Life Insurance Scams
Because of endless sales abuses,
the nation's securities cops have proposed tightening the rules
regulating annuity sales. But you can't expect the industry to
clean up their act without a fight. The insurance lobby will keep
this popular vehicle alive and breathing at all costs. The
commissions that insurance agents and securities brokers receive for
selling these vehicles are just to
wonderful to resist. The commission received on the sale of a
variable annuity is likened to the length of the surrender period.
In other words, if the surrender period is 7
years (the average) the commission paid is approximately 6
-7%. The commission ranges between 4 and 8%, typically.
Below Article by FEND,
Securities Expert, Mason Dinehart recently appeared on CNN-Money
on Feb. 9, 2006
This exclusive article was written
by FEND and may only be used with permission from InfoFAQ.
DON'T BE VICTIMIZED BY VARIABLE ANNUITIES
You
need to understand the moving parts of the variable annuity to
protect yourself from purchasing this popular product when its
unnecessary. A variable annuity is, in many cases, an
"uninsured" securities/insurance product that provides
investment options, much like
mutual funds, for long term investors, who want an extra way to save
for retirement. Further, these investment options
(sub-accounts) are packaged within a variable annuity on a
tax-deferred basis.
Variable annuities are strictly supplemental retirement investments.
You should never buy one unless you can answer "yes" to
these three questions"
1. Do you max out your 401-K or other workplace retirement
plan every year?
2. Do you contribute the maximum each year to an Individual
Retirement Account (IRA)?
3. If married, does your spouse take full advantage of items
one and two, above?
A
married couple in their 50's with his-and-her IRA's and 401-K's
could theoretically put up to $39,000 into their retirement accounts
this year without ever needing a variable annuity. And even
then, tax efficient mutual funds would be a far better place for our
financial over-achievers to accumulate their overflow of cash.
Variable annuities simply cost too much. Because annuities are
primarily insurance products, their fees typically dwarf those
charged by mutual funds. This is simple to understand when you
realize there are two players involved instead of one.....the
insurance company and the mutual fund company. According to Morningstar,
the average variable annuity passes along expenses of 2.2 percent of
the assets per year. This percentage probably won't mean much
to you unless you realize how such a large fee can drain the
momentum out or a portfolio. Lets
suppose, for example, that you invested $3,000 a year in a typical
variable annuity that generates a yearly 8 percent return before
expenses. At the end of a 25-year period, your annuity would
have grown to $168,012. But guess what happened if you had put
that money into tax-efficient index mutual funds, charging between a
low of 0.20 percent and a high of .50% in yearly expenses.
You'd have every right to look smug. The index fund at 0.20%
would be worth $230,172. That's a difference of $69,160!
Variable annuities can be taxing. Salesmen love to boast that
you won't pay taxes on the money that's growing inside an annuity,
because its "tax deferred". That's true, but its
only half the story. You'll owe ordinary income taxes on every
dollar of annuity withdrawals. This might not seem so bad
until you appreciate what would happen if you had invested the same
money in stocks or mutual funds in a plain old taxable account.
These withdrawals would be taxed at long-term capital gains rates,
which is only 15%. So lets say
you're in a 35% ordinary income tax bracket and you've got a
variable annuity. You'd pay $350 in taxes for every $1,000 you
pull out. In contrast, if you'd kept this money in a taxable
account, you'd pay no more than $150 for every $1.000 withdrawal.
Extending this a bit, an investor cashing out a $100,000 annuity
would pay $35,000 in taxes vs. $15,000 in a taxable account. So
it is likely that investors buying variable annuities will actually
end up paying more in taxes and having less after-tax wealth at
retirement. In fact, the tax deferral feature of annuities
actually harms investors
who hold mostly equities in their sub-accounts. If these
investors are not told that they are being tax-disadvantaged by this
tax deferral feature, then their brokers are making material
misrepresentations and omissions.
Further, the tax disadvantage won't die when you do. It can
hurt your heirs. That's because your beneficiaries will be
saddled with paying capital-gains tax on any profit your annuity
generated. If your original $50,000
annuity grew to $75,000, your heirs would owe tax on the $25,000
profit. In contrast, if you had placed your money in taxable
mutual funds, because of the step-up in basis, your kids would get
that $25,000 tax free.
The death benefit of the variable annuity is always the sounding cry
of those that believe wholeheartedly in this questionable product.
This death benefit becomes their crutch when all other arguments
fall. Here is one of the insurance industry's dirtiest
secrets: The variable annuity's death benefit is often
pointless or superfluous. It's the death benefit, however,
that promoters love to stress to conservative investors. With
a variable annuity, an insurer guarantees that heirs will receive at
least the contributions made into the annuity, less any withdrawals,
even if the account later drops in value. So, if you invest
$100,000 in an annuity and the account is worth only $80,000 when
you die, your heirs still receive $100,000. But remember that
this variable annuity is supposed to be a long term investment.
What is the likelihood of an annuity with diversified sub-accounts
that you start in 2006 being worth less, 10 - 20 years later?
And if you aren't willing to make that kind of lengthy time
commitment, don't even think about a variable annuity. There
is extensive scientific literature which values the guaranteed
minimum death benefit (GMDB) based on the expected returns and
variances of alternative sub-accounts and on actuarial estimates of
remaining life expectancy. This literature establishes the
value of the GMDB at only five or ten basis points per year. (the
higher value of 10 basis points occurs when the GMDB guarantees to
pay the net investment increased by a fixed percent per year with
the guarantee capped at twice the value of the net investment).
In the book, "The Titanic Option; Valuation of the Guaranteed
Minimum Death Benefit in Variable Annuities and Mutual Funds",
by Milevsky, Moshe and Steven Posner, as
published in the Journal of Risk
and Insurance, 2001, Vol. 68. No. 1, 91-126, Professor Milevsky
thoroughly demonstrates the cost solely associated with the
mortality guarantee (GMDB) is typically less than 15 basis points.
Therefore, while the GMDB is worth only 15 basis points or less, the
Mortality and Expense charged by the insurance company (M&E) is
usually greater than one hundred basis points and is invariant to
factors which affect mortality risk. The M&E charge is
equivalent to the 12b-1 fees of 1.00% assessed in Class
"B" mutual fund companies used to fund substantial upfront
commissions paid to brokers who sell the investments.
This dubious insurance death benefit is costing people big dollars.
Clearly, the insurance industry many times is charging 5 - 10 times
the economic value of the guarantee. A study by researchers at
York
University
in
Canada
and Goldman Sachs a
few years age suggested that the insurance fee that's embedded in
variable annuities is way out of proportion with what it's worth.
A typical life insurance charge is 1.25% (although it can run as
high as 1.60%) which would work out to a cost of $3,125.00 per year
for a $250,000 variable annuity. Using the study's
conclusions, a fair and normal death benefit charge for $250,000 of
term life insurance would be only $570.00 annually (20 years) for a
male age 50 and $398.00 per year for a female the same age and term.
At older ages, however, the
situation reverses itself as follows. A husband age
65 and a wife age 62, each with a $250,000 variable annuity would
have a combined death benefit cost of approximately $6,250 annually.
That same family, with the husband and wife each buying a 20 year
term policy (necessary to maintain coverage to near life
expectancy), would pay a combined cost of approximately $6,863
(standard rates from 4 companies, currently) for the same coverage.
The only condition here is that the individuals can both qualify for
standard rates. This is harder to do at the older ages and
true and realistic comparisons must be made. If standard, the
family would enjoy an annual saving of $613 with the variable
annuity. Many brokers sell variable annuities to
families in part based on a claimed death benefit. This
benefit could be miniscule or non-existent and so any such sales
claims which are not tempered with realistic assessments of the true
value of the death benefit are materially misleading. And
always remember, this death benefit disappears i.e
is eliminated upon annuitization.
This feature should always be disclosed.
But you can bail out. If you're trapped in a poorly performing
variable annuity, look for the escape hatch. Its
possible to transfer your money directly to another annuity company
without triggering taxes through a vehicle called a 1035 tax-free
exchange. You may, however, have to pay surrender charges.
But beware of brokers and insurance agents eager to switch your cash
from one annuity to another. Investors get transferred from
one mediocre variable annuity to another many times because brokers
receive those healthy commissions every time they persuade someone
to switch.
Finally, run, that's right run, if anybody approaches you and offers
a variable annuity in one of the following manners:
1. Put a variable annuity in your IRA. Remember, your
IRA is already tax sheltered. The variable annuity's tax
advantages are wasted within an IRA. A mutual fund is much
more liquid and cost effective without any of the disadvantages
stated above. If you need life insurance, pure term insurance
may be a much cheaper bet and can easily be paid for out of the cost
savings of a mutual fund over the variable annuity, often at least
1.20%, annually (V/A - 2.20% v. M/F - 1.00%).
2. Take out a mortgage or equity loan on your residence to buy
a variable annuity. Plenty of gullible people have done just
that - which is one reason regulators are once again wagging their
fingers at the dishonest salespeople who insist on peddling variable
annuities to the unsuspecting.
3. You are solicited with a variable annuity that contains a
bonus for you to come aboard and replace now, often to offset the
surrender charge of an existing annuity. Don't be fooled!
That bonus will cost you in terms of higher annual costs and/or a
lengthened surrender period. And of course, that increases the
commissions paid to the broker who sells it to you.
4. You are approached by the aggressive salesperson that
offers a "new" kind of variable annuity that contains a
stepped-up death benefit or a guaranteed income benefit. That
stepped-up death benefit is an additional rider and usually costs
more than it's worth for a long term investment vehicle. In
the older contracts, the guaranteed income benefit is usually only
available if you annuitize the insurance
contract, i.e. surrender it to the insurance company in exchange for
a stream of lifetime income payments. Historically, about
2% of variable annuities are annuitized.
Losing control of your money is never a good idea and if
that's the only way you can get a guaranteed income benefit, that's
a bad idea! This is because by the time you need those income
payments, you won't live long enough to use that portion of income
that was guaranteed. Rather, buy a tax-efficient mutual mutual
fund and take regular systematic withdrawals, while you keep the
asset under your own "control" at all times.
5. Someone approaches you on the basis that the variable
annuity is a "no load" product. While it is true
that the insurance company
"advances" the commission to the salesperson soliciting
you, you pay dearly for that feature. If you cash in early,
the insurance company is reimbursed by charging you a lengthy
surrender charge of up to 7%. It declines each year, reducing
their exposure because of the time value of money. If you hold
and get out later, the insurance company is reimbursed for their
commission advance by charging you an extra 1.25% (average) each
year in expenses. Either way, you can be sure that they get it
back and you face illiquidity and are
charged exorbitantly for the "privilege" of owning
this product, structured much like a tax-deferred Class
"B" mutual fund in disguise. (See the chart below
for a true comparison).
6. Your under 59 1/2 and retire early or get laid off by your
employer, and you transfer your 401-K into a Rollover IRA. The
salesperson tells you all you have to do is buy a variable annuity
and you can take systematic regular withdrawals from your IRA on a
monthly basis without federal or state early withdrawal penalties.
You see, the Internal Revenue Code generally provides that early
withdrawals (if they are "substantially equal periodic
payments") from an IRA prior to age 59 1/2 will avoid a 10% tax
penalty (and the state penalty) if the early withdrawals are
calculated under one of three formulas allowed by the Internal
Revenue Service IRC
#72 (t) (2)(A)(iv): Notice 89-25, 1989-1
C.B. 662, Q&A 12.
Most
salespeople refer to this procedure as 72-T! Note the
difference between a tax penalty and tax on withdrawals. While
the penalties are eliminated, ordinary income tax on the IRA
withdrawals are not. One of these three methods is known as
the "annuitization method,"
which allows for computing the withdrawals by dividing the account
balance by an annuity factor and using an interest rate "that
does not exceed a reasonable interest rate on the date payments
commence." Notice
89-25, Q&A 12.
This method allows for the largest of the three methods
of withdrawal and essentially the method will calculate
substantially equal payments over the participant's life expectancy,
taking into account a rate of return not to exceed a reasonable
interest rate. The IRC requires that substantially equal
payments must continue for a period of at least 5 years or until the
participant attains the age of 59 1/2, whichever is longer. IRC
72 (t)(4). However, this
warning appears in Tax Management Portfolios U.S. Income Series
Compensation Planning series 355-5th; IRA's, Sep's
and Simple's at III.D.2.b.3. "The use of the fixed amortization
or fixed annuitization methods described
above results in a fixed amount that must be distributed and may
result in premature depletion of the taxpayer's account due to a
decline in the market value of assets in the account."
The
big question is this! Did you need a variable annuity to
accomplish these withdrawals without tax penalty! Not
at all. You already had an IRA so a simple mutual fund
would work perfectly at substantially less cost. Nothing in
the tax code even mentions a variable annuity as a means of
accomplishing this! Only the salesperson does. Further,
to make it worse, many salespeople will stretch the limit of the
"reasonable" withdrawal by making it so high that it could
put your entire IRA into jeopardy. These practices represent
both a material omission as well as a material misrepresentation
which to my mind, become fraudulent acts in the securities industry.
Finally, after all is said and done, one of the the
only real "guarantees" the variable annuity offers you, is
one you have to die to get. One would be smart to usually
avoid this unfortunate "uninsured" product at all costs.
However, if you and your spouse have maxed
out on your 401-K's and fully contributed to both IRA's and still
need some tax deferral, explore variable annuities offered directly
by firms such as Charles Schwab (M&E charge - .75 basis points
or .75% annually), T. Rowe Price (M&E charge - .55 basis points
or .55% annually), Vanguard and now Fidelity (M&E charge - 25
basis points or .25% annually) and TIAA-CREF (M&E charge - 7
basis points annually) These companies try to keep the costs
down to a more affordable level and will allow you to move your
sub-accounts between fund families without cost, unlike traditional
mutual funds. Further, if you can't get insurance any
other way due to health problems, and have maxed
out as described above, then a low cost variable annuity may be
appropriate. Be sure the annuity offers nursing home and
terminal illness riders at low cost as well. Try to select the
newer type variable annuity that includes living
benefits* like guaranteed accumulation benefits and
guaranteed withdrawal benefits (from 14.2
to 20 years), without
having to annuitize and losing control
of your annuity. Guaranteed accumulation benefits
promise that at a certain future point, the accumulation value will
equal the original purchase price, even in a down market. Of
course, these benefits would be stepped up in an up market and
locked in automatically to increase the original purchase price.
Guaranteed withdrawal benefits, often in the 6% to 7% range, promise
a stated percentage level of withdrawals for a specific number of
years, irrespective of market conditions. The cost for such
lifetime income riders ranges from 0.35% to .75%. That brings
the total cost of newer variable annuities into the 2.35% to 2.70%
range, according to Morningstar.
Additionally, search for variable annuities that offer no longer
than a three year surrender period, irrespective of deposit
additions during that 3 year period. Also remember that a
variable annuity should have less turnover
than a traditional mutual fund and tends to be fully invested in its
sub-accounts, unlike a mutual fund that typically keeps 10 to 15% in
cash to meet redemption requests. Then, unlike a group of
diversified mutual funds where there would be a transfer charge for
going from one family to another, trading into sub-accounts across
fund families within a variable annuity does not incur any fees.
Further, look for some of the newer variable annuities that use
Exchange Traded Funds (ETF's) for the
sub-accounts instead of mutual funds to dramatically lower
management costs. Finally, always consider using a laddering
strategy for annuity sales over $100,000. By combining
different insurance companies and different types of annuities i.e.
fixed and equity index (see article that follows) (principal is
guaranteed in these products), this strategy can provide clients
with the flexibility of both income distribution and asset
accumulation (be sure the contract can be annuitized,
free of surrender charges, after one year).
However, even with low cost variable annuities, one must compare the
possibility of investment losses to a low cost mutual fund, short of
a significant need for life insurance. The fact is,
the possibility of investment loss endows the holder of the mutual
fund with a real
tax option to harvest those losses. The strategic
investor can re-establish a similar position at a lower tax-basis,
and deduct any current losses against comparable gains. De
facto, this creates a tax refund, which supplements the
return from the mutual fund. Indeed the recent market decline
during the 2000-2001 period has generated
much tax-loss selling activity. This type of strategy cannot
be easily employed within a variable annuity. Since, despite
the favorable ordinary income treatment on losses, which can be
netted against ordinary interest gains, lapsing or selling, the
variable annuity will most likely induce surrender charges on the
order of 4-7%. How does the low cost mutual fund (with the
real tax option) compare to the low cost variable annuity?
It can take as long as 35 years for the investment in the variable
annuity to outperform the investment in the mutual fund when the
real tax option is
utilized. If we compare the two after taxes, the
investment horizon needed for the mean of after-tax wealth from the
variable annuity to be greater than the mutual fund with the real
tax option to be at least 14 years. Even with low-cost
variable annuities, with insurance expenses lower than 10 basis
points, it still takes 10 years for that variable annuity to outpace
the results of a low cost mutual fund. What if we compare the
two on a risk-adjusted basis? With the average cost variable
annuity with 125 basis points of insurance expenses, the
risk-adjusted break-even horizon can be as high as 30 years (the
higher the standard deviation of the gross return, the longer the
horizon needed for the variable annuity to outperform the mutual
fund).
Further, a new Treasury Department rule, effective on January 1,
2006, will impact calculations of required minimum distributions (RMD's)
for IRA's and 403b's that are invested in variable annuity
contracts. In order to determine an account holder's RMD
amount, the "entire interest" under the contract will have
to be used in the new calculation. This new regulation defines
the entire interest under the contract as the 12/31 account value of
the prior calendar year plus the actuarial value of any additional
benefits provided under the contract. This new calculation
mainly impacts contracts issued with a rider benefit such as the
Guaranteed Minimum Death Benefit (GMDB) or Guaranteed Living Benefit
(GLB). The actuarial present value of these additional
benefits will be included to determine RMD's
beginning in 2006. While this new rule stresses the importance
of these additional rider benefits, it would also seem to indicate
that the RMD would have to be based on the death benefit or stepped
up basis rather than the surrender value of the contract. The
same would be true for the living benefit. This could be a
major problem for those with big losses in their existing variable
annuity.
Finally, the NASD has proposed long overdue rule changes for the
$1.3 trillion variable annuity industry and brokers and advisers
that market the product. The changes proposed include specific
requirements for sales practices including new suitability,
disclosure and supervision provisions along with enhanced sales
force training. The NASD cited the 80 variable annuity sales
practice disciplinary actions over the last two years as the impetus
for this increased investor protection warranted. Some of
the changes that NASAA has proposed should definitely be encompassed
within the new rule changes:
1. A separate risk disclosure document must be provided to the
investor prior to any sale and in
addition to the prospectus (too often mailed to the
client after the sale), This is
because a potential investor is significantly more likely to read a
brief and east-to-read disclosure document containing salient points
regarding the mechanics of the instrument. As a result, such a
document is an important element in the prevention of sales practice
and suitability violations.
2. A comparison document must be made available indicating at
least two low cost alternatives to the variable annuity. This
comparison would form the basis of review of the sale or exchange by
the supervisor in the most tangible means. Unless such
comparisons are made available, investors cannot make reasonable and
informed decisions regarding the purchase or exchange of the
variable annuity product.
3. Principal review should include a periodic review of the
associated person's production report for variable annuity purchases
and exchanges. This would permit the registered principal to
detect possible patterns of sales practice violations and other
potential abuses that reviews on a sale-by-sale basis may not
reveal. Members should always review both recommended and
non-recommended variable annuity transactions.
4. Hypothetical Illustrations used must not be misleading.
Using mutual fund illustrations using the net asset value (NAV) of
the parallel retail mutual fund should not be used instead of the
accumulated unit value (AUV) of the variable annuity sub-account in
illustrating hypothetical performance. The higher expenses inherent
within the variable annuity would be misrepresented by using the
lower cost mutual fund. Firm training policies and programs
should ensure that hypothetical illustrations fully and fairly
disclose all of the material features of variable annuities and
sub-accounts.
* GMIB
- A guaranteed minimum income benefit guarantees that
when a contract is annuitized (converted
into retirement income payments), the income payments will be based
on the greater of the actual contract value or a minimum payout
base. This base typically is equal to the amount invested
credited with a competitive rate of interest (5% is common).
These were available in 45.3% of contracts in 2005, down from 52.6%
in 2003
GMAB - A
guaranteed minimum accumulation benefit guarantees that the variable
annuity contract value will be a least equal to a certain minimum
amount (typically, the premium amount) after a specified number of
years, regardless of account actual performance. These were
available in 36.8% of contracts in 2005, up from 20.1% in 2003.
GMWB
- A
guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit guarantees that a fixed
percentage (generally 5% to 7%) of the annuity premiums can be
withdrawn annually for a specified period of time until the entire
amount of paid premiums has been withdrawn, regardless of market
performance. This feature typically does not
require policy annuitization.
A GMWB-for-life guarantees an income payment for life at a reduced
percentage. These were available in 79.8% of V/A contracts in
2005, up from 44.4% in 2003.
86.2% of all contracts had at least one living benefit in 2005, up
from 74.6% in 2003
Source:
VARDS Products, Morningstar, National
Association for Variable Annuities.
- Article by Fend
Securities Expert Witness exclusive with InfoFAQ.

© 2006 InfoFAQ -
If you intend to copy from this FAQ you must provide a link back to InfoFAQ.
Visit our Shopping
Guides and Credit Card Fraud
sections for useful information.
|