Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

Americans prefer not to think about long-term care: Sun Life

Even though government data shows that 70% of older Americans will require help in bathing, dressing, or eating, fear and wishful thinking prevent many from planning for long-term care, according to a new report from Sun Life Financial.  

The second in a series of retirement pulse polls by Sun Life Financial, “Shut Your Eyes and Hope for The Best: American Attitudes Toward Long Term Care Planning,” surveyed both mainstream and affluent Americans age 50 and older.

The results include:

  • Over half of Americans aged 50 and older worry about long-term care costs, and only 16% feel prepared to finance their long-term care.
  • Median respondents don’t realize that based on conservative historical inflation rates, the cost of nursing home care could more than double by 2030. Conservative projections put long-term facility costs (currently averaging $85,000) at $190,000 in 2030.
  • Most people dread nursing homes. 83% of Americans age 50 and older (83%) would rather survive five years at home than 10 years in a nursing home.
  • 32% of respondents with a partner said they would have to be physically forced to enter a facility if their partner were living in a different facility.
  • Many respondents who have decided where they want to receive long-term care have not consulted key family members or advisors.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The four best known, most admired DC investment managers

Only four defined contribution investment managers are well known and well-liked by plan sponsors, according to the results of a survey cited in Cogent Research’s new report, Retirement Planscape 2011.

Those four investment managers are:

  • Vanguard
  • Fidelity Investments
  • American Funds
  • T. Rowe Price

Vanguard pulled ahead of the group of 36 leading DC investment managers to score the highest in overall favorability. Fidelity was rated first in overall awareness.

These and other findings are addressed in Retirement Planscape 2011, a new study by Cogent Research based on a representative survey of 1,600 DC plan sponsors across all plan sizes and industries.

“It’s not enough for a DC investment manager to have high brand awareness,” says Christy White, Cogent Principal. “The essential ingredients are for a brand to be both well-known and well-liked.”

BlackRock, PIMCO, Wells Fargo, ING, and Oppenheimer, are respected by plan sponsors but fewer plan sponsors know about them, Cogent said. That represents an opportunity for growth.

“These firms have already succeeded in creating a favorable impression of their brand,” said Linda York, Research Director at Cogent Research. “What they need to do is move beyond being well-liked by a few to become more well-known among a broader audience of DC plan sponsors.”

“None of the major players find themselves in the position of being well-known and disliked…  The vast majority are struggling just to be known to plan sponsors, let alone to have effectively differentiated themselves,” White said.   

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The right savings rate? Russell has a rule-of-thumb

Russell Investments has proposed a new rule of thumb, which it calls Target Replacement Income 30 (TRI 30), to help defined contribution (DC) plan sponsors better answer the question “Are my participants saving enough?” and to re-design plans to improve participant behavior.

 “Describing one’s retirement savings rate in terms of target replacement income (TRI) can greatly simplify the retirement savings puzzle,” said Josh Cohen, defined contribution practice leader.

The savings rate suggested by Russell turns out to be higher than the 7% average participant deferral rate (for Vanguard plans) or the 10-11% that a survey by the Defined Contribution Institutional Investment Association recently showed that most plan sponsors recommend.

According to one example in a recent Russell report, “What’s the Right Savings Rate?” a person with a final pre-retirement income of $90,000 would need to replace 78% of that in retirement. If 36% of that came from Social Security, the remaining TRI would be 42% of $90,000. According to TRI 30, a participant would need to save 12.6% a year (combined deferral and match) each year for an entire career in order to have a 90% chance of achieving the replacement rate. 

How does Russell define “achieving the replacement rate?” According to its report, “We define success in meeting that goal as purchasing a nominal fixed annuity that provides the desired income replacement. We choose this method because it mitigates longevity risk, simplifying the ‘how much is enough?’ question.”

Russell also outlines additional considerations for determining an individual’s TRI in the paper, including the volatility of health care expenses and the challenges faced by lower-income participants.

 “Once a plan sponsor has decided on a reasonable TRI for their participants, the next step is to imbed that knowledge into the plan’s design through the company match and auto-features,” Cohen said.

Russell Investments has about $163 billion in assets under management (as of 6/30/11) and works with 2,300 institutional clients, and 530 independent distribution partners globally. As a consultant, Russell has $2 trillion in assets under advisement (as of 12/31/2010) and traded $1.5 trillion last year through its implementation services business. The Russell Global Indexes calculate over 50,000 benchmarks daily covering 85 countries and more than 10,000 securities. 

Advisor Survey Provides Mixed News for Annuity Providers

Have an increased number of advisors and investors migrated toward annuities and other protective financial products in the aftermath of the Great Recession, as anecdotal evidence (and hopeful thinking within the annuity industry) might suggest?

Perhaps. The newly released 2011 Advisor Brandscape survey from Cogent Research contains no data that supports such claims, however.

The report, based on Cogent’s perennial survey of a representative sample of the nation’s 300,000 or so advisors from all channels, does provide cheer for certain variable annuity providers—those who score highest on advisor-loyalty measures. But it offers no sign that advisors are growing fonder of annuities. 

But first the positive news. Advisors are enthusiastic about certain insurers. In terms of commitment to variable annuity providers, advisors are more loyal to Jackson National than any other insurance company, according to the  Advisors Brandscape. Jackson National regained the top spot after yielding it to Prudential Financial a year ago.

“Jackson National was especially strong on ‘internal wholesaler support’, and that has a very positive effect on brand differentiation,” said Cogent principal John Meunier, an author of the report. “Advisors depend on internal wholesalers for support in this product category in particular. Prudential tends to outshine the competition in the area of ‘range of product features.’”

Both Prudential and Jackson National achieved significant improvement since 2010 in their respective “Net Promoter” scores, a proprietary index based on the difference between the number of advisors who do and don’t recommend a company’s products.

The list of variable annuity providers with the highest loyalty rankings (see today’s Data Connection on the RIJ homepage) roughly corresponds to the list of top sellers, as reported in Morningstar’s 2Q 2011 Variable Annuity Sales and Asset Survey. Sun Life Financial and Allianz Life broke into the top 10 this year. Sun Life rose to eighth this year from eleventh place in 2010 and Allianz Life rose to ninth, from fourteenth a year ago.

Cogent also tracks Advisor Investment Momentum (AIM), a measure of how much advisors expect to increase or decrease investments with their current providers. Jackson National is first on this scale, followed by MetLife, Lincoln National (Choice Plus), Nationwide Financial, and Prudential. All five of these firms received above-average AIM scores among a total of fifteen leading providers.

“In terms of momentum, these four competitors are in a league of their own,” said Tony Ferreira, managing director of Cogent’s Wealth Management practice. “However, given the importance that advisors place on VA product innovation and client support, loyalties can, and often do, change quickly.”

Now for the less positive news. Although the Cogent survey showed that a majority of the nation’s advisors sell variable annuities, it also showed that they don’t allocate much of their clients’ money to the products—and don’t plan to in the near future.

Specifically, 81% of advisors say they sell variable annuities, a percentage that hasn’t changed significantly in the past four years. RIAs continued their resistance to variable annuities; only about 26% said they sold variable annuities in 2010 and 2011, down from about 32% in 2009.

RIAs are an attractive market, because they manage more money per capita, on average, than any other group of advisors, according to Cogent. Since 2009, average AUM for RIAs has risen to $275.5 million from $212.4 million. (This figure is far higher than the median amount, however, Meunier pointed out.) The average advisor’s AUM has risen to $104 million from $80 million over that time.  

Consistently over the past three years, advisors who manage assets between $25 million and $50 million (the average among independent advisors is $48 million) have been the most likely to sell variable annuities, with about 85% using the products. By comparison, about three-quarters of advisors who manage $100 million or more said they sold variable annuities.

Yet the nation’s 300,000 or so advisors, as a group, have committed, and plan to commit, only a very modest amount of their clients’ money to variable annuities. In 2010, only 8% of advisor-managed assets were invested in variable annuities. That figure dropped to 7% in 2011.

About one-third of variable annuities are sold by independent advisors and about 30% are sold by captive agents, according to Morningstar’s 2Q 2011 Variable Annuity Sales and Asset Survey.

As for fixed annuities, the banking channel was the only annuity distribution channel in which more than 50% of advisors said they sold that product. As a percentage of total AUM, advisors said they devoted only 2% to fixed annuities and expect to allocate only one percent in 2013.

“Advisors are very interested in managing risk and thinking about portfolio diversification, yet there’s a constant resistance to giving up of control of assets in exchange for income guarantees,” Meunier said.

“It’s a conundrum. The industry hasn’t figured out the perfect retirement income solution, one that will be useful to investors and embraced by advisors. When we collected our data, the Dow was near its high for the year. After the volatility of the last two or three months, it wouldn’t surprise me if we saw an uptick in annuity usage.”

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

12 Retirement Plan Concepts Financial Advisors Must Know

When it comes to the retirement plan industry, advisors have enough on their plate. Developing an investment policy statement, developing an investment option lineup, or conducting participant education isn’t easy. Advisors don’t need to become retirement plan experts, but they should be aware of some very basic concepts on how the industry works in order to stand out among their competition as well as augmenting their client’s overall retirement plan experience.

It is my belief that better educated retirement plan advisors will help create better retirement plans. Hopefully, this article will further help retirement plan advisors understand basic retirement plan concepts that can help them develop and maintain their retirement plan book of business.

Qualified vs. non-qualified plans. Qualified plans allow the employer (who will abide by the requirements of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code) a tax deduction for contributions it makes to the plan and employees typically do not pay taxes on plan assets until these assets are distributed. With non-qualified plans, select employees can receive larger contributions, but the employer cannot receive a deduction for contributions until a participant receives a distribution and the participant’s contributions are subject to a risk of forfeiture and the employer’s creditors in bankruptcy. Despite their limitations, non-qualified plans are highly attractive for some plan sponsors.

Fiduciary. Using discretion in administering and managing a retirement plan or controlling the plan’s assets makes that person a plan fiduciary to the extent of that discretion or control. So, fiduciary status is based on the functions performed for the plan, not just a person’s title. A plan’s fiduciaries will ordinarily include the trustee, investment advisors, all individuals exercising discretion in the administration of the plan, all members of a plan’s administrative committee (if it has such a committee), and those who select committee officials. Attorneys, accountants, and actuaries generally are not fiduciaries when acting solely in their professional capacities. The key to determining whether an individual or an entity is a fiduciary is whether he or she exercises discretion or control over the plan. As the current definition of a fiduciary stands now, registered investment advisors are fiduciaries, stockbrokers are not. The Department of Labor has proposed a new definition that will include brokers as fiduciaries. If you are a broker, you will have to determine how you will respond if you have to become a plan fiduciary.

Brokers must determine if they can exist with the fiduciary tag, or leave the retirement plan industry, or partner up with registered investment advisors and perform non-fiduciary functions.

Fiduciary responsibilities. Fiduciaries have important responsibilities and are subject to standards of conduct because they act on behalf of participants in a retirement plan and their beneficiaries. These responsibilities include: acting solely in the interest of plan participants; carrying out their duties prudently; following the plan documents; diversifying plan investments; and paying only reasonable plan expenses. Fiduciaries that do not follow these responsibilities will have breached their fiduciary duty and may be personally liable to restore any losses to the plan, or to restore any profits made through improper use of the plan’s assets resulting from their actions.

Bundled vs. unbundled 401(k) providers. There are two main delivery models of 401(k) services. The first approach is called the bundled provider, where one single vendor provides all investment, recordkeeping, administration, and education services. The unbundled approach is where the plan sponsor actually becomes the bundler, by picking different independent services providers for each of the necessary 401(k) services. Most small plans use the bundled provider approach, but plans that become larger in size ($2 million or more) should determine whether the unbundled approach is more cost effective.

Defined benefit plans. A defined benefit plan promises a specified monthly benefit at retirement, which is based on a participant’s salary, length of employment, and age, based on an actuarial formula. While fallen out of favor for larger employers because of governmental regulation and the proliferation of 401(k) plans, they are still highly attractive for sole proprietors and small businesses.

Cash balance plans. A cash balance is a defined benefit plan (They are not hybrid plans as some may claim) that defines the benefit in terms that are more characteristic of a defined contribution plan. In other words, the cash balance plan defines the promised benefit in terms of a stated account balance (which is actually hypothetical). Working with a 401(k) plan, cash balance plans are more flexible in plan design than traditional defined benefit plans and may be a great fit for professional services firms as well as any company willing to pay 5% to 7% for their staff, which will lead to larger contributions for highly compensated employees.

Defined contribution plans. Unlike a defined benefit plan, it does not promise a specified retirement benefit. It offers a defined contribution allocation formula which allocates contributions to a participant’s account, where the participant will bear the gains and losses from the investments in their account (whether they direct their investment or not. Profit sharing plans are a defined contribution plan. Note that a 401(k) plan is a profit sharing plan with a cash or deferred arrangement. In addition, no profits are needed to make a profit-sharing contribution.

Section 408(b)(2) regulations. The Department of Labor regulation that is supposed to be implemented in April 2012, requiring plan providers to reveal to the plan sponsor direct and indirect compensation that they receive from a plan. All financial advisors should consider revising their service agreements to comply with the new fee disclosure regulations.

Safe harbor 401(k). A feature under 401(k) plans where fully vested contributions are made to employees, whether they be matching or profit-sharing (3% across the board to participants, whether they defer or not). By making this contribution and providing an annual notice, a plan sponsor is considered to have automatically passed the salary deferral (ADP), matching (ACP), and top-heavy discrimination tests. Any plan currently failing or barely passing any of these tests should consult with their third-party administrator (TPA) to determine whether a safe harbor design is a good fit.

New comparability/cross-tests plan design. A form of a profit-sharing allocation that divides the employees of the plan sponsor into groups where the goal is to give a larger percentage contribution to highly compensated employees. At a minimum (barring any strange demographics), highly compensated employees can receive at least three times the percentage contributions that non-highly compensated employees can get (which is called a minimum gateway). One of the benefits of the safe harbor 3% profit-sharing contribution is that it can always be used to satisfy the minimum gateway.

ERISA §404(c). The provision in ERISA that limits a plan sponsor’s liability in a participant-directed investment retirement plan. Many plan sponsors and advisors thought that offering plan participants some mutual funds to invest in and Morningstar profiles exempts plan sponsors from liability. Section 404(c) protection requires a process. Plan sponsors need an investment policy statement (IPS) that details why plan investments were picked. They must review and replace investment options with their financial advisors at least annually based on the terms of the IPS and meaningful education must be given to participants. All decision-making in this §404(c) process should be documented.

The myth of free administration. There is no such thing as a free lunch of free 401(k) administration. Whether plan sponsors are using an insurance company platform or are large enough to deal directly with mutual fund companies, they are paying for administration whether they believe it or not. Whether the administration fees are considered “free” or low, the provider makes up the low cost through wrap fees (hidden fees added to mutual funds by insurance providers) or 12b-1/revenue sharing fees (that mutual fund companies wouldn’t have to share in a bundled environment).

© 2011 The Rosenbaum Law Firm P.C. All rights reserved.

 

Fishing for Trout, and for the Perfect Retirement

This summer, we stayed with friends at their log cabin in Colorado’s San Juan Mountains and spent three days hiking, fishing, and relaxing near the source of the Rio Grande River.

No cell phone, no electricity, no World Wide Web. Just blue sky, green hillsides, white water… and beavers. Yes, beavers. John Jacob Astor apparently didn’t bag them all.

I caught two good-sized trout and a glimpse of my fantasy retirement. Later, I spent some time mentally calculating what it might take to turn fantasy into reality.        

Money, obviously, is a prime consideration. Just as you can spend a few hundred or several thousand dollars on a fly rod, reel, vest and waders, so you can spend anywhere from a few thousand to several million on a seasonal or full-time Western retirement.

Our friends own a half-share in one of nine or 10 cabins that were part of a guest ranch until the landlord, a retired Fortune 100 executive, condominium-ized them. (Many guest ranch owners in Colorado are following the same exit strategy; sales are sluggish.)

Snowbound for half the year and an hour from the nearest town, the cabins are expensive toys. The smallest and crudest lists for about $125,000. Several have been razed and replaced by more spacious and luxurious log houses. Of the owners I met, all were retired. Some were quite wealthy, others less so.

But you don’t have to be a millionaire to camp or fish there. Any regular Joe or Jane can park their RV or a trailer in one of the nearby public campgrounds for up to two weeks at a time and live like a gypsy on a shoestring.

Health is another requirement, one that’s easy to underestimate. If you ponder a wilderness retirement 10 or 15 years hence, you have to question whether your hearts, lungs, muscles and nerves will be equal to the challenge by the time you get there.

Up here, fly-fishing is work. Six hours of crossing and re-crossing a rocky, slippery fast-moving stream at 9,500 feet above sea level while wearing a vest, a daypack and waders or hip boots can tax a 45-year-old, let alone a 65- or 70-year-old.

Yet poor health, like a thin wallet, isn’t necessarily a deal-breaker. Overweight? You can ride a horse or an ATV. At least two sleep apnea sufferers had installed solar panels behind their cabins to power their CPAP machines.

But there’s a third consideration that’s even thornier. Even if you have enough money, and even if you’re in good health, you’ll need the people you love and they will need you. No man is an island; no one is an isolated rock in a stream.

As alluring as a future of silence and solitude and scenery may seem to a harried middle-aged professional, many of us will inevitably choose to be near family and friends as we get older instead of a thousand miles away.

Where there’s a will, there’s a way, however. One of my friends’ fellow cabin-owners is a 63-year-old bachelor from Texas. He thrives on the company of his seasonal neighbors. A retired couple from Tennessee bought an extra cabin so that family members can visit.

At first, I intended this column to lament the difficulty of realizing my fantasy retirement.  And I still recognize that many factors—money issues, health problems, or lack of a shared vision with family members—can and do complicate our retirement plans.

But I met rich and unrich people, healthy and unhealthy people, solitary people and families up here. The more I examined the apparent obstacles to a quote-unquote dream retirement, and the more I watched other people overcome them, the less insurmountable they seemed.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.   

Leakage from retirement plans plagues South Africa

South Africa’s National Treasury has proposed the urgent introduction of mandatory preservation when it comes to retirement savings in “an alarming and near-catastrophic context,” said Deputy Minister of Finance Nhlanhla Nene, according to the Independent Online Business Report.

At the Retirement Funds Annual Conference this week, Nene said that the government was trying to help people who currently could work and earn an income to save and preserve their retirement savings, and in turn, not be a future burden on the state.

The National Treasury is doing a feasibility study on developing a Retail Bond-backed Retirement Annuity, he said.  “We envisage that such an annuity will provide some competition to the industry, and thereby provide individuals with a simple, transparent, and cost effective post-retirement annuity product.

“We, as the Ministry of Finance, continue to receive many complaint letters from pensioners and about-to-be pensioners complaining about the costs of retirement annuities. We are actively engaging with the industry to find a mutual solution to these high costs.”

 “I appeal to the industry to start simplifying their products, and making them transparent and cost-effective, since the survival of the industry depends largely on its customers, and also potential customers.” 

“It is estimated that only 6% of South Africans can afford to retire; i.e., that they can achieve a 100% replacement ratio,” he said.  “Why such a disturbingly low number? The answer is simple—because most individuals cash-in on their retirement savings when they change jobs and upon divorce settlement orders.”

The latest Sanlam Benchmark Survey showed that when workers cashed in their retirement savings prematurely, 36% used the money to pay short-term debt.

