Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

Phoenix in FIA sales pact with eight IMOs

The Phoenix Companies Inc. is giving a group of independent marketing organizations (IMOs) exclusive access to its Reflections and Reflections Gold Series of single-premium indexed annuities, National Underwriter reported.

Saybrus Partners Inc., the wholesaling unit of Hartford-based Phoenix, is developing a retirement planning program that provides formats for group seminars and individual discussions between producers and clients.

There are now eight companies in the program, and several more could join this year, Saybrus said.

“Phoenix’s strategy over last two years has been to build a network of IMOs to distribute our products, primarily our annuity products,” said Alice Ericson, a Phoenix executive. “Some of the eight IMOs have already been doing business with Phoenix, while others are new to the fold.”. 

The seminars and the discussions cover retirement planning concerns such as longevity, inflation and market volatility. The discussions also cover the role of various funding vehicles, including annuities, in retirement income planning.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Public pension funding crisis widespread: Cogent

Only one in five (20%) pension plans is prepared to meet its financial obligations to plan participants, according to Institutional Investor Brandscape, a report by Cogent Research.

Among union and public sector plans, only 10% and 12%, respectively, estimate their current funding status to be 95% or higher, said the report, which is based on a survey of asset managers at 590 institutions with a minimum of $20 million in assets.

A majority (54%) of public pensions report their current funding status to be below 80%, including 16% that are below 60%.  

“These institutions [must] seek additional funding from the general treasury (i.e. tax payers), restructure participation rules or payments to participants, or go broke,” said Cogent Research Principal Christy White

By contrast, no corporate pension reported a funding status below 60%, one in four (27%) are funded at 95% or more, and over half (53%) are funded at between 80% and 94%. 

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Sun Life Financial unveils VA for new LPL platform

The U.S. business group of Sun Life Financial Inc. has launched the Masters I Share variable annuity for independent, fee-based Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs).

Sun Life is one of only five VA issuers with products on the new Fee-Based Variable Annuity (FBVA) Platform set up by broker-dealer LPL Financial for its 12,400 independent advisors.

“Expanding our variable annuity suite to the RIA channel allows us to meet four investor needs in one stroke: a cost effective fee-based model, the desire for guaranteed lifetime income, the opportunity to participate in a possible market upside, and the expertise of active portfolio management at the discretion of the client’s independent advisor,” said Steve Deschenes, senior vice president and general manager for Sun Life’s U.S. Annuities Division.

The Masters I Share contract offers:

  • 0.65% annual mortality and expense risk fee.
  • No surrender charges.
  • Over 60 investment options.
  • 0.15% credit to the contract value every year after the contract value or total purchase payments on a contract anniversary exceeds $1,000,000.
  • Optional lifetime income rider, Sun Income Advisor, which guarantees a 7% annual roll-up in the benefit base during the accumulation stage if no withdrawals are taken, and a 5% withdrawal rate beginning at age 65.

 “We expect RIAs to embrace annuities now that they can offer a key retirement income solution through the low-cost, independent fee-based model that their clients value,” said Terry Mullen, president of Sun Life Financial Distributors.

The Sun Life Financial group had total assets under management of $466 billion at the end of 2010.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Origins of ‘Obamacare’ Revealed

ProCon.org, a prominent nonpartisan research organization, released its newest research project about the Republican origins of the individual health care mandate.

The concept of the individual health insurance mandate originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO) among others.  In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate.

In 2008, then presidential candidate Barack Obama was opposed to the individual mandate. He said in a Feb. 28, 2008 interview on the Ellen DeGeneres show about his divergent views with Hillary Clinton:

“Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it. So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.”

By 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590), sometimes referred to as “Obamacare,” had passed in both the House and the Senate with no Republican votes.  On Mar. 23, 2010 President Obama signed the act containing an individual mandate into law.  On Jan. 5, 2011, Republicans in the US House of Representatives introduced The Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act (HR 2) to repeal the PPACA. One of their main arguments for repeal was that the health insurance mandate was unconstitutional.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Wedding Bells for TIPS and ALDA

Call it a May–December wedding. Or perhaps a September–December wedding.  Either way, it amounts to a decumulation strategy that PIMCO and MetLife hope financial advisors will find connubial.

The two financial giants (PIMCO manages $1.24 trillion, MetLife sold $15.1 billion in annuities through 3Q 2010) have agreed to co-market products they regard as complementary:  PIMCO’s “Real Income” managed payout funds and MetLife’s Longevity Income Guarantee.

The Real Income funds are designed to provide steady, inflation-protected income for either 10- or 20-year terms. Their underlying investments are ladders of TIPS.  The Longevity Income Guarantee is an advanced life deferred income annuity (ALDA) that pays out monthly income for life starting at age 75 or 85.

Together, they help mitigate two key retirement risks—the risk of losing purchasing power to inflation and the risk of outliving one’s savings. While the two products aren’t bundled—that would be complicated on several levels—wholesalers from the two companies plan to promote them as a natural combination.      

“It’s a cooperative marketing agreement,” said MetLife’s Elizabeth Forget, senior vice president, Retirement Products. “It’s two separate sales, two applications, two tickets. We’ll work to help advisors understand that insurance products are a good complement to traditional investments.”

The two products are aimed at advisors who want protection for their clients but who aren’t regular purchasers of  single-premium income annuities or variable annuities.

“We know that a substantial percentage of advisors have clients at or near retirement and are looking for guarantees or longevity projection, and who are attracted to our inflation protection but who do not normally offer variable annuities. So we are looking significantly beyond the VA-friendly advisor,” said Tom Streiff, executive vice president and PIMCO’s Retirement Product Manager.

The PIMCO Real Income funds offer a target monthly payout consisting of coupon interest, inflation-adjusted principal, and an inflation premium until depleted at their maturity date. When the funds were introduced in late 2009, Streiff estimated that annual payouts per $100,000 investment would start at about $11,200 for the 2019 fund and about $6,200 for the 2029 fund.

Since their introduction, sales of PIMCO’s Real Income funds have been modest. Advisors are said to have found them to be an incomplete solution: they provided income from age 65 to 75 or from age 65 to age 85, but not afterwards.   

PIMCO had hoped all along to solve that problem by pairing them with another product that hasn’t sold well on its own: longevity insurance or ALDAs.  PIMCO’s marketing pact with MetLife isn’t exclusive but MetLife was the first out with longevity insurance products in 2004 and is one of the few big insurers to offer them.

“We don’t introduce products for short-term or opportunistic reasons,” Streiff said. “The retirement business is a long tem business and anybody who thinks differently will be disappointed.”

ALDAs are another product whose time hasn’t come yet. Low long-term interest rates have driven up their costs and discouraged their development. MetLife offers two versions of longevity insurance, a Flexible Access version that starts payments at age 75 or age 85 and has a death benefit and a Maximum Income version that pays out starting at age 85, with no death benefit.

According to MetLife, a Flexible Access contract for a 65-year-old with a $100,000 premium would, starting at age 75, pay out  $14,330 a year for life for a man and $13,340 a year for a woman, at today’s rates. If payments started at age 85, the contract would pay $38,480 a year for a man and $36,180 a year for a woman. If the contract owner died before income began, his or her beneficiary would receive the initial premium, grown at 3% a year.

Given the same inputs, the Maximum Income version would pay an 85-year-old man $69,300 a year for life and would pay a woman of that age $55,570 a year for life.

The death benefit somewhat defeats the premise of longevity insurance—leveraging mortality—but in practice most people balk at an ALDA without one. “With the Flexible Access version you’re giving up a significant amount of income. An economist would probably buy the Maximum Income version. But most people don’t think like economists,” said Forget.

There’s another potential obstacle to longevity insurance: Required Minimum Distributions. Everyone has to withdraw a certain percentage of their tax-deferred IRA, 401(k) or 403(b) savings each year, starting the year after the year they reach age 70½.

If they used all of their pre-tax money to buy longevity insurance starting at age 75 or 80 or 85, they couldn’t meet that obligation. Contract owners can generally avoid this problem by withdrawing the RMD amount from another tax-deferred source.

Advisors may want to compare the benefits of a Real Income/Longevity Income Guarantee strategy with a variable annuity/ guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit (GLWB) strategy. Both provide steady streams of income in retirement and protection against outliving one’s savings—but in very different ways.

VAs are likely to appeal to bullish investors who want to maintain exposure to equity markets throughout retirement, but with downside protection. PIMCO’s Real Income fund might appeal to more bearish investors who are worried about inflation and want to protect their purchasing power. 

Investments in equities arguably protect against inflation. But that isn’t always true—take the 1970s, for example. The drag from fees in variable annuities can also make it difficult for the underlying assets to grow fast enough to reliably outpace inflation. 

It remains for some enterprising advisor to crunch the numbers and see how the risks, the rewards, and the expenses of the two solutions compare. 

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Pension Debate Roils Japan

“Uncertainty is rife” over public pension policy in Japan, a country with a high savings rate, a population that’s shrinking and aging rapidly, and a crazy-quilt of public and private pension plans, IPE.com reported.     

Uncertainty notwithstanding, Japan’s Government Pension Investment Fund is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, with about $1.3 trillion in assets, as of 2008. Its foreign assets alone are worth about $250 billion. 

In the latest chapter of Japan’s ongoing effort at pension reform, the administration of the Democratic Party of Japan, which came to power in 2009, is clashing with the Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare.

In January, the administration suggested that the public pension should be funded with payroll deductions, and that there should be a taxpayer-funded guaranteed minimum benefit of ¥70,000 ($860) per month for the poor.  

Critics say that’s a “flip-flop” from the administration’s 2009 pre-election promises to fund the public pension with taxes. The government is thought to be compromising with the opposition Liberal Democratic Party, which controls the Upper House.

Prime minister Naoto Kan intends to decide on the broad direction of reform by April and to present a draft plan linked with a tax reform bill by June.

Last August, the Japan Times bemoaned the state of retirement security in Japan with the following editorial:

“In fiscal 2009, the premium payment rate for the kokumin nenkin pension, which is mainly for self-employed and jobless people, dropped to its lowest ever at 59.98%. The rate is 2.1 points less than in the previous year and fell for the fourth straight year. It is an ominous sign that the premium payment rate for people aged 25 to 29 is only 47%. By contrast, the premium payment rate for people aged 55 to 59 is about 73%.

“The kokumin nenkin pension system was originally established for self-employed people. But their participation in the plan has been declining year by year. Now wage earners with one-year or longer employment, temporary employees and part-timers account for nearly 40% of the participants in the kokumin nenkin scheme.

“Permanent workers take part in a different scheme — the kosei nenkin pension. It is safe to assume that the percentage of irregular workers among the kokumin nenkin participants is increasing. Since their wages are low, the monthly premium of ¥15,100 represents a heavy burden. In addition, people who solely rely on kukumin nenkin pension receive only about ¥48,000 a month on average, despite long years of premium payment.

“Private-sector companies entrusted with the job of encouraging people to pay premiums or informing low-income people about the existence of a system of premium exemptions or reductions are not performing well. At 312 places nationwide where such companies are undertaking the task, the goal in premiums collection was achieved only at 13 locations. Drastic reform is in order. Most workers at these companies use the telephone to contact people, but only 4% actually visit them.

“At present, some 420,000 elderly people are pensionless. It is feared that some 760,000 people will become pensionless because they have failed to pay premiums. To become eligible, one has to pay premiums for at least 25 years. The government must immediately reform the pension system, including shortening the minimum required period of premiums payment and expanding the kosei nenkin system to cover irregular workers.”

This excerpt from a 2005 analysis by Tower Watson offers a glimpse of the austerities that Japan began applying to its pension system during the past decade:  

“Under current reforms, the normal retirement age for a basic pension [in Japan] will gradually rise from 60 to 65 by 2013 for men and by 2018 for women. The normal retirement age for the EPI program will reach 65 by 2025.

“Japan has modified its benefit structure to automatically reduce benefits if its pension system becomes financially unbalanced. The 2004 reforms changed the benefit formula and increased future tax rates. The average income replacement rate will drop from 59% to 50%.

“Payroll taxes will increase from 13.5 to 18.3% by 2017. By 2009, the government will pay one-half of basic pension benefits, up from one-third today. There are plans to link the indexing of benefits under both EPI and the basic pension to changes in life expectancy and workforce size, which would result in further cuts to benefits.

“Although the planned benefit reductions are substantial, the cuts may not be large enough to keep the payroll tax from rising substantially in coming years. Moreover, it is not clear how the government will finance its higher share of benefits paid from the basic pension.”

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Bucket

Principal Funds wants to demystify Social Security

 Noting that an estimated 74% of current retirees are receiving less than they could from Social Security, Principal Funds has created a suite of resources for financial professionals to help their clients make the most of their benefits.

“It’s clear that investors need help to maximize their Social Security income.”

“Understanding the complexities of Social Security is not an easy task,” said Chad Terry, director of retirement solutions at Principal Funds. “It’s clear that investors need help to maximize their Social Security income.”

New resources from Principal Funds help demystify Social Security benefits, encouraging three simple steps to take with the assistance of a financial professional:

  • Know your benefit,
  • Understand your options, and
  • Determine a plan to maximize your benefit.

Resources include:

  • A website that includes videos, a blog written by Chad Terry, director of retirement solutions at Principal Funds, a benefits calculator and other tools.
  • A document entitled, What You May Not Know About Social Security Benefits.
  • An investors guide with a step-by-step process to help clients maximize Social Security benefits, including a planning worksheet for clients to complete before meeting with an advisor.   
  • FAQs that explain key Social Security concepts such as Full Retirement Age, spousal benefits and the calculations used to determine benefit reductions.
  • Access to a team of retirement specialists.

“Many retirees may be missing out on hundreds of dollars each month because they’ve been unable to navigate the intricacies of the Social Security,” Terry said.  

 

Women favor TDFs over risk-based funds: MassMutual

MassMutual’s Retirement Services Division has released data for the fourth quarter 2010 indicating that Female participants in retirement plans administered by MassMutual have shifted an increasing percentage of their retirement savings into asset allocation investments in general (target-date or risked-based options), but are favoring target-date options.

At year-end 2010, women had 24.3% of their retirement assets in asset allocation options while men had 24.0%. Among female investors, average balances in target-date investments are approximately double those of risk-based options. Among men, the split is roughly even between target-date and risk-based options.

Two possible explanations are that women have recognized the need for better diversification and that, historically, men have demonstrated more aggressive investment behavior than women. MassMutual’s data supports the conventional wisdom that men prefer risk-based investment selections and exhibit a preference for having more control over their investments.

 In a recent survey of participants in retirement plans administered by MassMutual, 53.1% of female participants prefer to spend as little time as possible on making investment decisions compared to 35.1% for men. Likewise, 25.9% of women are confident in making their own investment decisions compared to 44.1% for men.

Balances for women continue to trail men by approximately 40% and their deferral percentages continue to trail those of men by 0.5 percentage points.

On a positive note, balances for women gained 5.7% on average for the quarter, compared to 5.5% for men, which also may be explained by their different approaches to investing.

The percentage of participants who stopped or decreased their deferrals during the quarter (3.8%) was at its lowest level since the beginning of the market decline. The number of participant loans, hardship withdrawals, and call center activities declined slightly as well.

The average participant balance in retirement plans administered by MassMutual now exceeds the average balance from year-end 2007 when the market decline began. MassMutual’s data also shows the highest percentage growth in average account balances for the year was experienced by participants in their 40s (10.4%) and 50s (9.8%). Among all participants, retirement assets invested in stable value (24.9%) as a percentage of total assets are now at their lowest level since the start of the recession, demonstrating increased participant confidence in equity markets and increased popularity of asset allocation investment options.

 

‘New generation’ VAs proposed for Australians

“Superannuation”—Australia’s $1.3 trillion national defined contribution pension program—probably won’t provide enough retirement income to participants, because of market risk and longevity risk, says the Institute of Actuaries of Australia.

To correct that problem, the Australian government should take new measures to deal with longevity risk, such as developing a “new generation variable annuities market,” according to the Institute of Actuaries of Australia.

“We urge the Government to prioritize Budget policies aimed at managing Australia’s aging population, including flexible ‘new generation’ annuities, which protect against the risk of outliving your retirement savings and the market risk of losing superannuation capital in retirement,” said the institute’s chief executive, Melinda Howes.

New generation annuities should seek to emulate some features of popular account-based products like allocated pensions, which provided retirees with access to their capital, payment flexibility and potential benefits from a rising share market, Howes said. Innovation around annuities would enable retirees greater access to their capital when needed while protecting against market downturns.

The institute is therefore asking the Government to change the Superannuation Industry Supervision Act Regulation 106, which it described as “unnecessarily prescriptive” and a reversal of the unfavorable treatment of annuities under aged care and Centrelink rules.

The institute also asserted that annuities and deferred annuities should be able to be issued as a component of an account-based pension, and that tax rules on deferred annuities should be changed so that, if taken out in the drawdown phase, the product is regarded as a pension (rather than a non-pension) for tax purposes. There should also be a clear, regulatory regime for variable annuity style products, the institute stated.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

 

Putnam adapts ‘Absolute Return 500 Fund’ for VAs

Putnam Investments plans to launch a version of its Absolute Return 500 Fund, called the Putnam Variable Trust Absolute Return 500 Fund, for use by insurance companies in variable annuities and other variable insurance products in lieu of balanced funds.  

 The new version is designed to seek a return that beats the inflation rate (as reflected by Treasury bills) by 5% over a period of at least three years or more, regardless of market conditions, and with less volatility than that “historically associated with traditional  asset classes that have earned similar level of return.”

The fund combines two independent investment strategies: A beta strategy that seeks to balance risk and provide positive total return through a comprehensively  diversified, multi-asset class market portfolio with broad exposure to  investment markets; and an alpha strategy with a variety of active trading  tactics that employ security selection, tactical asset allocation, ,  currency transactions and options transactions.

The new variable trust offering will join the Putnam 529 for America and  Putnam RetirementReady (lifecycle) funds as investment vehicles that make  Putnam absolute return strategies available to advisors and their clients.     

“This subaccount aims for targeted return with managed volatility  that insurers can use in assembling portfolios to help meet their variable  products’ investment, risk and volatility objectives,” said Putnam’s President and Chief Executive Officer Robert L.  Reynolds.

The trustees of the Putnam Funds have approved the proposed subaccount, and  Putnam has filed the subaccount with the U.S. Securities and Exchange  Commission. Subject to the required review the Putnam VT Absolute Return 500 Fund will be launched in spring 2011.   

The Putnam VT Absolute Return 500 Fund will be managed by the same team of portfolio managers and in the same manner as the retail Absolute Return 500  Fund, led by Jeffrey L. Knight, Head of Global Asset Allocation.

Putnam Investments launched the mutual fund industry’s first suite of Absolute Return Funds in January 2009 with four funds: the “100” Fund (Class A: PARTX) which seeks to beat inflation by 1% over periods of three years or more net of all fund expenses as measured by T-bills, and can be an alternative to short-term securities; a “300” Fund intended to beat inflation by 3% and provide an alternative to bond funds; the “500” Fund,  and the “700” Fund, designed to beat inflation by 7% and provide an alternative to stock funds.      

To manage risk, the funds use short-maturity  fixed-income securities; derivatives to hedge against market declines;  Treasury futures contracts to reduce interest-rate risk; and cash positions  to help stabilize fund performance.

Currently, the Putnam Absolute Return  Funds have almost $3 billion under management and are used by almost 10,000 advisors from more than 500 broker dealers.

At the  end of January 2011, Putnam had $123 billion in assets under management,  including mutual fund assets of $68 billion and institutional assets of $55  billion. Putnam has offices in Boston, London, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Tokyo,  Singapore, and Sydney.  

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Advisors speak up in Curian survey

Nearly two-thirds of independent advisors plan to use separately managed accounts and variable annuities more in 2011, and more than two-thirds say their clients want more conservative investments and guaranteed income features, according to a survey of financial advisors conducted last November by Curian Capital LLC.

The survey, which covered almost 1,300 advisors at 162 firms with an average of about $38 million under management, also revealed:

Investors are still just as jittery, if not more so, than they were in the aftermath of the financial crisis, and are open to alternative investments and techniques such as tactical portfolio allocation.

Eager to use their time more effectively, advisors want more functionality from their technology platforms. They want to be able to view all of a client’s holdings, incorporate multiple product types, and generate consolidated proposals and reports on a single platform.

Many advisors ignore the wholesaling materials that product providers flood them with. More than a third of respondents said they don’t have time to use the programs offered by manufacturers, and a significant percentage felt programs were delivered ineffectively.  

In other highlights of the survey

• Advisors’ economic outlook is split nearly evenly – 42% believe the recession is over and 46% believe it is not over. However, the vast majority of respondents agree that most clients do not believe the recession is over.

• The recent rise in the equity markets is not enough to impact clients’ risk tolerance; 88% of respondents say their clients’ risk tolerance is either lower or unchanged compared to a year ago.

• More than two-thirds of advisors say their clients are requesting more conservative investments and guaranteed income features. Additionally, nearly half of respondents report a strong demand for income investments and tactical asset allocation.

• 43% of advisors feel that not generating enough income to last through retirement is the biggest threat to their clients’ retirement plans and report that only 36% of their clients feel the same. 37% of advisors say the majority of their clients are even more concerned about market volatility. However, only 16% of advisors share this sentiment.

• To meet increased demands for retirement income, nearly two-thirds of advisors expect to increase their use of separately managed accounts and variable annuities in 2011.

• More than two-thirds of advisors believe inflation is a growing concern that will begin to impact portfolio construction within the next two years.

• Nearly half of all respondents cite time management and efficiency constraints as the biggest challenges they face. To address these challenges, 47% plan to incorporate more technology to eliminate paperwork, while 33% say they will outsource certain functions to a third party.

• 81% of respondents say they will focus on acquiring more affluent clients in 2011, while 59% plan to market their business more aggressively.

• Most advisors value product expertise, investment research and marketing support from product providers; however, they also report that they don’t have time to utilize these services, and delivery is often ineffective.

• 74% of advisors say the ability to view all of a client’s holdings on a single platform is very important, while 68% want a platform that supports multiple product types and investment options.

© RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Growth Spurt for VAs in Q4 and 2010: LIMRA

As the equities market go, so go variable annuities.

Variable annuities (VA) sales grew 10% in 2010 to reach $140.5 billion, according to LIMRA. In the fourth quarter, VA sales rose to $38.5 billion—17% over the four quarter of 2009 and 11% higher than the third quarter of 2010.

From September 1 to February 18, the Dow rose from 10,016 to 12,391, an almost 24% gain.

The results were reported in LIMRA’s U.S. Individual Annuities Fourth Quarter 2010 Sales Report, which represents 96% of the market.

 “We saw growth in almost two-thirds of the VA industry in 2010,” said Joseph Montminy, assistant vice president for annuity research at LIMRA. “Strong growth in the equities market and continued interest in guarantee income riders drove fourth quarter VA sales to its highest level in more than two years.”

At $57.6 billion, total individual annuity sales in the fourth quarter of 2010 were 6% above the same period last year and 3% above the third quarter of 2010. Overall, total annuity sales fell 7% in 2010, however, mainly because of lower fixed annuity sales.   

Indexed annuities enjoyed record sales for a second consecutive year in 2010, rising 7% over 2009 to reach $32.1 billion. In the fourth quarter of 2010, indexed annuity sales improved 17%, to $8.2 billion, over the same quarter a year earlier.

Indexed annuities outperformed fixed-rate deferred annuities for the first time ever in the fourth quarter of 2010, by 43% to 40%.

At $19.1 billion, total fixed annuity sales in the fourth quarter of 2010 were 9% below sales in fourth quarter 2009 and 10% under sales in the third quarter of 2010. After a breaking records in 2009, total fixed sales in 2010 were down 27%, to $80.8 billion. Low interest-rate spreads will continue to deter fixed annuity sales until the current economic environment improves, LIMRA experts believe.

At $6.4 billion, book value annuity sales were 33% lower than in the fourth quarter of 2009 and 11% percent lower than sales in the prior quarter. Total book value sales were 45% lower in 2010 than in 2009, at $29.3 billion.

Fourth quarter MVA sales of $1.3 billion slipped 13% from the fourth quarter of 2009 and 28% from third quarter 2010 levels. Fixed immediate annuity sales were flat in the fourth quarter of 2010 versus the fourth quarter of 2009, totaling $1.8 billion, a 10% decline from the third quarter of 2010. In 2010, fixed immediate annuity sales were one percent higher than in 2009.

© RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Illinois to bolster state pension with new borrowing—Again

Already heavily in debt, the state of Illinois hopes to borrow an additional $3.7 billion this year to make its annual contribution to the state pension fund. The prospect has made municipal bond markets nervous and sparked an investigation into whether Illinois has hidden the risks that the pension fund poses, according to news reports. 

Illinois was initially scheduled to sell the bonds on February 17. But on the 21st, the sale was pushed back until next week, state officials said, so the bond markets, and overseas investors, would have more time to digest Governor Pat Quinn’s budget address on Wednesday.

A similar strategy backfired in 2003, when the state tried to replenish its pension fund by borrowing $10 billion at 5.1% and reinvesting the money. But the money earned only 3%, not the projected 8%, and the ensuing scandal led to the indictment of former Governor Rod Blagojevich and several associates on influence-peddling charges.   

This time it’s different, say state officials.   

“The bonds we’re talking about issuing next week are not meant to do what the 2003 bonds did, so the rate of return the portfolio of the pension funds earn is not relevant to this discussion,” said one official. Rather than seek high returns, he said, “the pension bonds we’re issuing next week are simply for this year’s contribution. There is no attempt at arbitrage.”

On the new bond issue, Illinois’ lead underwriters are Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Loop Capital Markets; 11 other underwriters will sell smaller portions. A local firm, Peralta Garcia Solutions, is advising the state, and three law firms are also involved.

The bond prospectus explains the troubled history of Illinois’s pension system, revealing that that the bonds issued in 2003 called for the state to reduce its annual contributions to the pension fund and use the money instead to pay the bondholders their interest.

Those diversions, plus enormous investment losses in 2008 and 2009, left the pension fund with a shortfall of about $86 billion, or roughly twice the shortfall before the 2003 bonds were issued.

“That pension plan has been consistently abused now for at least the last 16 or 17 years,” said Brad M. Smith, president-elect of the Society of Actuaries and chairman of Milliman. He called the state’s schedule of pension contributions for the coming years “incredibly dangerous,” adding: “There’s a reasonable chance that these plans will run out of money.”

A 1994 state law, Smith noted, permits Illinois to contribute less to the pension fund every year than the amount that would actually cover the benefits. Adding new bond proceeds will not address that basic flaw, which investigators now say was based on an accepted actuarial method.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Transamerica Launches New VA Income Rider

A new optional variable annuity living benefit rider from Transamerica, called Retirement Income Max, offers annual withdrawal percentages of 6.5% at age 75, 5.5% from ages 65 to 74, and 4.5% from ages 59 to 64 for the single life option. The joint life option is 40 basis points less for each age band. The annual rider fee is one percent.

In up markets, in years when no withdrawals are taken, the contract locks in the highest “Monthiversary” value and automatically increases the withdrawal base (the value used to calculate the rider withdrawal amount) to equal the new high water mark.

In down markets, in years when no withdrawal is taken, it provides 5% annual compounding growth to the withdrawal base for up to 10 years. If the withdrawal base was stepped up in the previous year, the 5% growth will be based on that amount, providing “growth on growth” potential.

The mortality and expense risk fee ranges from 60 to 190 basis points, depending on the class of contract. The 100-basis point rider fee can rise if the client opts for step-ups in the income base, but can go no higher than 175-basis points over the life of the contract. The largest surrender charge is 9%. 

The investment options include:

  • American Funds Bond Fund – Class 2 Shares (64 basis points)
  • Transamerica AllianceBernstein Dynamic Allocation Variable Portfolio (VP) (107 bps)
  • Transamerica Asset Allocation – Conservative VP (Portfolio by Morningstar) (117bps)
  • Transamerica Asset Allocation – Moderate VP (Portfolio by Morningstar) (120 bps)  
  • Transamerica Foxhall Global Conservative VP (156 bps)
  • Transamerica Money Market VP (66 bps)
  • Transamerica Index 35VP (Vanguard ETFs) (79 bps)
  • Transamerica Index 50VP (Vanguard ETFs) (76 bps)
  • Transamerica PIMCO Total Return VP (95 bps)
  • Transamerica U.S. Government Securities VP  (86 bps)
  • Guaranteed Fixed Account  

The AllianceBernstein Dynamic Allocation fund, interestingly, makes short-term adjustments to the fund’s asset mix of individual securities, underlying exchange traded funds, forwards, swaps and futures to achieve targeted exposure to domestic equities, international equities, domestic bonds, international bonds and foreign currency. This approach seeks to generate improved returns per unit of volatility, as compared to those from fixed weight or rules-based models.

 “We pay very close attention to the kinds of solutions financial professionals are seeking to effectively plan for their clients’ retirement,” “With the Retirement Income Max rider and a Transamerica variable annuity, we believe we have helped to address the client’s most common and pressing desires – to have a reliable lifetime income stream that is protected from market downturns, and to also have the ability to maximize this income,” said Dave Paulsen, chief sales officer of Transamerica Capital, Inc.

In years a withdrawal in excess of the rider withdrawal amount is taken, the Monthiversary component of the automatic step-up feature will not apply. An excess withdrawal will cause the withdrawal base, and thus rider withdrawal amount, to decrease. If an excess withdrawal causes the withdrawal base to fall to zero, the annuity policy and rider will terminate.

Like most guarantee lifetime withdrawal riders, this rider has certain limitations. Rollups and step-ups don’t apply in years when withdrawals are taken. Contract owners must allocate 100% of the policy value into one or more of the designated investment options. The 5% growth rate applies only to the Withdrawal Base; it does not apply to policy value, optional death benefits, or other optional benefits.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Will New Retirees Rush to Spend Their Savings?

Retirement researchers have often wondered what Boomers will do when they finally get hold of their 401(k) or 403(b) or IRA assets. Will they burn through the cash and be flat broke at 75? Will they be spendthrift grasshoppers or frugal ants?

It’s too soon to know how Boomers will manage their savings. But a new study of existing retirees suggests that those with under $90,000 in their accounts may spend it quickly, but people with more than that are likely to hoard their savings.

“Our central finding is that PRA [personal retirement account] assets, like home equity, tend to be conserved in the early retirement years,” write James Poterba of MIT, Steven Vesti of Dartmouth and David Wise of Harvard. “Only a small proportion of households draw down PRA assets precipitously either before or after age 70½.”

Indeed, if there were no Required Minimum Distribution of qualified savings at age 70½, the current cohort of affluent older Americans seems to obey the conventional wisdom that it’s best to spend tax-favored assets last—after guaranteed income and taxable assets.     

“There’s been concern that individuals would draw the money out as soon as they got there, and the assets wouldn’t last long during the retirement period. But the evidence is that the withdrawal profiles are relatively modest. Some are making large withdrawals, but the average is modest. It also looks as though the RMD rules are biting,” MIT’s Poterba told RIJ

The paper, “The Drawdown of Personal Retirement Assets,” says that only about 20% of retiree households report withdrawals from traditional IRAs and 401(k)s before age 70½. After that, the proportion reporting withdrawals jumps to 60%. 

Even then, “the overall proportion of assets withdrawn continues to be a small proportion of the PRA balance. This withdrawal ratio averages between one and two percent between ages 60 and 69, and rises to about 5% at age 70½. It fluctuates around that level through age 85.”

“Our evidence is consistent with the view that most households conserve PRA assets for a ‘rainy day,’” the paper said. “Households may want to preserve these funds for contingencies such as entry to a nursing home or other large expenditures”—much as they resist tapping home equity except as a last resort.

But many of today’s retirees have defined benefit pensions that allow them to defer the use of 401(k) assets, MIT’s Poterba told RIJ. Future retirees, few of whom will have DB pensions, may not have that luxury, he conceded.

Future retirees may also have larger average balances, since they’ve spent more time in the 401(k)/IRA era that began in the mid-1980s and which progressed hand in hand with two huge run-ups in stock prices (along with a couple of major busts).  

“While I think that what we report provides a good snapshot of people of current retirement age, the key challenge in looking forward is that people will have had more years to save in 401(k)s,” Poterba said. 

“This is a population first that did not work all of its working life when 401(k)s were ubiquitous,” he added. “They’re reaching retirement with smaller balances, and they have a higher rate of DB coverage than successor generations, so more of them I suspect are people who were able to take 401(k) plans as a supplemental plan.”

The study is also skewed in the sense that not low-income Americans are a lot less likely to have PRAs. The paper shows that only 8% of the people in the bottom 10% of wealth, health and income status have PRAs, while 80% of people in the top 10% do. (It’s well known that only about one half of American workers have access to any workplace retirement savings plan.)

People with smaller account balances are more likely to spend down those balances quickly in retirement, the paper showed. Early retirees (ages 60 to 69) with less than $90,000 in their PRAs were likely to withdraw at least 10% of their assets per year. Those with $20,000 to $30,000 in their accounts spent down an average of 22% a year.

The paper also showed that, “among households headed by someone between the ages of 60 and 69, roughly 10% of PRA owners make an annual withdrawal of 5% or more of their PRA assets, and about 7% withdraw more than 10% of assets.

“At ages 72 and older, after required distributions begin, 59% of households withdraw less than 5% of their PRA balance in a typical year, and 77% withdraw less than 10% of balance. On the other hand, 11% of those over the age of 72 withdraw more than 20% of their balance.”

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

LPL Taps Five Insurers for New VA Platform

LPL Financial, the nation’s largest independent broker-dealer, has decided to make it easier for its 12,444 affiliated financial advisors to sell variable annuities and integrate them into fee-based client relationships.

The vehicle is LPL’s new Fee-Based Variable Annuity platform, which allows advisors to handle a client’s VA subaccount assets the same way they handle other investments—on the same screens, in the same statements and through the same billing processes.

For the minority of LPL advisors who were already selling VAs, the new platform may not change much. But advisors who were on the fence about VAs could begin to sell them if they don’t have to interrupt their normal workflow to do it.

LPL advisors are free to sell VAs from a wide variety of issuers, but the broker-dealer has put only five insurers on the platform: AXA-Equitable Life, Allianz Life, Lincoln National Life, Prudential Annuities and Sun Life Financial.  Two requirements: no surrender charge and an M&E of no more than 65 basis points.

Insurers have long recognized that their hopes of growing the VA industry’s share of the $10 trillion-plus Boomer retirement hoard, stuck for a decade at about 10%, depend to a large degree on getting fee-based advisors to sell them. It’s been a tough sell.

In recent years, many VA issuers created a special share class for fee-based advisors, eliminating the commissions and the high mortality and expense risk charges that typically went with them. But that innovation didn’t move the sales dial much, because buying and servicing a VA still required a departure from the advisors’ normal procedures.

Advisors were still required, for instance, to obtain the client’s permission before money from one annuity subaccount to another. The new platform lets advisors reallocate VA assets without the out-call.

“The advisor now has the capability to implement changes in a client’s portfolio on a discretionary basis,” said John Moninger, LPL’s executive vice president of Advisory and Brokerage Solutions. “That’s a big deal. It’s one of the biggest deals.

“In 2008 and 2009, we were having a hard time making changes in clients’ accounts. The clients were asking, why did you have to call me about these assets and not the others? The technology allows us to bring that into the system,” he said.

In a statement, LPL said, “Through this platform, purchases of fee-based variable annuities will be integrated in the existing LPL Financial process for opening accounts for investors, and holdings will be viewable through all advisor-facing technologies, including BranchNet, the company’s proprietary, web-based technology platform that allows advisors to manage all critical aspects of their business.”

Sign of the times

LPL’s move is also a sign of the times. The effort to create the new platform was driven in part by a rising appetite for safety among investors and a growing need among Boomers for secure retirement income, Moninger said.

“Coming out of the financial crisis, a lot of fee-based advisors wanted to know how to protect investors from similar events in the future. They were saying, I need this vehicle but I want to do it on a fee-basis. We were also watching the demographic shift,” he said.

Regarding LPL’s criteria for including insurers on the platform, Moninger named soft qualities rather than hard sales numbers. “Of course, our primary partners in variable annuities go way beyond that list,” he said. “But we were looking for a complementary list of firms who were committed to educating our advisors, some of whom have not used annuities in the past, and who were committed to product development, who were committed to change and to thinking this all the way through.”  

“It’s a big step in the right direction,” said Bruce Ferris, head of sales and distributions at Prudential Annuities. “It moves annuities closer to the mainstream of fee-based advisors. In the past, we’ve had a version of our variable annuity for sale through LPL with very little traction.  We said, if we create a share class [for fee-based advisors] will that get us there? And the answer was a resounding ‘No.’ We were still asking the advisors to do business on our terms and not theirs.”

Will this new platform raise sales among fee-based advisors? “The proof will be in the results. There are still many advisors who won’t go near annuities, but this should allow them to bring annuities into the conversation.” This development could also lead to “unbundled solutions where we put our protection on other pools of assets,” Ferris said.

At AXA-Equitable, Steve Mabry, senior vice president, annuity product development, said LPL like his firm’s product. “LPL was looking for different types of products and our Cornerstone contract is attractive to them,” Mabry said.   

“It’s got a two-sleeve approach, with over 100 funds on the performance side and a guaranteed account that grows at a rate of 1.5% over the 10-year Treasury rate on the protection side,” he said. “It allows the fee-based advisor to become more of an income engineer, and to move the assets over time from performance to protection.”

As for consumers, they apparently aren’t as averse to paying an annual wrap fee on their VA assets as they are to paying a front-end load (with an A-share variable annuity) or a high ongoing M&E charge (as with a B-share product), says Dywane Hall, an LPL manager in Alexandria, Va.

“A big benefit of using the variable annuity platform is the fee structure,” Hall said. “It’s about bringing in the people who want the advantages of a variable annuity and don’t mind paying the advisor a management fee but who have heard all about the huge fees associated with variable annuities. You’re taking the hesitancy out of the equation. Overall, it’s just another arrow in your quiver.”   

In creating a VA platform, LPL isn’t ruling other types annuities out of the retirement equation. “We don’t believe there’s anyone answer to the retirement income puzzle,” Moninger told RIJ. “We’re just trying to solve two things: how do we improve client experience through the behavior of the advisor, and how do we make our advisors more efficient? When we solve those two, the solutions will pop out.”

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Bucket

Prudential Financial revenue rose 11% in 2010, but net income fell 20%

Prudential Financial Inc. posted an 88% drop in fourth-quarter net income on derivatives charges, but revenues for the quarter jumped 17% to $8.1 billion. For all of 2010, total revenues rose 11% to nearly $31 billion, but net income fell 20%, to $2.7 billion.

Net income for the fourth quarter dipped to $213 million on $912 million in realized losses and related charges on derivatives and fair value changes in embedded derivatives, pretax. These included $161 million in impairments and losses on sales of credit-impaired investments, Prudential Financial said in a release.

The company also announced that Bernard Winograd, 60, will retire as executive vice president and chief operating officer of its U.S.-based businesses on Feb. 11, to be succeeded by Charles F. Lowrey, 53, current president and chief executive officer of Prudential Investment Management.

In 2010, the company achieved “individual annuity account values over $100 billion and retirement account values over $200 billion,” said chairman and CEO John Strangfeld in a statement.

Earlier this month, Prudential completed the acquisition of two Japanese life insurers, AIG Star Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and AIG Edison Life Insurance Co., from AIG for about $4.2 billion in cash and assumption of third-party debt. 

In Prudential’s individual annuity business contributed $146 million to overall income by reducing amortization of deferred acquisition costs on policies and releasing reserves for guaranteed death and income benefits on variable annuities. Results were driven by gains in customers separate account values, Prudential said.

 

Buffett feels bullish

Warren Buffett’s $5 billion investment in Goldman Sachs during the financial crisis was a bet that the authorities would prop up the ailing economy, the billionaire businessman has claimed, according to bobsguide.com.

In an interview with the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), the investor said that he knew key figures in charge of US financial policy would do what they could to ensure the financial system did not collapse. Buffett, who was quoted by Bloomberg, said: “It was a bet essentially on the fact that the government would not really shirk its responsibility at a time like that to leverage up at a time when the rest of the world was trying to deleverage.
“I made the fundamental decision that we had the right people, in [Ben] Bernanke, [chairman of the Federal Reserve] and [Henry] Paulson,[then-Treasury Department Secretary] and there with a president that would back them.”
The investor acquired preferred stock in Goldman Sachs during 2008, an investment which provides him with an annual ten per cent dividend.
As much as $700 billion was provided to banks and firms working within the financial services industry as part of the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.

 

Morningstar advisor platforms to receive bond data from Interactive Data Corp.

Morningstar, Inc., and Interactive Data Corporation have entered into an agreement where Interactive Data will supply individual bond information to Morningstar’s advisor software products. The bond universe will be available next month in Morningstar Advisor Workstation, the research and investment planning software platform used by roughly one in four financial advisors in the U.S., and in April in Morningstar Office, a portfolio management solution for independent advisors.

Morningstar will now feature reports and research on more than 1.3 million individual bonds, including corporate, government and municipal issues. It represents the first time an advisor software platform has offered comprehensive bond data alongside underlying holdings-based analytics for multi-security portfolios.

 Advisors will be able to use Morningstar’s investment database to search, screen, and sort bond information and create Investment Detail Reports(TM) on individual bonds, which will contain up to 10 years of performance history so that advisors can evaluate how the bond issue has weathered a variety of market conditions. Advisors can also use the report’s bond issue details and risk exposure to evaluate the bond’s role within a portfolio and compare against other bond issues.

Once the bond data is available, when advisors import their client portfolios from third-party integration partners into Advisor Workstation or Morningstar Office, the software will automatically recognize the fixed income securities in those portfolios, saving time and resources by eliminating the need to manually map the security or assign a less-accurate proxy.

Morningstar Advisor Workstation provides financial advisors with investment planning, client presentation, portfolio analysis, and investment research tools. It is licensed to and through institutions such as broker/dealers, custodians, and clearing firms as a web-based modular platform designed to work with a firm’s other back-office systems and applications. The bond universe will be initially available through the Clients and Portfolios and Research modules, with availability in the Hypotheticals and Planning modules later in 2011.

Morningstar Office is a global practice and portfolio management platform for independent financial advisors and wealth managers. It features portfolio management and performance reporting, advanced research capabilities, sophisticated investment planning, and intuitive customer relationship management (CRM) tools for batch reporting and secure communications using the platform’s Client Web Portal and document vault. Morningstar Office users also have the option to outsource all of their account management and reconciliation with Morningstar Back Office Services.

 

Riskier firms to pay higher PBGC premiums

President Barack Obama’s budget proposes to raise premiums the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. charges employers by $16 billion over ten years and, in a significant policy shift, would levy higher premiums on the riskiest companies, the Wall Street Journal reported this week.

The PBGC insures defined-benefit pension plans. Its $80 billion portfolio, mainly assets of pension plans it has taken over, is $23 billion short of the current value of pensions it has promised to pay. Premiums are supposed to make up the difference. Total premium revenues last year were $2.2 billion.

Rather than seeking a simple premium increase, the administration is asking Congress to give the PBGC authority to fashion a new approach in which premiums would be linked to the financial health of the employer sponsoring the underlying pension plan. Currently, two similarly funded pension plans, one sponsored by a well-financed company and another sponsored by a shaky one, pay the same premiums even though the latter is at much greater risk of sticking the PBGC with its pension promises. Under the proposal, the agency could charge the latter company a higher premium. The approach resembles one used to price bank-deposit insurance. Since 2007, the FDIC has grouped banks into four categories and charged riskier ones higher premiums.

Under the Obama proposal, the changes wouldn’t take effect for two years—at the earliest—to give the agency time to devise the new system and go through a formal rule-writing process. Among big issues to be resolved are the factors to use in assessing the riskiness of the employers and how much more to charge riskier companies. About one-third of employers whose pensions are insured by the agency have credit ratings below investment-grade; they would be hit harder by the premium increases.

Some employers and unions are concerned higher premiums would lead businesses to freeze or even terminate pension plans. The American Benefits Council, which represents big employers, recently has complained to Congress about PBGC rules and its approach to businesses. “Employers are fleeing the defined-benefit-plan system…they are freezing their plans, and…certain well-intended PBGC policies can actually threaten business viability and increase PBGC liability,” the council’s Ken Porter testified in December. Of workers with defined-benefit plans, 22% are in plans that have been closed to new workers or ceased accruing benefits for some or all participants, the Labor Department says.

The collapse of several big pension plans has increased the PBGC’s long-term deficit in recent years. In the past, Congress has raised premiums after the agency reported big deficits. The last time, in 2005, Congress lifted the premium on single-employer plans from $19 a worker annually to $30 and indexed it to inflation. Today, the current basic premium is $35. With various add-ons for underfunded plans, the average premium is close to $65.

The PBGC was created in 1974 after some workers lost pensions altogether when their employers went under. It guarantees basic benefits for 44 million American workers and retirees with defined-benefit pensions, a shrinking fraction of the work force, and is currently responsible for paying current or future pensions for about 1.5 million.  

The president’s fiscal commission, led by former Clinton White House Chief of Staff chief Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R., Wyo.), recommended PBGC premiums increase by $16 billion over 10 years, the same as the new Obama budget.

 A private deficit-reduction panel, chaired by former Sen. Pete Domenici (R., N.M.) and former Clinton budget chief Alice Rivlin, proposed a 15% increase in the basic premium, among other changes. It recommended that premiums for underfunded plans be linked to the riskiness of their investment portfolios.

 

John Hancock Annuities launches New ‘Retirement Talk’ video

John Hancock Annuities has launched a second module of the integrated ‘Retirement Talk’ marketing program, giving advisors another simple way to connect with clients who are looking for ways to enhance their retirement security.

The new Retirement Talk module introduces options that help couples planning for retirement ensure that their income will last for the duration of two lives. It features a client-friendly educational video that addresses the emotions that many couples are experiencing after the roller-coaster markets of the last few years, and how they believe it has impacted their plans for retirement. The video complements John Hancock’s original highly successful Retirement Talk video, which demystified annuities and the role that guaranteed lifetime income options may play in a well-rounded retirement portfolio.*

The videos plus a wealth of support material, including an interactive income planning calculator, is available at www.jhretirementtalk.com, and also in CD format.

Retirement Talk videos are packaged with a brief message and suggested follow-up actions for the client to consider. An Advisor Guide provides suggestions on identifying clients who may benefit from the program, and offers talking points to address during client meetings. Customizable client letters are also available. The entire program may be presented by authorized advisors in CD format or via a client-approved micro web site, www.jhretirementtalk.com, where authorized distributors and their clients may view the video and related material.

 

Funded status for largest pensions improves to 82.2% in January  

The nation’s 100 largest defined benefit pension plans experienced asset increases of $6 billion and liability decreases of $35 billion in January resulting in a $41 billion increase in pension funded status for the month, according to the Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index. It was the second consecutive month of positive performance recorded by the index.

For the last 12 months, these pensions experienced a $15 billion improvement in funded status, which compares favorably to the performance over the course of calendar year 2010, when these pensions saw the funded status deficit increase by $49 billion.
“This is the first time [the funded ration has] been above 80% since last April,” said John Ehrhardt, co-author of the Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index. “At the same time, the pension deficit has been yo-yoing between $200 billion and $450 billion for the last two years, and we are still susceptible to that kind of volatility.”

The study offers projections for 2011 and 2012, which help to illustrate the challenge posed by the pension funded status deficit. If interest rates continue along their current lines and these 100 pensions achieve their 8.1% median return, the deficit will shrink to $223 billion by the end of 2012. More optimistic performance—12.1% annual returns and eventual interest rates of 6.67%—would help these pensions reach 90% funded status by the end of September and would eliminate the deficit and put the funded ratio at 108% by the end of 2012.  

To view the complete monthly update, go to http://www.milliman.com/expertise/employee-benefits/products-tools/pension-funding-index/. To receive regular updates of Milliman’s pension funding analysis, contact us at [email protected].

 

SPARK Institute updates best practices for information sharing

Following a recent two-week public comment period on a draft version, The SPARK Institute has released a final updated version of its information sharing best practices for 403(b) plans,” said Larry Goldbrum, General Counsel. 

“This update of Version 1.04 reflects certain industry developments that occurred since it was originally published in June 2009,” said Goldbrum.  He said there were no significant changes to the draft as a result of public comments.  The effective date of the updated version is October 1, 2011.  The document is posted on The SPARK Institute website.               

The SPARK Institute represents the interests of a broad based cross section of retirement plan service providers and investment managers, including banks, mutual fund companies, insurance companies, third party administrators, trade clearing firms and benefits consultants.   

 

Advisor-focused websites progressing: IRI

The Insured Retirement Institute (IRI) and Corporate Insight have found widespread improvement in key areas on advisor websites offered by financial services firms.  Advisor sales resources experienced the greatest improvement, rising 18% to an average of 2.72 (out of a 4-point scale) from the 2010 assessment average of 2.54. 

Advisor product information and marketing also saw a notable improvement, with the category average increasing 13% to 2.88 from the 2010 figure of 2.75. Industry averages were up from the 2010 report in five of the six audit categories, a sign that firms are actively addressing key areas on their advisor websites. 

The report also found that:

  • A number of firms upgraded the detail and level of transparency offered on both variable and fixed annuity product information pages with a focus on suitability and fees.
  • Firms consistently upgraded the size and quality of their advisor sales resource libraries throughout the year, expanding the availability of prospecting and business-building materials with a greater emphasis on growing client relationships.
  • Despite a modest increase in the industry average (4%), advisor website design and usability continued to be a strong point, with navigation being the focal point of advisor site revamps performed.
  • Advisor sales tools and advisor literature ordering systems categories continue to be an area poised for improvement, with only four new advisor tools being introduced.

 

Aon Hewitt 401(k) Index Observations for November 2010  

401(k) participants continued to move money from fixed income investments into equities in November, according to the Aon Hewitt 401(k) Index.

A total of $217 million (0.19% of total assets) moved from fixed income funds into diversified equity investments (excluding company stock) during the month, with over three quarters of days seeing equity-oriented transfers.

In contrast, all fixed income asset classes saw net outflows in November. Bond funds experienced (net) outflows of $89 million while GIC/stable value funds had $49 million in outflows.

A sum of $12 million was also shifted out of money market funds. Company stock funds experienced the largest outflows of the month, with $110 million moving out of this asset class, which continued the outflow trend for past several years.

Lifestyle/premixed funds received the largest inflows during the month, with $100 million transferring into this asset class. In addition, all domestic equity asset classes received modest inflows. Small U.S. equity funds rallied during November, and also received $65 million in net transfers. Large U.S. equity markets were relatively flat, but received $55 million in inflows.

The level of transfer activity in November was in line with that of the past few months — 0.03% of balances transferred on a net daily basis. Two days in November had an above-normal level* of transfer activity.

Total equity holdings were up slightly from 58.3% at the end of October to 58.9% at the end of November. Overall, participants’ sentiment toward the stock market did not appear to change much in November, as employee equity contributions remained similar to last month at 60.9%.

*A “normal” level of relative transfer activity is when the net daily movement of participants’ balances as a percent of total 401(k) balances within the Aon Hewitt 401(k) Index equals between 0.3 times and 1.5 times the average daily net activity of the preceding 12 months. A “high” relative transfer activity day is when the net daily movement exceeds two times the average daily net activity. A “moderate” relative transfer activity day is when the net daily movement is between 1.5 and two times the average daily net activity of the preceding 12 months.

A Q&A about GuidedSpending 2.0

After GuidedChoice announced its GuidedSpending 2.0 retirement income planning model for qualified plan participants, RIJ submitted a few follow-up questions about the new service to GuidedChoice CEO Sherrie Grabot and Chief Investment Officer Ming Wang. Here are RIJ’s questions and the executives’ responses.

RIJ: In the hypothetical client examples offered during your Webex presentation on February 9, the GuidedSpending tool appeared to recommend a $2,300 a month payout for a plan participant—“Al”—with $200,000 in savings, and a $4,610 monthly payout for a couple—“Gene and Eva”—with $357,000 in savings. Those payout rates sound extremely high, 13.8% and 15.5%, respectively. Did those figures include Social Security and/or pension income?

GuidedChoice: An important differentiator of GuidedSpending for the defined contribution market is that it includes ALL retirement accounts that the retiree wants to include.  Social Security is automatically calculated and included for them, but they can choose to modify or omit it.  In addition, any applicable employee benefits, pension, retiree medical, stock options, etc. are also automatically included.  Spousal, prior employer plans, and any non-plan accounts or assets are also included.  The retiree can always choose to modify or omit any accounts GuidedSpending has included.

The $2,300, and $4,610 are an after-tax, spendable monthly income including all sources of retirement income that the individual chose to include in GuidedSpending.  Al only has Social Security and a single 401(k) balance of $200,000. The couple’s amounts included Social Security of $1,745 monthly, a small pension income of $350 monthly beginning at Gene’s age 65, as well as amounts that would come from Gene’s 401(k), the $200,000 balance, and Eva’s 403(b), a $82,000 balance.  Gene also had a previous retirement plan balance of $70,000 that is included. Together they had nominal IRA balances of $3,908.  We show the amounts in summary and detail to the client in the interface.

RIJ: The last slide in your presentation showed payouts of about $7,000 a year from a $100,000 account. In answer to my question about that rate of payout, your chief investment officer seemed to say that if you have $100,000 in savings you can afford to take out 4% of principal plus about 3% worth of growth, to get to seven percent. But that contradicts every sort of model I’ve ever seen that calculates sustainable payout rates. Or perhaps I misunderstood him.

Guided Choice: Sustainability of payout rates will depend on various factors, two key factors being the planning period and whether the payout in adjusted for inflation.  For now, we will ignore inflation. Assume the person retires at age 65 and has a planning period of 25 years, until age 90, starting with $100,000 in his account.  If we assume no return from investment, then he can withdraw 4% of his account value. The next year, he can withdraw 4.17% since there are only 24 years left to fund.  Each year, he can withdraw incrementally a greater percentage of the balance because the planning period is reduced by one year.  By the 11th year, he can withdraw 6.67%. Over this 11-year period, his average withdrawal rate is 5.13% using a zero rate of return.

In essence, the client would withdraw $4,000 each and every year for the 25 years. The dollar amount stays the same, but as a percentage of the account balance, the payout ratio increases each year.  By the 11th year, this means there are still 15 years left, and he can therefore withdraw 1/15 of his account value which equals 6.67%

If we assume a rate of return, as we do in the case we showed on the slide, then the percentages that could be withdrawn each year will be higher than the zero rate of return example. In the example comparing the Spending Strategies, we use an annual 4% rate of return, the guaranteed return on many annuities.  So each year, a higher percentage can be withdrawn, with the average being 7.2%.  

During the years 2000 to 2010, because GuidedSpending uses a high and low spending value, the overall average is higher.  In other words, during the good years in the market, investment performance would allow for more money to be withdrawn, but the retiree did not choose to withdraw more since the utility value of more money is too low.  They preferred to leave the money in the account to provide for a “rainy day” or to leave for heirs.  This “consumption smoothing” methodology provided a higher sustainable payout rate during the years between 2000 and 2010. (Note: Other periods could experience different results.)

RIJ: In previous conversations with a GuidedChoice executive, I was told that you envisioned a GuidedChoice IRA down the road, but during last week’s presentation, you were more cautious about announcing a proprietary IRA, saying, “Stay tuned.” Do understand correctly that when you’re partnering with an investment firm like Charles Schwab, a participant’s money would rollover to a Schwab IRA, but if you’re partnering with a firm that has no IRA capability of its own, you might offer your own rollover IRA?

GuidedChoice: The markets are evolving at an exciting pace, and we are working with our clients and prospects to deliver a variety of integrated solutions.  Because of the proprietary nature of the work being done, we’re not currently at liberty to discuss the details of some of our future plans. We are working on integrated solutions with partners designing rollover IRAs, annuity products, guaranteed income mutual funds and low cost ETF solutions.  This should prove to be an active year in product launches, so we will keep you abreast as we move along.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Paradise Regained

Emerging market central banks in China, India, Brazil and elsewhere are now raising interest rates fairly aggressively, and even in the United States long-term Treasury bond rates have risen significantly in spite of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s efforts to hold them down.

Given the continued rise in commodity prices, it’s likely that these are just the first moves in a lengthy period of interest rate rises. In the medium term, this could raise real long term interest rates, net of inflation, to the 5%-6% levels of the early 1980s, necessary to quell inflationary forces and compensate for the lengthy and unjustified period of ultra-cheap money.

It’s thus worth contemplating what such a world of high interest rates will look like.

Lower home prices

Much though one may wish for such a world, it has to be admitted that there will be some fairly severe side effects, albeit temporary ones. The incipient U.S. housing market recovery that began in spring 2010, which has since shown signs of petering out, will disappear altogether.

With mortgage rates at around 7-8% or quite possibly higher, the current generation of homebuyers will gasp when told what their mortgage payments will be. Congressional action to limit the home mortgage interest deduction may well increase the sticker shock further. The result will be further declines in house prices.

For most houses, prices will not collapse, but decline perhaps a further 10-15%. However there will be certain categories of house whose prices will collapse, notably the “McMansion,” built in the post-1995 boom, mostly of shoddy materials, with gaudy features and very large living space, but normally not much land. Houses in this category that at the top of the boom sold for $1.5 million will find a demand only at the $500,000 level, as the economics of home-buying will simply not support mortgages of the size necessary for the original purchase.

Consequently some quite wealthy people, who had overstretched to buy their dream houses, will find themselves not merely underwater but drowned, as their mortgage will exceed the value of their house by $500,000-$750,000. 

Treasury funding crisis

A second adverse affect of a high interest rate world will be on the Federal budget and to a lesser extent on state budgets. The Congressional Budget Office’s budget projections to 2021 assume a 10-year Treasury bond rate ranging no higher than 5.4% during that decade.  In a high interest rate environment this is clearly far too optimistic.

Furthermore, the increase in interest rates will affect the U.S. Treasury’s borrowing costs quite quickly, because in the last decade Treasury has foolishly allowed the average maturity on its debt to decline to a mere 4.5 years. Thus, even if the current efforts to cut public spending bear some fruit, the deficit will soar again once the high interest rate period hits.

As a corollary of this, Treasury may find bond funding has become much more difficult to obtain. Investors will be looking at capital losses of 20-30% on their longest term Treasury bond holdings, and even the mildest mannered central bank may come to feel that there must be a better way to invest. Hence the advent of the high interest rate environment may well coincide with a Treasury funding crisis.

Of course, the Fed can always buy up all the paper that Treasury issues, as it is doing currently, but in an environment where inflation is a real problem it’s likely that some combination of the authorities and the markets will have prized Bernanke’s tiny frozen hands off the Fed tiller, so that avenue may no longer be available.

This situation is unlikely to result in a full U.S. default, but it will undoubtedly make for a very unpleasant couple of years.

Disappearing spreads

The U.S. Treasury’s problems will mostly require an unprecedented degree of self-discipline among the Executive and Legislative branches. However the rise in interest rates will also cause huge problems for the U.S. banking system and more particularly for the “shadow” banking system of hedge funds, private equity funds, etc.

Many banks and hedge funds have invested heavily in mortgages or mortgage-backed securities, relying on Bernanke to keep short-term interest rates low enough to maintain a satisfactory “spread” between their short-term borrowing costs and their long-term mortgage income. As interest rates rise, this spread will disappear and the value of their mortgage portfolios themselves will decline. First Pennsylvania Bank went bust this way in 1980; the casualty list is likely to be much longer this time.

Higher interest rates will not just affect investors in mortgage bonds. Private equity funds buy companies and leverage the purchase, relying on the company’s cash flows to pay debt service costs. As interest rates rise, debt service costs will rise, reducing the capital value of a given corporate cash flow and causing the fund’s outflows to exceed its inflows in many cases. This will quickly cause a high mortality rate among the private equity fund community. Similarly hedge funds, many of which rely on excessive leverage of moderate but fairly predictable returns, will find a high interest rate environment very unpleasant indeed.

Positive effects

So far I have covered only the adverse effects of a high interest rate environment, most of which will be fairly short-term although the fiscal discipline imposed on politicians will be with us over the longer term. However, as readers were perhaps guessing when I expounded the high mortality levels high interest rates would produce among hedge funds and private equity funds, a high interest rate environment will have a number of positive effects, most of which will be structural and long-term.

For a start, the culling of the private equity and hedge fund industry will decimate the excessive bonuses of Wall Street (because there will no longer be such an active market for top traders’ services) and will sharply reduce the percentage of top graduates heading for these mostly unproductive activities. Leverage in the economy as a whole will decline; it will have become too expensive. The search for short-term gain will also decline, because it will be too expensive and difficult to collect together the money pools for such speculation.

More savings

These changes will over time greatly benefit the rest of the economy. It will at last encourage saving, since savers will be rewarded with positive real returns. Since saving will increase and consumption consequently diminish, the pressure of imports will also diminish and the U.S. balance of payments deficit will finally decline towards zero, reducing the country’s vulnerability to foreign finance providers.

This combination of higher saving and a lower payments deficit will begin to recapitalize the U.S. economy.

One of the principal factors tending to weaken the earning capacity of the U.S. workforce has been the steady de-capitalization of the U.S. economy since 1995 through low savings rates, periodic asset price crashes and high payments deficits. Meanwhile the capital resources of competing emerging markets, particularly in East Asia, have increased.

With interest rates higher and the U.S. economy being recapitalized, the erosion of U.S. living standards will diminish and (if immigration laws are properly enforced) the 40-year decline in the living standards of the U.S. blue collar worker will come to an end.

More jobs

We come finally to the most important and unexpected effect of higher interest rates. We now have at last a control experiment, to compare the job-creating capacity of a high interest rate environment with that of a low interest rate environment, and the contrast is a stark one. Following the unemployment peak of 1982, when real interest rates were very high under the tender ministrations of Paul Volcker, the U.S. economy created 4.7 million jobs in the first fifteen months. This time around, in spite of massive “stimulus,” both fiscal and monetary and Bernanke’s gravity-defying monetary efforts, the first fifteen months after the peak in unemployment have seen the creation of only 930,000 jobs – one fifth the number, in a workforce almost 40% larger.

The explanation is quite simple when you consider the question from first principles. Low interest rates reduce the cost of capital, hence increase the propensity of employers to use capital-intensive technologies, substituting capital for labor wherever possible. Conversely high interest rates, by making capital more expensive, increase the propensity of employers to hire more labor and train its existing workforce to produce more output rather than investing in capital-intensive equipment.

Thus a high-rate economy has a smaller proportion of capital inputs in the total – about 28% of total inputs in the 1980s versus 32% recently, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics – and a lower productivity growth rate, about 1.2% per annum in 1979-84 and 2.4% per annum in 2005-10. While the Greenspan/Bernanke monetary policies have increased recorded productivity growth, therefore, they have reduced job creation, in this recession creating a pool of long-term unemployed that will remain a miserable underclass until they pass on, decades in the future.

Short-term pain, long-term gain: that’s what we have to look forward to once interest rates rise to their proper level. However while the short-term pain will be concentrated on Wall Street, politicians and a few overenthusiastic homeowners, the gain will be more general. For the great majority of the American people, the long-term effects of higher savings, lower house prices and faster job creation will feel like Paradise Regained.

Martin Hutchinson’s columns appear regularly at prudentbear.com. He is the author of “Great Conservatives” (Academica Press, 2005) and co-author with Kevin Dowd of “Alchemists of Loss” (Wiley, 2010).

Wealth2k offers free LTC presentation to advisors

To help financial advisors explain the value of long-term care insurance in the context of retirement planning, Wealth2k has produced a movie called “Why Long-Term Care Insurance is Needed.”

The compliant eight-minute movie explains that after age 65 approximately two-thirds of individuals will need some form of long-term care. These and other important facts are framed in the context of preserving investors’ retirement security.

“I hope that advisors will use this tool as a way to stimulate discussions with their clients on this crucial subject,” said Macchia in a release. “The movie will make it easier for advisors to broach the issue of planning for the costs of long-term care.”

Financial advisors can download the Wealth2k long-term care insurance movie here. There is no charge. 

Wealth2k also announced the introduction of its the web-based LTC Impact Calculator, an interactive application that illustrates the impact LTC costs can have on an investor’s savings and retirement income.

The tool analyzes the financial impact of a nursing home stay based upon the assumed duration of the nursing home stay, the assumed rate-of-return earned on the retirement assets, and the assumed drawdown rate.

State-specific nursing home costs are utilized in the calculations. The LTC Impact Calculator is being added at no additional cost to Wealth2k’s advisor-personalized Retirement Time websites.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

 

 

US stock & bond mutual funds receive $34bn in January

US mutual fund investors added about $34 billion in net new cash to US stock and bond mutual funds in January 2011—an improvement over December’s roughly $16 billion in net outflows from long-term funds, Strategic Insight reported.  (The figures include flows into open- and closed-end mutual funds, but not ETFs or variable annuity subaccounts).

An estimated $21 billion in net new cash went into US equity funds in January 2011, making it the first month of net inflows to those funds since April, when investors put $11 billion into domestic stock funds, and the first time US equity funds topped $20 billion in net inflows since February 2004.  

“The remarkable increase in stock prices in recent years, and consensus expectations for 2011 to be another year of gains, should continue to stimulate sales increases for equity funds. We project equity fund sales growth of 22% in 2011,” said Avi Nachmany, SI’s Director of Research said, citing the firm’s recent report, Forces Shaping the Mutual Fund Industry in 2011 and Beyond.

International equity funds still drew $12.5 billion in January, their eighth straight month of positive flows.

Bond fund total returns turned positive in January, after two negative months. This helped spark net taxable bond inflows of nearly $13 billion demand–especially to floating rate, high yield and global bond portfolios. Near-zero yields on money fund and bank deposit accounts continue to stimulate bond fund inflows.

Net outflows of nearly $13 billion from muni bond funds were largely triggered by liquidity conditions, including an unusually large slate of muni new issues in recent months. Concerns about the troubled finances of many states and municipalities were also a factor. But that could change: fears over municipal defaults may be overblown, and new issues of muni bonds are starting to slow.

Flows into bond funds should stay strong in 2011, though about 10% less than 2009. “We expect new sales of bond funds in 2011 to exceed $750 billion,” Nachmany said. After seeing net outflows of $509 billion in 2010, money-market funds saw net outflows of $77 billion in January.

Strategic Insight estimated that investors poured an additional $10.9 billion into US Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) in January 2011, the fifth straight month of positive flows to ETFs. Flows were driven mostly by demand for US equity ETFs (especially growth funds and sector funds). Bond ETFs, led by high yield and short-maturity products, saw net inflows for the first time since October. At the end of January, US ETF assets stood at a record $1.02 trillion.

© 2011 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.