Insurers Collaborate to Digitize Retirement Income Annuities

The Insured Retirement Institute is leading the charge to improve the wait time for retail annuity sales and exchanges from weeks to days.

Guaranteed income annuity retail sales have been hitting new records almost quarterly of late, in part due to high interest rates providing strong locked-in returns. In the latest industry report from LIMRA, retail annuity sales hit a record $215.2 billion in the first half of 2024, a 19% increase from the prior year’s results in the survey representing 92% of the U.S. annuity market.

But as the saying goes, annuities are often sold, not bought. With interest rates set to start coming down, it may be just the right time for the annuity industry to capitalize on its strong run by simplifying the process of selling and exchanging these often-complex investments.

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

For Insured Retirement Institute members, the face of just such a movement is Katherine Dease, its recently hired chief technology and innovation officer. In the role for slightly more than one year, Dease has been spearheading an effort to bring together the full annuity supply chain, from carriers to assets managers to distribution providers.

“Annuity products are not all speaking the same language, which prevents innovation that allows carriers to get their products in more places.” Dease says. “The industry needs to speak the same language if we are going to support innovation that creates solutions for consumers that satisfy their retirement needs.”

Oftentimes, the processes to sell an annuity or exchange one can be cumbersome when compared with the host of other financial transactions advisers make with clients. That is one reason why Athene, which led individual annuity sales in the U.S. at the end of 2023, has been an active partner with the IRI and even many of its competitors in finding solutions, says Chief Operating Officer Mike Downing.

“The [annuity] buying process is complicated,” says Downing. “It’s a contract, not an investment vehicle, and there are certain types of disclosures and processes that go along with that.”

Downing says Athene has been working with other insurers in the IRI network to address those pain points. One pain point is the buying process itself, but another comes when customers want to exchange their annuity—often with a different carrier. That type of business makes up about 70% of the annuity market, according to Downing, but is also the most complex.

“Right now, that process is too long,” he says. “It can take two to four weeks before the old annuity is surrendered and the new one is in place.”

Paperless

The IRI, an advocacy group whose members account for 90% of annuity assets in the U.S., has developed a program called Digital First for Annuities to turn ongoing institute conversations about creating a better market for annuities into action.

“These conversations are not really new,” Dease says. “What’s new is that we have said that we now know we have to act as a united industry. We can complain about these problems all day, but unless we solve them as an industry … we are not going to be successful.”

From her seat at IRI, Dease has been able to align the full annuity supply chain to try and create a “build once, use many” model. She says that annuity providers had been building one off integrations on their own, but not industry wide, reusable standards that work collectively and can benefit financial advisers selling the products.

Dease says, as of now, annuities are a “swivel chair” solution. Meaning that, even when advisers are registered to sell them, the annuities do not sit on their financial planning and wealth management platforms—they must swivel to an entirely different system.

“We need annuities to be part of the pie holistically,” she says. “That will allow for better holistic plans for consumers because you can see how that investment stream will support the portfolio or how the protection of that annuity will work alongside traditional investments. That is what we are trying to solve for; get annuities embedded into the tools that financial professionals use.”

Some of the first work IRI is tackling is a carrier-to-carrier program called Paperless Replacements run by the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. The service creates a paperless transfer of asset request between insurance carriers that can decrease order processing from multiple weeks to less than 72 hours.

First Movers

Dease is quick to acknowledge the long road ahead to reach that state. In the near term, she says the IRI and some of the top solutions and distribution providers will be able to show progress toward digitization and a faster time to market. That, she anticipates, will draw a noticeable jump in adviser satisfaction ratings for the products.

Some of those big names from the carrier space, including Athene, are Allianz, Global Atlantic, Jackson, Lincoln Financial, Nationwide and Prudential. Meanwhile, distributors engaging in the project include firms such as Edward Jones, Fidelity Investments, J.P. Morgan & Chase, LPL Financial and UBS. Finally, the project will also be working across investment platform providers including Black Diamond Wealth Platform, Orion and Envestnet’s Tamarac, and financial planning tools including eMoney, MoneyGuide and RightCapital.

“Firms have different priorities,” she notes, so the projects are going to start with first movers doing it as “proof of concept.”

Downing and Athene will be an active part of that group, in part to prevent advisers turning away from the solution. Downing says the current sales and exchange process for annuities can be frustrating for a financial adviser because they have no control over the process, at times not even its completion timeline. That can, in turn, make some advisers seek other options that, while maybe not the best fit for a client, may simply be easier to implement.

“The financial advisers that are considering annuities for their clients must have expertise on both the product and associated administrative process required to issue the new contract,” Downing says. “These advisers have other choices—they can put someone in a CD or a money market account. But if an annuity is the best solution to give a customer a sense of ease and have them feel good about retirement, then it’s on us to make that process easier for everyone.”

State 401(k) Mandates May Cause ‘Crowd-In’ Effect, Boosting Private Plans

Small employers in states with mandates may gravitate toward private market plans for factors including plan design and the perceived cost of implementing state plans, according to NBER researchers.

State retirement plan mandates that offer state-facilitated auto-IRAs may be creating a “crowd-in” effect causing more small employers to offer private market 401(k) plans to their employees, according to a recent paper released by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

By analyzing tax information from employers in four states with mandated retirement plans via automatic individual retirement account programs, a team of four NBER researchers came to the conclusion that at least 30,000 companies with fewer than 100 employees were “induced” to offer a private market employer-sponsored retirement plan due to the state mandates. The sample set is from 2017 through 2022, when the four state programs—Oregon, Illinois, California and Connecticut—were going through various stages of rollout.

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

“We find clear and substantial increases in the share of affected firms establishing an ESRP [employee sponsored retirement plan] immediately upon implementation [of state-mandated programs],” the researchers wrote in their findings. “We refer to this induced increase in ESRP offerings as the ‘crowd-in’ effect of the policy. We do not find evidence of any offsetting ‘crowd-out’ (firms terminating existing ESRPs in favor of utilizing the state auto-IRA program).”

For a sense of scale, the researchers estimated that the 30,000 firms represent about one-sixth of all private companies with fewer than 100 employees that fell under the mandate. The number is also “substantially relative” to the number of firms participating in auto-IRA programs directly, according to the researchers, with the ESRP “crowd-in” companies accounting for between 27% and 45% of the total increase in employer coverage.

The research adds to an ongoing dialogue about what state auto-IRA programs—largely cheaper than privately provided 401(k) plans—will do to sales in the sector.

As of June 30, 17 states have auto-IRA programs, according to Georgetown University’s Center for Retirement Initiatives. So far, all state-facilitated programs have amassed more than $1.64 billion in assets, according to the Center’s ongoing tracking.

Rising Tide

The NBER research, though a relatively small sample compared to the nation, points to what many small plan providers have argued: When it comes to retirement plan mandates, a rising tide lifts all boats.

Aaron Schumm, CEO of holistic savings platform Vestwell, says rather than reducing private plan coverage, state auto-IRA programs are doing the opposite.

“They have been an incredible driving force behind the adoption of new workplace savings programs—both through the state and in the private plan market,” he said in an interview not directly related to the NBER report. “Along with tailwinds from SECURE 2.0, we’ve seen unprecedented demand from businesses looking to implement a savings program for their employees.”

Schumm’s Vestwell has been one of the most prominent private players in helping states to set up their programs. The company is currently working with 30 state-sponsored savings program, nine of which are state auto-IRA programs, he says. Most recently, the firm helped launch the Delaware EARNS program and New Jersey’s RetireReady NJ, having already established partnerships with Coloroado SecureSavings, Connecticut’s MyCTSavings and OregonSaves, among others.

“It’s no secret that there’s a savings crisis in the United States, especially a retirement savings crisis,” says Vestwell’s Schumm. “A key way to address this crisis is through awareness and broadening access.Sstate savings programs are doing just that.”

Ascensus has been another plan provider actively working with states, including a prominent state-mandated plan, California’s CalSavers.

Vestwell’s Schumm notes that, when penalties are given to employers for not offering a retirement plan, pickup for startup 401(k)s is even higher. As other states see this, they are “now looking to incorporate legislation that would also penalize employers, in an effort to increase adoption of saving plans,” according to Schumm.

All four states the NBER team reviewed issue a fine if an employer fails to offer a private or state-facilitated option to employees.

Crowd-In

By considering the state programs as “experiments,” the researchers looked to determine, via U.S. tax data, how many firms with fewer than 100 employees were prompted to add their own employer-sponsored plans. NBER analysts homed in on firms adding a 401(k) as prompted by the mandate, which yielded the 30,000 number.

“This effect is large considering that, for employers, establishing and maintaining an ESRP is more costly than utilizing the state-facilitated IRAs,” the researchers wrote.

They then attributed this “somewhat counterintuitive observation” to several factors.

“First, owners or employees may value ESRPs to a much higher extent than auto-IRAs—perhaps because of binding contribution limits in IRAs, because of pre-existing IRA participation, or because ESRPs do not require automatic enrollment,” they wrote.

Second, according to the paper, employers may perceive that participating in the auto-IRA program has a high administrative cost relative to the cost of running and controlling their own employee-sponsored plan.

“Although auto-IRAs are advertised as ‘free’ to employers, we expect that an auto-IRA program has a positive, though likely small, cost to the firm—the employer faces the administrative burden of registering for the program initially, automatically enrolling new employees, and facilitating the payroll deductions,” the researchers wrote.

Meanwhile, certain “behavioral factors” may also play a role, ranging from how business owners view the state programs to being persuaded by marketing from small plan providers.

“Third party ESRP administrators have responded to these state policies through targeted marketing, designed to convince small business owners to comply with the mandate by offering an ESRP rather than participating in the auto-IRA,” the team wrote. “It is possible that this marketing was particularly successful and effectively altered decision-makers’ perceptions of the costs and benefits of both ESRPs and auto-IRAs.”

Future Possibilities

According to the Georgetown retirement center, numerous other states are either getting ready to implement or are considering state-facilitated retirement programs. Meanwhile, a federal retirement mandate has been floated that could get a hearing again in 2025 depending on the result of fall U.S. elections. Representative Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, the ranking member of the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, proposed earlier this year the Automatic IRA Act of 2024, which was followed quickly by retirement industry support.

Vestwell’s Schumm supports that bill and any legislation that would expand “individuals’ access to savings across the country,” and he does not anticipate the Automatic IRA Act would have a negative effect on the state programs.

“The bill, in its current form, does not affect workers currently enrolled in a state-facilitated plan,” he says. “Ultimately, the more awareness brought to the savings crisis, the closer we will realize our mission of closing the savings gap.” 

NBER’s paper, “Why Do Employers Establish Retirement Savings Plans? Evidence from State ‘Auto-IRA’ Policies,” was written by researchers Adam Bloomfield of the Georgetown University Center for Retirement Initiatives; Lucas Goodman who was with the Office of Tax Analysis, at the U.S. Department of Treasury when the research was done; Mania Rao of the AARP Public Policy Institute and the Georgetown Center; and Sita Slavov of George Mason University and National Bureau of Economic Research.

«