“The keywords are ‘short-term debt.’ This is probably debt we could do without if we exercised some prudence in our spending and desires,” Nene noted. Another 24% of the cashed-in retirement savings was spent on living expenses.  “This adds up to 60% of retirement money intended to provide a comfortable retirement being used to satisfy short term spending.”

Increased retirement savings would ultimately enable financial intermediaries to undertake long-term investments in the South African economy and spur economic growth.   

“However, given the difficult structural challenges in our economy, we do acknowledge that individuals need some of their retirement savings to keep them floating until they can be re-employed. But this restricted access should be for a limited amount and only triggered by certain life or death events like [unemployment],” Nene said.

 “The Sanlam Survey tells us that 76% of the individuals who prematurely cashed their retirement savings knew very well the tax consequences of their actions, and that 85% understood that their action could mean that they might not easily reach their retirement goals.”

Pensions feel the risks of “de-risking”

Falling equities prices and tumbling bond yields continue to hurt the viability of pension funds in major industrialized economies, with potentially dire impact on the ability of members of the world’s Baby Boom generation  to retire on time and with adequate incomes, Reuters reported. 

As pension plans in the U.S., the euro zone, Japan and the UK “de-risk,” they implicitly reduce their long-term rate of returns and raise their need for fresh funds—funds that might otherwise be invested in business expansion. Overall, the shift from equities to bonds by pension fund managers has driven down stock prices and fixed income yields.

The global pension industry controls about $35 trillion, or about one-third of global financial assets. But funding deficits have been growing. 

“We had a credit crisis and government bond crisis, and [now we have] the pension crisis. Everything is going wrong and there’s no obvious way out,” said Kevin Wesbroom, UK head of global risk services at consultancy Aon Hewitt. “Liabilities are going up because, in the flight to quality, everyone gets out of equities and runs for cover in safe assets like government bonds. And yields are falling.”  

In the United States, funding deficits of the 100 largest DB plans rose by $68 billion to $254 billion in July, according to the Milliman Pension Fund Index. 

Even if DB sponsors in developed countries were to achieve an 8% return and keep the current benchmark yield of 5.12%, their funding status would improve only to 93% by end-2013, from the current 83%.

Aon Hewitt estimates deficits of DB pension plans for FTSE 350 companies rose £20 billion in the month of August to a 2011 high of £58 billion. Their funding ratio stands at 89.8%, down from 94.1% three years ago.

In Europe, the benchmark double-A rated corporate bond yield fell to 3.55% from more than 6% in the past three years, according to Barclays Capital. A 50-basis point drop in the discount rate roughly results in a 10% increase in pension liabilities.

“Trustees do want to de-risk but financial directors have an irrational desire to have equities. They are too wedded to equity markets,” said Pat Race, senior partner at investment consultancy Mercer. “You still have massive uncertainties with a potential for another dip into recession. I don’t see any reversion to days when equities are a dominant part of DB plans.”

Pension funds and insurance companies in the U.S., the euro zone, Japan and UK bought $173 billion of bonds in the first quarter, boosting their bond buying for the third quarter in a row, according to JP Morgan. At the same time, they cut equity buying for a fifth quarter in a row, selling $22 billion of stocks in Q1.

In Europe, pension funds reduced equity allocations to an average of 31% in 2011 from 43.8% in 2006, while fixed income holdings rose to 54% from 47.8% in the same period, according to Mercer.

Actuaries suggest automatic adjustments for Social Security

Several industrialized countries have added automatic adjustment mechanisms to their national pension programs in response to rising longevity and increasing “dependency” ratios. 

 In Canada, for instance, taxes rise automatically if the Canada Pension Plan chief actuary determines that the system is not sustainable over the long run at the scheduled tax rate and if government ministers cannot agree on other actions to sustain the system.

In Sweden, automatic adjustments to the retirement age are based on changes in life expectancy, benefits that are in pay status depend in part on measures of worker productivity, and starting benefits are sensitive to the long-range solvency of the system. Indexing benefits and/or retirement age to changes in life expectancy has become common among European countries.

Now the American Academy of Actuaries is suggesting that the U.S. try similar measures to ensure the long-run solvency of the Social Security system. In an August 2011 Issue Brief, the AAA’s Social Security committee said:

  • An across-the-board reduction to current and future benefits of about 14% would be required to bring the program into actuarial balance over the 75-year valuation period.
  • At this time, an increase in the combined employer-employee tax rate of approximately 2.15 percentage points (split evenly between employer and employee) would bring the program into actuarial balance.
  • Immediately increasing the normal retirement age from age 66 to age 67, followed by a continued increase by one month every two years until the normal retirement age reaches age 70, would reduce the long-range actuarial deficit by about a third.

“Automatic adjustments to benefits, taxes, or the normal retirement age could solve Social Security’s long-range financing problem permanently and automatically—and restore public confidence in the system. Without automatic adjustments, any legislation to restore the system to long-term financial stability might fall short of this goal if experience is less favorable than assumed, or if assumptions are changed, as happened after the 1983 legislation,” the actuaries wrote.

“Proponents of automatic adjustment approaches point out that, without such adjustments, Congress usually allows Social Security’s problems to mount until a crisis is reached, at which time the need for immediate, large-scale changes to the system inevitably causes some beneficiaries unnecessary financial harm.”

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

TIAA-CREF Institute elicits “best practices” for DC plans

Acknowledging that many defined contribution participants are not on-track to save enough for a secure retirement, TIAA-CREF Institute, the research arm of the non-profit retirement plan for educators, hosted a forum last December to ponder best practices or potential improvements in the design of 401(k) and similar plans.

In the August issue of its Trends and Issues publication, the TIAA-CREF published the results of its surveys of the participants in that forum and of subsequent surveys conducted among retirement experts.

The surveys revealed a rough consensus in such areas as plan participation, plan contributions, investment offerings, payout options, and education and advice. In the area of payout options, the TIAA-CREF Institute found that:

  • Most survey respondents considered it appropriate for participants to have the opportunity to annuitize through a primary DC plan.
  • Most did not feel that participants should be required to annuitize any of their assets.
  • It is appropriate for a primary DC plan to offer a payout annuity distribution option, most experts agreed.
  • An immediate fixed annuity was viewed as appropriate by 63% of respondents.
  • An immediate graded annuity was viewed as appropriate by 75%.
  • An annuity with payments beginning at a later age was viewed as appropriate by 75%. Lump-sum distributions were considered appropriate by 59%.
  • Only 21% thought it appropriate to require annuitization of employer contributions.
  • 31% considered it appropriate to require a minimum level of annuitization in a primary DC plan.
  • 48% thought that such a requirement would be effective in promoting retirement income security.

In the area of investment offerings, “87% thought that an appropriately diversified investment portfolio for the typical participant could be constructed from five options or less,” not including a target date fund or balanced fund.  Those five were: a diversified global equity fund, an inflation-linked bond fund, a money market fund, a diversified domestic equity fund, and a deferred annuity.

If allowed to offer 10 investment options, the experts said, they would add a diversified international equity fund, a global bond fund, a domestic corporate bond fund, a real estate fund and an emerging markets fund to the five core funds listed above.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of peer pressure to encourage savings can backfire

Peer pressure is one of the tools that plan sponsors have considered using as a way to encourage more employees to participate in or escalate their contributions to their retirement plans.

Subtle pressure might be applied, for instance, by sending communications that tell non-participants or low contributors what percentage of their co-workers participate or contribute the maximum amount.   

But such pressure can backfire and actually reduce the participation rates of certain employees, according to a recent paper written by a team of researchers at Harvard, Penn, Stanford, and Yale, and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

The paper, “The Effect of Providing Peer Information on Retirement Savings Decisions,” describes an experiment in July and August 2008 at a company of 15,000 union and non-union employees with a retirement plan administered by Aon Hewitt.

In the experiment, non-participants were sent letters encouraging them to enroll. Low contributors were sent letters encouraging them to escalate their contributions. Some of the letters contained phrases to the effect of, “Join the xx% of participants” who are already participating or (as the case may be) contributing x% of their pay. 

The phrases, it turned out, raised the enrollment and contribution rates of non-unionized employees. But non-participant union members were less likely to enroll if they received letters with the phrases. The union members who received letters about increasing their contribution rates were unaffected by peer pressure phrases.

The researchers could only speculate why peer pressure on enrollment backfired among union members. “It is possible that peer information is demotivating when it highlights seemingly unattainable model behavior in one’s peers,” they wrote.

Alternately, “unionized non-participants may have believed, due to an antagonistic collective bargaining relationship with the firm, that savings messages sent to them by the company were likely to be counter to their own best interests.

“A related explanation, in line with psychological reactance theory is that mistrust caused unionized non-participants to perceive the peer information as coercive, leading them to act contrary to the peer information in an effort to assert their independent agency,” the researchers wrote. But they did not consider any of these explanations to be compelling.

In the study population, men predominated. About two-thirds of the unionized non-participants, 76% of the non-union non-participants, 55% of the unionized low savers, and 68% of the non-union low savers were men. The average age was 41 years. Average tenure was nine years among unionized non-participants, seven years among non-union non-participants, and 11 years in both low-saver subpopulations. Mean annual salary ranged from $35,000 to $50,000 for all except the non-union low-savers, for whom mean annual salary was above $57,000. Among the low savers, average initial before-tax contribution rates were about 2%.

The paper’s authors included John Beshears of Stanford, James J. Choi of Yale, David Laibson and Brigitte C. Madrian of Harvard, and Katherine L. Milkman of the University of Pennsylvania.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Health insurance ate your raise

Health care inflation has cannibalized an increasing large percentage of Americans’ take-home pay over the past three decades, and low- and middle-income workers with employer-sponsored health care benefits have suffered the biggest losses in spending power.

That trend is likely to worsen in the coming decades unless health care cost inflation significantly declines, according to an August 3, 2011 white paper from the consulting firm Towers Watson, entitled, “Treating Our Ills and Killing Our Prospects.”  

“Our appetites for consuming health care have been profound for quite a long time,” the white paper said, “and we have hidden many of the ramifications by financing much of it in ways where workers have not directly seen the costs. Now it is threatening their very prosperity.”

Projections for the future are made more difficult, the report said, because no one can predict exactly what the effect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—“Obamacare”—will be on health care costs, or even if the law will withstand attempts to repeal it.

In 1980, the cost of health care benefits averaged only about 6% of pay, and was less than 10% for all but the lowest-paid workers, the report said. Since then, those costs have grown more than three times as fast as wages, reaching more than a third of individuals’ wages among the lowest income groups.  

Health inflation has apparently nullified much of the wage growth of the past decade. Between 2000 and 2009, the report showed, the share of compensation gains provided in the form of more expensive benefits ranged from 35.2% to 60.8% for U.S. workers, depending on their level of income.

“A full-time worker in the second earnings decile [2nd lowest] in 2009 earned around $25,000 in total compensation on average. If his or her productivity goes up by the rate of growth Social Security actuaries estimate, by 2019 this worker will be earning around $36,600 in total compensation, but nearly 75% of the difference from 2009 will have been consumed by rising health benefit costs,” the paper said.

“The analysis of what has occurred over the past three decades suggests that a considerable share of workers’ disappointment with the rewards they have received in recent years is due to the voracious appetite health benefits inflation has brought to bear on their productivity rewards,” wrote Steven A. Nyce of Towers Watson and Sylvester J. Schieber.

“If we cannot bring excessive health care inflation under control, workers’ prosperity is going to be increasingly threatened,” they said. “If the worker is being provided family coverage, the cost of health benefits will grow to consume all of the added productivity contribution.”

The high cost of health care adds to the unemployment rate, the report said; it makes the hiring of some lesser-paid employees uneconomical. The productivity of low income workers doesn’t increase enough from year to year to cover the increase in health insurance costs.

In the South, where health care inflation was especially high, “for workers who were not covered by employer-sponsored health insurance [in 2000], the probability of being unemployed in 2001 was statistically equivalent. For workers covered by employer-sponsored health insurance in 2000, the probability of being unemployed in 2001 was 2.2% higher,” the report said.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Why the U.S. had a crisis but Canada didn’t

The U.S. financial system has been prone to crisis from its very beginning, thanks to a fragmented banking system, a fragmented regulatory framework, and to the growth of a less-regulated “shadow” banking system that was itself a by-product of that very fragmentation.  

By the same token, Canada’s financial system didn’t implode in 2008 because it consists of strongly regulated monopoly of a limited number of full-service national banks. That makes for a less creative financial environment but also a less fragile one.   

That’s the argument made by Rutgers economists Michael D. Bordo and Hugh Rockoff along with Angela Redish of the University of British Columbia in their concise and entertaining paper, “Why Didn’t Canada Have a Banking Crisis in 2008 (Or in 1930, Or in 1907, Or…)? The paper was published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Bordo et al trace the recent U.S. financial crisis to the conflict between federal authority and state autonomy that began even before the founding of the country and which has frustrated the establishment of coherent national policy in almost every realm, including banking. 

The root of the problem could be found in the Constitution, Bordo and his co-authors write, which gave the federal government the power to coin money and issue currency, but not the authority to regulate banking. In the British North American Act, which created Canada, the national government was given jurisdiction over all three.

While Democrats and Republicans continue to argue over whether excessive deregulation or excessive government interference caused the current crisis, these authors point out that the Great Recession bears a certain similarity to the panics that have plagued the U.S. financial system since its founding.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Who Is ‘Too Big to Fail’?

It might be flattering to be designated a Systemically Important Financial Institution (SIFI) under the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, but most insurance executives are probably hoping that their firms avoid the “too big to fail” distinction. 

Any bank with over $50 billion in assets will automatically be classified as a SIFI under Dodd-Frank. A non-bank whose financial revenues (or financial assets) account for 85% of their gross revenues (or consolidated assets) in either of the previous two years may also be considered a SIFI.   

That has apparently left executives at several large insurance companies wondering whether their firms might be designated as SIFIs by the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which is chaired by the Treasury Secretary. If so, they may want to read a primer on SIFIs published in July by Deloitte.

Entitled, “Too big to fail? A roadmap for insurance and other nonbank financial companies through the new world of systemically important financial institutions”, the document describes the criteria that the government will use in designating SIFIs, the advantages and disadvantages of the designation, and Deloitte’s menu of services for executives who feel their firms may be scrutinized.

Criteria

The criteria for SIFI will be:                                                                                                                                                           

Size 

• Number of customers 
• Market capital
• Premium/underwriting income
• Investment income
• Total assets
• Off-balance sheet exposures (e.g., contingent liabilities and parental guarantees)
• Credit and liquidity products, if any
• Market  share                                                                                                                                                              

Dominance

• Size of markets
• Existing competitors
• Market share
• Potential market entrants
• Barriers to entry                                                                                                                                             

Interconnectedness

• Reinsurance agreements
• Derivatives and hedging transactions
• Cross guarantee arrangements

Leverage

• Operating and financial leverage
• Regulatory and risk-based capital
• Dependency on re-insurance
• Ratio of adjusted capital and surplus to liabilities

Liquidity risk and maturity mismatch

• Acid test & quick ratio
• Underwriting, investment and asset liquidity cash flows
• Investment grades of the company’s bond portfolio
• Hedge mismatch
• Securities lending portfolios

Existing regulatory scrutiny 

• National Association of Insurance Commissioners
• State Departments of Insurance
• Federal Insurance Office

Designation process

Screening and consideration. The FSOC will consult with the primary regulator or conduct an examination on a nonbank financial company being considered for SIFI designation. If the FSOC is unable to make a determination, it may ask the Fed to conduct an examination.

Notice of consideration. FSOC will issue notice and request materials from the nonbank financial company on the appropriateness of SIFI consideration.

Written notice. If the FSOC determines the nonbank financial company should be designated a SIFI, it will provide the company written notice, including an explanation of the basis of its determination.

Hearing. If the company wishes to contest the determination, it must request a hearing before the FSOC within 30 days of receiving the notice. The FSOC then must schedule a hearing within 30 days.

Final determination. The FSOC then must make a final determination within 60 days of the hearing and notify the company.

Potential consequences of designation

If an institution is designated a SIFI, according to Deloitte, it may face “heightened prudential standards,” including:

  • Risk-based capital requirements
  • Concentration limits
  • Potential FSOC recommendations of prudential standards
  • Leverage limits
  • Contingent capital requirements
  • Resolution plan and credit exposure report requirements
  • Liquidity requirements
  • Enhanced public disclosures
  • Overall risk management requirements

 © 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC.  All rights reserved.

Repealing ‘Obamacare’ Would Bring Back ‘Donut Hole’—EBRI

New modeling by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) finds that Medicare beneficiaries with high levels of prescription drug use would have to save 30−40 percent more than they currently are to pay for higher drug costs if President Obama’s health reform law is repealed.
Medicare beneficiaries with median prescription drug costs would not see any change in their savings targets, EBRI’s analysis finds.
EBRI takes no position on whether or not the law should be repealed; rather, its analysis is designed to measure which groups would be affected and provide estimates of additional savings needed by those who would be affected if it was.
Repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) would mean a return of the so-called “donut hole” coverage gap for Medicare prescription drug coverage (Medicare Part D), which PPACA reduces between now and 2020. The result would increase out-of-pocket costs for the highest prescription drug users and thus the savings needed to cover their health care expenses in retirement.
“Medicare beneficiaries with high outpatient drug use would be most affected by repeal and would need to save an additional roughly 30‒40 percent to make up the shortfall,” said EBRI’s Paul Fronstin, lead author of the report.

The Secret to MetLife’s VA Success

MetLife replaced Prudential as the country’s top seller of variable annuities in the second quarter and the reason was plain to see.

In a de-risking move at the end of 2010, Prudential reduced the annual roll-up on its hot-selling Highest Daily 6 guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit rider (GLWB) to a conservative 5%. Only a few months later, in May, MetLife introduced a “Max” version of its guaranteed minimum income benefit (GMIB). The Max promised a flexible 6% annual bonus instead of the usual 5%. 

More about the GMIB Max in a moment.

Prudential’s VA sales momentum continued through the end of the first quarter, when it sold $6.82 billion worth of product and was the top-seller in the bank, wirehouse and independent advisor channels. But sales of the HD5 dropped by a dramatic one-third, to $4.53 in the second quarter of 2011, and Prudential’s market share fell to 11.5% on June 30 from 17.6% on March 31. Presumably, Prudential knew what it was doing from a long-range risk management perspective and wasn’t shocked.

“Prudential’s reduction of the HD Lifetime Withdrawal benefit step-up rate from 6% to 5% likely contributed to the drop-off in sales activity,” wrote Morningstar’s Frank O’Connor in his Second Quarter 2011 Variable Annuity Sales and Asset Survey.

Jackson National’s Perspective II contract has been the top-selling individual contract for the entire first half of 2011, but otherwise the VA sales picture was all about MetLife in the second quarter. Led by sales of the Investor Series VA, MetLife sold a remarkable $6.97 billion, up from $5.68 billion in the first quarter.

MetLife’s market share rose to 17.7% from 14.7%, and it was among the top five companies in all six sales channels—banks (1), wirehouses (1), regional broker-dealers (1), independent advisor (2), captive agency (3), and even direct response (5) via its partnership with Fidelity on the Growth and Guaranteed Income contract offering.

Back to the design of the GMIB Max. With the introduction of this option, MetLife was betting that advisors and investors would give up a bit of investment freedom in return for the more noticeable  higher guaranteed minimum payout rate. The bet appears to have paid off. As MetLife CEO Steven Kandarian said during a second quarter analyst conference call, “Part of [our second quarter] growth was driven by our new GMIB Max offering, a simpler retirement income solution that significantly reduces our hedging costs and we believe will provide customers with more consistent returns over time.”

Specifically, the GMIB Max offers to increase the contract owner’s benefit base (the annuitizable amount) by 6% each year, up to age 91 or when the account balance fell to zero, if ever. In any individual year, the owner can choose instead to withdraw up to 6% of the current benefit base in cash without changing the base. (The Max is sold alongside the existing rider, which continues to offer a 5% roll-up and has fewer investment limitations.)

For instance, an owner who invested $100,000 at age 60 and took no withdrawals would have a benefit base of at least $179,000 after 10 years, at age 70. If the owner chose to initiate withdrawals at that point, he could take 6% of $179,000 each year for life—about $10,700—and still have the option of annuitizing at least $179,000 for life. Or, he could skip a year of income and let the benefit base go up another 6%.

What was the catch? To get the 6% rate, the owner is restricted to five investment options, four of which use various risk-dampening (and potentially return-dampening) management strategies during downturns or volatile periods. Also, the MetLife contract isn’t cheap. All-in fees for the B share, including mortality and expense risk, investment and rider fees, can run north of 3%.  

There’s little reason to believe that investors flocked to MetLife in the second quarter because they suddenly preferred the GMIB over the GLWB. As noted above, GMIB Max contract owners can opt to convert the value of their benefit base to a life annuity, and must do so if and when they reach age 91 or the account value goes to zero.  VA analyst Ryan Hinchey at nobullannuities.com, for one, has recommended the GMIB Max but advised against annuitizing it.  

So went the second quarter. Looking ahead to third quarter, Morningstar’s O’Connor was optimistic about VA sales.

“The July sales estimate of $11.6 billion, though 16% lower than the June estimate, was still 12% higher than the July 2010 estimate of $10.4 billion, and historically July is one of the weakest months of the year,” he wrote.

“Absent a significant market shock, recent volatility should continue to fuel interest in guarantees and drive sales back up to the $13–$14 billion per month level for the remainder of the year, with full year 2011 sales reaching $150 to $160 billion, or a 9%–16% increase over 2010.”

VA marketers will be crossing their fingers and hoping so. There’s been a lot of anecdotal chatter about the public’s rising interest in annuities, but the Morningstar 2Q 2011 report showed that of the $78.1 billion in total VA sales in the first half of 2011, only $11.5 billion was “net flows”, or new money. That hardly seems like a stampede. On the other hand, SPIA sales, from a low base, are up a reported 30% in the latest quarter.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Czech politicians split over private pension accounts

The implementation of the Czech Republic’s new pension reform – which aims to allow workers to transfer part of their contributions from the public pillar to newly created private pension funds – is facing a number of political and economic problems, IPE.com reported.  

Parliament is already poring over the reform, with the second reading of the proposed law scheduled for next week. The reform’s success is expected to depend on the political situation.

“The current opposition is strongly against the fact that part of the contributions to the pay-as-you-go system will be transferred to the private system,” said Jiri Rusnok, director of pensions at ING Pnezijni Fond. “Furthermore, the lack of consensus within the coalition government itself means the transfer of contributions from one pillar to another will be made on a volunteering system and will not in any case be compulsory.”

In addition, under the new law, workers will have to increase their allocation to the pension system, he warned.

“People who decide to join the private pillar will have to raise their contributions by 2% from their net income salary to be eligible to transfer as much as 3% of their contributions from the public system to private pension funds,” he said.

The increase of contributions is seen as an important barrier by some pension funds and consultants in the country.

However, experts agree the new pension system will give workers more flexibility in terms of investments and potentially lead to higher returns and higher pension benefits.

Petr Poncar, chairman at Allianz pension fund, said: “The return will depend on the profile of each worker who will decide on the investment strategy to adopt. Allocations to lower-risk assets will be adapted as workers reach retirement age.”

According to Poncar, as much as 25% of the work force is likely to join the voluntary private system if the pension reform is approved by parliament. But other experts warned this percentage could be much lower, closer to 10-15%.

If enacted by parliament and the president, the new pensions could be implemented as early as January 2013.

 

Actuaries Without Borders… Why Not?

You’ve heard of Doctors Without Borders, the Nobel Prize-winning humanitarian organization that sends physician-volunteers into devastated countries where wars, natural disasters or epidemics have created public health catastrophes.

It may seem odd to imagine that a similar non-governmental organization [NGO] of pension consultants might exist—a kind of Actuaries Without Borders. But in a sense, such a group has already been started in the Netherlands.

The Pension & Development Network, as it is called, is a non-profit group that works with a coalition of firms in the Dutch pension industry. These firms are willing to send experts into developing countries in Asia and Latin America to help local microfinance organizations set up grass-roots “micropension” programs for the poor and “unbanked.”

Private-sector members of that coalition include insurers like Aegon Global Pensions and Interpolis, banks like De Nederlandsche Bank and FMO, consulting firms like Syntrus Achmea and SPF Beheer, as well as risk management specialists, administration providers and a variety of niche firms. They have no stake in the development projects they volunteer on.

Created in 2008 by WorldGranny, an Amsterdam-based NGO that addresses the needs of elderly women in poor countries, and funded with a grant of €200,000 from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, P&D Network’s ambition is to help offer micropensions to a million people worldwide by 2015 and to educate a million more people about pensions by then.   

RIJ recently spoke with a P&D Network program director, Boudewijn Sterk (below right), who has worked on micropension projects in India and Mongolia, and with Robert Timmer, a management consultant with the Amsterdam-based firm, Mastermind, who, with Aegon actuarial consultant Edo de Wit, visited Guatemala last March to consult on a micropension project there.      

Boudewijn SterkIn India, for instance, P&D has been involved in a project where an NGO, the DHAN Foundation, has been collecting small pension premiums, which are being invested in government bonds by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, a $300 billion government-owned insurer.

“This project has been running for a year, and a lot of fine-tuning has been involved,” Sterk told RIJ. “A reinsurance mechanism needs to be set up, and we need to establish an investment agency or fund management agency run by the NGO and people from the insurance company so that the right financial choices are made.

“They’re buying government bonds but they hope to invest more broadly in the future. Right now in India there are five or six micropension provisions running, two of which are in Bangladesh, offered by Mohammed Yunus, the Nobel prizewinner, and the Grameen Bank. The concept of micropensions is rather new, but it’s finding its way through Asia.”

In June 2010, Sterk visited Mongolia, where the XacBank, a microfinance organization created in 1998 in Ulaan Baatar, has gotten interested in micropensions. “We did market research in Mongolia. There you have cattle, sheep or horse herders, and we estimated that they have enough income to save about $100 a month,” Sterk said, noting that a surprising number of nomadic herders use cellphones to communicate across the vast mineral-rich Asian prairies. 

