Inflation Indexed Annuities in Aging in Place Planning

Illustration 217469610 © Adonis1969 | Dreamstime.com

Rarely do articles on this blog deal with specific investment options.  Recently, however, while speaking with a client, she shared a feeling of helplessness following a meeting with her financial advisor.  A few phone calls sorted her options and planning.  This article is designed to educate readers regarding a planning option with which, apparently, some advisors and agents are unfamiliar.

Many who plan financially for aging in place focus on guaranteed income, rather than relying on large liquid amounts invested for further growth through investment risk. Aside from other arguments against risking principal, there is the simple fact that alternatives to institutional care (nursing homes and assisted living facilities) involve periodic costs, usually paid monthly or weekly.  In other words, if you have a healthy guaranteed income, within which you can easily meet additional expenses, the prospect of alternative care cost is not as disruptive as it might be otherwise. 

The issue that is increasingly on everyone's lips, however, is inflation.  Whether inflation is already built in to our economy, soon to arrive and/or well-in-hand by our Federal Reserve Bank, this article will leave to others to debate. A college economics professor once characterized inflation as not unlike water- a little bit is necessary and good, but a lot can kill you.  Regardless, even the long-term care industry is concerned.    

Sometimes called an inflation-protected annuity, an inflation-indexed immediate annuity is similar to a fixed annuity. You receive a guaranteed stream of income from the insurance company for the rest of your life. With an inflation-indexed annuity, however, payments increase (or sometimes decrease) each year, keeping pace with the rate of inflation.

An inflation-indexed annuity tracks standard measures of inflation, typically, the consumer price index (CPI)(one measure of the rate of change of the cost of a selected basket of goods, reflecting the rate of inflation). The monthly income from this form of annuity gradually changes with the CPI. Since money loses purchasing power with inflation, inflation index-tracking annuities theoretically allows your money to retain that power as inflation fluctuates.

Inflation-adjusted annuities have one obvious drawback: they initially begin with smaller payments than a traditional fixed payment plan. The effect of this is that it might take decades for the inflation-adjusted income to catch up to the fixed payment, which means there is a distinct possibility of reduced payouts for life if you die before they catch up.

Talk to you investment advisor, financial planner, or insurance agent.  This article doe not constitute financial advice, and is merely educational.  Your advisor can make specific recommendations after considering your circumstances, needs, goals, and objectives.    

Court Protects an Estate Sued By An Annuity Company For Over-payment: Companies Should Know When Their Customers Die

ID 179769815 © Artur Szczybylo | Dreamstime.com

An annuity company sued a customer’s estate for not reporting the death of his wife, which resulted in him receiving larger monthly payments after her death than he was entitled to under the contract.  The customer died in 2013, and the annuity company discovered the over-payments in 2014. In 2016, the annuity company filed suit against the customer’s estate for the over-payments. Both parties filed summary judgment motions, and the trial court entered judgment for the annuity company. The estate appealed.  

The court of appeals reversed and rendered judgment for the estate. The court first addressed the annuity company’s breach of contract claim. The court held that the contract did not expressly or impliedly require the surviving spouse to report the death of the first spouse. The court held:

"In sum, the annuity contract, taken as a whole, does not evidence an intent to impose an implied obligation on Harold to notify Principal of Emily’s death or an implied obligation to return money Harold received in excess of the stated contract amount. Moreover, it is undisputed that this was Principal’s contract. “In Texas, a writing is generally construed most strictly against its author and in such a manner as to reach a reasonable result consistent with the apparent intent of the parties.” Principal, a sophisticated commercial enterprise, did not include express provisions requiring Harold to notify Principal of Emily’s death or to return money received in excess of the stated contract amount. The annuity contract, as written, does not evidence an intent to imply these obligations. Because we conclude the annuity contract, taken as a whole, does not support imposition of an implied obligation on Harold to notify Principal of Emily’s death or an implied obligation to return money Harold received in excess of the stated contract amount, Principal cannot show Harold breached the annuity contract."

The court then reviewed the annuity company’s "money-had-and-received" claim. The court described the claim: 

“Money had and received is an equitable doctrine designed to prevent unjust enrichment. To prevail on a claim for money had and received, the plaintiff need only prove that the defendant holds money which in equity and good conscience belongs to the plaintiff.” 

The court held that the claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations  because the annuity company did not file its claim within two years of discovering the over-payments.

Finally, the court rejected the annuity company’s fraud by nondisclosure claim. According to the courty, in order to establish fraud by non-disclosure:

“Principal must prove: (1) Harold deliberately failed to disclose material facts; (2) Harold had a duty to disclose such facts to Principal; (3) Principal was ignorant of the facts and did not have an equal opportunity to discover them; (4) by failing to disclose the facts, Harold intended to induce Principal to act or refrain from acting; and (5) Principal relied on the non-disclosure, which resulted in injury.” 

The court held that the annuity company had an equal opportunity to discover its customer’s death:

Principal had an equal opportunity to discover Emily’s death. Principal had internal procedures in place to discover this very type of information. Angela Essick, Principal’s corporate representative, testified that between 2001 and the present, Principal utilized a third-party company and the Social Security Master Index to provide it with a list of names and social security numbers of the deceased on a quarterly basis. Principal would compare these names and social security numbers with those of its annuitants. Principal failed to discover Emily’s death through these channels because it never obtained Emily’s social security number. Principal cannot rely on its internal oversight to claim it did not have an equal opportunity to discover Emily’s death.

Accordingly, the court dismissed all of the annuity company’s claims and rendered judgment for the estate of the customer.

