Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

Industry News

 Jackson National to offer LifeYield software to advisers

Jackson National Life Insurance Company will integrate LifeYield LLC’s cloud-based tool for tax-efficient management of investors’ portfolio into Jackson’s existing digital tool set for advisers who work the insurer, the two companies announced this week.

Financial professionals who work with Jackson will be able to use LifeYield’s powerful technology suite “to quantify the potential benefits of incorporating annuity products in client portfolios,” according to a release. Jackson is the largest issuer of annuities in the U.S., as of December 31, 2019.

LifeYield, creators of the Taxficient Score, enables financial advisors to deliver tax-smart, household-level portfolio solutions. LifeYield’s Proposal Advantage Suite provides a comprehensive, tax-aware view of a client’s entire portfolio–analyzing assets across IRAs, 401(k)s and taxable accounts.

Public companies need to be transparent about COVID-19 impact

The staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has urged public companies to make thorough disclosures about business risks posed by the coronavirus pandemic, offering a sketch of the many ways the intensifying crisis could impact firms and shareholders, Law360: Securities reported.

The SEC Division of Corporate Finance on Wednesday offered detailed guidance on how companies should assess and communicate COVID-19 risks, encouraging firms to be proactive and revise their filings accordingly. The move accompanied a second extension of filing deadlines by the agency as it continues to adjust its rules to unprecedented times.

Agency staff encouraged timely reporting but recognized that the coronavirus, which has now infected more than 523,000 across the world and upended the global economy, poses widespread risks that are difficult to predict with precision.

The SEC put companies on notice that COVID-19 was likely to become a focal point in future disclosures when the agency first extended filing deadlines earlier this month. The new guidance elaborates on this point, laying out scores of questions companies should be asking as they assess the impact of the coronavirus on everything from liquidity to supply chains to access to credit.
Agency staff encouraged companies to think long-term about how the current economic outlook could affect their financial stability, asset values and future consumer demand for their products. But the guidance also encouraged a granular analysis of how things like remote working could impact internal controls and business continuity plans.

Laura Richman, a corporate and securities attorney at Mayer Brown LLP, told Law360 Thursday that firms should heed the new disclosure guidance and start assessing COVID-19 risk from top to bottom.
Stock markets have been on a rollercoaster ride since the coronavirus, once largely isolated to China, became a global pandemic that shook the trajectory of the global economy and dramatically altered the way hundreds of millions of people live and work. The SEC has responded by relaxing filing deadlines and offering other forms of targeted relief to public companies, shareholders and investment shops.

SEC Chairman Jay Clayton said at a Thursday meeting of the Financial Stability Oversight Council that the agency’s measures have so far helped stabilize markets despite unprecedented volatility.

AM Best sets up coronavirus web page

AM Best has launched dedicated access to its analytical updates on the COVID-19 virus outbreak. This web page (www.ambest.com/about/coronavirus.html) will be updated regularly with insurance industry-specific commentary related to the ongoing pandemic and video discussions with members of AM Best’s analytic teams about the unfolding situation.

To date, AM Best has issued 10 announcements since late January on the wide-ranging impact of the coronavirus outbreak, most with accompanying video discussions. Below are summaries of announcements released so far in March 2020. Reports and videos released before March considered potential impacts in China and Southeast Asia, as well as a look at pandemic stress testing typically undertaken by insurers.

  • Health Insurers Adjust as COVID-19 Spreads in United States (March 19, 2020): The risks to U.S. health insurers from the COVID-19 outbreak continue to expand in scope and complexity on the claims management, economic and operational fronts. See the Best’s Commentaryand related video.
  • Japanese Insurers Continue to Grapple With Global Market Volatility (March 19, 2020): Insurers in Japan remain financially stable to weather ongoing market volatility brought about by the COVID-19 virus outbreak and the sharp decline in oil prices due to their robust balance sheet fundamentals. See the Best’s Commentary.
  • AM Best to Deploy Pandemic-Related Stress Test for Rated Insurance Companies (March 18, 2020): AM Best is developing stress testing that it will conduct on its rated insurance companies’ balance sheets to gauge the impact of the COVID-19 virus fallout on their risk-adjusted capital levels, investment portfolios, reserve adequacy and other aspects of the risks borne by rated entities. See the related press releaseand related video.
  • AM Best Revises U.S. Life/Annuity Market Outlook to Negative (March 16, 2020): Due to the significant volatility and uncertainty created by the COVID-19 virus, AM Best has revised its outlook on the U.S. life/annuity segment to negative. See the Best’s Market Segment Reportand related video.
  • European Insurers Well-Positioned to Manage Potential Exposure to Pandemic Risk (March 8, 2020): The biggest impact to European insurers out of the COVID-19 outbreak likely will result from the economic fallout, as governments and markets react to the virus’ rapid spread, rather than from direct coronavirus exposures. See the Best’s Commentary.
  • S. Health Insurers Face Potential Rise in Claims Due to Coronavirus (March 6, 2020): This commentary looks at to what extent U.S. health insurers can expect increases in coronavirus-related medical claims, with costs to be driven by at-risk patients such as the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. See the Best’s Commentaryand related video.
  • Further Global Interest Rate Cuts Anticipated as Economic Buffer for Coronavirus Impact (March 4, 2020): The initial move by the Federal Reserve to cut its federal funds rate came as a surprise. AM Best expects further accommodative monetary policy actions to continue throughout 2020. See the Best’s Commentary.
Americans are worried but calm: Allianz Life

The latest Quarterly Market Perceptions Study from Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America (Allianz Life finds Americans are worried, but trying to take a calm approach to investing for retirement.

Market crash and recession fears increased significantly from the end of 2019 when worries were at their lowest levels in over a year and half. Now, nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) express concerns about a recession (compared with 43% in Q4 2019). In addition, 57% think that the market hasn’t bottomed out yet.

Despite increased anxiety over market swings, over half (52%) of Americans understand that it’s good time to stay neutral and not take any action because of market conditions.

Consumers have experienced many ups and downs in the market recently, and the number of people who say they are too nervous to invest reflects that, as percentages fluctuate from quarter to quarter. Currently, 41% of consumers say they are too nervous to invest in the market (compared with 35% in Q4 2019).

Interestingly, Americans still seem optimistic about their ability to recover retirement savings after a market decline. Nearly 70% believe that, even if the market continues to decline, they will have time to rebuild their retirement savings.

SIMON and Insurance Technologies team up

SIMON (SIMON Markets LLC and SIMON Annuities and Insurance Services LLC) is partnering with Insurance Technologies, LLC, a provider of sales and regulatory automation solutions for the insurance and financial services industries, according to a release.

The partnership allows SIMON to “turn manual and time intensive workflows into a simplified process, centralized in one location,” the release said. SIMON platform offers advisers an end-to-end toolset, including on-demand education, a digital marketplace, real-time analytics, and lifecycle management.

Advisers see opportunity in health care stocks: E*Trade

E*TRADE Advisor Services, a provider of integrated technology, custody, and practice management support for registered investment advisors (RIAs), released the latest iteration of its Independent Advisor Tracking study, which covers advisor views on the market, the industry, their business, and clients.

Volatility management skyrockets. More than four out of five advisors (85%) are actively managing against market volatility—shooting up 20 percentage points this quarter. More than half (55%) are managing against a recession, shifting up eight percentage points from December.

Clients aligned on volatility concerns. Clients are contacting their advisors most about volatility (53%) and the coronavirus (38%), in stark comparison to December, when clients most asked about the threat of recession (28%), and the ongoing trade tensions (21%).

Advisors see opportunity in health care investments. Health care (22%) is the number one sector where advisors see potential, moving up six percentage points since the end of the year.

Clients are increasingly trying to time the market. The top mistake advisors see their clients make is attempting to time the market (45%), ticking up seven percentage points since December.

© 2020 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

FYI: Legal alerts from the Wagner Law Group

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act

(Updated to Include Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act Provisions) April 1, 2020

This Law Alert serves as an update to the Law Alert sent out on March 19, 2020 concerning the paid leave and group health plan provisions of The Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Effective April 1, 2020, the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (the “Sick Leave Act”) and the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (the “FMLA Expansion Act”), two of the divisions of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (the “Families First Act”), as amended by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”), provide paid sick leave and paid family and medical leave to employees affected by the coronavirus. They also provide tax credits for eligible employers. These provisions expire on December 31, 2020.

The Families First Act also requires, effective as of March 18, 2020, and continuing for the duration of the federal declared emergency (the “Emergency”), that group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group insurance coverage, including grandfathered health plans under the Affordable Care Act, provide coverage of testing and diagnosis for COVID-19 without any cost-sharing requirements. Also, until 2021, the CARES Act permits pre-deductible coverage of telehealth and other remote care. The CARES Act also requires, permanently, that group health plans and health insurance issuers (including grandfathered plans) cover COVID-19 vaccines (once there are any such vaccines), and permanently permits over-the-counter drugs to be reimbursed by HSAs, FSAs, HRAs, and Archer MSAs, whether or not they were prescribed by a physician.

Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act

Employers with fewer than 500 employees and government employers must provide employees with paid sick leave. While the Sick Leave Act does not address the issue, the DOL has indicated that all employees of the employer are taken into account – full-time, part-time, temporary, seasonal, and union. Each separate employer entity is a separate employer for purposes of the 500-employee threshold, except that two or more employer entities may qualify as the “joint employer” of a group of employees, or all the entities in a controlled group may qualify as an “integrated employer” if the parent has de facto control over the operations of all. Employees may take paid sick leave if the employee:

  • is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order;
  • has been advised by a healthcare provider to self-quarantine;
  • is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and is seeking a medical diagnosis;
  • is caring for an individual who is subject to a federal, state, or local quarantine or isolation order, or has been advised to self-quarantine by a healthcare provider;
  • is caring for a son or daughter whose school or day care has been closed or the regular child care provider is not available due to coronavirus; or
  • is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

A big exception: healthcare providers and emergency responders are not required to provide paid sick leave to employees.

At present, employees, who are laid off before the paid sick leave requirements go into effect, will not be eligible for paid sick leave. Employees placed on furlough on or after April 1,2020, are also ineligible. If an employer closes a worksite on or after April 1, 2020, paid leave will also be unavailable.

The Department of Labor (the “DOL”) has the authority to exempt small businesses with fewer than 50 employees if the imposition of the paid sick leave requirements would jeopardize the viability of the business as a going concern.

Paid sick leave must be available to all employees of employers subject to the Sick Leave Act (those with fewer than 500 employees), regardless of their date of hire. An employer may not require, as a condition of providing sick leave, that an employee search for and find a replacement employee to cover the hours during which the employee is using the paid sick leave.

Employers who maintain a paid sick leave policy must provide the emergency paid sick leave in addition to their current paid sick leave, and may not require employees to use other forms of paid leave (e.g., vacation leave) instead of the emergency paid sick leave.

Paid sick leave must be paid at the employee’s regular rate of pay if it is used because the employee is being quarantined, has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine, or is experiencing symptoms of coronavirus and is seeking a medical diagnosis. Such paid sick leave shall not exceed $511 per day, or $5,110 in the aggregate, for any employee.

Employers must pay two-thirds of the employee’s regular rate of pay if the employee is on leave to care for an individual under quarantine, to care for a son or daughter whose school or day care has closed or the child care provider is unavailable due to coronavirus, or any other circumstance certified by the Secretary of HHS in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor. Such paid sick leave shall not exceed $200 per day, or $2,000 in the aggregate, for any employee.

Full-time employees are entitled to 2 weeks (80 hours) of qualified paid sick leave and part-time employees are entitled to the typical number of hours that they work during a typical 2-week period. There is no carryover of this paid sick leave from one year to the next. Paid sick leave ends on the first day of the employee’s next scheduled shift immediately following the termination of the need for paid sick leave. The Sick Leave Act also contains an antiretaliation provision, and further provides that an employer who fails to comply will be treated as having committed a minimum wage violation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Employers that contribute to multiemployer plans may fulfill their obligations under the Sick Leave Act (if consistent with the collective bargaining agreement) by making contributions to the multiemployer plan based on the paid leave that each of its employees is entitled to receive under the collective bargaining agreement.

Employees who work under a collective bargaining agreement may secure pay from the fund, plan or program based on the hours they have worked under the collective bargaining agreement.

For employers that are required to provide the paid leave, there is a silver lining. Employers are entitled to a refundable payroll tax credit equal to 100% of qualified paid sick leave wages paid by an employer for each calendar quarter, up to specified caps:

For purposes of the tax credit, the amount of qualified paid sick leave taken into account for each employee who is under quarantine, has been advised to self-quarantine, or is experiencing symptoms and seeking a diagnosis, is capped at $511 per day.

For amounts paid to employees caring for an individual under quarantine, or for a child whose school or day care center has closed or whose child care provider is unavailable due to coronavirus, or who has experienced other circumstances certified by the Secretary of the Treasury, the credit is capped at $200 per day.

The aggregate number of days taken into account for a calendar quarter may not exceed the excess of 10 over the aggregate number of days taken into account for this purpose for all preceding quarters (e.g., if an employee had received pay sick leave for 6 days in the first quarter of the year, then only 4 days would be available in the second quarter).

However, the amount of the credit is increased by so much of the employer’s qualified health plan expenses as are properly allocable to the qualified sick leave wages for which the credit was allowed. Qualified health plan expenses means amounts paid or incurred by an employer to provide and maintain a group health plan, to the extent such amounts are excludible from gross income under the Code. Treasury is directed to issue allocation rules but, unless such rules are to the contrary, an allocation will be treated as proper if made on a pro rata basis among covered employees and pro rata based on the period of coverage.

If the tax credit exceeds the employer’s total liability for payroll taxes for all employees for any calendar quarter, the excess credit is refundable to the employer. For example, if an employer paid $100, 000 in paid sick leave and its payroll tax liability for that quarter was $50,000, it would not make any payroll tax deposit, and would request an expedited refund credit for $50,000. Employers may elect to not have the credit apply. No deduction is allowed for the amount of the tax credit, and no credit is allowed with respect to wages for which a credit is allowed under Internal Revenue Code Section 45S, which provides a tax credit for certain paid family and medical leave.

Self-Employed Individuals

There is a refundable tax credit equal to 100% of a qualified sick leave equivalent amount for eligible self-employed individuals who are under quarantine, are advised to self-quarantine, or have symptoms and are seeking a diagnosis.

For those caring for a quarantined individual, or for a son or daughter whose school or day care has been closed or whose child care provider is unavailable due to coronavirus, or who has experienced other circumstances certified by the Secretary of the Treasury, the refundable tax credit is equal to 67% of the qualified sick leave amount.

The tax credit is allowed against income taxes and is refundable. The credit is capped at $511 per day for the amount paid to self-employed individuals who are under quarantine, are advised to self-quarantine, or have symptoms and are seeking a diagnosis.

For amounts paid to employees caring for a quarantined individual, or a son or daughter whose school or day care center has closed or whose child care provider is unavailable due to coronavirus, the credit is capped at $200 per day.

The aggregate number of days in a period cannot exceed 10, reduced by the number of days previously used.

To calculate the qualified sick leave equivalent amount, an eligible self-employed individual may only take into account those days that the individual is unable to work and is eligible for emergency paid sick leave.

Self-employed individuals must maintain documentation to establish their eligibility for the tax credit.

The qualified sick leave equivalent is reduced to the extent that the qualified sick leave equivalent, plus the qualified sick leave wages from an employer, exceeds $5,110 or $2,000, as applicable (depending on the basis for the sick leave).

Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act

Employers with fewer than 500 employees, and government employers, must provide each employee who has been employed for at least 30 days with 12 weeks of mostly paid family and medical leave if he or she is unable to work or telework because the employee needs to care for his or her son or daughter, who is under the age of 18, if the child’s school or place of care has been closed, or the child-care provider is unavailable due to a coronavirus declared emergency. That is, it appears that if a parent is at home to take care of a child who is at home because of a coronavirus emergency, and the parent is able to work remotely from home, the parent will not be entitled to the leave. Note that this Act adds an additional basis for taking FMLA leave (loss of child care), but does not increase the length of FMLA leave.

Rehired employees who were laid off no earlier than March 1, 2020, can be eligible immediately if they had at least 30 calendar days of work for the employer, out of the last 60 days, prior to their layoff. In other words, if an employer has had to lay off some employees, the employer can rehire them and put them on paid leave subject to the FMLA Expansion Act without their having to work an additional thirty days.

Employees may take paid family and medical leave after they take the emergency paid sick leave described above. The first 10 days for which an employee takes leave under the FMLA Expansion Act may consist of unpaid leave, but if the employee qualifies for the emergency paid sick leave, the employee may get paid for those 10 days under the Sick Leave Act. An employee may elect to substitute any accrued vacation leave, personal leave, or medical or sick leave for unpaid leave.

Healthcare providers and emergency responders are not required to provide paid family leave to employees. Also, employers with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from the paid family and medical leave requirements if the provision of the paid family and medical leave would jeopardize the business as a going concern. Employers seeking an exemption should carefully document how paid family and medical leave would jeopardize the business. Employers who would not otherwise be employers under the FMLA are excluded from civil enforcement actions by employees.

At present, employees who are laid off before the paid family and medical leave requirements go into effect, will not be eligible for paid family and medical leave. Employees who are furloughed on or after April 1, 2020, are also ineligible for paid family and medical leave. If an employer closes its worksite on or after April 1, 2020, employees will also be ineligible for paid family medical leave.

After the first 10 days of expanded family and medical leave, employees must receive a benefit from their employers equal to two-thirds of the employee’s regular rate of pay times the number of hours the employee would otherwise be normally scheduled to work, with special rules for making this calculation for employees with a variable hourly schedule. Benefits shall not exceed $200 per day, or $10,000 in the aggregate, per employee.

Employers that contribute to multiemployer plans may fulfill their obligations under the Sick Leave Act (if consistent with the collective bargaining agreement) by making contributions to the multiemployer plan based on the paid leave that each of its employees is entitled to receive under the collective bargaining agreement. Employees who work under a collective bargaining agreement may secure pay from the fund, plan, or program based on the hours they have worked under the collective bargaining agreement.

If the credit exceeds the employer’s total liability under the employer’s portion of the social security tax for all employees for any calendar quarter, the excess credit is refundable to the employer. Employers may elect to not have the credit apply. No deduction is allowed for the amount of the tax credit. No tax credit is allowed with respect to wages for which a credit is allowed under Section 45S, which provides a tax credit for certain paid family and medical leave.

Requirements for Group Health Plans

Group health plans and insurers offering health insurance coverage must cover, may not impose any cost-sharing requirements (e.g., deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance) for, and may not impose any prior authorization or other medical management requirements on, the following items and services:

Products used to test for COVID-19 and the administration of such products, if:

  1. a test has been approved by the FDA;
  2. the developer of a test has submitted it – or intends to submit it – for FDA approval;
  3. a test has been developed in and authorized by a state that has notified the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) that it intends to review such tests; or
  4. any other test that the Secretary of HHS determines should be covered, in appropriate guidance;
  5. Items and services furnished to an individual during visits to a health care (including telehealth), urgent care center, or emergency room that result in COVID-19 testing; and

Any “qualifying coronavirus preventive service,” that is:

  • An “evidence-based” item or service, with a rating of A or B in the recommendations of the United States  Preventive Services Task Force (the “Task Force”), or
  • An immunization recommended for the individual receiving it by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the “Committee”).

Payment by the plan or insurer for diagnostic testing must be at payment rates negotiated before the Emergency was declared, if such rates have been negotiated. Otherwise, payment will be at the testing provider’s cash price as listed by the provider on a public Internet Website, or at a negotiated rate that is less than that price. There is a specific requirement for each provider of COVID-19 tests to post its cash price for the test on a public Internet Website, and a provider can be fined up to $300 for each day during the declared emergency that the requirement is violated.

The above testing provisions were effective March 18, 2020, and expire when the Secretary of HHS determines that the Emergency has ended. The requirement to cover a qualifying coronavirus preventive service is effective 15 business days after the date the recommendation is made by the task force or committee in question, and appears to be permanent.

HSAs, FSAs, HRAs, and Archer MSAs

For plan years beginning on or before December 31, 2021, telehealth and other remote care services will be able to be provided by a plan without charging a deductible, and doing so will not disqualify a person eligible for such services from making HSA contributions.

Also, certain over-the-counter items will be allowed to be paid for by HSA, FSA, HRA, and Archer MSA funds whether or not they have been prescribed. In addition, menstrual care products will be considered as medical expenses for purposes of being able to be paid by HSAs. This applies to amounts paid from HSAs and Archer MSAs after December 31, 2019; with respect to FSAs and HRAs, it applies to expenses incurred on or after December 31, 2019.

Conclusion

Paid sick leave and paid family and medical leave is available to eligible employees on April 1, 2020. Any wages required to be paid under the Sick Leave Act and the FMLA Expansion Act will not be considered wages for purposes of the employer’s portion of the social security tax. However, the tax credits described above (other than the tax credits available for self-employed individuals) are increased by the Medicare surtax on qualified sick leave wages and qualified family medical leave wages, subject to the no double benefit rule, as described above, precluding taking a tax deduction for such amount.

At present, there are a number of questions regarding these leaves and the tax credits, which hopefully will be addressed in guidance very soon.

Additional guidance regarding paid sick leave and paid family and medical leave is expected. Guidance already issued from the Department of Labor includes a notice that must be posted in a conspicuous location (e.g., with other labor law posters). Click here for a copy of the notice.

In addition to the leave requirements, employer group health plans will be required to pay for COVID-19 testing and vaccinations. For testing providers that do not have negotiated network arrangements, the plan must pay their cash rate of pay, but that rate of pay must be posted on a public Website. Also, telehealth services can be provided without cost-sharing, and without disqualifying the recipients for HSA contributions, and over-the-counter drugs and medical supplies can be paid by HSAs, FSAs, HRAs, and Archer MSAs.

Withdrawals and Loans from Defined Contribution Retirement Plans

March 30, 2020

In reaction to the current volatility in the economy due to the coronavirus pandemic, we have been receiving a large number of questions from defined contribution plan sponsors regarding ways participants can access money in their accounts. While recognizing such leakage may cause future headaches for participants in their retirement, many individuals do not have the resources to weather this storm and have no other option but to access their retirement accounts.

In-service withdrawals. Many defined contribution plans permit in-service withdrawals. Such withdrawals generally can be provided without restriction from rollover accounts, upon attainment of age 59-1/2 and in the event of a financial hardship. Although salary deferral contributions and safe harbor contributions cannot be distributed unless or until a participant attains age 59-1/2, becomes disabled or terminates employment, plans with profit sharing features can provide in-service withdrawals under other situations. For example, participants may be able to withdraw vested profit sharing amounts if they have been plan participants for at least five years or if the contributions have been in the plan for at least two years.

With respect to hardship withdrawals, not every state has been declared a national emergency for which hardship withdrawals are available under the IRS’s “safe harbor” deemed reasons, and even then an individual has to live and/or work in an affected area for which FEMA will provide individual assistance. In addition, participants could separately satisfy one or more of the deemed hardship situations in the plan – for medical care and expenses, to prevent foreclosure, to pay tuition, etc. Hardship withdrawals are generally subject to ordinary income taxes and a 10% early distribution penalty tax if taken before the participant attains age 59-1/2.

Plan sponsors also may make coronavirus-related distributions available. As noted in our explanation of the CARES Act, coronavirus-related distributions are available at any time during calendar 2020 by an individual (i) who is diagnosed with COVID-19 by a CDC-approved test, (ii) whose spouse or dependent is diagnosed with COVID-19 by a CDC-approved test, (iii) who “experiences adverse financial consequences as a result of being quarantined, being furloughed or laid off, or having work hours reduced due to” COVID-19, (iv) who is unable to work due to COVID-19 child care issues, (v) who has closed or reduced hours in a business owned or operated by the individual, due to COVID-19, or (vi) who has experienced other factors as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury. The administrator of the plan may rely on the individual’s certification that the individual qualifies for a coronavirus-related distribution under these categories.

The 10% early distribution penalty tax will not apply to such distributions up to $100,000. The amount distributed may be re-contributed to that plan or another plan within three years after the date the distribution is received, and if the individual does not re-contribute the distribution within that time period, taxes on the distribution may be spread over a 3-year period. Federal income tax withholding is not required on a coronavirus-related distribution, and a direct rollover need not be offered.

Participants whose employment is terminated usually can take a distribution of their entire vested account balance from a defined contribution plan. Also, if a partial plan termination occurs, terminated participants will have to be made fully vested in their accounts. A partial plan termination may occur if one or a series of employer-initiated employment terminations (permanent layoffs and reductions in force) affects 20% or more of the workforce; we explain the mechanics of partial plan terminations in our article “Partial Plan Terminations of Qualified Plans” (The ASPPA Journal, Winter 2010).

Loans. Many defined contributions plans permit participants to borrow against their vested plan accounts. Participants might not recognize negative implications of taking a loan from a plan, which include: initial issuance and annual fees, missing out on growth through tax-deferred earnings, selling investments at bottom of market, making repayments from after-tax amounts, and the potential taxes and penalties resulting from default or if repayments are missed.

However, a participant with an outstanding plan loan who is placed on an unpaid leave of absence may forego making loan payments during the leave of absence without triggering taxation of the loan, provided the following requirements are met:

  1. The unpaid leave of absence does not exceed one year.
  2. The loan must still be repaid by the end of the original term of the loan. Thus, the participant may make up the missed loan repayments upon returning to work, resume the original repayments with a lump sum payment of the missed repayments at the end of the term, or increase the amount of each repayment for the remainder of the repayment period upon returning to work.

Subject to the plan’s loan policy (as it may be amended), participants also may continue to make repayments from their personal accounts, provided the trustee will accept direct checks or electronic transfers. If participants are already making repayments from their personal accounts, the plan administrator can confirm whether the plan’s loan policy permits suspension of repayments, and notify affected participants accordingly.

Also note that participants who are laid off/terminated generally have until the end of the calendar quarter following the calendar quarter in which repayments are missed to cure the missed repayments. Otherwise, the participant will be taxed on the balance of the loan. However, employers may permit terminated employees to continue to make loan repayments, either from severance pay or from their personal accounts, but the plan’s loan policy must provide for the ability to make such repayments.

Plan sponsors may amend their plan documents or loan policies to provide added flexibility within limits, including, in addition to the repayment options noted above, allowing participants to take more loans than are currently offered or additional money types that might otherwise be restricted.

Plan sponsors also may modify their plan documents or loan policies to reflect changes made by the CARES Act. As noted in our explanation of the CARES Act, legal limitations on loans from qualified plans have been relaxed. For example, the limit on loans is increased from 50% of a participant’s vested account balance up to $50,000, to 100% of the participant’s vested account balance up to $100,000 for loans to “qualified individuals” made during the 180-day period from the date of enactment. A “qualified individual” is one who could meet the same coronavirus-related tests discussed above for coronavirus-related distributions.

The CARES Act also allows the plan to delay the due date for any repayment by a “qualified individual” of a participant loan that would occur from the date of enactment through December 31, 2020, for up to one year. Later repayments for such loans are adjusted to reflect the delayed due date and any interest accruing during such delay. The delay period is ignored in determining the 5-year maximum period for such loan.

The long-term prospects for the economy are uncertain, but the immediate short-term impact of the current degradation in economic growth has been significant. Employers may take steps to allow participants to access amounts in their defined contribution plan accounts. The Wagner Law Group can provide whatever assistance is needed to review and revise plan documents, draft amendments and prepare employee communications for employers wishing to expand the availability of in-service withdrawals or loans.

Retirement Plan Provisions of CARES Act

March 27, 2020

The third COVID-19 stimulus package has provisions regarding retirement plans, including expanded and penalty-free withdrawal rights, expanded loan rights, extended rights to repay loans and withdrawals, and a deferral of mandatory distributions.

Coronavirus-Related Distributions

The 10% early distribution penalty from retirement plans and IRAs under Section 72(t) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) will not apply to “coronavirus-related distributions” up to $100,000 per person from the person’s retirement plan accounts. The amount distributed may be re-contributed to the retirement plan, or to another plan, within three years after the date the distribution is received, without regard to any plan limit on contributions. If the individual does not re-contribute the distribution within that time period, taxation on the distribution may be spread over a 3-year period. Federal income tax withholding is not required on a coronavirus-related distribution, and a direct rollover need not be offered.

A coronavirus-related distribution may be taken at any time in calendar year 2020, by an individual (i) who is diagnosed with COVID-19 by a CDC-approved test, (ii) whose spouse or dependent is diagnosed with COVID-19 by a CDC-approved test, (iii) who “experiences adverse financial consequences as a result of being quarantined, being furloughed or laid off, or having work hours reduced due to” COVID-19, (iv) who is unable to work due to COVID-19 child care issues, (v) who has closed or reduced hours in a business owned or operated by the individual, due to COVID-19, or (vi) who has experienced other factors as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury. The administrator of the plan may rely on the individual’s certification that the individual qualifies for a coronavirus-related distribution under these categories.

Loans from Qualified Plans

The $50,000 loan limit, for loans from qualified plans to “qualified individuals” made during the 180-day period from the date of enactment, is increased to $100,000, and the cap of 50% of the present value of the vested benefit is increased to 100% of such present value.

The due date for any repayment by a “qualified individual” of a participant loan that would occur from the date of enactment through December 31, 2020, is delayed for up to one year. Later repayments for such loan are also adjusted “appropriately” to reflect the prior delayed due date “and any interest accruing during such delay.” The delay period is ignored in determining the 5-year maximum period for such loan.

A “qualified individual” who could be eligible for these expanded loan limits and loan delays is one who could meet the same coronavirus-related tests as discussed above for coronavirus-related distributions.

Plan Amendments

A plan may be amended to provide for these expanded distribution and loan options. Plan amendments for both the coronavirus-related distribution and plan loan provisions need not be made until at least the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022. The due date for amendments to governmental plans is two years later than such date.

Minimum Required Distributions

Minimum distributions otherwise required in 2020 from defined contribution plans need not be made. Minimum distributions with required beginning dates in calendar year 2020, which have not yet been made by January 1, 2020, and which are required from defined contribution plans, need not be made in 2020. This waiver is applicable to (i) defined contribution 401(a) qualified plans, (ii) defined contribution 403(a) and 403(b) plans, (iii) governmental defined contribution 457(b) plans, and (iv) individual retirement accounts. If this provision is treated in the same manner as the analogous 2009 relief, a plan sponsor may have discretion as to whether it should be adopted.

Plan amendments for these provisions are not required until the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022 (January 1, 2024 for governmental plans).

Defined Benefit Plan Funding Requirements

Single employer defined benefit plan funding requirements for 2020, including quarterly contributions, may be deferred until January 1, 2021, at which time they must be paid with interest. In determining the application of benefit restrictions in plan years containing the 2020 calendar year, a plan sponsor may elect to apply the plan’s 2019 funded status.

© 2020 Wagner Law Group.

The Big Sick Leave: How Bad Will The Economy Get?

“Don’t let the cure be worse than the disease.”

The disease in that expression refers to the death toll from COVID-19. The cure refers to the induced coma of physical-distancing that holds much of the US economy in suspense for an unknowable length of time, threatening a recession or even depression.

As one writer put it, we face a trade-off between “lives and livelihoods.” Suppressing the disease means suppressing the economy. We can minimize the economic damage by returning to work. But if we go back to work, we infect more people and maximize the death toll.

Even with widespread self-quarantine, the disease produces more victims than hospitals can handle. COVID-19 mainly victimizes the old and immune-compromised. But the virus is just fickle enough in choosing whom to kill that even healthy people feel (justifiably) anxious and vulnerable.

Governors, mayors and the White House sense the public’s wish to put people first. But what will the economic effects be? How long could a recession last? What will it cost? Who will bear the costs? Can government and business cooperate to limit the economic pain?

Economic forecasts

Economists in the public and private sectors are working overtime—presumably from their homes—to make projections. Overall, they’re not sure whether we’ll have a V-shaped crisis that’s deep but brief, a U-shaped crisis that’s deep but longer, or an L-shaped crisis similar to Greece’s depression after 2010.

32% unemployment possible. On March 24, an economist at the St. Louis Federal Reserve estimated that the U.S. unemployment rate could swell to 32% during the second quarter of this year, with almost 53 million people out of work. He added the current number of unemployed Americans, 5.76 million, to an estimated 47 million people in high-contact jobs— sales, production, food service, barbers and hairstylists, flight attendants and others—who are likely to be laid off.

A 2% drop in consumption, bottoming out after 29 weeks. If 215 million Americans get infected and 2.2 million die, “We find that the epidemic causes a relatively mild recession,” write a team of academics at Northwestern University and the Freie Universitat Berlin in a new article. “Aggregate consumption falls by roughly 2% from peak to trough, with the latter occurring 29 weeks after the onset of the infection. In the long-run, population and real GDP decline permanently by 0.65% reflecting the death toll from the epidemic.”

A 14% drop in consumption for 50 weeks. But the same team adds that if the U.S. takes severe containment measures, prolonging a national quarantine until a vaccine or treatment appears, then “a very large, persistent recession: consumption falls by about 14% for roughly 50 weeks” might occur. On the plus side, this policy would prevent an estimated 250,000 to 600,000 deaths.

Real US GDP is likely to be flat in 2020: “The impact of social distancing on consumer spending activity and a knockdown effect on business investment, together with the oil price hit on capital investments in energy infrastructure and expanded travel bans, likely means a -1.0% reading in the first quarter and a large contraction of 6.0% for GDP growth in the second, signaling recession for the U.S.,” write analysts at S&P Global Ratings.

“For the year, we now forecast real GDP is likely to be flat in 2020 (versus our +1.9% forecast before the virus). We continue to expect a slow U-shaped recovery in the second half following a second-quarter slump,” they added, noting, “Uncertainty in our estimates of growth in 2020 is higher than usual.”

The US economy will contract by 2.8% this year, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit. The EIU also expected China’s real GDP growth to stand at only 1% in 2020, compared with 6.1% in 2019. The eurozone will post a full-year recession of 5.9%, including recessions in Germany (-6.8%), France (-5%) and Italy (-7%). In Latin America, Argentina (-6.7%), Brazil (-5.5%), and Mexico (-5.4%) are predicted to experience recessions.

An S&P target range of 1,800-2,000 by summer. The global research firm TS Lombard said in a March 31 bulletin, “We reckon investors are currently too optimistic about the post-virus recovery on the back of policymakers’ responses. Rather than a bounce in activity, we expect a slow re-opening of the economy in tandem with continued social distancing… This means valuations are unlikely to recover quickly, and means the decline after this dead cat bounce is likely to make new lows.”

How long till it’s over?

No one expects the crisis to resolve before the summer. Assuming that no effective vaccine or treatment appears suddenly, we’re probably in for a long campaign, possibly interrupted with new flare-ups in places that the initial waves of the pandemic missed.

“Even under severe social distancing scenarios, it is likely that the health system will be overwhelmed, which is indicated to happen when the portion of the U.S. population actively infected and suffering from the disease reaches 1% (about 3.3 million current cases),” writes economist Andrew Atkeson of UCLA.

“More severe mitigation efforts do push the date at which this happens back from six months from now to 12 months from now or more, perhaps allowing time to invest heavily in the resources needed to care for the sick,” he adds.

“Under almost all of the scenarios considered, at the peak of the disease progression, between 10% and 20% of the population (33 to 66 million people) suffers from an active infection at the same time. In the model simulations, this peak infection period occurs between seven and 14 months from now.”

© 2020 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Protect Your Nest Egg with Options

Americans have now experienced the hazards of investing for a second time in 12 years, but unfortunately, they’ve rarely taken advantage of the protections that institutions enjoy. Investors saw as much as a third of their nest eggs disappear in 2008. This year, coronavirus has already taken a quarter of what many had accumulated.

Back in 2008, many individual investors and retirement plan participants dumped their investments only to find that, when the market came roaring back, they were not part of the rapid recovery. Instead, these investors did not reenter the market until prices had risen without them.

This habit of dumping investments in the face of a crisis and then missing the recovery is the main reason that individual investors do not earn as much as institutions. But holding on to investments in a crisis is not the only reason institutions do better. They also buy protection in the event that the market fails to recover!

The protection that institutions use is generally not offered to individuals or plan participants. No one—including most financial advisers—ever explains to them how this works or provides a simple way of obtaining it. But we’re about to show you how to do so.

How institutions protect their investments

The fund managers at institutions know that investment markets rise and fall, sometimes farther than other times. They also realize that over time the rising is more than the falling. The institutions also know that there are a large number of investors who make bets on the market activity.

Just like the football pool at the office or workshop, some people win their bets and others lose. Knowing all this, institutions place their bets on both sides. In that way, “Heads I win, tails you lose.” Not a bad way to do business, if you can do it. And yes, you can.

Protecting plan participants

The “bets” are known as options. Thousands of different options exist, some that bet on the markets to rise and others that bet on a decline. Some bet on specific stocks or commodities and others bet on the market as a whole.

For most individual investors, it is enough to buy protection against a decline, since their investments (as opposed to the options themselves) will reward them when the market rises. While individuals can buy protection against a decline in the value of their own investments, this is both difficult and unnecessary.

It is difficult because this would require a customized bet, and not all individuals have enough assets to justify the expense of a customized bet. It is unnecessary because they can buy less expensive generic bets, called index options, which pay off when the value of the market as a whole goes down.

The most widely used index options are options on movements of the S&P 500 Index. These come in two basic varieties, but individuals and plan participants need only consider the bet known as a “put,” which pays when the market declines.

You need to answer four key questions in order to protect yourself against market declines with an S&P 500 Index Put:

  • Where does one buy an S&P 500 Index Put?
  • How many of these Puts are needed?
  • What is the cost?
  • What are the risks?
Purchasing an S&P 500 Index Put

The S&P 500 Index Put is a security that can be purchased through most brokerage firms.

Index puts may be available to plan participants if their plan has a self-directed brokerage (SDBA) feature and they have a brokerage account that permits options. Outside of a plan, individuals can purchase puts through a discount brokerage account or, with their adviser’s help, through the adviser’s broker-dealer.

How much to buy?

Either way, an investor needs to buy sufficient puts to cover up to 100% of the potential losses on their investments. (As with any type of insurance, the potential loss depends on the value of the asset, the degree of coverage, and the duration of the coverage.) This coverage will be needed for as long as the market is expected to decline. Market recoveries usually occur within three months after an initial decline. To be covered all the time, investors can buy puts that expire and renew annually.

Each put has a strike price that represents the level of the bet that’s make. For cost-effective protection, use a strike price that is “at the money,” or close to the current price of the index. If the strike price is “out of the money,” or higher that the current price of the index, protection will cost more.

If the strike price is lower than the current price of the index (an “out of the money” put), the put will cost less but protection will also be less. Investors and their advisers can calculate the number of puts, expiration and strike price themselves or with any of several available online tool.

Cost of Index Puts

For the index put to be worthwhile, the cost must be far less than the potential loss. The cost of “at the money” puts ranges from 1% to 3% of the amount at risk, depending on the expiration date and the market volatility at the time. This means that the index put becomes profitable if the market declines 1% to 3% or more.

If the value of the investments falls farther than that, the profit from the put will pay for any additional market loss in the investments. If the market rises, the value of the investments increases and covers the cost of the puts.

This cost of 2% (average of 1% to 3%) lowers investment returns to a far lesser extent than using cash or bonds for protection. Historically (since 1928), a protective allocation to cash has lowered equity returns by 7.6% and to bonds has lowered equity returns by 6.1%.

Risks of Index Puts

Options are bets and therefore can be risky, depending on how they are used. The use described in this article is potentially the safest possible use of options. In fact, the risks here are less than the risks of the investments themselves.

Risks are neutralized by:

  • Diversification; achieved by buying a put on a broad-based market index.
  • Not using leverage; the options are not financed with borrowed money, but are backed by the investor’s own assets.
  • Liquidity; achieved by using the S&P500 Index, the most popular index in the world.
  • Trading convenience; the option can be purchased or sold on any trading day.
Conclusion

Use of index puts to protect individual investments is a drag on portfolio performance over the long term. But they help investors avoid the market shocks that occur periodically and cause them to act imprudently in trying to escape volatile markets. For this reason, it is highly prudent for plan sponsors and financial advisers to offer such protection to participants or clients who seek a less bumpy path to retirement income security.

Note: Over recent days, stock prices have benefited from quarter-end rebalancing strategies and a rebound from the fastest drawdown in stock prices ever. However, we believe investors should prepare for more volatility once we move through this short-term market dynamic.

As long as the U.S. remains in a health crisis, the market is unlikely to calm down in a more lasting fashion. Covid-19 cases are growing, and at an uneven pace across the country. It is also unlikely that America as a whole will return to regular activity over the next few weeks. This point alone increases the risk economic/market activity could be volatile, and unpredictable at times.

© 2020 DALBAR. Used by permission.

The ‘Fed Put’ Hurts Annuities—and Retirees

In 2018, a light flashed at the end of a long tunnel of low interest rates. By December of that year, the Fed funds rate had ticked incrementally up, to 2.4% from 1.4%. The yield on 10-year Treasury bonds reached 3.23%. The yield on AAA corporate bonds pierced the 4% barrier.

I started feeling optimistic about Boomer retirement.

If the Fed stayed the course set by chair Janet Yellen (who raised rates from 0.07% in February 2014 to 1.42% in February 2018) and maintained by her successor, Jerome Powell, bonds and annuities had increasingly attractive yields. U.S. retirees might have low-risk, inflation-beating alternatives to stocks after a long drought.

But that light at the end of the tunnel was an oncoming train—perhaps the “R” train to Whitehall Street in Manhattan’s financial district.

In 4Q2018, as the Fed funds rate tightened to 2.2%, there was an equities sell-off. The S&P500 fell 17.5% (to 2,416 from 2,929). Perceiving the swoon as a political liability, President Trump floated a trial balloon about firing Powell.

Despite the Fed’s supposed “independence,” Powell flinched. He reversed the tightening policy and lowered the Fed funds rate three times in 2019. The S&P500 would roar to 3,380 by the following February—a gain of 40% in less than 14 months. Then along came a pandemic, and the index fell 35%, inspiring a rate cut to zero.

The ‘Fed Put’

You’ve heard of the “Fed put.” It’s shorthand for Alan Greenspan’s accommodative Fed policy—a sharp drop in the Fed funds rate—in response to financial market crises starting in the late 1980s. Traders came to expect Fed to ease rates to relieve a slump in stock and bond prices. The expression isn’t necessarily complimentary. It implies an unhealthy codependency, conducive to moral hazard, between the Fed and the equity markets.

History of Fed Funds rate

The Fed’s accommodation of the Street has been terrible for annuity issuers, pension funds and aging Boomers who need safe, viable alternatives to the stock market to fund their retirements. Three times over the past two decades, falling rates have come to the aid of the markets, and subsequently rising rates have triggered crashes. This volatility is great for traders. It’s a nightmare for the rest of us.

COVID-19 will inevitably take the blame for the 2020 stock crash (and the recession or even depression that may follow). Of course that’s a big factor. But Fed accommodation helped pump the S&P500 Index up by an unwarranted 33% after December 2018. It was ripe for profit-taking when the coronavirus pandemic struck the U.S., and fell 35% in two weeks.

Now we’re back to zero rates. If we follow the roller-coaster pattern set over the last 20 years, we’ll see another rise in stocks, then a reach for yield and over-leveraging, then a cautious tightening until, Boom, the Jenga pile collapses again and we’re back to low rates. It’s getting old, and so are the Boomers.

Letter to Financial Times

Desmond Lachman, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), former Salomon Smith Barney economist, International Monetary Fund official, and lecturer at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins, is also fed-up with this whipsaw. In response to a March 18 op-ed piece in the Financial Times by Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen, Lachman wrote:

The Federal Reserve’s monetary policy under their watch might have set us up for the financial market turmoil that we are experiencing today. Along with the world’s other major central banks, it did so by creating a global equity bubble and by causing the gross mispricing of credit risk as investors were encouraged to stretch for yield.

On the basis of their experience, it would have been both helpful and timely had the former Fed chairs cautioned that we should not repeat the mistake of responding to the current economic and financial market crisis as we did to the last one by putting an undue burden on monetary policy for promoting the next economic recovery.

Lachman was scheduled to participate in an AEI-sponsored panel discussion last Wednesday entitled, “Is this global credit and asset price bubble really different?” The panel’s premise was that “Many years of ultra-easy monetary policy by the world’s major central banks have boosted global debt to record levels, supported a worldwide equity market boom, and reduced interest rates to unprecedentedly low levels. This event will consider how the current credit and asset market bubble might end and how policymakers should be preparing themselves for that ending.”

Ironically, this timely panel was cancelled due to the coronavirus.

“They got the economy moving after 2008 by creating an asset bubble,” Lachman said in a phone interview with RIJ last Monday. “They encouraged people to take on a huge amount of risk and lend to borrowers in ways that didn’t compensate for the risk of default. We should have had helicopter money in 2008-2009 instead of the Fed distorting financial markets.”

By reducing rates to almost zero, and forcing investors to reach for yield by taking on more risk, the central banks have only set the US and European economies up for a bigger bust in the future. “I think were in the ‘bigger bust’ now,” Lachman said. “And we’re going to repeat the same scenario. They’ll do all sort of things to prop up assets, and that will set us up for another fall.”

Analysis of FOMC records

This month, Anna Cieslak of The Fuqua School of Business at Duke and Annette Vissing-Jorgensen of California-Berkeley’s Haas School of Business published a paper on Fed policy up to 2016 in the article, “The Economics of the Fed Put” (NBER Working Paper 26894).

The investing public is aware of the presence of a Fed put, they found, basing their conclusion on reviews of news reports and minutes or transcripts of the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee). “We show that since the mid-1990s the Fed has engaged in a sequence of policy easing following large stock market declines in the intermeeting period. We refer to this pattern as a ‘Fed put,’ by which we mean policy accommodation following poor stock returns,” they write.

But the Fed, they believe, behaves responsibly. It lowers rates out of concern that a falling equity market will lead to a smaller “wealth effect,” reduced personal consumption, a slower economy, and weaker corporate earnings, they conclude.

“We find that negative stock returns predict target changes [Fed funds rate reductions] mostly due to their strong correlation with downgrades to the Fed growth expectations and the Fed’s assessment of current economic growth,” Cieslak and Vissing-Jorgensen write.

From internal Fed communications through 2016, they don’t find evidence that the Fed has over-reacted to stock market changes, or that the majority of governors believe that they’re encouraging moral hazard (i.e., stimulating excessive risk-taking) by traders by lowering rates.

“While the FOMC [Federal Open Market Committee, which alters the Fed funds rate by buying or selling Treasury bonds] is clearly aware of the potential moral hazard effects of loose policy, especially post-crisis, such concerns do not appear to have a major impact on actual policy choices,” the paper says.

In an interview with RIJ, however, Cieslak noted that traders perceive that a Fed put exists, and dissenting voices on the FOMC have expressed concern that this perception encourages excessive risk-taking.

“If you believe that increased leverage is one sign of excessive risk-taking, there is some evidence of this going on in the broker-dealer sector before the 2008 financial crisis,” she said. “But we don’t see it happening after the financial crisis.”

Back to zero

At the end of 2018, Fed chair Powell should have stood up to President Trump and continued on the path of tightening that Janet Yellen had set. Instead, by lowering rates, the Fed reinforced a dysfunctional pattern. It also ensured another long interest rate drought for the guaranteed retirement products industry.

In order to provide retirees with annuities that have value, life/annuity companies need interest rates that are high enough and stable enough to give their investments in superior bonds a reasonable return. In December 2018, I thought we were approaching that sweet spot. Now I doubt that we’ll get there in my lifetime.

© 2020 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Investors flee to bonds: Morningstar

Investors backed away from U.S. equity funds and turned to perceived safe havens like bonds and cash in February, after the S&P 500 turned down sharply amid fears of the coronavirus pandemic’s damage to the economy, according to Morningstar’s latest report on mutual fund and exchange-traded fund (ETF) flows.

Morningstar’s report about U.S. fund flows for February 2020 is available here. Highlights from the report include:

  • In February, U.S. equity funds shed $17.5 billion amid the stock market’s turmoil, with that group’s actively managed funds suffering nearly $20.0 billion in redemptions. As evidence of investors’ lack of enthusiasm for U.S. equities, a record $27.8 billion flowed out of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF.
  • Taxable-bond funds led category groups with $23.3 billion in inflows in February. Long-government funds had their strongest inflows since early 2019 as investors hedged their equity positions and appeared willing to take interest-rate risk instead of credit risk.
  • Volatile markets also spurred investors to move into cash equivalents such as money market funds, which collected $31.4 billion in February. For the first time since October 2019, money-market funds gathered more assets than long-term funds, which saw $25.5 billion in inflows in February.
  • Among the top-10 largest U.S. fund families, Vanguard led with long-term inflows of $19.8 billion in February. On the other side, SPDR State Street Global Advisors had the worst outflows of any shop—more than $27.0 billion —owing to SPDR S&P 500 ETF’s outflows.

Morningstar estimates net flow for mutual funds by computing the change in assets not explained by the performance of the fund, and net flow for U.S. ETFs shares outstanding and reported net assets.

© 2020 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Another Tough Decade for Annuities?

For millions of older Americans who bought annuities with living benefit riders over the past decade, the terrible event they were insuring themselves against—a stock market crash during their passage through the retirement ‘red zone’—actually happened over the last two weeks.

But how many of these contract owners exercise those riders and initiate guaranteed monthly payments for life? How many will lapse their policies because they need instant cash? What will their advisers tell them to do?

And will the defensive steps taken by surviving variable annuity manufacturers over the past decade—to de-risk, re-price, re-capitalize, or discontinue product lines and diversify into fixed indexed annuities—help them to weather the current crisis? Or will we see a re-run of the restructurings, benefit buy-backs, and ugly publicity that followed the 2008-2009 crisis?

Life insurers tend to be taciturn during times like these. So, to get some perspective, I called actuary Tim Paris of Ruark Consulting, Gary “The Annuity Maestro” Mettler, and Tamiko Toland, research director at CANNEX, the annuity data and analysis shop that supplies up-to-date contract prices to thousands of advisers in the U.S. and Canada.

The ‘R.U.B’: Rider Utilization Behavior

Since the Great Financial Crisis, Ruark Consulting has analyzed data from life insurers to identify utilization behavior patterns among owners of deferred variable and fixed indexed annuities with guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefits (GLWBs) or guaranteed minimum income benefits (GMIBs).

Many factors determine policyholder behavior. But having studied such data for more than 10 years, he’s learned that policyholders are most likely to activate their income riders when the contracts are “in the money” and the contracts no longer benefit from further deferral bonuses. (In this case, a contract is “in the money” when the value of the guaranteed benefit base, which determines monthly income amounts, exceeds the contract’s cash value. This is most likely to happen during an equity market crash.)

“If I were 60-something and I’d been paying rider fees for 10 years and had deliberately delayed taking income in order to get the full bonus, I would think about doing it now,” Paris told RIJ. You’d think that this was fundamental to the offering. Presumably, advisers are telling clients to that.”

Enough time has passed since the peak in sales of deferred variable annuities (VAs) with GLWBs and GMIBs for Ruark to see such a pattern appear. “In the last few years the data has started to go out beyond the 10-year mark,” he said. “We’re now in the 11th and 12th policy years. A lot of contracts have riders that incentivize the owner to defer income for 10 years.

“What we find is that after year 10, once the incentives kick in, that people are five to six times more likely to commence income. Commencement is highly sensitive to the end of the deferral period. I would not be at all surprised that when the market is down 30%, folks will recognize that the product was fundamentally built for this purpose, and say, ‘I’ll take the income now.’”

I asked Paris if VA issuers were likely to suffer as much as they did during the 2010s. “I wouldn’t be too surprised if we had a similar experience this time,” he told me. “It won’t be exactly the same, because carriers are more educated now than they were last time. After the shock of the last crisis, issuers found out how expensive the riders were. That led companies to think along different lines.”

If the Fed keeps interest rates close to zero, however, he added, it will be difficult for carriers to issue attractive products. “With zero rates, I get a ‘shrinking iceberg’ feeling,” he said.

“It will be hard to offer a lifetime income guarantee. There are more levers the carriers could tinker with. The guaranteed floors could go lower, the income payout rates could go down. But you can’t escape the reality that these are the rates and these are the costs and you’re forced to bake them into the product. As a result, the products will won’t look as good.”

At CANNEX, Toland is seeing distributors pulling annuity products off their shelves. New products are not attractive at the prices that life insurers are able to offer right now, and today’s products will look even worse if rates rise and better products eclipse them.

“We’re seeing suspensions of sales of annuities across all product categories, including immediate and deferred income annuities,” Toland told RIJ. “We anticipate more of the same.”

On the other hand, she added, “There’s still an argument to buy an annuity. If someone has to retire now, and needs a guaranteed income, and is worried about sequence of returns risk, there’s still an argument to buy. So there’s going to be a demand regardless of what happens to rates.”

Mettler, an insurance agent who recommends income annuities to his clients, believes that life insurers may be able to bring annuities to market, but they may not be products that agents will want to sell.

“There will still be an annuity market, but the carriers that remain will be overwhelmed by demand,” he said. “They might say that their budget for annuities will be only so much in a given year. And they might hit that mark in the first three months of the year.

“Some might partially withdraw from the market, or they’ll stay in the market with pricing that’s even more terrible than it is now. They might stop issuing contracts to people under 50. There might be no ‘period certains’ longer than 10 years, or no cash refunds. The carriers will find a way to survive. But who will be available to sell the products?”

© 2020 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Can employers contribute less to their retirement plans?

In reaction to the current volatility in the economy due to COVID-19, we have been receiving a large number of questions from retirement plan sponsors regarding whether it is permissible to suspend or reduce required safe-harbor contributions during the plan year.

Many companies have to reduce their expenses and improve cash flow. In recent years many of these companies adopted safe harbor designs for their defined contribution retirement plans in order to satisfy required nondiscrimination and top heavy testing, but these designs impose on the sponsoring company the cost of making required employer safe harbor nonelective contributions or safe harbor matching contributions.

An employer can reduce or suspend its safe harbor contributions during a plan year, but only if certain conditions are met:

  • The employer must either: (a) have included in the required annual safe harbor notice a statement that the plan could be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend safe harbor contributions, or (b) be operating at an economic loss as described in Section 412(c)(2)(A) of the Code, which generally requires that the employer and related employers in the same controlled group would likely need to show that its expenses exceed income for the year using generally accepted accounting principles.
  • The plan sponsor must send a supplemental notice informing participants that the plan will be amended with an explanation of the reduction or suspension of the safe harbor contribution. The suspension or reduction cannot be effective until 30 days after the later of: (a) the date the supplemental notice is distributed to participants, or (b) the effective date of the plan amendment. Participants must have a reasonable opportunity prior to the suspension or reduction of the safe harbor contribution to change their deferral elections, and this opportunity also must be described in the supplemental notice.
  • The plan document must be amended to reduce or suspend the safe harbor contribution and to add the required nondiscrimination testing provisions for the plan year: the “actual deferral percentage” (“ADP”) test for 401(k) plans and the “actual contribution percentage” (“ACP”) test for plans with matching contributions, both of which must use the current-year testing method. The plan also cannot rely on the top-heavy exemption available to safe harbor plans for the plan year in which the safe harbor contributions are suspended or reduced, which means the employer may be required to make a top heavy minimum contribution at the end of the plan year that could potentially exceed the cost of the safe harbor contributions.
  • An employer that suspends or reduces its safe harbor contribution mid-year must pay the safe harbor contribution amount from the beginning of the plan year until the effective date of the change. The annual compensation limit used to calculate the amount of the safe harbor contribution is prorated through the date of suspension.

A few additional considerations also should be kept in mind:

  • If the employer wishes to reinstate the safe harbor provision, another plan amendment and an annual notice may be required before the start of the applicable plan year (see additional comment regarding the SECURE Act below).
  • A plan could lose its tax-qualified status if safe harbor contributions are suspended during a plan year and the IRS determines that all requirements were not met. The employer may further be at risk of being found to have engaged in a prohibited transaction or fiduciary breach by not making its required contributions.
  • Given the current circumstances, the Internal Revenue Service may issue further guidance in this regard.

Additional comment regarding SECURE Act changes to safe harbor nonelective contribution requirements.

The SECURE Act made changes to the safe harbor rules that allow an employer to amend a plan during the plan year or even after the end of a plan year to add safe harbor nonelective contributions without having to provide notice to plan participants before the start of that plan year. It is not clear how the new rules under the SECURE Act will affect an employer that suspends its safe harbor contributions during a plan year and wishes to amend its plan later that same plan year to resume making those contributions and make up the amount owed for the suspension period. The IRS will need to provide guidance to clarify the interplay of these rules.

The long-term prospects for the economy are uncertain, but the immediate short-term impact of the current degradation in economic growth has been significant. Employers must take steps to remain in business, which means reducing expenses, including their contributions to their qualified retirement plans.

The Wagner Law Group can provide whatever assistance is needed to review and revise plan documents, draft amendments and prepare employee communications for employers wishing to suspend or reduce their safe harbor contributions, or to amend their non-safe harbor plans to make mandatory employer contributions discretionary.

© 2020 Wagner Law Group.

‘Dull’ Investments Shine in a Crisis

During bull markets, products like whole life insurance, annuities, and inflation-protected government bonds look too conservative for most investors to bother with. But during bear markets, guaranteed products (and those who recommend them) start to make sense.

RIJ spoke recently with three champions of ultra-safe products. Antoine Orr and Michael Seibert are insurance-licensed representatives of RIAs (Registered Investment Advisors). Zvi Bodie is an emeritus professor of management, pension fund expert and author.

Spoiler alert: You won’t read much here about profiting from the current volatility. Rather, you’ll read about products your clients might wish they bought a year ago, or that they might want to buy after the current crisis passes and before the next one begins.

No risk-free risk premium

Zvi Bodie, a retired pension expert who has taught at Harvard, MIT, and Boston University, and a prolific author of textbooks and popular books on safe investing (Risk Less & Prosper, Wiley, 2011), admits that when the stock market started its multi-decade ascent in the 1980s, he was an avid buyer of equities.

Zvi Bodie

But Bodie got out of the market when the price/earnings (P/E) ratio reached 40 in the late 1990s. Since then, he has invested mainly in equity-indexed certificates of deposit (CDs).

He’s now enthusiastic about I-Bonds, which are tax-deferred, liquid, inflation-protected Treasury savings bonds whose yield tracks inflation. They cannot lose value (though there are small penalties for withdrawals in the first five years), are exempt from state and local taxes, and yield a small fixed interest rate plus the rate of inflation. The current “composite yield” is 2.22%.

“I-Bonds are better than Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS),” he said. “They’re perfect for an emergency fund. The only ‘drawback’ is that you can’t buy more than $10,000 worth per year.”

Bodie has also contested the validity of the gospel that stocks always “pay off in the long run.” If stocks (or baskets of stocks, called indices) were safer the longer you hold them, he has pointed out, then investment banks would happily sell long-dated shortfall put options on them. But no one writes such options; they’d be too expensive. “How can there be a risk premium if there’s no risk?” he often asks.

The source of the confusion, he explained over the phone this week, is what he calls the “Bodie Paradox.” Over any specific time period, “the probability increases that stocks will beat the risk-free rate,” he said, referring to the rate on risk-free Treasury bonds whose maturities match the designated time period.

But, paradoxically, the potential magnitude of an extreme equity market loss grows over time—because unforeseen black-swan events like the COVID-19 pandemic happen from time to time. “Two things determine risk: the likelihood of a bad thing, and the severity of a bad thing,” he said. “When there is a shortfall, it’s really terrible. And you have to take that into account.”

‘Sadly, he’s all in stocks’

Michael Seibert and I met at a modish restaurant near Allentown, PA, called Grille3501. Once a Pennsylvania Dutch eatery called “Trinkle’s,” Grille3501 reflects this small East Coast city’s evolution from Amish-flavored mill town to satellite of New York.

Michael Seibert

Seibert was under some time pressure. The S&P500 Index was falling. Later that afternoon, he would call a nervous new client—a 62-year-old man whose existing wealth consisted of ownership of a successful business, the cash value of a large whole life policy, and a 401(k) account holding $700,000 in equities.

“Sadly, he’s in all stocks,” Seibert told me. “He’s not retiring for four or five more years, so he’s holding on tight. When stocks rebound, whenever that may be, we’ll move some of the money to a fixed income annuity (FIA).”

During crises, he said, “Retirees have four volatility buffers: Cash, the cash value of life insurance—either spending it or borrowing against it—a reverse mortgage line of credit, or taking Social Security earlier than planned.”

Seibert is a representative of 1847Financial, and a national trainer with Wealth Building Cornerstones. He said that his business has blossomed since he positioned himself a few years ago as a retirement income specialist. Recently, he earned his Retirement Income Certified Professional (RICP) designation from The American College and started following the teachings of the College’s Wade Pfau—who recently wrote a paper on the potential synergies between life insurance and annuities in retirement.

He’s trying to deliver those synergies to his new 62-year-old client. As the client approaches retirement, Seibert may recommend that he follow a “covered assets” strategy.

This move involves taking advantage of a client’s whole life policy to buy a single or joint-and-survivor income annuity with other savings—but only if the client is healthy and has a substantial life-expectancy. The purchase premium of the annuity and the death benefit of the life policy are roughly equal, so that the client and his family are equally and simultaneously protected from mortality risk and longevity risk.

‘C’ stands for control

Antoine Orr’s clients are likely to be middle-class people who need to get out of debt and save before they invest. Perhaps lacking enough investable assets to attract asset-based advisers, or perhaps very conservative, they’re part of the vast market traditionally served by commission-based, insurance-driven advisers.

Antoine Orr

Orr is president of Plancorr Wealth Management in Nottingham, Maryland and West Palm Beach, Florida. He’s both an insurance agent and an IAR (Investment Advisor Representative), as well as author of the 2009 book, “Inside the Huddle,” and creator of the IVEST LLC marketing system.

“LLC” stands for Liquidity, Leverage and Control. “First, there’s liquidity. When you’re liquid, you can jump on any opportunity or need that arises without going into debt,” Orr told RIJ. “Second, we want to find out if you can borrow against an asset without interrupting its growth. The last issue is control: Do you control the outcome, the fees, the preservation of the asset, and taxes on the back end? Most people don’t have liquidity or leverage or control.”

Orr said that his clients often “feel powerless on the way to prosperity.” They’re contributing to 401(k) accounts, making extra mortgage payments, and paying down credit card debt.

But they’re also paying fees and interest and accumulating a future tax liability. “People feel like they’re held hostage by their finances, and I’m there to help them negotiate their way out of that. I say, ‘Only put money in to stocks after you’ve paid down your non-mortgage debt, strengthened your free cash flow, are highly liquid, and have leverage and control over your assets.’ Once we’ve taken care of the foundation, then we can talk about stocks and P/E ratios. Even if they don’t make money there, they’ll be OK.”

Right-size the lifeboats

If you’ve never sold insurance or you consider Treasury bonds too stingy with yield, or if you don’t like “products” and never accept commissions from life insurers, then the strategies described above probably won’t make much sense to you. They may seem too safe or, in the case of insurance, too self-serving.

Indeed, carrying a lot of whole life insurance or inflation-protected bonds may also seem absurd—like sailing on a ship with lifeboats bigger than the ship itself. But none of the three experts cited here suggests that safe assets should constitute the bulk of every portfolio.

My big takeaway from talking to these three retirement specialists is that most people, particularly younger workers and pre-retirees, should make sure they have a foundation of safe assets before they start taking risks. As many people learn the hard way, it’s much easier to establish a safe foundation before a crisis than after a crisis begins.

© 2020 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

An Imperfect Demand Stimulus

What is happening today may be likened to a hurricane or a tornado, but one that affects every city, town and county in the country, as well as the rest of the world, at the same time. Because so many workers simply cannot report to work, the economy’s effective capacity will shrink drastically for a time, in the same way that the ability of a small island’s economy to produce is devastated temporarily by a hurricane.

Unlike a small island economy, however, there can be no prospect of external aid. Even if the textbook Keynesian response would work in more normal times, it cannot offset this decline.

However, aggregate demand could still fall well short even of the economy’s reduced capacity. Laid-off workers, especially those living paycheck to paycheck, will have to cut back drastically on their spending on those goods and services that the economy is still capable of producing. Declines in income will be particularly severe for gig workers, and workers in the hospitality and retail sectors. Even households that are spared lay-offs and are not (or have stopped) hoarding will be trying to economize, or will be cutting expenditure on what is no longer available, like a drink at their local bar. The increased efforts to save by many households will not automatically be offset by an increase in business investment, except perhaps for some involuntary inventory accumulation, which will be reversed as inventories mount.

Many workers, especially teachers and other civil servants in government and education, will continue to receive a paycheck even if they are unable to work from home. Some of the households that are financially strapped may benefit from transfers from their parents and grandparents, which will partly mitigate their plight. Households that remain in a comfortable position may also increase their charitable contributions. Nonetheless, millions and millions of workers will find themselves virtually without resources unless the government steps in.

This truly grim economic outlook has led some commentators to argue that the economic suffering entailed by concerted and strong action to control the virus may outweigh the pain and suffering of those who end up sick or who die. Comparisons with the Great Depression, which lasted for a decade, are made, but are surely exaggerated. This writer believes that if strong public action can stop the spread of COVID-19 before many months have passed, even a huge increase in unemployment can be reversed.

What should be done?

In this writer’s view, economic policy should be geared to preventing a further fall in aggregate demand below the economy’s reduced capacity level, and to helping those households with the lowest and least secure incomes, including one-person households. In addition to assisting hospitals and medical workers obtain the supplies they so desperately need, assistance from the federal, state and local governments to businesses and to households is urgently needed, in the form of loans, grants and transfers.

The news media report that the Senate has agreed on a $2 trillion dollar package. The components of this package (which fall short of $2 trillion) are reported to be:

  • $130 billion to hospitals
  • $250 billion for direct payments to households and individuals, apparently in the form of direct mail-outs
  • $250 billion in increased unemployment insurance benefits accompanied by a broadening of its application
  • $350 billion in loans to small businesses
  • $150 billion for state and local governments, which are starting to run short of tax revenue to pay their furloughed employees
  • $500 billion for distressed corporations and municipalities, with requirements to ensure that these payments will go to support their workforce

As of today, the bill has left the Senate and gone to the House, where it must be approved before going to the White House for the President’s signature.

In the writer’s view, the package that is ultimately passed should be judged by three criteria: (1) how well targeted it is; (2) how quickly it acts; and (3) its administrative feasibility. On those counts, how does the latest version stack up?

  • Loans to business, even when the lender enjoys a guarantee, are not well targeted. Their impact on employment is indirect and uncertain, unless there is a way of requiring recipients to keep their workers on the payroll. They may also take some time to implement. Direct investment and loans by the government, which are probably feasible only for large corporations, may be better targeted, but only if they are accompanied by an effective employment requirement. This is probably not feasible for hundreds and thousands of small businesses. That said, if such a policy can be made to work for them, all the better.
  • Enhanced unemployment insurance (increased by $600 per week for four months) is well targeted, although its decentralized administration at the state level makes it more complex. Nonetheless, the infrastructure is established—it doesn’t have to be started up from scratch.
  • A direct mail-out of checks to households is quick and easy to do. The Senate bill makes the mail-out decline with income and be phased out when adjusted gross income (AGI) reported to the IRS in 2018 reaches $99,000 for singles and $198,000 for couples. The maximum benefit for singles is $1,200, payable if their AGI is $75,000 or less and $2,400 for couples with an AGI of $150,000 or less. An additional $500 is paid for each child (also subject to a phase-out). A mail-out is undoubtedly appealing politically. Making payments decline with income is desirable, but the policy does not distinguish between households with secure and those with insecure incomes. Many payments will be going to households that do not really need them, because many households have reasonably secure incomes, and a lower cut-off point could finance larger payments to low-income households.
  • Enforcing a moratorium on evictions of tenants and foreclosures of households behind in their mortgage payments, as some commentators have proposed, might also help. Ideally, it should be should be targeted at low-income households. The feasibility of this is uncertain. Outright forgiveness of student debt is poorly targeted, especially if it is a permanent policy. A temporary moratorium on loan servicing makes more sense, although even this measure will benefit a large number of students and their families who are not in desperate need.

An emphasis on payments to persons, not business entities, is the best policy, and an increase in unemployment insurance with a concomitant relaxation of its terms is probably the best single policy of this sort. Loans with guarantees in place for the lender, direct loans by the federal government, and ownership positions in very large employers could be justified provided their terms make them effective in preventing large-scale lay-offs. Of course, assistance to hospitals is vital.

The writer is not in a position to put a number on the size of the total package, but it should be large. The initial package may have to be followed up by another, given the uncertain duration of the drop in the economy’s ability to supply the normal amount of goods and services and the possibility that demand falls even below that level. Any stimulus package will take some time to implement.

Conceivably, and unbelievable though it might seem, a very large package or series of packages might actually push demand beyond what the economy can now supply. In the writer’s opinion, the resulting increase in the price level and in the rate of inflation would not be a large price to pay to prevent a true calamity. Inflation is very low now, and the price level is in fact likely to drop—i.e. the rate of inflation will probably become negative for a time, given the inevitable drop in demand before any stimulus takes hold. We are not on the verge of hyperinflation.

© 2020 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Dividend futures signal long slowdown: U. of Chicago

Analyzing data from the aggregate equity market and dividend futures, two professors at the University of Chicago’s Booth School this week quantified investors’ expectations about economic growth  in light of the coronavirus outbreak and potential policy responses to it.

“As of March 18, our forecast of annual growth in dividends is down 28% in the US and 25% in the EU, and our forecast of GDP growth is down by 2.6% both in the US and in the EU,” they write in a new research paper.

“The lower bound on the change in expected dividends is -43% in the US and -50% in the EU on the 3-year horizon. The lower bound is model free and completely forward looking. There are signs of catch-up growth from year 4 to year 10.”

According to the paper, “news about economic relief programs on March 13 appear to have increased stock prices by lowering risk aversion and lift long-term growth expectations, but did little to improve expectations about short-term growth.

“The events on March 16 and March 18 reflect a deterioration of expected growth in the US and predict a deepening of the economic downturn. We also show how data on dividend futures can be used to understand why stock markets fell so sharply, well beyond changes in growth expectations.

“Dividend futures, which are claims to dividends on the aggregate stock market in a particular year, can be used to directly compute a lower bound on growth expectations across maturities or to estimate expected growth using a simple forecasting model. We show how the actual forecast and the bound evolve over time.”

© 2020 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

For annuities, 2019 was great. 2020 is TBD

Total fourth quarter sales for all deferred annuity sales were $53.3 billion, a decline of 3.3% from the previous quarter. Total 2019 deferred annuity sales were $221.8 billion, according to the 90th edition of Wink’s Sales & Market Report for 4th quarter, 2019.

Sixty-two indexed annuity providers, 50 fixed annuity providers, 68 multi-year guaranteed annuity (MYGA) providers, 11 structured annuity providers, and 47 variable annuity providers participated.

Overall sales leaders

Jackson National Life ranked as the top carrier overall for deferred annuity sales, with a market share of 9.8%. Its Perspective II Flexible Premium Variable & Fixed Deferred Annuity, a variable annuity, was the top-selling deferred annuity, for all channels combined in overall sales for the fourth consecutive quarter. Lincoln National Life, AIG, Equitable Financial, and Allianz Life followed.

from Secure Retirement Institute.

All fixed annuities

Total fourth quarter non-variable deferred annuity sales were $26.9 billion, down 7.6% from the previous quarter and down 17.8% from the same period last year. Total 2019 non-variable deferred annuity sales were $122.8 billion. Non-variable deferred annuities include indexed annuities, traditional fixed annuities, and MYGA products.

AIG ranked as the top carrier overall for non-variable deferred annuity sales, with a market share of 8.5%. Allianz Life, Jackson National, Global Atlantic Financial Group and Nationwide followed. Allianz Life’s Allianz 222 Annuity, an indexed annuity, was the top-selling non-variable deferred annuity, for all channels combined, in overall sales for the fifteenth consecutive quarter.

All variable products (structured and conventional)

Total fourth quarter variable deferred annuity sales were $26.3 billion, up 1.3% from the previous quarter. Total 2019 variable deferred annuity sales were $99.0 billion. Variable deferred annuities include the structured annuity and variable annuity product lines.

“A steadily-rising market and continued rate reductions for fixed annuities lent to increased sales of structured and variable annuities this quarter,” said Sheryl J. Moore, president and CEO of Moore Market Intelligence and Wink, Inc.

Jackson National Life ranked as the top seller overall of variable deferred annuities, with a market share of 13.9%. Equitable Financial, Lincoln National Life, Prudential and Brighthouse Financial followed.

Conventional variable

Variable annuity sales in the fourth quarter were $21.4 billion, an increase of 1.0% as compared to the previous quarter. Total 2019 variable annuity sales were $81.6 billion. Variable annuities have no floor, and potential for gains/losses that are determined by the performance of the subaccounts that may be invested in an external index, stocks, bonds, commodities, or other investments.

Jackson National Life held its ranking as the top seller of variable annuities, with a market share of 17.2%. Lincoln National, Prudential, Equitable Financial, and Nationwide followed. Jackson National’s Perspective II Flexible Premium Variable & Fixed Deferred Annuity was the top-selling variable annuity for the fourth consecutive quarter, for all channels combined.

Structured variable (Registered index-linked annuities)

Structured annuity sales in the fourth quarter were $4.9 billion; up 2.7% from the previous quarter, and up 39.3% from the previous year. Total 2019 structured annuity sales were $17.3 billion. Structured annuities have a limited negative floor and limited excess interest that is determined by the performance of an external index or subaccounts. “Structured annuity sales are still setting records. It will be interesting to see how low fixed interest rates, coupled with market volatility, will affect this immature product line, in terms of sales,” Moore said.

Equitable Financial (formerly AXA) was the top seller of structured annuities, with a market share of 28.9%. Its Structured Capital Strategies Plus was the best-selling structured annuity for the quarter, for all channels combined.

Fixed indexed

Indexed annuity sales for the fourth quarter were $17.1 billion, down 8.1% from the previous quarter, and down 10.6% from the same period last year. Total 2019 indexed annuity sales were $73.2 billion. Indexed annuities have a floor of no less than zero percent and limited excess interest that is determined by the performance of an external index, such as Standard and Poor’s 500.

FIA sales by Qtr, from WinkIntel

“This was another record year for indexed annuity sales,” Moore said in a release. “Given the recent volatility in the markets, coupled with even lower fixed interest rates, I suggest we are going to have a repeat in 2020.”

Allianz Life retained its top ranking in indexed annuities, with a market share of 9.8%. AIG, Nationwide, Jackson National Life, and Athene USA followed. Allianz Life’s Allianz 222 Annuity was the top-selling indexed annuity, for all channels combined, for the twenty-second consecutive quarter.

Traditional fixed

Traditional fixed annuity sales in the fourth quarter were $764.7 million, down 2.6% from the previous quarter, and down 26.5% when compared with the same period last year. Total 2019 fixed annuity sales were $3.6 billion. Traditional fixed annuities have a fixed rate that is guaranteed for one year only.

Great American Insurance Group ranked as the top seller in fixed annuities, with a market share of 10.9%. Modern Woodmen of America, Global Atlantic Financial Group, Jackson National Life, and OneAmerica followed. Forethought Life ForeCare Fixed Annuity was the top-selling fixed annuity for the third consecutive quarter, for all channels combined.

MYGA

Multi-year guaranteed annuity (MYGA) sales in the fourth quarter were $9.0 billion, down 7.0% from the previous quarter and down 28.0% from the same period last year. Total 2019 MYGA sales were $45.8 billion. MYGAs have a fixed rate that is guaranteed for more than one year.

Massachusetts Mutual Life Companies ranked as the top carrier, with a market share of 13.2%. New York Life, Symetra Financial, AIG, and Global Atlantic Financial Group followed. Massachusetts Mutual Life’s Stable Voyage 3-Year was the top-selling multi-year guaranteed annuity for the quarter, for all channels combined.

Report from Secure Retirement Institute

Total annuity sales reached a 12-year high in 2019, surpassing 2018 sales by three percent to reach $241.7 billion. The top three issuers held a combined 22% market share, down from 25% in 2014, the Secure Retirement Institute reported this week.

from Secure Retirement Institute.

Total variable annuity (VA) sales were $101.9 billion in 2019, up 2% from 2018. VA sales grew for the second year in a row. Jackson led the sales in the VA market in 2019 for the seventh straight year. The top three VA sellers represented 36% of the total VA market in 2019, up slightly from 35% in 2014.

Registered index-linked annuities (RILAs) drove the growth in the VA market. In 2019, RILA sales were $17.4 billion, up 55% from 201x. RILA sales held a 17% share of the total VA market. Equitable Financial was the top seller of RILAs in 2019, with 29% of sales.

Fixed annuity sales set a new sales record in 2019. Total fixed sales were $139.8 billion in 2019, up 5% from prior year. AIG was the top seller of total fixed annuities for the second consecutive year. The top three fixed annuity manufacturers represent 23% of the U.S. fixed annuity market, down from 28% from 2014.

For the second year in a row, fixed indexed annuities (FIAs) broke annual sales records. FIA sales were $73.5 billion in 2019, up 6% from 2018. For the 11th consecutive year, Allianz Life gathered the most FIA premium in the U.S. In 2019, the top three FIA sellers represented 28% of the market, down from 43% in 2014.

“In 2019, Jackson focused on growing its fixed annuity market share, which propelled its overall growth in 2019,” said Todd Giesing, SRI senior annuity research director. “Its FIA sales jumped 1,293% in 2019, while its fixed-rate deferred annuity sales climbed 169%.”

SRI’s U.S. annuity sales survey represents 94% of the U.S. annuity market.

© 2020 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

IPO reflects ongoing shift at Jackson National

Seeking outside capital to fuel Jackson National Life’s aggressive retirement product diversification strategy, the U.S. life insurer’s British parent has decided to sell a minority position in its flagship subsidiary via an initial public offering (IPO) in the U.S.

Prudential plc, which earned $525 million from Jackson in 2019, said in a March 11 release that it sees a “substantial opportunity for Jackson’s products” in the U.S., “the world’s largest retirement savings market and the continuing transition of millions of Americans into retirement.”

“In order to diversify at pace, Jackson will need access to additional investment, which we believe would best be provided by third parties,” Prudential plc’s release said. “We are today announcing that the Board has determined that the preferred route to achieve this is a minority Initial Public Offering (IPO) of Jackson.”

Prudential plc appears to have acted under shareholder pressure. The Financial Times reported February 24 that Dan Loeb, leader of Third Point, the $14 billion US hedge fund with a stake of almost $2 billion in Prudential, had urged the insurer’s board to separate Prudential’s US and Asian businesses and eliminate its figurehead UK office. Prudential no longer has any operations in the UK, but it remains the largest insurer listed on the London market, with a value of £37bn.

Jackson National emerged as the U.S. variable annuity sales leader about seven years ago—especially after Prudential Financial (no relation to Prudential plc) and MetLife throttled down their sales pace. More recently, Jackson, AIG and other life insurers have diversified their product offerings for greater stability.

“In 2019, Jackson diversified its annuity sales to focus on growing its fixed annuity market share, which propelled its overall growth in 2019,” said Todd Giesing, senior annuity research director at the Secure Retirement Institute, in a release this week. “Jackson’s fixed indexed annuity sales jumped a staggering 1,293% in 2019, while their fixed-rate deferred annuity sales climbed 169%.”

According to Prudential plc:

“US adjusted operating profit increased by 20% to $3.07 billion, reflecting the impact of lower market-related amortisation of deferred acquisition costs. Higher equity markets also led to US separate account assets increasing by 19% to $195.1 billion.

US APE (Annual premium equivalent) sales increased by 8%, driven by fixed income and fixed index annuities, in line with our diversification strategy. New business profit declined by 28%, reflecting lower interest rates and changes in product mix.”

Prudential plc bought Michigan-based Jackson for $610 million in 1986. The business, which has four million U.S. customers, accounts for half of the group’s operating profit.

Jackson today announced its full-year financial results, generating $3 billion in IFRS pre-tax operating income in 2019, an increase of 22% over 2018 and the highest in company history. Jackson also reported $22.2 billion in total sales and deposits, noting significant growth in fixed and fixed index annuity sales.

The British insurer acknowledged the potential impact of the pandemic and financial crisis on its industry:

“We continue to monitor closely the development of the coronavirus outbreak and are focused on the health and well-being of our customers and staff. The outbreak has slowed economic activity and dampened our sales momentum in Hong Kong and China,” the firm said in a release, adding, “lower levels of new sales activity in affected markets are to be expected with a consequential effect on new business profit. Our in-force business is proving robust.”

“The U.S. is the world’s largest retirement market, with trillions of dollars expected to move from savings into retirement income products over the next decade,” said Michael Falcon, CEO of Jackson Holdings LLC. “Jackson’s ambition is to play the fullest role possible in this through a strategy of diversifying its product range and distribution network. Over time, this is expected to lead to a more balanced mix of policyholder liabilities and enhance statutory capital and cash generation.”

Strong equity markets drove the company’s 2019 results, Falcon said. Variable annuity separate account assets, which generate asset-based fees, totaled a record $195.1 billion in 2019.

“As Jackson works to achieve commercial diversification, we are continuing our efforts to balance our business,” said Falcon. “By offering the right mix of products through the right distribution channels, we have strengthened our leadership position in the U.S. retirement market. Our deliberate approach has enabled us to deepen our presence in the advisory space and capture new opportunities as we move into the next phase of our growth.”

© 2020 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

How Annuity Owners Behave in a Storm

Based on its own studies of annuity policyholder behavior since 2007, Connecticut-based actuarial firm Ruark Consulting published a report yesterday on the responses that annuity issuers can expect from policyholders amid the current volatility.

According to the report, “Market Turmoil: What Does It Mean for Annuity Policyholder Behavior,” variable annuity writers should expect:

  • Greater persistency overall, but elevated surrenders for at-the-money GLWB
  • Greater income utilization, especially for GLWB after the deferral incentive period and “hybrid” GMIB
  • Greater GMIB annuitization elections, especially on traditional “pro-rata” benefit forms

Fixed indexed annuity writers should expect:

  • Greater persistency for GLIB, and lower persistency without GLIB
  • Greater income utilization for GLIB

In addition, the impact of COVID-19 on mortality will likely depend on the level of containment among the general population at retirement ages, with potential differences between those with and without living benefit guarantees.

To access the report, click here.

© 2020 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Observation Posts

As if we weren’t already deeply divided, Americans are now asked to stand six feet apart. Clear verbal communication, not communicable viruses, is now essential. Words can be contagious, for good or ill. If the following comments go viral, no harm will be done, and maybe some good.

This week, RIJ asked some of the influencers in its network to share their thoughts about our unprecedented medico-political-economic dilemma. Here’s what economists, insurance agents, financial advisers, and entrepreneurs told us:

‘Don’t wait for the good news’

Stocks will begin to recover long before the pandemic is on the wane. The strongest bull markets are not built on a foundation of good news, but on diminishing bad news.  Wouldn’t it be nice if the world of academic finance had coined the expression “equity fear premium” instead of “equity risk premium”?! That premium is at its best when fear is at a peak. It will be hard to be perfectly right on the turning point, naturally, but don’t wait for the good news—just wait until the pattern of bad news lets up. —Rob Arnott, Research Associates

Time for ‘Series I Savings Bonds’

The current crisis has intensified risk and made Series I Savings Bonds even more desirable.  As I have written many times before, these bonds are the best kept secret in America.  There is an annual limit of $10,000 per person, and I advise all of my friends and relatives to buy the maximum every year.  Here is a recent interview I gave on the subject: America’s Best Kept Investing Secret. Zvi Bodie, Boston University

‘Who is selling and why?’

Revelatory moments break generalizations about generations. Boomer retirement plans become at least more clearly dichotomized: Probability-based plans vs. Safety-first plans. The former seemed wiser before. The latter seems wiser now. The uncertain wisdom of the choice of plan remains. Is this revelatory moment a reset of future business growth, such that prices cannot swing back the other way, and fast? Selling breaks the uncertainty by realizing the loss. Do you have a sense of who is selling and why? How many have their Household Balance Sheet assets matched or mismatched to the duration of their liabilities? —Francois Gadenne, co-founder, chair and executive director of The Curve Triangle & Rectangle Institute 

‘Flight to safety’

There’ll be a flight to safety with annuities. The market that we’re witnessing now will drive annuity sales because people will realize they need more guarantees in their portfolios than they have currently. They’ll say, ‘We probably shouldn’t be this deep into risk.’ The demographic tidal wave of baby boomers reaching retirement age wants guarantees, and annuities are the only product on the planet that provide a lifetime income stream.—Stan ‘The Annuity Man’ Haithcock, in ThinkAdvisor

‘No one has pulled out of the [annuity] business’

Companies are reducing rates, pulling select annuities, pulling select riders, but no one has pulled out of the business yet. Although it seems like the sky is falling, this is the PERFECT market environment for sales. Consumers want guarantees, and annuities are all about the guarantees.—Sheryl Moore, CEO, WinkIntel

‘Production will be crippled for some time’

The Great Depression of the 1930s witnessed a huge shock to aggregate demand. What we are now experiencing is a huge shock to aggregate supply; albeit one that will have depressing multiplier effects on demand. A strong stimulative package is desperately needed, but it will not be able to restore GDP to its pre-Coronavirus level, because production will be crippled for some time. A well-designed package will help offset the decline in personal expenditure of laid-off workers and self-employed persons for those goods and services the economy is still capable of producing.—Sandy Mackenzie, former editor, Journal of Retirement

The trend toward longer retirements will end

Projections of retirement security will soon be changing to reflect a more realistic assessment of what returns will be available to old and young retirees alike. I hope that financial advisers and intermediaries start learning their lesson.

All of this builds on top of a public system that cannot possibly support its current level of guaranteed benefits for what will rise to close to one-third of the adult population if people continue to retire on average at age 64. The almost century-long trend toward ever more years spent in retirement will almost certainly end, if for no other reason than that someone must meet the demand for labor.

At the same time, the stock crash will increase public demand for the government, rather than a risky market, to provide retirement security—which in many ways could be supplied and afforded if we recognize the need for labor and emphasize a minimum base of support. The spur for more retirement security induced by the crash may require those with above-median income to work more, save more, and pay more taxes (though don’t expect to hear any of this from those running for office). —Eugene Steuerle, the Urban Institute.

A moratorium on foreclosures, evictions and debt collection

Forget the Trump re-election gambit of $1,000-2,000 checks for all. The problem is a collapse of supply, not demand. Putting more cash into the economy is not a solution when people cannot go to work. We should tackle the health crisis directly (free testing and Federal government single-payer medical care for all who might have been exposed; Federal government-paid sick leave and parental leave for all affected by the crisis) and then deal with those affected economically (more inclusive and higher paying unemployment benefits for ANYONE who has lost work or hours because of the crisis; Federal government cash payments targeted to those who need it most) and as well affected small business (loans or grants, but with conditionality).

Since the 2007 crash, the biggest corporations have enjoyed high profits, but instead of investing, they used all their profits for stock-buybacks and because of that they have no cushion for the proverbial “rainy day.” And now it is pouring. Any financial or nonfinancial corporation that seeks help must be effectively nationalized under the control of a government-appointed manager. All the corporation’s top management would submit letters of resignation that could be used at any time by the government’s manager to clean house. Stock buy-backs for recipients of government aid would be banned; CEO pay would be permanently reduced to appropriate General Schedule levels; and the government’s manager would decide whether it is in the nation’s interest to try to save the firm or to shut it down.

Finally we need a moratorium on foreclosures, evictions of renters, debt collections, student loan debt, utilities bills, late fees, hikes of rents or interest rates, and all taxes until the crisis passes. Significant jail time for anyone who violates the moratorium. —Randall Wray, Senior Scholar, Levy Economics Institute, Professor of Economics, Bard College

‘We need something good to come out of this’

After an 11-year bull market, the past 30 days will most certainly serve as a wakeup call for both advisors and investors. Even prior to these events, many of those in and near retirement were already taking steps to protect their retirement portfolio from the volatility of the markets. Without a doubt, that trend will now accelerate. Any product that can provide some level of protection and/or income guarantees will likely see increased demand.

The industry itself will change forever.  By the time this crisis passes, flexible work schedules and working remotely will no longer be something done by portions of the workforce as a convenience to those workers. Such work schedules will become a way of life for virtually every firm. In addition, I predict that this crisis will finally drag the insurance and annuity industry into the 21st century.

By the time we settle into the new normal, our need to continue to function—when so many can’t come into the office—will finally bring an end to all of the passing of paper, processing of physical checks and the need for wet signatures (and don’t even get me started on faxes). One can only hope I’m right about that, because we need something good to come out of this.—Scott Stolz, annuity distribution

Volatile retirement income creates anxiety

The current conditions in the financial markets are revealing that Denmark, with its growing emphasis on variable income annuities (payments fluctuate with the markets), is facing a retirement crisis. These products imply riding a roller coaster of retirement income. The initial income is affected by sudden market swings; market volatility will cause your retirement income to vary too much from year to year, creating anxiety among retirees and is soon-to-be retirees.—Per Linnemann, former Chief Actuary, Denmark

‘A longer path to improvement’

While acknowledging the Life/Annuity industry’s strong capital and liquidity resources, the report identified these challenges:

  • A material acceleration in a global economic slowdown, increasing the expectation of dampened earnings throughout 2020 for spread and fee-driven businesses
  • A rapid further deterioration in the U.S. economy, paired with its direct impact on equities and interest rates
  • A greater expectation of a longer path to sufficient improvements from record low levels for the 10-year Treasury yield, as well as a flattened yield curve.—A.M. Best Company, March 17, 2020
Insurance has a unique advantage

Like all intermediated retail financial products, life insurance and annuities have a nontrivial distribution cost, but in the case of insurance products, it is somewhat alleviated by the embedded interest rate in the policies and tax deferral. However, when the embedded interest rate goes toward zero, the tax deferral aspect means nothing and the cost of distribution becomes more obvious and off-putting to potential purchasers. The same can be said of other intermediated financial products, such mutual funds, hedge funds and the like.

But life insurance and annuities do address some concerns through the pooling of risks and guarantees that cannot be matched by other intermediated financial products. While those customers who purchase insurance products solely for their financial attractiveness may be dissuaded under current circumstances, still there remains nothing else that can insure against living too short or too long.

As long as agents stress these features and find clients who are interested in managing these risks, they have an advantage over other marketers.—David Babbel, emeritus professor, Finance and Insurance, the Wharton School.

‘Keep working, delay Social Security’

You can’t ‘should have done’ anything. It’s simply not possible, so take a few deep breaths and try to relax. So, you didn’t reduce your exposure to equities when you had the chance. You didn’t move 20% of your retirement savings into a deferred annuity to ‘take some risk of the table’, as Tom Hegna says. Keep working if you can. Delay taking Social Security. Consider a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM, or reverse mortgage) line of credit if you need income now. Just don’t make any knee-jerk decisions you can’t take back, like panic selling. Things will improve. They always do. This time, just don’t go back to whatever you were doing and forget about your to-do list of financial and insurance decisions. You may not get another chance to get it right. —Bill Borton, W.R. Borton & Associates

‘A mad scramble’

We’ve had two cruises cancelled in the past six weeks. Just today we returned from Quito where our trip to the Galapagos was cancelled. The Ecuadorian government was going to close the Quito airport at midnight Monday. There was a mad scramble to get out.

The recent experience has caught everybody—not just the cruise industry—scrambling to figure out how best to deal with it. Nursing homes like that one in Seattle show how easily viruses can spread. Will people change their minds about putting loved ones in nursing homes? If so, what alternatives are there? What about retirement communities in general? Will they become breeding grounds for viruses?  Don’t know the answer to either question.—Steven Slifer, Numbernomics.com

© 2020 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Shocks loom for U.S. life insurers, annuity issuers: A.M. Best

AM Best has downgraded its outlook on the U.S. life/annuity (L/A) industry to negative due to the “significant volatility and uncertainty in the financial markets created by the COVID-19 virus,” the respected ratings agency reported this week.

In its March 17 report, “Market Segment Outlook: U.S. Life/Annuity,” AM Best reversed its previous view that “the overall impact for most carriers was likely to be manageable.”

“Because the financial markets have responded negatively and quickly to the outbreak of COVID-19, the longer-term economic impact remains uncertain,” the report said. “As interest rates and the equity markets plummet, AM Best expects operating performance to move to the negative, driven by declining sales and intensifying spread compression.”

While acknowledging the L/A industry’s strong capital and liquidity resources, the report identified these challenges:

  • A material acceleration in a global economic slowdown, increasing the expectation of dampened earnings throughout 2020 for spread and fee-driven businesses
  • A rapid further deterioration in the U.S. economy, paired with its direct impact on equities and interest rates
  • A greater expectation of a longer path to sufficient improvements from record low levels for the 10-year Treasury yield, as well as a flattened yield curve

In the United States, the Federal Reserve (Fed) cut the federal funds rate by 50 basis points on March 3, 2020, followed quickly by a further reduction on March 15 to a target range of 0-25 basis points. At the same time, the Fed launched a $700 billion quantitative easing program. The 10-year Treasury note fell below 50 basis points to a record low at one point this March, and remains below 1%.

AM Best anticipates that COVID-19 also will significantly affect the L/A industry’s ability to move forward quickly with costly innovation efforts. Factors moderating these negatives include:

  • The industry’s strong capitalization and improved liquidity
  • Stress testing that has better prepared the industry for downturns from economic and pandemic-type events
  • Credit spread widening to offset some of the interest rate decline

“Carriers with less capital, questionable liquidity access and limited business profiles or outsized exposures to at-risk sectors such as energy, retail, and travel, will feel the negative economic impact faster and more deeply than most of the industry,” the report said.

“For companies active in variable products, separate account assets will be marked to market, resulting in declines in asset-based fees. L/A insurers taking on higher degrees of investment risk and those with less-than-optimal asset-liability matching strategies are likely to be more negatively impacted as well.”

Ironically, the U.S. life/health industry saw solid growth in pre-tax and net operating profits in 2019. Net income increased by 12.6% year-over-year to $45.6 billion. Capital and surplus for the industry increased by 6.2% from the end of 2018, reaching $415.6 billion at year-end 2019.

These preliminary financial results were detailed in the recent Best’s Special Report, titled, “First Look: 12-Month 2019 Life/Annuity Financial Results.” The data is derived from companies’ annual statutory statements that were received by March 10, 2019, representing an estimated 95% of total industry premiums and annuity considerations.

According to the report, the life/annuity industry’s total income for 2019 increased by 3.0% to $872.3 billion compared with the previous year. A $59.5 billion increase in premiums and annuity considerations was offset by a $38.0 billion decline in other income.

These significant swings were primarily the result of modified coinsurance agreements and the recapture of retrocessions from foreign affiliates at American General Life Insurance Company, Hannover Life Reassurance Company of America and United States Life Insurance in the City of New York.

Income growth slightly outpaced a 2.5% increase in total expenses, leading to a pre-tax operating gain of $55.1 billion, 11.8% higher than in the previous year. A $4.2 billion increase in taxes was offset by a $3.5 billion reduction in net realized capital losses, resulting in the $5.1 billion year-over-year increase in net income.

© 2020 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

IPO Signals Strategic Shift at Jackson National

Seeking outside capital to fuel Jackson National Life’s aggressive retirement product diversification strategy, the U.S. life insurer’s British parent has decided to sell a minority position in Jackson via an initial public offering (IPO) in the U.S.

Prudential plc said in a March 11 release that it sees a “substantial opportunity for Jackson’s products” in the U.S., “the world’s largest retirement savings market and the continuing transition of millions of Americans into retirement.”

“In order to diversify at pace, Jackson will need access to additional investment, which we believe would best be provided by third parties,” Prudential plc’s release said. “We are today announcing that the Board has determined that the preferred route to achieve this is a minority Initial Public Offering (IPO) of Jackson.”

Prudential plc appears to have acted under shareholder pressure. The Financial Times reported February 24 that Dan Loeb, leader of Third Point, the $14 billion US hedge fund that has a stake in Prudential worth nearly $2bn, had urged the insurer’s board to separate Prudential’s US and Asian businesses and eliminate its UK head office. Prudential no longer has any operations in the UK, but it remains the largest insurer listed on the London market, with a value of £37bn.

Jackson National emerged as the U.S. variable annuity sales leader about seven years ago—especially since Prudential and MetLife throttled down their sales pace. More recently, Jackson, AIG and other life insurers have diversified their product offerings for greater stability.

“In 2019, Jackson diversified its annuity sales to focus on growing its fixed annuity market share, which propelled its overall growth in 2019,” said Todd Giesing, senior annuity research director at the Secure Retirement Institute, in a release this week. “Jackson’s fixed indexed annuity sales jumped a staggering 1,293% in 2019, while their fixed-rate deferred annuity sales climbed 169%.”

According to Prudential plc:

US adjusted operating profit increased by 20% to $3.07 billion, reflecting the impact of lower market-related amortisation of deferred acquisition costs. Higher equity markets also led to US separate account assets increasing by 19% to $195.1 billion. Our US business continued its long-term track record of delivering cash to the Group, remitting a dividend of $525 million during the year.

US APE (Annual premium equivalent) sales increased by 8%, driven by fixed income and fixed index annuities, in line with our diversification strategy. New business profit declined by 28%, reflecting lower interest rates and changes in product mix.

Prudential plc bought Michigan-based Jackson for $610 million in 1986. The business, which has four million U.S. customers, accounts for half of the group’s operating profit.

Jackson today announced its full-year financial results, generating $3 billion in IFRS pre-tax operating income in 2019, an increase of 22% over 2018 and the highest in company history. Jackson also reported $22.2 billion in total sales and deposits, noting significant growth in fixed and fixed index annuity sales.

The British insurer, which is not related to Newark, NJ-based Prudential Financial, acknowledged the potential impact of the pandemic and financial crisis on its industry.

“We continue to monitor closely the development of the coronavirus outbreak and are focused on the health and well-being of our customers and staff. The outbreak has slowed economic activity and dampened our sales momentum in Hong Kong and China,” the firm said in a release, adding, “lower levels of new sales activity in affected markets are to be expected with a consequential effect on new business profit. Our in-force business is proving robust.”

“The U.S. is the world’s largest retirement market, with trillions of dollars expected to move from savings into retirement income products over the next decade,” said Michael Falcon, CEO of Jackson Holdings LLC. “Jackson’s ambition is to play the fullest role possible in this through a strategy of diversifying its product range and distribution network. Over time, this is expected to lead to a more balanced mix of policyholder liabilities and enhance statutory capital and cash generation.”

Strong equity markets drove the company’s 2019 results, Falcon said. Variable annuity separate account assets, which generate asset-based fees, totaled a record $195.1 billion in 2019.

“As Jackson works to achieve commercial diversification, we are continuing our efforts to balance our business,” said Falcon. “By offering the right mix of products through the right distribution channels, we have strengthened our leadership position in the U.S. retirement market. Our deliberate approach has enabled us to deepen our presence in the advisory space and capture new opportunities as we move into the next phase of our growth.”

© 2020 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.