Similar to studies
that find women and men differ when it comes to investing styles, research from
LIMRA Secure Retirement Institute reveals that two-thirds of women (67%) age 50
and older say they split financial decisions with their spouses, while fewer
than half of men (46%) admit to sharing decisions.
In households with more than $1 million in net worth, only
30% of women are the primary financial decisionmakers. The study also found
that when women are the primary decisionmakers, they are as likely or more
likely to have completed many retirement-planning activities, compared with
men.
For both women and men who are primary decision makers, one-quarter
have a formal retirement income plan. Women are more likely to have determined
what their income will be, how long their assets will last and developed a
specific plan for generating retirement income from their savings.
An important takeaway: LIMRA finds that advisers who help
their clients with retirement income planning have greater client satisfaction
and loyalty. Nearly half of clients (42%) with a plan trust their advisers and
the advice they provide—three times more than those clients without a plan.
Yet many couples disagree about their desired lifestyles in
retirement. According to an Allianz Life Insurance study, 70% of women switch advisers
following the death of their spouse, which is echoed in other studies. Therefore, it is important to involve both
spouses in the financial decisions, which will foster a stronger relationship
with both spouses.
Other findings from LIMRA:
76% of women have determined Social Security benefits, vs.
73% of men;
60% of men have calculated the amount of assets and
investments available to spend, vs. 44% of women; and
41% of women have developed a specific strategy for
generating income from savings, vs. 34% of men.
A link to LIMRA’s graphic on planning activities
completed by men and women can be accessed on their website.
By using this site you agree to our network wide Privacy Policy.
Each January the Securities and Exchange Commission signals
its enforcement priorities for the coming 12 months—this year highlighting the
importance of adviser transparency, cybersecurity and liquidity issues, among
other familiar topics.
The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Office of
Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) has outlined its 2016 priorities.
OCIE describes itself as the “eyes and ears” of the SEC in
its formal annual priorities update. To meet this job the regulator’s
enforcement arm says it will be focusing on the same three broad thematic areas
during 2016, with some tweaks. These include 1) examining matters of importance
to retail investors, including investors saving for retirement; 2) assessing
issues related to systemic market-wide risks; and 3) using its “evolving
ability to analyze data” to identify and examine registrants that may be
engaged in illegal activity.
According to OCIE, protecting retail investors and
retirement savers remains a priority in 2016, “and it will likely continue to
be a focus for the foreseeable future.” A big part of this focus is being
driven by investors having to make more and more of their own decisions about
investing and saving for retirement at the same time that the investment marketplace
is getting more complex, OCIE says—an effect driven in large part by defined
contribution (DC) plans’ ascendance over traditional pensions.
In another important note for the retirement planning
market, OCIE says it will continue its ReTIRE initiative, launched in June 2015 and described as “a
multi-year examination initiative focusing on SEC-registered investment
advisers and broker/dealers and the services they offer to investors with
retirement accounts.”
“We will continue this initiative,” OCIE says, “which
includes examining the reasonable basis for recommendations made to investors,
conflicts of interest, supervision and compliance controls, and marketing and
disclosure practices.”
Also important for retirement plan advisers to note, OCIE
plans to “continue to review regulated entities’ supervision of registered
representatives and investment adviser representatives in branch offices of
SEC-registered investment advisers and broker/dealers, including using data
analytics to identify registered representatives in branches that appear to be
engaged in potentially inappropriate trading.”
NEXT: Fee selection and reverse churning
OCIE says one area of
focus held over from 2015 is fee selection and reverse churning.
“We will
continue to examine investment advisers and dually-registered investment
adviser/broker-dealers that offer retail investors a variety of fee
arrangements (e.g., asset-based fees, hourly fees, wrap fees, commissions),”
OCIE says. “We will focus on recommendations of account types and whether the
recommendations are in the best interest of the retail investor at the
inception of the arrangement and thereafter, including fees charged, services
provided, and disclosures made about such arrangements.”
Regarding the public plans space, OCIE is still interested
in “advisers to municipalities and other government entities, focusing on
pay-to-play and certain other key risk areas related to advisers to public
pensions, including identification of undisclosed gifts and entertainment.”
Given that variable annuities have become a part of the
retirement and investment plans of many Americans, OCIE will focus on these
too. “We will assess the suitability of sales of variable annuities to
investors (e.g., exchange recommendations and product classes), as well as the
adequacy of disclosure and the supervision of such sales,” OCIE warns.
OCIE says its mission includes not only protecting investors
and facilitating capital formation, “but also maintaining fair, orderly, and
efficient markets.” Therefore in 2016 it will continue its initiative to
examine broker/dealers’ and investment advisers’ cybersecurity compliance and controls. “In 2016, we will advance
these efforts, which include testing and assessments of firms’ implementation
of procedures and controls.”
Given the SEC’s recent announcement of proposed liquidity risk control rules, it should be no surprise another
examination priority will be to “examine advisers to mutual funds, ETFs, and
private funds that have exposure to potentially illiquid fixed-income
securities. We will also examine registered broker/dealers that have become new
or expanding liquidity providers in the marketplace. These examinations will
include a review of various controls in these firms’ expanded business areas,
such as controls over market risk management, valuation, liquidity management,
trading activity, and regulatory capital.”
NEXT: Using data to
find wrongdoing
OCIE reminds industry practitioners that, in all of its
examination initiatives, “including those highlighted in this section, we
utilize data and intelligence from our own examinations, as well as from
regulatory filings, to identify registrants that appear to have elevated risk
profiles.”
For example, the OCIE in 2016 will “continue to use our
analytic capabilities to identify individuals with a track record of misconduct
and examine the firms that employ them.”
“We will continue to examine the operations of broker/dealers
and transfer agents for activities that indicate they may be engaged in, or
aiding and abetting, pump-and-dump schemes or market manipulation,” OCIE notes.
“We will also assess whether broker/dealers are complying with their
obligations under the federal securities laws when publishing quotes for or
trading securities in the over-the-counter markets.”
OCIE concludes its exam priorities by noting it will
additionally be focused on finding evidence of excessive trading and/or inappropriate
product promotion.
“We will continue to analyze data, including data obtained
from clearing brokers, to identify and examine firms and their registered
representatives that appear to be engaged in excessive or otherwise potentially
inappropriate trading,” OCIE says. “We will focus on detecting the promotion of
new, complex, and high risk products and related sales practice issues to
identify potential suitability issues and potential breaches of fiduciary
obligations.”