Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

An Actuary’s View of the VA Market

Tim Pfeifer, president of Pfeifer Advisory LLC in Libertyville, Illinois, works with annuity issuers on the design of variable annuity contracts. He is a former Milliman actuary who, since 1986, has been a consultant to life insurance companies, regulators, marketing organizations, banks and mutual fund companies. He formed his own consulting firm in 2008.    

Last week, Pfeifer shared his views about the current state of the VA industry in an interview with Retirement Income Journal editor Kerry Pechter.

RIJ: Tim, what’s driving the variable annuity market today? Downside protection? Upside potential? Liquidity? Tax-deferral?

Pfeifer: We’re basically on a one-way street as far as guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefits being the VA story. Today’s customers want control and guarantees. Other factors—cheap pricing and tax efficiency, for example—are secondary, within reason of course. That’s the direction the industry is moving in. The agencies, reps and customers want those two things.

RIJ: But haven’t companies hurt the value proposition by diluting those guarantees?

Pfeifer: After the crisis, we went through a period of de-risking that saw some companies leave the business entirely. The more common [method of de-risking] was to increase prices and to restrict which assets could be wrapped in the guarantee. The market has responded pretty favorably to both of those things.

RIJ: The pendulum might even be swinging the other way. You’ve mentioned the word “re-risking.”

Pfeifer: When I use the term re-risking, I don’t mean that carriers are backing away from the required asset allocations, or the passive accounts, or limiting activity on the underlying investments or notching their pricing up a bit. I mean that I see companies making certain components of their lifetime withdrawal guarantee more attractive. Investors aren’t throwing caution to the wind, but the direction is away from total avoidance of risk.

The attitude is, ‘Let’s find designs that are clever.’ Prudential’s success with asset transfer is getting play at other carriers. In their labs, a lot of companies are looking at something similar that gives them the ability to move money around on pre-programmed basis. The client may get a little more latitude to allocate assets than in some of the existing designs, but certainly not full latitude, and the carrier has the contractual right to re-allocate assets under certain circumstances.

RIJ: What’s your view of the concentration of the business among a handful of issuers?

Pfeifer: I see a continued movement toward the ‘rich getting richer.’ The VA business has always been a business of scale. The bigger players have a variety of advantages, up and down the line. They have the scale to negotiate better agreements with asset managers and administrative partners. In addition, the larger players have been innovative products on the product design side, and have advantages on the expense and risk management fronts.   

The top six to eight VA players will continue  to gather more market share. With the possible exception of mid-tier players  who sell through captive distribution, it will be difficult for a carrier selling $700-800 million or less of VAs each year to find the economics attractive. It is simply getting harder and  harder to compete against the large participants. Other competitive advantages must be sought.

RIJ: Are some companies growing too fast for their own good?

Pfeifer: As long as you’ve been writing a steady amount of business, that helps on the risk management side. A company that writes $10 billion worth of business in one year and writes a lot less than that the year before and after has a different risk profile than the company that writes $2 billion a year. The more you spread your sales over different economic cycles and market conditions, the better off you are likely to be from a risk perspective.

RIJ: Consumers are buying this product for guaranteed income. What part do the roll-up percentages play in making the income component attractive?

Pfeifer: The roll-up percentage, in my opinion, is a bigger sales story than the ultimate payout percentage. It’s also a source of potential risk if not sold properly. For instance, a friend of mine bought three variable annuities from three different carriers, all with GLWBs. He’s no dummy, but he thought he was getting a five to seven percentage roll-up on money that he thought he could take out as a lump sum. That element of the design—the roll-up percentage—is the product’s strong point, but it has to be sold accurately.

RIJ: That sort of confusion could come back to haunt the issuers.

Pfeifer: I love the GLWB. I was involved in the early days of the feature. It speaks to a need out there and the industry will be able to take advantage of its combination of control and guarantees. But it’s incumbent upon everybody to sell these the right way.

RIJ: Thanks, Tim.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Lonelier at the Top

Even though many in the VA industry wish it weren’t so, sales of individual contracts became even more concentrated among the three biggest sellers during the year that ended March 31, 2011, according to Morningstar’s quarterly VA report.

Prudential, MetLife and Jackson National, which have dominated sales since the post-financial crisis industry shake-out, added 2.12%, 1.83% and 1.79% of market share, respectively. Together they accounted for more than 44% of sales. The top five firms took almost 60% of total sales.

Executives at competing VA issuers wish the wealth were spread more evenly. But even some executives at the sales leaders worry about accumulating too much risk in too short a time. In fact, all three have taken steps in the past year to “de-risk” their contracts.

Overall, the VA industry posted new sales of $38.7 billion in the first quarter, up 23.2% from the $31.4 billion sold in first quarter 2010. First quarter sales were also 4.3% higher than fourth quarter 2010 sales of $37.1 billion. Net cash flow—the best measure of industry growth—also rose in the first quarter, to $5.8 billion from $5.4 billion in the fourth quarter and $3.6 billion in the first quarter of 2010, up 8.4% and 63.9% respectively.

Assets under management set an all-time record of $1.56 trillion, up 3.6% from the year-end 2010 assets of $1.50 trillion.TIAA-CREF’s group annuity, which is the plan for university and college employees, accounts for almost a quarter of all VA assets, with $383 billion. It is followed by MetLife ($132.4 billion), Prudential ($109.1 billion), AXA Equitable ($91.5 billion) and Lincoln Financial ($85.2 billion). Jackson National is the fastest growing VA seller, but still has assets of just $59.95 billion.

The distribution channel sales leaders continued to be Prudential and MetLife, with Prudential taking the number one spot in the bank, independent planner, and wirehouse channels, MetLife leading in regional firms and Ameriprise ranking first in the captive agency channel (excluding TIAA-CREF).

Rounding out the top 5 in each channel were Jackson National, MetLife, Nationwide, and Pacific Life in the banks; Jackson National, Metlife, Lincoln National and Allianz in the independent shops; MetLife, Nationwide, Lincoln National and Sun Life in the wirehouses; Jackson National, Lincoln Financial, Protective and Prudential in the regional firms; and finally MetLife, AXA, SunAmerica, and Prudential in the captive agency channel.

The April sales estimate of $13.9 billion, which was 13.8% higher than April 2010 estimated sales of $12.2 billion, shows a positive start to the second quarter of 2011. If momentum builds from product and benefit launches and the May sales are strong we could see second quarter sales exceed the $40 billion mark for the first time since the second quarter of 2008.

About 80% of variable annuity contracts sold are either B-shares (54%), where the carrier recoups the up-front commission that it pays advisor from the client through the mortality and expense risk (M&E) charge over time, or L-shares, where the carrier pays a combination of up-front and trail commissions. In other words, relatively few VA contracts are sold without a strong financial incentive for the advisor. Variable annuities are still a product that’s sold, not bought.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

It’s July, So We Must Be in VA-VA-Land

It’s tough to describe the variable annuity market because it is many different markets in one. Among VA makers, for instance, you have the leaders, the niche-nursers and the opt-out-ers. (Or, to borrow a description of retirees: the go-gos, slow-gos and no-gos.) 

The distribution world is just as fragmented. Among independent advisors, there’s a small core of heavy users who want insurance for their equity plays or simply love the commission. There are a few who use VAs primarily for tax deferral. Many of the rest skeptics. 

At the same time, end-users vary widely in their wants and needs. You have individuals who warm to the combination of guarantees and control. You have people who like the 10%-of-principal-for-life-after-a-10-year-deferral proposition. Potentially, you have the 50-to-65-year-old DC participants with big balances. And you always have your 1035-exchange prospects. 

What you don’t have, even after five years of innovation and marketing and pep-rally conferences (and a financial crisis and three years of zero interest rates and the arrival of the first Boomer at age 65), is much growth in the relative size of the annuity market.   

For years, the amount of assets in individual annuities of any kind has remained at less than 10% of the retirement market. According to the Investment Company Institute’s recent Retirement Industry Report, the annuity share was 8% in 1996 and 9% in 2010. 

The value of all total U.S. retirement savings, including public and private plans and individual assets, is $18.1 trillion, as of March 31, 2011, according to the ICI. The value in annuities of all kinds was $1.64 trillion (most of it in variable annuities). In 2000, $951 billion of the 11.7 trillion in retirement assets was in annuities.

This is not to say that VA issuers been complacent. On the contrary, their product developers and actuaries and financial engineers have been working as fast as they can just to stay in the same place.  Unfortunately, they face at least three big problems.   

Problem one: the low interest rate environment. Low interest rates have been a two-edged sword. Had they not fallen to historic lows after 2008, the equity market (along with insurance company stocks) would not have reinflated. Consequently, those living benefit guarantees would still be under water. So there’s a positive side to low interest rates when most of your underlying assets are in equities.

But low interest rates means high hedging costs, which have to be passed along to the customer in terms of weaker benefits or higher prices. Luckily, the customer has tolerated price hikes fairly well. And the fees, to the extent that they reduce account value growth, will ultimately be felt by the beneficiary, not the contract owner. 

Problem two:  If you’re not one of the top five or six manufacturers, your problem is that the top five or six issuers are grabbing more than half of all sales. According to Cerulli’s survey of insurers (see accompanying article in today’s issue of RIJ), the “concentration of sales with a few carriers” is among the top three industry problems cited by life insurers. 

That’s not just sour grapes on the part of those who are losing market share. Bing Waldert, Cerulli’s director of research, says that industry concentration hinders the development of broader consumer acceptance of VAs. Even executives at the market leaders have said they’d rather have a smaller piece of a bigger pie than vice-versa. see more balanced growth. 

Problem three: the small number of advisors who are selling VAs. Even after the financial crisis showcased the value of the living benefit guarantee, and even after VA issuers developed low-cost shares for the fee-based advisor community, only a small segment of advisors sell more than a handful of VAs each year.  (For much more on this, see Cerulli article.)

Over the next several weeks, we’ll be examining these problems, as well as their potential resolutions.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

VAs: In Search of a Winning Formula

For years, life insurers have tried to convince more financial advisors to buy variable annuities for their clients. The insurers think it’s a no-brainer: clients seem to be clamoring for the blend of guaranteed income and liquidity that VA withdrawal riders offer. 

But most independent advisors remain skeptical. A new Cerulli Associates report, “Quantitative Update: Annuities and Insurance 2011,” shows that a small minority of commission-driven advisors still drives VA sales.

Indeed, Cerulli believes that VA marketers probably won’t get much traction with fee-based advisors unless they stop pushing product and start demonstrating how to integrate VAs into a multi-faceted retirement strategy.  

“[The VA issuers] have adapted their pricing to the fee-based advisor, but they haven’t changed how they do business,” said Bing Waldert, Cerulli’s research director, in an interview. “There’s been so much focus on product development and one-upmanship. But they haven’t necessarily tied the product to client solutions. It’s still about product.”

“The discussion between [insurance company] wholesalers and advisors is, ‘Here’s how our product differs from the others,’ not ‘Here’s how our product creates a better client outcome. And therefore they aren’t reaching the holistic-minded advisor,” Waldert said.

Waldert compared variable annuities to Michael Jordan in his early years, before he became a mature team player. Instead of trying to sell VAs to advisors as a one-product solution for all their clients’ retirement risks, insurers and their wholesalers should show advisors how VAs can complement other products in an overall retirement income strategy.   

Counter-intuitively, VAs could attract more assets overall by trying to get less from each client, Waldert said: “Jordan didn’t win a championship until he learned to pass the ball.”

This blind spot turns off the most sophisticated advisors and limits the VA industry’s potential, he said.  And that’s why Cerulli’s report, whose highlights were released last week, was not particularly bullish on VAs. Its most dour conclusion: the “small portion of the advisor population representing the variable annuity industry leads one to question the stability of future growth in the industry.” 

Here are some of Cerulli’s findings:

• Variable annuity sales through independent advisors grew from 24% of variable annuity sales in 1999 to 34% in 2010. Captive agency share of variable annuity sales shrank from 37% in 1999 to 33% in 2010.

• Variable annuities (VAs) represent 8% of advisor assets. The insurance and independent broker/dealer (IBD) channels have the highest allocation of advisor assets in VAs at 16% and 13%, respectively. Cerulli projects advisor mutual fund allocation to grow greater than 3%; the greatest growth will be in the regionals and little growth in registered investment advisors (RIAs).

• Of the 334,160 retail financial advisors, just more than one-third (35%) of advisors actively recommended variable annuities (VAs) in the last year.  

• Annuity advocates (advisors who produce 12 or more contacts a year) comprise a mere 18% of the advisor population. In addition, they generate approximately 68% of advisor-sold VA sales (excluding TIAA-CREF and direct sales).

• The 25 largest VA issuers control nearly 90,000 advisors, representing more than one-quarter of practicing financial advisors. Jackson National, Ameriprise, and AIG/SunAmerica stand out as top VA issuers that also control massive independent broker/dealer (IBD) sales forces.

Part of the problem for VA issuers, Waldert said, is that a lot of advisors think they and their clients can live without that product. According to Cerulli’s study, 44% of advisors “believe they can duplicate retirement income funds using products at their disposal.”

This do-it-yourself ethic among advisors apparently includes a belief that GLWBs are superfluous.

“It’s not as if nobody has ever retired before,” Waldert said. “Financial advisors have had an average of 15 years’ experience,” he added. “They’ve seen their clients through two bear markets in 10 years. They don’t feel they need to be trained to take retirement income. For VAs, the message has to be changed to, we can produce ‘better retirement income.’”

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Mercer in deal with Financial Engines, HelloWallet and TD Ameritrade

Mercer’s outsourcing business has added three new services to its benefits administration platform: Financial Engines’ Income+ solution, HelloWallet’s financial planning and budgeting solution and TD Ameritrade’s self-directed brokerage account solution.

Terms of the agreements were not disclosed.

An extension of Financial Engines’ professional management/managed account services,  Income+ helps participants with the retirement spend-down phase by: providing steady monthly payouts that can last for life (with purchase of out-of-plan annuity); offering an alternative to an in-plan annuity, as it works with the plan’s existing investment options; and providing professional allocation advice for the payout phase.

HelloWallet is an online resource that helps employees improve their overall household finances by “finding the money” to boost their contributions to retirement savings and reduce debt. It empowers users to create budgets, set savings goals, aggregate financial account data and monitor their spending habits.

Through TD Ameritrade’s self-directed brokerage accounts, participants on Mercer’s platform will have access to ETFs mutual funds and fixed income products. Participants can also access independent research, market analysis and investment screening capabilities.

These three new features will be integrated into Mercer’s online participant experience and accessible through plan websites.

 

 

“New normal” mindset pervades Boomers: Allianz Life

For the second year in a row, Boomers by nearly a 4:1 margin remain more attracted to guarantees for their retirement savings versus potential high returns with market risk, according to Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America’s 2011 refresh of its 2010 Reclaiming the Future study.

When asked which is more attractive, a financial product providing 4% return that is guaranteed not to lose value or one with 8% return that is subject to market risk and loss of principal, 76% of respondents chose the guaranteed product, nearly identical to the 80% of respondents in 2010.

Originally conducted in May 2010 with more than 3,200 people age 44-75, the refresh of Reclaiming the Future surveyed 439 of the same participants in March 2011—when the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached its highest point in nearly two years—to determine how attitudes about retirement planning have changed.

Despite the recovery, the study revealed that boomers still have high anxiety about whether their retirement income will last and how prepared they are for the future. Their “new normal” mindset includes expectations of a sluggish economy, low investment returns, a more conservative investing strategy, expectations of delaying retirement and an increasing interest in seeking help from financial professionals.
Having a source of guaranteed income will be important for Boomers as pessimism about retirement preparedness remains unchanged. More than a third (35%) of respondents in both 2010 and 2011 said that, financially speaking, they feel totally unprepared for retirement – and a nearly equal number in each year (37% in 2010, 38% in 2011) said they have no idea if their income will last throughout their lifetime. In both years, fully half of respondents noted that they are extremely concerned about possibly outliving their income.

One factor that has changed, however, is Boomers’ expected age of retirement. Many now say they’ll need to retire later than they previously thought. In 2010, the average age of expected retirement was 63, but only one year later that average age jumped to 66.5. While many now plan to work longer, data from McKinsey & Company suggests that isn’t a foolproof way to supplement retirement income. In fact, according to their 2006 report, Cracking the Consumer Retirement Code, two in five people are forced to retire earlier than planned due to a number of factors, including layoffs or illness.

While the percentage of boomers currently working with financial professionals remained nearly flat (26% in 2010, 27% in 2011), those who said they are now receptive to working with one increased (29% in 2010, 32% in 2011), and those who said they were not receptive decreased (25% in 2010, 21% in 2011). In terms of what type of guidance they want from their financial professional, boomers were increasingly looking to “create more safety and guarantees in my nest egg” (25% in 2010, 31% in 2011) and “understand the big picture for me financially” (29% in 2010, 37% in 2011).

As a result of their uncertainty and anxiety, Boomers now see their main retirement goals very clearly. When asked how to describe their retirement goals, 81 percent said one of their most important goals is having a stable, predictable standard of living throughout retirement.

“Given the ‘new normal’ that boomers are facing, and the increasing complexity of retirement planning, people will likely seek the assistance of a trusted financial professional more than ever before,” said Gary Bhojwani, president and CEO of Allianz Life. “Our updated study reinforces that the less rosy outlook will create increasing demand for boomers to learn more about how to create guaranteed lifetime income and security in retirement.”

DALBAR announces fiduciary designation for 401(k) advisors

DALBAR, Inc. has introduced the first in the nation fiduciary designation that to identify advisors who commit in writing to act as fiduciaries and have the skills and training to perform at that level of care.

Training for the new designation is provided by a number of Qualified Training Organizations or through a self-study program. For further details on requirements and to apply, visit www.FiduciaryRegistry.com.

The 401(k) RFTM Designation is awarded to designees who after training and testing prove to be fluent in the language and regulations of ERISA. Only candidates “grounded in 401(k)” are admitted to training. Besides training, candidates undergo a background check and supervised testing covering fiduciary practices and the technical requirements of ERISA.

Holders of the 401(k) Designation receive credentials that permit plan sponsors to meet the regulatory requirements of prudent selection of advisors. These credentials highlight the advisors capabilities and make any necessary disclosures.

The 401(k) RFTM was designed to comply with Department of Labor regulations in the areas of fee disclosure, investment advice and the fiduciary standards. Fee disclosure regulations require that advisors who provide investment advice to plan sponsors must document their fiduciary status.

Similar regulations are expected for advice to participants. The proposed redefinition of what constitutes an ERISA fiduciary will exclude non-fiduciaries from providing even incidental or occasional advice.

“The new DoL regulations make it increasingly difficult for non-fiduciary advisors to provide valued services to 401(k) plans” said Louis S. Harvey, DALBAR’s president. He added that “Investment advice will soon be the exclusive domain of fiduciaries and the RFTM will be the mark of distinction for fiduciaries.”

The RFTM Designation is authorized by the Fiduciary Standards Board (formally the Foundation for Fiduciary Studies) and the content is based on the most current 2010 Fiduciary Standards.

Mind the [Retirement] Gap

Americans are “wrestling” with how to make their 401(k) savings last through retirement but are often “completely in the dark” about it, according to a recent survey of 1,000 plan participants by J.P. Morgan Asset Management. 

A white paper based on the survey, Searching for Certainty, said that:  

  • 86% of respondents said that they will need to know how much of their pre-retirement salary they can replace, yet almost one quarter (22%) aren’t even sure what they might receive after they stop working.  
  • Only 40% of respondents feel “comfortable that they will be able to reach their financial goals in retirement.”  
  • Of those who had a target retirement income replacement level in mind, nearly 45% thought they would need less than three-fourths of their pre-retirement salary. J. P. Morgan recommends a replacement ratio of at least 70%.
  • Two thirds of respondents don’t know how much they should be saving for retirement, and nearly half are scared that they will outlive their retirement savings.
  • Of those who expect to need 75%-100% of their pre-retirement salary in retirement, less than a third had enough savings to generate this income.

Retirement savings ranks a distant second to paying monthly bills, the survey found, even though 401(k)s are the only or the primary source of retirement savings for two-thirds of Americans.  

“Paying monthly bills, credit cards and mortgages accounts for 71% of individuals’ top priorities,” says Donn Hess, managing director, product development, J.P. Morgan Retirement Plan Services.  

Employees earning $165,000 annually won’t be able to replace their salary on their 401(k) contributions alone, even if they make catch-up contributions, J.P. Morgan said.

A combination of qualified and non-qualified savings might suffice, but, according to J.P. Morgan’s research, 46% of executives with non-qualified plans do not even contribute to their primary defined contribution plan.  

The study was conducted online in the U.S. by Harris Interactive from July 12 to July 23, 2010 among 1,014 respondents. All are employed in companies with at least 50 employees and have contributed to their 401(k) plans within the past 12 months.

SEC “starved of resources”: New Yorker

In a compelling article on the prosecution of Galleon hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam (“A Dirty Business,” June 27, 2011), George Packer of The New Yorker reported the following:

Nearly three years after the financial crisis, Wall Street still relies on reckless practices to create wealth. An investment banker recently described the meltdown, with some chagrin, as a “speed bump.”

The SEC remains so starved of resources that its budget this year falls far short of Raj Rajaratnam’s [the hedge fund manager recently convicted of insider trading and the subject of the article] net worth at the time of his arrest.

The agency lacks the technology to keep track of the enormous volume and lightning speed of algorithmic trades, like the ones that caused last May’s “flash crash of the market.” The market has become more of an exclusive gambling club for the very rich than a level playing field open to the ordinary investor.

As for the larger financial system, in Washington, D.C., implementation of the Dodd-Frank regulatory reform law has been slowed, if not sabotaged, by lobbying on the part of the big banks and a general ebbing of will among politicians.

Neil Barofsky, the former inspector general of TARP, said, “Is Tim Geithner going to have the political will to take on the size and interconnectivity of the largest banks? Nothing in his previous career suggests that he would.”

Barofsky went on, “It is a remarkable failure of our system that we’ve not addressed the fundamental problems that brought us into the financial crisis. And it is cynical or naïve to imagine it won’t happen again.”

Eleven Million Millionaires Worldwide

The world’s high net worth individuals (HNWIs—those with $1 million or more in investable assets—expanded in numbers and in total wealth in 2010, surpassing 2007 pre-crisis levels in nearly every region, according to the 15th annual World Wealth Report, released today by Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management and Capgemini.

Global HNWI population and wealth growth reached more stable levels in 2010, with the population of HNWIs increasing 8.3% to 10.9 million and HNWI financial wealth growing 9.7% to reach US$42.7 trillion (compared with 17.1% and 18.9% respectively in 2009).

The global population of Ultra-HNWIs (those with $30 million or more in investable assets) grew by 10.2% in 2010 and its wealth by 11.5%.

The global HNWI population remained highly concentrated in the U.S., Japan and Germany, which together accounted for 53.0% of the world’s HNWIs. The U.S. is still home to the single largest HNW segment in the world, with its 3.1 million HNWIs accounting for 28.6% of the global HNWI population.

In an environment of relatively stable but uneven recovery, equities and commodities markets, as well as real estate (specifically in Asia-Pacific), performed solidly throughout 2010.

By the end of 2010, HNWIs held 33% of all their investments in equities, up from 29% a year earlier. Allocations to cash/deposits dropped to 14% in 2010 from 17% in 2009 and the share held in fixed-income investments dipped to 29% from 31%. Among alternative investments, many HNWIs favored commodities. Commodity investments accounted for 22% of all alternative investments in 2010, up from 16% in 2009.

The global population of Ultra-HNWIs grew 10.2% to 103k in 2010, and their wealth jumped by 11.5%, after surging 21.5% in 2009. A disproportionate amount of wealth remains concentrated in the hands of Ultra-HNWIs. At the end of 2010, Ultra-HNWIs represented only 0.9% of the global HNWI population, but accounted for 36.1% of global HNWI wealth. That was up slightly from 35.5% in 2009.

North America still has the largest regional number of Ultra-HNWIs. At the end of 2010, the number of Ultra-HNWIs there totaled 40,000, up from 36,000 in 2009 (but remains down from 41,000 in 2007). Regionally, Latin America still has the highest percentage of Ultra-HNWIs relative to the overall HNWI population—2.4%, compared with the global average of 0.9%.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Things Heard and Overheard

You can see a lot just by looking, said Yogi Berra. Here’s a corollary to that rule: you can hear a lot just by listening.  Below are a few things I heard at the SPARK Institute conference in D.C. earlier this month.  

John Karl, the president of the Retirement Learning Center and executive director of the PLANSPONSOR Institute, warned members of the 401(k) advisor and provider community to prepare for a big uptick in enforcement actions from the Department of Labor.

The DoL is authorized to hire 997 new people for 2012, he said. Of those, 941 are new enforcement officers at the Employee Benefits Security Administration. EBSA apparently intends to put teeth in the new regulations, such as fee disclosure, that it is currently pushing through.   

The two easiest ways for plan sponsors to get pinched by EBSA for excessive fees, he said, are the following: First, if the plan has grown but the fees haven’t fallen to reflect the new economies of scale. Second, if the sponsor is unconsciously still mailing checks to advisors who no longer provide advice.

In what he called “a terrible reflection on us as an industry,” Karl said that the DoL considers 77% of plans non-compliant with regulations. So DoL will soon be “deploying record numbers of people to kick the tires,” he predicted. They’ll be looking for “low-hanging fruit,” he warned, in order to maximize the number of successful actions and demonstrate efficient use of resources.    

                                                                                *            *            *  

Mark Iwry, the deputy assistant Secretary of the Treasury for retirement and health policy and a Senior Advisor to the Secretary, spoke at length—Iwry speaks slowly and deliberately—about the Treasury’s partnership with DoL in promoting retirement security.

While at the Brookings Institution, he co-invented the Auto-IRA, which small employers can use in lieu a 401(k) plan to give their employees a chance to save through payroll deferral.   

During the Q&A period, Iwry was asked about the contradictory impressions that different parts of the government are offering about the sanctity of the tax deferral on contributions to workplace plans.

Some legislators are making noises about cutting the subsidy to reduce the budget deficit. Administration policymakers, like Iwry, seem to want to strengthen the existing system—the system that puts bread on the kitchen tables of most of the people in the room.      

Iwry’s answer suggested that the tax deferral is not in jeopardy (at least not during an Obama presidency). Here’s what he said:

“The defense [against removal of the deferral] is to be hard at work to improve it and to make sure it reaches more of the public. To the extent that it doesn’t reach everyone, or that its results are not meaningful to tens of millions of workers, it becomes more vulnerable to cutbacks. To the extent that it reaches more people, it’s easier to justify.” He compared taxpayers to “equity investors” in the 401(k) system, and the question is whether they are getting enough “bang for the buck” in terms of retirement security.

My reflexive thoughts: Why should the government get rid of tax deferral—and have to replace the existing system with something new—as long as it can use the threat of removing tax deferral to keep the retirement industry responsive to its needs?

Such is the bargain that the retirement industry has made—the bargain of a regulated oligopoly. 

                                                                                 *            *            *                  

It was suggested at the conference that the DoL, though undoubtedly well-intentioned, may be opening up a big can of worms by requiring plan sponsors to tell participants exactly how much they’ve been paying for a “benefit” that many of them thought was free. 

Some wondered what will happen next year when plan participants—and it might only take one Paul Revere per company to arouse the rest from their slumber—discover that their 401(k) bill (depending on the size of their account) is as big as their electric bill.      

“[The number] will jump out there for the large-balance fees,” said Bob Kaplan, a vice president and national training consultant for ING, who led a breakout session called Helping Your Clients Cope with Fee Disclosure. “People will say, ‘I knew I was paying something but I didn’t realize how much it was.’ People react to dollars. Percentages don’t resonate.”  

Kaplan said that fee disclosure will create some interesting challenges for plan sponsors. “How many sponsors know exactly what their fees are? And if you don’t know what they are, how do you know if they’re reasonable or not?” he asked rhetorically. The new precision about fees will certainly end the practice of bundling fees, he said: “This ends ‘Give me the investment management and I’ll throw in the plan administration.”

At the very least, he noted, fee disclosure will create a competitive shake-up in the plan provider world. Plan sponsors will have to solicit bids every three to five years just as a defense against accusations of being asleep at the switch. Smart companies, someone said, will “get out in front of” the arrival of fee disclosure and institute a communications plan that assures employees that the plan’s fees have been examined and are, at the least, comparable to fees at similar companies.    

 © 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Putnam, A Work in Progress

A Putnam Investments road show, led by CEO Bob Reynolds (left), rolled into the gilt-and-rococo splendor of Manhattan’s St. Regis Hotel yesterday morning to showcase the initial fruits of the company’s new retirement research unit, the Putnam Institute.

