Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

SEC Had to Fudge the Definition of ‘Best Interest’

My sympathies go out to the writers at the SEC.

The Securities & Exchange Commission did not define “best interest” in its Regulatory Best Interest proposal. Why? A true definition isn’t an option for it or the financial industry… or even for most clients.

A client’s interest is best served when he/she pays a self-employed expert–be it an advisor, doctor or plumber–whose own interest is to win the client’s trust and act as his/her loyal guide. Best interest is no more ambiguous than the Hippocratic Oath or the Golden Rule.

But a straightforward definition is unworkable as a standard for real-world behavior; it is incompatible with the industry’s structure. First, self-employed advisors are relatively scarce, given the flood of investors created by the 401k system.

Second, the third-party product distribution model appears to be independent but creates invisible ties between advisors and manufacturers. (Hence the inevitable, unmanageable conflicts.)

Third, clients themselves are complicit; they’re reluctant to write personal checks for bespoke advice. So a true definition of best interest can’t be written. It must be fudged.

After I expressed these opinions on LinkedIn last week, Stephen Mitchell, a managing consultant at BrightPoint asked, “Why do you make the distinction ‘self-employed’ expert? Does this suggest that a firm of any type can’t act in the client’s best interest? How the firm makes money may make it more or less difficult, but I’m not sure it’s that different that for a self-employed advisor… and a large firm collectively has more expertise.”

The point isn’t that an employee-advisor will never steer me right, or that a self-employed advisor will never steer me wrong. Reality is a mixed bag. The point isn’t that only self-employed advisors should advise. That’s not practical. (To me, “self-employed” implies that the client alone pays the advisor; but a transparent “A” share commission might suffice.” )

But I don’t think a claim to acting in a client’s “best interest,” if that term is going to be a legal standard and not a loophole, can or should be made by someone trying to serve more than one master.  As for expertise, a large firm can have lots of it, but I can’t be sure that it will be used to my advantage.

James Watson III, an attorney, CFP and CEO at InvestSense LLC, commented, “The SEC speaks of harmonization between it and the Department of Labor. If that is its true goal, then the easiest solution would be for the SEC to adopt the ‘best interest’ definition from the DOL’s rule.” That may be true, but the brokers won’t stand for it.

The core issue isn’t hard to describe. Tax-deferred rollover IRAs fall into a regulatory grey zone where the pension and the brokerage worlds overlap. While it’s not quite right to apply pension fiduciary standards to brokerage accounts, it’s also not quite right to apply brokerage suitability standards to pension accounts.

Given the stakes involved—access to $9 trillion in IRAs—sheer political power can be expected to decide the outcome. With the 2016 election, “ball possession” changed from the pension-oriented DOL to the brokerage-oriented SEC. Unlike the DOL, the SEC doesn’t need to score to win this game. It can afford to punt.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

An Income Strategy for ‘M.T. Knestors’

Mr. & Mrs. M. T. Knestor, an actual 60-something couple given a silly made-up name, have $663,000 in savings but no idea how to turn it into lifetime income. In retirement, they’ll receive a combined $63,000 in Social Security and pension income every year, inflation-adjusted. They plan to retire in 2022, when they pay off their mortgage.

The Knestors think they can live on $7,000 a month (pre-tax) in retirement, but they also need a sidecar fund for special expenses, like a new roof, a new car, and a wedding for their daughter. They’re cautious investors, they enjoy above-average health, and they’d like to leave their daughter at least $250,000.

RIJ emailed the Knestor’s numbers to WealthConductor LLC, the Hartford, Conn.-based firm that licenses its “IncomeConductor” time-segmentation software to advisors at 32 broker-dealers. WealthConductor was co-founded in 2017 by Sheryl O’Connor and Phil Lubinski. She’s the CEO. He’s been using, designing and licensing time-segmentation tools since the 1990s.

In this latest in our series of articles on real retirement income cases, RIJ focuses on the time-segmentation or “bucketing” approach to income planning. Bucketing tends to stir controversy because it relies as much on psychology as on finance. But that’s why some advisors like it: Retirement income planning typically requires both.

Meet the Knestors

The Knestors aren’t rich, but their asset level puts them in the top fifth of retirees in the US. They’re married, own a home, and have an $18,000-a-year joint-and-survivor pension (from Mrs. Knestor’s teaching job). At 60, Mrs. Knestor is newly retired. Mr. Knestor, 66, plans to retire and claim Social Security in four years, when he’ll qualify for the most monthly income.

Of their $663,000 in investable savings, the Knestors have two IRAs and a 403(b) account valued at $395,600 today. Their after-tax brokerage account is worth $258,400 and they have $9,000 on hand at their bank. Their 2500-sq ft house on 0.75 acres is worth $250,000 today; they expect it to be worth at least $300,000 in 15 to 20 years.

At WealthConductor, Lubinski fed the Knestor’s data into his IncomeConductor software. It produced the seven-bucket time segmentation plan below.

Acknowledging the Knestor’s need for a sidecar fund, Lubinski first designated $130,000 in cash for an emergency fund (Segment VII). In addition, he set aside about $93,000 in an account that, invested mostly in equities, was expected to grow to $503,000 after 25 years—to fund a legacy and as a hedge against longevity and medical expense risk.

Lubinski then set aside $103,348 in cash to cover the Knestor’s income needs in their first three years of retirement (Bucket I on the chart above). That sum would provide $4,328/mo in the first retirement year, to supplement Mr. Knestor’s $2,800 in Social Security benefits and increasing their income to the required amount.

That bucket would need to supply only $2,873 in 2023, when Mrs. Knestor starts receiving her $1,500/mo pension. It would need to supply just $1,467 starting in 2024; that’s when she’ll claim her $1,500 Social Security benefit.

The software assigned $82,577 to the second bucket (2025-2029) to buy a five-year period certain single premium deferred annuity with an internal rate of return (the rate the annuity payments are discounted to equate them to the annuity purchase price) of 4.5%. It will produce $1,629/mo to supplement the Knestor’s Social Security and pension income and raise their monthly income to $7,789.

Phil Lubinski

“The logic is that for the first eight to ten years you have no market risk,” Lubinski said. “That feature really takes the scare out of retirees.”

For the next 17 years of the Knestor’s retirement, IncomeConductor divided their remaining savings into three buckets (5 years, 5 years, and 7 years) to be liquidated for income beginning in years nine, 14, and 19 of retirement, respectively). The asset allocations of these three portfolios will shade gradually to equities (50%, 60% and 70%, respectively) and have increasing assumed rates of return (5%, 6%, and 7%).

Lubinski ran the Knestors’ numbers through the software twice, once assuming historical rates of return and once using a -1.5% net rate of return (including fees) for compliance purposes.

Under historical rates, the couple enjoyed an ending balance of $503,000 (assuming that they exhausted their emergency funds). Under the zero investment return assumption, they had an ending balance of just $63,597. Those numbers do not include the value of the Knestors’ home or any unspent emergency funds.

High maintenance

The overall portfolio becomes more rather than less risky over time. Unless market volatility merits or necessitates mid-segment corrections in the asset allocation of a bucket, the bucket maintains its original asset allocation right up until the time it is needed for current income.

Bucket V, for instance, is designed to “cure” at its 70% equity allocation for 18 years. That’s how much time, on average, it will need in order to grow large enough to cover the Knestors’ need for investment income during the 19th to 25th years of retirement. A system where each tranche were de-risked every five years would be much more complicated.

“The process isn’t, ‘Every segment takes a step to the left every five years.’ It’s, ‘One segment steps to the left and all the others stay where they are.’ The beauty is the clarity of it,” Lubinski told RIJ.

If the segments grow faster than expected, however, and appear capable of reaching their target date and accumulation level with a lower equity allocation, then the advisor and client can de-risk it. IncomeConductor includes a function that alerts advisors to opportunities to de-risk.

“We created automatic emails that say something like, ‘Bucket III needs only a 2% growth rate moving forward,’” Lubinski said. Clients have to acknowledge and approve or reject the advisor’s offer to de-risk. “It takes the clients out of the chasing-yield mindset and moves them to more of a pension mindset.”

The software comes with training and marketing modules, and can be used in conjunction with popular planning software, like MoneyGuidePro or eMoneyAdvisor. According to Lubinski, IncomeConductor has received a clean FINRA review and has been certified as Department of Labor-compliant by Jason Roberts, CEO of Pension Resource Institute.

Academics are divided in their opinions of the time-segmentation method. Zvi Bodie, a pension expert, believes that equity returns grow less predictable over time, and that the assumption of reversion-to-the-mean, the law on which the buckets’ ‘curing’ times are based, isn’t valid. But behavioral finance specialist Meir Statman has said that bucketing leverages the ‘mental accounting’ techniques that many people already use.

Advisors like Lubinski, who swears by time-segmentation, use it because it’s effective for them and their clients. Bucketing pushes risky assets into the distant future, so to speak, so that clients don’t feel threatened when markets hit a turbulent patch. Clients are therefore less prone to panic and sell depressed assets.

Lubinski prefers bucketing to the classic retirement distribution method of setting up a systematic withdrawal plan (SWP) from a balanced total return portfolio. Such portfolios offer higher potential rewards but at higher risks, and a SWP based on the 4%-per-year rule can put monthly income levels at the mercy of short-term market performance.

“When you have one big bucket, your gains can vary dramatically from year to year,” Lubinski told RIJ. “That strategy may have made sense years ago when stocks were paying steady dividends and there was a stable high interest rate. But we don’t have that today.

“If we have another 2008-type event,” he added, “the client can see that some of their buckets are on fire. But they can also see that by the time they get to that point of needing those buckets, they will probably have recovered.”

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Variable annuities see $18 billion net outflow in 1Q2018

New sales of variable annuities (VAs) dipped modestly in 1Q2018 on both a quarter-on-quarter and year-on-year basis, to $22.45 billion, marking the second-lowest quarterly sales total on record going back to 1999 (the lowest was in Q3 2017, with sales of $20.6 billion), according to Morningstar’s latest Variable Annual Sales and Asset Survey.

Just one company—TIAA, largest carrier of VAs as measured by total net assets—accounted for roughly 60% of the quarter-one-quarter decline. But TIAA did not suffer alone. Only two of the top 10 carriers reported positive new sales growth in Q1, and barely so. On net, the top 10 issuers saw sales decline by $1.1 billion, which more than explains the industry’s overall net decline of $1.03 billion in the first quarter.

Nonetheless, the VA market continued its long-term trend of market-share consolidation. Industry consolidation continues. The top 10 carriers accounted for almost 71% of all assets under management in the industry, up from 68% a year ago and 65% five years ago. The faces of the top 10 haven’t changed much in recent quarters. TIAA, Jackson National, and Lincoln Financial hold the largest market shares. AXA and AIG moved up in the share rankings, to fifth and sixth place, respectively. Brighthouse tumbled to seventh from fifth.

On a year-over-year basis, the rate of decline in VA sales appears to have stabilized. After averaging 16% declines each quarter over the eight quarters ending 3Q2017, sales were down just 2% year-over-year in Q4 and again in Q1.

The recent increase in market interest rates, coupled with the seeming demise of the Department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rule following several court decisions earlier this year, have buoyed market participants’ expectations that VA sales are poised to rise.

Still, VAs suffered net outflows of $18 billion in the first quarter. The industry has now recorded 24 straight quarters of negative net flows totaling $186.4 billion. Turmoil in the equity market hurt asset valuations in the first quarter.

Among the distribution channels, independent broker-dealers gained market share, accounting for more than 38% of sales in the first quarter. These gains came largely at the expense of captive agencies, which accounted for just under 36%. TIAA-CREF, AXA, and Ameriprise dominate the captive agency sales. Jackson, Lincoln, and Prudential notably reflect top three leaders of sales within independent firms.

Note: MassMutual stopped reporting sales and assets in Q4 2017. Voya stopped reporting sales in 2016. Prudential’s products’ assets are tracked under older versions of policies with no flows for current versions.

© 2018 Morningstar, Inc.

Life/annuity industry news

Athene reinsures $19 billion of Voya annuity liabilities

Athene Holding Ltd. has completed its transaction to reinsure approximately $19 billion of Voya Financial’s fixed and fixed indexed annuity liabilities. This brings Athene’s total invested assets to approximately $100 billion.

“Apollo [is positioned to] provide customized solutions to take advantage of the ongoing restructuring in the life insurance industry,” said Jim Belardi, CEO of Athene, in press release, adding that the recent rise in interest rates has made the deal’s expected earnings impact even more significant.

Athene, along with a group of investors led by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC made a minority investment in Venerable Holdings, Inc., a newly formed standalone entity that will administer the fixed and variable annuity blocks from Voya Insurance and Annuity Company.

Athene’s investment in Venerable will be held as an alternative investment. Athene also secured the rights to reinsure future flow from annuitizations of variable annuities to fixed payout annuities, which are expected to generate approximately $8 billion of flow over the life of the variable annuity block acquired by Venerable.

Athene’s products include retail fixed and fixed indexed annuity products; reinsurance arrangements with third-party annuity providers; and institutional products, such as funding agreements and group annuity contracts related to pension risk transfers.

As of March 31, 2018, Athene had total assets of approximately $113 billion. Athene’s principal subsidiaries are Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Co., Athene Annuity and Life Co., Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Co. of New York, and Athene Life Re Ltd.

Allianz Life survey shows public support for protection products

“Market gyrations so far this year have [investors] increasingly interested in finding ways to protect their savings from such volatility,” according to the 2018 Market Perceptions Study from Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. Many of those surveyed fear a big market crash (42%) or major recession (44%).

More than a third (35%) of Americans are comfortable with current market conditions, up from 26% in 2015, the survey showed. But 37% said recent volatility makes them anxious about their savings and 38% said that if the market crashed they couldn’t rebuild their savings before retirement.

When asked about their retirement planning, 57% of those surveyed said they would give up some potential gains for a product that protects part of their retirement savings, up from 48% in the 2015 iteration of the study. [Allianz Life has been the leading seller of fixed indexed annuities in the US for over a decade.]

When asked about taking action 5-10 years before retirement to safeguard their savings, 31% said they would put “some of my money into a financial product that offers a balance of potential growth (up to 10%) and some level of protection (i.e., no loss of money if the market goes down 10%).”

More than three-fourths (78%) of respondents with >$200k in investable assets and 69% of those with <$200k said it is important to them to have some of their savings in a financial product that protects it from market loss. When asked if 68% said they were willing to give up some potential gains for a product that protects a portion of their retirement savings, 68% with >$200k and 55% with <$200K in investable assets agreed.

Market volatility, as measured by the Cboe Volatility Index or VIX, has risen this year. In February, the VIX index spiked 115% on one day as equities sold off, and saw elevated levels throughout March. The VIX index has edged back toward normal levels, but it is still elevated from the low levels seen throughout 2017, Allianz Life said in its release.

TIAA rebrands its banking units as TIAA Bank

TIAA has consolidated its two direct banking units, EverBank and TIAA Direct, into TIAA Bank. Headquartered in Jacksonville, FL, TIAA Bank will serve clients in all 50 states with deposit, residential and commercial lending and other banking products and services. TIAA acquired EverBank in June 2017. The new entity will leverage EverBank’s nationwide consumer and commercial platforms to serve, commercial and institutional clients.

Global Atlantic acts as investor and reinsurer in Talcott deal

Global Atlantic Financial Group Ltd has completed a $9 billion reinsurance transaction through a subsidiary, executed in conjunction with The Hartford’s sale of Talcott Resolution to an investor group. The deal involved the reinsurance of fixed deferred annuities and other spread-based reserves.

With this block reinsurance transaction, Global Atlantic has reinsured or acquired over $50 billion of assets since its founding. Global Atlantic, through a subsidiary, also participated in the investor group, buying about 9% of the entity that bought Talcott Resolution on May 31, 2018.

“The reinsurance transaction provided significant capital and economic accretion incorporated in the purchase price paid to The Hartford,” Global Atlantic said in a release.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Total annuity sales to improve through 2019: LIMRA SRI

LIMRA Secure Retirement Institute released its three-year annuity sales forecast for 2018, 2019 and 2020. After six consecutive quarters of declines, total annuity sales leveled off in the fourth quarter 2017 and first quarter 2018.

Improved economic and regulatory conditions have prompted LIMRA SRI to forecast total annuity sales to increase 5-10% in 2018 and improve up to 5% in 2019.  Based on uncertainty around the SEC best interest rule and expected market volatility, LIMRA SRI expects total annuity sales to be flat in 2020.

Annual variable annuities (VA) sales have declined for the past six years, falling to its lowest level in 20 years. Yet with short-term improving economic conditions, product innovation and the elimination of DOL fiduciary rule, LIMRA SRI forecasts VA sales to rise as much as 5% in 2018, surpassing $100 billion.

As equity markets are expected to drop in 2019, LIMRA SRI expects total VA sales will falter as well, by 0-5%. LIMRA SRI anticipates favorable economic conditions in 2020, which should offset any disruption the SEC best interest rule may have on the variable annuity market. As a result, LIMRA SRI forecasts 2020 VA sales to grow up to 5%.

LIMRA SRI forecasts indexed annuities to increase each year through 2020.  In 2018, indexed annuity sales are expected to rise close to $60 billion, increasing by 5-10%, which is near the record sales levels set in 2016.

Expected rising interest rates and stronger guarantees are prompting LIMRA SRI to predict indexed annuity sales to improve another 5-10% in 2019.  In 2020, indexed annuity sales growth will slow, increasing 0-5% as interest rates decline.

Fixed-rate deferred (FRD) annuities will have the biggest growth rates over the next two years as interest rates rise. LIMRA SRI forecasts FRD annuity sales to increase 15-20% in 2018, and 20-25% in 2019. By 2020, however, LIMRA SRI predicts FRD annuity sales will be unable to sustain sales levels reached in 2019, falling 15-20%. Lower market volatility and falling interest rates will drive this decline.

For the past seven quarters, income annuity sales (immediate and deferred) have remained below $3 billion. LIMRA SRI predicts rising interest rates to drive slow income annuity sales growth over the next three years. In 2018, sales are expected to increase 5-10% and as much as 5% in 2019 and 2020.

© 2018 LIMRA SRI.

In fund sales, Vanguard leads but BlackRock’s gaining

The Obama adminstration’s fiduciary rule may be gone but individual advisors and plan advisors continue to prefer cheap broad-based index funds and exchange trade funds over actively managed funds.

Of the ten funds with the highest net inflows in April 2018, all were index funds or ETFs. Six were BlackRock iShares ETFs, three were Vanguard index funds and one was a Fidelity index fund, according to Morningstar Direct’s monthly asset flow report.

Meanwhile, five of the 10 funds with the highest net outflows were Fidelity funds. “Fidelity had overall outflows of about $5.6 billion, its worst month since November 2016,” the report said, adding that. Fidelity’s active funds had $11.3 billion in net redemptions while its passive funds collected net $5.7 billion.

According to the report:

Vanguard was near the top of the fund-family league tables with $12.3 billion in inflows. But BlackRock’s iShares eclipsed that figure with about $17 billion in inflows. Vanguard’s year-to-date growth continues to slow year over year.

Through the first four months of 2017, Vanguard took in an estimated $141.5 billion. So far in 2018, the firm has only collected about half that amount, $71 billion. The firm’s one-year organic growth rate of 7.4% is less than half of iShares’ 15.1%. This slowing growth shouldn’t be surprising given that Vanguard is more than triple iShares’ size, but it’s notable since Vanguard defied the odds, growing at scale in recent years, a rare anomaly.

While iShares Short Treasury Bond led the way in April, so far in 2018 iShares Core MSCI EAFE IEFA and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IEMG lead the firm year-to-date with inflows of $16.4 billion and $8.0 billion, respectively.

The contrast with SPDR State Street Global Advisors is striking. Both firms were ETF pioneers, but iShares continues to separate itself from its rival. Over the past 12 months, iShares has collected about $168 billion versus just $24 billion for SPDR funds.

As a result, while SPDR’s market share is basically flat over that span at 3.34%, iShares’ has grown to 7.54% from 6.93%. As mentioned last month, SPDR falls short on cost relative to offerings from iShares and others. This is having a meaningful impact on investor demand.

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 ETFs by computing the change in shares outstanding.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

‘Collective’ versus ‘individual’ pension accrual debated in Holland

Individual pensions accrual will not form the backbone of a new pensions system in the Netherlands, the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf reported this week, according to IPE.com. Instead, the players had opted for a “collective pension arrangement,” the newspaper said.

The news report cited as its source a “draft agreement” between the employer organization VNO-NCW and trade union FNV. The FNV has emphasized that there was no definite deal yet, however.

A collective accrual method permits risk-sharing across generations of workers, while an individual accrual method does not. Under individual accrual, as in defined contribution plans in the U.S., some retirees will fare better than others. The unions objected to individual pensions accrual, favoring collective accrual instead.

The collective concept offers fewer guarantees but more scope for indexation to inflation, resembling a pensions contract under real terms rather than nominal ones. The Social and Economic Council (SER), the Dutch government’s main advisory body made up of employers and workers, has reportedly discussed the option of a real-terms contract.

Deliberations within the SER didn’t show “much added value ultimately” from the individual accrual method, De Telegraaf said.

The trade unions also opposed the government’s plan to increase the retirement age. According to the draft pensions agreement, the government will postpone the increase to the state pension (AOW) age – due to rise to 67 in 2021 – to 2025. The AOW age will rise by six months, not 12 months, for each additional year’s improvement in life expectancy.

Postponing the state pension age increase would cost the government billions, while the preferred individual pensions accrual – which formed part of the coalition agreement – would be off the table.

Recently, the government rejected a request from the social partners in the building industry for a state pension entitlement after working 45 years. The coalition government’s aim to abolish the system of average pensions accrual could still be honored according to the draft, albeit under certain conditions.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Weak growth expected for life/annuity industry: A.M. Best

The life industry overall can expect mid-single digit growth in 2018, on a mix of premiums and policy count growth, according to a new report from A.M. Best. Ongoing innovation should also bolster growth, as companies learn to make effective use of digital capabilities for future sales. Tax expenses are likely to decline further in 2018 as well, due to the recent tax reform.

Although interest rates should rise through 2018, continued pressures on spread-based businesses are anticipated. Nevertheless, potential rate hikes could make fixed annuities more attractive for consumers, driving modest premium growth in that category.

Low interest rates and equity volatility remain the largest macroeconomic hurdles for the industry; these factors not only lead to spread compression due to lower investment income, but can also make it more difficult for direct writers and agents to sell products with less attractive features.

Net income down 54.6%

The U.S. life/annuity (L/A) industry’s net income in the first quarter of 2018 declined 54.6% from the same period a year ago, to $3.5 billion from $7.6 billion, mainly due to a drop in pretax net operating income coupled with higher net realized capital losses.

These results are detailed in another new Best’s Special Report, titled, “First Look—First Quarter 2018 Life/Annuity Financial Results.” It was based on companies’ three months 2018 interim period statutory statements (as of May 22, 2018), representing an estimated 85% of total industry premiums and annuity considerations.

According to the report, Premiums and annuity considerations declined 11.7% from the prior-year period, driven by a $23.1 billion reduction in premiums at American General Life Insurance Company in connection with the execution of modified coinsurance agreements with a wholly owned Bermudan reinsurer, according to the report.

The L/A industry’s capital and surplus increased slightly from year-end 2017 to $376.3 billion as $4.7 billion in net income and contributed capital was negated by $1.6 billion in unrealized losses and a $3.3 billion in stockholder dividends. Pretax net operating gain for the industry declined to $10.6 billion in first-quarter 2018, down 26.1% from the prior-year period. Net realized capital losses of $5.7 billion, partially offset by a $1.9 billion reduction in federal and foreign taxes, helped to bring about the decline in net income.

For 2017, the U.S. life/annuity industry recorded full-year statutory pre-tax net operating gains of $62.0 billion in 2017, a 7.4% decrease from $67.2 billion in the previous year, according to a new A.M. Best’s “Year-End 2017 U.S. Life/Annuity Statutory Results Review.”

Overall underwriting performance remained favorable in 2017, although lower net investment yields dampened margins. Diminishing investment portfolio yields, lower annuity sales and a mature ordinary life and accident and health market continue to thwart earnings growth.

Post-tax earnings decreased just 2.4% to $49.9 billion in 2017, owing primarily to elevated tax expenses in 2016 related to variable annuity (VA) business recaptures. Net income results were favorable, however, up 7.5%, to $41.5 billion. Individual annuity direct written premiums declined again in 2017, down 22%, a steeper decline than in 2016.

Despite strong equity markets, variable annuity sales declined by 2% in 2017, as issuers continued to de-risk products and as companies modified their business models to comply with the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule.

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Indexed annuity sales up more than 10% in 1Q2018: Wink

Sales of non-variable deferred annuities surpassed $23.1 billion in the first quarter of 2018, up 9.4% over the previous quarter and up 0.2% when compared to the same period last year, according to the 83rd edition of Wink’s Sales & Market Report.

The report covers fixed indexed and traditional fixed annuities, MYGA (multi-year guarantee annuities) products and, for the first time, structured annuities (aka registered index-linked annuities). Sixty indexed annuity providers, 64 fixed annuity providers, 74 MYGA providers, and six structured annuity issuers participated.

Structured annuity sales in the first quarter were $2.9 billion. Structured annuities have a limited negative floor and limited excess interest linked to the performance of an external index or subaccounts. At that quarterly sales rate, these products will easily surpass their $9.2 billion in sales for 2017.

AXA US, which created the structured annuity category in 2010, was the top-seller of those products, with a market share of 51.5%, but the top-selling contract in that space across all channels was the Brighthouse Life Shield Level Select 6-Year contract.

Sheryl Moore

“Some [insurance companies] call these products ‘buffered annuities,’” said Wink’s CEO, Sheryl J. Moore. “Others refer to them as ‘indexed VAs,’ and still, others refer to them as ‘collared annuities.’ The important thing to remember is that these aren’t indexed annuities, although some companies are marketing them in that manner,” she said.

LIMRA Secure Retirement Institute calls them “Registered Index-Linked Annuities,” to reflect the fact that these products are generally registered with the Securities & Exchange Commission.

New York Life ranked as the top-selling carrier overall for non-variable deferred annuity sales in 1Q2018, with a 9.6% market share. Allianz Life, AIG, Global Atlantic Financial Group, and Athene USA followed. Allianz Life’s Allianz 222 Annuity, an indexed annuity, was the overall top-selling non-variable deferred annuity.

Indexed annuity sales for the first quarter were $14.2 billion; up 4.4% over the previous quarter, and up 10.0% from the same period last year. (Indexed annuities have a floor of no less than zero percent and limited excess interest linked the performance of an external index, such as the Standard and Poor’s 500.

“We haven’t had an increase in indexed annuity sales this big in nearly two years,” said Sheryl J. Moore, president and CEO of both Moore Market Intelligence and Wink, Inc.

In the first quarter, Allianz Life retained its top ranking in indexed annuities, with a market share of 11.7%. Athene USA, Nationwide, American Equity Companies and Great American Insurance Group followed, respectively. Allianz Life’s Allianz 222 Annuity was the top-selling indexed annuity, for all channels combined, for the fifteenth consecutive quarter.

Traditional fixed annuity sales in the first quarter were $729.7 million; down 3.3% when compared to the previous quarter, and down 32.1% when compared with the same period last year. Traditional fixed annuities have a fixed rate that is guaranteed for one year.

Jackson National Life ranking as the top-seller of fixed annuities, with a market share of 15.1%. Modern Woodmen of America, Global Atlantic Financial Group, Great American Insurance Group, and American National followed, in that order. Forethought Life’s ForeCare Fixed Annuity was the top-selling fixed annuity for the quarter, for all channels combined.

Multi-year guaranteed annuity (MYGA) sales in the first quarter were $8.1 billion; up 20.9% when compared to the previous quarter, and down 9.8% when compared to the same period last year. MYGAs have a fixed rate that is guaranteed for more than one year.

New York Life was once again the top-seller of MYGAs, with a market share of 27.2%.  Global Atlantic Financial Group, AIG, Symetra Financial, and Pacific Life followed. Forethought’s SecureFore 3 Fixed Annuity was the top-selling multi-year guaranteed annuity for the quarter, for all channels combined.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Variable annuity deferral bonuses are working: Ruark

Owners of variable annuities with living benefits are using their riders more efficiently than ever, “with over half of all withdrawals now at or near the maximum benefit amount,” according to the results of Ruark Consulting’s Spring 2018 studies of variable annuity (VA) policyholder behavior.

The studies, which examine the factors driving surrender behavior, partial withdrawals, and annuitization, were based on the actions of 13.9 million policyholders from January 2008 through December 2017. Twenty-five variable annuity (VA) writers participated in the study, comprising $948 billion in account value as of December 2017.

Timothy Paris

“A variable annuity writer’s cost to provide guarantees depends on policyholder behavior, including surrender and income utilization,” said Ruark CEO Timothy Paris in a release this week. “Each company should ask itself the basic question: Is my own data enough?”

Study highlights include:

  • As the market for guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit (GLWB) riders matures, it is possible to see the effects of long-dated insurer incentives to delay benefit commencement. Commencement rates are low overall, 12% in the first policy year and falling to 6-7% annually thereafter. However, usage jumps over 5 points in year 11, with the expiration of ten-year bonuses for deferring withdrawals common on many riders. In this study, we see for the first time that commencement frequency thereafter falls to an ultimate rate of about 9%. The deferral bonuses appear to have the intended effect of delaying benefit utilization. Among contracts that take a withdrawal, nearly 90% continue withdrawals in subsequent years.
  • Overall living benefit annual withdrawal frequency rates have continued to increase, primarily as a result of increasing utilization efficiency. Withdrawal frequency for guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit riders is now 25%, up nearly two points over the rate reported in Ruark Consulting’s Spring 2017 study and three points over the Spring 2016 value. GLWB withdrawal frequencies have increased consistently at normal retirement age and above. Most of the increase is attributable to more efficient utilization of the rider benefit, with over half of withdrawals now at or near the maximum benefit amount.
  • The effects of moneyness (account value relative to the guarantee base) on partial withdrawal behavior differ depending on circumstances. When contracts with lifetime withdrawal benefits are at or in the money, policyholders increase the frequency of standard benefit withdrawals. This is consistent with greater benefit exercise when the benefit is more valuable. The effect is more pronounced after the expiration of deferral incentives. In contrast, when contracts move out of the money, withdrawals in excess of the maximum amount are more common. This is suggestive of policyholders taking investment gains out of the contract.
  • Overall variable annuity surrender rates in 2017 have returned upward to post-crisis levels, following a secular dip in 2016. We see three regimes in the study window: Surrenders at the shock duration (the year following the end of the surrender charge period) were nearly 30% at the onset of the 2008 economic crisis; shock rates below 10% were observed during 2016; and otherwise a post-crisis regime has prevailed, with shock rates in a range of 12-16% from 2009 through mid-2015 and 13% in 2017. The 2016 dip, first observed in Ruark’s fall 2017 study, is only partially attributable to benefits moving more in-the-money during the year; it is likely that uncertainty surrounding the Department of Labor’s proposed Fiduciary Rule and political factors encouraged a “wait-and-see” attitude among many policyholders and advisors.
  • The presence of a living benefit rider has a notable effect on surrender rates; contracts with a lifetime benefit rider have much higher persistency than those with other types of guarantees. Also, a contract’s prior partial withdrawal history influences its persistency. Contracts with a lifetime benefit rider that have taken withdrawals in excess of the rider’s annual maximum have surrender rates three points higher overall than other contracts with those riders. In contrast, those who have taken withdrawals no more than the rider’s maximum have the lowest surrender rates (three points lower at the shock, for example, compared to contracts who have taken no withdrawals).
  • When calculating relative value (moneyness) for lifetime withdrawal guarantees, use of a nominal measure can be deceiving. A nominal measure fails to reflect important aspects of living benefit design, and can be inflated over time as the benefit base remains unchanged even as the account value is reduced through regular withdrawals. It may be preferable in many cases to use an actuarial measure of moneyness that incorporates interest and mortality rates. Actuarial moneyness exhibits a similar dynamic effect on lapse though with notable differences in shape. As an actuarial basis pushes a contract toward out-of-the-money by discounting the guarantee, very little exposure exists for heavily ITM contracts: nominally, 77% of GLWB exposure is in-the- money, while only 10% is in-of-the-money when measured on an actuarial scale.
  • Annuitization rates on policies with guaranteed minimum income benefit (GMIB) riders continue to decline. The overall exercise rate for the riders with a 10-year waiting period is 2.1% by account value. Rates have been falling steadily since 2010, and quarterly observed rates have stayed at or below 2% since 2014. “Hybrid” rider forms that allow partial dollar-for-dollar withdrawals have much lower exercise rates than tradition forms, which reduce the benefit in a pro-rata fashion – less than 1% for hybrid, vs. 5% for pro-rata; the increasing share of exposure in the study from the hybrid type is a partial explanation for the decrease in annuitization rates over time.

Detailed study results, including company-level analytics, are available for purchase by participating companies.

Ruark Consulting, LLC, based in Simsbury, CT, is an actuarial consulting firm specializing in principles-based insurance data analytics and risk management. It has produced industry- and company-level experience studies of the VA and fixed indexed annuity markets since 2007. As a reinsurance broker, Ruark has placed and administers dozens of bespoke treaties totaling over $1.5 billion of reinsurance premium and $30 billion of account value.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Myth of the Aging Society

Economic doomsayers have long warned that the aging populations of industrial and post-industrial countries represent a “demographic time bomb.” Societal aging is bad news for the economy, they say, because it means that fewer people work and contribute to economic growth, and more people collect pensions and demand health care.

The argument that aging will weaken these countries’ economies stems from what economists call the old-age dependency ratio (OADR)—the proportion of the population over 64, relative to the working-age population (those aged 15 to 64). If one assumes that old people are unproductive consumers of government benefits, then a rising OADR implies slower economic growth and mounting pressure on public budgets.

Prof. Scott

But what if this assumption is mistaken? The average age of the US population has steadily increased since 1950, but the average mortality rate has trended down. In other words, the average US citizen has become chronologically older but biologically younger. And the same trends can be found in other advanced economies, including the United Kingdom, Sweden, France, and Germany.

As countries industrialize, they undergo a “demographic transition” from higher to lower birth rates. This shift implies that older cohorts of the population will increase in size, and that average overall mortality will rise, because mortality rates are higher for older people. But over the past few decades, this aging effect has been offset by a “longevity effect.”

Owing to medical advances and other factors (for example, lower rates of smoking), mortality rates at all ages have fallen. In actuarial terms, this means that people are younger for longer. Whereas the aging effect captures changes in the age distribution, the longevity effect addresses how we are aging. And in a country like the US, where the average age has increased while average mortality rates have fallen, it is clear that the longevity effect has more than offset the aging effect.

One consequence of this change is that the standard chronological measure of age makes less sense than ever. The divergence between biological and chronological age points to a familiar problem in economics: the confusion between nominal and real variables. A pint of beer that cost $0.65 in 1952 costs $3.99 today. To compare prices accurately across time, [however], one must adjust for inflation. And what one finds is that beer has actually gotten cheaper: The real (inflation-adjusted) price of a pint in 1952 was the equivalent of $5.93 in today’s money.

A similar problem occurs when one relies wholly on calendar years and a chronological conception of age. In the US, a 75-year-old today has the same mortality rate as a 65-year-old in 1952. Similarly, in Japan, 80 is the “new 65.” As an actuarial matter, then, today’s 75-year-olds are not any older than the 65-year-olds of the 1950s.

As with the price of beer, one can use changes in mortality rates to adjust for “age inflation” and determine an average real mortality age. In doing so, one finds essentially no increase in average “real” (mortality-adjusted) age in the UK, Sweden, or France, and barely any increase in the US.

Mortality-adjusted indicators of aging provide a radically different perspective on what is happening to OADRs in advanced economies. When using chronological age, the OADRs in the US, the UK, France, and Sweden have all been increasing; but in mortality-adjusted terms, they have all actually declined. The exception, once again, is Japan, where the dominance of the aging effect has resulted in a higher real OADR.

From this perspective, one can see the flawed assumptions underlying the conventional “demographic time bomb” narrative, which makes no distinction between aging and longevity effects. If one assumes that there is only an aging effect, a rapidly aging society bodes ill indeed. But if one recognizes the role of longevity, the picture becomes much brighter.

We must move away from nominal measures of age that treat older people as a problem. It is time to stop worrying about “aging societies” and start focusing on the type of demographic change that really matters. Governments should provide those in a position to reap the benefits of longer, healthier lives with opportunities to do so, while minimizing the number of people who are denied longevity. By investing in a longevity dividend, we can reduce the threat of an aging society.

A longer version of this article appeared recently in Project-Syndicate.

© 2018 Project Syndicate.

Don’t Fear the Trade Deficit with China

The good news this past week is that Treasury Secretary Mnuchin announced that the imposition of tariffs on many Chinese goods imported into the United States is “on hold” in exchange for a pledge that the Chinese would increase significantly their purchases of U.S. goods, primarily agricultural and energy products.

Any agreement that significantly expands the market for U.S. goods overseas is encouraging. However, the agreement does not address the primary issue: The Chinese lack of respect for intellectual property rights and their blatant stealing of U.S. technology. That is what manufacturers we talk to are concerned about.

We are unrepentant believers in “free trade”. The world has been steadily moving in that direction since World War II, and it is generally accepted that all countries have benefited from it. In each country there is a wider array of goods and services available at lower prices than if that country chose to go it alone.

Last year the U.S. had a trade deficit of $568 billion. But so what? All that means is that the U.S. imported more goods from overseas than we purchased globally. Thus, foreigners accumulated $568 billion of dollars because of trade. The counterpart of a $568 billion U.S. trade deficit is $568 billion of foreign capital inflows into the United States. That money will be invested here. Foreigners will start businesses in the U.S., they will create jobs, and/or they will invest it in the stock market. Those are all good things. Thus, in our mind, a laser-like focus on the magnitude of the trade deficit is misplaced. Keep in mind, too, that the U.S. has had a trade deficit of roughly its current size (or larger) since the early 2000’s and nothing bad has happened.

While we are staunch believers in “free” trade, we are equally adamant about our belief in “fair trade.” Therein lies the problem. Free trade works well if all players operate using the same playbook. That is not the case today. Some countries blatantly cheat, the most widely recognized cheater is China. It shows absolutely no regard for intellectual property rights. It routinely ignores patents and copyrights.  It steals our technology. These fairness issues are what we hear about most often in our discussions with manufacturers. The recently announced agreement between the U.S. and China does not address these issues which are critical. Hopefully, they will be addressed in subsequent negotiations.

Having said all that, we do not want to completely dismiss the importance of what transpired this week. Please note that the overall trade deficit of $568 billion consists of an $811 billion trade deficit for goods, and a $243 billion trade surplus for services. Of that $800 billion trade deficit in goods, almost half is with one country—China. We do not have trade issues with our neighbors, Canada and Mexico. Nor do we have a problem with Europe or even OPEC. We have a problem with China and a handful of other Asian nations.

Several months ago, President Trump proposed steep tariffs on aluminum and steel products across the board. The Chinese quickly retaliated with tariffs on a variety of U.S. goods and the U.S. was on the cusp of a trade war not only with China but with other countries as well. That was obviously not the desired solution. Nobody wins a trade war. All countries lose. And to impose penalties on our neighbors and allies with whom we do not have a trade issue made no sense. Given the concentrated nature of the trade deficit with just a handful of countries, the focus should have been on those countries with whom we have a problem. Target the measures you intend to take on them. Do not apply restrictions across the board.

What happened this week is vastly different. The agreement is for the Chinese to shrink the bilateral trade deficit by boosting their purchases of U.S. made goods— principally agricultural products and energy. This is not shrinking global trade, it is expanding it. While the Chinese would not agree to a specific target for the reduction in the size of the trade deficit the U.S. was seeking improvement of about $200 billion. Explicitly or implicitly, a $200 billion reduction in an $800 trade deficit in goods, is significant and will lead to an additional $200 billion of U.S. exports.

Some economists were disappointed that the fairness issues were not a part of the recent agreement and have criticized Treasury Secretary Mnuchin for not addressing them. However, Mnuchin said that the previously announced tariffs on steel and aluminum imports would remain in place. Presumably, he is using the imposition of the tariffs on those metals as a bargaining chip to crack down on the alleged trade abuses by China. We’ll see.

© 2018 Numbernomics.com

The Complex Truth about Retiree Medical Costs

Estimates of the amount of money that Americans will spend on health care during retirement range from the scary to the staggering. The numbers tend to obscure the fact that Medicare, Medicare supplements and Medicaid prevent most medical catastrophes from becoming financial catastrophes for US retirees.

Some of the projections of lifetime costs are nonetheless shocking. “The average couple [at age 65] will need $280,000 in today’s dollars for medical expenses in retirement, excluding long-term care,” says Fidelity’s website. Syndicated columnist Gail MarksJarvis has written, “The average 65-year-old couple retiring in a year can expect to spend $404,253 in today’s dollars on health insurance and other health care costs.”

Broken down into annual expenses, medical care looks much more affordable. The averages translate into $5,000 to $10,000 per year per retiree, not counting inflation. If you exclude the cost of long-term care (as most estimates do), medical costs in retirement consist largely of the insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays and other out-of-pocket costs that come out of income rather than savings.

Any individual’s actual costs will likely be higher or lower than the average, of course. It depends on genes, luck, health status at retirement, eating and exercise habits, longevity, wealth level, gender, marital status, where you live, how much you can afford to spend, whether you come to rely on Medicaid or charity, how much insurance coverage you buy and whether, if you end up in a nursing home, you choose single or double occupancy.

Horror stories are common enough. Medical costs can easily bankrupt someone with catastrophic health issues who has chosen not to buy “gap” insurance to supplement Medicare. That person could either expect to suffer the indignities and deprivations common before the federal government started subsidizing health insurance for the elderly in the mid-1960s, or try to qualify for Medicaid and other forms of public assistance or charity.

“The Lifetime Medical Spending of Retirees,” a new article from the National Bureau of Economic Research, brings academic discipline to bear on this question. It finds that, from age 70 onward, households will on average face about $122,000 in medical spending in 2014 dollars, including what is received from Medicaid, over their remaining lifetimes.

The range is wide, however. Costs will surpass $330,000 (in 2014 dollars) for five percent of retirees. An unlucky one percent of retired households will face costs of more than $640,000 during retirement. (This article focuses on non-working retired households, either single or married. Single households will have lower costs than couples.)

“For a couple initially in good health and at the median of the income distribution, we find that mean lifetime out-of-pocket (OOP) + Medicaid spending at age 70 is $154K, while mean lifetime OOP age 70 is $127K,” one of the authors, John B. Jones of the Richmond branch of the Federal Research, told RIJ in an email.

“Of the measure of average total annual medical expenses we use in the paper, 14% represent insurance premia (including part Medicare Part B), 21% represents payments by Medicaid, 16% represent out of pocket death (e.g., funeral) expenses, 49% includes other payments for copays/deductibles for doctor visits/nursing home care/drug expenses/hospital visits/dental visits,” Eric French, of the University College London and another co-author of the paper, told RIJ in an email.

In the study, average medical spending (in 2014 dollars) rises from $5,100 per year on average at age 70 to $29,700 at age 100. At the 95th percentile in costs (one in 20 households), the range is $13,400 at age 70 to $111,200 at 100. Average funeral and burial expenses range from $11,000 at age 72 to $34,000 at age 100. In any given year, one in 1,000 households will suffer a health shock that costs more than $125,000 (in 1998 dollars), the NBER economists wrote.

Jones pointed out that his team’s paper involves spending by people who turned 70 about 25 years ago, while recent estimates such as Fidelity’s are based on people who turned 65 recently and will incur rising costs in the future.

“Health spending at all ages rises over time, so today’s 70-year would expect to spend more than 1992’s 70-year old,” he wrote. Adjusting for inflation, he calculated that households turning 70 today would face an estimated $235,000 for lifetime out-of-pocket costs and receive an additional $46,000 from Medicaid, on average.

For comparison, HealthView, a provider of health care cost-projection software, currently estimates that a 70-year-old couple today (assuming that the wife lives two years longer than her husband) can expect future lifetime health care expenses ranging from about $148,000 (if the husband lives to age 78 and the wife to age 80) to almost $399,000 (if the husband live to age 90 and the wife to age 92).

“Our data consists of forward projections based on 70 million pieces of claims data from range of health insurers, broken down by state,” said Ron Mastrogiovanni Sr., who founded HealthView in 2008. His numbers do not include the value of Medicaid coverage. Expenses are concentrated in the final years of life, he added; living an extra two years could mean $70,000 in addition outlays per person.

Although averages have little predictive value for any single individual, they give advisors a place to start when estimating clients’ future outlays for health insurance and out-of-pocket medical expenses.

Risks of needing nursing home care also vary. “Although high-income people are less likely to be in a nursing home at any given age, they live longer, and older individuals are much more likely to be in a nursing home,” the paper said.

Nursing home risks are different for men than women. “While 37% of single women and 36% of married women alive at age 70 will enter a nursing home [for more than 120 days] before they die, the corresponding quantities for single and married men are 26% and 19%, respectively,” the researchers added.

Gender, wealth level, and health status help determine life expectancy, which affects costs. To take the worst-case scenario, a 70-year-old poor man (bottom 10% of income scale) in a nursing home is likely to live only about three years on average. To take the best-case scenario, a 70-year-old woman in the 90th percentile of wealth, in good health, could expect to live more than 15 years.

Marriage improves life expectancy: The average life expectancy of a surviving spouse in good health at age 70 ranges from 16 years (for poor couples) to 19.4 years (for the most affluent couples), the study showed.

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website, per person health care spending for those 65 and older was $18,988 in 2012. Medicare spending grew 3.6% to $672.1 billion in 2016, or 20% of total national health expenditures (NHE). Medicaid spending grew 3.9% to $565.5 billion in 2016, or 17% of total NHE.

According to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicare spending in 2013 ($575.8 billion) was financed by these sources: 41% general tax revenue, 38% payroll taxes, and 13% beneficiary premiums. The remaining eight percent came from taxes on Social Security benefits, state sources and interest.

Taxes on US retirees for health care will be going up, especially for those with higher incomes. “The floors for the Net Investment Income Tax and the Medicare surtax passed under the Obama administration aren’t indexed for inflation. Thus more taxpayers will owe both taxes over time,” Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, told RIJ in an email.

“The Medicare story is much more complicated,” he added. “For about 70% of Medicare beneficiaries, a hold-harmless provision in the law means their Part B premiums cannot increase faster than their Social Security benefits. But for those with incomes above about $85,000, premiums will rise faster than Social Security benefits. The increases are tied to income, so the more you make the bigger your premium increase.”

The NBER article cited above was co-authored by John Bailey Jones and Justin Kirchner of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Mariacristina De Nardi of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and Rory McGee and Eric French of University College London. The research was based on data from the Health and Retirement Survey (HRS) collected from retired Americans between 1995 and 2014.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Old Allure of New Money

The cryptocurrency revolution, which started with bitcoin in 2009, claims to be inventing new kinds of money. There are now nearly 2,000 cryptocurrencies, and millions of people worldwide are excited by them. What accounts for this enthusiasm, which so far remains undampened by warnings that the revolution is a sham?

One must bear in mind that attempts to reinvent money have a long history. As the sociologist Viviana Zelizer points out in her 1994 book The Social Meaning of Money: “Despite the commonsense idea that ‘a dollar is a dollar is a dollar,’ everywhere we look people are constantly creating different kinds of money.” Many of these innovations generate real excitement, at least for a while.

As the medium of exchange throughout the world, money, in its various embodiments, is rich in mystique. We tend to measure people’s value by it. It sums things up like nothing else. And yet it may consist of nothing more than pieces of paper that just go round and round in circles of spending. So its value depends on belief and trust in those pieces of paper. One might call it faith.

Establishing a new kind of money may be seen as a community’s avowal of faith in an idea, and an effort to inspire its realization. In his book Euro Tragedy: A Drama in Nine Acts, the economist Ashoka Mody argues that the true public justification for creating the European currency in 1992 was a kind of “groupthink,” a faith “embedded in people’s psyches” that “the mere existence of a single currency…would create the impetus for countries to come together in closer political embrace.”

New ideas for money seem to go with the territory of revolution, accompanied by a compelling, easily understood narrative. In 1827, Josiah Warner opened the “Cincinnati Time Store” that sold merchandise in units of hours of work, relying on “labor notes,” which resembled paper money. The new money was seen as a testament to the importance of working people, until he closed the store in 1830.

Two years later, Robert Owen, sometimes described as the father of socialism, attempted to establish in London the National Equitable Labour Exchange, relying

on labor notes, or “time money,” as currency. Here, too, using time instead of gold or silver as a standard of value enforced the notion of the primacy of labor. But, like Warner’s time store, Owen’s experiment failed.

Likewise, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels proposed that the central Communist premise – “Abolition of private property” – would be accompanied by a “Communistic abolition of buying and selling.” Eliminating money, however, was impossible to do, and no Communist state ever did so. Instead, as the British Museum’s recent exhibit, “The Currency of Communism,” showed, they issued paper money with vivid symbols of the working class on it. They had to do something different with money.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, a radical movement, called Technocracy, associated with Columbia University, proposed to replace the gold-backed dollar with a measure of energy, the erg. In their 1933 book The A B C of Technocracy, published under the pseudonym Frank Arkright, they advanced the idea that putting the economy “on an energy basis” would overcome the unemployment problem. The Technocracy fad proved to be short-lived, though, after top scientists debunked the idea’s technical pretensions.

But the effort to dress up a half-baked idea in advanced science didn’t stop there. In 1932 the economist John Pease Norton, addressing the Econometric Society, proposed a dollar backed not by gold but by electricity. But while Norton’s electric dollar received substantial attention, he had no good reason for choosing electricity over other commodities to back the dollar.

At a time when most households in advanced countries had only recently been electrified, and electric devices from radios to refrigerators had entered homes, electricity evoked images of the most glamorous high science. But, like Technocracy, the attempt to co- opt science backfired. Syndicated columnist Harry I. Phillips in 1933 saw in the electric dollar only fodder for comedy. “But it would be good fun getting an income tax blank and sending the government 300 volts,” he noted.

Now we have something new again: bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, which have spawned the initial coin offering (ICO). Issuers claim that ICOs are exempt from securities regulation, because they do not involve conventional money or confer ownership of profits. Investing in an ICO is thought of as an entirely new inspiration.

Each of these monetary innovations has been coupled with a unique technological story. But, more fundamentally, all are connected with a deep yearning for some kind of revolution in society. The cryptocurrencies are a statement of faith in a new community of entrepreneurial cosmopolitans who hold themselves above national governments, which are viewed as the drivers of a long train of inequality and war.

And, as in the past, the public’s fascination with cryptocurrencies is tied to a sort of mystery, like the mystery of the value of money itself, consisting in the new money’s connection to advanced science.

Practically no one, outside of computer science departments, can explain how cryptocurrencies work. That mystery creates an aura of exclusivity, gives the new money glamour, and fills devotees with revolutionary zeal. None of this is new, and, as with past monetary innovations, a compelling story may not be enough.

© 2018 Project-Syndicate.

Five senators want the fiduciary rule to return from ‘vacation’

In a letter to Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, five Democratic senators have protested his department’s failure to appeal the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal’s May 7 decision vacating the Obama-era fiduciary rule to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the letter, Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Patty Murray (D-WA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Ron Wyden (D-OR) asked Secretary Acosta to answer three questions:

  1. Since the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, what has the Department done to inform savers of their lack of protections from conflicted retirement advice, now that the Department is no longer enforcing the conflict of interest rule?
  2. Does the Department plan to defend its authority to protect retirement savers, as courts outside of the Fifth Circuit have affirmed, and appeal the Fifth Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court? If not, why not?
  3. If the Department does not appeal the Fifth Circuit’s decision, or it is not overturned on appeal, what will the Department do in the future to protect retirement savers from conflicted advice?

“Allowing the Fifth Circuit’s decision alone to dictate the Department’s policy sets a dangerous precedent by failing to acknowledge the clear difference of opinion among the courts of appeals regarding the Department’s authorities,” the senators wrote. “The Department should defend its authority and this important rule by appealing the Fifth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court.”

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

It’s official: Lincoln’s indexed variable annuity has arrived

Lincoln Financial Group this week officially announced the introduction of Lincoln Level Advantage indexed variable annuity for near-retirees and retirees. Unlike many competing products—which LIMRA Secure Retirement Institute now calls “registered index-linked annuities”— it offers both variable and index-linked investment sleeves.

Designed for either commissioned or fee-based advisors, Lincoln Level Advantage offers four index options for growth, several levels of protection against loss and an option to convert the value of the contract into a variable income stream for life.

Sales of registered indexed-linked annuity sales increased 25% in 2017 and are expected to keep growing in 2018, according to LIMRA SRI. LIMRA said the products’ downside buffer and their upside potential through links to equity indexes appeal to investors in today’s uncertain investment environment. LIMRA expects sales to continue to grow throughout 2018.

Lincoln Level Advantage offers linkage to four indexes (the S&P 500, Russell 2000, MSCI EAFE Index, and Lincoln’s Capital Strength Index), three renewable term options (one-year, six-year, and a six-year annual lock option) and four protection options (against losses up to 10%, 20%, 30% or 100% of each contract year’s starting value).

Lincoln’s patented i4LIFE Index Advantage lifetime income rider is available for an additional charge. If selected, it lets clients turn their account value into a variable lifetime income stream and offers certain tax efficiencies.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

As the discount rate rises, so do pension funding ratios: Milliman

In April 2018, the 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans experienced a $20 billion improvement in funded status, according to the results of the latest Pension Funding Index (PFI) from Milliman, the global actuarial and consulting firm. An increase in the corporate bond rates that are used to measure pension liabilities drove the change.

From March 31, 2018 through April 30th, the monthly discount rate increased 12 basis points, to 4.03% from 3.91%; as a result, pension liabilities decreased by $26 billion for the month. The funded ratio for the PFI plans increased to 91.6% from 90.6%, despite a 0.11% investment loss that reduced index assets by $6 billion.

“Corporate pensions continue to get some discount rate relief in 2018, despite volatile equity markets,” said Zorast Wadia, co-author of the Milliman 100 PFI. “Over the past 12 months, with the rise in rates and a 6.17% cumulative asset gain for these plans, we’ve seen the funded ratio climb from 85.5% to 91.6%.”

Under an optimistic forecast with rising interest rates (reaching 4.43% by the end of 2018 and 5.03% by the end of 2019) and asset gains (10.8% annual returns), the funded ratio would climb to 101% by the end of 2018 and 117% by the end of 2019.

Under a pessimistic forecast (3.63% discount rate at the end of 2018 and 3.03% by the end of 2019 and 2.8% annual returns), the funded ratio would decline to 87% by the end of 2018 and 81% by the end of 2019.

To view the complete Pension Funding Index, go to http://us.milliman.com/PFI. To see the 2018 Milliman Pension Funding Study, go to http://us.milliman.com/PFS/.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Honorable Mention

U.S. mutual fund assets down for third straight month

Mutual fund assets slid downward for the third straight month, dropping 0.2% in April to close with assets totaling just more than $14.5 trillion, according to the may 2018 issue of The Cerulli Edge – US Monthly Product Trends Edition.

While the mutual fund asset slide continued into April, ETFs reversed course during the month, increasing total assets by 1.2%. Propelling assets forward were net flows of $28.9 billion, which equate to 0.8% organic growth.

Across all affluent-focused advisory practices, which have a core focus of $2 million or greater, Cerulli finds that almost one-third (29%) of client assets are allocated to passive strategies. HNW-focused registered investment advisors (RIAs) continue to be the largest adopters of ETFs, with 93% of active and passive asset managers citing demand.

Advisors reported that strategic beta would grow from 17% of their allocation to ETF products in 2017 to 22% over the next two years. This is significant as ETFs continue to make up a growing part of client portfolios. Though ETF issuers tend to position strategic beta as a diversification tool and alpha generator, the primary reason financial advisors report choosing them is to mitigate risk in client portfolios.

Life insurers want to invest more in infrastructure, but…

While the Trump administration favors using public-private partnerships (P3s) alongside federal funds, private investment and municipal bonds to finance infrastructure projects, regulatory hurdles still discourage life insurers from investing in P3s and infrastructure, says a new TIAA white paper.

The paper suggests adopting consistent regulations, preserving key tax tools, and streamlining the project-approval process.

Infrastructure projects are attractive to life insurers because of their lower risk, longer, stable terms and generally predictable, steady returns. As of 2017, life insurers had collectively invested over $1 trillion in infrastructure projects.

But the current patchwork of federal and state P3 rules, regulations, structures and procedures often deters greater private-sector investment. TIAA, which manages more than $1.35 billion in municipal bonds, recommended four policy reforms:

Define consistent rules and methodologies across geographies. Harmonize the regulations governing P3s to create a more structured market.

Form an industry working group at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). Create new incentives, remove regulatory impediments, and expedite approvals for insurance companies’ infrastructure investments.

Preserve key tax tools. Maintain or broaden tax exemptions on certain governmental bonds.

Expedite approval processes. Streamline the permitting and review processes to ensure infrastructure projects advance in a more coordinated, efficient manner, while maintaining appropriate oversight.

Through Nuveen, TIAA’s investment manager, the life insurer today manages more than $135 billion in municipal fixed income assets.

To download a copy of TIAA’s white paper on opportunities for infrastructure investment by life insurers, visit http://www.tiaa.org/infrastructure.

John Hancock hires Infosys to digitize operations

John Hancock has engaged Infosys, the technology firm, for a four-year project that will give the insurer’s life and annuity customers a consolidated digital experience and will digitize operations generally, a John Hancock release said.

Upon completion, several legacy systems will be consolidated and John Hancock will be able to provide a more digitally enabled experience across insurance products. John Hancock will retain direct responsibility for all customer interactions, including through its contact center.

“Consolidating multiple legacy systems into a single, integrated platform will reduce the cost of supporting closed in-force blocks of business and increase opportunities to leverage advanced analytics to reengineer the customer experience,” said Naveed Irshad, head of North American Legacy business.

MassMutual publishes market research on Asian Americans

Asian Americans are more concerned about making mistakes with their retirement savings in the years just before and just after retirement, yet are more confident about their investments than other retirees and pre-retirees, new research from MassMutual finds.

Asian American retirees and pre-retirees worry more than other Americans about taking too much risk (69% vs. 44%) or making a poor investment decision (67% vs. 54%) within 15 years before or after retirement, according to the MassMutual Asian American Retirement Risk Study. Asian American pre-retirees (75%) are especially concerned about taking too much investment risk, the study shows.

More so than others, Asian American retirees and pre-retirees believe workers approaching retirement should reduce their investments in equities (64% vs. 53%). Asian Americans are more likely to have more conservative investment goals, aiming to “match the market” (43% vs. 32%) rather than outperform it (55% vs. 65%).

Asian Americans are much less likely than other Americans to reduce retirement savings by making withdrawals or hardship loans or suspending contributions, according to the study. While one in four American retirees and pre-retirees (25%) report engaging in those behaviors, on 11% of Asian American respondents say the same.

Compared to the general population of retirees, for instance, Asian American retirees are more likely to enjoy managing their own money (80% vs. 59%). Only two in five retired Asian Americans (42%) prefer an investment that allows them “set-it-and-forget-it,” compared with nearly three in four pre-retired Asian Americans (72%).

More than half of Asian Americans (53%) are uncertain about the length of their retirement compared to a little over one-third of Americans overall (36%). Fewer Asian American retirees (63%) are confident they know how to claim Social Security at the right time to maximize its benefits, than American retirees overall (75%), according to the study.

Greenwald & Associates conducted the internet-based study for MassMutual, polling 801 retirees who have been retired for no more than 15 years and 804 pre-retirees within 15 years of retirement. Pre-retirees were required to have household incomes of at least $40,000 and retired respondents had at least $100,000 in investable assets and participated in making household financial decisions. The survey included an oversample of Asian Americans for a total of 199 Asian Americans surveyed.  Asian American is defined in this research as Chinese, Asian Indian and Korean. The research was conducted January 2018.

Apple leads in stock buybacks with $100 billion in April/May 2018

U.S. companies announced $6.1 billion in daily stock buybacks this past earnings season, according to TrimTabs research. The rate was second only to the $6.6 billion daily announced in the previous earnings season.

New stock buybacks totaled $183.4 billion in the April/May 2018 earnings season, second only to the $191.4 billion in the January/February 2018 earnings season. The volume of buybacks in the latest earnings season was the second highest on record, although the average of 3.7 announcements per day was not much higher than the 3.5 per day in the previous eight earnings seasons.

Five companies—Apple ($100 billion), Broadcom ($12 billion), Facebook ($9 billion), Qualcomm ($8.8 billion), and T-Mobile ($7.5 billion)—accounted for 75% of the $183.4 billion volume.

“The buyback boom early this year confirms our view that the main use of corporate America’s tax savings will be takeovers and stock buybacks rather than capital investment or hiring,” said the TrimTabs release.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.