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 (21,155)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (414)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (800)
  • Wink's Articles (353)
  • Wink's Inside Story (274)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • 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
  • An Unattractive Proposition

    February 29, 2012 by Dan Moisand

    February 28, 2012

    In my column last month, “Economists Love ’Em, Clients Hate ‘Em,” I outlined some of the reasons economists are largely fans of immediate annuities. But most clients don’t buy them, and the biggest deterrent may not be what you think it is.
    By Dan Moisand
    In my column last month, “Economists Love ’Em, Clients Hate ‘Em,” I outlined some of the reasons economists are largely fans of immediate annuities;  people are living longer, most people have little or no expertise in managing a portfolio, there is a benefit to society when a steady income is available, and as behavioral finance clearly demonstrates, people are typically bad at making financial decisions. Just last month, the Treasury and the Department of Labor proposed rules encouraging employers to include annuity options in 401(k)s and other retirement plans.An immediate annuity can effectively address all these issues. The primary purpose of an immediate annuity is to provide an income stream for as long as a person lives. Annuity buyers do not have to manage a portfolio and therefore cannot make the types of mistakes that behavioral economists highlight. A society comprised of people with stable incomes certainly seems superior to a society of people with no income or assets.Yet the number of people opting to purchase immediate annuities is very, very small. Why does this “annuity puzzle” exist? Frankly I don’t think it’s all that puzzling.Economists’ concerns about the population’s ability to manage money and avoid behavioral mistakes are justified. As a nation we are woefully unprepared and sparsely educated about personal financial matters. Even if employers and annuity providers improve their ability to educate workers about annuity options, a significant percentage will struggle with those options and many that could benefit from an immediate annuity will pass on getting one.

    Among people who have some financial wherewithal and employ competent ethical advisors, most won’t buy an immediate annuity because they shouldn’t. They shouldn’t because they are unlikely to find the characteristics attractive relative to other alternatives and more importantly, their goals.  Annuities are very good for long life spans and rather lousy for addressing many other needs. Most people don’t buy annuities because most people have other goals beyond lifetime income.

    The basic structure is very simple. A lump sum is exchanged for a fixed-income stream payable for life. The highest payout comes from contracts purchased with payments to a male. According to an informal survey of low-cost annuity providers, a 65-year-old male would get an annual payment of about 6.7% for as long as he lives. There are several things that dissuade most people from making this choice.

    Most irrevocable decisions are frightening. It is a common human desire to have options and flexibility versus constraints. In order to get that 6.7%, this client would give up all access to his funds forever.

    If he thinks about such a thing, he may come to the conclusion that inflation could erode the purchasing power of this income stream. Further, unless and until he lives to age 80, he will not receive back the money used to buy the annuity. The effect on his net worth for this purchase will be negative until that point.

    Which gets us to what is, by far, the biggest deterrent to buying an immediate annuity: the issue of legacy. In over 20 years of practicing financial planning, never has anyone ever told me that an insurance company was among the parties they would like to benefit from their assets. Family, friends, charity – yes.  An insurance company — well, it’ll be a cold day.

    Spouses in particular are not fans. “You mean if he dies, I get nothing?” The couple quickly turns to looking at contracts that have a term certain, or more commonly, contracts that pay for as long as either lives. If both spouses are 65 and no decrease in payouts is acceptable at the first death among the couple, the payout drops to 5.6%. They won’t even breakeven unless one of them lives to be 83. If one of them lives 30 years until age 95, the pre-tax investment return is only 3.74%.

    If this couple wanted anyone other than the insurance company to get some of the money that bought the annuity, they may opt for an annuity with a refund provision. This causes payments to drop.  If they prefer they have some access to funds during their lives, their payment will be lower. If they want their payment to have some sort of inflation adjustment, the payment will be even lower.  In fact, a contract covering the lives of a married couple, both age 65 with inflation-adjusted payments that do not reduce at the first death will have annual payments of around 3.8%.

    A payout of 3.8% adjusted for CPI might sound competitive compared with the 4% safe initial withdrawal rates so frequently discussed regarding retirement income. But the two are not particularly comparable. Most sustainable withdrawal rate studies cover a 30-year time frame. The annuity rate will continue for as long as one of the spouses is alive regardless of duration but provides no legacy.

    Using the 4% number as a guideline while managing a portfolio offers a high probability that some legacy will remain. While 4% never failed historically, most outcomes would have sustained much higher withdrawal rates or similar rates for much longer periods.  In fact, last year Prof Wade Pfau looked at end values using a 4.5% initial rate. Ninety-six percent — 96%! — of the results after 30 years provided a legacy of at least the sum available on day one of retirement. The median result was 460% of the starting value and a still impressive 69% of the asset levels after 30 years of retirement withdrawals had kept up with inflation with the median real final wealth coming in at 161% of the starting value.

    A low-cost annuity from a good company offers a no-fuss 100% probability of lifetime income and a 0% probability of a legacy. Compare that to the result of managing a lump sum: It offers a very high probability of lifetime income and a very high probability of a substantial legacy. That is a substantial difference.

    Of course, we should not discount the substantial difference in the amount of work, expertise, handholding and luck required to successfully manage a retirement portfolio. It’s a big deal, it’s not easy and it is not a no-fuss “set it and forget it” choice.

    Most people, however, know little to nothing about sustainable withdrawal rates or their nuances and are not focused on the numbers just described. What is top of mind in making these decisions for most people are the other people that matter most in their lives. We know that money doesn’t buy love, but money provides ways to express one’s love of others. I know a few estate planning attorneys who have had great success in getting people passed their reluctance and procrastination by framing the estate planning documents as their last “love letter” to their survivors. These documents are, for many, the last form of communication their heirs will receive from them.

    I’m not saying by any stretch that buying an annuity means that one doesn’t love their family. I am saying that most people want to leave assets to those they care about. This may explain why I find many people are more open to the idea of a charitable gift annuity over a commercial annuity, even though the charitable gift annuity’s payments may be lower and an insurance company is backing the deal. Lifetime income, no hassles and benefiting causes they care about appeals to many.

    I would be remiss if I did not mention that there should be a difference from an investment perspective between the annuity and a portfolio. The annuity provides insurance against the financial ramifications of extended lifespans. The cost includes a profit for the insurance company. But would anyone really want to buy an annuity from an insurance company that is not profitable? From a purely investment standpoint, the immediate annuity should offer a lower expected result in the aggregate than that of alternatives that accept greater investment risks.

    The decision to buy an immediate annuity is not one made based on the aggregate, however. It is deeply personal. The irrevocable choice to buy an annuity for any part of their savings will affect those close to the purchasers in some way.  People like guarantees, but they like flexibility and the chance for a better result too. Moreover, people want to provide for those they love and that motivation makes the annuity puzzle not so puzzling.

    Dan Moisand, CFP, has been featured as one of the America’s top independent financial advisors by most leading financial advisor publications. He has spoken to advisor groups on five continents on topics such as managing investments and navigating tax complexities for retirees, retirement readiness, and most topics relating to the development of the financial planning profession.  He practices in Melbourne, Fla.  You can reach him at dan@moisandfitzgerald.com.

    Originally Posted at Financial Advisor on February 28, 2012 by Dan Moisand.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency