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 (22,062)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (3)
  • Moore on the Market (485)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (827)
  • Wink's Articles (373)
  • Wink's Inside Story (283)
  • Wink's Press Releases (127)
  • Blog Archives

  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • 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
  • Making Annuities More Attractive

    April 3, 2018 by John Rekenthaler

    Unloved
    Ask Morningstar’s retirement-methodology team about annuities, and they will offer fulsome praise. When they model investment strategies for retirees, they invariably end up recommending big dollops of annuities for those that need lifetime income. The reason, as Morningstar’s Paul Kaplan states, is that “self-created longevity insurance is very expensive.” Retirees who want guaranteed income—and most do—are best served through a pooled holding, rather than achieving that guarantee on their own.

    That theoretical attractiveness hasn’t translated to the marketplace. Last year, reports the trade publication Ignites (no link; paywalled), annuities recorded $204 billion of new sales. In contrast, several trillion dollars flowed into mutual funds and exchange-traded funds. (Net sales were $700 billion, but gross sales—which is how annuity purchases are measured—were several times higher.) If the investment market were a meal, annuities would be a shrimp cocktail.

    First Impressions
    Their first problem is their label. Nationwide informs me that there are four types of annuities: 1) variable, 2) immediate, 3) fixed, and 4) fixed index. Say what? The average American would be likelier to spell “eudaemonic” correctly than to define each of those four terms. (Perhaps the average investment columnist as well; I did not know what a fixed-index annuity was before reading Nationwide’s piece.) What’s more, not only do these four investments confuse potential buyers by sharing the same name, but it’s a non-intuitive name at that. A bond makes sense. Ditto a fund. An annuity … sounds like an actuary’s task.

    My suggestion: Switch from “annuity” to “guaranteed income.” The latter label contains two common words, rather than a single uncommon one. In addition, it lists the two reasons that a retiree would have to buy an annuity. The first is for the guarantee. As stated above, these are insurance payments. The second, of course, is for the income. People might not know that they seek an annuity, but they certainly will recognize that they desire guaranteed income. Give the public what it wants.

    Rebranding annuities as guaranteed-income vehicles makes them sound more appealing, but does not address the confusion that arises from having multiple varieties of the investment. (In addition to Nationwide’s four groupings, there are additional options, such as the possibility of receiving inflation-adjusted disbursements, or selecting various time periods over which to defer the payments.) I don’t have an answer for that difficulty, but the right marketing experts should be able to come up with something.

    Name that Price!
    The next and even-larger concern is cost. A mutual fund or ETF investor knows exactly how much the management company charges; that information is freely available, as the company is required to calculate and publish its expense ratio. The annuity buyer, on the other hand, operates in a fog. Most annuities do not carry expense ratios.* Naturally, they have costs, which reduce the amount of income that is available to the investor, but the amount of those charges cannot be determined by an outsider.

    *The exception being variable annuities, which behave like mutual funds by investing in a specified pool of securities, and thus carry an expense ratio that is similar in structure to that of a mutual fund—although generally much higher.

    Justifiably, that uncertainty detracts from the annuity’s appeal. What the investor does not know might indeed hurt her. In fact, it probably will. As a general rule, when financial products are permitted to bury their costs, rather than state them explicitly, they do not come for cheap. When the SEC warned investors a few years back about the risks of structured notes—another financial offering that doesn’t have expense ratios—it also cautioned such notes tended to be “expensive.”

    Annuities could change that, if they wished, by calculating and publishing their expense ratios. The process would be trickier than doing so for a fund, because the assets used to pay an annuity wouldn’t necessarily be segregated, but the task could be accomplished by allocation. The annuity provider, after all, would know precisely its total costs, and precisely its total financial obligations. Thus, at the least, it could publish an average expense ratio for its entire book of business.

    In 2018, transparency is very much a marketing virtue.

    Forty-Nine Too Many
    As insurance offerings, annuities are subject to various state regulations—which, unfortunately, may differ from one to the next. For example, should an insurance company fail, its annuity owners won’t necessarily be left high and dry. As with bank CD owners, the safety of their purchases is guaranteed by a government body, up to a certain level. However, whereas the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation protects all CD holders by the same amount ($250,000 per bank), the annuity guarantee varies by state.

    Having 50 sets of government rules for annuity purchasers is 49 sets too many. There may well be a role for state-insurance departments, with enforcement or in crafting regulations for situations that are unique to that state, but setting individual policies where one policy will do is not one of those roles. The annuity business would benefit from having a single, national set of standards.

     

    John Rekenthaler has been researching the fund industry since 1988. He is now a columnist for Morningstar.com and a member of Morningstar’s investment research department. John is quick to point out that while Morningstar typically agrees with the views of the Rekenthaler Report, his views are his own.

    Originally Posted at Morningstar on April 3, 2018 by John Rekenthaler.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency