Life Annuity-The Retirement Security Needs Lifetime Pay Act, H.R. 2748

Congressman Earl Pomeroy -- Pomeroy, Brown-Waite Introduce Legislation to Promote Income Security in Retirement

Pomeroy, Brown-Waite Introduce Legislation to Promote Income Security in Retirement
Monday, June 08, 2009

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Earl Pomeroy today introduced bipartisan legislation along with Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) that will promote lifetime income security by providing incentives for workers to annuitize part of their retirement savings.

“For years, the federal government has recognized its duty to assist American families in building a retirement nest egg,” Pomeroy said. “Saving and investing for the long term is extremely important, especially in these challenging times. A greater retirement challenge lies ahead: managing assets to make sure that your retirement savings last a lifetime. The Retirement Security Needs Lifetime Pay Act will provide families with incentives to plan for a secure lifelong retirement.”

“American workers spend a significant portion of their careers planning for their retirement. When the economy falls on hard times, it should not mean that their plans have to go on hold as well,” Congresswoman Brown-Waite said. “This bill incentivizes workers to invest in a retirement annuity so that their golden years can go on as planned.”

The Retirement Security Needs Lifetime Pay Act, H.R. 2748, would encourage workers to annuitize some of their retirement savings by providing a 50 percent tax exclusion for up $10,000 of lifetime annuity payments each year. A lifetime annuity is the only financial vehicle that delivers a steady stream of income for life. Additionally, the bill would exclude from taxes, 25 percent of lifetime income payments from Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), qualified plans and similar employer-sponsored retirement savings plans other than defined benefit plans. The bill also excludes the value of longevity insurance from amounts subject to required minimum distributions and clarifies the taxation of partial annuity payments.

By providing incentives for workers to annuitize part of their retirement savings, this bill addresses the management of savings once an individual reaches retirement, an issue previously ignored by public policy. Congress has gone to great lengths to provide incentives to encourage workers to accumulate enough savings for retirement. However, upon retirement, workers face numerous risks in managing those savings throughout their retirement years.

AnnuityDefinition.com

Equity Indexed Annuity: Forbes Article Errors, Omissions and Half-Statements

Equity‐Indexed Annuities: A Costly Way to Limit Your Lossesi Strong recent results mask plenty of pitfalls.
By Scott Woolley
June 05, 2009
Forbes.com
NAFA, the National Association for Fixed Annuities, is an educational trade association incorporated to
promote the awareness and understanding of fixed annuities. The common media malady is that fixed
annuities – regardless of the interest crediting formula – are investment products. Fixed annuities are
no more purchased as investments than are life or long term care insurance ‐ nor should they be. All of
these products are purchased to protect and preserve assets. Fixed indexed annuities offer guaranteed
death benefits, minimum interest and income you cannot outlive. Fixed indexed annuities can also
provide additional interest over and above the guarantees when the index performance allows.
The headline demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of these products. They do not “limit your
losses” from stock market declines they ELIMINATE the possibility that any of your premium or earned
interest will be lost. While the list of errors, omissions and half‐statements in this article is very lengthy
indeed, we will limit our corrections to the most egregious ones. Helping Americans to better
understand fixed index annuities will encourage them to learn more about a product that has saved
millions of dollars of retirement savings from equity losses.
1. A major error in the article is the assertion that fixed indexed annuities are offered by Prudential
and Met Life. Neither company offers a fixed indexed annuity. Prudential offers only one choice
of a fixed deferred annuity product and Met Life offers two (single and flexible premium)
product choices and none of these deferred annuities credit interest based on the performance
of an index. MassMutual's product is a single premium variable annuity where the purchase
payment is allocated between a fixed account and an equity indexed subaccount like the S&P
500. Genworth exited the indexed annuity marketplace in October 2008. It is curious that you
did not choose to inform your readers with company names and website links to the real “major
companies” that offer indexed annuities. Just about 15 minutes of research would have
informed you that the four companies you named are not fixed indexed annuity carriers.
2. The article itself contradicts FINRA’s statement about fixed indexed annuities that “one of the
most confusing features is the method used to calculate the gain.” The article easily explains
the feature using a mere 45 words.
3. The bias of the article is transparent when the only “regulatory authorities” referenced are the
two that are seeking to claim jurisdiction over a product they actually do not understand. While
NAFA certainly has views that differ from those quoted, an effort at objectivity should have
referenced our White Paper on Indexed Annuity Productsii, so that readers could draw their own
conclusions. Also, IMSAiii and the NAICiv also provide good information for consumers on their
respective websites.


4. It is good that you acknowledge that fixed indexed annuities show strong results, but why do
you limit it to recent history? Perhaps because during the recent economic crisis, while millions
of Americans have seen their 401(k) and retirements savings slashed in half, owners of fixed
indexed annuities have not lost one penny of their account value? But it is also true that the
tradeoff for this protection has also rewarded them with very respectable interest earnings.
Below is NAFA’s report by Miguel A. Herce, Ph.D of CRA International, Inc. showing the
annualized return over 10‐year periods. Many American’s might disagree that 6.5% is a “costly
way to limit losses.”
Period S&P 500 with no Dividends Monthly Averaging Index
(0% floor)
JAN 1975 – OCT 2004 11.6% 7.7%
JAN 1975 – OCT 2008 10.8% 7.5%
JAN 1926 – OCT 2008 7.6% 7.0%
JAN1995 – OCT 2008 6.1% 6.5%
If you are reluctant to take our word for it, perhaps you will trust the excerpt from a fellow journalist,
Steven Hartv, who writes:
If you are generally concerned with potential downswings in the market, then an index annuity
can be a great choice for your investing needs. You can participate in the potential of a strong
market run without having to deal with severe loss during a sharp market downturn. In addition,
the overall principal is safely protected so that no loss will occur. The setup of the index annuity
to give a profit at a minimum rate of return, however, ensures that the investor still sees a profit
(however small) during the lean times of the index. In other words, the index annuity seems to
provide the chance to have your cake and eat it too with a low‐risk financial product that you
can benefit from over time.
i http://resources.nafa.com/files/2009/06‐jun/6‐9‐forbesresponse.pdf
ii http://www.nafa.us/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=7&id=105
iii http://www.nafa.us/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=7&id=106
iv http://resources.nafa.com/files/2009/06‐jun/6‐9‐naicbuyersguidetoannuities.pdf
v http://www.affsphere.com/Money‐and‐Finance/Annuities/What‐is‐an‐Index‐Annuity‐1.html

Equity-Indexed Annuities: A Costly Way To Limit Your Losses

From: Sheryl Moore
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 7:24 PM
To: 'readers@forbes.com'
Subject: FW: ARTICLE: Equity-Indexed Annuities: A Costly Way To Limit Your Losses

 

Dear Forbes Editor,

 

I am an independent market research analyst who specializes exclusively in the indexed annuity and indexed life markets. I have tracked the companies, products, marketing, and sales of these products for over a decade. I do not endorse any company or financial product specifically, but I do believe in the value proposition of indexed products. I recently had the occasion to read your article, “Equity-Indexed Annuities: A Costly Way To Limit Your Losses.” As the foremost authority on indexed annuities, I wanted to personally respond to the material misstatements and misleading testimonial by Scot Woolley in this article. I was absolutely appalled that a source as credible as Forbes would publish such a blatantly false and ignorant article. Scott Woolley appears to be very uneducated on indexed annuities, and the insurance industry in general. I would like to think that Forbes generally does a better job at monitoring the accuracy of their contributors’ articles than they did on this occasion.

 

Specifically, the most shocking and obvious mistake in Woolley’s piece is the fact that Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co, and Prudential Financial have never offered indexed annuities, EVER. Yet, he sites them as being carriers that underwrite these products. In addition, MetLife does not offer indexed annuities themselves, but instead offers their agents a choice of four indexed annuities that are offered by other insurers. Genworth Financial exited the indexed annuity market on September 20, 2008. Certainly Woolley could not have done his homework on this article, as all one needs to do is Google “first quarter 2009 indexed annuity sales,” and they would have found the most credible resource on current carriers in the market: my firm’s sales data. It is distressing that this reporter put so little effort into backing-up his information.

 

In addition, indexed annuities have not been referred to as “equity indexed annuities” since the late 1990s. The insurance industry has been careful to enforce a habit of referring to the products as merely “indexed annuities” or “fixed indexed annuities,” so as not to confuse consumers. This industry wants to make a clear distinction between these fixed insurance products and equity investments. It is the safety and guarantees of these products which appeal to consumers, particularly during times of market downturns and instability (such as what we are experiencing now).

 

Also, indexed annuities are not a “combination investment and insurance product[s].” They are not an investment at all. They are a fixed insurance product that provides minimum guarantees, death benefits, and an income stream that consumers cannot outlive. Excess interest is credited based on the performance of an outside stock index, such as the S&P 500. The indexed annuity consumer is never directly invested in the stock market, and thereby never subject to the risk of loss due to market downturn. These benefits, coupled with this unique interest crediting, are what makes indexed annuities such an appealing, value-added product- particularly during times of market turmoil. The products are regulated by state insurance divisions, like other fixed insurance products.

 

Indexed annuities do provide limited upside interest potential, unlike securities products. This is what allows the insurance company to be able to afford the minimum guarantee that is provided to the consumer. So, regardless of the market’s performance, the worst the client can receive is zero interest crediting- no risk to principal as a result of market losses. No other product can offer such a strong value proposition, coupled with the insurance benefits of the indexed annuity. It is important to note that if the potential gains were unlimited on indexed annuities, there would be no guarantees, and THAT would be a variable annuity, not a fixed insurance product. We in the indexed annuity industry, are happy for this differentiation, as it is what drives the sales of these products.

 

Scott Woolley’s understanding of the basic pricing of indexed annuities is flawed. He believes that “the insurers who sell the annuities use derivatives to put collars around the annuities with limit both the upside and downside for investors.” In reality, the insurance company invests the majority of their funds in bonds, which cover the indexed annuity’s minimum guarantees. The invest a minute percentage of the funds in options, which provide the index-linked interest on the products. Contrary to Woolley’s allusions, the insurance companies have no control over the prices for the bonds and options. So, when the market becomes volatile, the same dollar that purchased the company a potential indexed annuity gain of 8% last month, may only purchase them a potential indexed annuity gain of 6% presently. So, while “the counterparties selling the hedges” may “jack up their fees,” as a result of market volatility, that merely translates into lower caps, participation rates, and higher spreads that are passed on to the consumer. This is not discretionary on behalf of the insurance company. Indexed annuities not only have minimum guarantees, but also minimum guaranteed caps/participation rates, and maximum spreads that are approved by the insurance divisions in the state the product is being offered in, prior to the product ever being made available for sale. When these caps, participation rates and spreads become unattractive compared to fixed annuities, sales of indexed annuities decline.

 

As far as “other fees” being “so high as to make the product a lousy buy”- indexed annuities do not have fees. A few indexed annuities offer an optional rider that has an explicit, stated account valued-based charge. However, these products are not like variable annuities which have numerous fees such as administrative fees, mortality & expense charges, as well as fees for optional riders. There are no “fat expenses” on these products, nor “ways to make it hard” to understand what you are really paying. All annuity costs and benefits are clearly disclosed in the disclosures that the consumer signs at the time of purchase. Yes, all indexed annuities have surrender charges. All fixed annuities have surrender charges. These charges are ten years on average, but can be as low as one year. In addition, a large percentage of the longer-term products offer an up-front premium bonus to provide an incentive to the annuity consumer. A surrender penalty is merely what allows the insurance company to credit competitive interest rates to the annuity, while the client has agreed to keep their money with the insurance company. The insurance company invests the consumers premiums, in order to make a return on the money, and credit this competitive interest rate. Without a surrender penalty, the insurance company would incur tremendous expenses that they would not be able to recover. In short, surrender charges are a pricing measure that allows insurance companies to make good on their promises, and back-up their claims-paying abilities.

 

Woolley’s citing of firms that are seeking to extend their regulatory authority beyond the scope of their purview is incredulous. Both the SEC and FINRA have vested interests in regulating these fixed insurance products. They do not regulate these products today, and therefore the state insurance division would be a far more credible resource on these products. They cannot be considered a reliable source on indexed annuities, as they have a plethora of inaccurate information on the products on their public websites and “alerts.”

 

Unfortunately, a few complex products have afforded this industry the perception of complexity over the past 15 years. However, the bulk of indexed annuities sold today are very simple to understand. In fact, 95.2% of indexed annuities offered today have crediting methods based on the simple formula of (A – B)/B. All indexed annuities limit potential indexed interest through the use of a pricing lever such as a participation rate, a cap, or a spread. Typically, only one of these levers is used to limit the potential indexed interest on the annuity. However, the bottom line is that the crediting method and pricing lever used are irrelevant. Indexed annuities are priced to return about 1% - 2% greater than other traditional fixed money instruments. So, if fixed annuities are earning 5% today, and indexed annuity consumer can expect to receive 6% - 7% interest over the life of their indexed annuity. Sure, some years they will receive zero, and other years they may receive double-digit gains. However, the end goal is to receive a rate that is competitive with other safe money places, not to compete with securities products.

 

Every single indexed annuity ever sold limits the consumer’s risk of loss as a result of the market downturn at ZERO. No indexed annuity consumer has ever received a negative adjustment to their annuity’s value as a result of a market decline. This is precisely why these products are so appealing. In addition, when the annuity receives zero crediting, the market’s low point (the end measurement for the crediting method) is now the beginning date for the next index measurement on these products. This provides a tremendous opportunity for indexed gains when the market rebounds.

 

As a the foremost expert and consultant in this market, I can tell you that I have never heard of David Babbel. I can neither confirm nor deny the validity of his study, as neither myself nor my clients use him as a resource on these products. The bottom line is that indexed annuities are a great solution for millions of Americans that cannot stomach putting their retirement dollars at risk in the market. On the other hand, these same consumers can look forward to the opportunity for greater interest crediting than what they could earn at their local bank.

 

I was astounded to see Mr. Woolley’s statement that “getting stuck in these contracts if you need the money early” is a big problem. In reality, every indexed annuity sold today allows consumers annual penalty-free access to their account value, should the need arise. This amount is typically 10% of the annuity’s value annually, but it can be as high as 20%. In addition, 9 out of 10 fixed annuities provide penalty-free access to the account value in the event of certain triggers such as nursing home confinement, terminal illness, disability and even death. Quite contrary to this article’s statements, indexed annuities are some of the most liquid retirement vehicles available today.

 

Even more damaging was Scott Wooley’s statement that “many insurers rescind gains you may be owed if you get out early.” Exactly ONE of the 275 indexed annuities sold today works in this manner. In addition, sales of this product accounted for less than 2% of total industry sales as of the first quarter of 2009.

 

While it is true that all annuities are intended to be a long-term commitment, Mr. Woolley seems to miss the big picture. What makes indexed annuities the most important part of millions of American’s retirement plans is that indexed annuity consumers are more risk averse than individuals investing in securities products such as stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Indexed annuities are a “safe money place,” intended to be compared against other safe money places (i.e. fixed annuities and certificates of deposit). Any insurance agent or advisor selling these products knows the difference. Why doesn’t Mr. Woolley, who purports himself as an expert on these products?

 

In closing, it would be so greatly appreciated if you would provide a correction to your readers on this blatantly false article. There are millions of Americans relying on the accuracy of your information, and clarifying Mr. Woolley’s article is a good way to attempt to repair the damage of his statements.

 

Please feel free to let me know if I can serve as a resource to you or your editorial staff in the future.

 

Thank you.

 

Sheryl J. Moore

President and CEO

LifeSpecs.com

AnnuitySpecs.com

Advantage Group Associates, Inc.

(515) 262-2623

Index Annuities

Forbes.com - Magazine Article

Forbes.com


Personal Finance
Equity-Indexed Annuities: A Costly Way To Limit Your Losses
Scott Woolley, 06.05.09, 5:35 PM ET

Their unsexy name aside, there's something undeniably seductive about equity-indexed annuities (EIA). Sold by insurance companies, these combination investment and insurance products promise investors a piece of any stock market gains while limiting downside when the market tanks. At the end of the investment, or accumulation, period, the annuity's owner is typically offered either a lump-sum distribution of the proceeds or regular payments based on the ending balance.

Over the past 15 years, the products have become increasingly popular and are offered by major insurers like Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., Prudential Financial, MetLife and Genworth Financial. While the investment features have looked increasingly alluring, the catch is that the stock market's wild seesawing could hardly have been better designed to enrich holders of equity-indexed annuities. Since 1995, these annuities have easily outpaced the S&P 500 and bond indexes alike.

"There is no asset category that outperformed them. We were extremely surprised, really just amazed," says David Babbel, professor emeritus of insurance and risk management, who conducted a study of equity-index annuity returns beginning in 1995.

Still, there are plenty of reasons to take a hard look at equity-indexed annuities before adding them to you portfolio. While rules differ, the basic idea is simple enough. The insurers who sell the annuities use derivatives to put collars around the annuities, which limit both their upside and downside for investors.

Tricky questions for buyers: Are those offsetting hedges being passed along at a fair price? And are other fees so high as to make the product a lousy buy?

The answer is "no" frequently enough that the investor alerts are posted by both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The products "are anything but easy to understand. One of the most confusing features of an EIA is the method used to calculate the gain in the index to which the annuity is linked," FINRA warns.

Typically, equity-linked annuities come with "participation rates" that limit the amount of market gains in which annuity holders share. If a contract has a 70% participation rate and the S&P climbs 10%, the annuity holder gets a 7% bump, for example. In exchange, the investor receives a loss limit, which often guarantees that he will do no worse than break even each calendar year. For 2008, when the market fell 38%, annuity investors' relative returns look brilliant.

Babbel, who has consulted for the insurance industry, is quick to point out that the period he studied was a highly unusual one, marked by quick, sharp drops in the market. Those are precisely the kind of collapses that equity-indexed annuities are good at sidestepping.

Even if you assume that the market will perform during the next 15 years like it did during the past 15, there's no guarantee that the counterparties selling the hedges won't jack up their fees and lower the performance of the equity indexed annuities.

Then there are the fees investors are likely to pay for the privilege of owning an equity-linked annuity. Like other deferred annuities, equity-index features regularly have fat expenses built in, often in ways that make it hard, if not impossible, to understand what you're really paying.

Another big problem: getting stuck in these contracts if you need the money early. Many come with sizable surrender fees that remain in force for several years. What's more, many insurers rescind gains you may be owed if you get out early.

As the old investing saw goes: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. If you have a long-term horizon and want to limit your potential losses, there are probably better ways to do it than equity-indexed annuities. Consider owing a mix of diversified, low-cost bond index funds to smooth out the bumps next time your equity holdings take a hit.

Also see: www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1208/151.html