We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,890)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (36)
  • Moore on the Market (472)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (823)
  • Wink's Articles (371)
  • Wink's Inside Story (280)
  • Wink's Press Releases (127)
  • Blog Archives

  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • Annuity Complexity Demands Standard Illustrations

    June 14, 2010 by Robert A. Chester

    A regulator sees a need for consistency in sales presentations 

    Published 6/7/2010 

    Today’s annuities have very advanced concepts and benefit characteristics—market value adjusting, separate investment accounts, indexing and guaranteed living benefits, to name a few.

    What the industry needs now is a standardized illustration process for those products.

    To see why, it helps first to review some developments from the life insurance side of the business, and the lessons learned there—in particular, the evolution of modern day life products and the eventual delivery of a standardized illustration requirement on Jan. 1, 1999 (via the Life Illustration Model of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners).

    Life products in the 1980s and 1990s were refreshed and revitalized through innovation, delivering new and more sophisticated designs to the market. This surge closely resembles the annuity product development of the last 10-15 years.

    But the pioneering of new concepts and revolutionary product designs at breakneck speeds made it difficult for insurers and regulators to maintain reasonable controls to ensure consumers could understand the dynamic designs.

    One example is the “vanishing-premium” design and the crisis it spawned. The design involved illustration proposals that introduced the paid-up concept on products requiring lifetime premium payments. Here, the premium outlay, beyond the “paying period,” was sustained by the accrued interest generated by historically high interest rates.

    But, as is widely known, interest rates normalized over the years, so these products received far less interest crediting than projected. That resulted in the paid-up policy year set points being significantly extended. The response? Development of the first standard for life insurance illustrations (via the 1999 NAIC Model) and several new enhanced disclosure and comparison requirements. There was also a new focus on suitability standards.

    These responses produced true 360-degree coverage: They aimed at improving suitable sales to empower agents to do the right thing, and requiring disclosures and standardized illustration requirements to empower clients to make the right choice.

    It’s important to note that the vanishing-premium debacle involved just one assumption and one concept, but it precipitated a never-before-experienced consumer onslaught that brought about a new era of consumer disclosures in life insurance.

    This is not to suggest that the annuity marketplace runs the risk of a similar interest rate conundrum.

    The risk in the current annuity market is that the industry’s increasingly sophisticated designs bring many new enhancements and concepts that inevitably lead to more complexity for the consumer—which then typically produces heightened consumer grievances.

    Developing a standardized illustration process within the annuity marketplace would make winners all of the key stakeholders in this issue. Consider these lessons from the life insurance sector:

    Insurers: The process extends additional protection against unsuitable sales, reducing consumer issues and potential liabilities while potentially increasing sales for insurers offering products of superior value.

    Agents: Uniform standardized illustrations help level the playing field and highlight the companies with the best product and their best features.

    Regulators: Uniform standardized illustrations further foster open and free competitive markets while ensuring full and complete disclosure of policy benefits to consumers.

    Consumers: A fully informed consumer is more likely to make the right choice on the product best suited for the need, and at the best value.

    In summary, the insurance industry is providing consumers with needed financial products. These products are growing increasingly complex. The task is to support increased sales of these products, ensure better client understanding of the product being purchased, and prevent adverse consumer outcomes.

    A standardized illustration process for today’s increasingly complex and sophisticated annuity benefits could help bridge those gaps.

    It would foster increased competition by making it easier for consumers to evaluate all aspects of the benefit in order to compare and measure its performance against that of other insurers’ products. Consumers would see how the benefit actually valuates and responds under different scenarios and assumptions. They would also get a complete and sobering account of the benefit and would be less likely to be surprised by an unexpected benefit design.

     Robert A. Chester is state insurance examiner with the Connecticut State Insurance Department, Hartford, Conn. His e-mail address is Robert.Chester@ct.gov.

    Originally Posted at National Underwriter on June 7, 2010 by Robert A. Chester.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency