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
  • A Rational Look at a Much Maligned Product

    November 27, 2011 by Bob Seawright, Madison Avenue Securities

    Fixed index annuities have generated a great deal of criticism, but it seems that they succeed in the objectives for which they were designed.

    Few products within the financial services industry have received as much consistent criticism as fixed index annuities. An FIA is a type of deferred fixed annuity that earns interest or provides benefits that are linked to an external reference or index, most commonly the S&P 500. The insurer underwriting the FIA generally funds its contracts using bonds and call options on the referenced index.  FINRA — which does not regulate FIAs but wants to — said in an Investor Alert that FIAs “are anything but easy to understand” and compared them unfavorably to 401(k) plans. And, with numbing consistency, the financial press routinely recycles round after round of criticism of this product.

    For example, in an article earlier this year,  Money called FIAs a “safety trap” and alleged that they have “pervasive problems.” One major problem the magazine claimed is poor performance: “A typical index annuity would have lagged an investment portfolio with equivalent risk — 85 percent one-month Treasury bills, 15 percent U.S. large-cap stocks — by nearly two percentage points annually, on average, over the past 44 years.” This claim is based upon the research of Prof. William Reichenstein of Baylor University, who has also been a plaintiffs’ expert witness in lawsuits attacking FIAs.

    Forbes called FIA sales a “protection racket” and claimed that “whatever your station in life, indexed annuities are in all likelihood a lousy investment.” The biggest complaint seems to have been that FIA performance doesn’t match index performance and does not include dividends, even though it should be obvious that principal protection comes at a cost.Forbes even claims that “some 99 percent of the time indexed annuities underperform a simple portfolio that’s 60 percent in zero-coupon Treasurys and 40 percent in a low-cost S&P 500 index fund,” citing a prominent plaintiffs’ consultant who seems to have made a pretty good living attacking FIAs. Last year Kiplinger’s advised consumers to avoid FIAs citing “skimpy returns” despite “big promises.”

    Businessweek has attacked FIAs too. Oddly, the primary “victim” cited in the piece is said to have earned, after having taken a 15 percent early surrender charge, “about 3 percent a year” as compared to the S&P 500, which “returned 6.3 percent including dividends in the same period.” Since the article says this victim held the FIA for about five years, it appears that its performance was essentially equivalent to that of the S&P 500 without principal risk. That hardly sounds like the returns of someone who was victimized. Since this alleged victim cashed out of her FIA in 2008, apparently for the higher potential returns of market exposure, I wonder what a performance comparison would have looked like a year later.

    Despite the routine criticisms from the financial press claiming extremely lengthy terms and huge surrender penalties, most FIAs have now been retrofitted with shorter surrender periods and lower commissions. Broker-dealers commonly enforce a “10-10 rule” on FIAs whereby surrender periods cannot exceed 10 years and surrender charges cannot exceed 10 percent. Even the major wirehouse firms are now interested in them and some, such as Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, have already begun offering them.

    Moreover, The Journal of Financial Planning (JFP) published a research study entitled “Real-World Index Annuity Returns” earlier this year that, for the first time, examined actual FIA returns. This study suggests that these poor FIA performance claims are not all they have been made out to be: “If your future included all of the 141 five-year periods from April 1995 through 2009, and you had purchased any of these real-world index annuities month after month, these actual index annuity results bested the S&P 500 alone over 67 percent of the time, and bested the 50/50 mix of one-year Treasury bills and the S&P 500 79 percent of the time.”

    Rather than relying upon questionable hypothesized crediting rate formulae, constant participation rates and caps, and unrealistic simulations of stock market and interest rate behavior, this study examined actual FIA returns. The research relied upon by Money andForbes received especially stinging criticism: “The flaw in these studies is that they do not take into account the real-world effect of changes in interest rate environments and the market volatility’s effect on the cost of providing the index participation. …Clearly the reach of the conclusions is limited by the unrealistic assumptions underlying the annuity modeled.”

    Accordingly, “some index annuities have produced returns that are competitive with other asset classes, such as equities and equity/T-bill combinations. Although FIAs are not designed to be direct competitors of index investing (rather for safety of principal with returns linked to upside market performance), our findings on FIA returns contrast with assertions in other studies — based on no actual return data — that the structure of FIAs necessarily relegates them to being inferior or unsuitable products.”

    When I referenced the research with respect to “real-world” FIA returns noted above to a FINRA regulator, I was told that the study had to have been paid for by an insurance company and that any citation of it would require a disclaimer to that effect. That response tells you pretty much all you need to know about FINRA’s view of FIAs. However, I have received outraged written confirmations from the study’s authors denying any request for or receipt of sponsorship for their work. In fact, they turned down overtures of industry sponsorship.

    That is not to say that all questions about FIAs have been answered. The “real-world” study has some serious shortcomings, most notably the paucity and potentially biased nature of the data and the inability of other researchers to analyze it. FIA performance was also measured in a particularly difficult period for the market, when principal protection should be especially valuable.

    In a follow-up piece in JFP entitled “Can Annuities Offer Competitive Returns?,” Prof. Reichenstein expanded upon his criticisms of FIAs. His primary argument is that because of their design, FIAs cannot add value to offset their embedded costs. He comes to this conclusion not based upon data and testing, but upon a conceptual proof using the “arithmetic of equilibrium accounting” and the work of William Sharpe contrasting active and passive management. However, my review of scores of actual FIA contracts suggests otherwise. I suspect the flaw in his logic is that the leverage provided by the options FIA carriers use to provide interest undercuts Sharpe’s argument on costs.

    Fixed income annuities are designed to provide principal protection with annual returns roughly 1-2 percent better than traditional fixed annuities. Based upon those standards, FIAs appear to have succeeded. Indeed, according to a predecessor “real-world” study, FIA returns have averaged well over 5 percent per annum in a variety of market conditions since their inception. As the Wharton School’s Prof. David Babbel, one of the study authors, noted, “for most levels of risk aversion, [FIAs] have dominated the alternatives.” Indeed, “FIAs outperformed the alternatives over the lifetime of their existence (since 1995) for every year that they have been issued.”

    More research is clearly needed with respect to FIAs. Additional transparency and the broad release of performance data by FIA carriers would surely facilitate that work. However, FIAs seem to have far more promise for those with serious risk aversion than has been allowed by their critics to this point.

    Bob Seawright is chief investment and information officer for Madison Avenue Securities in San Diego and a frequent writer on financial planning and related matters. He was educated at Duke University, where he received his J.D. in 1981. He holds securities and insurance licenses as well as a number of industry designations.


    Originally Posted at AdvisorOne on December 1, 2011 by Bob Seawright, Madison Avenue Securities.

    Categories: Industry Articles