Trump Could Cost Future Retirees Billions
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Last year, the Trump administration abandoned a regulation designed to protect U.S. savers from conflicted investment advice. Known as the fiduciary rule, it would have required more brokers and insurance agents to disclose when they're getting paid to steer people into certain investments. It also would have banned the sale of certain retirement products when they aren't in savers' “best interest.”
So did the rule's demise benefit Americans by empowering them to “make their own financial decisions,” as Trump indicated he wanted to do? The evidence suggests not. Sales of potentially questionable investment products have soared, and retirees stand to end up billions of dollars poorer.
One prime example: fixed-indexed annuities. Often aggressively marketed and loaded with fine print, they promise participation in the stock market's upside with no risk of loss. Although some can be useful for tax and insurance planning, when mis-sold they can amount to an unduly complex version of a strategy that investors can replicate at much lower cost. Among their attractions for insurance agents: high commissions and bonuses that have included beach vacations and cruises.
Insurance agents' behavior suggests some of them doubt that these products always serve clients' best interest. Sales of fixed-indexed annuities plunged after the Labor Department issued its final version of the fiduciary rule in April 2016. Predictably, sales recovered quickly after June 2018, when the Trump administration allowed a court to vacate the rule with no pushback from the Labor or Justice departments. In the last three months of 2018, sales amounted to $19.5 billion, according to the Life Insurance Marketing and Research Association. That's up 40 percent from a year earlier.
In New York state, which has unilaterally adopted aspects of the fiduciary rule, far fewer insurers sell such products.
How much do savers stand to lose? Consider one product that a major insurance company marketed to me: a 10-year annuity linked to the S&P 500 Index. Based on this annuity's formula and the price at which it was offered, a client would have foregone on average an estimated $54,000 in profit per $100,000 invested over any 10-year period going back to 1989. That's compared with a simple combination of U.S. Treasury bills and S&P 500 index funds that offers the same downside protection as the annuity with less credit risk and more liquidity.
The marketing materials an agent sent me seemed to play on fear, showing a potentially faulty comparison of the annuity's returns to the loss a pure stock position would have suffered during the 2008-09 crash. And the materials did not highlight crucial information such as hefty withdrawal fees and the insurance company's right to reduce payouts.
Such products are just the tip of the iceberg. Every year insurers come out with an array of new annuities employing “black box” strategies that are all but impossible for outsiders to understand. One could be forgiven for suspecting that some such strategies have been tweaked to make it difficult for a lay person to accurately assess their return potential.
No current efforts to improve standards — including one by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners –- come close to the protections that the fiduciary rule would have provided. A strong form of the rule should be revived and applied to all investment accounts, not just retirement accounts. To be clear, there are upstanding insurers and agents who sell indexed annuities only when appropriate. Proper regulation wouldn't crimp those sales, but it would prevent over-prescription of such products to people whom they can harm.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Whitehouse at mwhitehouse1@bloomberg.net
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Ethan Schwartz has worked as an investment manager and financial services executive for 21 years. He was a special assistant to the deputy secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton administration.
©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
-
Talking Points This Week: Tech Nerves, FII Buying, And A Faraway Banking Shock
The global markets are not shining this Diwali. The exception in the large markets is, India.
-
Midterm Rally Lasted A Day. The Hard Reality Of A Divided US May Last Two Years | Opinion
Between a contested AI boom, a debt ceiling that arrives in 2027 and a president with every incentive to act alone, the next two years may prove more volatile than the first day's rally suggests.
-
Blue Wave Will Derail the AI Trade but Won't Dismantle the AI Era | Unhedged Position
The Democrats' sweep of the US Congress will see politics collide with economic forces both over the long and short term.
-
It's Time To Take The GST Council's Bet On Trust Global
Payment records can prove India's services exports, and clear, proportionate rules can bring foreign digital sellers into the tax net.
-
Opinion | India at 38: From Innovation Overperformer to Innovation Powerhouse
India now has 453 VC-backed deep science startups, 18 of them late-stage, after 117 percent growth since 2020. Laurus Labs, at USD 9.3 billion, is the most valuable deep science company in any middle-income economy outside China.
-
Navigating Energy Crossroads: S Jaishankar's Call For Diversified Supply Chains At G20 Ministerial Meeting
As geopolitical fault lines continue to test maritime trade routes and commodity flows, Jaishankar's message remains pertinent: true economic resilience requires open markets, protected transit lines, and a genuine commitment to multilateral cooperation rather than coercion.
-
Indians Are Travelling, But Not Every Journey Is A Holiday | The Week In Whys
Pilgrims, patients and working women are the real travellers, and the system hasn't quite caught up with them.
-
Getting To Work Costs Women More | The Reason Why
It is not just about women paying more than men. It is about women paying much more in cities than in villages.
-
AI Bias In Investing Cannot Be Eliminated, But It Can Be Governed
Framing is a particularly important example as identical financial information presented in terms of gains rather than losses can lead an LLM to reach a different assessment.