxiety that Sharry said extends even to advisors’ wealthiest clients.

“Advisors realize that it would be nice to have clients who have so much money that they don’t have to worry about retirement income or longevity risk,” he told RIJ. “But I was with a group of advisors that had clients with $10 million and above, and they said that for the first time, those clients are worried about running out of money.”

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Record annuity sales at bank holding companies

Income earned from the sale of annuities at bank holding companies (BHCs) in the first half of 2011 hit a record $1.53 billion, up 25% over $1.22 billion earned in the first half 2010, according to the Michael White-ABIA Bank Annuity Fee Income Report.

Second-quarter 2011 annuity commissions also reached record heights in rising to $781.4 million, up 21.9% from $640.9 million earned in second quarter 2010 and up 4.4% percent from $748.2 million in first quarter 2011, the report showed.

The report, compiled by Michael White Associates and sponsored by American Bankers Insurance Association, is based on data from all 6,805 commercial and FDIC-supervised banks and 934 large top-tier bank holding companies operating on June 30, 2011.


 

First half results

Of the 934 bank holding companies, 383 or 41% sold annuities during the first half of 2011.  Their $1.53 billion in annuity commissions and fees constituted 12% of their total mutual fund and annuity income of $12.77 billion and 16.3% of total bank holding company insurance sales volume (i.e., the sum of annuity and insurance brokerage income) of $9.39 billion. 

Of the 6,805 banks, 887 or 13% participated in first-half annuity sales activities. Those participating banks earned $401.1 million in annuity commissions or 26.2% of the banking industry’s total annuity fee income; their annuity income production was up 6.9% from $375.0 million in first half 2010.

Three-fourths (74.7%) of bank holding companies with over $10 billion in assets earned first-half annuity commissions of $1.46 billion, constituting 95.2% of total annuity commissions reported by the banking industry. 

This revenue represented an increase of 26.6% from $1.15 billion in annuity fee income in first half 2010. For the largest bank holding companies in the first half, annuity commissions made up 11.6% of their total mutual fund and annuity income of $12.56 billion and 16.3% of their total insurance sales volume of $8.94 billion.

At bank holding companies with assets between $1 billion and $10 billion , annuity fee income fell 1.1%, from $62.5 million in first half 2010 to $61.8 million in first half 2011 and accounting for 30.1% of their mutual fund and annuity income of $205.4 million.  Bank holding companies with $500 million to $1 billion in assets generated $12.3 million in annuity commissions in first half 2011, up 12.4% from $11 million in first half 2010.

Only 31.8% of bank holding companies this size engaged in annuity sales activities, which was the lowest participation rate among all BHC asset classes.  Among these BHCs, annuity commissions constituted the smallest proportion (15.3%) of total insurance sales volume of $80.4 million.

Annuity sales leaders

Wells Fargo & Company, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. led all bank holding companies in annuity commission income in first half 2011. Stifel Financial Corp., National Penn Bancshares, Inc., and Old National Bancorp were the leaders among bank holding companies with $1 billion to $10 billion in assets. 

Among BHCs with assets between $500 million and $1 billion, leaders were Northeast Bancorp, First Citizens Bancshares, Inc., and Van Diest Investment Company. 

The smallest community banks, those with assets less than $500 million, were used as “proxies” for the smallest BHCs, which are not required to report annuity fee income.  Leaders among bank proxies for small BHCs were Jacksonville Savings Bank (IL), Vantage Point Bank (PA), and Iowa State Bank (IA).

Among the top 50 BHCs nationally in annuity concentration (i.e., annuity fee income as a percent of noninterest income), the median Annuity Concentration Ratio was 7.6% in first half 2011.  Among the top 50 small banks in annuity concentration that are serving as proxies for small BHCs, the median Annuity Concentration Ratio was 15.9% of noninterest income.         

Retire the stereotype of the six-figure public-sector pension, say academics

The retired cop with a $100,000 pension has joined the Cadillac-driving welfare mom in the pantheon of social stereotypes that Americans love to resent. But the rich cop, like the rich welfare mom, is the exception not the rule, according to the staff of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

That’s because only a minority of public employees have enough longevity to reap the maximum pension.

There is a “widespread perception is that state and local government workers receive high pension benefits which, combined with Social Security, provide more than adequate retirement income,” write Alicia Munnell, Jean-Pierre Aubry, Josh Hurwitz and Laura Quinby in a new research brief.

“The perception is consistent with multiplying the 2% benefit factor in most plan formulae by a 35- to 40-year career and adding a Social Security benefit,” they add. “But this calculation assumes that individuals spend enough of their career in the public sector to produce such a retirement outcome.”

This brief summarizes the results of a paper that uses the publicly-available Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and actuarial reports published by state and local pension systems to test the hypothesis that state-local workers have more than enough money for retirement.

“Most households with state-local employment end up with income replacement rates in retirement that, while on average higher than those in the private sector, are well below the 80% needed to maintain pre-retirement living standards. Even those households with a long-service state-local worker who spent more than half of their careers in public employment have a median replacement rate, including Social Security, of only 72%. And this group accounts for less than 30% of households with a state-local worker. The remaining 70% of households with a short- or medium-tenure state-local worker have replacement rates of 48% and 57%, respectively. Adding income from financial assets still leaves most households short of the target,” the brief said.

“Only 32% percent of workers who leave state-local employment each year claim an immediate benefit. These individuals have more than 20 years of service on average and receive a benefit equal to 49% of their pre-retirement earnings. But another 27% leave state-local employment with a deferred benefit based on their earnings at termination, which will decline in value between termination and claiming as wages and prices rise, so it will amount to less than 10% of their projected earnings at retirement,” the paper continued.

“And 40% leave without any promise of future benefits. The other part of the explanation is that most households with a state-local worker contain a person employed in the private sector, and replacement rates for private sector workers are considerably lower since many end up with nothing more than Social Security.”

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Vanguard adds GLWB to its private-label variable annuity

Vanguard, which partners with outside insurance companies on its annuity products and sells direct to the public, has finally added an optional guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit (GLWB) rider to its variable annuity.

The rider is issued is by Monumental Life Insurance Company, and costs 95 basis points a year in addition to the cost of the no-load VA, which ranges from 36 to 81 basis points, depending on which of the 17 investment options chosen.

There’s an annual ratchet that raises the guaranteed income base up to the current account value, if higher. The age bands and withdrawal percentages for single life/joint life are  4.5%/4% from age 59 to 64, 5%/4.5% from age 65 to 69, 5.5%/5% from age 70 to 79, and 6.5%/6% from age 80 onward.  

“Contract owners can begin GLWB withdrawals anytime after age 59, and the withdrawal percentage is based on age at the time of the first withdrawal and whether the single or joint life option is elected. During rising markets, available annual withdrawals may also increase,” the release said.

As for investment restrictions, the rider will be available on only three of 17 portfolios within the variable annuity:

  • An existing balanced portfolio, invested 60%-70% in stocks and 30%-40% in bonds.
  • A new moderate allocation portfolio, which invests 60% of its assets in stocks and 40% in bonds, and employs an index approach.
  • A new conservative allocation portfolio, which follows an index approach and invests 40% of its assets in stocks and 60% in bonds.

In explaining the move, Stephen Utkus, principal and director of the Vanguard Center for Retirement Research, noted that the GLWB gives Vanguard VA holders a second income-producing option—one that they’re more likely to use than the conversion to a single-premium immediate annuity that the existing contract already offered.

“Although [Vanguard] variable annuity contract owners have always had the option to annuitize, less than 1% of variable annuity assets were converted to traditional annuity payouts in 2010, in part because it requires relinquishing access to the accumulated cash value of the annuity,” Utkus said in a statement.

“The perceived downside to traditional annuitization is that it doesn’t meet a retiree’s competing desires. Retirees want to ensure they have a regular income to meet spending needs in retirement; yet at the same time, they want to retain access to their assets in case of large health expenses or to leave a bequest to heirs or charity,” said Mr. Utkus.
 
In addition to the GLWB, Vanguard offers pre-retirees or retirees investors several products and services, including:

  • Managed payout funds.
  • Retirement income plans developed by a Certified Financial Planner.
  • Vanguard Annuity Access, powered by Hueler Companies’ Income Solutions platform, a web-based annuity service that enables individuals to compare income annuities from leading insurance companies.
  • Vanguard Target Retirement Funds, accumulation vehicles offering diversified, balanced portfolios that generally become more conservative toward retirement.
  • Vanguard LifeStrategy Funds, which come in a variety of static asset allocations at different risk levels.  

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

New TDFs from Lincoln Financial respond to market volatility

Lincoln Financial Group has introduced the LVIP Protected Profile Funds, a target-date fund-of-funds investment option available through its micro-to-small market retirement plan solution.

Each TDF is “designed to adjust its equity allocation in response to prevailing market conditions,” the company said in a release, “seeking to reduce volatility risk by targeting a specific level of variability of returns based on each fund’s respective target date.”

The funds employ “a protection strategy designed to respond to changing market conditions and periodically rebalance and adjust their overall asset allocation to reflect the level of risk in the market,” the company said. “…The glide path can adjust its equity and fixed income allocation in response to varying market conditions.”  

Lincoln Investment Advisors Corp., which oversees $27.7 billion in retirement related assets, manages the five target date Protected Profile Funds (2010, 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050).   

The Bucket

SPARK Institute updates data standards for in-plan annuities   

The SPARK Institute today released a new version of its information sharing standards and data layouts for lifetime income solutions that are used in retirement plans, said Larry Goldbrum, General Counsel.  “In response to requests and recommendations from companies that are implementing the ‘Data Layouts for Retirement Income Solutions’ we made certain technical changes and clarifications,” he said. The data layouts, originally issued in September 2010, make it easier and more cost effective for record keepers and insurance carriers to make retirement income solutions available to plan participants.  “The changes are relatively minor and we do not anticipate having to make other changes in the near future,” Goldbrum said. 

“The standards allow customer-facing record keepers to offer one or more products from unaffiliated insurance carriers; facilitate portability of products when a plan sponsor changes plan record keepers (record keeper portability); and support portability of guaranteed income when a participant has a distributable event in the form of a rollover to a Rollover IRA or as a qualified plan-distributed annuity (participant portability),” Goldbrum said.  

The new document, “Data Layouts for Retirement Income Solutions (Version 1.01),” is available at no charge on The SPARK Institute website.  Goldbrum said The SPARK Institute will also maintain a Q&A section on its website to address technical questions that may arise as the standards are adopted.  Questions about the data layouts should be submitted by email to [email protected].

 The SPARK Institute represents the interests of a broad based cross section of retirement plan service providers and investment managers, including banks, mutual fund companies, insurance companies, third party administrators, trade clearing firms and benefits consultants. Collectively, its members serve approximately 70 million participants in 401(k) and other defined contribution plans.

Canada’s Sun Life expects a third quarter loss

TORONTO – Canadian life insurance and retirement services provider Sun Life Financial Inc. said Monday it expects a loss of 621 million Canadian ($611.7 million) in the third quarter, the result of equity market declines and low interest rates, the company said in a release.

Those issues hurt its life insurance and variable annuity businesses in the United States.

The company’s stock tumbled $2.22, or 8.5%, to $23.94 in morning trading. The price has ranged between $21.87 and $34.66 in the past 52 weeks.

The third quarter’s exceptional market volatility in which North American stock markets dropped by 12% to 14% combined with falling yields on fixed-income securities drove its losses toward the high end of previous estimates, the company said.

Insurers hold a portfolio of stocks and bond investments to pay future insurance claims.

Updates to actuarial methods and assumptions, which generally take place in the third quarter of each year, contributed approximately 200 million Canadian ($197 million) to the loss, the company said.

The Toronto-based company also said it plans to make a method and assumption change related to the valuation of its variable annuity and segregated fund liabilities in the fourth quarter. The change will provide for the estimated future lifetime hedging costs of these contracts in its liabilities.

The change is expected to result in a higher level of future earnings from contracts already in force than would be the case using the current methodology. The impact on the net income of the company in the fourth quarter will depend on interest rates and other market conditions on Dec. 31 as well as further refinements to the methodology.

If the change was made under current market conditions the expected one-time reduction in fourth quarter net income is estimated to be approximately 500 million Canadian ($492.5 million).

The company will release its full third-quarter results on Nov. 2 after the market closes.

Vanguard to add new TDF, merge two redundant funds

Vanguard plans to add a new fund to its popular Target Retirement Funds in early 2012 and merge two funds with similar asset allocations. The series of low-cost, index-based funds will remain at 12.

In early 2012, the Vanguard Target Retirement 2005 Fund will merge with the Vanguard Target Retirement Income Fund as their asset allocations become nearly identical. The Target Retirement Funds are designed to reach an allocation of 65% bonds, 30% stocks and 5% short-term reserves within seven years after their target date. The 2005 Fund will be closed to new investors, effective immediately.

Vanguard has also filed a registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the Vanguard Target Retirement 2060 Fund, which is aimed at investors who plan to retire and leave the workforce in or within a few years of 2060. At the time the fund is launched in early 2012, those investors will be 18 to 20 years old.

As with Vanguard’s existing Target Retirement Funds, the 2060 Fund will invest in other Vanguard index funds. The initial allocation will be Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, 63%, Vanguard Total Bond Market II Index, 10%, Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund, 27%.

Nearly 80% of the defined contribution plans for which Vanguard keeps records offer Vanguard Target Retirement Funds, with almost 50% of participants in those plans investing in them. In addition, 14% of Vanguard IRA investors hold Target Retirement Funds.

In May, Vanguard reduced the minimum investment requirement from $3,000 to $1,000. The expense ratio of the 2060 Fund is expected to be 0.18%, similar to that of the other funds in the lineup. The average industry expense ratio for a target-date fund in the 2060 Fund’s peer group is 0.60%, according to Lipper.

MassMutual promotes Elizabeth A. Ward

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MassMutual) announced today it has promoted Elizabeth A. Ward, who serves as the company’s Chief Enterprise Risk Officer, to executive vice president.  

Ms. Ward has served in her current role at MassMutual since November 2007 and previously held the title of senior vice president.  As Chief Enterprise Risk Officer, she is responsible for MassMutual’s enterprise risk management functions across the company including its asset management subsidiaries.  

Ms. Ward has more than 20 years of experience in insurance company investment portfolio management and strategy.  She first joined Babson Capital Management LLC, a MassMutual subsidiary, in 2001, and prior to that she held a broad range of insurance and investment management positions at a number of companies, including American Skandia, Aeltus Investment Management and Aetna Life & Casualty.

Ms. Ward is a Fellow of the Society of Actuaries, a Professional Risk Manager, a Member of the American Academy of Actuaries, a member of the Global Association of Risk Professionals, and a regular member of the CFA Institute.  She holds a B.A. from the University of Rochester in economics and Spanish.

The Implications of Europe’s Solvency II

Europe can seem either close at hand or miles away, especially when it comes to annuities. Across the globe, each country represents a distinct jurisdiction with its own rules regarding retirement vehicles and products, not to mention regulations. Therefore, it is easy to become myopically focused on what is happening on the home front and ignore what may seem like irrelevant trends in foreign waters. However, the impending changes to insurance regulation in Europe in the form of Solvency II could have important implications here in the United States, and not just for multinationals.

Of course, there are many insurers in the U.S. that are part of European parent companies, and there is a possibility that they will ultimately have to conform to the European requirements for their U.S. businesses. In addition, U.S. companies with a European presence will have to deal with similar issues in order to continue to operate over there. However, even for purely domestic insurers, Solvency II may have an enduring effect on the regulation of insurance at home.

What is Solvency II?

Solvency II is a modernization of the regulatory system for insurance companies and products in Europe. The model is based on three pillars: quantitative capital requirements; qualitative supervisory review; and disclosure requirements.

The details are still being worked out, so Solvency II will be implemented on a rolling basis, with the first stages starting in 2013 and new capital requirements coming into play at the beginning of 2014 (companies will likely have to producing new calculations during 2013, either on a voluntary or mandatory basis). As each pillar is clarified and codified, the parameters for the next become more defined. Some of the early information about the effects of the new rules on certain product lines will not play out as initially anticipated, since the assumptions behind those rules and the rules themselves are being adjusted.

The new system imposes more rigorous enterprise risk management requirements and it changes the treatment of various products. Solvency II requires analysis of group risk rather than simply looking at each individual subsidiary. This is perhaps the biggest fundamental difference in the two systems and it is a key element to modernization. The consideration of true enterprise risk by regulators can have either a positive or negative effect on capital requirements, as the new rules allow credit for diversification of risk and penalize for overconcentration.

As for life insurance products, though the early estimates put many at a significant disadvantage, more recent adjustments to the rules and models make the changes to fixed and variable annuities largely neutral compared with Solvency I, according to analysis by Morgan Stanley/Oliver Wyman. However, the same cannot be said of the comparison with U.S. capital requirements. Under Solvency I, which did not require a capital calculation for the entire group, this difference did not matter; under Solvency II, European insurers are required to embrace their U.S. subsidiaries into the new calculation.

Mark-to-Market Mayhem

The mark-to-market treatment of assets under Solvency II has material implications because it is so different from the U.S. system. In particular, this affects long-dated instruments, which of course play a significant role in any longevity guarantee, from life annuities to living benefits. The argument against fair value accounting is that it introduces volatility that unfairly represents the assets held against those particular liabilities, which are long-dated and therefore not so sensitive to the short-term volatility reflected in fair value.

The question of whether fair value is the “correct” way of treating long-dated assets is less important than the difference between the two systems. Product management and regulatory capital systems are geared for one or the other, but companies that straddle jurisdictions and must make calculations under both regimes have to deal with a higher degree of complexity.

One of the immediate concerns about Solvency II is that purely U.S.-based companies will have a pricing advantage over their European counterparts because they are not required to comply with the European capital requirements. Pricing benefit or not, some believe that the market advantage will swing the other direction and that companies bound to the more rigorous requirements of Solvency II will tout the superiority of that regime.

Like it or not, European companies that have significant operations in the U.S. have had to make adjustments to their assumptions about capital allocations accordingly. Similarly, American insurers with a European presence have had to do the same, and these companies have to make sure that their European businesses are carefully segregated from the U.S. parent.

Regulatory Equivalence

However, the short-term saving grace of Solvency II is a provision for regulatory equivalence, which would serve to level the playing field in the U.S.; it is possible for non-European regulatory systems to be considered similar enough to Solvency II that those subsidiaries would not require a new set of calculations. Equivalence allows the foreign units of European insurers to operate under the local regulatory regime and vice versa.

The rub? The United States is not among the first wave of countries being considered for equivalence. Instead, Bermuda, Switzerland and Japan are the first jurisdictions getting assessed (even membership in the first wave does not make these countries shoo-ins, and they will have to justify their stance with European regulators). In the meantime, the U.S. qualifies for “transitional equivalence” for a period of up to five years, with the option for permanent equivalence.

In order to achieve permanent equivalence, the U.S. needs to be considered equivalent in the area of either group supervision or group solvency. Initially, that included fair market valuation of assets, but that requirement seems to have been dropped. The NAIC and individual states have balked at the suggestion that the U.S. comply with Solvency II requirements (in August, the Connecticut insurance commissioner issued a press release crying foul to the pressure from abroad), yet the gravity of the impending European insurance rules is impossible to ignore.

The diffuse regulatory structure in the U.S. gets in the way of international relations, both because there is no definitive central body to decide on making changes or to prevent discriminatory practices against the local subsidiaries of foreign insurers (a charge leveled at some states)

The NAIC is doing its part to try to move regulatory practices forward, and through the Solvency Modernization Initiative, it has begun adopting Insurance Core Principles promoted by the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (the NAIC has emphatically gone down this path rather than directly correlating modernization with Solvency II). The Federal Insurance Office, a part of the Department of the Treasury created by the Dodd-Frank Act, it not itself a regulatory body, but it has the ability to engage in international negotiations. Ultimately, this office is also charged with providing guidance about the insurance regulation system and ways of improving consumer safety.

There is clearly impetus to either give the NAIC more power to effect change or create a bona fide federal insurance regulator, both to establish consistent solvency oversight and serve as a negotiating body in international relations. For those itching to see the state insurance system dismantled, the need for national consensus may add to the argument for federal regulation of solvency, if not also products.

Dragged into the Modern Age

The larger and more lasting effect of the adoption of Solvency II is that it will, like it or not, pull U.S. insurance regulation along in its wake. Equivalence will only come about if the U.S. makes significant changes to its system, and the country cannot afford to stubbornly stand by its own practices while others in the international community point to the U.S. as a regulatory backwater.

Furthermore, consumer safety is a top priority for policymakers and the public following the recent financial crisis. The very job of the Federal Insurance Office is to monitor and report on matters of improving protection and reducing systemic risk. Given ongoing volatility and concerns about financial stability, it seems unlikely that the recommendations from that office will be ignored or taken lightly.

If modernization of insurance regulation is inevitable, then it stands to reason that the real competitive advantage goes to those companies that hop to it and make the necessary adjustments, including instituting the new enterprise risk management and other systems required. This fact may be lost in the opportunity that some may grasp in the short-term difference between capital requirements here and in Europe.

Given the country’s history, it is understandable that part of the national character of America is to resist the imposition of laws and rules from abroad. Today, as Europe raises its bar on insurance regulation, is no time for the U.S. to contest change on similar principles. National borders are real but more permeable than one might imagine, and even as a sovereign entity, America does not function in isolation. Thus, Europe’s insurance modernization initiative inexorably, if haltingly, draws the United States into a new era.

For Your Reading Pleasure

If there’s one thing to be said about Solvency II, it is well studied and documented by consultants, accountants, and actuarial firms alike. This list is not exhaustive, but it represents a number of useful reports, summaries, and analysis that are easily accessed on the internet.

 

Title

Description

Source

The 3 Pillar Approach

A nice graphic illustrating the three pillars with links to a plethora of information on Solvency II

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Survivor’s Guide to Solvency II: 2011

The title says it all; a good overview in an accessible format that is light on technical language

The Review in association with PwC

Solvency 2: Quantitative & Strategic Impact: The Tide is Going Out

Granular information about the changes that come with Solvency II based on proprietary models, including updated modeling

Morgan Stanley and Oliver Wyman

A Report to the Federal Insurance Office

Sections 2.6 and 2.10 directly address international issues, though strangely not mentioning equivalence

Networks Financial Institute at Indiana State University

Equivalence and the U.S. Market

Solvency II and U.S. Equivalence

Very detailed discussion of equivalence and the status in the U.S.

Society of Actuaries

Solvency II Equivalence and Structural Issues for Insurance Groups

A tidy overview of equivalence and related issues, with a good section on the U.S.

Sidley Austin

Solvency II: First Wave of Equivalence Reassessments

A four-page summary on equivalence

Dewey & LeBoeuf

Solvency II Equivalence: Implications for the U.S. Market

A very brief three-page summary on the subject

Ernst & Young

Solvency II: Issues for the U.S. Insurance Market

A four-page summary of the impact to domestic insurers

KPMG

 

 

It’s Back: The Hartford’s In-Plan Income Annuity

The Hartford has introduced a new version of its Hartford Lifetime Income (HLI), a deferred income annuity option for defined contribution plan participants that was first introduced before the 2008-2009 financial crisis but wasn’t adopted by any retirement plans.

The product allows participants to buy $10 increments of retirement income, with the cost of each increment dependent on the age of the participant and prevailing interest rates at the time of purchase. The contributions go into Hartford’s general account.

As for the timing of the reintroduction, “Recordkeepers are becoming more interested in income. We’re seeing income options requested more frequently in RFPs [requests for proposals] and income is showing up more often in our conversations with clients,” said Pat Harris, The Hartford actuary who designed the product.

The Hartford is currently proposing HLI to new 401(k) recordkeeping and investment clients in the small to mid-sized plan market, and will offer it to existing recordkeeping clients next year. It intends to start accepting contributions on January 1, 2012.  The Hartford’s recordkeeping system is on the “RICC” (Retirement Income Information Clearing and Calculation System) middleware platform created by DST Systems, which gives plan sponsors flexibility to change recordkeepers. 

This is a somewhat different approach than HLI’s first marketing effort, which found no takers. “Our DCIO [Defined Contribution Investment-Only] income product did not get traction in the large corporate market as these companies generally have not been early adopters for guaranteed income options. The experience did help us mold our new product for the bundled 401(k) market,” said David Potter, a company spokesman.

The investment option is also included at no additional cost in the Fiduciary Assure program, an optional, third-party co-fiduciary service provided by Mesirow Financial.

Encouraging plan sponsors to add lifetime income options to defined contribution plans has been a priority of the Department of Labor in recent years, and the government’s interest dovetails with the insurance industry’s interest in entering the $4 trillion DC market as well as the interest among DC asset managers in continuing to manage client assets even after they leave a plan or retire.  

A split still exists between proponents of “in-plan” and “out-of-plan” income options. With the in-plan type, income guarantees are applied to plan assets while the money is still in the DC plan. United Technologies’ jumbo plan, for instance, adopted the AllianceBernstein in-plan stand-alone-living-benefit product, which is backed by three insurance companies, two weeks ago.

With the “out-of-plan” options, the participant rolls assets out of the plan and into an IRA before buying an annuity. The Profit-Sharing Council of America favors the simplicity of this approach, and it has a relationship with the Hueler Income Solutions platform, where retired 401(k) participants and others can roll plan assets into a single-premium immediate annuity at institutional prices.

All of the in-plan annuities allow participants to change their minds and liquidate their contributions to the income option during the accumulation stage. Contributions to the plan have cash value and are not life-contingent.

Under the first iteration of The Hartford Lifetime Income, the cash-out value was calculated by taking the current share price of $10 of monthly lifetime income at age 65 (adjusted for the age of the participant and current interest rates), multiplying it by the number of shares the participant had already bought, and taking 96% of that. The death benefit, however, was equal to the amount contributed to the annuity by the participant.

Under the just-announced version of Lifetime Income, there’s no flat 4% reduction in the value of the share price, which is updated daily for each participant, reflecting his or her age and current interest rates. “If you decide that you don’t want the guarantee, you receive the stated value of the account,” Harris said. “The cost of the ability to cash out is included in the pricing.” In addition, the death benefit and the cash-out value are now the same.

“The change we made was to have the death benefit now equal the cash-out value instead of the annuity-like cash refund amount. In the prior product, the death benefit amount was not as readily available,” said David Potter, a company spokesman.

The daily price of an income share moves in the opposite direction of interest rates, but in the same direction as the age of the participant. The cash-out value can fall if interest rates rise or rise if interest rates fall, said Chris O’Neill of Mesirow Financial, who has reviewed the new version of the Hartford product. But there’s a cap—the cash-out value can’t exceed the value of contributions accumulated at a 3% annual interest rate.    

“The income shares are portable, which means that a plan participant can retain the shares and the guaranteed income they provide if he or she changes employers, or the plan sponsor changes providers or recordkeepers,” The Hartford said in a statement.

O’Neill thinks the tweaking of The Hartford product is linked to the recent development of recordkeeping standards for in-plan annuities. “This is consistent with the SPARK Institute data standards initiative to establish what data fields recordkeepers need to provide,” he told RIJ.

“It’s in keeping with an industry-wide move to let the participant see a definite cash value. But there are still no standards for reporting in terms of a current balance and equivalent income. It’s incumbent on each product provider to provide the cash-out value in their own way.”

On the question of how the presentation of the cash-out value might impact participant behavior, O’Neill said, “In the absence of an explicit fee for moving out of the product, if the participants can look at their cash-out value and appreciate how much future income they’d be giving up, then it could be a disincentive to moving money out of the annuity.”

Mutual of Omaha offers an in-plan deferred income annuity that works a bit differently from The Hartford’s. Each monthly contribution to the Mutual of Omaha product is assigned a fixed, five-year accumulation rate. Contributions buy lifetime income units and build an account balance that’s fully liquid until annuitization. A withdrawal from the account reduces the amount of guaranteed income on a pro rata basis. (See the Institutional Retirement Income Council’s website for information on many of the available in-plan options.)

At retirement, the Mutual of Omaha client receives whichever payout is higher—the one guaranteed under the terms of the in-plan product or the one that can be obtained by applying the current account value (adjusted for withdrawals, if any) to the purchase of a single-premium immediate annuity at prevailing rates.       

How plan participants will actually use such products remains to be seen. Just as defined benefit plan participants currently do, defined contribution plan participants who contribute to an in-plan annuity like the ones offered by The Hartford and Mutual of Omaha will inevitably compare the guaranteed income stream to the cash-out value at retirement and try to decide which is more valuable to them at the time.

Product manufacturers hope that plan sponsors and plan advisors will educate participants about the insurance value of the annuity, and make sure they don’t shortsightedly discount the hard-to-quantify protection that it can give them from longevity risk. Without liquidity, in-plan annuities would obviously never get started. With liquidity, however, many of the purchasing decisions probably won’t last. A clear behavioral trend may not reveal itself for years, or even decades.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

In Denim or in Suits, New Yorkers Want Market Reform

The scene of the Occupy Wall Street demonstration at Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan on October 10 was a flash from the past to anybody who participated in similar events during the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The denim-wearing crowd, the scent of incense, the hand-lettered signs, the anomaly of bare breasts in broad daylight and the incredible lightness of civil disobedience—all recalled the rock concerts, sit-ins and nude beaches of 40 years ago.

But, if they really wanted to up-the-establishment, these avatars of protests-past might have picked a different place to camp out. As I learned the following day at The Big Picture Conference in midtown Manhattan, most of the trading that once occurred at the Stock Exchange now happens on high-speed servers in Mahwah, NJ, 35 miles north of Wall St.

At the conference, the speakers were even more pointed in their complaints about the financial system than the protesters, and their comments were more sobering than a dozen AA meetings. Sponsored by Barry Ritholz, a money manager who publishes The Big Picture financial website, the conference showcased the a series of experts—a gold bug, a technical analyst, consultants to institutional traders—who led the audience of 300 or so through a litany of numbing factoids and predictions.

The gold bug

For instance, Paul Brodsky of New York-based QB Asset Management predicted that the price of gold was currently selling at about an 80% discount and that it would eventually top out at about $10,000 an ounce. 

This figure, which Brodsky called the “shadow price” of gold, comes from dividing the current outstanding amount of public and private debt dollar-denominated ($52 trillion) by the current level of gold in the world. (He did not say why  such a relation  between the dollar and the price of gold should exist or be expected, however.)

“That’s the realistic value of gold—if there is no more money printing,” Brodsky said. “In 1980, the shadow price was under the market price. Today it’s much higher than the market price.”

Brodsky, a self-professed gold bug, believes that the only politically acceptable way to solve our debt crisis will be through inflation, and he thinks the country will move back to a quasi-gold standard where the government will redeem gold at $10,000 an ounce.

He sees the end of the dollar’s reserve currency status in the near future. “There’s a rotating debasement of currencies that presages the end of a currency regime,” Brodsky said. “It happened in 1945 and in 1971 and it may be happening now. Baseless currencies have all gone away and so shall this one. We’re on the cusp of a change in the global monetary system.”

The Fed’s rescue of the private financial system bought time but solved nothing. “The economy can’t be deleveraged by shifting private debt to government balance sheets,” Brodsky said.   

The HFT watchers

If Brodsky’s numbers were scary, Sal Arnuk and Joe Saluzzi of Themis Trading offered even more worrisome descriptions of the damage that high-frequency traders (HFT) are doing to the financial system today. 

The two men, who are consultants to institutional investors, explained that HFTs are using phenomenal computing speeds and program trading to take advantage of arbitrage Graphic of markets by Themis Tradingopportunities in what has become a highly fragmented trading world. (The illustration at right is their informal map of the many platforms on which equities are traded throughout the U.S. today.)

The exchanges, including the New York Stock Exchange, now make money selling “enriched data feeds” and renting server space to HFTs who trade micro-seconds ahead of other market participants. “They can re-engineer the national best bid/offer. They see the future. That’s risk-free arbitrage,” Arnuk said.

“Some of the more nefarious players flood the an exchange to slow it down and arbitrage [the difference] away. It scares us,” said Arnuk. “Our market has been hijacked by conflicted interests,” added Saluzzi.

Advising members of the audience never to place a market order, the two men warned that, thanks to program trading by HFTs, an even bigger “flash crash” than the one that occurred last May is likely. “HFTs will supply liquidity in a monsoon and take it away in a drought,” Saluzzi said.

Two percent of the trading firms now account for 80% of the volume on the exchanges today, they said. They called for a series of reforms: speed limits on trading velocity, limits on leverage, limits on data distribution, fees for order cancellation, fees for high usage of the exchanges, and perhaps “separate highways” for HFTs and regular investors. 

The technical analyst

A third presenter, James Bianco of Bianco Research, estimated the chance for a new recession at “better than 50%,” based on the fact that, three years after the financial crisis, the system is more leveraged than it has ever been.

The Fed’s policy of converting private sector debt into public sector debt had the immediate effect of stemming panics and preventing defaults, but it hasn’t helped extinguish any debt or put the economy on a sound footing.

“What deleveraging has occurred? Total debt is again very close to a new nominal high. There has been no deleveraging. Total debt is higher than it was at the end of the ‘Great Recession’,” he said.  “You cannot cure a debt problem with more debt. You can make it better for awhile. We did that. Now we are back to having too much debt in the form of government debt, which is why the U.S. is getting downgraded and Europe’s yields are soaring.”

“If the economy goes into recession, earnings forecasts are not 10% to 12% too high. Instead they might be 20% to 40% too high. In other words, if the economy goes into recession, the earnings forecasts are horribly wrong. They might be so wrong that one can make the case that the market might be overvalued,” Bianco added. “We believe this is in part what is bothering the markets, the epiphany that the economy is much weaker than expected and a recession will blow a hole in earnings forecasts to the point that the market might not be cheap anymore.”

Meanwhile, back at Zuccotti Park

Although they were far more informed and articulate than the motley demonstrators at Occupy Wall Street, the speakers at The Big Picture Conference were, in their own way, just as angry and just as alarmed about the current state of the economy.

The Occupy Wall Street phenomenon has probably not turned violent so far—in the U.S. at least—because it has found so little opposition. The demonstrators appear to be voicing emotions and opinions that a majority of Americans share. (It’s significant that the recent eviction or “clean-up” effort was called off after confrontations became more physical.)

On the day I visited Zuccotti Park, a youthful-looking man in a well-tailored charcoal-grey suit who said he was 60 years old was standing by the steps to the Trinity Building, about a block and a half or so south of the park. When asked what he thought of the sit-in, he said, “I think it’s great. It’s about time we’re seeing something like this.”        

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Send the Social Security Statement to Everyone On One Day!

The Social Security Administration is no longer sending its Social Security Statement – which provides personal estimates of Social Security death, disability, retirement benefits – to anyone under age 60. These are budget-cutting times in Washington, and the program cost $55 million a year.  With a few tweaks, however, the program could be the single-most effective initiative for improving the retirement prospects of U.S. households. 

Americans suffer from pathological passivity when it comes to retirement planning.  A study sponsored by the Financial Security Project at Boston College (URL) found Americans approaching retirement are seriously worried about their prospects and angry at the government, their employers, and the financial services industry, with the combination of worry and anger producing paralysis, not action.  They don’t seek information and don’t take action that could improve their prospects.

For this to change, information must be “pushed” – delivered directly to their doorstep. The information must be clear, readily digestible, and actionable, explaining what recipients could do to improve their prospects.   And it must be delivered in a context that makes it easy for recipients to process this information, develop a plan, and move from plan to action.

The Social Security Administration spent $55 million to deliver personalized Statements to the doorsteps of 150 million U.S. workers.  That’s 35 cents per worker.   The Social Security Administration remains a trusted source of information.  Social Security benefits remain the most important source of retirement income for the great majority of U.S. households.   And claiming later is the most effective way they could improve their retirement prospects: monthly benefits claimed at 70 are over 75% higher than benefits claimed at 62.  In sum, nothing comes remotely close to pushing trusted, critically important, and actionable information to U.S. workers – let alone for 35 cents per worker.

Moreover, the program could be dramatically more effective.   The Statement itself could be improved.  But the most effective tweak is to send the Statements to everyone on the same day.  (Statements are currently sent out 3 months before the recipient’s birthday – a penny-wise administrative “economy.”)  

If everyone received the Statement at the same time, it would create an “event” – Statement Day – that would dramatically magnify the program’s impact.  Financial services companies and advisors would focus their advertising, introduce new products, and offer special online and seminar-type programs around Statement Day – drawing attention to the Statement and explaining how their products complement Social Security – itself a critical advance in retirement planning.  Employers would leverage Statement Day to draw attention to benefits they provide, and how they complement benefits provided by Social Security.

