Bookmark and Share Email this page Email Print this page Print Pin It
Feed Feed

Mar 28, 201909:32 AMOpen Mic

Send us your blog for consideration!

You probably don’t need this popular annuity product

(page 1 of 2)

You may be hearing a lot about cryptocurrency or other “hot” investments, but one of the most popular investment products over the last 20 years has been something called an equity (or fixed) index annuity (EIA). The concept is simple: purchasing an EIA purportedly allows you to participate in market index gains and defer income tax, all while incurring no downside risk. Sound too good to be true?

Following the 2008–09 Great Recession and market downturn, many investors were looking for safer investments than the stock market and turned to EIAs. Sales of EIAs jumped 25 percent in the third quarter of 2018 over the prior year and were expected to exceed $70 billion in 2018, according to LIMRA Secure Retirement Institute. Over $560 billion of EIAs have been sold through the end of 2017.

What are EIAs? 

Fundamentally, an EIA is a tax-deferred fixed annuity that credits interest based on the percentage change in the value of a broad market index, typically the S&P 500 (which tracks the largest U.S. stocks), but which promises no losses if there is a decline in the market index.

How is the return calculated? 

This can be complex and difficult for many people to understand. The insurance company offering the EIA is not actually investing in the index. Most insurance companies are limited by state law to investing primarily in bonds and other more conservative assets. The insurance company allocates a small percentage of its invested assets — typically less than 10 percent — to purchasing options contracts on the market index. The insurance company is simply crediting you interest based on the return of the market index, with some minimal guarantee. Often, the guarantee is that the interest credit will not be negative, even if the market index posts a negative return. The interest is calculated using one of various formulas that determine how much of that percentage change in the index applies to the account value of the EIA. Insurers use various formulas such as participation rates, caps, spreads, or other techniques to limit the amount of interest that can be credited based on the change in value of the underlying market index.

Example 1. An EIA has a participation rate of 75 percent of the change in the value of the S&P 500 index but not more than 7 percent in a policy year. If the index returns 12 percent in a policy year, 7 percent is credited to the account since that is the cap (rather than 75 percent of 12 percent, which would be 8 percent).

Example 2. An EIA has a participation rate of 75 percent of the change in the value of the S&P 500 index but not more than 7 percent in a policy year. If the index loses 5 percent in a policy year, there are no losses in the account.

The calculation of how interest is credited in an EIA can be so confusing that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), a self-regulatory organization that regulates securities brokers and dealers, issued an investor alert because it was concerned that investors did not understand the complexity of the product. FINRA’s alert points out that an investor may earn far less than the return of the underlying index in a good market and that a purchaser of an EIA can lose money, as most contracts only guarantee return of 85 percent of the premiums paid plus 1–3 percent per year.

One provision of the policies that gets little attention is that the insurance companies typically have the flexibility to lower the participation rate, increase the spread, or lower the cap, which lowers the potential returns. In addition, it should be noted that the index return to which interest crediting is pegged excludes dividends, so your return from an indexed annuity will also exclude the total return benefits of dividend income. Unfortunately, many investors in an EIA believe they are getting full-market index returns with no downside risk.

The misguided appeal of downside protection

The big appeal of EIAs is the downside protection when markets are declining. This is the sales pitch for those selling EIAs, and it is the fear that motivates those buying them. As can be seen from the above examples, a purchaser of an EIA is giving up full-market return potential in exchange for downside market protection. How valuable (or costly in lost returns and flexibility) is this protection?

Stock markets have provided significant returns over time. Since 1926, the S&P 500 Index has been positive roughly 75 percent of calendar years; only about 25 percent of those years have produced a loss. Yes, stock markets mostly go up, and over time they can go up a lot! Since 1928, U.S. stocks have produced an average annual return of about 10 percent, while, for comparison, U.S. Treasury bonds have returned a little more than 5 percent. The long-term average masks the fact that much of those gains can come in years of significant gains.

If we look at the last 10 years ending Dec. 31, 2018, the S&P 500 average annual return was 13.12 percent (10.75 percent without dividends). During that time period, there were only two years when an EIA provided protection against the negative returns in the U.S. equity markets: 2018 (-6.24 percent) and 2015 (-0.73 percent). However, there were seven years where an EIA would have returned only a small portion of the positive U.S. equity market returns. Most of those index returns were significant (dividends are included in total return): 2009 (25.94 percent), 2010 (14.82 percent), 2012 (15.89 percent), 2013 (32.15 percent), 2014 (13.52 percent), 2016 (11.77 percent), and 2017 (21.61 percent). Over the last 10 years, an investor in an EIA gave up significant positive returns in seven years for two years of relatively small declines. That doesn’t seem like a logical tradeoff!

Yet sales of EIAs are still booming primarily because of investor fears resulting from the significant decline in the S&P 500 in 2008 of 36.55 percent, which was scary for many investors. What about those investors who want to protect themselves from such occasional larger market downturns?

(Continued)

Mar 28, 2019 03:14 pm
 Posted by  Anonymous

Dean is a little too biased. First of all, how can he possibly know what is a better approach for "MOST PEOPLE"? EIA's are certainly not appropriate for many people, but the vast majority of people who buy them are age 55 or above. And, those people, typically, are looking for a portion of their money to be conservative.
Dean failed to mention that from August 1, 2000 through September 1, 2002, the S&P 500 lost approximately 46% and took 7 years to get back to even. Then from October 1, 2007 through February 1, 2009, the S&P lost about 52% and took 5 1/2 years to get back to even.
His approach to the bonds and some U.S. and foreign stocks would seem to indicate having to allocate more money than what would be required in an EIA.

Add your comment:
Bookmark and Share Email this page Email Print this page Print Pin It
Feed Feed
Edit Module

About This Blog

Make your voice heard with IB's "Open Mic." Send your blog entry to Online Editor Jason Busch at jason@ibmadison.com for consideration.

Archives

Feed

Atom Feed Subscribe to the Open Mic Feed »

Recent Posts

Edit Module