Components of Annuity Pricing

The costs of annuities depends on the type and the amount of flexibility.

The first thing that retirement plan sponsors need to know about the prices of annuities they might offer in their plans is that in-plan annuities should be less expensive than out-of-plan annuities available on the retail market because there are far fewer salespeople servicing them, says Dan Keady, chief financial planning strategist at TIAA.

Plan sponsors looking to offer an in-plan annuity should “look for low cost annuities—but also for a high-quality firm with financial strength,” Keady says.

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

Doug McIntosh, vice president of investments at Prudential Retirement, agrees: “The SECURE Act points out that the provisions for a sponsor examining the financial capability of a guarantor require them to first focus on their financial strength. There is no requirement for plan sponsors to find the lowest payer possible.”

When it comes to pricing an annuity, it depends on the type of annuity being purchased—variable or fixed, immediate or deferred, and what types of guarantees it offers, says Ephie Coumanakos, managing partner of Concord Financial Group. Then, “as a whole, their price is affected by interest rates and the ability to earn a return on the portfolio by investing in fixed instruments like bonds,” she adds.

Essentially, there are four basic components to the price of an annuity, says Sri Reddy, senior vice president of retirement and income solutions at Principal. “There is the cost of distribution, which is baked into the pricing,” Reddy says. “Through a plan sponsor, that is close to zero.”

“The second is the administration and service charges, or the operational charges. The third is tied to the investments. In a fixed product the insurance company needs to earn a return above the guaranteed rate, so that is the spread. In a variable product, the fees are for the underlying investments,” he explains.

“The fourth is the capital charge the insurer will charge due to their risk of capital cost.” Reddy explains, “You might live too long or the market may not perform as well as projected.”

The Insured Retirement Income Council website, iricouncil.org, is a good resource for plan sponsors, McIntosh says. But in general, “most guaranteed vehicles price in around 100 basis points, over and above the cost of the underlying funds in a variable product,” McIntosh says. “That number can go up or down.”

For example, Prudential had one client that wanted a fee lower than 100 basis points. “We were able to pull back on the equity exposure and increase the efficiency of the hedging we do in an index, so we were able to reduce the fees to 80 basis points, but to do that, it needs to be a large plan sponsor.”

As another example, “What if a plan sponsor said, ‘I like your off-the-shelf deferred annuity paying 5% at age 85, but we want a 5.75% payout.’ Because we are adding risk to our books in the form of, perhaps that money paying a higher return runs out a little faster, we might charge a higher fee, say 1.2%,” McIntosh says.

With fixed products, sponsors and participants need to realize that “they do not charge any explicit fee, no expense ratio,” McIntosh says. “It is just the exchange of money for a promise. Their payout is massively affected by what interest rates are doing right now and how long the participant is willing to wait for the money. The longer they wait, the more they should receive per unit contributed.”

Another important factor is whether the annuitant requires flexibility, McIntosh continues. The most risk that is asked of the guarantor, the lower the payout in a fixed annuity or the higher the fee in a variable annuity, he notes. For example, is the annuitant asking for a payout for the rest of their life or a period certain? Do they want to leave benefits to their spouse or relative?

“Any additional flexibility that the participant asks for adds to the fee in a variable product and reduces the payout in a fixed product,” McIntosh says. “We have found that, overwhelmingly, individuals like flexibility, and they want some assets left when they pass. The vast bulk of in-plan annuities are guaranteed variable products.”

The guaranteed riders on fixed income and variable annuities add to their costs, says Mark Charnet, founder and CEO of American Prosperity Group. “Living benefit rider fees are typically less than 1% on indexed annuities and 1.35% in variable annuities,” Charnet says.

However, like McIntosh, Charnet says that most people want those guarantees and are willing to pay for them. “The wisdom of purchasing these guarantees was underscored in 2008,” Charnet says. “Should an annuitant have bought a fixed index annuity without a rider just before a market period like 2008, when the S&P fell 39%, it would have seriously skewed their life. It is vitally important that people protect their money for their future.”

Sponsors and participants also should understand that all annuities, except for immediate annuities, have what is called a “surrender period,” typically seven to 10 years, during which withdrawals are limited to 5% to 10% of the assets each year, Coumanakos says. Any withdrawal above those caps will be subject to a penalty, she says. Once the surrender period is over, the annuitant can withdraw as much of the remaining balance that they want, she says.

Thus, “it is important for people to realize that they are not completely restricted from accessing their money, and that any profits from their investments are tax free,” Charnet says. “And some companies offer cumulative withdrawals, so, if you don’t use the 10% withdrawal cap in one year, you can take a 20% withdrawal in the second year. However, this is not standard.”

In sum, Keady suggests that sponsors consider “something that is simple and academically supported, like a fixed annuity or a plan variable annuity. They should then look at the financial strength of the company. It should be highly rated because the participants will be relying to make good on their payments over a long period of time. And third, they should make sure the annuity company can provide appropriate advice for people so that they can understand how annuities work and how they could fit into their portfolio.”

McIntosh reports that since the passage of the SECURE Act, “interest among plan sponsors in annuities has gone through the roof.” He says this encourages him, because he would like to see “many more working Americans get access to guaranteed income.”

Do TDF Characteristics Impact Default Acceptance?

For plan sponsors making decisions about default investments, it’s important to understand the underlying drivers of participant behavior.

Morningstar has published a detailed new white paper titled “Made to Stick: The Drivers of Default Investment Acceptance in Defined Contribution Plans.”

Written by David Blanchett, head of retirement research for Morningstar Investment Management, and Daniel Bruns, vice president, product strategy, Morningstar Investment Management, the paper analyzes the survey responses of some 46,439 participants across 175 plans using 18 different target-date series.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

According to the analysis, approximately 80% of participants initially accept target-date funds (TDFs) when they are offered as the default investment, although acceptance declines to approximately 70% after five years of participation in the DC plan. Seeking to better understand this pattern, the white paper explores four key attributes associated with a plan’s default investment to gauge their impact on “default stickiness.” These are the expense ratio, the size of the sponsoring target-date fund company (which is assumed to be a proxy for general brand awareness), the relative risk of the respective target-date vintage (i.e., equity allocation versus all other funds in the same Morningstar Category), and relative performance of the target-date fund.

“While we find that certain target-date attributes do have a relation to default investment acceptance, they tend to be less important than certain demographic variables, such as income and balance,” Blanchett tells PLANSPONSOR. In other words, examining the characteristics of the plan population will tell one much more about the likely use of default target-date fund investments versus examining the specific characteristics of the default fund itself.

Blanchett notes the findings do show that default investment acceptance increases marginally for target-date funds with lower expense ratios, lower levels of equity risk, and higher relative performance, with expense ratio having the largest effect among the three.  

According to the white paper, the average expense ratios across the 19 series was 46 bps and the plan-weighted average was 31 bps. The plan-weighted average is lower than the overall average given the relative low cost of series such as the Vanguard target-date series, the paper explains, which had an average 14 bps expense ratio. T. Rowe Price was the most expensive widely used target-date series, with an average expense ratio of 67 bps.

“Target-date funds are professionally managed multi-asset portfolios that are likely to result in better investment outcomes than if an average participant was to self-direct his or her own portfolio,” Blanchett says. “The goal should be to get as many participants in the default investment as possible, and to keep them there, so it’s really important to understand who is choosing to use them and who is not.”

In terms of practical takeaways, Blanchett says that participant age has an “interesting effect” on default acceptance rates.

“Older people are less likely to accept a default investment, but it’s not simply because they are older,” he explains. “Almost the entire effect comes about because older participants tend to have higher balances and higher incomes than those who are younger. When you control for age, income and balance, default acceptance is pretty much the same for all ages.”

In this sense, Blanchett says, the research really shows that it’s important to understand the underlying drivers of behavior.

“If you just think, oh, default acceptance just diminishes with age, you’re missing the deeper point,” he warns. “If you have a plan with an older population that has lower income and lower balances, the patterns of behavior could be totally different than a plan where you have mainly high-balance, high-income older employees.”

The lesson here is that plan sponsors must carefully analyze their participant demographics in making decisions about default investments, Blanchett says, adding that the paper’s conclusions also make him think about the importance of re-enrollment. This may be the best tool plans have to keep people invested in the default fund. 

“Re-enrollment is a powerful tool for keeping more people in professionally managed default investments,” Blanchett says. “It’s always been strange to me that we have people annually reconsider their health care choices, but we have no similar mechanism on the retirement planning side. I think these findings underscore the importance of regular re-enrollments as a way to keep more people in high-quality, professionally managed investment portfolios.”

TDFs Drive Different Investing Behaviors

The TIAA Institute published a related research paper in 2019, dubbed “The effect of default target-date funds on retirement savings allocations.” In short, the paper finds that, while the use of one TDF versus another TDF does not strongly impact default acceptance, participants are more likely to exit other types of default investments, such as money market funds.

According to the TIAA Institute, prior to the adoption of target-date defaults, most retirement plans used money market fund defaults, and participants who joined plans with a money market default largely switched away from the default fund.

“[After leaving the default,] these participants had substantial variation in the equity exposure for their contributions and … allocated contributions to a median of three funds,” the TIAA Institute analysis says. “Women had less equity exposure than men and contributed to more funds, and participants contributed to more funds if the plan offered more funds.”

The TIAA Institute analysis shows those who joined a plan with target-date defaults behaved differently, with more than two-thirds investing in a single fund, with both sexes holding more in equity. The analysis further shows women in plans with a TDF default invest in fewer funds and carry the same average equity exposure as men, and with the size effect of the menu becoming insignificant.

“Our results for target-date funds are partially in accord with the existing literature on defaults,” the analysis concludes. “With target-date defaults, roughly two-thirds of new participants contribute only to a single fund, and they therefore allocate contributions in accordance with the equity percentage of that fund. Those who joined plans prior to the adoption of target-date defaults, when money market funds were the most common default, hold more funds and there is more cross-participant variation in equity contributions, with average equity contributions significantly below those of target date default participants.”

The TIAA Institute explains there are gender effects at play here, with women contributing significantly more to equity after target-date defaults became the norm than before. In fact, male-female disparities in equity percentage have largely vanished with target-date defaults. Also important to note, according to the analysis, is that the availability of target-date funds within a plan seems less important than whether these funds are the default investment. This is evident in the relatively sparse use of target-date funds in 2012 by participants who joined plans before they were a default, TIAA Institute says.

«