How to Tear Down Barriers to In-Plan Annuities

Certain policy changes and the right support for plan sponsors could make it easier for plans and participants to embrace lifetime income solutions.

According to a recent study by the Plan Sponsor Council of America (PSCA), only 5% of plans offer guaranteed-retirement-income products in-plan. Sponsors cite several reasons for why they are cautious about adding these products to their plans, ranging from fiduciary risk to participant-communication challenges. 

Derek Dorn, head of public policy at TIAA, argues that certain policy changes could make it easier for plan sponsors and their participants to embrace lifetime-income products such as annuities. In fact, he tells PLANSPONSOR, a safe harbor provision for offering the options already exists; however, it can use some polishing.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has provided some guidance on selecting in-plan options, but Thea new white paper by TIAA notes that many sponsors are particularly confused about how to evaluate the financial strength of an insurance provider. Such entities are regulated differently across state lines, and “there is no centralized marketplace for insurance products that provides standardized comparative information,” the white paper states. However, TIAA also notes that the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act of 2016 (RESA) can help here.

This legislation makes readily available “standardized information, generated through the process of state examination and licensing, about the financial strength of an insurer.” TIAA says RESA can amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to allow fiduciaries to qualify for the safe harbor by indicating that the insurer has operated under a valid certificate of authority from its home state for the current and preceding seven years, has filed audited financial statements and maintains the reserves required by state law; will undergo a financial examination at least every five years in its home state; and will notify the fiduciary of any change in circumstances.

But in the event that a plan sponsor needs to replace or remove an annuity option, the portability process can be improved as well. TIAA notes that if such an action can be treated as a distributable event, “any participant invested in the product would be eligible to convert the annuity contract to an individual certificate or roll over the entire amount invested in the contract to an IRA [individual retirement account] that includes the insurer’s equivalent (or near-equivalent) lifetime-income product. An approach along these lines is reflected in RESA.”

TIAA argues that sponsors could also find fiduciary protection if in-plan annuities could be more easily incorporated into qualified default investment alternatives (QDIA).

But even if lifetime income products become more widely adopted by defined contribution (DC) plans, participants would still need to find the benefit of investing in these products.

NEXT: Helping participants embrace lifetime income

When it comes to annuities, participants seem to be facing an education gap. According to a recent TIAA survey, the majority of participants are willing to invest a portion of their savings in a product that would guarantee a monthly payment such as an annuity. However, only one-third were familiar with annuities.

Thus, participants can benefit from solid, targeted, simple education about lifetime income products and different kinds of annuities.

“Annuities can differ in their investment structure,” says Dorn. “Some annuities have different features and guarantees.”

Education on these products can be greatly improved, but so can education on what they are not. Dorn says that, unlike retail annuities, in-plan annuities are typically sold on a group basis and not on commission. He says this often translates to lower fees. Employees can also contribute to in-plan annuities over time to secure better rates of return.

TIAA notes that participants can also learn more about annuities if presented with an annual statement indicating a lifetime income projection, which informs them of how their current investments can translate into monthly payments. Such a requirement is described in the Lifetime Income Disclosure Act, which has been introduced into the House and Senate.

But, like any investment or insurance product, annuities are not for everyone.

“There is no one-size-fits-all solution,” Dorn says. “Whether an annuity makes sense—and the kind of annuity that makes sense—is going to depend on an individual’s financial profile. What we think is the benefit of saving in an annuity contract during [someone’s] working years is that, when [he] reaches retirement, [he] can determine whether to take a stream of income. [People] can look at their holistic picture, talk to an adviser and decide whether they should take a portion of it, all of it or none of it, and instead take a guaranteed paycheck for life.”

TIAA’s “Closing the Guarantee Gap: How policymakers can restore the role of lifetime income in workplace retirement plans” white paper can be found at tiaa.org.

Possible Outcomes of the Rocky Legislative Session

ERISA attorneys and practice leaders give their take on the intense political grappling that has become the norm in Washington under a Republican majority.

One phrase that comes up time and again during conversations with plan sponsors, advisers and providers is “lasting regulatory and legislative uncertainty,” and there seems to be little sense that the theme will soon recede.

On a recent webcast hosted by Mercer, four of the firm’s on-staff attorneys outlined the huge amount of uncertainty facing sponsors and advisers. They cited diverse sources such as the Department of Labor (DOL)’s pending fiduciary rule reforms, the ongoing discussion about repealing and replacing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the potential for wholesale tax reform and the reversal of overtime compensation rules—to name just a few of the intersecting forces shaping the conversation in Washington.  

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

The list of regulatory and legislative challenges affecting employers and their retirement plan consultants can seem endless, and when linked to the increasingly active Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plaintiffs’ bar, the Mercer attorneys agreed, it can seem impossible to reach “a point of comfortability.” One simply has to consider the “repeal and replace” effort that has played out regarding the ACA. Republicans, in the majority on Capitol Hill, have attempted twice now to quickly push through unilateral approaches to health care reform, and while both efforts failed outright, the Mercer attorneys anticipate that the “repeal and replace issue will continue to simmer on the back burner and could boil over again at any time.”

Whatever happens on health care—even if nothing at all—the Mercer attorneys felt comfortable wagering that the future for health savings accounts (HSAs) “is already bright and getting brighter.” There is a recognition that these accounts can help change the health care system to be more cost efficient and more consumer-directed, they argued.

The Mercer attorneys went on to observe that another complicating factor here is that some federal courts have recently ruled that federal agencies are providing too little reasoning and justification for their promulgation of new rules and regulations. Perhaps most notably, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently ruled in favor of the AARP’s challenge to two regulations promulgated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) related to incentives and employer-sponsored wellness programs.

Crucially, the court determined that: “It is far from clear that it would be possible to restore the status quo ante if the rules were vacated; rather, it may well end up punishing those firms—and employees—who acted in reliance on the rules.” In doing so, the court has not vacated the rules but instead “remanded” them to the EEOC for reform and/or elucidation. It is hard to predict what will happen here, the attorneys agreed, or with any of the other issues mentioned.

NEXT: Confluence of challenges 

Asked to give her own overview of this broad and complicated set of issues, Shelby George, senior vice president of adviser services at Manning and Napier, concurred that there is “a real confluence of issues impacting advisers and their clients—the fate of the fiduciary rule, fee and share class controversy, tax reform, potential repeal or replacement of the Affordable Care Act. All of this is leading to what seems like a permanent state of uncertainty in the field.”

George explained the “other complicating factor in all of this” is that so much of the regulatory change is being driven “from different corners, by different interests.”

“So you have the Department of Labor with its requirements, you have the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] and the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission], and then you have the plaintiffs’ bar and the private providers, each with its own point of view,” George said. “It is not a simple matter, ensuring compliance, but common sense can take you a long way.”

According to George and the team of Mercer attorneys, at the end of the day it is the “big picture framing” of these discussions that will be most helpful to employers as they try to best serve their participants. “By extension, advisers also have to stay focused on the overall direction and momentum of their marketplace,” she said.  

“Against this background, we have got to do a better job as an industry of fighting the incorrect assumptions of plan sponsors—for example, that, as a blanket statement, passive investments will protect you from fiduciary violations,” George continued. “It is simply not true, and the real picture is a lot more subtle and complicated than that. The same goes for many of these regulatory, legislative and judicial issues.”

Concluding on a high note, George also agreed that the future for health savings accounts is bright.

“The health care conversation remains a very important topic for us; it has become evergreen,” George said. “We all have seen the figure that the expected expenditures on health care will eat up the majority of people’s Social Security income over the course of their retirement. For people in the future, it is expected they will need double their projected Social Security benefit to cover health care costs.”

To do their job properly, advisers must be cognizant of the fact that many people are now having to utilize high-deductible health plans.

“This has real implications for the retirement savings picture because, oftentimes, we see folks strapped with large medical out-of-pocket expenses go straight to their 401(k),” George said. “We know that encouraging consumers to open and regularly fund HSA accounts can be an important deterrent in helping people avoid taking out heavily taxed early withdrawals to meet their deductible.” 

«