The Institute—the latest of many such research units sponsored by a variety financial services firms to claim “thought-leadership” in the retirement space—released two findings that it considered counter-intuitive and newsworthy:

First—and this bucks conventional wisdom—Putnam found that a retiree’s equity allocation in retirement should be “in the 5% to 10% range.” Second, a recent Putnam survey showed that Americans who are least prepared for retirement earn, about the same as those most prepared for retirement, on average. Conclusion: they just don’t have the tools or discipline to save.

The 5% to 10% equity allocation finding was based on a new Putnam Institute research paper, “Optimal Asset Allocation in Retirement: A Downside Risk Perspective,” by Institute research director W. Van Harlow, Ph.D.

For retirees whose money is all at risk in investment products, most recommended equity allocations are too high, Harlow said. Rather than provide inflation protection—the usual justification for holding equities in retirement—that strategy exposes retirees who are reverse-dollar-cost-averaging to volatility and sequence-of-return risk.    

“I didn’t really appreciate the impact of sequence-of-returns risk until about three years ago, when Moshe Milevsky [of Canada’s York  University] explained it to me,” confessed Van Harlow, a former professor at the University of Texas and University of Arizona.

The second part of Putnam’s press conference focused on its Lifetime Income Score, a metric developed by Putnam and research firm Brightwork Partners to track retirement readiness. 

A recent Putnam-sponsored Brightwork survey of 3,290 working adults in the U.S. showed that “the median U.S. household can currently expect to replace 64% of its income in retirement.” If Social Security income were excluded, that number would shrink to 30%.

The study also revealed little difference in average income between those who had saved most and least for retirement. From a behavioral perspective, this suggested that many people who can save don’t—either because they lack discipline or don’t have access to the enforced discipline of an employer-sponsored retirement plan.

From a business perspective, this finding appeared to identify an under-tapped source and under-served market (mainly of older, divorced, high-income women) for financial services firms.

With its new Institute, nicknamed Pi (π), Putnam joins a growing club of firms in the retirement space with dedicated research units. Reynolds’ former employer, Fidelity Investments, had one in the mid-2000s and later closed it down; it still publishes research like the Couples Retirement Study in today’s issue of RIJ. Vanguard, Fidelity’s long-time competitor in the direct sales sector, started a research center about a decade ago. Since then, other firms have jumped in. (See chart.)

Allianz Global Investors                                                     Center for Behavioral Finance

The American College New York Life                                   Center for Retirement Income

Bankers Life and Casualty Center for a Secure Retirement

ING Retirement Research Institute

 J.P. Morgan Retirement Research

Lincoln Retirement Institute

Mercer Retirement Research Group (U.K.)

Prudential Foundation/Research and Perspectives

Putnam Institute

Towers Watson (Mark Warshawsky, Dir. of Retirement Research)

Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies

Vanguard Center for Retirement Research

Led by Harlow, Pi also has a blue-ribbon advisory board that includes behavioral finance expert Meir Statman of Santa Clara University, Joseph Coughlin, the director of the MIT AgeLab, Keith C. Brown of the University of Texas, Daniel Cassidy of Cassidy Retirement Group, law professor Christopher Hennessey of Babson College and Guy L. Patton, chairman of the University of Oklahoma Foundation.

At Tuesday morning’s press conference, Reynolds led the session and was joined by top Putnam executives Jeff Carney and Ed Murphy, as well as Harlow and Brightwork president Merl Baker, principal at Brightwork Partners and former president of Louis Harris and Associates USA.

Ordinarily, the presence of a fund company’s top brass at a press conference for a white paper might seem like applying a sledgehammer to a nail.  But that’s been Reynolds’ approach since arriving at Putnam three years ago to turn the company around.

Reynolds has been highly visible at retirement conferences, traveling widely and speaking publicly—though he seems to be more a one-on-one communicator than a natural public speaker.

Beyond burnishing Putnam’s brand, he has been aggressive about expressing his opinions on U.S. retirement policy—some of which he restated at the press conference. Like other 401(k) executives, he’s a big advocate for auto-enrollment, auto-escalation, and the implementation of the Treasury Department’s proposed Automatic IRA.

More surprisingly, he’s a big advocate for strengthening the Social Security program. “We need to raise the retirement age, we need to raise the income level [subject to Social Security tax] to $150,000, and we need to introduce some sort of needs-based provision,” he said, adding that Republicans will have to relax their opposition to any new tax and Democrats will have to yield on their resistance to a higher retirement age. “It just takes political courage.”   

At its peak during the millennial tech boom, Putnam Investments was managing some $400 billion in mutual fund assets. But after its managers were caught up in the marketing-timing scandal of the early 2000s, the company was abandoned by investors and experienced six consecutive years of negative fund flows.  

Canada’s Great-West Lifeco, whose majority owner is Power Financial Corp, purchased Putnam in 2007 for a reported $4.6 billion. In mid-2008, the new owners hired Reynolds, who had recently retired from Fidelity Investments.  As Fidelity’s chief operating officer, he’d been second only to owner Edward “Ned” Johnson III and was the chief architect of the firm’s trillion-dollar 401(k) business. 

After enlisting former Fidelity lieutenants Jeff Carney and Ed Murphy to take over mutual funds and 401(k) plans, respectively, at Putnam, and introducing such innovations as reduced-volatility Absolute Return funds (now sold by 11,000 advisors, with $4 billion in assets) and a series of target date funds, Reynolds has restored some but not all of Putnam’s former stature.

At present, according to its website, Putnam has $129 billion under management, with about $70 billion in 79 mutual funds sold by third-party advisors and 29 variable annuity and life insurance options.   

The remaining $59 billion comes from Putnam’s institutional asset management and recordkeeping businesses, which include 111 institutional clients and more than three hundred 401(k) plans. 

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Vanguard issues annual DC report

To access a copy of “How America Saves,” click here. Vanguard issued the following release early today:

The portfolios of nearly 30% of participants in 401(k) retirement plans at Vanguard are in automatic professionally managed investment programs, which particularly benefit individuals who lack the skills to invest properly on their own, according to Vanguard’s How America Saves 2011. The report also showed that participant account balances in 2010 rose to their highest levels since Vanguard began tracking them in 1999.

The annual report, now in its 10th edition, is widely used as a barometer of retirement planning trends. Along with a look at the overall patterns of Vanguard’s 3 million-plus participants, How America Saves this year includes supplemental reports with analyses of participant behavior in the defined contribution (DC) retirement plans of eight specific industries.

“The growing number of participants taking advantage of professionally managed investment programs and services in their plan clearly shows that the 401(k) system can offer investors a successful way to invest for retirement,” said Jean Young, coauthor of How America Saves 2011. ”These services have the potential to dramatically reshape portfolio outcomes for participants because they address the need of many individuals who don’t have the skills to manage their retirement assets.”

More participants getting professional investment help
The increasing adoption of automatic professionally managed investment programs is significant because they eliminate portfolio construction mistakes by many participants. By year-end 2010, 29% of Vanguard participants were entirely invested in one of these programs, which include a single target-date or balanced fund or a managed account advisory service. Twenty percent held one target-date fund, a dominant trend because 79% of plans offered target-date funds as of year-end 2010. Another 6% held one traditional balanced fund and an additional 3% used a managed account program. In comparison, in 2004, just 7% of all Vanguard participants were solely invested in an automatic investment program.

In addition to automatic investment programs, many plans offer advice services utilized by a strong number of participants. Three in 10 plans offered online advice and one in eight offered managed accounts. Financial planning services are offered to all participants with plan sponsor authorization, but a fee may apply to those younger than 55. In all, about 15% of participants use advice services if offered, with managed accounts the most popular.

When the 15% of advice users (including those in managed accounts, considered both an advice service and an automatic professionally managed investment program) are added to participants invested in a single target-date fund (20%) and a single balanced fund (6%), more than 40% of participants are taking advantage of investment management programs or advice services when they are offered through their plans.  

Account balances up but may not present the entire picture
In 2010, average ($79,077) and median ($26,926) account balances reached their highest level since Vanguard began tracking this data in 1999 in How America Saves. Rising account balances point to ongoing contributions and improving investment returns. The median account balance for participants in their plan at both year-end 2007 and year-end 2010 grew by 31%. Eight in 10 of these “continuous” participants saw their balances rise or stay flat. Results for pre-retirees 55-64 were almost identical to those for the overall continuous participant population.

“Account balances have been cited as too low to be helpful in retirement,” said Steve Utkus, coauthor of the report. “But keep in mind that the typical participant is a 46-year-old male who is saving 8.8%, with 20 to 25 more years to work and grow his account. His retirement plan assets will be complemented by Social Security benefits and other savings, perhaps assets in other employer plans or a spouse’s plan, or personal savings. Even though we always encourage people to save more—ideally at least 12% to 15% of their income—the reality is that many participants may be on target for retirement.”

Additional key trends
Here are other notable trends in participant and plan sponsor behavior:

  • Participation rates. Twenty-four percent of Vanguard plans have adopted automatic enrollment, up 3 points from 2009. Yet the 2010 plan participation rate was 74%, down 2 points from 2009. Increases in participation from the growing use of automatic enrollment were offset by participation declines caused by difficult economic conditions.
  • Contribution rates. The average deferral rate in 2010 was 6.8% and the median was 6.0%, unchanged from 2009. Yet average deferral rates were down from their peak in 2007 of 7.3%. About half of the decline was likely caused by economic conditions and half was attributable to increased adoption of auto enrollment. While auto enrollment increases participation rates, it can also lead to declining plan contribution rates because default deferral rates are typically set too low at 3% or less and participants do not tend to increase their deferrals on their own.Employee and employer contributions combined are also down modestly. This average contribution rate in 2010 was         9.7% and the median was 8.8%. The reasons are likely the same as above, in addition to the decline of some                 employer contributions during the low part of the recent economic cycle.
  • Low-cost investment options. With the current focus on plan fees, more plan sponsors are interested in offering an “index core,” a comprehensive set of low-cost index options that span the global capital markets. In 2010, 40% of Vanguard plans offered a set of options with an index core, making the design available to about half of all Vanguard participants.
  • Loans. New loan issuance rose in 2009 and 2010, returning to prerecession levels of 2005. In 2010, 18% of participants had a loan outstanding.
  • Hardship withdrawals. The number of hardship withdrawals grew 47% during the 2005–2010 period. The 2.2% of participants taking hardship withdrawals in 2010 is still low on an absolute basis.
  • Distributions. The majority (70%) of participants who left their employer in 2010 and were eligible for a distribution preserved their plan assets for retirement by remaining in the plan or rolling over their savings to an IRA or new employer plan. In terms of assets, 92% of all plan assets available for distribution were preserved.


The Bucket

DTCC Launches Analytic Reporting Service for Annuities

The Analytic Reporting Service for Annuities, an information service designed for insurance carriers and broker/dealers selling annuity products, has been launched by DTCC Insurance & Retirement Services.
The new information service will take data aggregated from DTCC’s daily processing of annuity transactions, turn it into insight and business intelligence, and distribute it to companies that need help making critical decisions about sales, sales management, marketing and advertising, and product offerings.

“We process approximately 150 million annuity transactions each month, which means we have a tremendous amount of industry information and market intelligence in our own systems that can be used to help our customers manage and grow their business,” said Adam Bryan, Managing Director, I&RS.   

DTCC’s depository provides custody and asset servicing for more than 3.6 million securities issues from the United States and 121 other countries and territories, valued at US$36.5 trillion. In 2010, DTCC settled nearly US$1.66 quadrillion in securities transactions.

Developed with the help of an advisory group composed of delegates from DTCC member firms, the Analytic Reporting Service for Annuities was piloted in late 2010 by an advisory group composed of delegates from DTCC member firms. The group provided I&RS with feedback on what kind of data should be presented and how it should be used. 

The Analytic Reporting Service for Annuities features a Web-based interface presenting customizable and searchable views into trends in inflows, outflows and net flows; analysis by product, carrier, distributor, agent and investor; and the option to create custom market segments. The service aggregates the millions of daily annuity transactions submitted to DTCC to provide dealers and carriers with information about their sales and relationships, such as:

  • Cash flows by product, carrier and broker/dealer
  • Market shares
  • Fastest growing products
  • Fastest growing client types, and
  • Detailed trends by carrier, distributor, product, ZIP code and more.

Customers can also compare information and trends from their own business with the aggregated data of all participants. This will help firms understand similarities and differences, and identify further opportunities.

“The Analytic Reporting Service will provide us with a new view of the transactions we process through DTCC, and we see the great potential for it to turn those transactions into valuable information we can effectively use to better understand our business, trends and new opportunities,” said Scott Wagner, Insurance Business and Data Analyst, Risk Product Management, Waddell & Reed, Inc.

The Analytic Reporting Service is a service offering of National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), a clearing agency registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and wholly-owned subsidiary of DTCC.

DTCC, through its subsidiaries, provides clearance, settlement and information services for equities, corporate and municipal bonds, government and mortgage-backed securities, money market instruments and over-the-counter derivatives. In addition, DTCC is a leading processor of mutual funds and insurance transactions, linking funds and carriers with their distribution networks.

Fidelity launches four muni income funds suitable for laddering

Fidelity Investments has introduced the Fidelity Defined Maturity Funds, a series of four national open-end municipal income funds, each with a defined maturity date. They “seek to bridge the gap between individual bonds and bond funds, and are the first actively managed municipal bond defined-maturity funds in the market,” the Boston-based fund company said in a release.

The funds invest primarily in investment-grade municipal bonds clustered around the funds’ defined end dates and seek as high a level of current income, exempt from federal income tax, as is consistent with the preservation of capital. To protect existing shareholders and to ensure orderly liquidation of the funds, the funds will close to purchases for new and existing investors approximately 12 months prior to their maturity date. Each fund plans to liquidate and distribute its net assets to investors shortly after its defined end date.

“When compared to a traditional bond fund, the price volatility of the Defined Maturity Funds is designed to decline as their underlying bonds approach their maturity. However, unlike individual bonds, these funds do not return a pre-determined amount at the funds’ defined end dates,” said Mark Sommer, co-manager of the Fidelity Defined Maturity Funds. “These funds may be appropriate for income-seeking investors who are interested in combining the defined-maturity feature of individual bonds with the many features of bond funds, including diversification and professional management, thus removing much of the legwork of individual bond investing.”

The initial series consists of four funds with different maturity dates of four years (Fidelity Municipal Income 2015 Fund), six years (Fidelity Municipal Income 2017 Fund), eight years (Fidelity Municipal Income 2019 Fund) and 10 years (Fidelity Municipal Income 2021 Fund). A Single Investment Approach. Many Ways to Apply It.

The Defined Maturity Funds are flexible investment options designed to help meet the needs of investors by seeking to provide federally tax-exempt income that they can either receive as a distribution or reinvest to maximize payout potential at maturity. Investors could use the Defined Maturity Funds in three potential ways: as an income vehicle, an investment vehicle, or as a laddering opportunity.

MetLife Joins Schwab SPIA Platform 

Charles Schwab’s newly expanded SPIA Choice Platform now includes a single premium immediate fixed income annuity product from MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company. The Schwab platform also includes annuities issued by New York Life, Nationwide Life, and Symetra Life. 

“Over the past year, we’ve seen a confluence of economic and demographic changes that have resulted in an increased focus on the need for guaranteed retirement income sources,” said Peter Crawford, Senior Vice President, Charles Schwab. “These additions to our existing SPIA platform further diversify our fixed income annuity offering and are consistent with Schwab’s overall open architecture approach that enables investors to choose the products that make the most sense for their specific situation.”

A Schwab execuive also noted that a fixed income annuity can help retirees delay tapping into Social Security, which can help people avoid penalties associated with taking Social Security payments too early, and can also enable people to receive a credit of eight percent per year for delaying taking Social Security payments, even after they are eligible, up to age 70.

 

Strategic Insight and PLANSPONSOR Introduce Pathfinder 2.0

Strategic Insight and PLANSPONSOR have introduced Pathfinder 2.0, a unique web-based tool that enables financial advisers with a retirement plan practice to:

·       Compare and select retirement plan providers that best match plan sponsor needs

·       Retain clients with a higher degree of efficiency

·       Increase productivity and close-ratio for new business

Pathfinder 2.0 has an individual adviser version as well as an enterprise version for Broker Dealers, Registered Investment Advisers (RIAs) and Defined Contribution Investment Only (DCIO) firms that seek to provide additional services to advisers.

According to Kevin Ng, Pathfinder Product Manager, “In an increasingly complex and demanding regulatory environment, alongside a heightened awareness of the importance of fee transparency, Pathfinder 2.0 offers retirement plan advisers a proven tool and process to facilitate the complex business of conducting a comprehensive RFP. Pathfinder also allows advisers to more easily standardize and document their search and due diligence process.”

With Pathfinder 2.0, financial advisers receive:

·       The ability to tailor a search across the nation’s leading recordkeepers

·       Quick and easy access to an extensive library of RFP/RFI questions

·       Detailed side-by-side comparisons of the 401(k) industry’s top service providers

·       Access to Strategic Insight’s mutual fund and ETF investment data

·       Customized client reports

 

Kelly Bush joins Lincoln Financial Distributors  

Lincoln Financial Distributors (LFD), the wholesale distribution subsidiary of Lincoln Financial Group, has hired Kelly Bush as regional sales director with the Institutional Retirement Solutions Distribution (IRSD) team.

Reporting to Aaron Moore, national sales director of Lincoln’s Institutional Retirement Solutions team, Bush is responsible for selling Lincoln’s defined contribution, open-architecture solution, the Lincoln Alliance Program, to financial representatives throughout Southern California, Arizona and Nevada. He is based in Orange County, California.

Bush was a regional vice president for Pentegra Retirement Services from 2009 to 2011. He has served in a range of sales positions with The Standard Co., ICMA-RC and Nationwide Retirement Solutions. He earned a master’s degree in business administration and management from Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale-Davie, FL, in 2008; and, a bachelor of science degree in business administration from Franklin University, Columbus, OH in 1992. He holds licenses for Life, Health and Variable Annuities in California, as well as FINRA Series 7, 26, 63 and 65.

Sun Life Financial to sponsor Cirque de Soleil’s IRIS 

A new two-year partnership between Sun Life Financial Inc. and Cirque du Soleil gives Sun Life naming rights to IRIS, a Journey through the World of Cinema, a major new Cirque de Soleil production that will been presented only in Los Angeles at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland Center, home of the Academy Awards.

Sun Life Vice President of Brand Management Bill Webster and Cirque du Soleil President and CEO Daniel Lamarre announced the deal during an unveiling of the IRIS production at the theatre on June 16.

As presenting sponsor of IRIS, a Journey through the World of Cinema, Sun Life will receive extensive brand integration across a variety of Cirque marketing vehicles including: use of Cirque intellectual property, marks and logos; prominent inclusion in IRIS’ extensive brand marketing campaign; branded on-site experiences and signage at the Kodak Theatre; and VIP ticket and customer hosting opportunities. Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Under the terms of the agreement, Sun Life can include IRIS intellectual property in its advertising, marketing, digital, retail and internal campaigns. The company will receive above-the-fold brand exposure in Cirque’s media campaign, which includes print, digital, television, radio and out-of-home components.

Sun Life’s on-site presence at the Kodak Theatre during the run of the show includes an interactive display showcasing Sun Life’s services and products in the historic theatre’s high-traffic Grand Foyer. Other on-site branding elements include custom-created concourse displays and exhibits. The partnership also includes hospitality events for Sun Life to host its VIPs at IRIS shows and the opportunity to custom design an exclusive event at the theatre.

Sun Life also announced that it will be the exclusive U.S. Insurance partner of Cirque du Soleil as well as an official partner for all U.S. Cirque Big Top and Arena Touring Shows, including: Zarkana, a new acrobatic spectacle, at New York City’s historic Radio City Music Hall; Michael Jackson THE IMMORTAL World Tour, a 47-city North American arena-tour show that recreates a Michael Jackson concert; and Varekai, in Manila, Philippines. The agreement marks an extension of an existing relationship with Cirque du Soleil in which Sun Life was as an official sponsor of OVO.

 

Retirement Plan Advisory Group in pact with John Hancock

Retirement Plan Advisory Group, a wholly-owned subsidiary of National Financial Partners Corp., has signed a partnership with John Hancock Financial Network (JHFN) through which RPAG will offer access to a practice management platform. The platform will be part of a new JHFN program to help its financial advisors expand the retirement plan services they offer clients.

According to the agreement, RPAG will provide access to its proprietary suite of technology, tools, and training resources for advisors seeking to build their business within the framework of a best-practices consulting model. Key components of the RPAG platform include:

  • A Scorecard SM Generator for investment fund ranking
  • An e401k Proposal system for fee benchmarking and vendor RFPs
  • Fiduciary Fitness Program
  • Fiduciary Briefcase plan sponsor online documentation portal
  • Compensation Calculator for advisor pricing models
  • Monthly newsletters and legislative updates for consistent client communication
  • Prospecting webinars and other marketing tools to build advisor pipelines

Advisors using the RPAG platform have access to live customer support Monday through Friday, including on-staff CFAs, former practicing ERISA attorneys, RFP specialists and plan consultants. Advisors receive ongoing practice management assessment interviews by the RPAG support team and are invited to attend monthly training webinars, onsite spring training sessions, as well as an annual user’s conference.

Retirement Plan Advisory Group (RPAG), is currently represented by over 300 member firms in 45 states, serving 18,000 sponsors with a combined $60 billion in assets under advisement.

Your financial crisis is different from my financial crisis

 Different people respond to major financial crises in different ways, depending on their age when the crisis hits, on whether they hang onto their jobs or not, and how much their portfolios were exposed to equities.

So says a new research paper written by Olivia S. Mitchell of Wharton’s Pension Research Council along with Jingjing Chai, Raimond Maurer, and Ralph Rogalla and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

The paper contrasts the outcomes for the young and the old as well as the different consequences felt by those who suffer “triple whammys” and those who are “doubly fortunate.”

“Not all households may be affected similarly by the business cycle,” the authors write. “An individual suffers from a ‘triple whammy’ if he experiences a financial/economic crisis at the beginning of the analysis, is unemployed in at least two of the first four years thereafter, and also suffers from below-first quartile cumulated stock market returns until age 62 when he becomes eligible for Social Security benefits.

“By contrast, we define a doubly fortunate individual as someone that never experiences a financial/economic crisis, is never unemployed to age 62, and experiences above-average capital market returns to age 62 with cumulated stock returns in the top 25 percentile.”

The authors also looked at how a financial crisis can change people’s investing habits, their appetite for annuities or liquid investments, and their decisions about when to retire.  With regard to older people, they wrote:

“Households near retirement will reduce both short- and long-term consumption, boost work effort, and defer retirement. Younger cohorts will initially reduce their work hours, consumption, saving, and equity exposure; later in life, they will work more, retire later, consume less, invest more in stocks, save more, and reduce their demand for private annuities.

“When older persons are hit by a combined financial and economic crisis, they are predicted to boost work effort slightly, around 0.3-1.3 percent, over the rest of their work lives. Moreover, their average retirement age rises slightly as well (less than one month). The crisis is felt, instead, in more marked declines in annual consumption, both short- and long-term.

“Compared to a non-crisis scenario, consumption drops by 3.5% before retirement and by around 4.5% after age 80. Households reduce their asset withdrawals by about 2.5% over the short-run and by about nine percent later in life. During the immediate crisis, households reduce their equity exposure by more than 20%, on average, in favor of risk-free bonds.

“Over the longer run, however, investors have a marginally higher appetite for liquid assets, both stocks and bonds, than investors in a non-crisis scenario. Consequently, the level of annuitization decreases.

“Those older households hit especially badly by unemployment and stock market shocks must substantially boost their work effort, by over 20% in their early 60s. Moreover, they cannot afford to retire early and must postpone retirement by about one year, on average. Yet they still experience consumption losses of about 10% in the short-term and about 15% later in life.

“While they are able to dampen the immediate impacts of the crisis through an increase in withdrawal of financial assets (about 30% at age 55), the corresponding drop in financial wealth results in substantial cuts in withdrawals later in life (more than 40% from age 70). These households reduce their equity exposure only by 10% early in the crisis. Over the remaining life-cycle, allocation to stocks is substantially higher than that of households in the non-crisis scenarios.

Regarding younger people, the authors wrote:

“We show that for young households, the financial/economic crisis will have little impact on either work effort or retirement behavior, though they do suffer from a long-term decline in annual consumption accompanied by lower saving. Stock fractions are marginally lower at the onset of the crisis, but over the remaining life-cycle, asset allocation does not change much.

“Young households hit particularly badly by the financial/economic crisis do have more response, reducing their work effort during the crisis by up to 10%; later in life, they must boost work hours substantially – over 20% at age 60 compared to the non-crisis scenario, and must defer retirement by one year on average. Lifetime consumption is also lower: in their early 20s, it is about 15% less, and five percent less even after age 70.

“The other effect is that young households must save substantially more than non-crisis households later in life, to build up at least some financial wealth. Low savings early in life go hand in hand with low stock investment; thereafter, from about age 40 on, equity exposure is continuously higher than that of non-crisis households, while both bond investments and annuity purchases are reduced.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

AARP disavows reports of its reversal on Social Security

After the Wall Street Journal reported on June 17 that AARP was betraying its members and caving to the forces that want to cut Social Security benefits, and a New York Times story that said “AARP Is Open to Cuts in Social Security Benefits,” AARP CEO A. Barry Rand responded as follows to what were characterized as “inaccurate media stories”:

“Let me be clear—AARP is as committed as we’ve ever been to fighting to protect Social Security for today’s seniors and strengthening it for future generations.  Contrary to the misleading characterization in a recent media story, AARP has not changed its position on Social Security.

“First, we are currently fighting some proposals in Washington to cut Social Security to reduce a deficit it did not cause.  Social Security should not be used as a piggy bank to solve the nation’s deficit. Any changes to this lifeline program should happen in a separate, broader discussion and make retirement more secure for future generations, not less.

“Our focus has always been on the human impact of changes, not just the budget tables.  Which is why, as we have done numerous times over the last several decades, AARP is engaging our volunteer Board to evaluate any proposed changes to Social Security to determine how each might – individually or in different combinations – impact the lives of current and future retirees given the constantly changing economic realities they face.

“Second, we have maintained for years – to our members, the media and elected officials – that long term solvency is key to protecting and strengthening Social Security for all generations, and we have urged elected officials in Washington to address the program’s long-term challenges in a way that’s fair for all generations.

“It has long been AARP’s policy that Social Security should be strengthened to provide adequate benefits and that it is sufficiently financed to ensure solvency with a stable trust fund for the next 75 years.  It has also been a long held position that any changes would be phased in slowly, over time, and would not affect any current or near term beneficiaries. 

“AARP strongly opposed a privatization plan in 2005, and continues to oppose this approach, because it would eliminate the guarantee that Social Security provides and reduce benefits, and we are currently fighting proposals to cut Social Security to pay the nation’s bills.

“Social Security is a critically important issue for our members, their families and Americans of all ages, especially at a time when many will have less retirement security than previous generations with fewer pensions, less savings and rising health care costs.  And, as we have been for decades, we will continue to protect this bedrock of lifetime financial security for all generations of Americans.”

On June 17, under the headline, “Key Seniors Association Pivots on Benefit Cut,” the Wall Street Journal story read:

“AARP, the powerful lobbying group for older Americans, is dropping its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits, a move that could rock Washington’s debate over how to revamp the nation’s entitlement programs.

“The decision, which AARP hasn’t discussed publicly, came after a wrenching debate inside the organization. In 2005, the last time Social Security was debated, AARP led the effort to kill President George W. Bush’s plan for partial privatization. AARP now has concluded that change is inevitable, and it wants to be at the table to try to minimize the pain.”

It was a man-bites-dog story that triggered some celebration among those who believe that Social Security is a pair of concrete overshoes for the U.S.  economy. The Journal followed with an opinion piece that said, “As political earthquakes go, the decision by AARP, the senior entitlement lobby, to entertain even the possibility of cuts in Social Security benefits is a 9.0 on the budget deficit scale. If the group really means it, the U.S. may have a chance of avoiding its Greek moment.”

Two days later, the New York Times printed a more measured story. It said in part:

“Our goal is to limit any changes in benefits,” John Rother, AARP’s policy chief, said in a telephone interview, “but we also want to see the system made solvent.”

Mr. Rother said the group’s stance on possible cuts, which was first reported in The Wall Street Journal in Friday’s editions, should be seen less as a major change in position than as a reflection of the political and financial realities facing the Social Security system and the country as a whole.

“You have to look at all the tradeoffs,” Mr. Rother said, “and what we’re trying to do is engage the American public in that debate.”

He made clear that the group’s willingness to discuss cuts comes with conditions: Reductions in benefits should be “minimal,” they should not affect current recipients and instead should be directed “far off in the future,” and they should be offset by increases in tax-generated revenue.

RBC Wealth Management ranks first in “satisfaction” survey

The newly released J.D. Power and Associates 2011 U.S. Full Service Investor Satisfaction Study shows that RBC Wealth Management has the most satisfied customers. (See chart below.)

The study also found finds that “85% of full service investors either have not heard of or do not understand the difference between a suitability standard (where advisors are required to make investments they deem suitable for their clients) and a fiduciary standard (where advisors are required to act in the best interests of their clients and disclose all conflicts of interest).”

Among those full service investors who are currently in a fiduciary relationship, 57% say this increases their comfort level with their advisor, while 42% say that it decreases their comfort level.

“Legislating all advisors to this standard carries an unintended consequence of additional compliance oversight, which could translate into significantly higher costs—likely to ultimately be passed back to investors,” said David Lo, director of investment services at J.D. Power and Associates.

From a client satisfaction perspective, the ethical standard that an advisor follows isn’t nearly as important as whether or not the advisor follows key client management practices, such as (in order of importance):

  • Clearly communicating reasons for investment performance
  • Clearly explaining how fees are charged
  • Proactive advisor contact regarding new products and services or accounts four times in the past 12 months
  • Returning client calls/inquiries within the same business day
  • Reviewing or developing a strategic plan within the past 12 months
  • Providing a written financial plan
  • Discussing risk tolerance changes and incorporating into plan where appropriate in the past 12 months

The J. D. Power study, now in its ninth year, measures overall investor satisfaction with full service investment firms in seven factors (in order of importance): investment advisor; investment performance; account information; account offerings; commissions and fees; website; and problem resolution.

RBC Wealth Management ranks highest in investor satisfaction with a score of 814 on a 1,000-point scale and performs particularly well in investment advisor and account information. Charles Schwab & Co. follows with a score of 805, performing particularly well in account offerings and website. Fidelity Investments ranks third with a score of 796.

Investor Satisfaction Index Rankings
(Based on a 1,000-point scale)

Firm

Index score

JDPower.com

Power Circle Ratings
For Consumers

RBC Wealth Management

 814

  5

Charles Schwab & Co.

 805

  5

Fidelity Investments

 796

  4

LPL Financial

 794

  4

Edward Jones

 788

  4

Raymond James

 785

  3

Ameriprise Financial

 779

  3

UBS Financial Services

 778

  3

Industry Average

 772

  3

Merrill Lynch

 758

  3

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney

 754

  3

Wells Fargo Advisors

 746

  3

Chase Investment Services

 704

  2

Citigroup (CitiCorp)

 670

  2

Source: J. D. Power & Associates.

The study also finds that usage of online communication channels has increased compared with previous years:

  • 59% of full service investors have visited their firm’s website in the past 12 months, up from 52% in 2009.
  • 51% of full service investors have exchanged an email with their advisor in 2011, compared with 19% in 2008.
  • Among investors who visit their firm’s website, those older than 64 years average more than 35 visits to their firm’s website per year. In comparison, investors younger than 45 years average 12 visits per year and investors between the ages of 45 and 64 average 23 visits per year.
  • Reviewing documents posted by an advisor and reviewing tax information are among the most common tasks performed by investors visiting their firm’s website.

The 2011 U.S. Full Service Investor Satisfaction Study is based on responses from more than 4,200 investors who make some or all of their investment decisions with an investment advisor. The study was fielded in March 2011.

A $100 Billion Market for SPIAs?

As recently as 2004, New York Life sold only $200 million of income annuities annually. But now the trickle of sales is turning into a steady stream. In 2010, sales totaled $1.9 billion, up 9% from the year before. In the first quarter of this year, the figure jumped 45% from the period a year ago. The gains are substantial in a total market of $7.9 billion.

The growth of income annuities is just beginning, predict Chris Blunt, New York Life’s executive vice president of Retirement Income Security. “In the next ten years, this will become a $100 billion market,” he said in a recent interview.

[In the third quarter of 2011, New York Life intends to introduce a product that could make that market even bigger: a deferred income annuity designed to let people in their 50s or younger buy future guaranteed income at a discount.]

As more baby boomers wake up to the need for safe sources of retirement income, Blunt (at left) expects this type of annuity to be a compelling product. Chris BluntRetirees can use income annuities to guarantee themselves enough income to maintain a desired lifestyle for life. The problem so far is that insurance agents and financial advisors have been reluctant to sell them. Commissions for selling income annuities (usually about 3.5% of premium) are low compared to variable annuities and indexed annuities. And clients have historically balked at the product’s inherently low liquidity.

If you’re relatively new to income annuities, here’s how they work. In a typical contract, a 70-year-old man (or couple) might give the insurance company $100,000 and get a fixed annual income for life.

The longer the client lives, the greater the “effective return” on the initial “investment.” (Income annuities are insurance, not investments, and a widespread misunderstanding of the difference is an obstacle to greater acceptance.) But if the client dies in the first year or two—and if the client hasn’t taken the precaution of stipulating a minimum payout period or of setting aside a legacy—heirs may feel cheated because they have no access to the income or principal.

New York Life, the world’s largest mutual insurance company with some $16 billion in reserves, has to some degree overcome resistance to income annuities with a marketing campaign that emphasizes the value of lifetime income. To explain the value of income annuities, agents contrast them with portfolios of mutual funds, Blunt said.

Blunt cites the example of a 65-year-old man with a $500,000 portfolio that has 42% of assets in equities and 58% in bonds. Each year the retiree withdraws a total that is equal to 4.5% of the initial value of the portfolio. Based on market history, there is a 25% chance that the portfolio will be exhausted by the time the retiree reaches 92. New York Life Ad

He compares this with a portfolio that has 43% of assets in equity, 17% in bonds, and 40% in income annuities. Thanks to the lifetime guarantee on the annuity income, there’s little chance that any combination of planned withdrawals or market downturns will exhaust the second portfolio before the investor dies, so the investor is more likely to have money left for heirs than if he did not have an annuity. Blunt’s example also punctures one of the myths about income annuities: that you have to devote all your savings to it. 

Annuities can deliver higher income because their payment stream includes interest, principal, and—most importantly—the “survivorship benefit.” In a $100,000 portfolio of mutual funds, an investor might safely withdraw $4,500 in the first year. But if the investor puts $100,000 into a life annuity, the annual payout would be about $8,000.

The income is high because of that survivorship benefit. When contract owners die, their remaining principal goes to the insurance company, which uses it to pay other contract owners in the same age-pool. (Of course, actuaries calculate the payouts in advance, before any of the contract owners has died, and there’s a survivorship factored into every payment.)

To alleviate client concerns about losing access to their money, New York Life has been offering liquidity features. A cash-refund option, for instance, promises the client and the heirs a return of at least the original principal. Say a client pays $100,000, receives $8,000 income the first year, and then dies. Heirs would get a check for $92,000.

But the cash refund option is not cheap, because you’re giving up the survivorship credit. In a recent quote, a 70-year-old female who took a plain-vanilla contract got $7,760 a year. With the cash refund feature, the contract only provided $7,071.

Blunt says that New York Life gained a leadership position in income annuities because the company has fastidiously fine-tuned the product. “We have spent five years trying to figure out how to market and position these products,” he says. “For most of our competitors, this is not a core business.”

For insurance companies, income annuities are not highly profitable because they require substantial capital, says Blunt. As a result, they may not be ideal products for publicly-held insurers, which must maximize profits. But income annuities can be attractive for mutual companies like New York Life, which seeks to deliver steadily growing profits. Unlike many publicly held insurance companies, New York Life came through the financial crisis in good shape. Today’s low interest rates aren’t necessarily good news for sales, but income annuities rates are tied to long-term bond yields rather than short-term yields.

New York Life is unusually well equipped to cope with longevity risk exposure—the danger that life expectancies will surge unexpectedly, perhaps because cancer or other diseases are cured. If that happened, the company would have to pay out far more lifetime income than planned.

But New York Life’s losses would be balanced by gains on the life insurance side. In an era of greater longevity, the company’s life insurance business would pay out less in claims, making the two products complementary. Many competing insurers could not offset the losses because they tend to focus on variable annuities or other businesses that do not benefit from greater longevity.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

This reprint is being provided as a courtesy by New York Life Insurance Company with the permission of Retirement Income Journal. It is for informational purposes only and represents the views and opinions of its author, who is solely responsible for its content. New York Life’s basis for its example is based on the FRC Whitepaper “Income Annuities Improve Portfolio Outcomes in Retirement”.  FRC (Financial Research Corporation) is an independent research firm not affiliated with New York Life Insurance Company or any of its subsidiaries.  The research for this paper was funded in part by New York Life.

The example cited was based on the following:

The asset allocation was tested rigorously by assuming 25th percentile life expectancy of a 65 year old to age 92 and 10th percentile results to age 96. Withdrawal rates of 4%, 4.5%, and 5% were assumed. The assumed income annuity payout rate, assuming a 3% inflation rider, was 5.1%, which is largely reflective of current payout rates and the current low interest rate environment. Had FRC employed normalized rates across market cycles, the payout would have been closer to 6%, with a 3% inflation rider. The analysis focused on 4% and 4.5% withdrawal rates, based on the past experience shared by financial advisors with FRC in past research. In the 1000 scenarios created by FRC in its Monte Carlo simulations, aggregate index returns and standard deviations were used and not portfolio returns. Indexes results are unmanaged and do not reflect actual product fees, charges and taxes. FRC primarily relied on examples from the Ibbotson ETF asset allocation series for its model portfolios, including both a conservative and moderate portfolio. An aggressive portfolio was not considered, given the logical conservative profile of an average retiree. The FRC simulations applied hypothetical fees and expenses to the returns, including fees of 25bps and a wrap advisory fee of 100 bps. In its simulations, FRC applied federal income tax rates which were assumed to be relatively low given the low-dollar withdrawals assumed in the sales concept. The marginal tax rate or the tax rate applied to the investment income and the rate applied to any additional dollars of income was 15%. The calculated average tax rate of the rate applied to the regular income was 13.8%. The average tax rate is slightly lower than the marginal tax rate since the model assumed a certain level of standard deductions.  

The results shown are the median results of a Monte Carlo simulation of 1000 market scenarios. Median results relate to probabilities; they are not indicative of either the past or future performance of any type of securities or client results. In all likelihood an investor’s results will vary from the median and be affected by factors which the study does not address: how investment decisions are implemented in reality; the client’s investment objectives and risk tolerance and suitability for allocating a significant percentage of retirement assets to a less-liquid annuity vehicle; the costs of investing; and the actual tax profile of any client. No assurance can be offered about the future performance and payout trends of any asset class portrayed in the FRC whitepaper. Significant asset classes such as non-US securities were not evaluated in the FRC analysis. In the future, asset classes could come into favor which would alter the results of an analysis such as the FRC whitepaper. 

In order to reduce the impact of the last 10 years of fat tail events, FRC used 20-year historical standard deviations for each asset class along with subsequent correlations over that 20-year period. While the standard deviations and correlations over longer historical periods were considered, the most recent 20-year returns and standard deviations represented a more appropriate conservative approach given the heightened volatility in the markets over the last decade. The models accounted for inflation, using 2.5% as an acceptable normalized annual measure. Withdrawal amounts were inflated annually by 2.5%. RMDs, required minimum distributions, were taken into account and assumed to begin at age 70. For any amounts withdrawn over and above the assumed cash needs, the excess cash flow was reinvested into a non-qualified account using the same asset allocation.

Unlike traditional asset classes, annuity payments involve systematically returning the client’s principal to him or her. Annuities may be more favorable to older clients, when mortality credits can impact the payout of the annuity in later years. Access to a client’s money in an annuity can be significantly affected by surrender charges and taxation. Annuities are a long-term retirement-income vehicle, and an insurance company’s financial condition can change over time.

IMPORTANT: The projections or other information regarding the likelihood of various investment outcomes are hypothetical in nature, do not reflect actual investment results, and are not guarantees of future results. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. This example only presents a range of possible outcomes.

New York Life Lifetime Income Annuities are issued by New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corporation (A Delaware Corporation), a wholly owned subsidiary of New York Life Insurance Company, 51 Madison Avenue, New York 10010. Guarantees are backed by the claims-paying ability of the issuer.

 

SPIA Flow at Fidelity: $70M-a-Month

Fidelity Investments is on track to sell about $1 billion worth of single-premium immediate annuities this year—all of them issued by non-Fidelity insurance companies.

The Boston-based no-load mutual fund giant sells SPIAs issued by New York Life, Principal Financial, John Hancock, MassMutual and MetLife direct to the public through an online platform and (more often) through its walk-in branch offices around the U.S.

“We’re averaging over $70 million a month. In 2006 our overall [SPIA] sales were just over $100 million for the year, so that is real growth,” said Brett Wollam, senior vice president of marketing for Fidelity Investments Life Insurance Company. “We’re on pace for record year in annuities.”

Sales began going up after Fidelity incorporated SPIAs into its online retirement planning tools: the Income Strategy Evaluator and the Guaranteed Income Estimator. The tools, introduced early this year, lead investors through a decision-tree that, based on their own answers to a series of questions, produces a customized product allocation.  

The list of income products, which gradually narrows down as the client answers recorded spoken questions, includes bond ladders, CD ladders, fixed income annuities, variable income annuities, VAs with lifetime income benefits, income replacement funds, period certain annuities, and mutual fund portfolios set up with systematic withdrawal plans.

“[Our success with SPIAs] is the result of a broader integration of annuities within our financial planning process,” Wollam said. “Organizationally, Fidelity Investments Life Insurance (FILI) is part of our retail investing business. One of the areas of focus in the retail investing business is financial planning; we try not to sell products [in isolation].”

“The Income Strategy Evaluator is the starting point. It can be used in a self-directed way or with a representative. You put in your preferences. You indicate, for instance, if a guarantee is more important to you than growth potential or vice versa, or if you want to leave assets to your heirs,” Wollam said.

“Based on that, along with your assets and your financial situation, the tool will recommend a multi-product solution. It might combine fixed or variable annuities with a systematic withdrawal plan. It can compare similar solutions with and without annuities. Increasingly, multiproduct solutions are recommended and are appealing to investors,” he added. 

The process tries to help make sure “you’re covered in a negative situation. Our approach is to ask, ‘What is the gap between your essential expenses and the income you expect to receive in retirement?’ As for the amount of money you should put it in an annuity, our rule of thumb is that it should definitely less than half and more like a quarter,” Wollam said.

Fidelity’s average SPIA premium is “well over $100,000,” he said.  Most contract purchasers are between the ages of 65 and 70. A lot of the purchasers have rolled money over to a Fidelity IRA, either from a Fidelity retirement plan or from outside Fidelity. Some people use an immediate annuity as an income bridge from the time they stop earning a paycheck to the time they’re eligible for higher payouts from Social Security.    

By embedding the annuity in the context of a broader strategy, Fidelity is able to disarm a potential client’s prejudices toward annuities. “The term ‘annuity’ carries baggage,” Wollam said. “There are perceptions of high cost and complexity. But you can overcome a lot of that resistance by demonstrating to people that an annuity can help them meet their income needs with fewer assets and a higher degree of certainty.”

But the SPIAs do not sell themselves. “Virtually all of our [SPIA] sales require a representative and about 90% come through one of our branches. One of the big differences in our distribution model is that reps generally get a salary and performance bonuses [rather than commissions], and the emphasis is on financial planning and customer satisfaction. We’re there to act as the agent.  The difference between our model and the Hueler Income Solutions model, is that we’re more involved in closing the business.”

Income Solutions is a SPIA platform designed to offer competing, institutionally-priced bids from several annuity issuers to defined contribution plan participants who want to roll over part of their assets into an income annuity at retirement. Vanguard sends its retail and institutional clients to the Income Solutions platform in lieu of selling annuities direct. Charles Schwab hosts a SPIA platform where it offers contracts issued by Symetra, MetLife, New York Life, and Nationwide.

Fidelity created its own insurance company, Fidelity Investments Life Insurance, years ago in the expectation of high demand for annuities when the Baby Boomers began retiring. In the 1990s, decided to host a platform where it could offer a variety of best-in-class issuers.   

“We’ve had SPIA partners since the 1990s. What we’ve learned in the income space is that there’s value in having a choice. We have high quality providers and you know you’ll get quality and competitive rates,” Wollam said.

Fidelity used to have an income annuity of its own that sat side by side with the other products on its platform. But then it thought better of it.  “Our proprietary brand didn’t add value,” Wollam told RIJ.

“We had strong brands on the platform and if at a given moment one of them offered a better payout, clients usually went with the better offer. Our value-added is financial planning. We realized that offering our own annuity wasn’t necessary,” he said.

“We didn’t want to muddy the water with our brand,” he added. “We didn’t have the scale to do it as efficiently as the other companies on the platform. Why give people an opportunity to see us as neutral or not the best? But we’ll always be there.”  

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Fixed annuities from three small insurers make Barron’s “smart” list

Three annuity issuers companies that don’t make headlines very often—The Standard, the Life Insurance Company of the Southwest (LICS), and Royal Neighbors of America—appeared on Barron’s list of “25 smart annuities” last Saturday.

While smaller than most of the other 15 companies on the  list (see today’s Data Connection at right), these companies nonetheless have top-tier strength ratings from A.M. Best. Judging by their addresses and/or histories, they also have a whiff of counter-culture about them, relatively speaking.

National Life art

Rather than being located in an insurance stronghold like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa or Minnesota, two of the firms are headquartered in a pair of “blue” states that bookend the country like copies of Helen and Scott Nearing’s classic Living the Good Life (in the East) and the collected beat poetry of Gary Snyder (out West).   

The Standard (A, A.M. Best) is based in Portland, Ore., while LICS’s parent, National Life Group (A, A.M. Best), is based in Montpelier, Vt., a region where Volvo 240s and cork-soled Birkenstock sandals never go out of fashion and a high proportion of mature women wear their steely locks defiantly undyed.    

The Standard’s Focused Growth five-year guaranteed rate fixed deferred annuity and its Index Growth fixed indexed annuity made the Barron’s list. The Standard is a unit of publicly held Stancorp Financial Group (2010 revenues of $2.77 billion).

Two of LISC’s fixed indexed annuities, the SecurePlus Platinum and the SP Flex, were among the five S&P 500 FIAs on the Barron’s list. Its parent, founded 160 years ago, is a mutual company with assets of about $20 billion.  Earlier this year, National Life introduced a Lifetime Income Benefit Rider on a universal life insurance policy, with the income deducted from the policy’s account value through partial withdrawals and loans.  

Smaller and even more focused in its mission is Royal Neighbors of America, an Illinois non-profit with $766 million in assets that was founded in 1895 to “support women and those they care about.” Its Choice 5 multi-year guarantee fixed deferred annuity was among the five five-year contracts recommended by Barron’s.  

Royal Neighbors has a national network of 220,000 “members” who belong to chapters of 10 or more people each. The members not only own Royal Neighbors products, but also volunteer to sponsor or support a variety of local causes.

Through the Nation of Neighbors program, begun in 2007, the company and its members have given over $1 million to 800 women to help them achieve their dreams, such as starting a day care center or, in one case, writing a book about the experiences of women entrepreneurs in the Dakotas.  

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.