The media – TV, magazines and newspapers, and on-line “publishers” –would carry Statement Day articles and discussions on retirement planning, and financial planning more generally.   And workers would discuss these issues with family and friends.  All this focus and discussion makes it much easier for Americans to process information, develop a plan, and move from plan to action.

So what about the $55 million expenditure, in these budget-cutting times?  If Congress or the Social Security Administration won’t pick up the tab, could the financial services industry underwrite some or all of the $55 million? The unprecedented focus and attention to the products and services the industry provides – and the business generated – is clearly worth the expense.   Organizing and collecting the funds, and paying for Statement Day is probably an impossible task.  But putting Statement Day on the industry’s political agenda is not.  And a careful review could put Statement Day at the top.  

Steven Sass is associate director for research at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College and author of The Promise of Private Pensions: The First Hundred Years (Harvard, 1997).

The Scoop on Pre-Owned Annuities

A financial planner friend of mine e-mailed me a long list of pre-owned annuities that he was excited about. No wonder. The effective rates of return were as high as 8%.

You may or may not be acquainted with pre-owned annuities. These are contracts that were purchased from a highly rated insurance company as part of a structured settlement.

In many cases, the original owner won a damage suit—product liability, medical malpractice, industrial accident, etc.—and the damages were paid, in full or in part, with an annuity. In other cases, the original owner may have purchased the annuity himself or even won a lottery prize.

When the owners of the contracts would rather have cash, they sell them (or a portion of them) at considerable discounts. The initial buyer is likely to be a large structured settlement company, such as J.G. Wentworth. This “factor” may distribute them through annuity brokers, who sell them to individuals. The original discount, needless to say, must be large enough to create value for everyone along the chain, perhaps including a lawyer who steered the contract to the factor in the first place. 

I downloaded my friend’s pdf and scanned an eight-page spreadsheet of over 200 pre-owned contracts. Without exception, the issuers were well-known, A-rated life insurance companies. The start dates ranged from next week to September 2036. Most of the effective rates of return were above 5% but not higher than 8%.   

No two contracts were alike, because structured settlements tend to be tailored to the needs of specific plaintiffs. The contracts made uniform or non-uniform, annual, monthly, or lump-sum payments. Many were guaranteed for a specific period. Most were “life-contingent.”

In those cases, as annuity broker Bryan J. Anderson of Annuitystraighttalk.com of Whitefish, Montana, explained to me (he was not the source of my friend’s spreadsheet), the contract is contingent on the life of the original owner, who was probably in his or her 20s or 30s. These contracts generally come bundled with a life insurance policy that guarantees either the full promised payout or merely the new owner’s principal. 

Here’s one pre-owned contract on the spreadsheet that might be perfect for a 55-year-old client: A life-contingent contract from an insurer rated A (Excellent) by A.M. Best offered a monthly payout of $4,900 for 99 months starting in mid-2021. The price: about $223,000. The sum of the payments: about $541,000. The effective yield: 6.75%.  

If you’d rather not invest as much and you want a guaranteed payout, you could try this one: a $100,000 lump-sum payout 10 years from now. The price: $58,500. The effective yield: 6.0%.

Wow, many people have said. Then they say, What’s the catch?

If you’re dealing with a trustworthy middleman, who has ascertained that the original owner has clear title to the contract, there may be no catch. The middleman should be able to assure you that: No ex-spouses or dependent children have unknown claims; there are no hidden liens or trusts with claims on the assets; the owner has not already sold the contract; an independent court has ruled that the sale of the contract is in the best interest of the owner. If I were buying a life-contingent secondary market annuity, I would want to see copies of the original court documents and the life insurance policy on the original owner.

Regarding taxes, any income from a secondary annuity that was purchased with IRA money would presumably be taxed as ordinary income after age 59 1/2, like any other IRA withdrawal. Income from an annuity purchased with after-tax money would be partially taxable. (The broker may be able to provide an amortization table that shows how much of each income payment comes from interest. There’s no 1099 from the insurance company, however.) Should your own lawyer get involved in the transaction? That may be redundant when you’re dealing with a trusted broker, but it’s highly recommended if you try to circumvent a broker and negotiate a deal directly with a factor, I’m told.

These bargains appear to be for real and safe—if you work with the right people and do careful due diligence. The biggest concern for the honest brokers in the business is that too many competitors might jump in, making it harder for existing brokers to obtain access to contracts and narrowing the margins.

If you have had any experience, good or bad, with pre-owned annuities, please send your story to kerry.pechter@retirementincomejournal.com.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

RSQ-y Business at John Hancock B/D

Many nice things come to us from Canada. Jeopardy host Alex Trebek comes quickly to mind. There’s actors like Rick Moranis and Rachel McAdams. Can’t forget those familiar green bottles of Moosehead lager.

And now comes the Retirement Sustainability Quotient.

John Hancock Financial Network is importing a web-based retirement “product allocation” strategy from its Canadian parent, ManuLife, and making it available to 1,900 independent financial advisors in the U.S. who use John Hancock—an entity distinct the life insurer of the same name—as their broker/dealer.

The new program and website, called Retirement Ready, is built around the Retirement Sustainability Quotient (RSQ) technology that Toronto-based QWeMa Group created and launched on the web for Canadian customers of ManuLife about four years ago.

QWeMA Group is led by Moshe Milevsky, the well-known author, business school professor and consultant who has advised a number of U.S. insurance companies on product development and retirement planning strategies.

“Retirement Ready uses Moshe Milevsky’s product allocation methodology, which generates the probability of having a sustainable income in retirement,” said Bruce Harrington, the head of retirement strategy and sales for JHFN who came to John Hancock from LPL Financial a year ago.

“During the development cycle for this, one of the two big things we heard when interviewing was, ‘I already know how to mix these products but I didn’t know how to explain how I did it,’” Harrington told RIJ.

“On the surface, it’s meant to be simple. We intentionally wanted to have a simple approach for advisors. They tell us, the more I need to input [into a calculator] the less time I have to use it. But underneath it interacts with Moshe’s QWeMA engine,” he said. “We announced and this at our national sales meeting in Boston,” he said. “We’ll roll it out across the country through a series of road shows in October and November.”

Retirement Ready gives advisors a modeling tool that allows them to estimate a client’s annual income need in retirement (net of Social Security and pensions) and then to divide the client’s investable assets into three income generating products—a systematic withdrawal plan (SWP) account attached to an investment portfolio, a single-premium immediate annuity, and variable annuity with a guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit.

Using sliders, the advisor and client can adjust the allocation of assets to each product category. As they move the sliders, two other numbers on the screen automatically go up or down: the projected value of the client’s legacy (account value at death) and the client’s Retirement Sustainability Quotient.

The RSQ measures the likelihood that the client’s money, as allocated to the SWP account, SPIA and GMWB, will produce the desired income (the default value is 80% of the pre-retirement income) until the death of the client (or the surviving spouse). The RSQ ranges from zero to 99%.

A score of less than 80% is a signal that the client either has to save more, work longer, spend less in retirement, downsize a home, or allocating more of his or her savings to products that produce guaranteed income. (A SPIA, for instance, can perk up insufficient savings with mortality credits.)

Why those three products? As Milevsky himself explains in a video on the ManuLife sight, each product handily addresses one of the three most important retirement risks. The growth potential of the risky investments in the SWP account protects against inflation risk, the SPIA protects against longevity risk, and the GMWB (especially one with a strong deferral bonus) protects against sequence of returns risk.  

“Once you do the ‘what if”-ing, it produces a compliance-approved report,” Harrington told RIJ. The calculator is linked to at least three databases: the Cannex database of U.S. SPIAs, Morningstar’s Annuity Intelligence service, and John Hancock Mutual Fund’s comparison tool, Portfolio Insight. It is not connected to a brokerage or annuity ordering system.

Notably, Retirement Ready eschews time-segmented retirement income planning methods. A 65-year-old, for instance, couldn’t use RSQ today to model the purchase of an immediate annuity ten years from now, or the purchase of a deferred period-certain annuity that provides income only from age 65 to 75, or mortality insurance that provides life-contingent income starting at age 80. Since it doesn’t differentiate between assets held in taxable and non-taxable accounts, it probably doesn’t lend itself to tax-driven drawdown strategies.

John Hancock Annuities sells all three of the products that are modeled in the Retirement Ready tool, including mutual funds, SPIAs and Venture variable annuities. Its GMWB rider, Income Plus for Life, provides for a 4% drawdown for life starting at age 59 (3.75% for joint life) and a 5% drawdown for life starting at age 65 (4.75% for joint life). There’s a 6% annual deferral bonus available starting at age 65 (5% available before age 65). The current cost is 1%, with a 1.5% maximum.  

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

From the UK, ideas for better outcomes for DC participants

The ‘lifestyling’ approach used by many defined contribution (DC) plans in the United Kingdom is producing smaller retirement account sizes for savers than ever before, and could be replaced by more innovative alternatives, a new report has found.

According to research conducted by Cass Business School and sponsored by BNY Mellon, the lifestyling approach—where investors’ accounts are automatically switched out of equities into government bonds in the 10 years preceding retirement—is now inadequate given the fall in equity markets and annuity rates.

 “The equity bear market and the decline in annuity rates over the last 10-15 years has had a devastating effect on the final pensions of DC savers who have relied upon the mechanical lifestyling approach. A more enlightened and more flexible approach to the DC accumulation phase is definitely needed,” said Cass Business School professor of asset management Andrew Clare.

The ‘Outcome Orientated Investing for Retirement’ report argues that DC pension schemes should adopt a “dynamic” investment strategy that enables investors to receive a tailored investment solution and therefore a greater chance of achieving pension targets.

The strategy should be outcome-driven, recognize investors’ attitudes to risk and take a flexible approach to the decumulation phase, the report said.

In the research, Cass Business School and BNY Mellon focus on a ‘momentum’ strategy and a ‘contrarian’ strategy.

In the ‘momentum’ case, the report found that DC schemes should increase their allocation to equities for the coming year if the asset class performs well. If the equity return in the previous year is more than 16%, the allocation to the asset class should be increased by 5%; if the equity return is less than 4%, the allocation should be reduced by 5%.

The ‘contrarian’’strategy stipulates that, when equities perform well the previous year, a decreased allocation is appropriate. According to the research, both strategies work well, as they lead to an improvement of the replacement ratio.

“To some extent, you could deal with the pension problem just by putting more money in.” said Clare. “But it’s not sensible to put more money into a structure that’s not working. Fix the structure first – then put more money in if that’s what you want. We need to think about every DC member as if they were a mini-DB scheme.”

Wealth2k income planning tool added to Pershing advisor platform

Wealth2k, developer of the Income for Life Model (IFLM) retirement income planning tool, and Pershing LLC, the giant clearing firm, have announced that IFLM will be integrated into Pershing’s NetX360 advisor platform.  

The integration “enables financial professionals to easily assign assets, and soon positions, into income generating buckets within a retirement income plan; making it easy to monitor progress and adjust plans as necessary,” David Macchia, CEO of Wealth2k, said in a release.

The terms of the deal weren’t disclosed. According to the Wealth2k website, individual financial advisors can license IFLM, and an advisor website template called Retirement Time, for $99 a month.

IFLM is a time-segmentation tool that lets advisors assign specific incoming-generating accounts or products to specific periods during retirement. The tool allows for modeling of various income strategies. It is product-agnostic.

Literature available from Wealth2k describes IFLM’s capabilities for advisors:

  • You can create time-segmented asset alloca- tion strategies with as few as two, or as many as nine segments
  • The system will solve for a “floor” of lifetime guaranteed income, and will factor in the client’s external sources of income including Social Security and pensions.
  •    The software makes it easy to include guaranteed income benefits within the income plan.
  •    You may even illustrate multiple guaranteed income steams, and design them to begin in any year you choose. The income benefits illustrated can mirror characteristics of popular fixed and variable annuity products.
  • You choose all of the relevant economic assumptions in constructing the plan. You may define the duration of any segment, its assumed rate of return, assumed inflation rate, liquidation factor and ending balance.

Pershing’s NetX360 is an all-in-one platform that allows advisors to manage sales, transaction processing, trade securities, manage compliance activities, access research and generate reports.

A unit of BNY Mellon, Pershing serves more than 1,500 institutional and retail financial organizations and independent registered investment advisors representing more than five million active investors.

BNY Mellon has $26.3 trillion in assets under custody and administration and $1.3 trillion in assets under management, services $11.8 trillion in outstanding debt and processes global payments averaging $1.7 trillion per day.

 © 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.