The increased inclusion of 'alphabet soup' enhanced benefits has required insurers to curtail their variable annuity sales.
Recent weeks have seen some insurers curtailing their sales of variable annuities while others have totally withdrawn from the variable annuity market. These highly publicized events have shaken many financial services professionals who have long relied on variable annuities as mainstays of their practices. It is important to explore the reasons for the retreat by insurers from this important product line and the implications to the financial services industry.
Variable annuities originally appealed to insurers because they took the insurer out of the investment risk business. The original designs of variable annuities shifted all investment risk from the insurer to the contract owner. It was this shift of investment risk that prompted the United States Supreme Court to decide that variable annuities were "securities" for purposes of federal securities laws and not eligible for the exemption from such laws that was afforded to traditional annuities. Although the insurer retained the element of mortality risk that was inherent in the guarantee that the annuitant would not outlive the payments provided for in the annuity contract, the insurer did not guarantee any element of investment performance.
Shortly after the advent of changes in the federal income tax laws that permitted public school teachers to purchase "Tax-Sheltered Annuities" in 1962, the insurers offering variable annuities began to include "Minimum Death Benefits" in their products. This benefit was quite simple: If the contract value of the annuity was less than the purchase price, less any withdrawals, at the death of the owner, the insurer would make up the difference. This protected variable annuity owners from losses when dying during a down market.
As sales of variable annuities began to increase during the mid-1980s, insurers began offering "Enhanced Minimum Death Benefits" with their products. While these enhanced benefits varied from insurer to insurer, most consisted of an increased benefit to some previous market high, which would be paid in the event that the contract owner died while the market value of his variable annuity was lower than the value at the previous high of the contract value.
These enhanced minimum death benefits paved the way in the 1990s and up to the present time for insurers to offer benefits that were intended to reduce market risk to variable annuity contract owners. Thus, we have "Guaranteed Minimum Income Benefits" and "Guaranteed Minimum Withdrawal Benefits" and a whole plethora of other "alphabet soup" benefits commonly known by their initials. These additional benefits were designed to help insurers differentiate their products from all the other variable annuities available in the market. It did not take long for all insurers desiring "shelf space" for their products in the various chains of distribution to have to offer these enhanced benefits or face loss of market share.
It is the increased inclusion of these "alphabet soup" enhanced benefits that has required insurers to curtail their variable annuity sales. The reserves underlying a variable annuity are the assets contained in the separate accounts that underlie the product. There is no market risk to the insurer so long as the only benefit offered is based on the value of such separate account assets.
When enhanced benefits were first offered in connection with variable annuities, little thought was given to the nature of these benefits and what effect they might have on the insurer's general account. However, although enhanced benefits may be measured by the value of the assets held in variable annuity separate accounts, the liability for such benefits is an obligation of the general account of the insurer.
So long as the stock market progressed upward, there was little concern about the liability of the insurer with respect to these benefits. But since the wild fluctuations in the market over the past few years, regulators and rating agencies have addressed these liabilities and taken action to require insurers to create adequate general account reserves to cover them. This has led to arguments about the actual amount of reserves that should be required. Most insurers have established programs to "hedge" the investment risk inherent in the offer of these enhanced benefits, but there is not agreement among experts as to whether all of these hedging strategies actually work.