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
  • Inquiry Signals Further Federal Regulation of Annuity Product Sales Likely

    May 13, 2015 by Frederick J. Pomerantz, Aaron J. Aisen and Sandra McDermott

    Late last week, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Economic Policy, sent a letter to 15 of the top writers of annuity products, including AIG Companies, Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, AXA, Lincoln Financial Group, New York Life Insurance Company, and MetLife, seeking information about the manner in which these companies compensate their insurance agents for the sale of these products. Warren emphasized that sales made to those close to retirement were of paramount interest and expressed concern over agents that were “more interested in earning perks than in acting in their client’s best interest.” The use of this “best interest” language is particularly important given the recent publication of a Department of Labor (DOL) proposed rule, which would impose a new definition of “fiduciary” for purposes of the rendering of investment advice, but would permit that fiduciary to receive certain otherwise prohibited forms of compensation where such fiduciary agrees to act in the “best interest” of their client.

    The letter describes various types of incentive compensation received by insurance agents based upon annuity sales volume, including cruises, other types of vacations, iPads, and more, and states that sales based upon receipt of these rewards present conflict of interest issues between the agent and the consumer. Moreover, the letter points out that this type of non–cash-based compensation has been prohibited for the sale of securities since 2003, but that the forms of compensation paid for the sale of annuities has not been so restricted. Note, however, that New York Insurance Law Section 4228 does limit the amount of prizes and rewards that can be received based upon the sale of individual life insurance and annuity products by New York- licensed insurance companies. Specifically, this statute provides that no single prize can exceed $250 and the total value of all such prizes in a calendar year may not exceed $1,000.

    The implications of the Warren inquiry are potentially extensive and highlight the regulatory friction that already exists between federal and state regulation of insurance and, specifically, the sale of variable and fixed annuity products. Variable annuities are securities under federal securities laws, but they are also insurance products under state insurance laws. Broker-dealers that sell these types of annuities must be registered representatives under federal securities laws and licensed insurance agents under state insurance laws. As such, they are subject to federal and state regulation governing the sale and marketing of these products and rules governing compensation. Fixed annuities are not considered securities and are governed only by state insurance laws. The sale of these products requires only an insurance license, but many state regulators have imposed new suitability regulations and rules specifically addressing the sale of annuities to seniors. Also implicated are frequently overlooked state insurance laws in many states prohibiting or restricting rebates in the sale of insurance products of all kinds, including annuities and the classification in many state insurance laws of rebates and sales inducements of insurance products including annuities as “unfair trade practices.” (See, for example, OCGA 33-64 (b) (8) (B) (Georgia); 215 ILCS 5/151 (Illinois); RS 22:1964 (7) and (8) (Louisiana); and NYIL 4224 (c) (New York). While some states, such as California and Florida, have in recent years diluted their prohibitions on rebating, the issues raised by Senator Warren also have the potential to ignite a thorough re-examination by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners of the loosening of state anti-rebating standards, with the possible result that more states may reclassify inducements in the sale of annuities as an “unfair insurance trade practice.” As a result, overlapping federal and state regulations and confusion over what regulatory regime applies may be a continuing, and possibly more prominent, issue for distributors in the near future.

    Interestingly, since the information that Warren is seeking involves the type of compensation that is not permitted in the sale of securities, her inquiry will mostly target the sale of fixed annuity products, which are governed by state, not federal, regulation. Federal oversight in the sale of fixed annuities was the subject of much controversy in 2008 through 2010 when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) tried unsuccessfully to classify equity-indexed annuities as securities. The Warren letter may very well resurrect this initiative and will no doubt raise new challenges.

    Additionally, the Warren letter appears to dovetail with the DOL proposed rule, which would amend the definition of “fiduciary” for persons who render what is considered “investment advice.” The proposed definition would include, for example, advice given to 401(k) plan participants who roll their contributions into individual retirement accounts. This includes the population of “individuals on the verge of retirement,” with which Warren is primarily concerned. Once a distributor is classified as an investment advice fiduciary, unless subject to an exception, that distributor must adhere to the standards for fiduciary conduct and prohibited transaction rules under the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act. Additionally, the proposed rule includes an exemption for a fiduciary giving investment advice and permits the receipt of otherwise prohibited compensation where the fiduciary agrees in writing to be subject to a “best interest” standard. The imposition of such a standard would presumably add another layer to the point-of-sale protocols surrounding the sale of annuities, including but not limited to, federal and/or state suitability regulations, and, where the annuity is replacing one already in existence, state replacement rules.

    The Warren letter and the DOL proposed rules signal that further federal regulation of the sale of annuity products is almost certain. Insurers, broker-dealers, and insurance agents who wish to comment on the DOL proposed rules have until July 6, 2015 to do so.

    Originally Posted at The Insurance & Reinsurance Report on May 11, 2015 by Frederick J. Pomerantz, Aaron J. Aisen and Sandra McDermott.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency