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
  • Three Problems With Annuities – And How To Fix Them

    July 7, 2018 by Elizabeth Bauer

    So let’s start with a disclaimer: I am an actuary, but I don’t have professional experience with annuities as offered by life insurance companies, and I’m more than willing to stand corrected by such professionals.

    What’s the big deal with employers closing their pension plans and moving employees into defined contribution plans instead? Partly it’s that employers provided these benefits to all employees unconditionally, that is, except for vesting requirements, whereas the typical 401(k) contribution, as it’s evolved today, requires employees to kick in their own money to get the employer match (though some employers do still provide unconditional contributions, and there’s nothing inherent in the Defined Contribution plan that requires the matching contribution structure). Partly it’s a matter of apparent or actual cuts in retirement spending: people who look at the full-career benefit in a traditional plan vs. a projected 401(k) equivalent will see seemingly-deep benefit cuts that aren’t apples-and-oranges because frequent job-changers are often better off with a 401(k) than a traditional pension, but there is also a real drop in spending, where the employer spending in a 401(k) plan might more closely resemble what employers would have expected to spend in pension funding a couple decades ago with higher expectations for investment returns and lower expected life expectancy.

    But the larger issue, and a real loss in the switch away from traditional pensions, is that employers had been acting as annuity providers to their employees, and were providing their services at very inexpensive rates.* The key benefits that traditional pensions provided — protecting workers against investment risk and against longevity risk — are available for the asking, in the form of immediate or deferred annuities. It’s just they’re so danged expensive that they’re (nearly) uniformly considered to be a terrible means of investing one’s money.**

    But I think it’s useful to step back and ask, why are annuities so expensive? Three big reasons.

    First, the problem of anti-selection. It’s the reverse of what happens with life insurance, where insurers will require you to take a medical exam because they know that people with a diagnosed medical condition will be more eager to purchase life insurance, and lots of it. Quite the opposite happens with annuities — because people in poor health are not nearly so worried about outliving their savings and much less likely to buy annuities, actuaries have to price annuity rates based on very high life expectancy assumptions, which discourages anyone of poor or even average health from considering them.

    Second, insurers providing guarantees for fixed payouts, month after month in retirement, do so by investing conservatively. There’s a real cost to providing these guarantees. Insurance companies can’t go out and back their annuities with hedge funds or private equity or even just an ordinary stock portfolio, because, unlike an employer, they can’t count on boosting their reserves with revenue from their “regular” lines of business; for insurers, this is their business.

    And third, the very nature of the individual annuity market means that there are heavy marketing and administrative expenses.

    And each of these costs is something that traditional pension-providing employers don’t face, or at least not to the same degree.

    They provide the same pension benefit formula to all of their employees, so they benefit from a mix of healthy and sickly retirees. They are not bound to the same sort of reserves as an insurer would be, since they are obliged to make up for any investment losses with revenues from the company, so they can invest as aggressively as they wish. And they have economies of scale, because they do not need to “sell” pensions to their employees. Ironically, employers are now discovering that in many cases, it can be more affordable for them to purchase group annuities for their retirees than to administer the benefits themselves, because of the first and the third of these advantages.

    So can we fix these problems to make annuities more attractive to individual retirees, and restore their lost investment and longevity risk protection?

    With respect to anti-selection, my pet solution is as simple as the pop-up ads claiming to forecast how long you’ll live. In the same way as insurers use medical exams to place prospective life insurance purchasers into rate classes, I’d love to see them come up with rate classes for annuities, in which they offer more favorable conversion factors for individuals who are, based on quantifiable and objective measures, in poor health, so that they can get a good value for their money. To be sure, it might be difficult to create a system where customers can’t cheat, but if there were a significant payoff, in terms of being able to offer a more attractive product for sickly retirees, it might be worthwhile.

    With respect to the cost of guarantees, that’s a bit trickier. I’d love to see more flexibility available to insurers, and others willing to dive into the market (including the folks who are right now managing our 401(k)s) to provide benefits which provide partial guarantees in exchange for more investment flexibility and, hopefully, higher returns. One model is the “Collective Defined Contribution” plan in The Netherlands (see here for a description), in which plans provide lifetime benefits with a built-in cost-of-living adjustment but if returns are poor the COLA may be temporarily dropped or, if that’s not sufficient, benefits may be cut.

    And the marketing and administrative expenses are the trickiest yet. Obviously, the more prevalent annuities are, the less marketing is needed, and the lower the administrative costs per customer, but getting from here to there is not easy. To be honest, the only good solution I see here is to model a tax credit off the hybrid tax credits, which were temporary credits meant to phase out after a given model reached a specified volume. How prevalent would annuities need to become for consumers to know enough about the product going in, that they wouldn’t need as much marketing? I couldn’t begin to say, but surely it’s a calculatable (or estimatable) figure.

    Would these steps make annuities more attractive by being a better value for the money? Would consumers prefer having their money available to them as a lump sum regardless? That’s an issue for another day.

    What do you think? Tell me at JaneTheActuary.com!

    *I’d say, “for free” except that the overall cost of the plan, including plan expenses, would have been taken into account in terms of compensation budget and “paid for” by reduced cash compensation, but until recently employers weren’t talking about the cost of the risks they were taking on.

    **Fun fact: It’s actually fairly common in Europe for employers to fund their pensions by means of purchasing deferred annuities to avoid risk. Once I had to explain to an auditor that my client’s assets for their Dutch pension plan were in the form of deferred annuity contracts, promising a fixed benefit at retirement, so the client couldn’t produce an asset statement: “Yes, it’s like what your grandfather might have bought.”

    Originally Posted at Forbes on July 6, 2018 by Elizabeth Bauer.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency