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


media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us


Close [x]

Industry News


  • Industry Articles (16,527)
  • Industry Conferences (3)
  • Industry Job Openings (38)
  • Negative Media (138)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (617)
  • Sheryl's Blogs (175)
  • Wink's Articles (241)
  • Wink's Blogs (256)
  • Wink's Press Releases (93)
  • Blog Archives

  • 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
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • Response: The Truth About Equity-Indexed Annuities

    August 26, 2010 by Sheryl J. Moore

    PDF for Setting it Straight with Forbes

    ORIGINAL ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND AT: The Truth About Equity-Indexed Annuities

    Dear Forbes Editor,

    I recently had an article on your website forwarded to me, which is very misleading and inaccurate. “The Truth About Equity-Indexed Annuities,” by Mel Lindauer reflects poorly on Forbes because of the misinformation in the article. I am quite angry at this point, as this is the second time in a one-month period that I have had to bring your attention to inaccurate articles that Mr. Lindauer has written on indexed annuities. Because of your apparent lack of concern, I am also copying a large portion of the insurance industry on this correction. Perhaps hearing from a few insurance company CEOs and owners of powerful financial services firms will persuade you to make appropriate corrections to this article and use a reliable source for fact-checking in the future (such as myself). As an aside, I would have copied Mr. Lindauer on this correction, had I access to his email address.

    As you have been made aware in the past, I am an independent market research analyst who specializes in the fixed and indexed annuity and life markets. I have tracked the companies, products, marketing, and sales of these products for over a decade. I used to provide similar services for variable products, but I believe so strongly in the value proposition of indexed products that I started my own company focusing on IAs and IUL exclusively. I do not endorse any company or financial product, and millions look to us for accurate, unbiased information on the insurance market. In fact, we are the firm that regulators look to, and work with, when needing assistance with these products.

    First and foremost, these products have not been called “equity-indexed annuities” since the late 1990’s. The insurance industry has been careful to enforce a standard of referring to the products as merely “indexed annuities” or “fixed indexed annuities,” so as not to confuse consumers; ensuring that they realize that these are not equities products. 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 volatility. Your help in avoiding any such confusion is so greatly appreciated. Thank you.

    Mr. Lindauer purports that indexed annuities are “extremely complex.” Despite the fact that complexity is relative, indexed annuities are merely fixed annuities with a different way of crediting interest. If someone can understand that they have the ability to deposit their money with an insurance company, defer taxes on the monies until they begin taking income, receive 10% withdrawals of the account value annually without being subject to penalties, and have the ability to pass on the full account value to their beneficiaries upon death- then they can understand nearly every indexed annuity sold today.

    Furthermore, indexed annuities are not “touted to provide equity-like returns” and are not marketed as providing “market-like returns with no risk.” Indexed annuities are marketed as allowing the purchaser to have LIMITED participation in the market’s gains, while avoiding the downside risks associated with the stock market. These products traditionally compete against traditional fixed annuities and certificates of deposit (CDs). All gains on indexed insurance products must be limited through the use of a participation rate, cap, or spread. (These are merely three different ways of limiting interest.)

    Perhaps it would help if I first started with a brief overview of how indexed insurance products work? Because indexed annuities are a “safe money place,” they should be compared against other safe money places. Investment products such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and variable annuities subject the purchaser to both the highs and the lows of the market. It is inappropriate to compare any safe money place, such as an indexed annuity, to risk money places and it is most certainly not appropriate to compare safe money places to the market index itself. Indexed annuities are not intended to perform comparably to stocks, bonds, or the S&P 500 because they provide a minimum guarantee where investments do not. Indexed annuities are priced to return about 1% – 2% greater interest than traditional fixed annuities are crediting. In exchange for this greater potential, the indexed annuity has a slightly lesser minimum guarantee. So, if fixed annuities are earning 5% today, indexed annuities sold today should earn 6% – 7% over the life of the contract. Some years, the indexed annuity may return a double-digit gain and other years it may return zero interest. However, what is most likely to happen is something in between. Were the indexed interest NOT limited, the insurer could not afford to offer a minimum guarantee on the product, and THAT is a variable annuity- not an indexed annuity. On the other hand, the client is guaranteed to never receive less than zero interest (a proposition that millions of Americans are wishing they had during that period of 03/08 to 03/09) and will receive a return of no less than 117% worst-case scenario on the average indexed annuity. In addition, no indexed annuity owner has ever lost a penny as a result of market downturn. This is a strong value proposition that cannot be offered by any securities products. However, these products are not marketed as providing “market-like returns,” as the insurance industry has been careful to draw a very clear line between these products and equities. Mr. Mel Lindauer would do well to note these inappropriate suggestions in the future.

    In addition, it is preposterous for Mr. Lindauer to suggest that indexed annuities are “the most complex of all the annuity products offered.” As an individual who has developed, marketed, and purchased all types of annuities, I must admit that variable annuities are the most complex annuities offered. One must also consider that the disclosure on variable annuities- which typically is a prospectus that averages more than 200 pages- is overwhelming to consumers when compared to the average indexed annuity contract which is 26.7 pages long. In addition, the prospective purchaser of indexed annuities is provided marketing materials and plan-language disclosures that (along with the annuity contract itself) provide a clear overview of the product that they are purchasing (in laymen’s terms). This is head and shoulders above the disclosure provided on variable annuities.

    Interestingly, there are insurance companies that call and survey purchasers of indexed annuities after their purchase, to ask about their satisfaction and comprehension of the product they purchased. Those results are very favorable, contrary to what Mr. Lindauer alludes.

    Laughably, Mr. Lindauer points out that the consumer does not receive the dividends from the S&P 500 in the indexed crediting calculation on indexed annuities. What he is not educated enough to know is that the insurance company never receives the benefit of the dividends on the index on an indexed annuity because the purchaser is never directly invested in the index. The insurance company invests the indexed annuity purchaser’s premium payment in the general account, which protects them from declines in the index. The premiums are never invested in a pass-through account, which would provide the benefit of the dividends, but also expose the purchaser to risk should the market decline. For this reason, the dividends cannot be passed on to the purchaser. So you see, the insurance company cannot pass on the dividends if they do not have them to begin with. This is clearly not a detriment to indexed annuities, but it is not surprising to see someone who is unfamiliar with these products, as Mr. Lindauer is, making such a mistake.

    Further proving how little Mr. Lindauer knows about these products he writes about, he purports that indexed annuity “projections” don’t show the guarantees on the product. He is wrong. Despite the fact that they do show illustrated values on a current basis (based on current rates), they also show illustrated values on a guaranteed basis (for a worst-case scenario comparison).

    In addition, the guarantees on indexed annuities apply from day one of the contract. He inaccurately believes that they “only apply if you hold the annuity until…the end of the surrender period.”

    The maturity date on indexed annuities is not the same as the end of the surrender period either, despite what Mr. Lindauer purports. The end of the surrender period is the point at which the purchaser can access 100% of the account value, without being subject to penalties. The maturity date is the latest point at which the purchaser MUST take lifetime income from the contract. So yet again, Mr. Lindauer lacks knowledge on the products he claims to be an authority on.

    You cannot lose money in an indexed annuity as a result of market downturn; this is a widely-known and highly-marketed feature of indexed annuities. However, Mr. Lindauer is twisting this feature to mean something it does not: that the purchaser of an indexed annuity cannot lose money in any event. While it is true that purchasers of indexed annuities can get back less than what they paid into the product, if they cash surrender the product prior to the expiration of surrender charges, this is true of all annuities. It is silly to suggest that the purchaser of ANY ANNUITY would be able to cash surrender, and receive back 100% of their monies, during the surrender charge period. The surrender charge on a fixed, indexed, or variable annuity is a promise by the consumer not to withdraw 100% of their monies prior to the end of the surrender charge period. This allows the insurance company to make an informed decision on which conservative investments to use to make a return on the clients’ premium (i.e. 7-year grade “A” bonds for a seven-year surrender charge annuity or 10-year grade “A” bonds for a ten-year surrender charge annuity). Investing the consumer’s premium payment in appropriate investments allows the insurance company to be able to pay a competitive interest rate to the consumer on their annuity each year. In turn, it also protects the insurance company from a “run on the money” and allows them to maintain their ratings and financial strength.

    Meanwhile, the annuitant is still provided access to a portion of their monies in the event of emergencies. Every indexed annuity permits penalty-free withdrawals of 10% of the annuity’s value annually. Some even allow as much as 50% of the annuity’s value to be withdrawn in a single year. Plus, 9 out of 10 indexed annuities provide a waiver of the surrender charges, should the annuitant need access to their money in events such as nursing home confinement, terminal illness, disability, and even unemployment. Couple this with the fact these products pay the full account value to the beneficiary upon death, and it is clear that these are some of the most liquid retirement income products available today. For Mr. Lindauer to suggest that the products are illiquid is simply absurd.

    Despite what Mr. Mel Lindauer says, there are no “guaranteed minimum income benefits” on indexed annuities. This is a feature that is not necessary, as a GMIB provides principal protection on risk money products (such as variable annuities). Indexed annuities inherently offer principal protection, without the aid of any living benefit riders such as GMIBs.

    Contrary what Mr. Lindauer believes, there is only one indexed annuity available today that provides a higher value that is only available upon annuitization. Sales of this product accounted for a less than 1% of total 2Q2010 sales. For him to suggest that all indexed annuities function in this manner is absolutely irresponsible.

    My biggest complaint with Mr. Lindauer’s article is that he has very little understanding of indexed annuities’ product features, marketing and regulation. Specifically, he cites that the SEC had “attempted to improve protections” for purchasers of indexed annuities. This is untrue. Purchasers of indexed annuities are already quite amply protected by the 50 insurance commissioners that comprise the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). The former proposed regulations on indexed annuities that the SEC offered would merely have provided a second set of duplicative and unnecessary regulations on indexed annuities. This would have resulted in increased costs (which would have ultimately have been passed-on to indexed annuity purchasers). Mr. Lindauer believes that those selling indexed annuities should be licensed to sell securities when in fact, indexed annuities are insurance and not securities at all. Furthermore, he is unaware of the fact that there are strict training requirements for agents selling indexed annuities, which ensure that the agent thoroughly understand the product that they are selling. In addition, we already have strict suitability requirements in the indexed annuity industry through the NAIC, and have since 2003; yet Mr. Lindauer alludes there are no such protections in this industry.

    And while Mr. Lindauer is correct in stating that the U.S. District of Columbia Appeals Court decided that the SEC does in fact “have the authority to classify this product as a security,” he appears to be quite ignorant of the facts behind that statement. In actuality, the SEC has the authority to classify donuts as securities if they feel like, as the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to appoint governmental organizations (such as the SEC) to act on their behalf. So, the SEC certainly does have the authority to do this, but what Mr. Lindauer fails to realize is that the SEC must also prove that they have good reason for declaring regulation over a product that they currently hold no authority to regulate. Fortunately, Mr. Lindauer didn’t pick-up on the fact that the court ruled that the SEC’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious,” and that they needed to provide evidence that regulating indexed annuities would improve “competition, capital formation, and efficiency.” The SEC was not able to do this and the SEC’s rule was thereafter vacated by the Court as a result.

    Providing further evidence of just how little Mr. Lindauer keeps-up with information on the indexed annuity market, the issue of the SEC trying to gain regulatory authority over indexed annuities had been settled for nearly two months at the time his article was published. The Court vacated the SEC’s Rule 151A on July 12, 2010. In addition, the fixed insurance status of indexed annuities was thereafter permanently secured on July 21, 2010 when President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. It appears Mr. Lindauer needs to verify his data before publishing it in the future.

    Mr. Lindauer points to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for information on indexed annuities, when he should not. Sadly, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has been contacted and corrected numerous times on the inaccuracies in the Investor Alert on Indexed Annuities (see attached), which Mr. Lindauer references in his article. FINRA is not a credible source of information on indexed annuities. They are responsible for the oversight of broker dealers and member firms that sell securities. They have no regulatory authority on insurance products such as indexed annuities, and in fact have a vested interest in indexed annuities being regulated as securities, so that they can increase their revenue and job security. In the future, if you or Mr. Lindauer are looking for a reliable regulatory resource on fixed insurance products (such as indexed annuities), I encourage you to seek out Susan Voss or Jim Mumford at the state of Iowa Insurance Division (Susan is the commissioner and Jim is the deputy commissioner). Not only are they credible, but 41.59% of indexed annuity sales flow through Iowa-domiciled insurance companies; for that reason they have become authorities on indexed insurance products.

    I have neither the time, nor the energy, to go over the myriad of inaccuracies in Mr. Craig McCann’s paper on indexed annuities. Not surprisingly, he has a background in securities and compares indexed annuities to securities products, which is completely inappropriate. He has neither product knowledge or mechanical knowledge of the indexed crediting on these products and I have found that his paper is not credible. Despite the fact that he has a Ph.D., he is not an authority on indexed annuities. Reference to his paper in this instance is incredulous. Furthermore, Mr. McCann used to work for the SEC, who had a vested interest in regulating indexed annuities as securities products. I would hardly find his “analysis” on these products to be credible or unbiased.

    Lastly, it is horrific that Mr. Lindauer would suggest his readers “just say ‘no’ when someone tries to sell” them an indexed annuity. For him to make such a blanket statement without considering proper suitability on an individual basis is dangerous. What he fails to realize is that not everyone has the risk tolerance for stocks and bonds. Millions of Americans are far better-suited for a product which provides principal protection, minimum guarantees, and the ability to outpace traditional fixed money instruments.

    I sincerely hope that you will reconsider allowing Mr. Mel Lindauer to continue publishing articles in your fine periodical. Forbes readers deserve accurate information- particularly on financial services products. Never has there been a greater need for reliable information on retirement income products, than in the wake of the market collapse. Your magazine has the ability to be a beacon of light, to help aid in your readers’ financial literacy during a time when they are searching for answers. I pray that you will choose to take the high-road this time, and tell Mr. Lindauer that it is NOT OKAY with Forbes that he publish inaccurate information in your magazine in the future.

    Thank you sincerely for your time and consideration; and should you have a need for hard facts and information on indexed insurance products in the future, please do not hesitate to reach out to me or my firm. We are always more than happy to serve as a resource on indexed annuities.

    Sheryl J. Moore

    President and CEO




    Advantage Group Associates, Inc.

    (515) 262-2623 office

    (515) 313-5799 cell

    (515) 266-4689 fax

    Originally Posted on August 26, 2010 by Sheryl J. Moore.

    Categories: Negative Media