Allan Roth

The Irrational Investor
Click Here

Why So Critical on Annuities?

By Allan Roth | Sep 18, 2009 |

Anyone who has been a reader of mine will not be at all surprised when I say that I’m not a big fan of annuities as a place to park our nest eggs. These insurance products come in every variation under the sun, with two types being variable annuities and equity indexed annuities. They all claim to have so called “guarantees” against adverse situations.

Needless to say, my stance on annuities earns me countless emails from financial planners (aka insurance producers) with many bringing the marital status of my parents into question. Here is a much more respectful one that I’d like to address.

You may be an exceptional money manger but you cannot control markets or investor behavior, both of these are addressed better in side of annuities. Please do not be short sighted and risk damaging someone’s life by making statements like you do, people have a tendency to believe what they read.

This planner is absolutely correct that I cannot control markets or investor behavior. What he neglected to mention, however, is that the insurance companies he puts his client’s nest egg in also can’t control markets or investors. For anyone requiring more proof of that statement, I have three letters – “AIG.”

Dynamics of insurance investing

Take an equity indexed annuity, which typically pays you a part of the market return (a very small part) with no downside risk. You turn over your nest egg to the insurance company and it goes to pay the following:

Insurance agent sales commission

Overhead of the insurance company

Taxes the insurance company pays

Insurance company profits

What’s left of your nest egg is then invested by the insurance company. They typically invest in bonds and stocks. Recently, though, thinking that they were smarter than the market, insurance companies snapped up all sorts of derivatives that blew up in their faces.

When all is said and done, the investor gets back the return he could have received by investing directly in bonds and stocks, less all of the expenses listed above. It is for this reason that I say (and say and say) that it is better for investors to bypass the insurance company and invest direct.

What about those guarantees?

Can an insurance company really give you guarantees against a global market downturn such as we experienced in the last two years? No way. If you want guarantees, let me suggest U.S. Treasuries and certificates of deposits backed by the FDIC or NCUA. The U.S. government owns the only franchise to legally print U.S. dollars.

What about market returns without downside risk?

Many insurance producers ask me what I tell a client who wants market returns without downside risk. Much as I would have told my young son if he had asked for a unicorn, I simply tell them, “You can’t have it!” Such a mythical creature does not exist. Capitalism (which was declared dead by many last March) dictates that taking a smart risk on capital should give you a higher return in the long-run. There is no free lunch that the insurance companies have access to.

My challenge to insurance producers

I do not have an axe to grind with the insurance industry. I would love to put my own nest egg in a vehicle that gives market returns with limited downside risk. For many years, I’ve been challenging producers to show me a product that can do just that. If successful, I promise to buy the product, send my clients to them to buy the product, and write profusely about why others should buy this product. And for these many years, nobody has taken me up on the challenge.

My advice

To date, I have never convinced an insurance producer on this simple logic. That’s because their income is dependent upon them not understanding this logic. For others reading this column that do not have a paycheck riding on a lack of understanding, remember the simple logic that it is economically better to invest directly in the financial markets than to do it through intermediaries such as insurance producers and insurance companies.

There is only one way I know to make money with annuities — sell them!

More on Money Watch

Tough Questions for Your Financial Adviser

Investors Going it Alone — Revisited

Smarter Retirement

A Year After the Stock Market Plunge

Should Average Investors do it themselves?

Should Average Investors do it themselves (part 2)

Only an Active Portfolio Provides Downside Protection?

The Risk of Taking A Risk Profile Questionnaire

 
Reply to Story

MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    rkagrawala

    09/18/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
    - Upton Sinclair

  •  
    2

    Allan Roth

    09/18/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    rkangrawala,

    That's one of my favorite quotes.

    Many years ago, I thought those annuity salespeople were just crooks. Now I know they firmly believe in what they are doing and probably very fine people.

  •  
    3

    larry swedroe

    09/19/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Few other important things for investors to know about annuities.

    Alan discussed the bad kind. The good kind is payout annuities, providing longevity insurance and mortality credits. For those interested they are discussed in the Good section of The Only Guide to Alternative Investments You'll Ever Need.

    Some often overlooked negatives about variable annuities.
    a) they convert capital gains into ordinary income
    b) you lose the ability to tax loss harvest, and the more volatile the asset, the more valuable this option
    c) if you hold foreign assets you lose the foreign tax credit
    d) you cannot donate appreciated shares.

    And of course there are the added expenses.

    There are some reasons to consider them, but only those with no commissions, no surrender charge and low expense funds inside - the kind you want to exchange into if you already own a bad one. Creditor protection is provided in some states. That can be important for some in professions where law suits are a large risk.

    Note the Equity Indexed annuities are in the UGLY section of The Only Guide to Alternative Investments. No one should own these things.

    c)

  •  
    4

    Eric Schurenberg

    09/19/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    There was a period before the crash in which you might have gotten the free lunch that you describe, Allan. It was when insurance companies sold annuities promising downside protection that was cheaper than the same downside protection cost in the derivatives markets.
    As it turned out, the free lunch was available only because insurers, like so many other financial institutions, had radically underestimated the risk of a meltdown and underpriced the protection they were selling. (They've since corrected it, and then some.) But even there, the lunch wasn't free, on closer examination. You were basically taking the risk that the insurance company wouldn't collapse under the weight of the protection it was selling without being adequately capitalized or hedged itself. Although it was a different kind of bet that sank AIG, the three-letter warning holds here too.

  •  
    5

    Allan Roth

    09/19/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Thanks for the comments Larry and Eric.

    I agree with Larry that an immediate annuity can provide longevity insurance and are far better than the two types I wrote about. Still, I think they are oversold and think one must be near 70 or older and in very good health before the mortality credits outweigh the costs on an indirect investment. Naturally, I agree with Larry that low costs are better, if you buy one.

    I also agree with Eric that the guarantees actually became worth something, when the market collapsed. Still, it's what you compare it to that counts. For the twelve months ended August 31, 2009, a 60% equity 40% fixed income (moderate second grader portfolio) lost less than 10%. If one rebalanced quarterly, it lost less than 5%.

    http://moneywatch.bnet.com/investing/blog/irrational-investor/a-year-after-the-stock-market-plunge-why-it-should-have-cost-you-less-than-ten-percent/539/?tag=col1;blog-river

  •  
    6

    larry swedroe

    09/20/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Two things
    First, Eric is correct that insurance companies were actually underpricing the tail risk. Milevsky pointed that out. But that has now been corrected. Even with that IMO they were not good products because of the flaws I presented and the internal costs of the funds

    Second, Alan is correct also re the right time to buy annuities. As I discuss in the chapter in my book on Alternative Investments, the research shows that investors are best off generally waiting until mid-70s before buying, because of the mortality credits not being sufficient before that to overcome the expenses. That might depend though on interest rates at time of purchase. But certainly with rates at current levels there is more risk of buying than delaying, at least IMO.

    A 2001 study found that a 65 year old female has an 85% chance of beating an annuity on their own, and a male about 80%.

  •  
    7

    Allan Roth

    09/20/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Another reason I'm not a big fan of immediate annuities (though they are far better than EIAs or VAs), is that the one advantange a small invesstor has is in CDs backed by the US government. These are an alternative to immeidate annuties and the renewal rates generally move with inflation. This gives the buyer some protection against inflation.

  •  
    8

    larry swedroe

    09/21/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Re credit risk of annuities.
    First, states guarantee annuities up to a set limit which varies by state but most are in the range of about $300,000. So one can even diversify the risks above that. So not that much of an issue. Of course CDs don't have mortality credits

    Second, re inflation hedge. That depends on two things. First the longer the CD (some go to 5 years) the less the hedge, but more importantly, there are payout annuities that provide inflation protection (at of course a cost).

    For the right investor, for some portion of the portfolio, and bought at the right time payout annuities can be very helpful. This is especially true for those investors who are "on the margin" in their ability to meet their needs. There really is no other way to increase likelihood of success without taking more risks. The mortality credits make this possible.

  •  
    9

    Allan Roth

    09/21/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    I agree with the mortality credits being worthwhile later in life for the investor who needs this insurance.

    Regarding the credit risk, as I understand it, the states guarantee is based on the ability to raise the funds from insurance companies which don't default. In a catastrophic type event where many insurance companies defaulted, the remaining insurance companies may not be able to carry the load. And states can't print money. I do not consider insurance companies to carry no default risk.

    Anyway - we are apparently both wrong. I got a challenge from a planner willing to prove to me I can get an 8% return without any risk at all. I'll write about that challenge shortly.

  •  
    10

    larry swedroe

    09/22/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Alan
    While I don't treat the unlikely as impossible, in our history I don't believe there has ever been a default on an insured annuity. One reason is that you have the entire insurance industry's capital, diversified across them all.
    Of course, just because something has not happened doesn't mean it cannot or will not. Which is a reason not to have all your eggs in an annuity basket. But avoiding all risks also is way to doom yourself to very low returns and may not allow you to achieve your goals.

  •  
    11

    Allan Roth

    09/22/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Larry,

    In our history, there hasn't been a systemic default of the insurance industry, though we came close last year. Who knows what would have happened without the government bailout of our financial system.

    I agree with you on both the need to take risks and on never putting all one's eggs in any one basket.

  •  
    12

    larry swedroe

    09/23/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Alan
    On what do you base your statement that we came close to systematic failure of the entire insurance industry?
    There are many large insurance companies that had little to no exposure to the toxic assets that hit the much of the banking industry. Also while there have been some downgrades of insurers there has been nothing like the downgrades of credits in the banking system. If one had chosen annuities from top rated companies like Mass Mutual and others there was very little risk of default for them.

    Also the very people payout annuities are right for, those with little ability to reduce expenses for example and thus need more income, the safest way to earn that extra income is through buying payout annuities from top rated company's, staying within the state insurance pool---you get the mortality credits which for their purposes are a free lunch. The other ways to get higher yields entail greater risks.

  •  
    13

    Allan Roth

    09/23/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Larry,

    I base the statement on:

    1) The DJ US Insurance industry losing 75% of its market cap.
    http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/industry/indchart.asp?bcind_ind=8500&bcind_period=3yr

    2) The financal industry being integrated with most companies dependent on each other.

    A very wise man once wrote something like, "don't confuse the unlikely with the impossible."

    I can tell you what worked in 2008 but I'm not so good at predicting 2010.

  •  
    14

    larry swedroe

    09/24/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Alan
    You are confusing market cap with the equity capital and other tangible capital of the firms. As you know you can have equity prices drop sharply (as risk premiums rise) without any change even in the company's capital.

    There are many high quality insurers with very high ratings who had little to no exposure to the risks. Mass Mutual was just one example. Another is NY Life. And I am sure there are many others that were never in any danger of defaulting on their obligations, even despite the crisis. And many of them also survived the Great Depression and met all their obligations, an event far worse than the one we just went through.

    Thus, I think your statement about us coming close to the systemic failure of the insurance industry as a whole is far from the truth. But just my opinion.

  •  
    15

    larry swedroe

    09/24/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    One other thought which I believe is important. AIG saw its stock price collapse. Despite that I don't believe that there was any danger at any time of AIG policy holders not being paid for claims. The insurance entities within the holding company are separate legal vehicles with their own capital, regulated by state insurance commissioners and have to meet their own capital requirements. Now I am not an expert on AIG but from my readings and discussions with those knowledgeable about the company I believe the above is true.

  •  
    16

    Allan Roth

    09/24/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Larry,

    I don't happen to agree with your opinion on this one. A 75% decline in market cap is not a result of only an increase in the risk premium. AIG management were the experts on AIG and look what they did.

    I happen to think an insurance company investment carries more risk than something backed by the US Government.

  •  
    17

    larry swedroe

    09/24/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Alan
    BTW-AIG is almost the perfect example of why your statements are not right. The insurance companies are basically independent of the holding company. They have separate capital. That capital could not be "raided" by the parent to meet its other obligation. They are also regulated by state regulators who require this "Chinese wall". The parent's risks basically had little impact on the insurer's ability to meet claims. I doubt that any of the people who had homeowner's insurance or annuities were ever in danger of not been paid even from AIG, let alone companies like Mass Mutual or NY Life or likely many, many others. Perhaps there are readers who are experts on insurance that can chime in and enlighten us.

    And as I pointed out, there are many, many large insurers that were hardly impacted at all in terms of their capital--their ability to meet claims. The examples of two companies I gave are evidence of that.

    To back up your statement it would be helpful if you could actually cite examples of highly rated insurance companies that have even experienced sharp downgrades in the claims paying ability. I am interested in seeing your list.

  •  
    18

    Digest

    09/24/09 | Report as spam

    Yikes

    I understand the opinions and where they are coming from, but there does not appear to be any actual analysis to support the views.

    For example, can you actually list some insurance companies that have disappeared over the past 12 months? While AIG Financial Products affected the holding company and many shareholders, AIG's operating companies are nowhere near insolvent. In contrast, there are many funds--both regulated and unregulated--that have simply disappeared. No backstop or recourse for investors in those situations--just close the fund, wait a month, and start another fund...

    The annuity analysis is just pure opinion. There are studies/analysis that are actually empirically/analytically grounded:

    http://www.annuitydigest.com/category/key-phrases/david-babbel

  •  
    19

    Allan Roth

    09/24/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Digest,

    Do you think a study in something called the "annuitydigest" would be independent? The last time a life insurance system quoted an endorsement from Wharton, I actually checked it out. Let's just say the Wharton professor saw it very differently.

    Having been officers for the parents of two multi-billion dollar insurance companies, I'm pretty sure I understand the link between the parent and operating entities. The bets that AIG made had to be backed by capital The parent had little capital.

    Finally, Larry and I are arguing whether insurance investments are as riskless as a US government-backed security. I'm not sure of the relevance of you comparing an insurance company with mutual funds. The mutual funds that disappeard, for the most part, deserved to have vanished.

  •  
    20

    Allan Roth

    09/24/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Larry,

    You state "I doubt that any of the people who had homeowner's insurance or annuities were ever in danger of not been paid even from AIG." That's my point exactly! We were sure the US Treasury department was going to continue to make payments on their obligations (since they can print money) but even you weren't sure AIG operating companies could continue to do so without a bailout.

    I disagree with your statement that insurance companies are independent of their parent companies. As mentioned in an earlier comment, I've been an officer of two parents of multi-billion dollar insurance companies. Sure, State regulators have some control of capital withdrawals, but how strict do you think these regulations are? Please read my column next week that I'll be writing on the Colorado Division of Insurance.

    As for your request on insurance downgrades, I haven't done a study on insurance company ratings but I suspect they have declined sharply. A couple of years ago, the rating agencies gave AAA rating to securities comprised of sup-prime garbage guaranteed by the likes of AMBAC. Please show me a study that operating insurance company ratings have been stable over the past two years.

    I'm not saying the U.S. Government is completely riskless. I'm just saying that every insurance company is riskier than the U.S. Government, which holds the only franchise to print money.

  •  
    21

    Digest

    09/24/09 | Report as spam

    To a Man with a Hammer...

    Allan,

    Not quite sure how to respond to the "life insurance system" reference as I don't know what you are talking about.

    In any event, the Wharton study is pretty straightforward. Compares your much maligned equity indexed annuities to a couple of broad asset allocations over various time-frames (9 years, 14 years, etc). Results speak for themselves--take a look:

    http://www.annuitydigest.com/blog/tom/slides-david-babbels-fixed-indexed-annuity-study-recent-historical-evidence

    With respect to AIG--or any other U.S. based life insurer--I would challenge you to come up with 1 policyholder who has been affected by an insolvent insurer and not been made whole by a state guarantee fund.

    Same cannot be said for the fund management /asset management business where the notion of a guarantee simply does not exists. $35 - $50 billion simply disappeared with Madoff and those investors will not be made whole. 2010 target date mutual funds that are off 40% in 2008--lovely. Meriwether walks away from Long Term Capital in '98 to simply start another fund a few years later. The list goes on, and on, and on... What recourse for investors--FINRA and binding arbitration, or is there a guarantee fund that mutual/hedge funds pay into to protect consumers from the frequent blow-ups?

    There is a fundamental bias towards keeping assets "in play," under management, and generating fees in the accumulation side of business and it blinds people from viewing alternatives objectively. Advisors and distributors either: a) know better and continue to peddle product, or; b) simply drink the kool aid.

  •  
    22

    larry swedroe

    09/25/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Alan
    First, I have been on the board of an insurance company. So I believe I know what I am talking about. There is without question a separation of capital and the holding companies cannot raid the capital of the insurance companies--they must get approval of the regulators to remove capital. That of course did not happen. AIG policy holders were never in danger of not getting paid to my knowledge---having done some due diligence on this during the crisis.

    Second, we are not debating over whether one is safer than the other. Of course the government guaranteed one is safer. That is not the issue at all. If that was the issue no one would ever buy any product with any risk whatsoever. The issue is whether the risks of buying a payout annuity from a highly rated company are worth the benefits.

    So now we have that settled, what we are debating, if someone has a greater need for return than a riskless investment can provide can you show me a way to earn a higher return with less risk than a payout annuity from a highly rated company---assuming you buy it at the appropriate age so that the mortality credits exceed the companies distribution costs and profit margin (let's assume mid 70s)? The answer I believe is no. That is why I bought one for my mother in law who needed a higher return than CDs could provide. Now as I said, there has never been a default on an payout annuity that I am aware of. Is is possible that it could happen and not covered by the state guarantee--sure anything is possible. But is it worth passing up the benefits and taking that minimal risk. I believe without question it is. You of course can disagree, but let's disagree about the right thing--not which is less risky, on that there is no disagreement and never was.

    And finally, as I said, there are many companies that were never in financial danger, as the other poster pointed out. They were simply either not exposed at all to the toxic waste or they had minor exposure.

  •  
    23

    larry swedroe

    09/25/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    BTW-My mother-in-law was 85 when I bought the annuity and it was from NY Life a very highly rated company, and it was within the state guarantee limit. And the mortality credits at her age allowed for a dramatic increase in the rate of return she is earning over any insured CD.

  •  
    24

    Allan Roth

    09/25/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Larry,

    Your statement:

    "if someone has a greater need for return than a riskless investment can provide can you show me a way to earn a higher return with less risk than a payout annuity from a highly rated company"

    My answer is yes.

    I had a client who wanted some risk less capital he could tie up for no more than a year. The one year treasury was paying 0.40%. We put the money in a One Year CD at Colorado East Bank paying 3.0% APY, staying below the FDIC limits.

    We have discussed before that the FDIC and NCUA create market inefficiencies that:

    1) only the small investor can exploit.
    2) most financial advisers have no incentive to exploit.

    Larry, we are making progress. We are agreeing to disagree.

    Allan

  •  
    25

    larry swedroe

    09/25/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Allan
    Still have not answered my question. All you showed was you shopped and got a higher rate that was still risk free. But what about if that was insufficient to meet the needs of the investor? 3% in many cases may not come even close to meeting the needs. Also you have the reinvestment risk that in one year when it matured that the rate would no longer be available. And of course while that 3% rate is there, it is actually not guaranteed!!! IF the bank were to fail the FDIC can take over and has right to reset the rate. And the fact that the bank had to pay such a high rate is indicative that the risks of that occurring are reasonably high.

    The rate my mother in law earned is far in excess of the 3%.

  •  
    26

    Allan Roth

    09/25/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Larry,

    First, I did already agree with you that, under certain circumstances, someone in their 70's or older and needing longevity insurance might be better off with a low-cost immediate annuity. So you are asking me to give you an example of something I don't agree with. No thanks!

    Second, as we have already discussed, what you call "reinvestment risk" is actually a good thing. If you lock into an annuity, your nominal rate is locked in (unless you really cut the payment down and take an inflation adjusted annuity). Real CD rates tend to be more stable and thus provides less risk such as if we hit hyper inflation from all of the dollars we are printing. It's the real returns that matter.

    Third, I would never invest in a bank with a low safety rating. Your claim of the desperation of this bank is not supported by the facts as it had a 3 star safety rating.

    Forth, If the FDIC does take over a bank, the depositor can get their money back. They are not stuck with whatever rate the FDIC decides to set.

    Fifth, I really appreciate you spelling my name right - thanks happy

  •  
    27

    larry swedroe

    09/25/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Allan
    Sorry for the misspelling.

    We certainly don't agree that reinvestment risk is good. That in fact is one of the risks of staying short term. There are of course some benefits. And real rates are not at all that stable despite your claim. Just as example for period 73-80 the real rate on one-month bills was negative for all but one year and was even negative 3.7 in one year. And they were also negative from 33-51 with exception of all but three years and as negative as 8.2% in 1942. What real rates are is they are more stable than nominal rates.

    As to the fact that if you get your money back, that of course is true but you now may be forced to reinvest at a lower rate than you could have obtained otherwise. So I am sure you will agree that it is a risk--meaning that even FDIC insured CDs are actually not totally riskless.


    Glad we agree that there are risks one should take that are prudent and one should not limit themselves solely to FDIC insured CDs


  •  
    28

    larry swedroe

    09/25/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Allan
    BTW-I must have missed the part about your agreeing with me on the annuities being right in some circumstances because you confused me with your comment that they are risky because the whole industry almost blew up. Perhaps you can clear up the confusion. Either they are not so risky, as long as you stick with the highly rated companies and within the state guarantees, and the mortality credits are worth considering as I have recommended or the systemic risk is there so you should not be invested in them as I interpreted your comments. Which of the two statements is correct?

  •  
    29

    Allan Roth

    09/25/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Larry,

    See the beginning of comment five where I started:

    "I agree with Larry that an immediate annuity can provide longevity insurance and are far better than the two types I wrote about. Still, I think they are oversold and think one must be near 70 or older and in very good health before the mortality credits outweigh the costs on an indirect investment. Naturally, I agree with Larry that low costs are better, if you buy one."

    I'm not sure how this could confuse you. Can't I agree with you that they can be good in very limited circumstances but still think they have more interest rate risk and default risk than you think?

    Please don't be offended because I actually agreed with you on something. happy

  •  
    30

    larry swedroe

    09/25/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    You still have me confused, sorry.

    You cannot have it both ways. Either the entire industry was in danger of collapse, in which case the implication is that these are too risky or there was not the risk. Which is it?

    As I stated, IMO if you stick with the highly rated companies and within the insured limits the benefits FAR outweigh the risks. And note academics such as Milevsky (I am sure you have read his work) agree.

    BTW-I missed the comment about my not being sure about AIG's ability to meet its insurance obligations to individuals. You must have misinterpreted my statements because I was never concerned; in fact I have my insurance policies with them to this day and I could easily have switched had I been concerned. I wasn't concerned because I knew the insurance companies were insulated from the risks of the parent, having their own capital requirements, the companies were well capitalized, and they were invested in much safer investments than those that caused the problems for the parent. As I said, I have sat on the board of a public insurance company, as well as their investment company, so I am familiar with these issues.

  •  
    31

    larry swedroe

    09/25/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Allan
    Another issue I wanted to discuss is your statement about the star rating of a bank. Industry practitioners know that the rating is only an indicator. The way most judge the credit risk is by the rates the market requires the borrower to pay.

    For example, when we buy bonds for a client, and have a double A minimum rating, and we see a bond that is AA rated but has the yield of a single A, we will not buy it because the market we believe is a far better judge of the risks than any rating agency, which at best is a lagging indicator. In the case of the bank you mention to me the fact that they are having to pay a well above market rate is an indication that there might be credit issues---they are not in the gift business--they are in business of having the lowest credit costs.

    This is an issue investors should be aware of. High yields are always an indicator of risk, even if (or some rating agency) you cannot see it

  •  
    32

    Allan Roth

    09/25/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Larry,

    Your statement "This is an issue investors should be aware of. High yields are always an indicator of risk" is, in my opinion, wrong. Many credit unions (not for profit and backed by the US government) view higher yields as a dividend to their owners. The bank I mentioned that had the 3.00% APY one year CD refused to take money from an out of state client, as they viewed it as helping the local community.

    Remember that virtually no one has an incentive to get the word out for these non-brokered CDs that don't pay intermediaries. Neither a percentage of assets fee base adviser nor a commission based adviser can make money on these.

    I don't get your argument above talking about A and AA ratings. We are talking about being backed by the US government which I thought you had agreed was less risky than an A, AA, or even an AAA insurance company.

  •  
    33

    Allan Roth

    09/25/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Larry,

    Regarding your statement "You cannot have it both ways. Either the entire industry was in danger of collapse, in which case the implication is that these are too risky or there was not the risk. Which is it?"

    I'm not trying to have it both ways. You may be willing to certify that there would not have been a catastrophic collapse of the insurance industry had our tax dollars not gone to bail out our financial system, but I'm not.

    I think their are rare circumstances where an immediate annuity can make sense. I'm sorry for agreeing with you but this doesn't mean I think insurance companies are risk free - I don't. I think, for example, we could have a natural disaster or terrorist event of epic proportion where the US government survives but their was a systematic failure of the insurance industry. Unlikely but not impossible.

    Larry, I would not have guessed a few years ago that the near collapse of our financial system would have been self inflicted - yet it was.

    We have one simple solution to this debate - why don't you just note on this blog that you will personally guarantee no one will ever lose a penny in an insurance investment due to a default. That will show me you mean what you seem to be saying.


  •  
    34

    larry swedroe

    09/26/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Allan
    You have managed to completely misstate my position and ignore the question at the same time.

    First, I used an example to make the point that ratings (bank or otherwise) are not the only, or even best indicator or risk. You cited the rating of the bank as an indicator of its risk. I simply pointed out that the rating is only one indicator and should not be relied on solely. The yield one has to pay (the market's required price for risk) is a far better indicator than some rating assigned by a rating agency. They are at best lagging indicators of the risk. I pointed this out not only for this example but for readers so that they don't get "hooked" on ratings alone and purchase what they think are bargains based on the rating.

    Second, I don't know how to say it any clearer. I completely agree, and stated so, that the bank CD is less risky and that there is some risk in an annuity. At least from a credit standpoint. So why do you keep repeating that there is more risk in the annuity. We agree there is more risk.

    The question I asked was do you think the risk is prudent? That is what investing is all about. Even the bank CD you cited has some risk--the risk of reinvestment at possibly lower rates if the bank fails and is taken over. Not impossible. But you think it is worthwhile taking that risk for the extra return over a higher rated institution or over a Treasury instrument.

    That is the issue with the fixed payout annuity. The mortality credits provide a benefit that a CD cannot. In fact, one could easily make the case that the mortality credits make the purchase LESS Risky than the CD from an overall risk perspective (the only right way to look at it) because
    they provide longevity insurance that the CD cannot.

    The insurance industry is structured so that there has never actually been a default of a payout annuity that was guaranteed by the state agencies, at least to my knowledge. Now there is some risk. But the question is should one take that risk? Is it prudent? Your statements seemed to make the statement that the risk of systemic collapse of the industry made it an imprudent decision. On other hand you state in some rare circumstances one might buy it. Well you cannot have it both ways. Either the risk was and is too great or it is not and worth taking. So I ask again, which of your statements is correct. If you say it is okay to buy the annuity then your statement about risk must be incorrect. If you state the risks were too great then you should not be recommending the annuity. So which is it?

    Just trying to understand your position, which to me is unclear.

    Finally, while I agree that VAs are the most oversold product, Payout annuities are IMO the most underutilized product. Investors make the mistake of not buying them because of the fear of regret--regret that the die early and lose the assets. They fail to consider the other side which is that if they live longer than expected they preserve assets. This psychological error is well documented in the literature of behavioral finance.

    Also note that the academic papers, at least those I have read, all favor purchasing payout annuities (at the right age) because of the mortality credits and the longevity insurance they provide.

  •  
    35

    Allan Roth

    09/26/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Larry,

    Regarding your comment "You have managed to completely misstate my position and ignore the question at the same time."

    I have repeated your statements and actually quoted your questions before answering.

    Regarding your comment "Just trying to understand your position, which to me is unclear."

    As I've stated several times, my position is that an immediate annuity can make sense in certain limited circumstances, namely over 70 years old, needing longevity insurance, and with a low cost policy. I just happen to think that insurance companies are riskier than you do.

    Do you still feel credit unions and banks offering CDs but not paying commissions are indicative of higher risk? You didn't address this in your comment above.

  •  
    36

    larry swedroe

    09/27/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Allan,
    First, to answer your question, as I already explained, the market is a far better indicator of the risk of any issuer of debt than any rating agency, which is at best a lagging indicator. And as I also said, when an issuer is paying higher than market rates it is AN INDICATION that they are a riskier borrower. That is true of banks as well. Why do you think they offer higher rates than competitors? Because they like you? Financial institutions do not play Santa Clause bringing gifts. Or because the market perceives there is incremental risk? (Now they might pay slightly above market rates if they have growing need for funding as asset demand is growing, but if the rates are well above market that is definitely an indicator that they are using the funds to make risky loans). Having been Treasurer of a bank, responsible for funding I think I know at least a bit about this subject.

    I gave the example in the bond market with issuers because it is a good and easy example--and it is common mistake made by investors--they look only at the rating, and are enticed by the yield. So they end up buying securities that are riskier than they thought. That is why industry practitioners look beyond the rating (which is what you cited as the indicator of safety), and look to the market as the best judge of risk.

    Thus while you have no CREDIT risk with bank CDs as long as you are within the limits, that does not mean as I explained that there is no risk, especially if you buy longer term CDs. I recently saw a bank offering CDs with well above market rates for the first three years and then RISING rates for years 4 and 5. Now this is a case of well above market rates but IMO the rates are a clear indicator of risk---risk that the FDIC MIGHT have to step in and then you get your money back and now you don't know what rate you will get. That is reinvestment risk.


    Finally, you still have not answered the question. For I believe third time, we agree that there is more CREDIT risk in annuities than with CDs. But that is not the issue for the investor. It is AN ISSUE. But the fact that the annuity provides mortality credits means it REDUCES risks of outliving your assets, a benefit that the CD does not. So now the issue facing investors is: Does that benefit outweigh the credit risks? As I stated, IMO if you limit investments to the most highly rated companies and stay within the limits of the state insurers the benefits FAR, FAR, FAR outweigh the incremental risks.

    My reading of your statements was you felt they did not. I base that on your statement "In our history, there hasn't been a systemic default of the insurance industry, though we came close last year. Who knows what would have happened without the government bailout of our financial system." And you pointed out that the industry lost 75% of its capital.

    Your statements appeared to reflect the view that annuities were thus too risky. I am simply trying to clarify. It seems illogical to believe that one should invest in something where the industry was close to bankruptcy (which was not true, IMO, just your opinion) yet you should at same time buy the product and take the credit risk.

    My position is that your statements were wrong about the risk of the industry collapsing. That they were wrong about individual companies even being at anywhere near the risk you implied and thus the annuities were prudent investments, especially considering the OVERALL Risk, not just credit risk.
    Do you think that such companies as Mass Mutual and NY Life (and I could list many others) let alone AIG's insurance entities that dealt with individuals are at such risk that these products should not be bought?

    My problem is this. If you say that it is okay, that the benefits outweigh the risks, that conflicts with your statements about the risks of the industry. That is what I meant by having it both weighs. You certainly can believe it, and we can agree to disagree on that. But I am just trying to get you to state your position.

    Finally, as I have stated IMO payout annuities in general should not be bought until at least the mid 70s, that is based on the evidence in published journals. The exception might be if rates are currently very high and you then run the risk of waiting and rates may drop---of course part of that risk is offset by increasing mortality credits. But rates can drop far faster than the gain in mortality credits. So waiting is not a free lunch. At current rates I certainly would recommend waiting.

  •  
    37

    Allan Roth

    09/27/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Larry,

    Regarding your statement on CDs:

    "as I already explained, the market is a far better indicator of the risk of any issuer of debt than any rating agency, which is at best a lagging indicator."

    Today, Firstier bank, with a one star safety rating, advertised a one year CD at 2.17% APY. Colorado East Bank, with a three star rating, has a 3.00 APY one year CD. It doesn't advertise this rate, you won't see it on their web site, and it won't extend the rate to out of state customers.

    Are you telling me that these two banks have equal risk-adjusted returns? Just start your response with a "yes" or a "no." Then answer the question for amounts under and over the FDIC limits.

    You and I disagree on whether the insurance industry would have had systemic failures had the US government not bailed out many players in our integrated financial system. Where I really disagree with you however is that you seem to state your beliefs as fact.

    Regarding your statement "Finally, you still have not answered the question," just post one short comment asking the question and I'll respond.

  •  
    38

    larry swedroe

    09/28/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Allan
    I have to give up trying to get you to answer a simply question which I asked multiple times. So I will leave it at that.

    I already answered TWICE your question. But to repeat it for you:
    The rates paid are an INDICATION of risk. I put it in bold for you so you could not miss it, at least I thought so. Quite simple premise, the most basic in all of finance--risk and EXPECTED return are related.

    Also to repeat, within FDIC limits there is no credit risk. But that doesn't mean there is no risk. Just different kind of risk. For an individual to determine why a bank is paying a higher rate than comparable credits one would have to do far more analysis than an individual is likely to be able to do. They don't have access to the underlying data needed. So they rely on credit rating agencies or companies, which as I have pointed our are lagging indicators at best.

    Now just so you don't misinterpret my statements, I am not saying even to avoid low rated banks. There is still no credit risk. But you must be aware of the reinvestment risk and also the potential for lost liquidity. It has historically taken as long as 6 weeks to get funds back once FDIC takes over. And there is actually no stated time frame, so it could take longer. So an investor can decide if they are willing to take the reinvestment risk and the liquidity risks to earn the risk premium. That is a personal decision.

    What is perhaps amusing is that you yourself I believe made the statement that you don't buy CDs from lower rated banks, which implies that you believe there is risk. Thus the only real question is should one rely on the rating. As I have repeatedly stated, industry practitioners when investing using investment policy statements that limit holdings within certain "ratings" like AAA, AA, A, do not rely solely on those ratings. We for example follow the practice of also looking at what the market is requiring the issuer to pay for debt--viewing that as not only a better indicator of risk but a more current one. IMO those that rely solely on ratings are making a mistake.

  •  
    39

    Allan Roth

    09/28/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Larry,

    The question I asked was "Are you telling me that these two banks have equal risk-adjusted returns? Just start your response with a "yes" or a "no." Could you please answer starting with that yes or no?

    Regarding your statement "I have to give up trying to get you to answer a simply question which I asked multiple times. So I will leave it at that."

    I have answered many of your questions but I have no idea which question you feel I have not answered. Have you gotten confused as to what the question you want answered is?

    You seem to attack my statements and then, when I defend them, you move on to other things without addressing the flaws in the logic I am pointing out.

    Larry, I think you are very smart and one of the good guys. Please don't take my disagreeing with you personally.

  •  
    40

    djall

    09/28/09 | Report as spam

    Risk

    Why don't you mention the guaranty associations that every State offers to add a significant additional guarantee for most annuities?

    http://www.safemoneyplaces.com/guaranty.htm

    Focusing on the the risks of a single insurance company going down creates a false impression of the true risk, which is quite low. Have any State guaranty associations defaulted on covering a single annuity during this recent economic debacle? There are limits to the coverage, but surely those limits would cover a large portion of annuity holders.

    Immediate, fixed annuities provide a very useful, and safe, income option for lots of people.

  •  
    41

    Allan Roth

    09/28/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    djall,

    You are right but the state guarantees have been mentioned in the discussion above. Larry and I agree that immediate annuities can make sense for those over 70 years old and needing this longevity insurance.

    Thanks.

  •  
    42

    Robocop975

    10/21/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Two recent studies from the Financial Institutions Center at Wharton provide good evidence against some of the claims made here. rel="nofollow" href="http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/Policy%20page/RealWorldReturns.pdf">Real World Index Annuity Returns looks at indexed annuity returns (and puts them in a more favorable light) while Rational Decumulation examines the use of income annuities (and puts *them* in a more favorable light). I would also note that any discussion of what do-it-yourself investors can or might do without any discussion of what they actually end up doing is pretty short-sighted. As studies such as the Dalbar routinely establish, investors almost always buy high and sell low. Any analysis of investor alternatives must bear that reality in mind.

  •  
    43

    Robocop975

    10/21/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

  •  
    44

    Allan Roth

    10/21/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Robocop975,

    I'll address an academic study making the case for annuities in the near future.

    Agree that expenses and emotions are the investors enemy, whether done through mutual funds or annuities or any other vehicle.

  •  
    45

    Robocop975

    10/22/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Allan --

    44: "I'll address an academic study making the case for annuities in the near future."

    That's good because you've made a number of unsupported assertions about annuities that the studies I cited seem to contradict pretty directly. For example, from Rational Decumulation: "Life annuities, by contrast, pool longevity risk across a population of annuitants, and provide guaranteed investment returns throughout life, thereby eliminating this risk. To achieve a similar riskless guarantee of income throughout one?s uncertain lifetime without life annuities would cost between 25% and 40% more."

    5: "I agree with Larry that an immediate annuity can provide longevity insurance and are [sic] far better than the two types I wrote about. Still, I think they are oversold and think one must be near 70 or older and in very good health before the mortality credits outweigh the costs on an indirect investment."

    The academics disagree with you here too. From Rational Decumulation again (fn. 4): "It should be noted here that if a person at age 65 decided to wait to annuitize until age 75, if in fact the individual lived to age 75, in retrospect, he or she would have done better to buy the annuity at age 65 unless his or her investment portfolio outperformed the returns on life annuities, which generally exceed fixed income interest rates. This, of course, assumes no bequest motive, and modest annuity price loadings." Note too that equity-exposure as retirement nears and during the early years of retirement is especially problematic, as many have recently discovered (see, for example, here, for some helpful research on this topic). For most retirees -- of any age -- it simply makes sense to take the risks relating to retirement cash flow needs "off-the-table."

    5: "For the twelve months ended August 31, 2009, a 60% equity 40% fixed income (moderate second grader portfolio) lost less than 10%. If one rebalanced quarterly, it lost less than 5%."

    By my math, a positive return (which principal-protected savings vehicles provide) beats a 10% or even a 5% loss, but that's largely irrelevant since return is only one consideration, among many, that a prospective annuity purchaser considers. For many of them, it isn't even the primary consideration. Thus you're trying to compare apples to oranges. Real World Index Annuity Returns, albeit based upon less data than I would like, suggests that indexed products do what they are designed to do -- they provide principal-protection, tax deferral and they outperform CDs and traditional fixed annuities. That they sometimes outperform securities products of various types and in various combinations, as the article also demonstrates, is an added bonus.

    19: "Do you think a study in something called the 'annuitydigest' would be independent?"

    That's a silly ad hominem and ought to be beneath you. Any study stands or falls on its own merits, which are in no way determined by who pays for, performs or publishes the study. There may be bias and we should evaluate the evidence carefully with that possibility in mind, but all we have at this point is your unsupported asssertion of unreliability. If you think any study being looked at (including either of the studies I linked above) is wrong in some way, all you need to do is set forth how and why this is so and we can then decide if you're right or not and whether your biases might have impacted your conclusions.

  •  
    46

    Allan Roth

    10/22/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Robocop,

    So do you believe in all academic studies or just the ones that support your sales tactics?

    When you state:

    "The academics disagree with you"

    Do you mean all academics? How did you reach this conclusion? Was it based on your interpretation of one study?

    One day I've got to study insurance producer logic. It works on a different set of rules where return less commissions and costs = even higher returns. The tooth fairy and Santa Claus give money to the insurance companies to make consumers rich.

  •  
    47

    Robocop975

    10/22/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    "So do you believe in all academic studies or just the ones that support your sales tactics?"

    You can't seem to resist the logical fallacies, Allan. Your (again unevidenced) claim is a false dichotomy. Personally, I prefer good evidence and good arguments. The two primary studies I offered provide both and are from an independent source to boot. Moreover, I note that you disparage who and what you (falsely) presume me to be without, yet again, offering evidence. As I wrote earlier, if you think the studies are wrong, provide some evidence for your position. You're long on unsupported assertions and short actual evidence.

    "When you state:

    '"The academics disagree with you'
    Do you mean all academics?"

    No. I meant the specific academics to whom I was referring.

    "How did you reach this conclusion? Was it based on your interpretation of one study?"

    No. I cited representative studies. At the risk of being overly repetitive, if you think the conclusions drawn by those studies are wrong, simply explain why and how and we can decide if you've made your case or not based upon the evidence you present. It's a pretty straightforward concept.

    "One day I've got to study insurance producer logic. It works on a different set of rules where return less commissions and costs = even higher returns. The tooth fairy and Santa Claus give money to the insurance companies to make consumers rich."

    It should no longer be a surprise, but your claim here is both inapt and inept. It's inapt in that I'm not an insurance producer and inept in that, yet again, it's unsupported hyperbole. Instead of making false accusations, why won't you support your claims with actual evidence?

  •  
    48

    larry swedroe

    10/23/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Some Academic Evidence, from my book on Alternative Investments--chapter on Fixed Annuities

    The 2001 study, ?Making Retirement Income Last a Lifetime,? by John Ameriks, PhD (TIAA-CREF Institute), Robert Veres (editor and publisher of Inside Information) and Mark J. Warshawsky (Watson Wyatt Worldwide) found that portfolios with immediate annuities ran out of money far less frequently than those that did not. For example, the ?growth? portfolio in the study?60 percent stocks, 30 percent bonds and 10 percent short-term investments?ran out of money 20 percent of the time over 35-year horizons and 27 percent of the time over 40-year horizons. Most people would consider these probabilities to be too high. Thus, people in similar situations would have to consider working longer, saving more or spending less to reduce their chances of running out of money. Annuities provide an alternative.

    The study found that the ?growth? portfolios with 50 percent in annuities (i.e., for every $1 in the portfolio, $0.50 is annuitized and $0.50 is invested in the growth portfolio) ran out of money only 8 percent of the time over 35-year horizons and 14 percent of the time over 40-year horizons?essentially cutting the risk of failure in half. This is a substantial reduction in risk that did not involve changing one?s lifestyle (e.g., working longer, saving more or spending less).

    The 2003 study, ?Retirement Planning: Annuities and When They May Make Sense,? found very similar results. Using historical data from 1972 through 2000, author William Reichenstein (Baylor University) found that partially annuitized portfolios were prematurely exhausted less often than portfolios with no annuity component.

    Reichenstein tested a balanced portfolio with 40 percent stock and 60 percent fixed-income investments. He then tested similar portfolios in which 25 percent and 50 percent of the portfolios were annuitized. The balanced portfolio ran out of money in the 26th year. The portfolio in which 25 percent was annuitized survived until the 29th year. And the portfolio in which 50 percent was annuitized was able to meet the withdrawal needs of the hypothetical investor for the entire period.

    In general, the research indicates that it is preferable to delay annuitization until the mid 70s or early 80s. The 2001 study, ?Optimal Annuitization Policies: Analysis of the Options,? by Moshe Milevsky (York University) concluded that a 65-year-old female has an 85 percent chance of being able to beat the rate of return from a life annuity until age 80. For males the figure was 80 percent.

    There are two main reasons for this. The first is that the insurance company, in addition to covering its costs of marketing, underwriting and issuing the contracts, is building in a profit. The second is that the insurance companies that issue these policies are aware that they are being adversely selected?the most likely buyers of longevity insurance are those who have a good reason to believe that they will live a longer than average life. Thus, unless they are highly risk averse, investors should probably not buy an immediate fixed annuity until approaching age 80. Similarly, if you are considering buying a deferred fixed annuity, you should consider delaying payments until age eighty.

    We do offer two caveats. There are risks in delaying the purchase of an immediate annuity. First, there is the risk that if life expectancy increases, the cost of the annuity will increase. A 2006 study, ?Rational Decumulation,? by David F. Babbel and Craig B. Merrill (both of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania) calculated that a 1 percent annual improvement in mortality is associated with roughly a 5 percent increase in the price of an annuity, or a 5 percent reduction in monthly payouts. Second, there is the risk that interest rates will fall, leading to lower monthly payouts upon annuitizing.

    I hope the above is helpful

  •  
    49

    Allan Roth

    10/23/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Robocop975

    '"The academics disagree with you'
    Do you mean all academics?"

    "No. I meant the specific academics to whom I was referring."

    You made a blatantly false statement. What you should have said:

    "I site this statement from one academic as support for my conclusion." Very different that your blanket claim. I could go on and on.

    Last week, I interviewed an academic on his paper that had a section "the case for annuities." Had you found it you would have posted another statement "the academics disagree with you."

    Yet, in the interview, there was very little I disagreed with him on.

    Note how different the approaches in learning are from people like Larry Swedroe, academics, and other individuals interested in learning are from those like you and Brent.

    Learning involves an exchange of facts and opinions based on facts. What you and Brent do is call people liars, ignorant, and inept - pretty much the same tactics you may have used to bully kids when you were in the school yard.


  •  
    50

    Robocop975

    10/23/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Thank you, Larry, for your substantive additions.

    Partial annuitization is a substantial benefit to the vast majority of portfolios, as you indicate.

    "Thus, people in similar situations would have to consider working longer, saving more or spending less to reduce their chances of running out of money. Annuities provide an alternative."

    Your analysis looks at the benefits of using partial annuitization as part of an overall portfolio strategy, and I largely agree with you. However, I would suggest that most investors would benefit from what the latest Dalbar study calls "purpose-based asset management," which treats different aspects of the portfolio differently based upon the purposes for which the money will be used. Of course, many people subscribe to this idea, at least in part, by keeping an emergency fund in cash equivalents. I would take the idea one step further by annuitizing one's cash flow needs upon retirement (or perhaps even sooner if interest rates are attractive) to ensure that, irrespective of market performance, basic living expenses are covered.

    You rightly highlight Milevsky's work concluding that a 65-year-old female has an 85 percent chance of being able to beat the rate of return from a life annuity until age 80 and that for males the figure was 80 percent. However, for most retirees (those who aren't rich), the consequences in those 15-20% of cases when the portfolios don't work out as planned (and recent events suggest that Monte Carlo modelling dramatically underestimates the risk of extreme events, so these numbers may well be low) are potentially so dire that it's wiser to forego the potential efficiency for safety.

    "There are risks in delaying the purchase of an immediate annuity. First, there is the risk that if life expectancy increases, the cost of the annuity will increase."

    A recent study of data from more than 30 developed countries shows why this risk is a very serious one. It reveals that death rates among people older than 80 are still falling. In 1950, the likelihood of survival from age 80-90 was 15-16% for women and 12% for men, compared with 37% and 25%, respectively, in 2002. "The linear increase in record life expectancy for more than 165 years does not suggest a looming limit to human lifespan. If life expectancy were approaching a limit, some deceleration of progress would probably occur. Continued progress in the longest living populations suggests that we are not close to a limit, and further rise in life expectancy seems likely," Kaare Christensen, of the Danish Aging Research Center at the University of Southern Denmark, and colleagues wrote.

    "Thus, unless they are highly risk averse, investors should probably not buy an immediate fixed annuity until approaching age 80."

    While you have a theoretical basis for what you say here, in practice I think many more people should annuitize a part of their portfolios much sooner. Equity exposure as retirement nears and during the early years of retirement is especially problematic, as many have recently discovered (see, for example, here, for some helpful research). A new retiree "self-funding" cash flow needs early in retirement without any use of annuitization who suffers poor portfolio performance during that period dramatically increases his or her chances of running out of money. Delaying the annuity purchase offers a chance for greater efficiency, as you point out, but for most retirees -- of any age -- the risk-return ratio for doing so is simply too high to make sense. To illustrate from a slightly different context, we'd all make a lot more money if we timed the market successfully, but nobody has been successful at doing so over the long term.

    "Second, there is the risk that interest rates will fall, leading to lower monthly payouts upon annuitizing."

    Yup. Fortunately, that isn't a big risk right now.

  •  
    51

    Robocop975

    10/23/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Allan says: "You made a blatantly false statement. What you should have said:

    'I site this statement from one academic as support for my conclusion.' Very different that your blanket claim."

    As should have been clear from context, I was referring to a specific representative study on the value of annuitization. Larry has provided other representative studies. Thererfore, the "academics" to whom I was referring were the two authors of the specific study I cited (Rational Decumulation, which Larry also cited). That said, you still don't offer any reasons why the studies I provided are wrong or any studies offering different conclusions. That suggests that you simply can't.

    "I could go on and on."

    You keep claiming that you're right and that you have lots of fabulous reasons for being right, but you don't show us your work and demonstrate that you're right. You expect us simply to take your word for it because you're "the expert." That's yet another logical fallacy -- the argument from authority.

    All form; no substance. All righteous indignation; no evidence.

    "Learning involves an exchange of facts and opinions based on facts."

    Indeed. Why then do you keep refusing to provide any facts (evidence)?


  •  
    52

    Allan Roth

    10/23/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Robocop 975

    You state:

    "Why then do you keep refusing to provide any facts (evidence)?"

    I gave the following facts regarding the claim:

    "I can blow away saving for retirement in any market fund, with an Indexed Life policy. How about a NET return of 8% that allows you to take out the gains Tax Free for retirement income, with NO downside market risk."

    1) "How about a NET return of 8%"

    The illustration showed 8% using input assumptions picked from a historic period where the raging bull began. Insurance company had a unilateral right to lower returns and had already done so this year.

    2) "that allows you to take out the gains Tax Free for retirement income"

    Brett proposed a product that did not allow me to take out any gains as he used a MEC. In reality, in a non-MEC, any gains are borrowing your own money which can create catastrophic tax consequences if the policy lapses

    3) "with NO downside market risk.

    Per the illustration numbers provided by Brett, guaranteed returns were as follows:

    1-Year return: -10.3%
    10-Year return: -4.9%
    26-Year return: -100.0%

    I don't see this as "no downside risk" and it happens to be far riskier than a low-cost balanced portfolio.

    The bottom line of the disagreement is I see the facts provided by Brett, the challenger, as failing the challenge. The challenger, Brett, and certain insurance producers see this challenge as having been met and I'm an "ignorant" writer prone to lying.

    What other facts would you like other than that the Minnesota Life chief actuary agrees with me so you must also think he's an ignorant inept liar.

    I'm going to make an offer to Brent next week. If he turns it down I'll give you second dibs.

    Fair?

  •  
    53

    Robocop975

    10/23/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Allan (52) -- I hope the problem here is that you're simply confused. I haven't participated in the EIUL debate at all. That's a totally different thread and a totally different discussion. I haven't commented there and no "Brent" has commented here. My focus has been on the titled focus of this thread -- annuities and their effective use. You might want to read the separate threads and the comments related thereto and try again....

  •  
    54

    Allan Roth

    10/23/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Robocop975,

    You seem to be a fan of insurance investing. Do you not want the offer of showing me how to get stock market returns with no downside risk?

    I've been a financial officer of two multi-billion $ insurance companies and the simple logical formula we sued was:

    Investment return - commissions - costs - taxes - profits = designed return to policy holder.

    Tell me how the industries logic has "no substance?"

  •  
    55

    Robocop975

    10/23/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    "You seem to be a fan of insurance investing."

    I'm a fan of doing the right thing and doing what I determine is best under the circumstances I'm presented. I own real estate, securities and insurance products for various purposes and for various reasons.

    "Do you not want the offer of showing me how to get stock market returns with no downside risk?"

    I didn't respond to the challenge because I don't think it's possible meet it with anything like certainty. That said, I think that principal-protected savings options exist that can be very attractive to consumers depending upon their needs, circumstances and risk tolerances and which may outperform "the market" (however defined), depending upon what assumptions are made and what actually happens in the (unknown) future.

    "I've been a financial officer of two multi-billion $ insurance companies and the simple logical formula we sued was:

    "Investment return - commissions - costs - taxes - profits = designed return to policy holder.

    "Tell me how the industries [sic] logic has "no substance?"

    I have no idea what point you're trying to make here and suspect you're (again) attributing other peoples' views and comments to me. Obviously, insurance companies (like mutual fund companies, brokers, investment advisors, you and I) are trying to make money. I don't think that's a bad thing. The savings provided by risk pooling and risk sharing together with certain tax advantages offered by the government allow insurance companies, even with overhead and expenses, to provide certain products and services more efficiently than one can duplicate on his or her own. The task of the prudent investor is to determine when it makes sense to purchase such products and services and when it makes sense to be a do-it-yourselfer.

  •  
    56

    Allan Roth

    10/23/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Robocop975

    Regarding your comment:

    "The task of the prudent investor is to determine when it makes sense to purchase such products and services and when it makes sense to be a do-it-yourselfer."

    Where we disagree is that that I feel part of being a prudent investor is to figure out how others make money from you and how you can disintermediate and lower costs. You apparently disagree.

    There is no tooth fairy Robocop975.

  •  
    57

    Robocop975

    10/23/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    "Where we disagree is that that I feel part of being a prudent investor is to figure out how others make money from you and how you can disintermediate and lower costs. You apparently disagree."

    Wrong again, Allan. I am absolutely in favor of lowering my costs, and do so whenever practicable. But I am more in favor of maximizing my net return and most in favor of accomplishing my goals fairly and appropriately. Obviously, my costs will impact my net return and how well I accomplish my financial goals, but costs are not ends in themselves. Similarly, I have no problem with intermediaries (and intermediaries being paid) when they provide me with sufficient value. I could keep a bunch of people from making money off me by growing my own food, but buying it provides me with sufficient value that I'm willing to do so. Indeed, based upon your profile, you act as an intermediary directly (through your practice) and indirectly (through the sale of books) to those who think the services you provide are worth their price, even though they could lower their costs by going it alone.

    In terms of financial services, sometimes I think it makes sense for me to do-it-myself; sometimes I think it makes sense to purchase goods and services. With respect to the subject of this thread, because a self-insuring individual has to be concerned with all possible life expectancies, self-insuring for income typically costs 25-40% more than an income annuity even with the insurance carrier's costs and expenses factored in, largely on account of the benefits of risk pooling. I don't need or expect the insurance company to be a benevolent "tooth fairy;" but that doesn't mean that they never provide a valuable service that's worth purchasing in appropriate situations. When I retire, I expect to purchase an income annuity with an inflation rider to make sure my income needs are met throughout my lifetime.

  •  
    58

    Allan Roth

    10/23/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Robocop975

    Guess I'm always wrong, Robocop.

    In my ignorance, I thought:

    1) Costs have so far been the only predictive factor in determining performance with an asset class.

    2) I wrote the book to get my word out since winning the lottery is more likely to get someone rich than writing a first book.

    3) That I didn't sell any products, just advice.

    4) That insurance companies should be used for those needing insurance, rather than an investment vehicle.

    The movie RoboCop was a great fantasy. Keep pushing the "it's not the costs, it's the return that matters" fantasy and I'm sure you'll have a great retirement on the backs of others.

    I'd be thrilled to recommend your products if they work - fits perfectly with my hourly model. Care to send me a proposal?

  •  
    59

    Robocop975

    10/23/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Guess I'm always wrong, Robocop.

    Not always. But too often for an expert.

    [I thought] Costs have so far been the only predictive factor in determining performance with an asset class.

    Costs are a crucial factor to be considered (as I have already stated). But costs cannot be ends in themselves.

    [I thought] I wrote the book to get my word out since winning the lottery is more likely to get someone rich than writing a first book.

    Maybe so, but you're still an intermediary. People could do things cheaper if they didn't buy your book.

    [I thought] That I didn't sell any products, just advice.

    That's why I wrote about products and services. Plus, that advice costs money. Folks could do things cheaper by not paying you and going it alone. Your success at that business depends upon your ability to convince people that the value you provide is worth the cost (and that's as it should be).

    [I thought] That insurance companies should be used for those needing insurance, rather than an investment vehicle.

    Generally speaking, insurance products should be used when the primary goal is managing risk. Bank products should be used when the primary goal is liquidity. And securities products should be used when the primary goal is investment return. But, obviously, those goals can and often do overlap.

    Keep pushing the "it's not the costs, it's the return that matters" fantasy and I'm sure you'll have a great retirement on the backs of others.

    You keep keep falsely assuming who I am and what I do. I don't sell any financial services products (not that I'd be embarrassed about it if I did). More importantly, you misquote me here. I wrote about net return. Costs impact net return and are vitally important (as I have stated repeatedly), but net return is more important. I'm better off paying more to have my roof fixed right than doing it myself and screwing things up or paying less for inadequate work or materials. However, I am competent to paint and happily save money by doing that work myself. The concept is pretty simple, if not always easy to execute.

    I'd be thrilled to recommend your products if they work - fits perfectly with my hourly model. Care to send me a proposal?

    Sorry, Allan, I'm not in that business. But if I were, I wouldn't send you a proposal for any product without knowing much more about your needs, goals, time horizons and risk tolerances. That context is an absolutely imperative component to any investment decision.

  •  
    60

    Allan Roth

    10/24/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Robocop975

    Re: People could do things cheaper if they didn't buy your book.

    Have you heard of a library?

    While you are there, you might want to check out a book on arithmetic.

    Net return = gross return - costs.



  •  
    61

    Robocop975

    10/24/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    While you are there, you might want to check out a book on arithmetic.

    I'm really hurt by your quick-witted resonse.

    Net return = gross return - costs.

    Exactly. Higher costs make a higher net return more difficult, but don't decide the issue. I have already shown (with academic help from the resources cited) that risk pooling allows an insurance carrier to provide an income stream via an immediate annuity, even with its costs and expenses, far cheaper than a person could on his or her own. Similarly, an index fund is cheaper for me than trying to duplicate those holdings on my own due to economies of scale, even though I get charged for owning it. If you have any actual evidence to present that might suggest otherwise (besides the petty jibes), you might want to present it or simply accept the obvious -- you've lost this one.

  •  
    62

    Allan Roth

    10/24/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Robocop975

    Age 75 for a healthy individual is where the mortality credits outweigh the costs.

    Higher costs = lower returns (simple)

    I've lost this one in your mind - agreed.

  •  
    63

    Robocop975

    10/24/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Age 75 for a healthy individual is where the mortality credits outweigh the costs.

    So you keep saying, Allan, but you don't show your work (you just want us to buy your book and take your word for it, I guess). Indeed, you can't show your work because your math doesn't work. From Rational Decumulation (the Wharton study I linked above):

    "It should be noted here that if a person at age 65 decided to wait to annuitize until age 75, if in fact the individual lived to age 75, in retrospect, he or she would have done better to buy the annuity at age 65 unless his or her investment portfolio outperformed the returns on life annuities, which generally exceed fixed income interest rates. This, of course, assumes no bequest motive, and modest annuity price loadings."

    So to beat an annuity for income purposes, even at age 65, an investor must have equity exposure and outperform fixed income. You might be able to succeed doing that, depending upon what the market does, but since we're talking about needed cash flow for living expenses, I don't think it makes sense to forego the guarantee provided by the annuity to roll-the-dice that you'll win in the market and outperform fixed income. Simply put, I think it's unacceptable to risk running out of money. After the essentials are covered, I'd take market risk with the balance of my portfolio.

    Note particularly that equity-exposure as retirement nears and during the early years of retirement is especially problematic, as many have recently discovered (see, for example, the T. Rowe Price research I linked up-thread for the math). If you're taking income from your portfolio and it takes a hit (sound familiar, anyone?), it becomes almost impossible to catch up. You'd like us to take your word for your contrary opinion -- without showing us the math (because it doesn't work) so we'll buy your book I guess. But for most retirees -- of any age -- it simply makes sense to take the risks relating to retirement cash flow needs "off-the-table."

  •  
    64

    Allan Roth

    10/24/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Robocop975

    Never mentioned it in my book - you referenced a book you haven't read. You lost all credibility with me.

    Here are some references to support the age 75 annutization age where the mortality credits outweigh the costs.

    http://works.bepress.com/anthony_webb/11/

    http://www.yorku.ca/milevsky/Papers/NAAJ2001B.pdf



  •  
    65

    Robocop975

    10/24/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Here are some references to support the age 75 annutization age where the mortality credits outweigh the costs.

    The articles you (finally!) provide don't add anything particularly new to the discussion. Indeed, I've seen them and appreciate them. In essence, your argument appears to be (since you don't bother to state it directly) that a roughly 80% success rate at ages earlier than 75 for beating an income annuity is good enough. But that's a lousy argument for the following reasons.

    1. Milevsky expressly predicates his conclusion, at least in part, upon the lack of availability of inflation riders to income annuities. As Rational Decumulation (linked up-thread) points out, they are now readily available at reasonable prices.

    2. The research you point to relies heavily on return assumptions and Monte Carlo simulations that market events over the past year or so have put into serious question.

    "Even in large portfolios, high standard-deviation events tend to occur far more often than a normal distribution suggests. This seems especially true on the downside, which will call this variable excess risk 'iceberg risk,' because it is mostly hidden from view but threatens major damage. It might also be called 'Noah risk,' after the proverbial flood that drowned the world.... Also, in the Biblical story, the world was amply warned about the flood but refused to listen. In contrast, icebergs reflect a type of risk that people look for but may not see." Kent Osband, Iceberg Risk: An Adventure in Portfolio Theory (2002). See also, Taleb, The Black Swan (2008).

    This latest research suggests that "black swan" risk is far greater than Monte Carlo simulations predict, which further suggests that Milevsky's 20% failure rate is much too low.

    3. Most importantly, if we're talking about needed living expenses (as I have been careful to throughout this discussion), even were we to assume that your 20% failure rate were accurate, I think a 20% chance of failure is too high. As I have pointed out throughout this thread, if you want to provide something close to a guarantee of success in this regard on your own, it would cost you 25-40% more than what an income annuity would cost (due to risk pooling).

    As another Wharton study (Investing your Lump Sum at Retirement) points out:

    "[E]conomists have come to agreement from Germany to New Zealand, and from Israel to Canada, that annuitization of a substantial portion of retirement wealth is the best way to go. The list of economists who have discovered this includes some of the most prominent in the world, among whom are Nobel Prize winners. Studies supporting this conclusion have been conducted at such heralded universities and business schools as MIT, The Wharton School, Berkeley, Chicago, Yale, Harvard, London Business School, Illinois, Hebrew University, and Carnegie Mellon, just to name a few. The value of annuities in retirement seems to be a rare area of consensus among economists.

    "A recent National Bureau of Economics study, which appeared in the prestigious American Economic Review, demonstrated under much more plausible conditions than had ever been supposed, that full annuitization was optimal for people who had no desire to leave a bequest to their heirs or charitable organizations. It also concluded that for those with bequest motives, substantial annuitization of retirement
    wealth was still the most prudent way to act."

    http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/Policy%20page/WhartonEssay18.pdf

  •  
    66

    larry swedroe

    10/25/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Robocop
    Few comments
    The arguments about MC simulations and the fat tails are not only wrong but vastly overstated.

    While there are some MC simulators that do not account for fat tails, that is not a limitation of MC simulation. A model can be adopted to do just that.

    Second, a small change downward in the expected return has a much greater impact than increasing the tail risk.

    It is easy to simulate fat tails even without a simulator that does it by simply lower the expected return slightly.

    Now I happen to be a big fan of fixed/payout annuities. I placed them in the GOOD category in my book on alternative investments (though annuities strictly speaking are not investments but insurance contracts). I happen to think they are the most underutilized product because investors have fear of regret, and advisors that charge by AUM don't want to give up assets and lose revenue (instead of recommending the right thing---note we do recommend them).

    But they are still not right for everyone. They are really only needed by those that have little ability to take risk because they have no options they can exercise if the fat tail shows up. If you have options (work longer, cut spending, move to lower cost area, sell second home, etc) then one should wait until the age where annuitization favors the investor, and even then maybe not because of bequeth desire.

    So, I completely agree that an 80% odds of success are not enough because a 20% chance of being alive without assets is too great a risk---even 5% is too great. But that only applies if you have no "plan B." If you do, you can decide then if an annuity is appropriate or activating Plan B is a better alternative.

    I hope the above is helpful

  •  
    67

    larry swedroe

    10/25/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Robocop
    Forgot to mention that one problem with the payout annuities I have seen is those that provide some inflation protection provide only limited amount of it--and that creates further risks not faced by those who keep their fixed income assets short or use TIPS. Have caps like 3%.

  •  
    68

    Robocop975

    10/26/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Larry -- Thank you for your helpful contributions. I'm off to a conference tomorrow and don't have a lot of time today to deal with your posts with the depth I'd like. But I think your analysis, focusing as it does primarily upon various return scenarios, neglects the varying risk aversion levels of clients. One size doesn't fit all. Risk averse clients will optimally annuitize more significant portions of their assets much earlier on. The best research I have seen provides that some annuitization is appropriate for the vast majority of retirees, from the onset of retirement (or even before), with a gradual increase in the level of annuitization as the retiree ages. Examples follow.

    * Davidoff, Brown & Diamond, Annuities and Individual Welfare
    * Horneff, Maurer, Mitchell & Dus, Optimizing the Retirement Portfolio: Asset Allocation, Annuitization, and Risk Aversion
    * Babbel & Merrill, Investing your Lump Sum at Retirement
    * Babbel & Merrill, Rational Decumulation
    * Horneff, Maurer & Stamos, Optimal Gradual Annuitization: Quantifying the Costs of Switching to Annuities

  •  
    69

    larry swedroe

    10/26/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    Robo

    I am not missing anything. In fact I completely agree with the general statement about risk aversion, but one should also consider the aversion to risk of unexpected inflation which most annuities don't handle well. I might not be fully informed but the ones I have seen all cap inflation adjustments, even ones with inflation protection riders. So the longer the period you have (buy sooner) the greater those risks. So it is ALL RISKS that should be considered.

    And as I said, those with exercisable options can be more risk averse than those without them. So the latter group should be more favorably inclined to annuities. No one exact right answer. But that is how a good advisor adds value.

  •  
    70

    Robocop975

    10/26/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    In fact I completely agree with the general statement about risk aversion, but one should also consider the aversion to risk of unexpected inflation which most annuities don't handle well.

    That's one reason so many academics suggest gradual annuitization.

    I might not be fully informed but the ones I have seen all cap inflation adjustments, even ones with inflation protection riders.

    The studies I linked describe many more liberal inflation options than you assume. One popular inflation-indexed life annuity provides a floor of 0% and an annual cap of 10% (not the 3% you suggested), which are binding only if the inflation rate falls outside these bounds; otherwise, the policy is fully indexed for inflation.

  •  
    71

    larry swedroe

    10/27/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    10% is pretty good cap, but of course you might be paying a lot for that protection. So would have to evaluate it. Doing it yourself and owning TIPS provides that protection, without the costs of the insurer, but of course you lose the mortality credits.

    So no simple answer. But I do believe that these are the most underutilized products for reasons we have discussed

    Best wishes
    Larry

  •  
    72

    Robocop975

    10/29/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why So Critical on Annuities?

    From Prof. David Babbel of Wharton:

    "I have reviewed over 70 academic studies that have appeared since 1999, analyzing lifetime income annuities vs. other alternatives, and coauthored another major study. (Most of these are included in the reference section to this paper, as well as a handful of earlier academic studies, each marked with an asterisk.) The consensus of the literature from professional economists is that lifetime income annuities
    should definitely play a substantial role in the retirement arrangements of most people. How great a role depends on a number of factors, but it is fair to say that for most people, lifetime income annuities should comprise from 40% to 80% of their retirement assets under current pricing. Generally
    speaking, if a person has no bequest motive, or is averse to high risk, the portion of wealth allocated to annuities should be at the higher end of this range.

    "Lifetime income annuities may not be the perfect financial instrument for retirement, but when compared under the rigorous analytical apparatus of economic science to other available choices for retirement income, where risks and returns are carefully balanced, they dominate anything else for most situations. When supplemented with fixed income investments and equities, it is the best way we have now to provide for retirement. There is no other way to do this without spending much more money, or incurring a whole lot more risk?coupled with some very good luck."

    Lifetime Income for Women: A Financial Economist?s Perspective

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement

Allan Roth

Allan S. Roth is the founder of Wealth Logic, an hourly based financial planning and investment advisory firm that advises clients with portfolios ranging from $10,000 to $50 million. He is mocked on a semi-regular basis by some financial professionals for his hourly fee model and its obvious inability to make him rich.

Roth is also the author of How A Second Grader Beats Wall Street. He teaches behavioral finance at the University of Denver and is an adjunct faculty member at Colorado College.

Allan Roth

Allan Roth has a lot of credentials (CFP, CPA, MBA) and business experience (McKinsey consulting and officers of mega-billion dollar companies). But he insists that said credentials and business experience do not interfere with his ability to keep investing simple.

Roth has worked with many a lawyer over the years, so he feels compelled to note that his columns are not meant as specific investment advice, especially since any such advice would need to take into account such things as each reader’s willingness and need to take risk, which can vary significantly. His columns will specifically avoid such foolishness as predicting the next “hot stock” or what the stock market will do next month. Roth’s goal is never to be confused with Jim Cramer.

Click Here
track your portfolio