“Cell phone density is very high in emerging economies,” he said. “Even where you think people have no money to spare, most own a cell phone. Because of the huge distances to the nearest banking office, herders in Mongolia use mobile phones to do their transactions. Imagine a country the size of western Europe with only two or three million inhabitants scattered everywhere, where for five months in the winter, it’s minus 40 or 45 degrees.” 

Communication and education are big challenges for the entire microfinance movement, as they are for sponsors of 401(k) plans in the U.S., and P&D Network members have encountered varying levels of financial sophistication. “It’s necessary to go out and explain to people what a micropension is and what it does and why it’s attractive,” Sterk told RIJ. “Financially speaking, they would look ahead one or two years at the most, so this is a whole new concept for them.”

Many people who live outside the formal economy are also disaffected. “Trust is one of the largest and most important issues, especially when you handle the savings of people who don’t have lot of money and a low level of trust in established financial institutions. Usually no one offers services to the low income population so they feel left out,” he added. International NGOs are often granted more trust than local government.

But Robert Timmer, an IT consultant with the small Amsterdam consulting firm, Mastermind, said that he was surprised at the sophistication of unbanked rural people when he spent a week in Guatemala (on Mastermind time) helping the local microfinance network, Redcamif, design a micropension program for self-employed shopkeepers and farmers.

“It was quite strange,” Timmer told RIJ. “When we talked to university people, they said what we were doing was a waste of time, that no poor people would participate in a micropension plan. But when we talked to the people themselves, we were amazed at how willing they were to save money within a structure that they’re part of.

“They already have a way of saving among themselves. The entire community puts aside something every month and everybody gets a certain amount once a year. And if someone has bad luck or breaks a leg, they receive more. They already have structures to eliminate risk and take care of each other.”

The design of each micropension plan will vary, depending on local conditions. According to Timmer, Guatemala might try a hybrid plan, with a defined lifetime benefit of 1% of income for each year of service and a DC plan with contributions of 2% of income. Getting answers to questions about who will guarantee the benefits of an annuity (especially in places with unreliable mortality tables) or manage the investments of private accounts is difficult at this point.

Given the tiny premiums, for-profit asset managers are unlikely to be as interested in micropensions as they were in, say, microloans. There’s mention of the Inter-American Development Bank and its Multilateral Investment Fund being involved. Administration of micropensions is likely to be relatively expensive until enough people participate to create economies of scale. Creating benefits for those already near retirement will be a challenge.

There’s no question that the need is large and growing, however. According to WorldGranny’s website, one in 14 people today is over age 65, and that ratio will rise to about one in six by 2050. By mid-century, 64% of the world’s elderly are expected to be living in developing countries. Americans may fret that Social Security won’t deliver on all of its promises, but hundreds of millions of people around the globe are reaching old age with no promises at all.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Broad markets conducive to active management, says Dutch firm

Outperformance from active management is no more or less likely in efficient or inefficient markets, but it is a lot more likely in broad markets than in narrow markets, according to a recent study by Dutch active asset manager Robeco, IP&E.com reported.

The more independent investment opportunities there are available, the greater the potential for active manager outperformance and vice versa, said Hans Rademaker, member of Robeco’s management board, during a recent seminar on active management in Rotterdam.

Robeco analysed the performance of active managers in a variety of markets, including the US and European bond and equity markets over a period of 20 years. On average, active managers underperform net of fees, the research shows.

But 20-40% of managers show persistent outperformance relative to a portfolio of investable index funds. The tricky part is selecting winning managers and avoiding losers, Rademaker said.

“If you don’t believe it’s possible to predict the winners, or if you don’t have the budget or resources to invest in a rigorous selection process, you’re probably better off opting for passive management.”

Which is not to say passive investment management is a picnic, he added. “Passive investments can be incredibly complex,” he said. “And some index products aren’t as passive as they may seem, considering their significant risks of underperformance.”

The conventional wisdom that active strategies thrive on inefficiencies and fall flat in efficient markets isn’t true, says the Robeco research. “The added value of active management is not correlated to market efficiency,” said Rademaker.  Even in very efficient markets, such as the US large-cap equity market, active managers can deliver outperformance.

Conversely, market inefficiency is not indicative of active manager success. The research shows no evidence of any indication that active strategies are more likely to outperform in inefficient markets such as high-yield corporate bond markets.

But market breadth is conducive to active management. “The potential for outperformance of active managers turns out to be higher in markets with many independent investment opportunities and lower in markets with fewer independent investment opportunities,” he said.

In addition, the number of independent investment opportunities within a specific market varies over time.

Rademaker said: “The government bond market, for instance, offered very few independent investment opportunities for a long time. But the number of independent opportunities has increased quite a bit over the last few years, changing the picture with regards to whether it makes sense to opt for active strategies in this area.”

So assessing market breadth gives investors an instrument to help them determine when and where it might pay to employ active strategies, and where it might be better to opt for passive management.

Many health-impaired Britons overpay for life annuities—Towers Watson

Up to half of all the people in the U.K. who buy income annuities could qualify for higher payout rates because they have medical conditions or lifestyle habits that are likely to shorten their lifespans, says the consulting firm Towers Watson, according to a report in IP&E.com.

But only about 12% of the income annuities actually purchased are higher-paying “enhanced annuities,” which are also known as impaired or medically underwritten annuities. 

The sale of enhanced annuities in the U.K. has grown substantially over the past decade. Sales reached £1.42bn ($2.32bn) in the first half of 2011, a dramatic increase from the £419.6m ($686m) sold in the UK in 2001.

As Towers Watson’s Andy Sanders told FTAdviser, “This year looks set to be another record year for enhanced annuities with sales projected to reach more than £2.8bn.”  

“Better awareness of annuity enhancement opportunities” and “an increase in ‘negative lifestyle factors’” accounts for the sales, said the global consulting firm, which estimated that 5,000 different individual medical conditions could potentially lead to the sale of an enhanced annuity. Someone who smokes heavily or consumes alcohol on a regular basis, in addition to those with heart disease or another chronic illness, might qualify for an enhanced annuity.

There has been a drive to increase awareness of enhanced and impaired life annuities in the U.K., but Towers Watson estimates that many people are unaware that they could qualify for higher annuity payouts.

Part of the problem is that most retirees in the U.K. buy their income annuity from their defined contribution plan provider without taking advantage of the Open Market Option, a service that enables them to choose from a wide range of annuity providers, including providers of enhanced annuities.

“Thousands of retirees are missing out on a higher retirement income because (you would assume) they were unaware that they were eligible. It would seem that until OMO [Open Market Option] is made the default option (and there is no current consensus on how this could be implemented), many will continue to miss out on a better annuity,” the company said.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved