Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

Rx for Retirement: A Low Dose of Equities

When we talk about the risks of retirement, we often look at longevity risk, market risk, sequence risk and over-spending risk in isolation. But what if we integrated them into one multivariable risk? How would that affect our opinions about, for instance, the right equity allocation in retirement? 

A research paper on that topic by Keith C. Brown of the University of Texas and W.V. Harlow of Empower Retirement has just won a Special Distinction Award from the Journal of Investment Management. The award will be presented at the Spring JOIM Conference in San Diego March 12-14. (For an earlier, public version of the article, click here.)

Brown and Harlow recommend lower equity allocations than the 60% that is assumed by the so-called 4% safe withdrawal strategy. Here’s what they say: “For retirement investors attempting to minimize downside risk while sustaining future withdrawals, appropriate equity allocations range between five and 25%.” 

Even when you plug in different capital market assumptions, the recommendations hardly vary, they write. They also claim that investors with substantial bequest motives should “still be relatively conservative with their stock allocations, adding that bigger equity allocations create substantial risk to “the sustainability of retirement savings and incomes.” 

To reach these conclusions, they used a model they call Retirement Present Value. A retirement plan’s RPV is equal to the “net present value of assets minus liabilities weighted by the probability of the investor’s survival throughout his or her post- retirement life.” A Monte Carlo simulation generates a range of positive and negative RPVs.

In other words, they look at spending rates, life expectancies, investment returns and expenses to find out which equity levels generate enough upside to produce positive portfolio values for the longest period, without adding a counter-productive level of volatility.

Their model, they admit, isn’t novel. “The calculation of RPV is straightforward and merely an adaptation of the familiar method of determining the discounted present value of a series of future cash flows,” they write. But their conclusions fly in the face of conventional wisdom, which calls for at least 50% equities in retirement. 

For 65-year-olds to 85-year-olds seeking the minimum risk of running out of money, Brown and Harlow recommend only five to 10% equities in a portfolio that includes lots of cash. They observe that, while a typical TDF today might have a 48% stock allocation, and use cash or cash equivalents to buffer the volatility, such a portfolio should need no more than 25% equities, assuming that bonds replaced the cash allocation. 

“The stock allocation increases in the absence of cash, [but] on a percentage basis the bond allocation increases by even more.  Relatively speaking, bonds become the more attractive alternative to cash and the stock allocation still remains well below conventionally recommended levels,” Brown wrote to RIJ in an email. Even people who are more concerned about providing a large bequest than running out of money should hold only 35% to 45% equities.

“Taken as a whole, the findings in this study should give any investor a considerable amount to ponder before setting his or her asset allocation path in retirement,” Harlow and Brown write.

“If mitigating the risk of outliving one’s retirement resources is the cornerstone of the asset allocation decision, it is critical to limit equity exposure and recognize the impact that investment volatility and mortality risk can have on the sustainability of the retirement plan.”

With equity prices as well as bond prices close to record highs, such a strategy might suit the times we live in. If asset prices (despite our hopes) have nowhere to go but down, then the safe bet for those entering retirement may be to relinquish the pursuit, embrace “secular stagnation,” and to focus on preserving what they’ve got.

But current valuations don’t appear to be what drives Brown and Harlow’s results. Rather, they identify the primary cause of retirement shortfall as sequence risk—the risk that a market crash will force a retiree to sell depressed assets in order to produce income for living expenses. Other practitioners might believe that there are alternate ways to deal with sequence risk than by maintaining a low-equity portfolio.

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Index and ETF providers dominate fund flows in 2016: Morningstar

Morningstar, Inc. reported estimated U.S. mutual fund and exchange-traded fund (ETF) asset flows for December 2016. Investors ended the year by favoring passively managed U.S. equity funds over actively managed funds by a record margin, placing an estimated $50.8 billion in passive funds in December.

On the active side, investors pulled $23 billion out of U.S. equity funds during the month. (Morningstar estimates net flow for mutual funds by computing the change in assets not explained by the performance of the fund and net flow for ETFs by computing the change in shares outstanding.)

Highlights from Morningstar’s report about U.S. asset flows in December:

  • Investors’ preferences have shifted. They now favor stock funds over bond funds, amid growing optimism about the U.S. economy and continued rising interest rates and inflation. The net inflow for U.S. stock funds hit its highest monthly total since April 2000, at $27.8 billion. Taxable bond funds saw overall net inflows of $14.6 billion in December.
  • December 2016 saw overall outflows from alternative strategies of $4.4 billion, with full-year outflows of $4.7 billion. This marked the worst showing for alternative funds since 2005. It’s a significant reversal from 2015 when they took in $13.3 billion.
  • Bank-loan funds were a leading category in December, with inflows of $6.0 billion on the active side and $1.4 billion for passive strategies, continuing a recent trend of growing interest in these funds.
  • Vanguard dominated the flows landscape in 2016. The firm took in $277.0 billion in total new money during the year, finishing at $3.4 trillion in long-term assets. American Funds saw $4.9 billion in active outflows during 2016, while Fidelity Investments offset some of its active fund outflows with $37.2 billion in passive inflows.
  • Among passive and exchange-traded funds, the SPDR S&P 500 ETF took in the most assets at $14.3 billion for December 2016, followed by three Vanguard funds with offerings for U.S. stocks, international stocks, and U.S. bonds.
  • PIMCO Income, which has a Morningstar Analyst Rating of Silver, took in $1.5 billion in December and $13.7 billion for 2016. It was the top active individual fund in terms of inflows. Bronze-rated Franklin Federal Tax Free Income defied the trend for outflows in December among active municipal-bond funds, seeing inflows of $1.4 billion.

For more information about Morningstar Asset Flows, please visit http://global.morningstar.com/assetflows. 

Interest rate drought not over: A.M. Best

The low interest rate environment will likely remain a challenge for the life/annuity (L/A) insurance industry in 2017, as companies continue to invest new money and the proceeds of richer maturing assets into new bonds at current rates, according to A.M. Best.

A new Best’s Special Report, “Shifts in Bond Portfolio Strategies Help Life/Annuity Insurers Navigate Low Interest Rates,” notes that bond portfolio yields have continued to decline. The Federal Reserve’s 25 basis point rate hike in December 2016 was only the second hike in the last decade.

Reinvestment risk remains a key issue. Holdings have been reinvested at lower rates since 2012. While aggregated industry bond portfolio yields have consistently declined to 4.71% in 2015 from 4.88% in 2014 and 4.99% in 2013, strategic investment decisions have helped mitigate further declines in book yield. 

If bond portfolio allocations had remained static as of year-end 2012, the industry’s bond portfolio yield would have declined to 4.54% in 2015 from 4.86% in 2013, a difference of 10 to 20 basis points in each of the last three years.

Private placement bonds have surged by 70%, to $847.0 billion in 2015 from $497.3 billion in 2005. Private placement bonds are in limited availability and require a lot of expertise to manage. Only about 60% of L/A insurers held them as part of their bond portfolio as of year-end 2015. Insurers with investment portfolios greater than $10 billion held all but 4% of private placement bonds.

Companies also have increased the duration of their overall bond portfolios. A.M. Best said. Average maturities have increased to nearly 11 years since 2013, after sitting at less than 10 years prior to 2010.

Unless rates rise, insurers will need to find higher yields in order to maintain operating profitability and manage spread compression. The trends of investing lower on the credit scale, lengthening portfolio durations and increasing allocations to alternative fixed income assets such as private placements are well underway.

A.M. Best’s said it believes that “by introducing products with lower risk characteristics into an older in-force block of business, L/A insurers may be able to maintain, perhaps at lower levels of profitability than in years past, a buffer against the continued low rate environment and declining yields.”

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Fifth Third Bank acquires The Retirement Corporation of America

Fifth Third Bank announced this week that it will acquire The Retirement Corporation of America is a registered investment adviser (RIA) that provides retirement education and planning as well as “investment management solutions geared toward the needs of retirees,” according to a release.

Both firms are based in Cincinnati, Ohio. The transaction awaits regulatory approval and is expected to close in April.

Fifth Third delivers “financial empowerment programming” under its own brand and through sponsorships, a release said. The Retirement Corporation of America provides “education platforms, lifestyle focused events and investment programs designed to help maximize post-retirement income.”

The Retirement Corporation of America traces its roots back to 1984 when Dan Kiley and his father, Tom Kiley, founded the original advisory firm.  

Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company. As of Sept. 30, 2016, it had $143 billion in assets and operated 1,191 full-service banking centers, including 94 Bank Mart locations, most open seven days a week, inside select grocery stores and 2,497 ATMs in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida, Tennessee, West Virginia, Georgia and North Carolina.

Established in 1858, Fifth Third operates four main businesses: Commercial Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending, and Wealth & Asset Management. It also has an 18.3% interest in Vantiv Holding, LLC. As of Sept. 30, 2016, Fifth Third had $314 billion in assets under care, of which it managed $27 billion for individuals, corporations and not-for-profit organizations. 

© RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Skin in the (Costa Rican Retirement) Game

To find out how Costa Rica’s social security system works, I walked from my Airbnb condo in the San Pedro section of San Jose, up 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 gazed out at the nearby Coronado mountain range, Alvaro Ramos Chaves arrived and shook my hand. In his early 30s, with an economics Ph.D. from U.C.-Berkeley, he has been head of SUPEN since succeeding Edgar Robles in mid-2015. As we sat down at a conference table, 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. Teachers, firefighters, judges, and certain high-ranking academics and politicians have their own DB pensions. 

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.

Costa Ricans used to paid 7.5% of salary 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. But in 200o, 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 basic DB system, or IVM, 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, Ramos said.  

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 fund. Only 3.7% of those over age 18 take advantage of their 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 40% 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 about 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 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. It made its presence felt in the fall of 2016, when Costa Rica’s Caribbean-facing coast experienced its first hurricane damage in 200 years. Hurricanes can discourage investment and are expensive to clean up after.

Changes in rainfall could also hurt the country’s agriculture sector. Costa Rica has long grown coffee in the cool central highlands and bananas in the warmer lowlands. Warmer ocean temperatures could hurt its commercial fishing industry—a major employer—and perhaps degrade 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 a 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 productivity in the future isn’t high enough to support the benefits. 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.

Who Will Sell Transamerica’s New No-Commission VA?

On January 17, Transamerica began distributing a new no-commission variable annuity contract designed for advisors who are expected to adapt to the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule, effective this April, by moving to an asset-under-management (AUM) compensation program and not selling commission products.

But details of the prospectus of the contract, called Transamerica Variable Annuity I-Share, suggest that it is as complex and expensive as older VAs with multiple income riders—perhaps more so than the DOL would consider fiduciary. It’s hard to imagine exactly where, in the context of an ever-softer VA market, where generous commissions drove the bulk of sales, this product will find a home. 

[A formal written response to that issue can be found in a statement from Transamerica senior vice president Joe Boan. You can find it here and on this week’s homepage.]

For the record, Transamerica is a unit of Netherlands financial giant AEGON, whose shares trade in Amsterdam. Although AEGON still owns the 45-year-old, 48-floor “Pyramid” in San Francisco, Transamerica’s official U.S. headquarters are in Baltimore and Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Rapping about VAs

Many AUM-based advisors have faulted VAs for their high costs (both insurance and investment expenses), and this product is true to type. Its combined fees for mortality expense risk, administration, a living benefit and death benefit riders, along with the broker-dealer distribution charges and the expense ratios of the funds (or funds of funds), could easily 300 basis points per year, according to the prospectus and the product spec sheet.

The other traditional rap on VAs is that they are complex. This product’s prospectus is challenging to unpack. It has four living benefit riders, three death benefit riders, and a profusion of investment options and enhancements at different price points and/or risk levels. That’s not necessarily bad—complexity often means flexibility, which advisors tend to like. But it’s difficult for clients to understand complex products, and opacity could be perceived by reasonable people as unfiduciary.

According to the prospectus, separate account expenses charged by the issuer run between 90 and 120 basis points, including a tiny five basis point mortality and expense risk fee; a 15 basis point administration fee, and death benefit fee (10 – 40 basis points). Enhancements to the death benefits are also available for a fee.

Living benefit fees, which cover the cost of guaranteeing income in retirement, range from 70 basis points to 145 basis points, depending on the riskiness of the underlying investments. The expense ratios of those investments range from 16 basis points to 286 basis points. There’s currently a 5.5% compound annual deferral bonus for the first 10 years of the contract (with re-sets after step-ups in the benefit base, if any), payable in any year in which withdrawals aren’t taken.

Flexibility—within constraints

Investors can choose any of the following four living benefit options, which offer single and joint contracts. One or more of them requires the use of funds that use volatility control mechanisms, or funds that are traditionally less volatile, and/or rebalancing strategies to reduce risks and protect the guarantees. Transamerica is also reserving the right to make changes to the payout rates and deferral bonuses of the riders for new purchasers. The riders are:

Transamerica Income Edge. Clients who choose this rider must agree to allocate a certain percentage of their premium to a stable value account and the rest to certain prescribed or optional investments. They can’t move money into or out of the stable account after purchase. The key risk-mitigation factor for the issuer is that, if the risky assets go to zero while the client is living, the guarantee is subsequently met by withdrawals from the client’s stable account—not from the insurer’s general account. The annual expense ratio is 1.40%.

Retirement Income Choice 1.6. This income product is available at three different price points—1.45%, 1.10% and 0.70%, depending on which group of investment options is chosen. It offers the above-mentioned 5.5% roll-up, and there’s a special income enhancement if the policyholder(s) go to a nursing home.

Retirement Income Max. As its name suggests, this rider, currently available for 1.25% per year, is for those who want the highest possible payouts and are willing to accept a narrower investment portfolio in exchange. It offers the 5.5% roll-up.

Guaranteed Principal Solution. This rider offers a guaranteed minimum accumulation benefit for those who hold the product for at least 10 years, and a guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit that allows for distributions of either 7% per year (until the effective principal is used up) or 5% per year for life. It uses a risk control technique, the Portfolio Allocation Method, that allows Transamerica to move client money into safe assets when the account value drops or when volatility spikes.      

With the exception perhaps of emergent leaders like Jackson National and AIG, variable annuity issuers have been in retreat for several years, and sales in 2017 is expected to be even softer, according to LIMRA. Traditionally, advisors have sold them because of the strong commissions they offer. Registered investment advisors (RIAs) and other fee-based have used VAs primarily for tax deferral, or for access to alternatives or for active trading, but less so for their insurance features.

In that context, the distribution strategy for this product is a bit of a mystery. It’s not clear exactly who would want to sell it. Advisors who pride themselves on customized advice wouldn’t be drawn to a packaged product. Fiduciary advisors (including RIAs and many independent advisors) wouldn’t want a product that could cost investors so much and whose fees are likely to prevent income increases in retirement. The remaining commission-paid advisors have no obvious incentive to sell a no-commission product.

On the one hand, you could say that this product has something for every client—at a price. On the other hand, it’s unclear if it will strongly appeal to any particular type of advisor. We’re in limbo right now, on many levels. Preparation is always possible, prediction less so.

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Anecdotal Evidence: The 10% Solution

There’s a straightforward solution to the retirement savings problem in the U.S. Forward-looking companies and organizations already use it. It doesn’t rely on auto-escalation, peer pressure or other behavioral nudges. When done right, it enables employees to turbo-charge their tax-deferred savings.

The secret? Carve out 10% of each employee’s salary and put it in their retirement accounts—in addition to a matching contribution. This was Vanguard’s policy when I worked there 10 years ago and I hope it still is. Many colleges and universities practice this. Anecdotally, participants embrace this policy where it’s available. 

This contribution level is what policymakers recommend. It’s what millions of Americans will need for a financially low-stress retirement. The challenge is to make employers and employees see the logic of trading consumption now for consumption later.

There’s nothing wrong with nudges. Take auto-enrollment… Wait, I take that back. Participants who are auto-enrolled tend to become locked (“anchored” is the term-of-art) into a low contribution rate. Auto-enrollment alone, if not accompanied by an employer contribution, won’t solve the retirement savings crisis.  

When I was hired at the aforementioned company, I bridled a little at the modest base pay. (My self-help career books recommended that applicants ask interviewers, “Is that the best you can do?”) The HR rep encouraged me to “look at the whole package,” including retirement, health insurance, the potential for tuition reimbursement, and annual profit sharing.

Of course, not everybody will prefer a smaller paycheck. Some people can’t commit to deferred gratification, even if they know they should. But big stable firms like Vanguard, and many universities, tend to attract conscientious long-term thinkers. I admit that it may not work everywhere. 

But it might. If we (savers, employers, and the nation) are serious about tackling the retirement savings crisis in the U.S.—where a minority saves a lot but the majority saves very little, desperate measures may be required. The 10% rule is the most direct way to attack the beast.

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Transamerica’s statement on its new no-commission VA with income benefits

Transamerica senior vice president Joe Boan offered the following written response to RIJ’s question about the strategic business rationale for the insurer’s new no-commission annuity contract, Variable Annuity I-Share, which is the subject of a feature article in today’s edition of Retirement Income Journal:

Transamerica has built the Variable Annuity I-Share (and all of our products) with an intent to be fully compliant with existing regulations and the coming DOL fiduciary regulations. 

We believe that the market will respond positively to the introduction of the I-Share, given feedback we have already received from advisors and broker-dealer firms, including that the I-Share structure will offer more flexibility for their clients in planning for retirement income. 

Transamerica sees the DOL Rule and the requirement to do what is in the best interest of the client as an opportunity to introduce solutions to financial advisors who haven’t considered these products in the past. The need for lifetime income is as strong as it has ever been. 

The benefits of tax deferral and lifetime income can only be found in an annuity. We believe fee-based variable annuities with investment flexibility will be one of the few opportunities for clients to plan for guaranteed income and market-type returns.  

The Variable Annuity I-Share is designed to be flexible. The client will only pay fees that he/she and the advisor believe are valuable and help solve his/her individual needs.  The product is structured similarly to other fee-only products that the industry is driving toward. Transamerica is committed to making our annuities as simple to understand as possible, because we believe that advisors and clients both want and need this type of structure when planning for retirement income.

LIMRA is seen as bearish on the VA market as it currently exists. We think that the outlook for 2017 is too soon to tell, given that the new administration is being inaugurated tomorrow.  We are confident that there is a market need for this structure in planning for retirement income.  Investors’ need for guaranteed sources of income in retirement is not diminished. In fact, it’s as strong as ever.

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Northwestern Mutual starts $50 million fintech venture fund

Northwestern Mutual, which embraced the digital revolution by buying LearnVest in 2015, said it will create a $50 million venture capital fund, Northwestern Mutual Future Ventures, to bankroll “startups whose technologies have the potential to transform how consumers experience and achieve financial security.”

Northwestern Mutual has been “ramping up investments in and relationships with early stage companies” following the LearnVest acquisition, according to a release. Investments will range from $500,000 to $3 million. From the insurer’s release, its focus appears to be on digitizing internal capabilities rather so-called robo-advice per se.

Other firms are aggressively pursuing more sophisticated information technology solutions. Vanguard recently created a Center for Investor Research. It will examine how investors make decisions through observational studies based on Vanguard’s administrative data and the growing pool of digital interactions.” 

When RIJ asked Vanguard recently if it were exploring the use of “chatbots,” which are chat windows where bots can engage in human-like text-based exchanges with client, a spokesperson for the mutual fund giant wrote:

“Vanguard continues to utilize new and innovative technologies in an effort to best serve our clients. As such, we are currently exploring the potential business applications of voice or text-recognition software.”

The new Northwestern Mutual fund has four priorities, the Milwaukee-based mutual insurer said: “Consumers’ changing preferences, re-imagining the client experience, the digital health revolution, and transformational analytics and technologies.

“This multiyear commitment will focus on innovation to build greater digital relevance for clients, increase data-driven decision making and create back-end efficiencies with the goal of creating greater value for [Northwestern Mutual’s] more than 4 million clients.”

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

More than one-in-four seniors never expect to be debt-free

There’s an adage that “they who are not in debt are rich.” If true, a growing number of Americans expect to die rich. Only 12% of U.S. adults with debt today expect to die in debt, according a survey by CreditCards.com. But they may be kidding themselves.

Although that figure was six percentage-points higher than in a November 2015 survey, it’s an average of responses from all ages. Among people age 65 and older, 28% said they “never expect to get out of debt.” (In late 2015, 35% felt that way.)

The survey added to the already ample evidence that many Americans are financially underprepared for retirement. Debt and savings conflict: Over 70% of those surveyed by CreditCards.com said that if their debt vanished, they would save the windfall. Almost half (32%) would save for retirement. Others would save for emergencies (15%), a new home (14%) or college tuition (12%).

The youngest adults surveyed (ages 18 to 29) were the most optimistic about dying in the black, but that figure may simply reflect a blissful ignorance about expenses that they haven’t encountered yet. According to the survey, which did show improvement:

  • 14% of those ages 50 to 64 never expect to get out of debt (down from 24%).
  • 11% of those ages 30 to 49 never expect to get out of debt (down from 19%).
  • 4% of those ages 18 to 29 never expect to get out of debt (down from 11%).

Eight years after the financial crisis, the nation’s overall debt profile continues to improve. In the last two years, the percentage of American adults carrying credit card debt, car loans, student loans, mortgages, or other personal debt fell to about 75% from 86%.   

But if you unpack that number, you find that “credit card debt has been rising steadily for more than five years and is close to $1 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve,” said Matt Schulz, a CreditCards.com analyst, in a press release. “It seems like a lot of people are forgetting the painful lessons of the Great Recession.”

Twelve percent of Republicans, 11% of independents and 10% of Democrats surveyed said they will never get out of debt, down from 25%, 21% and 14% in late 2015, respectively.

Just as many people rate themselves better-than-average drivers and lovers, many people believe they are less leveraged than their peers. Only 9% of U.S. adults say they carry more debt than their closest friends and family, while 48% say they owe less and 37% think they owe about the same amount, the survey showed. Princeton Survey Research Associates International conducted the survey for CreditCards.com.

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

LOMA issues ‘Forecast for the Life Insurance Industry’

Trends set in the life insurance industry in recent years will continue, with small to modest gains in most product lines, according to 14 senior executives surveyed by LOMA’s Resource magazine.

The executives, from life insurers and consulting firms, shared their views on sales expectations, technology, customer service, human capital and other issues for the magazine’s 2017 Forecast for the Life Insurance Industry.

“We would expect under two percent growth in North America, with larger single-digit growth in the developing world,” said Tom Scales, Research Director, Celent and a Forecast participant. “We also see the industry continuing to struggle with low interest rates.” There may be a very gradual move to modestly higher rates, he added.

Other predictions from the executives:

  • Intelligent underwriting. Technology will continue to transform the industry, and there is particular interest in intelligent underwriting, which can shorten the new business cycle. Big data, predictive analytics, mobile, and social media will play an increasing role in communicating with customers.
  • 24/7 customer service. Companies are beginning to embrace 24/7 customer service, via the customer’s preferred channel and device. There is recognition that companies need to be focusing on the “customer experience,” not just a service transaction.
  • There are varied opinions as to what may happen with the DOL fiduciary rule, due to the new administration.

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

A.M. Best forecasts life insurance industry M&A

The pace of merger & acquisition (M&A) activity in the life/annuity (L/A) industry faced headwinds from low interest rates and the regulatory environment, according to a new A.M. Best briefing.

The Best’s Briefing, titled, “Mergers and Acquisitions in the Life/Annuity Marketplace,” stated that the Department of Labor (DOL) fiduciary standard had contradictory effects on the industry. It was a catalyst for distribution-centered M&A, but also reduced block transactions or whole company acquisitions.

The industry continued to grapple with DOL readiness and implementation in 2016. The DOL was a significant distraction and consumed management resources for annuity companies throughout the year.

Due to prolonged low interest rates, mega-sized pension risk transfer (PRT) deals were modest in 2016, with the exception of MetLife and MassMutual’s partnership to execute a joint $1.6 billion PRT transaction and Prudential Financial’s $2.5 billion PRT transaction with WestRock Company.

The overall pace of PRT activity through September 2016 was comparable to the prior year. The MetLife-MassMutual transaction represented the first sizable joint M&A transaction in the U.S. market for PRT, and A.M. Best believes it is “an important step in capital markets risk transfer, which will likely be necessary for the PRT marketplace to mature in the U.S. market over time.”

Disruption from financial technology, or fintech, companies in the industry likely will drive strategically focused M&A activity, the report said. Companies have taken different paths, including partnering with affiliated distribution channels, incubating fintech insurance startups through seed investments or acquiring fintech insurance-focused companies.

In addition to Japanese companies entering the U.S. marketplace to increase their diversification, China-based enterprises now are beginning to invest in financial services and real estate. A.M. Best views some of these newer entrants as likely facing high regulatory barriers, particularly if M&A shifts toward China state-owned enterprises as potential buyers.

The industry is still in the early stages of addressing the need to modernize marketing and distribution systems in an increasingly sophisticated technological economy. A.M. Best expects that strategic M&A with a focus on distribution and technology will be an important and recurring theme over the next several years.

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The View from Costa Rica

If people could travel backwards in time by traveling a long distance on earth, a lot more Americans would certainly retire abroad. But time travel, like Shangri-La and Ponce de Leon’s Fountain of Youth, exists only in fiction. That may explain why so many people who do retire abroad eventually return to the U.S.   

Next week I’ll travel to Costa Rica, the balmy Central American republic. Geographically, it lies between Nicaragua in the north and Panama to the south. Economically, it lies somewhere between the first and third worlds. Its beaches, rain forests, waterfalls and volcanic peaks make it a magnet for millions of tourists and quite a few retirees.

Retirement Income Journal will appear in your email inbox as usual. But it will originate in San Jose, Costa Rica, where I’ve booked an Airbnb and arranged interviews with economists, bankers, and pension administrators. My goals over the next several weeks are:

  • To learn more about the various retirement savings programs in Costa Rica. These include a basic pension, a mandatory defined contribution plan, and an assortment of voluntary or occupational pensions. I plan to compare-and-contrast their system with ours. 
  • To talk to Costa Ricans themselves about their own experiences in retirement. Like people in other countries, Costa Rica’s population (about 4.5 million) is aging and its ratio of retirees to active workers is rising. Like many American workers, many Costa Ricans aren’t covered by a workplace retirement savings plan. Many of its DB pensions are underfunded.
  • To engage with the expatriate population and answer the questions: Is retiring to Costa Rica a practical alternative for Americans who are looking for a) a warm, relaxed place to enhance their longevity and/or b) the prospect of a better standard of living than their savings can provide in the U.S.?

In the near future—or maybe as soon as the next few months—the U.S. may enter another painful and divisive round of debate about the finances of our Social Security system. During the last round, in 2004, the debate ended in a stalemate between those who wanted to cut benefits and those who wanted to raise taxes.

After the next round of debate on Social Security, action is more likely, if only because the Republicans will control the legislative and executive branches of government for at least two years. (Action on retirement issues might be crowded out by health care reform and tax reform, however.) In any case, I hope that the outcome is driven by common sense and not by ideology.

At times like this, our belief in (North) American exceptionalism can prevent us from inquiring into and learning from the successes or mistakes of other nations. But inquiry and education is on my agenda in Costa Rica. I hope to gather a few facts that might help me and RIJ readers understand our domestic retirement financing dilemma more clearly.     

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.  

NextCapital to provide robo-advice to John Hancock plans

NextCapital, a digital advice provider, will partner with John Hancock Retirement Plan Services to expand automated retirement advice across its 401(k) and IRA rollover businesses, the two firms announced this week.

Features of John Hancock’s NextCapital platform include: 

  • Customized user experience and ongoing engagement
  • Proprietary and third-party investment methodologies
  • Self-service and advisor-assisted service models
  • Multi-channel supporting 401(k), IRA, and retail brokerage accounts
  • Integrations with 401(k) recordkeeping systems and retail custodians

NextCapital and John Hancock said they will roll out the new digital advice solution across the John Hancock Retirement Plan Services business in phases over the coming 12 months.

As of Sept. 30, 2016, John Hancock Retirement Plan Services serviced more than 57,000 plans with more than 2.7 million participants and over $144 billion in AUMA.

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Vanguard establishes behavioral research center

Vanguard, the giant mutual fund and retirement plan provider, has established a Center for Investor Research (CIR) that it describes as “an enhancement of the company’s efforts to drive investor success through behavioral research and experimentation.”

“CIR will examine how investors make decisions through observational studies based on Vanguard’s administrative data and the growing pool of digital interactions,” the Malvern, PA-based firm said in a release. “The Center will also design experimental interventions—or “nudges”—to directly improve investor outcomes.”

“The Center will take a data-driven, scientific view of investor behavior, and transform this knowledge into practical application,” said Steve Utkus, principal and head of the Center for Investor Research, in a statement.  

CIR is an evolution of the Vanguard Center for Retirement Research, which since 2001 has conducted assessments of defined contribution (DC) plan participant behavior and retirement plan design. The CIR publishes How America Saves, an annual review of participant activity in Vanguard-administered plans. 

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

America’s 20 best online stockbrokers and robo-advisors: NerdWallet

NerdWallet, the website service that helps people find the right credit card, has recognized the following 20 investment firms for outstanding stock trading and/or robo-advisor services and included them in its second annual “Best-of Awards Program”:

Best Brokers for Stock Trading:

  • Best Online Brokers: OptionsHouse and TD Ameritrade
  • Best for Beginners: Charles Schwab and TD Ameritrade
  • Best Investment Selection: optionsXpress (Charles Schwab) and E-Trade
  • Best Research: Fidelity and Merrill Edge
  • Best Low Cost Broker: TradeKing and Interactive Brokers

Best Robo-Advisors:

  • Best Online Advisors: Wealthfront and Betterment
  • Best 401(k) Advisor: FutureAdvisor and Blooom
  • Best Access to Financial Advisors: Personal Capital and Vanguard Personal Advisor Services
  • Best for Free Management: Schwab Intelligent Portfolios and WiseBanyan
  • Best for Taxable Accounts: Wealthfront and Personal Capital
  • Best for IRA Management: Betterment and Fidelity Go

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

RetirePreneur: Dream Forward

Chat windows have been taking their performance-enhancing Watson pills, and they’ve spawned a new generation of fast-learning “chatbots.”

Text-based virtual assistants are poised to play a big role in the further automation of the retirement plan participant communication and education experience. These bots can be annoying, especially when they appear unbidden. But they’re much cheaper than human phone reps, capable of “machine learning” and programmable never to violate ERISA regulations.

Grant Easterbrook wants to use them to reduce the cost of 401(k) advice. The twenty-something CEO of Dream Forward, a 10-person venture-backed startup, is marketing low-cost bundled 401(k) plans in the small-plan market. Proprietary artificial intelligence (AI) bots that can “coach” participants into better savings habits are the core competency of his firm.

Dream Forward will outsource other 401(k) chores to strategic partners. Recordkeeping tasks will be handled by software from Schwab Retirement Technologies. Barnum Financial Group, part of MSI Financial Services, Inc., (the former MetLife Securities, Inc., and now part of MassMutual) provides the human financial advice as needed. Expand Financial is the third-party investment fiduciary and MidAtlantic Capital Group is the custodian.

Like other next-gen chatbots, Dream Forward’s chatbot will be active. Through coding and trial-and-error, it can steadily “learn” about individual participants from their online financial activity and initiate an interaction via smartphone or computer. That’s the “artificial intelligence” or “machine learning” part of it. Chatbots are related to iPhone’s Siri and Amazon’s Alexa—but with communication based on textual analysis instead of voice analysis. Grant Easterbrook 

As Easterbrook (right) put it, our “401(k) product includes an AI technology that is designed to address the questions, concerns, or excuses that keep employees from saving enough money for retirement, such as ‘I’ll save more when I’m older,’ or ‘I’ll get serious about retirement after my kids graduate.’ Our technology provides instant help to keep employees on track and saving enough for retirement. The Barnum professionals will bring a human face and perspective to the process.”

Chatbots inspired a wave of excited chatter in tech blogs and venture cap circles beginning last April, after Facebook invited developers worldwide to develop chatbots for its new Messenger Platform. These interruptive droids send screen messages when they sense your presence through your computer or smartphone. When tied to big data, they’re capable of knowing your identity, shopping history, preferences and tastes. If your phone is turned on, they have the potential to anticipate what you might need or desire at any moment. 

Cleverly intrusive, chatbots can insinuate themselves into your field of vision like Microsoft Word’s bygone (and much-hated) virtual assistant, Clippy. But, for firms facing cost pressure who want to reduce the headcount of their call centers, they could be a competitive necessity. “Chatbots will cause a near-term disruption in how businesses interact with consumers, and a long-term paradigm shift in how people will interact with machines,” wrote a technology writer in an article at VentureBeat.com article last spring.

Though perhaps hyped a bit by investors, the market for virtual assistants is expected to be huge. According to a report published last August and offered on the website, chatbots.org, “the global intelligent virtual assistant market is projected to expand at a remarkable CAGR (compound annual growth rate) of 32.8% from 2016 to 2024. The opportunity in the market was pegged at $627.7 million in 2015 and is expected to be worth $7.9 billion by 2024.”

Front-row seat on the future

Easterbrook is bringing this loquacious technology to the small-plan 401(k) world. The son of noted journalist Gregg Easterbrook, he graduated from Bowdoin College in 2011 with a degree in international relations then spent the next several years at Corporate Insight, the research firm that gathers competitive intelligence by maintaining accounts at hundreds of financial firms in order to lurk online as a kind of mystery shopper.

As a fintech analyst there, Easterbrook watched the robo revolution unfold. “I spent four or five years talking to robo-advice company founders, and I saw which ones succeeded or failed and what did and didn’t work,” Easterbrook told RIJ. “Robo is great but it can’t replicate the coaching and handholding that live advisors provide. We didn’t have an Aha! moment. It was more of a gradual coalescing around what the gap in the industry was. We’re the first to build AI in the area of replicating financial coaching.”

Networking with fellow Bowdoin graduates and others, Easterbrook started assembling a virtual bundled 401(k) provider. “I’m not a programmer. I’m the CEO. I provide the vision, the sales and marketing,” he said. One of his financial backers is Newark Venture Partners, a New Jersey firm that invests up to $1 million each in “seed and Series A” companies. NVP receives funding from Audible (an Amazon company), Dun & Bradstreet, Prudential Financial and other backers. He also got money from VC Fintech Accelerator, a unit of FIS Global that sponsors bootcamps for fintech entrepreneurs and provides seed capital for a select few.

“Our 401(k) plan includes an independent 3(38) advisor,” Easterbrook said in an interview, referring to the section of the ERISA statute that defines trusted pension investment managers. “And we’ve got the compliance expertise behind the scenes since we’re built on top of an existing recordkeeper.

“We don’t generally disclose our recordkeeping partners, but I will say we’re built off SRT—Schwab Retirement Technology. Our business model is that we charge an AUM fee. We charge 65-75 basis points to employee, which is less than half the cost that small plan participants would ordinarily play. We’re not reinventing the wheel. It’s a bundled 401(k) plan,” he added.

About ‘AI,’ aka machine learning

Easterbrook and his team have jumped on a trend that recently fielded its own journal—Chatbotsmagazine.com. According to the blog’s creator, Matt Schlicht, “A chatbot is a service, powered by rules and sometimes artificial intelligence, that you interact with via a chat interface. The service could be any number of things, ranging from functional to fun, and it could live in any major chat product (Facebook Messenger, Slack, Telegram, Text Messages, etc.)”

On his blog, Schlicht describes how a retail chatbot might work. If you’re buying shoes online, for instance, you might go to a retail website, find shoes you like, click and pay. In the future, a chatbot will greet you, ask intelligent questions, make suggestions and close the deal.  

dream forward logoIn the banking realm, a sophisticated new generation of chatbot apps has already arrived. In October, Bank of America introduced “Erica” (as in Am-Erica), a chatbot that according to CNBC “will use artificial intelligence, predictive analytics and cognitive messaging to help customers make payments, check balances, save money and pay down debt. She will also direct people to look up their FICO score and check out educational videos.”

As one tech consultant recently observed, “These new technologies now let banks reduce friction and provide a higher level of engagement at far lower operating cost.” Easterbrook envisions similar benefits in the world of participant engagement in the process of saving for retirement.

“Let’s say you lowered the amount of your contribution to your 401(k) account,” Easterbrook told RIJ. “You’d get a pop-message on your desktop that said, ‘What’s on your mind?’ If you say, ‘I can wait until I’m older to start saving for retirement,’ then AI will try to coach you through that.” When the chatbot reaches the limits of its capability, it will pass the participant on to a human advisor.

Easterbrook talks about an “AI-driven experience.” “The notion of ‘artificial intelligence’ is somewhat misleading. The AI function won’t be able to tell you the meaning of life, but it will recreate the experience of talking to a human being,” he said.  

“Artificial intelligence is the next stage of robo-advice. A lot of the media coverage of AI has been pessimistic, like the coverage of self-driving cars. Dream Forward is a positive application of AI. It makes the human advisor better at his or her job. We’re not trying to mislead people; we’re trying to help them out when they’re about to make a bad choice. It’s not, ‘Hi, I’m Sara Smith.’ It’s not phone tree technology—that’s a separate issue. It’s just someone trying to answer your questions in plain English.”

But don’t FAQs webpages do that already? “FAQs don’t deal with the emotional aspect of the questions. Part of our vision is that we work with human advisors. They always have a role. When you think about how financial advisors currently work with 401(k) plans, they go onsite and hold seminars, but most people never show up at the seminar. With our system, we can tell the advisors what’s going on with the participants. We can say, ‘Forty people aren’t saving at all, and ten aren’t saving for college,’ etc. We have the technology to intervene, and the advisors go in to finish the job.”

Easterbrook has no immediate plans to take Dream Financial public or to be acquired by a large asset manager or insurer, as several other fintech and robo-advice companies have been. “We’re not building for acquisition,” he told RIJ. “We see a huge opportunity to be part of a next-gen solution that everyone uses. If you’re thinking, ‘Let’s just get to a certain point and then someone will buy us,’ then you’re making wishful decisions instead of rational business decisions. That leads to bad choices.”

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Tilting at windmills

Many pension funds and other institutional investors have increased their investments in infrastructure over the last few years, seeing the long-term fixed cash flows from utility contracts as bond-like investments that have the potential to yield more than bonds themselves currently do.  

But concerns about the security of the return guarantees, particularly where unpredictable regulatory bodies are involved, have fueled some caution about investing in this asset class. A Danish pension fund’s co-venture with a German energy firm in Texas wind farms appears to be a case in point.

Papalote, a joint venture between Danish labor-market pension fund PensionDanmark and Germany’s E.ON, has filed suit in the US seeking to recover about $300 million (€284m) in alleged losses stemming from a US water authority’s decision to stop buying power from it.  

IPE.com reported this week that in October 2012 PensionDanmark bought a half share in two Texas wind farms from E.ON. They were Papalote Creek I and Papalote Creek II, a 180-megawatt facility and 200-megawatt wind farm, respectively. The Danish pension fund also bought a 50% stake in a 53-megawatt farm in Stony Creek, Pa., from E.ON.

But when wholesale energy prices in Texas dropped to less than $25 per megawatt hour last year, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) decided last year to cancel the remainder of the 18-year agreement to buy power from Papalote for $64.75 per megawatt hour, according to a report in Responsible Investor (RI).

PensionDanmark and E.ON declined to comment.   

According to the RI report, the LCRA said the cancellation was allowed under the contract and that the agreed-upon penalty for early termination was $60 million (or $60 million in liquidated damages over time). Papalote claims that it is owed more than $300 million in losses arising from the cancellation, arguing that the cancellation clause applied only in the construction phase of the project.

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

‘Yours Sincerely, Wasting Away’

Sky-high projections of retirees’ out-of-pocket medical costs have forced me to consider several preventative options: Vegetarianism, specialized hip-joint exercises, severely restricted sugar and alcohol intake, and even—when Churchill’s “black dog” is on me—assisted suicide. If I stay healthy, or if I’m not alive, maybe I can beat the high cost of health care in retirement.  

Those projections—you’ve probably seen them—suggest that my wife and I are going to need to save an extra half-million dollars, on top of our current eke-by savings, just to cover medical costs after we retire. And if the incoming Republican administration decides to apply a free-market remedy to rising Medicare costs—perhaps by putting managed care companies entirely in charge—then private medical costs could be higher (while taxes on the wealthy might be lower).

My research for today’s RIJ cover story on Medicare (see “When You’re 64”) supplemental insurance led me to believe that a middle-class couple over age 65 might be able to cap their household’s ongoing retirement medical expenses at roughly the cost of premia, about $7,200 per year in current dollars, plus costs for sporadic dental, vision and hearing care.

That estimate comes from adding monthly Medicare Part B costs ($109 per person), “Medigap” insurance costs ($150 per person), and prescription drug plan costs ($50 per person). I have no idea what the incidental costs might be—periodontal care, for instance, might cost a bundle—because I don’t currently pay them out of pocket. I’m also not counting potential costs associated with assisted living expenses or long-term care, perhaps because neither my late parents nor my in-laws ever incurred them. (I’m also ignoring the costs of organic foods, which we now buy as a hedge against senescence.)

From what I read, however, my estimates are wishfully low. On the other hand, an advisor and actuary told me that there’s not much reason to worry any more than usual.

Credible sources—Fidelity, the Employee Benefits Research Institute, Ron Mastrogiovanni’s Healthview Services—that many retirees will need much more money in retirement than they expected because of the risk of extreme longevity, Alzheimer’s disease, and the ever-growing costs of medical care. Here are examples of what they’ve said on the subject:

  • “For a married couple both with drug expenses at the 90th percentile throughout retirement who want a 90% chance of having enough money saved for health care expenses in retirement by age 65, targeted savings increased from $326,000 in 2014 to $392,000 in 2015,” according to EBRI.
  • “If you’re not factoring health care costs into your retirement savings strategy, you could be setting yourself up for a nasty financial shock. According to the latest retiree health care cost estimate from Fidelity Benefits Consulting, a 65-year-old couple retiring this year will need an average of $260,000 (in today’s dollars) to cover medical expenses throughout retirement, up from $245,000 in 2015… That applies only to retirees with traditional Medicare insurance coverage, and does not include costs associated with nursing home care. Fidelity estimates that a 65-year-old couple would need an additional $130,000 to insure against long-term care expenses.”
  • “HealthView’s data shows the magnitude of the financial challenges women will face during retirement. Average expected health care costs (for Medicare B, D, and a supplemental insurance policy) for a healthy 65-year-old women retiring this year (living to age 89) are projected to be $235,526 ($153,079 in today’s dollars). A man of the same age (living to age 87) will need $199,946 ($135,321). Adding all out-of-pockets, dental, and vision increases a woman’s health care outlays to $306,426 ($199,951) compared to $260,422 ($176,769) for men.”

I’m in denial about all this, probably because of my personal experiences. My mother died suddenly of a pulmonary embolism. My father and father-in-law died at home in their respective bathrooms—probably while looking for an emergency aspirin tablet. My mother-in-law was ill for nine months before she died, but was cared for at home by her daughter, a niece and a part-time nurse.

To get objective opinions about health care costs in retirement, I asked a couple of retirement experts what they’ve seen. Their answers were somewhat reassuring.  

“I work with retirees. None have experienced the catastrophic costs I see referenced everywhere,” said Dana Anspach, a financial advisor and CEO at Sensible Money LLC in Scottsdale, Arizona. “Often I frame it this way to them: Right now most of us are paying $10,000 a year in total medical when you add up premiums, out-of-pocket costs, dental, etc. Just extend that existing cost into retirement over 25 years with a mild inflation rate and you have over a $300,000 “bill”. But to me framing it that way is a scare tactic. It’s an extension of what you’re already paying.

“I’d love to see a study of real retirees from age 65 to 85, broken into income sectors—low, medium and high—and what they are actually paying,” she added. “Much like the work that [Morningstar’s David] Blanchett has done on how inflation impacts retirees of different income levels in different ways, it would be interesting to see how health care costs impact different sectors, and how much “cost” is alternative care that the higher-income retirees choose to spend on, versus basics that the lower-income retirees will pay.”

Anna Rappaport, an actuarial consultant and chair of the Society of Actuary’s Committee on Post-Retirement Needs and Risks, agreed with Anspach. “Most people [I’ve known] with Medicare and supplements paid premiums but did not face large, acute, uncovered medical bills,” she said. “They did face unexpected dental bills and some had uncovered items. While insurance covered acute medical costs, long-term care was very different, and a few people had huge long term care costs.”

So, sure, bad stuff happens. It’s not uncommon to hear medico-financial horror stories from friends and relatives. For instance, both parents of one of my friends required long-term care for Alzheimer’s disease simultaneously. Another friend had to deplete his liquid assets in a hurry to allow his dementia-suffering spouse to qualify for Medicaid-paid nursing home care.

In another case, an 88-year-old woman chose hospice, and died two days later, rather than allow the ongoing costs of dialysis to consume all her remaining assets and deprive her children of an inheritance. Experiences vary widely, as they always do. Averages are always misleading. Ultimately, I’m fatalistic about the high cost of getting old. The elderly and their families will pay no more than they are willing and able to pay, and no amount of money or insurance can stop the inevitable.      

© 2016 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. 

Goodbye “Obamania.” Hello, er, “Trumpelstiltskin”?

“Trumponomics” and “Trumpflation” were on Investopedia’s list of the ten Top Financial Terms for 2016, the online financial dictionary announced this week. “Trump’s legacy is yet to be determined but his impact on investing and economic policy is unmistakable,” said Caleb Silver, editor in chief at Investopedia, in a release. The website’s “Top 10 Terms of 2016,” in reverse order of popularity as search requests, included:

Calexit. Echoing the words “Grexit” and “Brexit,” a group called “Yes California” created this term to rally support for California’s secession from the U.S. The group plans a 2018 ballot initiative that, if passed, would call for an independence referendum the following year. 

NAFTA. The term “The North American Free Trade Agreement” (NAFTA) tripled in popularity after the election, when it became a symbol of harmful globalization and weak U.S. trade policy. NAFTA, which eased trade barriers between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, was signed by president Bill Clinton in December 1993.

Trumpflation. Since Trump’s election on November 8, markets began forecasting higher inflation. After the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds spiked in December, the Federal Reserve described said the risk of inflation in 2017 is “considerable.”  

Black Swan. This term, popularized by author Nassim Nicholas Taleb, refers to unforeseen financial catastrophes. In the wake of the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union (Brexit) and the election of Donald Trump, searches for this term rose over six times in popularity.

Interest rates. Rates may be low but the popularity of the term has reached an all-time high on Investopedia. In an attempt to nurse the U.S. economy back to pre-crisis health, the Federal Reserve has kept the Fed Funds rates near zero, though they raised rates a quarter point in December and have planned three more hikes for 2017.

Fintech. Venture capital and private equity continues to fee the hungry financial technology industry. Often conflated with the lending, fintech is revolutionizing banking, payments, insurance, customer service and advice.   

Peer-to-peer lending. “P2P” lending allows individuals to borrow and lend money without a bank.The Lending Club scandal brought peer-to-peer lending into the spotlight this year, and the number of searches for this term have doubled since 2015.

Dodd-Frank Regulatory Reform Bill. Trump promised to “dismantle” the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which the Obama administration in response to the financial crisis of 2008. Trump may encounter some substantial political barriers to rolling back the law.

Blockchain. The hype around blockchain skyrocketed in 2016. Blockchain has been popular with apps like Venmo and other mobile banking startups, but now traditional financial institutions are exploring this new technology for interacting with customers, suppliers and competitors. Blockchain is now a “top 50” term on Investopedia. 

Trumponomics. This is, in effect, a synonym for how to “Make America Great Again” in a Trump administration. The term refers to the economic policies such as cutting personal and corporate taxes, restructuring U.S. trade deals and introducing large fiscal stimuli in  infrastructure and defense.

© 2017 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.