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 (21,425)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (436)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (809)
  • Wink's Articles (357)
  • Wink's Inside Story (276)
  • Wink's Press Releases (125)
  • Blog Archives

  • 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
  • Rules of Thumb Can Smother Options

    June 17, 2012 by Linda Koco

    By Linda Koco
    AnnuityNews

    Many advisors and planners have decided that they must never recommend putting 30 percent or more of a client’s liquid assets into annuities.

    It’s a rule of thumb that advisors use to help keep clients well diversified. It also helps insulate the advisor against accusations that they are pushing annuities onto clients just to make a sale.

    But no one seems to be talking about the flip side of this annuity allocation guideline—that some people, depending on circumstances, might actually be better off with more annuity holdings that 30 percent. What is the advisor to do when working with such clients?

    Address it head on

    The question needs to be addressed head on. If it’s not, advisors will be forced into using protocols, and clients may not get the best advice and recommendations for their needs.

    It should be remembered that this rule of thumb is not a law or regulation. It is a matter of industry practice, a recommendation that has emerged out of long experience in dealing with client finances.

    But insurance and financial veterans know that rules of thumb often end up functioning, in everyday practice, as if they were regulations, insurance department bulletins or even laws. Many insurance review desks, outside advisors and others interpret rules of thumb as if they were written in stone and not subject to deviation.

    Some regulators and litigators take the rules of thumb that way, too, at least mentally. So, if there is a deviation, that’s a red flag for a possible problem.

    For the most part, this particular rule of thumb poses no problem, because not too many people want to plunk down 30 percent or more of their assets for an annuity. 
    But what happens if, say, a healthy widow of sound mind, age 73, sells her home and moves into a condo that her children bought for her? This happens often enough to be a good example of the problem that can crop up.

    In this example, the woman now has her cash proceeds, her other savings and her Social Security or other retirement plan benefits. She is not wealthy, but neither is she poor.  But she — and her children — want to be sure she has enough guaranteed income to cover her basic expenses. For instance, she doesn’t want to have to depend on her children for the monthly condo fee, food, clothing, utilities, transportation, medical, etc. And she doesn’t want exposure to volatility in the stock market.

    Upon assessing her total picture, the advisor might reach the conclusion that, for this particular client, an income annuity, several laddered income annuities or a combination of deferred and income annuities could fit the bill nicely. He runs the numbers only to learn that, to accomplish what she wants and needs, the recommended annuity percentage would come to, say, 45 or 50 percent of her assets.

    Now the advisor could be in a pickle, if the distributors or other interest adhere to the 30 percent rule of thumb and thus intervene to prevent the higher allocation.

    The problem is unilateral application

    The problem the advisor will have is not with the rule of thumb. After all, the guideline makes eminent sense from a cautious business perspective and a general consumer protection perspective.

    The advisor’s dilemma will be with the unilateral application of the rule. It does not allow for the elasticity required when purchases come down to specific individuals, who have needs and preferences that point to solutions that go outside the rule of thumb.

    Besides, since client finances are fluid and ever changing, the allocation percentage is a fuzzy matter anyway.

    Then, there is the matter of commoditization.  If the rule of thumb is treated as an unbendable rule, the effect will be to commoditize, as it were, elements of the annuity sale. That is, it would make mincemeat of efforts to personalize transactions.

    If the advisor encounters objections — from the client’s other advisors, say, or perhaps a distributor — the advisor can always come up with a new solution that gets the client at least close to where she wants and needs to be. This other solution may require use unfamiliar tools and strategies, partnering up with other advisors or distributors, or applications of differing formulas. Good advisors do this type of alternatives-searching every day.

    But will the alternative solution be the best outcome for the client? The advisor will have a lot of factors to consider. They include not only the rule of thumb, but also the client’s age and stage of life, the available assets today and forthcoming, the presence of annuity-like assets, the wants and needs of client and family, the client’s risk tolerance, the economic conditions, and on and on.

    It would seem that the advisor needs another rule of thumb, to provide guidance when deviations from the 30 percent rule of thumb seem the preferred route to take.

    Annuity industry leaders could provide some valuable assistance here, by opening up the topic for robust discussion. No one has to pass a law or adopt a regulation to do this.  Just talk, consider the pros and cons, and see where it goes.

    A related issue

    A tangentially related issue is emerging at the federal level. The Insured Retirement Institute (IRI) last week gave testimony before the Internal Revenue Service’s public hearing on proposed regulations related to the purchase of longevity annuity contracts under tax-qualified defined contribution plans.

    Speaking for the IRI, Michael Oleske, the chief tax counsel for New York Life Insurance Co., pointed out a few concerns that IRI has about the proposal’s 25 percent account value limitation on premiums that may be contributed to a qualifying longevity annuity contract (QLAC).  His comments go to the heart of the above issue, about the problems associated with applying a specific percentage on the amount of annuity purchases that can be made.

    It’s important to note that the IRI concerns have to do with qualified plan guidelines rather than general retail annuity purchases, and with actual proposed regulations rather than a rule of thumb. Still, Oleske’s prepared remarks are so apropos to the problem above,  that they are worth running here in full.  Oleske said:

    For participants who are paying QLAC premiums over a period of years or after retirement, the 25 percent-of-account-balance limitation may unduly restrict the ability to purchase this coverage.

    “If a participant is withdrawing funds to pay for everyday living expenses, but paying longevity premiums to provide future income, the account balance may eventually fall to a level where the cumulative QLAC premiums exceed 25 percent of the account balance.

    “We suggest that some flexibility be included in the proposed rule to address these types of situations.”

    Let’s emphasize the last point: “We suggest some flexibility.” The same point could be made about the 30 percent rule of thumb.  It would be good for the advisor, and it would be best for the consumer, to use some flexibility in applying that 30 percent rule.

    Linda Koco, MBA, is a contributing editor to AnnuityNews, specializing in life insurance, annuities and income planning. Linda can be reached at linda.koco@innfeedback.com.

    © Entire contents copyright 2012 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

    Originally Posted at InsuranceNewsNet on June 6, 2012 by Linda Koco.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency