Annuity Consultants Tout SPIAs as Best Income Option

Michelle Richter-Gordon and Mark Chamberlain are seeking adviser feedback on a digital guide touting the virtues of single premium immediate annuities.

Single premium immediate annuities made up roughly 4% of the record-breaking $92 billion market for annuities through the first quarter of 2023, according to insurance industry association LIMRA. That market percentage may increase in coming years if the heads of a new annuity consultancy have anything to say about.

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

Michelle Richter-Gordon and Mark Chamberlain, who launched Annuity Research & Consulting in May, are touting the virtues of SPIAs to retirement plan advisers, recordkeepers and participants as a way to lock in a paycheck to supplement social security. The annuities, which are purchased in a lump-sum payment—for instance, from a retirement plan rollout—in exchange for regular income payments, is ideal for people close to or in retirement, according to the consultants.

Unlike some annuity boosters in the retirement plan space, Richter-Gordon and Chamberlain do not sell or earn fees from annuity sales. Therein, according to the consultants, may lay the biggest challenge in getting the overall industry to buy into SPIAs.

There is little incentive for brokers to suggest the annuities, according to Richter-Gordon, since they can make larger commissions off of other fixed-income annuities and generate further fees after the lock-up “surrender period” is over. Meanwhile, fee-only advisers have little incentive to suggest SPIAs, as it means an investor’s assets will no longer count toward fees charged according to assets under management.

“They call it annuicide,” says Richter-Gordon, referring to advisers who make fees off of AUM. “If you purchase an immediate annuity, which is one where you make the conversion from assets to income promises, then the assets that you use to purchase the guaranteed income in that case are no longer AUM-billable.”

The consultants also see an issue with the retirement industry’s quest for “in-plan” annuity options within defined contribution plans. While it may be a decent option to replace a fixed-income investment, it presents a “massive litigation risk” because of the need to properly educate participants and the risk of some insurers “not being around for the long-term,” according to Richter-Gordon.

Overall, a SPIA is a “product that is sort of the stepchild of the industry, and it has been for years,” Chamberlain says. “We begin with the position that it’s in the best interest of the consumer for all prudent tools to be in their adviser’s toolbox.”

Lifetime Income Illustrations

Last week, Richter-Gordon and Chamberlain took a step to advance their SPIA effort with the launch of an “e-guide” aimed at answering questions about lifetime income illustrations that are now being released in recordkeepers’ second-quarter statements.

For retirement plans relying on safe harbor provisions, the lifetime illustration is required by the Department of Labor via Section 203 of the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019, which amended Section 105 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The requirement is to provide a participant with one forecast based on a single life annuity and one based on a qualified joint and survivor annuity.

The illustrations are intended to “help workers in defined contribution plans to better understand how their account balance translates into monthly income in retirement and therefore to better prepare for retirement,” according to the DOL.

Annuity Research & Consulting’s digital guide, Retirement Soon, is intended to help plan advisers and sponsors explain the default income illustration to participants, according to Richter-Gordon and Chamberlain. It specifically delves into SPIAs and how they can be used by participants when they are close to retirement to supplement Social Security distributions.

“We are announcing this offering now because we know that second quarter statements with DOL’s lifetime income illustration will again be sent to DC plan participants,” Richter-Gordon wrote in a statement with the launch. “Again it will be incumbent on plan advisers to explain what this number means, as well as what participants are supposed to do about it, before the participant goes to talk to some non-objective salesperson who either sells them some awful product to make a commission, or to earn AUM on the roll[over] that may or may not best serve those participants who may actually need guaranteed income beyond Social Security to cover their basic retirement expenses.”

SPIA Options

The duo’s website includes SPIA platforms from suggested providers for modelling out the annuities. There is also guidance on what questions to ask a licensed professional.

The site is currently free, but it will cost $30 to access after August 1. Richter-Gordon and Chamberlain said the free offer is in part to encourage feedback from the adviser community.

“A significant percentage of plans (and some advisers) say they have no interest in discussing an annuity as an option inside 401(k) plans, although we’re sure most of those in that camp do care about their employees’ happiness after they leave full-time employment,” Richter-Gordon says.

She further notes that employers and plan advisers “may want to offer them this educational resource for compassionate reasons; others may just want education to help people gain the confidence to retire; and a third group may not want a market collapse to prevent people from ever retiring because they can no longer afford to.”

Federal Agencies Propose Plugging Short-Term Health Plan Workaround

The Biden administration has proposed limiting short-term health plans it calls ‘junk insurance’ to four months instead of one year.


The Departments of Labor, Treasury and Health and Human Services issued a proposal Friday that would limit the amount of time employers can use short-term health coverage and indemnity plans to no more than four months, instead of the 12 months set by the administration of former President Donald Trump.

In a fact sheet issued Friday, the administration of President Joe Biden said the proposal would crack down on “junk insurance” it claims leaves consumers exposed to high medical fees when transitioning between plans.

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

New proposed rules would close loopholes that the previous administration took advantage of that allow companies to offer misleading insurance products that can discriminate based on pre-existing conditions and trick consumers into buying products that provide little or no coverage when they need it most,” the administration release stated. “These plans leave families surprised by thousands of dollars in medical expenses when they actually use health care services like a surgery.”

These short-term health plans are intended to be transitional and provide coverage for an employee moving from one longer-term plan to another, says Roberta Casper Watson, a partner in the Wagner Law Group and head of its health and welfare practice group. The plans are not required to follow every provision of the Affordable Care Act, including covering of pre-existing conditions.

Watson says the agencies believe employers are using “workarounds” to avoid complying with the Affordable Care Act and adds, “and they’re right.” This proposal has been expected for a long time, and if it passes, it will “make a dent” in this practice.

Indemnity plans pay a fixed amount of money for health expenses, regardless of what expenses were actually incurred. Watson explains that these plans often pay a predetermined sum per day of missed work, such as $100, and are mainly intended to compensate for income lost due to a health event.

If finalized, the Biden administration said the rule would “establish a clear disclosure for consumers of the limits of these plans.”

The rule will be open to a 60-day public comment period after its publication in the Federal Register, listed for July 10. If enacted, the rule will be enforced for insurance sold 75 days after the date of publication of the final rule, according to the proposal.

 

«