Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

Allianz Life issues no-commission fixed indexed annuity with income riders

Allianz Life has offered its first fee-based fixed indexed annuity (FIA), calling it the Retirement Foundation ADV annuity, Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America announced this week.

The new product is part of a slowly developing post-DOL-fiduciary-rule trend toward indexed and variable annuity products that can be sold by advisors who charge an annual fee based on assets under management rather than receiving a commission from the annuity issuer.

So far, no authority appears to have questioned whether advisors should charge a full management fee on the assets in a packaged product such as an annuity. Defenders of commission-based annuity sales have long argued that annual management fees can potentially cost a client more than an upfront commission would have.   

Retirement Foundation ADV offers two guaranteed lifetime withdrawal options. The first offers a fixed percentage payout that depends on the age at which income begins. Its age bands start at 4% per year at ages 45-49 for single contracts (3.5% for joint contracts) and rise 10 basis points with each year of delay, until reaching 7.9% (7.4% for joint contracts) if income begins at age 80.

Alternately, clients can take a payout that starts at 3% (2.5% for joint contracts) but increases each year. The annual payout increases are 25 basis points for those who start income at age 50 and rises by one basis point per year of delay until reaching 55 basis points at age 80. The income rider automatically applies at issue and costs 1.05% of the accumulation value (account value) each year. The rider charge continues even after income payments begin.

The account value (and income received) goes up each year by the interest credited, if any, under the annual point-to-point index crediting method. Policyholders can choose any combination of the four available indices: the S&P 500, Nasdaq-100, Russell 2000, or Barclays US Dynamic Index II. There’s a cap on annual interest gains that is re-determined at the start of every contract year.

Before income begins, there’s also a potential market value adjustment on withdrawals in excess of the 10% allowed by law. The adjustment either increases or decreases the withdrawals, depending on whether corporate bond yields have gone down or up.

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Federal Judge Upholds Obama Fiduciary Rule

Despite the Trump administration’s request for her to delay its publication, a federal judge in Dallas yesterday released an 81-page ruling that upheld the legal basis of the Obama “fiduciary rule” in the face of challenges from life insurance and annuity industry groups.

In Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A. et al v. Edward Hugler, Acting Labor Secretary, and the Department of Labor, Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn affirmed that the Obama DOL acted within its authority when it required financial advisors to put the interests of retirement investors ahead of their own and allowed investors to sue advisors who violate that requirement.

Among other things, the Obama fiduciary rule makes it difficult for broker-dealer reps and insurance agents to accept commissions from insurance companies when selling annuities to rollover IRA clients and 401(k) plans—thus interfering with a long-standing and lucrative business model. The rule went into effect in June 2016 but the industry was given until April 2017 to fully comply with it.

On Tuesday, the Trump DOL, in an extraordinary direct appeal by the executive branch to the judicial branch, asked Lynn for a delay. In an equally extraordinary show of defiance of the executive branch, Lynn apparently ignored the request and released her ruling.

President Bill Clinton appointed Lynn, 64, to the federal bench in 1999. In 2016, she became the first woman to hold the position of chief judge of the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

The suit filed by the Chamber, the Annuity Leadership Council, and the American Council of Life Insurers, claimed that, “financial professionals are improperly being treated as fiduciaries and should not be required to comply with heightened fiduciary standards for one-time transactions.”

They also claimed that “the conditions to qualify for an exemption under BICE [the Best Interest Contract Exemption, which, if met, allowed commission-paying sales of indexed and variable annuities] are so burdensome that financial professionals will be unable to advise the IRA market and sell most annuities to ERISA plans and IRAs.”

Specifically, the plaintiffs’ suit said that:

  • The Fiduciary Rule exceeds the DOL’s statutory authority under ERISA.
  • The BICE exceeds the DOL’s exemptive authority, because it requires fiduciaries who advise Title II plans, such as IRAs, to be bound by duties of loyalty and prudence, although that is not expressly provided for in the statute.  
  • The written contract requirements in BICE and PTE 84-24 impermissibly create a private right of action.
  • The rulemaking process violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) for several reasons, including that the notice and comment period was inadequate, the DOL was arbitrary and capricious when it moved exemptive relief provisions for FIAs from PTE 84-24 to BICE, the DOL failed to account for existing annuity regulations, BICE is unworkable, and the DOL’s cost-benefit analysis was arbitrary and capricious.
  • The BICE does not meet statutory requirements for granting exemptions from the prohibited transaction rules.  
  • The new rules violate the First Amendment, as applied to the truthful commercial speech of their members.
  • The contractual provisions required by BICE violate the Federal Arbitration Act.

In her ruling, Judge Lynn rejected all of these claims and refuted the arguments behind them. The Trump administration is expected to try to repeal or rescind the rule—especially the part that allows clients to sue brokers in court rather than having complaints heard in industry-dominated arbitration hearings.

The fiduciary rule has plugged what the Obama administration saw as a much-abused loophole in pension and securities laws. For many years, commission-paid brokers and agents could sell annuities and mutual funds that weren’t necessarily in the client’s best interest. They could justify such sales by claiming that they weren’t acting as ongoing, trusted advisors to their customers but merely as salespeople in a classic buyer-beware situation.

The Obama DOL acted in part because the stakes were becoming higher. At the time the rule was issued, some $7 trillion had migrated from the institutional realm of 401(k) plans into the retail world of individual IRAs through the mechanism of so-called “direct rollovers,” where it was easier for brokers and agents to take advantage of the loophole.

One legal complication: Rollover IRAs fell into a grey zone between the institutional and retail worlds. The DOL saw them as under its jurisdiction, while the financial industry saw rollover IRAs as part of its turf.

Fees were also typically higher in the retail rollover world and regulations less strict. That made rollover assets a potential boon to the retail financial services industry but a source of concern for the DOL. It saw high fees eating up a significant portion of American’s tax-deferred savings and potentially consuming much of the benefits to savers of the right to defer income taxes on the money in their 401(k) and traditional IRA accounts until age 70½. 

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Who buys income annuities, and why most people don’t: EBRI

In a U-shaped market pattern, immediate annuities are usually purchased by those with either the most or least personal savings, according to a new study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

“Those with inadequate assets might value a regular stream of income very highly and those with the most [assets] might expect to live longer and can also afford it even after leaving a bequest,” EBRI said in a release this week.

Overall demand for retail immediate annuities may be low because they are crowded out by Social Security and defined benefit pensions, EBRI suggested.  

“A large majority—more than 70%—of households that are currently receiving Social Security benefit already get at least three-quarters of their income in the form of annuities, from Social Security, employer-provided pensions, and other annuity contracts,” said Sudipto Banerjee, EBRI research associate and author of the study. “The fact that most retirees are already highly annuitized might help explain the lack of demand for additional annuity income.”

While the decline of defined benefit (DB) pension plan coverage has stimulated interest in other options for generating retirement income, demand for annuities has remained low in the United States. EBRI conducted its analysis to understand the public’s preferences for such products, with a focus on how savings levels affect preferences for immediate annuities (which begin paying out a regular stream of income as soon as they are purchased).

EBRI used an experiment from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) to assess the effect of savings on the preference for immediate annuities among retirees (ages 65 and above).

Regression results show that effect of savings on annuity preferences follow a U-shaped pattern, meaning that people at the bottom- and top-ends of the savings distribution (those with the least and most assets) have a stronger preference for such annuities than people in the middle of the savings distribution.

But savings has a large positive effect on preference for annuities only for those in the highest-savings quintile (the top 20% in the wealth distribution).

The study notes that possible explanations for such behavior could be:

  • People at the bottom of the savings distribution are very likely to run out of money in retirement and thus have a stronger preference for annuities.
  • People at the top end of the savings distribution expect longer lifespans and can afford annuities even after leaving a financial legacy for their heirs.
  • People in the middle generally face more uncertainty about their retirement adequacy and so they are more likely to hold on to their savings for precautionary purposes and perhaps also for some hope of leaving a financial legacy for their heirs.

The EBRI results also show annuity purchasers usually opt to annuitize less than half of their savings. Only 16.5% of retirees (ages 65 and above) preferred full annuitization; 43% preferred a one-quarter annuitization.

The full report, “How Does Level of Savings Affect Preference for Immediate Annuities?” is published in the Feb. 8, 2017 EBRI Issue Brief, online at www.ebri.org.

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Average 401(k) balances up 33% since 4Q2011: Fidelity

Fidelity Investments this week released its 401(k) and Individual Retirement Account (IRA) analysis for the fourth quarter of 2016, which revealed:

A record average 401(k) balance. Increasing contributions and stock market performance drove the average 401(k) balance to an all-time high of $92,500 at the end of Q4, topping the previous high of $92,100 in Q1 2015 and an increase of $4,300 from a year ago. The average five years ago was $69,400 for IRAs and 401(k) accounts.

Number of IRA accounts top 8.5 million. Nearly one-half million IRA accounts were added in 2016 on Fidelity’s platform, which ended the year with more than 8.5 million accounts. The average IRA balance of $93,700 is up $3,600 year-over-year.

Contribution rates rebound to pre-financial crisis levels. The average contribution rate to Fidelity 401(k)s reached 8.4% in Q4, the highest level since Q2 2008. Over the past 12 months, the total savings amount (employee contributions plus employer match/profit sharing) reached a record $10,200.

Percentage of 401(k) loans drops to lowest level in seven years. As contribution rates increase, the portion of Fidelity account holders with an outstanding 401(k) loan dropped to 21 percent, the lowest level since Q4 2009. For loan-takers, it’s important to continue 401(k) contributions during the life of the loan and consider increasing contributions once the loan is paid off.

“More than one-in-four Fidelity 401(k) savers increased their savings rate in 2016—an all-time high—and the number of people with a 401(k) loan dropped to its lowest point in seven years,” said Kevin Barry, president, Workplace Investing at Fidelity Investments.  

More retirement savers are attending online seminars on how to set goals for retirement and increase their savings, and learn the importance of asset allocation, Social Security strategies and more, Fidelity said.

In the first half of 2016, attendance at Fidelity’s live web sessions was up 52% and use of on-demand seminars, such as a session on how to prioritize savings goals, was up 62%. Fidelity’s interactive Money Check-up, which helps individuals understand their financial wellness and where they need to act, has been completed by over 300,000 people since last June. Fidelity’s retail planning tools saw a 41% increase in traffic in 2016, with more than half of visitors creating, modifying or monitoring their retirement goals.

Fidelity Investments has assets under administration of $5.7 trillion, including managed assets of $2.1 trillion as of December 31, 2016.

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

MassMutual offers customized pension yield curves to DB clients

MassMutual, a provider of defined benefit (DB) pension plans and other retirement services, is introducing new “customized pension yield curves” to help plan sponsors measure their pension obligations more accurately and transparently, the company said in a release this week.

“The yield curve provides an improved benchmark to calculate the value of pension liabilities that gets reflected in plan sponsor’s balance sheet and profit and loss statement,” said Steve Mendelsohn, MassMutual’s national practice leader for defined benefit actuarial services.

Custom yield curves help plan sponsors determine an appropriate discount rate to measure liabilities for their pension and other postretirement benefit obligations, the release said. MassMutual said its curve meets the pension and postretirement benefit obligation requirements set by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The curve offers plan sponsors and their auditors an alternative solution with greater transparency than similarly available benchmarks in the market, according to Sumit Kundu, consulting actuary at MassMutual. That’s important “in an environment where historically low interest rates and rising costs… are making it more difficult and more expensive” for employers to sponsor DB plans, Kundu said.

MassMutual issued a white paper on its yield curve methodology and compares it with other yield curves available on the market. The white paper is available to plan sponsors and auditors on request.

Despite the erosion of defined benefit plans in the market, there are still approximately $8.2 trillion total in private and public DB pension assets in the United States as of Sept. 30, 2016, according to the Investment Company Institute.

In 2016, MassMutual created an Institutional Solutions unit, which gives plan sponsors and advisors actuarial and other plan services, including investment products tailored for DB plans (open and frozen), liability driven investing (LDI), actuarial funding and accounting strategies, plan administration, plan design consulting, pension buyouts and lump sum windows.

MassMutual manages more than $16 billion in DB assets for more than 400,000 plan participants as of Dec. 31, 2016 and provides recordkeeping, investment management and actuarial services. The company serves more than 35,000 sponsors and approximately three million participants of both DB and defined contribution plans.

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Merrill Lynch launches hybrid digital-human advice platform

Merrill Lynch has launched its hybrid robo-human digital advisory platform, Merrill Edge Guided Investing, which “combines expert insight with the convenience and flexibility of online management,” according to a release this week.

Through the new platform, investors at any asset level can access strategies “built and managed by the Global Wealth & Investment Management (GWIM) Chief Investment Office, not by algorithms,” the release said.  

Web-based, advisor-assisted investment solutions, a hybrid between human advice and robo-advice, is widely seen as the future of advice for mass-affluent investors. “Merrill Edge Guided Investing is our way of bringing together advice and technology to create stronger relationships with investors,” said Aron Levine, head of Merrill Edge.

A Merrill Edge Guided Investing account on MerrillEdge.com can be opened with $5,000 or more. Clients specify an investing goal, and, based on the information they provide, receive a recommended investment strategy designed by a team of Merrill Lynch investment experts. They are then presented with options to open and fund the account.

GWIM’s Chief Investment Office develops the investment strategies, including providing its recommendations of ETFs and related asset allocations. Managed Account Advisors LLC, Merrill Lynch’s affiliate, is the portfolio manager responsible for implementing the Merrill Edge Guided Investing strategies for client accounts based on the GWIM CIO’s recommendations.

Merrill Edge Guided Investing can be a complement to a client’s existing Merrill Edge, Merrill Lynch or U.S. Trust relationship. Clients can view their Merrill Edge investments and Bank of America bank accounts on one page online. They also have access to one-on-one guidance and competitive pricing for online trades.

If clients want customized financial advice and guidance, they can use Merrill Edge Roadmap to work one-on-one with a Merrill Edge Financial Solutions Advisor.  

Merrill Lynch Wealth Management is among the largest provider of wealth management and investment services for individuals and businesses globally, with $2.1 trillion in client balances as of December 31, 2016.

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Honorable Mention

LifeYield Advantage Suite now boasts 75,000 users

LifeYield, whose software offers tax-minimizing retirement drawdown strategies, said that more than 75,000 advisors and investors are now using its LifeYield Advantage Suite.

“An increasing number of investors and advisors are able to reduce the cost of taxes on their portfolios, which is their single largest cost over the life of the investment,” said Mark Hoffman, LifeYield CEO and founder. “We see tax-optimized household management as the next big wave in our industry.”

A December 2016 report, Digital Habits Revealed, released by financial services research firm Hearts & Wallets found that affluent investors want and will pay for advice to have their portfolios managed in a tax-optimized way across multiple accounts, including tax-optimized withdrawals.

The report analyzes qualitative research with investors in three behavioral groups according to their use of online and financial professional advice. It also found that the desire for tax optimization was one of the highest-rated pain points among retail investors who were interviewed, whether they were ‘heavy digital,’ ‘light digital’ or users of ‘live only’ advice.

“The quantitative data validate these qualitative findings, with nearly half (44%) of consumers facing retirement stating they want help with minimizing taxes from investments,” explains Laura Varas, CEO and Founder of Hearts & Wallets. “The interesting thing is, 48% think somehow they are getting this, but only 32% say they have execution support.”  

Assets in Northwestern Mutual’s ‘active/passive’ models reach $2 billion

Northwestern Mutual’s Signature Portfolios Active/Passive models, first introduced in early 2016, have surpassed $2 billion in assets through the end of 2016, the Milwaukee-based mutual insurer announced this week.

The models, which are offered by Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management Company, use both actively managed mutual funds and passively managed ETFs in an overall portfolio.

The active/passive models employ a dynamic asset allocation selection overlay to provide “measured tilts” from the static long-term strategic asset allocation, based on the intermediate-term attractiveness of an asset class, as determined by Northwestern Mutual’s chief investment strategist, Brent Schutte, and his team.

Envestnet and TRAU announce fiduciary training partnership

Envestnet | Retirement Solutions will partner with The Retirement Advisor University (TRAU) to deliver the Essential Retirement Advisor, “a fiduciary training program designed to help financial advisors obtain access to continuing practice management and fiduciary education,” an Envestnet release said.  

TRAU’s fiduciary training program, developed with the Envestnet Institute, is an online and in-person educational curriculum designed for the advisor who is new to the retirement plan space, as well as experienced registered investment advisors (RIAs). TRAU’s program was also developed in collaboration with the UCLA Anderson School of Management Executive Education. TRAU was founded by Fred Barstein, its CEO.

Certified advisors will be authorized to deliver proprietary fiduciary training content online and in-person to their plan sponsor clients and prospects. The program will be introduced at this year’s Envestnet Advisor Summit, scheduled to take place May 3-5, 2017 at the Gaylord Texan Resort and Convention Center in Dallas.

Lincoln Financial enhances income riders

Lincoln Financial Group announced enhancements to its guaranteed lifetime income riders available through its flagship Lincoln ChoicePlus Assurance and American Legacy variable annuity solutions. The enhancements, which add more flexible investment requirements and increased income payouts, provide advisors and consumers with more options to help create a known source of income in retirement that they can never outlive and that can never go down.

New rider elections of Market Select Advantage feature more investment options without a managed risk overlay and up to 70% equity exposure (up from 60%), which can lead to higher upside growth potential through Lincoln ChoicePlus Assurance and American Legacy.

New rider elections of i4LIFE Advantage Select GIB also benefit from this enhancement. i4LIFE is Lincoln’s unique income distribution method that offers clients tax-efficient lifetime income when investing nonqualified assets. These living benefit riders are available through Lincoln variable annuities for an additional cost.

Lincoln also announced increased income payouts for single- and joint-life contracts with new elections of Lincoln Lifetime Income Advantage 2.0 Managed Risk, an optional living benefit rider available for an additional cost with American Legacy and Lincoln ChoicePlus Assurance variable annuity solutions. Income percentages increased for the following ages:

  • Joint life: ages 65-74 to 5%
  • Single life: ages 65+ to 5.25%
  • Single life: ages 59-64 to 4.25%

It pays to stay married in later life, CPAs say

Three-in-four (75.6%) retirement-age divorcees need to better understand how to manage their personal finances, according to a “Personal Financial Planning (PFP) Trends Survey” of CPA financial planners by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA).

The divorce rate for Americans over the age of 50 has doubled since 1990, AICPA said. Its survey found that men and women were about equally likely to experience a deterioration of their spending habits post-divorce (women: 25.7%, men: 24.9%), but the similarities between the sexes ended there.

Female clients are far more likely to adopt positive financial behaviors post-divorce than their male clients, CPA financial planners said. Women are twice as likely to seek out a job (40.2% to 20.6%) and increase their savings toward retirement (41.3% to 16.4%). Women were almost four times likelier than men to improve their spending habits (42.3% to 11.7%) and roughly fourteen times more likely to seek financial advice after divorce (60.4% to 4.4%).

The survey also asked CPA financial planners what steps would have better prepared their clients near retirement age financially for divorce. The most frequently cited were: Understanding how to manage personal finances (75.6%), Understanding the long-term financial planning consequences of a divorce settlement (73.0%) and Understanding the tax implications of a divorce settlement (56.9%).

The additional steps CPA financial planners felt would have better prepared their clients for divorce were updating wills or trusts (51.2%), increasing saving for retirement (50.7%) and decreasing spending (42.8%). About one in three planners (36.1%) cited a pre-nuptial agreement as financial preparation for a future divorce. 

Raises will be slim in 2017 for financial services workers: Mercer

Salary increases are set to be modest in 2017 as financial services companies worldwide feel the impact of slow economic growth, low inflation as well as continued low interest rates, according to the latest data from Mercer. 

On average, 2017 base salary increases for all roles are expected to be between 1.9% and 2.4%. Mercer’s research finds that the majority of organizations predict 2017 annual incentive levels to remain similar or unchanged to 2016.

Mercer’s “Global Financial Services Executive Compensation Snapshot Survey” was conducted in October/November 2016. The survey reviews the pay practices of 42 global financial services companies — banks, insurers and other financial services — based in 14 countries in Europe, North America, Asia, and South America.

Forecasted base salary increases are expected to be lower in Europe (1.4% to 2.0%) than North America (1.6% to 2.6%). Projections for India (6.0% average salary increase) are higher than any other growth market across Latin and South America (3.5%) and Asia (3.8%). Approximately two-thirds of organizations predict that the 2017 actual corporate incentive pools will be similar (within +/- 5% range) or unchanged to 2016 levels. Almost one-quarter of companies surveyed predict the actual 2017 incentive pool to be significantly lower than 2016 levels, while only 11% predict it to be significantly higher. A similar trend was observed last year.

The most prevalent changes in remuneration policy and practices planned by organizations in the next 12 months are job evaluation/global leveling (63%), parental leave policies company-wide (38%) and flexible benefits (33%). Pay equity policies remain an area for change, particularly in European firms where 40% say they plan to make changes to their formal pay equity policy company-wide in the next 12 months.

According to Mercer’s research, a growing number of organizations are implementing the use of non-financial performance measures as a way of aligning performance with sound risk-taking. Non-financial performance measures of conduct, compliance and risk management are increasingly being allowed to override financial outcomes. Approximately one-third of organizations allow for non-financial measures to override financial measures in their annual incentive plan (38%) and multi-year incentive plan (32%). This is more common in banks (55%) than insurance firms (15%).

Organizations continue to respond to regulatory developments and talent shortages by increasing fixed pay in the compensation of control functions. Mercer’s data showed around half (48%) of companies had increased fixed pay for control functions, one-third had decreased variable pay, and 19% showed an increase in total compensation levels.

On a regional level, far more European organizations reported a shift from variable to fixed pay: about half (52%) of European organizations reported an increase in pay linkage to function performance compared to 21% in North America. One-third of both insurers and banks reported that regulatory impact decreased the link between pay and business performance. 

Mercer’s research showed that less than 30% of banks overall report a linkage of compensation for control functions to line of business performance. 

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

 

New issue of Journal of Retirement appears

The Winter 2017 issue of the Journal of Retirement has just appeared, with several stories that should be of interest to RIJ readers. The new issue contains stories related to the adequacy of Social Security replacement rates, the potential impact of long-term care costs on retirement portfolios, new ideas for refining the “failure rates” of retirement portfolios, and lessons learned from Ireland’s and Poland’s retirement systems.

A report on an earlier version of one of the articles, “Retirement Income Programs: The Next Step in the Transition from DB to DC Retirement Plans,” by Wade Pfau, Joe Tomlinson, and Steve Vernon, previously appeared in RIJ. The new issue of JoR also includes these and other stories:

Balancing Income and Bequest Goals in a DB/DC Hybrid Pension Plan, by David Krausch and Virginia Young, Grace Gu and Kristen Moore.

These authors examine a hypothetical situation where young professionals have access to a defined benefit/defined contribution plan (similar to a “floor offset” plan), then “quantify the trade-offs between the income security of a DB plan and the potential for wealth accumulation in a DC plan, addressing the question, ‘How much income security will I forfeit by focusing more on wealth accumulation?’

In general, their findings conform to common sense: The more you contribute to a DB annuity, the more income you will have in retirement, and the more you contribute to a DC plan, the larger your bequest will be. As a rule of thumb, they suggest dividing contributions evenly between the DB (i.e., life annuity contract) and the DC (accumulation portfolio) to strike a balance between the twin goals.

Will Long-Term Care Ruin Retirement Plans?, by Michael Crook and Ronald Sutedja of UBS.

Financial plans that do not incorporate long-term care expenses can significantly overestimate the long-term sustainability of the plan, this paper shows. The two authors found that once you add the assumption of long-term care expenses to the planning around a retirement portfolio with a starting value $1 million, the probably of portfolio ruin (depletion of the portfolio prior to the death of both members of a couple) rises to about 30%.

If it includes nursing home care in expensive areas, the cost of long-term care can exceed $100,000 per year. Assuming that couples with less than $1 million in savings choose to pay for long-term care, and don’t have insurance, the chances of portfolio ruin would presumable be higher.

Couples with portfolios larger than $1 million, conversely, face a smaller chance of ruin. The authors found that roughly 85% of older couples will utilize some type of long-term care. Interestingly, they noted that female same-sex households are particularly at risk of portfolio ruin due to greater longevity and higher incidence of long-term care usage.   

Refining the Failure Rate, byJavier Estrada

In this article, a professor of finance at IESE Business School in Barcelona tries to fill in the gaps that he has found in the so-called “failure rate” calculations that advisors often use to determine the likelihood that a particular portfolio will provide lifelong income or not. As Estrada points out, these calculations may tell advisors and clients if the portfolio will ever fail, but typically lack two variables.

“One [variable] measures how long before the end of the retirement period a strategy depleted a portfolio; the other measures what proportion of the retirement period a strategy sustained a retiree’s withdrawals,” Estrada writes. “These two variables, together with the failure rate, provide a better picture of the main risk retirees have to bear during retirement… They aim to refine and complement the failure rate, not to replace it.”

Using evidence from 21 countries and the world market over the 115 years between 1900 and 2014, he found that “two strategies that had the same or similar failure rates may have failed at a different number of years before the end of the retirement period.” Failure rates for the same portfolio varied from country to country, his analysis showed.

Improving Pension Income and Reducing Poverty at Advanced Older Ages: Longevity Insurance Benefits in Ireland and Poland as Models for the United States, by John A. Turner, Gerald Hughes, Agnieszka Chlon-Dominczak, and David M. Raines.

These authors look at the low poverty rates among the extremely old in Ireland and Poland, and compare them with the relatively higher rates of poverty among that demographic group in the United States. Both Ireland and Poland have poverty rates for persons aged 75 and older that are equal to or lower than for persons aged 65 and older. The authors trace this situation to Ireland’s “Age 80 Allowance” for people aged 80 and older and the “Care Allowance” in Poland for persons aged 75 and older, two longevity insurance benefit programs, discuss proposals for adding similar benefits to Social Security in the United States and Canada.

The Life Cycle Model, Replacement Rates, and Retirement Income Adequacy, by Andrew Biggs.

In this article, the well-known economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute makes the case that Social Security benefits today are more generous than commonly thought.

If the Social Security Administration relied on the “lifecycle” theory of human consumption, Biggs argues, then the portion of pre-retirement income that the average Social Security benefit replaces (the wonky and controversial “replacement rate,” a benchmark for the adequacy of benefits) would be significantly higher than 40%, where it stands today.

“More life cycle–friendly replacement rate methodologies… would tend to show,” Biggs writes, “that Americans’ overall retirement saving is more adequate than is commonly supposed.”

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Target Date Funds: What’s Under the Hood?

Target date funds (TDFs) have steadily gained usage since the Pension Protection Act of 2006 made them QDIAs—qualified default investment alternatives—in 401(k) plans with auto-enrollment features. In 2006, 28% of new 401(k) participants bought a TDF; by 2014, that figure was 59%, according to EBRI.

In a new policy brief from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, a quartet of academics examine the underlying funds, costs, performance and management of TDFs and find that:

  • TDFs often invest in specialized assets, as well as conventional stocks and bonds. The typical TDF invests in 17 funds on average. These holdings include emerging markets, real estate, and commodities. The prevalence of these specialized assets has increased over time.
  • TDF fees are only modestly higher than if an investor assembled a similar portfolio on his own. To avoid overlay fees, an investor might consider replicating the TDF portfolio on his own, but the analysis found little benefit from this “do-it-yourself” approach.
  • TDF investment returns, on average, fall short of their benchmark indices but perform about the same as all other mutual funds, the authors found. “When [the overlay or funds-of-funds wrap fee] fee—roughly 50 basis points on average—is added, the total alpha is roughly minus-70 basis points. This value approximates the average alpha for mutual funds in general.”
  • TDF managers’ decisions, in terms of marketing timing and fund additions, sometimes hurt performance. “Three types of fund family objectives can adversely affect TDF returns. First, TDF managers tended to favor start-up funds, which had substantially lower returns over the next three years than the alternatives within their fund family,” the authors found.

The four authors of the brief were Edward J. Elton and Martin J. Gruber, professors emeriti and scholars in residence at New York University’s (NYU) Stern School of Business; Andre de Souza, visiting assistant professor of finance at the Stern School; the late Christopher R. Blake, formerly Joseph Keating, S.J. Distinguished Professor at Fordham University. 

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

‘Focus on issues in your direct control,’ A.M. Best urges annuity issuers

Rising rates, increased potential for lower taxes and reduced regulatory hurdles: These post-presidential signs bode well for U.S. life/annuity insurers in 2017, according to a new A.M. Best special report. But insurers “still need to remain focused on the issues that… remain more directly in the industry’s control,” said an A.M. Best release this week.

The 2017 Review & Preview Best’s Special Report, “Many Headwinds, But Life/Annuity Insurers Remain Focused on What They Can Control,” notes that A.M. Best revised its outlook for 2017 on the L/A industry from stable to negative. “The industry… does not look vulnerable to any single shock, but is susceptible to a multitude of pressures that raise operational risk and is placing increasing time constraints on senior management,” the release said.

“The biggest unknown for the L/A industry is which of these regulatory changes”—principles-based reserving or the DOL fiduciary rule—“will remain intact under the new Republican administration, or whether some or all will be either materially delayed, overhauled or repealed altogether,” A.M. Best added.

The prospect of disruption from financial technology/insurance technology companies likely will drive highly strategic-focused merger and acquisition activity, A.M. Best said. The ratings firm advised insurers to focus on:

  • Modernization of the business model through improved systems and data analytics to improve underwriting and profitable top line growth
  • Managing through an uncertain and potentially volatile global economic and regulatory environment
  • Strategic decision-making for asset allocation and business profile

According to the remaining text of the statement:

“In 2016, economic headwinds, evidenced through low interest rates, continued to impact both sides of the balance sheet through increased credit and liquidity risks, lower investment portfolio returns and increased reserving.

“Robust equity markets and benign credit markets partially have offset some of this pressure, and many companies have taken advantage of lower financing costs to prepay near-term debt maturities, resulting in modest short-term increases to financial leverage.”

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Honorable Mention

Hope trumps fear in new Ed Jones survey

A majority of Americans surveyed (57%) believe that the new presidential administration will impact their retirement savings income strategy and nearly half (48%) expect an uptick in market volatility in 1Q2017, according to a survey sponsored by the advisory firm Edward Jones.  

Among Americans with investments, 42% believe that the new administration will positively impact their portfolio in the coming year, and about one-quarter (27%) of expect a negative effect on their assets.

Three-quarters of those surveyed believe their investment assets will be impacted over the long-term, with nearly half (46%) anticipating a positive effect. Baby Boomer investors, ages 53-71, are the most optimistic, with 52% expecting a positive long-term impact; 39% of Millennials and 48% of Gen-X investors were optimistic.

“Regardless of what the perceived impact of the new administration is, it’s important to focus on what you can control, and avoid making rash decisions based off emotion, especially where retirement planning is concerned,” said Scott Thoma, Principal and Retirement Strategist for Edward Jones, in a release.

The survey was conducted by ORC International’s Telephone CARAVAN Omnibus for Edward Jones. The survey was conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1015 respondents from January 19-22, 2017.

Hanlon Investment Management links to BlackRock’s iRetire methodology

Hanlon Investment Management said this week that it is offering BlackRock’s iRetire retirement investment framework to financial advisors and wealth managers on the Hanlon Wealth Advisor Platform.

The iRetire framework, introduced in 2015, lets advisors estimate how much income their clients’ current savings could provide annually in retirement and how changes in behavior (e.g., working longer, saving more, changing their investment strategy) could help close the income gap.

The iRetire platform draws on CoRI methodology, the engine behind BlackRock’s retirement income indexes, and the risk analytics of Aladdin, BlackRock’s risk and enterprise investment system. Advisors can also use iRetire insights to build various portfolio scenarios for clients to consider based on their retirement income goals.

The iRetire platform provides advisors with tools and resources to let investors see where they stand when it comes to the number that really matters—annual retirement income—and take action to help their clients close the retirement income gap.

Hanlon offers asset management, technology, and practice management solutions to thousands of advisors nationwide. Hanlon’s Wealth Advisor Platform helps advisors manage portfolio accounting, reporting and marketing, to investment management and retirement planning.

Private equity firm eyes DC market, offers ‘performance-based pricing’

In hopes of distributing its private equity investment options to defined contribution plan participants, Pantheon, a $35.2 billion global private equity firm,  has introduced “performance-based pricing” as an option for its private equity strategies targeted at the DC market.

“Based on the strong returns the private equity asset class has delivered in recent years5, Pantheon believes that private equity strategies have the potential to address the performance delta between DB and DC plans and merit consideration as a viable investment option by plan sponsors,” Pantheon, which invests in infrastructure funds and real assets funds, said in a release.

The idea is to make often-illiquid private equity investments, which defined benefit pension fund managers have used to boost returns, accessible to DC plans. Historically, DB plans have outperformed DC plans for reasons that include a shift toward alternative assets and differing investment fee structures. 

Pantheon’s performance pricing option would apply only to that portion of a portfolio invested in private equity investments (e.g., not including cash and liquid securities). Pantheon would take its performance-based fee only when the performance of the private assets in the portfolio beats performance of the S&P 500.

Pantheon does not receive all the performance fees that accrued immediately. When a performance fee is accrued, it is gradually paid to Pantheon over at least eight calendar quarters. This leaves a reservoir available to offset performance fee accruals in scenarios of underperformance.

Because Pantheon’s strategy intends to accommodate periodic trading, and the fee accrued would be reflected in the strategy NAV as of the relevant period, investors will not pay for performance they did not experience.

Pantheon said it is working with general partners, including KKR, to seek to manage the less predictable and irregular investor capital inflows that can be expected in a DC plan, and to facilitate efficient deployment.

“The need for expedited capital deployment presents some potential challenges. Our objective is to facilitate efficient GP capital deployment to reduce potential cash drag, and address the more irregular capital flows typically experienced by a DC plan,” said Kevin Albert, managing director at Pantheon.

Pantheon is majority-owned by Affiliated Managers Group Inc, a NYSE-listed global asset management company with equity investments in leading boutique investment management firms.

Many in the ‘gig economy’ plan to work indefinitely

Über drivers, musicians, contract software engineers, consultants and “gig” workers of all stripes, as well as self-employed professionals and garage-based entrepreneurs—all belong to the global army of people who don’t necessarily participate in formal retirement savings plans.

Many of them are still young; but they won’t always be. So how do they save for retirement? Do they save for retirement? Do they reinvest all of their spare revenue back into the business? Do they plan to sell their businesses to finance their retirement years? And, importantly, how can retirement asset managers better assess, nurture and capture this growing but atomized market?

The Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies and Aegon Center for Longevity and Retirement have co-sponsored a survey and report that gauge the attitudes toward retirement among people in 16 countries who are self-employed or who work part-time in the contract or “gig” economy.

The report, “Retirement Preparations in a New Age of Self-Employment,” may be a step toward serving these elusive potential customers. The underlying survey offers several insights, most of them common-sensical if not self-evident. It doesn’t explore the question of whether the self-employed are gravitating toward robo-advisors like Betterment in lieu of established financial service providers like Transamerica.

The survey showed that the self-employed rarely anticipate a specific retirement date. Many expect to retire after the age 65 or never (40% globally, 56% U.S.), perhaps not realizing that retirement isn’t always voluntary, even for the self-employed. More than two-thirds (69% globally and in the U.S.) envision a “flexible transition” to retirement.

Only 26% globally (25% U.S.) say they are either “very” or “extremely confident” that they will achieve a comfortable retirement, the survey found. Other findings of the report include:

  • 26% globally (29% U.S.) expect to change the way they work (e.g., work part-time or on temporary contracts) for a while before they fully retire.
  • 20% globally (17% U.S.) plan to change the way they work and continue to do paid work throughout retirement.
  • 23% globally and in the U.S. say they will keep working as they currently do. Retirement age won’t change the way they work.
  • The self-employed will keep working because they want to keep active (63% globally, 67% U.S.) and/or because they enjoy their work (51% globally, 54% U.S.).
  • 28% globally and in the U.S. will keep working because they’re worried that social security benefits will be lower than expected or that their savings might not last their lifetimes (27% globally, 22% U.S.), or because they haven’t saved enough (26% globally and in the U.S.).

About one-third of the self-employed (34% globally, 36% U.S.) say they save for retirement. Some save occasionally (22% globally, 19% U.S.) or that they have stopped saving (17% globally, 24% U.S.). Others say they intend to start saving in the future (20% globally, 14% U.S.).

While most of the self-employed (60% globally, 63% U.S.) have a retirement planning strategy, few have a written plan (13% globally, 20% U.S.). Relatively few (38% globally, 39% U.S.) have a backup income plan in case they’re forced to retire early.  

As sources of retirement income, the self-employed cite social security (33% globally, 48% U.S.) and savings (38% globally, 32% U.S.). Few (14% globally, 15% U.S.) cite their business as a means for saving for retirement.

The survey covered self-employed workers in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, The Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States.

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Más o Menos: Ticos Cheerfully Eke By

Many in the U.S. are still leery of European-style social democracy, with its taxpayer-funded universal medical care and mandatory, centrally managed workplace savings programs. But modern Costa Rica embraced the social democratic model almost 70 years ago, after its civil war, and never turned back.

To say that the system here works flawlessly, however, or that it is financially sound, would be an exaggeration.

On the one hand, Costa Ricans, unlike North Americans, can take basic medical care for granted. “When Obamacare was introduced, I tried to explain the health care situation in the U.S. to my maid,” said Alberto Trejos, dean of the MBA program at INCAE, a San Jose business school created in the early 1960s with help from Harvard and U.S. foreign aid. “She didn’t understand it. She’s an immigrant from Nicaragua, and she still couldn’t imagine that someone wouldn’t be able to a doctor if they needed to.”

On the other hand, Costa Ricans who want the best, most prompt health care need to buy supplemental insurance—or simply pay doctors and hospitals in cash. And only a small percentage of Costa Ricans can afford to do that.

A congenial academic of about 50 who earned his economics Ph.D. at Penn and once taught at Northwestern University, Trejos (below) was Minister of Trade during the presidency of Abel Pacheco de la Espriella (2002-2006). Among other things, he helped negotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.Alberto Trejos

With its 4.8 million people, Costa Rica’s economic issues are comparable to those of a big U.S. city, like Los Angeles or Chicago: Fiscal debt and deficits; aggressive public sector unions with pension issues; traffic jams and a creaky intra-city rail line; uneven access to health care; a neglected African-American region (the Caribbean coast); and drugs (Costa Rican authorities interdict many tons of Colombian cocaine each year, which arrives here by boat for transfer to Mexico-bound planes). Yet the tensions of a large U.S. city seem absent here, as the famously friendly “Ticos” enjoy what some here like to call “pura vida,” or pure life.  

Trejos, who runs an econometric consultancy and a business consultancy here in addition to his academic work, discussed a few of these issues with RIJ, in no particular order, over glasses of iced lassi at a bistro in San Jose’s fashionable Escazu suburb.

‘Intel Inside’–or not

Costa Rica still exports a lot of coffee and bananas, but its economy today depends on agriculture for only 6% of GDP. It’s mainly a service economy, with tourism as an important engine. The creation of tax-advantaged free trade zones and the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement have brought foreign investment over the past two decades.

U.S. electronics companies like Hewlett Packard and Intel, surgical supply firms like Boston Scientific and Hospira (a unit of Pfizer), and retailers, especially Walmart, employ thousands of Costa Ricans. In 2012, according to news reports, call centers employed as many as 16,000 Costa Ricans. Still, an estimated half of what Costa Ricans earn is off the books, in the “informal” economy, and therefore out of reach of the taxes that fund universal health care and pensions.  

Intel’s 20-year presence in Costa Rica illustrates the good news/bad news contradictions of globalization, an issue that figured prominently in the recent U.S. election. In 1997, the giant chipmaker built a large microprocessor plant in Costa Rica. At the time, East Asia’s gravitational pull on U.S. manufacturers hadn’t yet gathered critical mass, and American companies were still looking to the south for low-cost labor and tax concessions.

Putting a big Intel facility in Costa Rica’s tax-free Export Promotion Zone was, as one Intel executive said at the time, “like putting a whale in a swimming pool.” Intel’s investment of $300 million over two years (and a total commitment of $600 million) was equal to 2.1% to Costa Rica’s GDP. (The Economist magazine estimated the value of Intel’s investment here at $2 billion.)

Intel was a boon to Costa Rica for 17 solid years. Intel built two facilities outside San Jose: one for high-tech chip assembly and testing (where raw silicon wafers are diced, infused with circuitry and tested) and another for research and design. A network of local suppliers flourished. A Bank of America call center arrived. Largely because of Intel, Costa Rica GDP jumped to 8% in 1998 and 1999. Intel alone accounted for about 20% of the country’s exports.

Then, in April 2014, Intel said it would move 1,500 manufacturing workers from Costa Rica to Malaysia, China and Vietnam, attracted by lower costs in Asia. Intel still employs about 1,200 research and design workers in Costa Rica. (Only days before Intel’s announcement, Costa Ricans had elected a center-left president, but Trejos rejects the idea that that played any role in the chipmaker’s decision.) 

To focus on the Intel episode, Trejos suggested, is to sell Costa Rica short. We have the highest fraction of our territory as environmentally protected land in the world,” he told me. “All of our electricity is generated from renewable resources. In terms of biodiversity we are bigger than Russia. We doubled the forest cover of the nation between 1987 and 2015, a time where most countries lost forest cover. We are the oldest democracy in the developing world, and one of the ten oldest in the whole world. We have been without armed forces, unilaterally disarming, for 68 years.”

Canadian-style finance

Dollars, colones and merchandise easily change hands in Costa Rica. If you walk down the busy Avenida Central in the San Pedro Montes de Oca suburb of San Jose, you pass several bank branches and ATM sites. If you run out of colones, you can pay almost anybody in U.S. dollars without being badly cheated on the exchange rate. All but the smallest shops and restaurants take major debit and credit cards. Tips are typically included in restaurant bills.

The government owns four of the biggest banks here: Bancredito, Banco Popular, Banco de Costa Rica and Banco National. These commercial banks, along with three private banks, make most of the collateralized loans on which the country’s business runs. “The financial market is bank-controlled and highly-regulated. It’s old-fashioned financial services, similar to Canada’s. There’s very little funky finance here,” Trejos said.

No major U.S. banks currently compete in this market. The private banks include BAC and Davivienda, both from Colombia, Scotiabank, a $900 billion Canadian bank that bought Citigroup’s banking operations here a year ago, and Cathay Bank, a $13 billion Los Angeles-based U.S. bank. BAC and Banc Lafise, two Nicaraguan banks, also operate here. Costa Rica has twice resisted pressure from U.S. banks to sell its banking system: once in 1948, when the banks were first nationalized, and again in 1967. Private banks were eventually permitted and now comprise about 30% of the banking industry.

‘A different view of life’

At a time when the U.S. Congress is preparing to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and replace it with something more market-driven, Costa Rica is proud of its national health service. Officially, Ticos pay about 15% of their salaries toward universal health care. In other words, a relatively few highly paid workers contribute a lot more than the poor for access to the same medical services, thus subsidizing the nation’s health care system for all.

In practice, Costa Rica’s widely admired medical system (one of the reasons North Americans choose to retire here) has two and perhaps three tiers. About 40% of Costa Ricans also have private health insurance, said Trejos, a physician’s son. Some doctors work full-time for the national health service while others, like Trejos’ family doctor, divide their time between public and private service. “It’s a different view of life,” Trejos said, referring to most doctors’ sense of obligation to serve the public.

Bottomless potholes

Costa Rica avoided the extremes of the Great Financial Crisis (though zombie condominium towers and resorts on the Pacific Coast testify to a period of speculative real estate investment), but the government struggles—more successfully than some countries, worse than in others—to cover the cost of basic services.

The most obvious and exasperating problem in Costa Rica is the lack of good transportation infrastructure. Not long ago, the rate of auto ownership jumped from 14% of households to 37% without “a single new road being built,” Trejos said. The country’s roads are improving but its “huecos,” or potholes, remain large, numerous and legendary.  

A light rail line runs the breadth of the city, but many cars are outdated and decrepit—they are literally used cars, purchased second-hand by Costa Rica from Spain several years ago—and the rail service seems to do nothing to relieve rush-hour congestion. Lax zoning regulation has allowed housing to sprawl over the hills and into the arroyos that surround San Jose. This rugged topography, a thin mask of the volcanic activity underneath, resists easy road-building and complicates the delivery of essential services.

The biggest public controversy and frustration in Costa Rica today is the battle over public sector pensions. A powerful coalition of unions represent the public employees, and they have reportedly arranged to pay themselves, via the nation’s budget, a variety of bonuses and benefits that private-sector Costa Ricans don’t have.

“You might see a math professor, who had a final salary of $8,000 a month, retiring on $23,000 a month,” Trejos said by way of illustration. As of the end of January, the unions appeared to have the upper hand. A recent news story in The Tico Times said that union leaders had just called off a national strike, scheduled for February 6, but only after the legislature tabled a bill that would have eliminated their perks. 

Uncontrolled spending on public sector pensions, and other sources of fiscal imbalances, such as tax evasion, now plague Costa Rica, whose financial management has oscillated between pro-business and populist administrations. In January, Fitch Ratings downgraded the country’s long-term bonds to BB from BB+.

Fitch also downgraded the long-term issuer default ratings of four state-owned and two private Costa Rican banks. These latest developments mark the return of difficulties that Costa Ricans thought they had resolved. “I’m less optimistic than I was five years ago,” Trejos said. “Ten years ago we didn’t think that public finances would be broken again. Problems that we had a few years ago, that we thought were solved, are creeping up again.”

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Fed No Longer Controls Rates

I’ve written previously about how central bank policies across the globe are manipulating asset prices. To recap, the Bank of Japan (BOJ) is buying short- and long-term sovereigns, credit, and equity. They are literally buying every single asset class. The European Central Bank (ECB) is buying all of these asset classes except equity. The Fed is buying short- and long-term sovereigns, but not credit or equity.

These central bank activities are boosting asset prices, but that can’t last forever. As a result, in the current environment, it’s very difficult for the market to have a strong conviction on long-term fundamental value because investors don’t know what asset prices really should be.

This creates more uncertainty and risk, so from a portfolio positioning perspective, this phenomenon, among other “Why” investment process considerations, has caused us to dampen some of our positions in markets and currencies around the world.

Over time, this environment will settle down. The Fed raised rates at the end of last year and has signaled that it anticipates three rate hikes in 2017. At the same time, it’s hard to say that the Fed is actually in control of interest rates. Ultimately, they have ceded a lot of control to the market, and market participants are dictating monetary policy. Why do I say that?

For the last four or five decades, the Fed has always focused on not surprising the market. As they approach each of their meetings, they’re looking, as everyone else is, at the probabilities that are priced into the short yield curve and LIBOR-OIS (Overnight Indexed Swap) spreads to determine whether or not the market is pricing assets based on the expectation that the Fed is going to raise rates. If this probability is below 50%, the Fed won’t act, but if the probability is above 75%, the Fed will raise rates.

However, we believe the probability of the Fed raising rates three times in 2017 is less than what the market has begun to price in post the Donald Trump election. So, we’re a little bit less concerned by the potential for the Fed to raise rates multiple times over the coming year.

Brian Singer, CFA, is a partner and head of the Dynamic Allocation Strategies Team and Portfolio Manager at William Blair Funds. 

President Trump and the DOL Fiduciary Rule

From my distant roost here in Costa Rica, I’ve been following news about the Trump administration’s first two weeks and wondering how his recent and future executive orders will change the fate of the DOL’s fiduciary (or conflict of interest) rule, originally scheduled to take effect in April.  

If you believe, as I do, that the DOL rule was a trailing indicator of the larger technology-driven trend toward lower costs and disintermediation of human advisors—the Amazon-ification of financial services—then you may agree that no matter what the thinking-fast-and-not-slow President Trump does, he can’t stop the tide any more than Canute could.

You have only to look at massive net mutual fund flows to Vanguard at the expense of actively managed fund companies over the past few years (as reported each month by Morningstar) to see that many Americans prefer low-cost, transparent, web-mediated financial services, including advice.

But Trump (or his Labor Secretary) can take the teeth out of the DOL rule by removing investors’ right to file class action suits against providers who display a pattern of un-fiduciary conduct toward rollover IRA clients. Financial services companies won’t feel as much pressure to meet a true fiduciary standard, with respect to any account. Such a move might ease the downward pressure that the fiduciary rule was bound to—was designed to—exert on the costs (i.e., industry profits) associated with retirement accounts (and, by contagion, with all accounts).

To me, the fiduciary rule was always about putting price controls on the fees associated with rollover IRA accounts, and giving IRA owners the same protections from unreasonable fees that ERISA intended for 401(k) participants. It was always about the money. Calling the rule an “extension of the definition of the fiduciary standard to a much broader range of professionals” was mainly a way for some opponents of the rule to fog its purpose: Helping savers keep more of their money and ensuring that service providers keep less.

The DOL was right to extend ERISA protections—low, transparent fees—to rollover IRA accounts. Whether the savings was in 401(k)s, 403(b)s or rollover IRAs, it was still tax-deferred; that is, subsidized by the nation. As long as the DOL continued to allow providers to charge whatever the market would bear, the providers would ipso facto consume the subsidy. Unrestricted pricing in a publicly subsidized market isn’t kosher.

Maintaining the subsidy under these circumstances would have been unfair to the average taxpayer. But few people in the private financial services industry, particularly those in publicly held companies, seemed to understand that the fiduciary rule, in the long run, might help protect the tax expenditure for retirement savings. They simply saw a threat to their turf and naturally defended it.

(Despite the subsidy, many providers felt no obligation to serve middle-class customers unless they were sufficiently compensated. They reserved the right to decide what reasonable compensation should be. If middle-class customers lost services for lack of adequate incentives, it wouldn’t be their fault; it would be the fault of misguided do-gooders who defied market forces.)

In short, they wanted it both ways: A tax subsidy for their products and the right to charge what the market would bear. But, thanks, to technology, that can’t last. They will eventually lose market share, I believe, not because of a DOL rule but because of competition from digitally-driven direct marketers, both old school (Vanguard) and new school (Betterment).

Still, stopping the DOL rule matters. If the DOL rule is removed or neutered, then each financial services company will have more breathing-room to decide how it plans to use the savings that digital automation brings. The management of each firm, depending on its business model, will decide how much of those savings to share with the end customer and how much to keep as profit. A cooperative like Vanguard will continue to pass much of its savings onto its customers (while still making boatloads of money), as it has for decades. Other types of firms, however, are likely to behave differently.

Publicly traded firms, like the wirehouses, are likely to want to keep as much as the savings as they can for their primary constituency: their shareholders (including senior executives). One indicator: These firms appear to be opting to use digital technology internally to make advisors more efficient (and eventually, I think, employ fewer advisors). If they can serve more customers with fewer advisors while maintaining traditional fees, profits should soar.  

Maintaining traditional fees should be easier if Phyllis Borzi (or someone like her) isn’t monitoring them or trying to define “reasonable fees.” The Trump administration, which looms as the closest thing to a dictatorship that the U.S. has yet seen, and is likely to usher in the most reactionary period in American history since the McCarthy Era, will probably, by action or inaction, relieve downward pricing pressures from those publicly traded companies while they decide how to proceed.   

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. 

Skin in the Game

To find out how Costa Rica’s social security system works, on Wednesday I walked from my Airbnb condo in the San Pedro section of San Jose, along a congested avenue and past a mall to the Equus Tower, where I rode to the 11th floor and stepped through frosted glass doors into the offices of SUPEN, the country’s pension authority.

After a few minutes’ wait, during which I looked out at the Coronado mountain range, Alvaro Ramos Chaves, the head of SUPEN since he succeeded Edgar Robles in mid-2015, introduced himself. In his early 30s, with an economics Ph.D. from U.C.-Berkeley, Ramos pointed to a small tube in his ear and said that if he didn’t seem to understand my questions clearly, deafness, not poor English, would be the reason.

Clarity never became an issue. For ninety minutes or so, he described the basic architecture of the Costa Rican national pension system, the investment restrictions and other challenges that his office deals with, and the outlook for the country’s economy, where jobs—the financial aquifer for the pension system—depend on tourism, the back-office operations of bigger countries, and agriculture.

Compare and contrast

Costa Rica’s retirement system faces many of the same demographic and economic challenges that the U.S. system faces, but there are significant differences in the way the two programs work.

The national defined benefit system resembles Social Security. But its defined contribution system is mandatory, not voluntary, and the contributions are managed collectively, not individually. About 68% of workers participate; the goal is 80%. About 100,000 Costa Ricans who never contributed to any plan currently receive about $150 a month in retirement from the government.

About 14.41% comes out of payroll for retirement benefits. (The median income for Costa Rica’s 4.8 million people is about $12,000.) That contribution rate will soon rise by a percentage point. About 9% (of which employers pay almost 5%) goes to pay for a defined benefit pension and 4.25% goes to the defined contribution pension. There’s also a 5% tax for unemployment insurance.

Before 2000, Costa Ricans 7.5% for a defined benefit that replaced 60% to 70% of earnings after at least 20 years of participation, Ramos said. But then came a big demographic shift. Women joined the workforce and the birth rate, formerly four per woman, dropped to 1.9. Meanwhile, life expectancies rose, and the country now has the world’s highest longevity among men over age 80, Ramos said. Costa Rica added the mandatory DC plan to patch the actuarial gap.

Like North Americans, many Costa Ricans—“Ticos,” an affectionate diminutive, is their adopted nickname–face the likelihood of spending 20 years or more in retirement. Costa Rica’s national health system, financed by a 15% payroll tax, has helped push up longevity. Taken together, retirement taxes and health taxes add up to a hefty (and some say counterproductive) bite. But the highest marginal income tax rate for Costa Ricans is only 15%, and only those earning more than $1,500 a month (a mere 15% of the population) pay any income tax at all.

Bigger taxes loom on the horizon, however. Ramos cited a recent University of Costa Rica study showing that if the system retains its current retirement age and benefits, pensions could cost 35% of wages by 2060. There’s also, by the way, a sales tax that operates like a value-added tax (VAT), with the difference that the tax is not applied consistently at every stage of production and distribution.

Where the nest eggs grow

Contributions to the DB system are invested in Costa Rican government bonds. There’s an “implicit contingent fund,” similar to the Social Security trust fund in the U.S. Like our trust fund, Costa Rica’s has an expiration date. Remedial tweaks to the system, made in December 2015, have postponed that deadline by eight years, to 2038.

Contributions to the DC system go into funds that are managed by any of six state-licensed asset management firms, known as OPCs. Costa Rican firms run five and a Colombian firm runs the sixth. Most participants put their money into a single default funds, and few take advantage of a right to add voluntary contributions to other investment options. Other than GE Capital, which sold its business to the Colombian firm, no American company has ever managed a tranche of the Costa Rican DC money.

By statute, these firms can invest up to 50% of Costa Rica’s roughly $10 billion in assets (of a total of $14 billion in total national pension assets) outside of the country. But currently they invest only 10% abroad. “There’s a lot of room to grow,” Ramos told me. “The system is still immature. Another $4 billion could leave the country,” he said. Recently, under guidance from the World Bank, Costa Rica switched from a rules-based to a risk-based supervision system, which should give the OPCs more flexibility in their choice of investments.

OPCs earn a maximum of 50 basis points for their services. The fee fell recently from 70 basis points, and will go lower in the future, Ramos said. Personally, he doubts that neither a rigidly fixed fee nor the lowest possible fee will optimize investment outcomes. “You won’t have a sophisticated system if you charge too little,” he said. “In the Netherlands,” known for pension sophistication, “the fee is 66 basis points.”

Costa Rican men can take monthly retirement benefits at age 62 and women at age 60, from both the DB and DC plans. “We do allow lump sum distributions from the DC plan, but the rules have not been well thought-out,” Ramos told RIJ. “If your DC benefit is less than 10% of your DB benefit, you can take the DC benefit as a lump sum.”

Because the DC plan is relatively new, “very few people have a DC benefit right now that’s bigger than 10%,” he said, because the plan, known here as the IVM, is relatively new. “We expect the lump sum to become more common,” he added.

In addition to the lump sum provision, participants can receive interest alone from their savings and set aside the principal for a bequest. They can also draw down a combination of interest and “some capital” each year, or they can buy an individual annuity.

“What annoys people here is that there is no partial lump sum option. But I don’t like a partial option. As it stands today, if you retire and have never used your unemployment fund, then you have that as a lump sum,” he said.

Sleep-deprivation triggers

What keeps Ramos awake at night? In his view, the spread between equity returns and bond returns, driven partly by the vast monopolistic profits of tech companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. Their stock prices will keep going up, he said, they’ll have huge cash flows and they’ll never have to issue borrow money from pension bonds. “There will be no bonds from companies like Apple. So it will be harder and harder for pensions to find investments. That’s a big concern for me.”

Advances in automation, such as the use of intelligent chatbots to replace call center operators, also worries him. “In the past 40 years, we’ve gone from an agricultural economy to a service economy. We’re the ‘back office’ of the world. ‘So far so good.’ But what happens to us [and El Salvador or the Philippines] if the back office is automated?”

Globalization, of course, giveth and taketh away. For years, an Intel chip assembly plant and design facility employed thousands of Costa Ricans and accounted for an enormous 5% of national GDP. In 2014, however, Intel relocated its chip assembly operation to Asia, and Costa Rica lost 1,500 high-paying jobs.

Fewer jobs means less tax revenue which means rough times for pension systems. “This is a worldwide phenomenon,” Ramos noted. Climate change also worries him. In the fall of 2016, Costa Rica’s Caribbean-facing coast experienced its first hurricane damage in 200 years. Hurricanes can discourage investment and tourism and are expensive to mop up after.

Changes in rainfall patterns could also hurt the country’s agriculture sector. Costa Rica grows coffee the cooler highlands and bananas in the warmer lowlands. Warmer ocean temperatures could hurt its commercial fishing industry—a major employer—as well as popular sport fishing for sailfish and tarpon off the Pacific coast. “This climate change is real,” Ramos said.

Because of the inter-generational conflict that national pensions often entail—the current generation pays for the previous generation’s benefits—pension policy is not just an economic or financial problem but also a political and personal problem. Ramos told me that he feels this tension first hand.

“My generation paid for the previous generation, and the next generation will pay even more. My baby daughter will begin contributing to our pension system in 2040. How much are we going to ask her and her peers to pay?” To prevent pension taxes from ballooning to 35%, his agency will have to come up with some innovations.

“I like the Swedish system,” he said. “They have notional account system for defined benefit plans, where benefits are connected to future productivity. Right now, in Costa Rica, the two are disconnected.

“The traditional DB plan guarantees you a certain level of purchasing power in the future, even if the future productivity isn’t high enough to support it. In Sweden, if the country is poorer when you retire, you get a lower benefit. The retirees have skin in the game.”

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

TIAA offers double-shot of income solutions for DC plans

TIAA is launching two new custom target date fund series, both of which are designed to add an ingredient to defined contribution plans that they usually lack: a mechanism for converting savings to a pension-like income stream in retirement. TIAA calls them “Custom Default Solutions.”

The two solutions are called Target Date Plus Models and Target Income Models. Plan sponsors and/or their third-party consultants select the investment options and design the glide paths formulas for their TDFs and combine them with one of two income solutions on TIAA’s recordkeeping platform, a TIAA release this week said.

Target Date Plus Models allows plan sponsors to combine their own investment choices with the equivalent of  “TIAA Traditional,” the fixed deferred annuity that has long been used by millions of TIAA’s 403(b) university clients for a portion of their savings. Retirees typically take the income over no less than 10 years or as a life with period-certain annuity.   

“Target Date Plus Models substitute standard bond funds with a guaranteed fixed annuity, such as TIAA Traditional, that provides certainty of income, within the familiar target-date structure,” the release said.

“These models typically follow the automated glide path many participants expect. However, plan sponsors and their consultants can use their own in-house expertise to manage the glide path and investment options to fit the specific demographics of their participants.”

“With Target Date Plus Models, we can leverage TIAA’s open architecture platform to combine best-in-class mutual funds with TIAA Traditional,” said plan sponsor advisors Pete Kaplan and Brian Petros, President and CEO of PKFinancial Group in Twinsburg, Ohio, in the release.

“In addition to guaranteed income in retirement, TIAA Traditional offers a proven historical crediting rate, reduced volatility compared to bond funds and a guaranteed minimum rate of return,” the release said.

The second solution, Target Income Models, employs a TDF product design that TIAA is licensing from Dimensional Fund Advisors. DFA bought it from Nobel Prize winner Robert Merton, who developed it with Zvi Bodie in the early 2000s and piloted it under the trade name SmartNest at Philips Electronics in the Netherlands.

Target Income Models aim to replace a specific portion of income in retirement using the same investment approach of many defined-benefit plans: a liability-driven investment (LDI) strategy. They “allow for customization that goes beyond age to incorporate savings habits, additional income sources,” the release said.

“Participants are seamlessly moved among multiple glide paths based on their personalized funding ratio, income replacement goal and market conditions. The models in this solution become more conservative over time, similar to target-date funds.”

Target Income Models balance growth assets with income-hedging assets, primarily through high-quality Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) to lessen the impact of interest rate and inflation risk on retirement income.

Target Date Plus Models and Target Income Models are eligible to be selected as Qualified Default Investment Alternatives (QDIA).

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Jackson issues fee-based version of popular Elite Access VA

Jackson National Life has issued a fee-based version of its popular Elite Access variable annuity, under the name Elite Access Advisory. In a release this week, Jackson called it “a fast follower to the introduction of Perspective Advisory, Jackson’s first fee-based variable annuity, released in September 2016.”

Elite Access as a B-share VA was first issued in 2012, when advisors were hungry for access to so-called liquid alternative assets. Its sales through the first three quarters of 2016 were $1.94 billion.

That represented a year-over-year slippage in sales ranking to tenth from third—perhaps because of recent slippage of interest among advisors in alternative assets. Elite Access Total Jackson National’s VA sales through the third quarters of 2016 were an industry-leading $12.88 billion, according to Morningstar.

EA Advisory’s key features include:

  • Advisor compensation is fee-based, rather than commission-based.
  • Zero mortality, expense and administration charge. The contract charge is $10 per month.
  • A three-year withdrawal charge schedule, starting at 2% and dropping to one percent in the second year and zero thereafter.  
  • More than 100 investment options.
  • The standard ability to withdraw the contract’s earnings or 10% of the contract’s remaining premium each year, whichever is greater, without penalty.

Greg Cicotte, executive vice president and chief distribution officer for Jackson, said in a release this week, “As advisors and their firms continue to determine how best to comply with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) fiduciary rules, we’ve seen increased market demand for products compatible with fee-based accounts.”

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Dream-House Shopping in Costa Rica

A 65-year-old guitarist, composer and world traveler told me recently that Costa Rica comes in three main geographical flavors for would-be expatriate retirees: the Pacific coast, the central highlands, and the Caribbean coast. He and his wife chose the third option.  

Nine years ago, on their fifth or sixth birding expedition to Costa Rica, the couple rented a car and drove to the country’s remote southeastern corner, a place they’d never been. A random dirt road led them to the beach and an octagonal house that captivated them. Built for maximum feng shui, with greenery and light, its eight sides honored the bagua, Taoism’s eight principles of reality.

The house was for sale. Its mystical vibe seduced them into paying $150,000 in cash for it. Monkeys, sloths, macaws, butterflies and gekkos would be their neighbors as they aged. The house would yield rental income when they were away. “We wanted to do it outright,” said the musician, who wears his grey-blond hair in a ponytail. “It was definitely impulsive.” 

He didn’t show me pictures of the house; until I looked online I didn’t know exactly how much a vacation home or full-time residence might cost in Costa Rica. Homes here are relatively cheap, I found, but hardly dirt-cheap. The price range is wide—from less than $100,000 for a small aerie in the forest to many millions of dollars for luxury on the scale of, say, Beverly Hills.

You can go urban or rural; mountain or beach; rustic or granite countertop. I’ll provide some examples of homes selling at low, medium and high price-points in each of the three major sections of the country. If you currently live in icy Boston, Chicago or Minneapolis—or if you voted for Hillary Clinton—the idea of moving to Costa Rica might be appealing right now.

The laid-back Caribbean coast

The Caribbean coast was a good fit for this couple. Backpackers, surfers, musicians and Europeans are drawn by its low cost, remoteness and Afro-Caribbean culture. Starting in 1867, black laborers were brought to Costa Rica from Caribbean islands to build a railroad from San Jose to Puerto Limon, still the biggest city on the east coast.

Jobs on the railroad and on United Fruit banana plantations eventually departed, but black workers and their descendants remained. Until about 1950, they were confined to the coast area by law. A history of race-driven underinvestment has shaped the Limon region, lending it the charms and drawbacks of severe neglect. Climate change alert: Three months ago, a hurricane hit Costa Rica’s east coast for the first time in 200 years.Jungle house near Carib CR

$85,000. If you’re looking to emulate the Robinson Crusoe lifestyle, $85,000 will get you “an adorable jungle studio tucked in the canopy” near Cocles, a Caribbean beach community a mile or so southeast of Puerto Viejo. Painted raspberry, with white trim and a narrow veranda, it’s basically a tree house. But you can’t beat the price. (Right)

$149,000. Up the coast from Puerto Viejo, near Cahuita, I found a golden-yellow three-bedroom house literally built around the roots of a giant fig tree in the rainforest near the beach. The price for the house on 1500 square meters of rainforest: $149,000. The home is separated into two structures; one for the kitchen, dining and living areas, and one for two bedrooms. A thatch-covered pathway connects them. 

The upscale central highlands

If you aren’t inclined to hug trees, but want a safe place that’s near a major city, good health care facilities and an international airport, where you can mingle with other English-speaking expatriates, a gated community on the mountain slopes near San Jose in the suburb of Santa Ana, might interest you. The altitude (about 3,000 feet above sea level) keeps the highlands cool at night. Nearby volcanoes rise to over 10,000 feet. Rainforests and beaches can be reached by car within a couple of hours.  

Santa Ana has grown rapidly in recent years, shaped by expatriate habits and tastes. While retaining some small town charm, it has new upscale grocery stores, gourmet restaurants, banks, gas stations, medical and dental clinics, coffee houses, hotels, and private schools. The best public golf course in Costa Rica is located in nearby Lindora. (I haven’t been there, but it sounds like Orange County, Calif.)

$2,000 per month. The smart way to find out if you’d like living full-time in Costa Rica would be to live here for a year in a rental. For $2,000 a month, you can rent an opulent 2,700 sq ft, three-bedroom, two-bath one-story teak-and-tile house with a terra cotta roof in a gated community in the hills near Santa Ana.  

$874,000. Let’s suppose that you want it all: A secluded horse farm on 7.9 highland acres, within easy access to U.S.-style shopping amenities, downtown San Jose, and the airport. (Left.) You can have it in Santa Ana for less than $1 million. There’s an existing Ranchoviewtwo-bedroom house and one-bedroom guesthouse, but you could expand. It’s been landscaped for construction of one or more additional homes. There’s a fence around it and a steel entrance gate.

(Many houses in San Jose, if not enclosed in a gated community, appear to be tiny upscale prisons in reverse. Their iron fences, barred windows and barbed-, razor-, or electrified wire along the tops of garden walls, suggest a risk of home invasion that North Americans may find unsettling or even alarming.)

The desirable Pacific coast

The Pacific Coast is Costa Rica’s most popular tourist destination. This is where you’ll find the old coffee port of Puntarenas, the Nicoya Peninsula and several national parks. There’s a Cancun-ish concentration of resorts, clubs, white beaches, snorkeling, trophy fishing, and eco-tourism. For sale, there are isolated mountain retreats, oceanfront villas, and casita neighborhoods to fit a range of budgets.   

$219,000. Quepos, a small town on the Pacific Coast not far from San Jose is one of the most popular destinations in Costa Rica. Located south of town there’s a 2,000 sq ft villa with a two-bedroom main house and a rentable one-bedroom efficiency apartment in a gated community. It’s only a short drive north of the Manuel Antonio National Park, where you can find wildlife and waterfalls.

$398,000. If you want luxurious isolation, you might like this somewhat remote tile-roofed compound on a hilltop near the Pacific Ocean (right). The two-bedroom main house and one-bedroom guesthouse perch on 4.7 landscaped acres. There’s no pool but aCasa de cielonearby waterfall looks swimmable. The property is listed for only $398,000, probably because of its one-hour distance from the beach town of Quepos, or maybe because the guesthouse’s shower and toilet are outside, shielded only by an open-air tile enclosure. That’s life in the tropics.

Caveat emptor

Costa Rica isn’t for everybody, at least not as a permanent retirement home. According to one source, about 60% of the outsiders who move here eventually move back to where they came from. My musician friend noted that, since he bought his house in Puerto Viejo, his visits to Costa Rica are consumed by the chores associated with maintaining the property as a first-class rental. He and his wife have also noticed that their commitment to Costa Rica has crowded out their freedom to travel elsewhere.

Others move back for what seem to be predictable emotional reasons.“The draw is relatively cheap living in a stable country, with friendly, happy, helpful people,” one retired American physician who bought a house on the Pacific coast told RIJ. “There is also a significant American expat community.

“People return to the US for much the same reasons they would return from other countries. Disability. An expat who had a failed back surgery in the US moved back because CR is not very handicapped-accessible. Medical issues, a need for therapies not available in CR or that are cheaper with Medicare, the death of a spouse: there are lots of reasons to leave. Some move back for the closeness of family, or because things just didn’t seem to work out.” 

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Illusions Driving Up US Asset Prices

Speculative markets have always been vulnerable to illusion. But seeing the folly in markets provides no clear advantage in forecasting outcomes, because changes in the force of the illusion are difficult to predict.

In the United States, two illusions have been important recently in financial markets. One is the carefully nurtured perception that President-elect Donald Trump is a business genius who can apply his deal-making skills to make America great again. The other is a naturally occurring illusion: the proximity of Dow 20,000. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has been above 19,000 since November, and countless news stories have focused on its flirtation with the 20,000 barrier – which might be crossed by the time this commentary is published. Whatever happens, Dow 20,000 will still have a psychological impact on markets.

Trump has never been clear and consistent about what he will do as president. Tax cuts are clearly on his agenda, and the stimulus could lead to higher asset prices. Lower corporate taxes are naturally supposed to lead to higher share prices, while cuts in personal income tax might lead to higher home prices (though possibly offset by other changes in the tax system).

But it is not just Trump’s proposed tax changes that plausibly affect market psychology. The US has never had a president like him. Not only is he an actor, like Ronald Reagan; he is also a motivational writer and speaker, a brand name in real estate, and a tough deal maker. If he ever reveals his financial information, or if his family is able to use his influence as president to improve its bottom line, he might even prove to be successful in business.

The closest we can come to Trump among former US presidents might be Calvin Coolidge, an extremely pro-business tax cutter. “The chief business of the American people is business,” Coolidge famously declared, while his treasury secretary, Andrew Mellon – one of America’s wealthiest men – advocated tax cuts for the rich, which would “trickle down” in benefits to the less fortunate.

The US economy during the Coolidge administration was very successful, but the boom ended badly in 1929, just after Coolidge stepped down, with the stock-market crash and the beginning of the Great Depression. During the 1930s, the 1920s were looked upon wistfully, but also as a time of fakery and cheating.

Of course, history is never destiny, and Coolidge is only one observation – hardly a solid basis for a forecast. Moreover, unlike Trump, both Coolidge and Mellon were levelheaded and temperate in their manner.

But add to the Trump effect all the attention paid to Dow 20,000, and we have the makings of a powerful illusion. On November 10, 2016, two days after Donald J. Trump was elected, the Dow Jones average hit a new record high – and has since set 16 more daily records, all trumpeted by news media.

That sounds like important news for Trump. In fact, the Dow had already hit nine record highs before the election, when Hillary Clinton was projected to win. In nominal terms, the Dow is up 70% from its peak in January 2000. On November 29, 2016, it was announced that the S&P/CoreLogic/Case-Shiller National Home Price Index (which I co-founded with my esteemed former colleague Karl E. Case, who died last July) reached a record high the previous September. The previous record was set more than ten years earlier, in July 2006.

But these numbers are illusory. The US has a national policy of overall inflation. The US Federal Reserve has set an inflation “objective” of 2% in terms of the personal consumption expenditure deflator. This means that all prices should tend to go up by about 2% per year, or 22% per decade.

The Dow is up only 19% in real (inflation-adjusted) terms since 2000. A 19% increase in 17 years is underwhelming, and the national home price index that Case and I created is still 16% below its 2006 peak in real terms. But hardly anyone focuses on these inflation-corrected numbers.

The Fed, like the world’s other central banks, is steadily debasing the currency, in order to create inflation. A Google Ngrams search of books shows that use of the term “inflation-targeting” began growing exponentially in the early 1990s, when the target was typically far below actual inflation. The idea that we actually want moderate positive inflation – “price stability,” not zero inflation – appears to have started to take shape in policy circles around the time of the 1990-1991 recession. Lawrence Summers argued that the public has an “irrational” resistance to the declining nominal wages that some would have to suffer in a zero-inflation regime.

Many people appear not to understand that inflation is a change in the units of measurement. Unfortunately, although the 2% inflation target is largely a feel-good policy, people tend to draw too much inspiration from it. Irving Fisher called this fixation on nominal price growth the “money illusion” in an eponymous 1928 book.

That doesn’t mean that we set new speculative-market records every day. Stock-price movements tend to approximate what economists call “random walks,” with prices reflecting small daily shocks that are about equally likely to be positive or negative. And random walks tend to go through long periods when they are well below their previous peak; the chance of setting a record soon is negligible, given how far prices would have to rise. But once they do reach a new record high, prices are far more likely to set additional records – probably not on consecutive days, but within a short interval.

In the US, the combination of Trump and a succession of new asset-price records – call it Trump-squared – has been sustaining the illusion underpinning current market optimism. For those who are not too stressed from having taken extreme positions in the markets, it will be interesting (if not profitable) to observe how the illusion morphs into a new perception – one that implies very different levels for speculative markets.

© 2017 Project Syndicate.