The case has serious implications  for annuity companies specifically, to be sure, but generally for any company involved in the financial services industry.  The case also has serious implications for agents, as they might be expected by their contacting principals to protect them from loss by reporting timely the death of customers.  Agents should be cognizant of changes to agreements and contracts, and should consider these carefully in establishing business practices.

For the consumer, the decision is welcome, but should not be relied upon in expecting protection from continuing to collect and use funds they are not legally entitled to keep; the company in this case may have recovered from the estate had it acted more quickly in filing its claim.

The decision in the case is at first glance surprising, but as is often the case with surprising results, heavily dependent on a set of facts that are unlikely to occur.  Administrators, Executors, and Trustees should follow counsel's guidance regarding treatment of estate funds, and notification of third parties.   

The case is In re Estate of Scott, No. 04-19-00592-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 4059 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 27, 2020, no pet. history).

Company’s Ability to Change Terms of Irrevocable Annuity Does Not Make It Available Resource

Medicaid applicant’s irrevocable annuity is not an available resource even though the company issuing the annuity has the authority to change its terms. Cushing v. Jacobs (U.S. Dist. Ct., D.N.J., No. 20-CV-130, March 25, 2020). 

Jane Cushing purchased an irrevocable annuity from the Croatian Fraternal Union of America (Croatian). The annuity had a provision that the president or treasurer of Croatian could change or waive the contract’s requirements. Ms. Cushing applied for Medicaid. The state decided that because the president or treasurer of Croatian could change its terms, the annuity was revocable. The state denied Ms. Cushing benefits due to excess assets. 

Ms. Cushing sued the state in federal court, arguing that the annuity is not an available resource, and filed a motion for summary judgment. The state argued that in a previous case (MM v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services, OAL Docket No. HMA 1057- 2019), a Medicaid applicant asked the president to change the terms of her annuity purchased through Croatian, so the state determined that the annuity was revocable and denied the applicant benefits. 

The U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, granted Ms. Cushing summary judgment, holding that the annuity is not an available resource. According to the court, the annuity contract is “unambiguous on the issue of revocability,” and the prior case had no bearing on Ms. Cushing’s annuity. 

Community Spouse's Annuity Cannot Be Recovered by State

Estate recovery is the authority of a state to recover costs for services rendered under the State Medicaid program upon the Medicaid recipient’s death.  A Massachusetts trial court has recently illustrated the limits to estate recovery, holding that the state is not entitled to recover Medicaid benefits from a community spouse’s annuity. 

Robert Hamel, a community spouse, purchased an annuity that named the state as primary beneficiary to the extent any Medicaid benefits are paid. His daughter, Laurie Dermody, was the contingent beneficiary. Mr. Hamel’s wife, Joan, was an institutional spouse who had entered a nursing home and applied for Medicaid. The state approved her application. 

When Mr. Hamel died, the state demanded payment from the annuity as reimbursement for benefits paid on Ms. Hamel’s behalf, and the annuity company paid the state. Mr. Hamel,  had never received Medicaid benefits,  but passed away while Mrs. Hamel was in the nursing facility. The Commonwealth demanded payment under the terms of the annuity for services rendered to Mrs. Hamel, even though she was neither the owner nor the annuitant on the policy.  

The daughter, Ms. Dermody, sued the state and the annuity company, claiming that she is entitled to the remainder of the annuity contract as the contingent beneficiary. Ms. Dermody argued that Mr. Hamel purchased the annuity under the “sole benefit rule,” 42 U.S.C. § 1396(c)(2)(B), which allows transfers to a spouse for the sole benefit of the spouse. The state argued that the “ to the extent benefits are paid” language in the annuity applied to benefits paid on behalf of Ms. Hamel.

The Massachusetts Superior Court granted Ms. Dermody’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that any transaction that satisfies the sole benefit rule is exempt from the transfer penalty rules, including the requirement to name the state as the primary beneficiary of an annuity. According to the court, Mr. Hamel “was not required to name [the state] as his primary beneficiary to the extent benefits were paid on [Ms. Hamel’s] behalf, and because [Mr. Hamel] did not receive [Medicaid] benefits himself, [Ms. Dermody] is the proper beneficiary of his annuity contract.”

This is a favorable decision for Massachusetts seniors, and permits seniors a strategy to preserve their assets for the next generation. The decision is, nonetheless, only a trial court decision, and does not have the weight of an appellate or supreme court decision by the state, or of a federal court decision.  It will be interesting to watch how other courts and jurisdictions treat the court's decision in Dermody v. The Executive Office of Health and Human Services (Mass. Super. Ct., No. 1781CV02342, Jan. 16, 2020).

Congress Considering Removing Medicaid Eligibility Planning Opportunities- Spousal Income Annuities Targeted

Congress is considering making it harder to qualify for Medicaid if a community spouse has an annuity.  The change is part of an effort to close what Congress considers "loopholes" in Medicaid law.

The proposed bill aims to prevent married couples from using assets to purchase an annuity for the community spouse, so that the institutionalized spouse can apply for Medicaid. The bill would count half of the income from a community spouse's annuity as income available to the institutionalized spouse for purposes of Medicaid eligibility. The House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on February 1, 2017, to consider the changes.  It is unclear how eligibility will be changed since income can not be "liquidated" to pay for care.  Regardless, the proposed changes would mean that married couples would have one less tool available to create an adequate safety net for a community spouse affected by nursing home spend down.  

Along with limiting spousal annuities, Congress is also considering bills to count lottery winnings as income and require Medicaid applicants to prove U.S. citizenship or residency before receiving benefits.

For more information about the proposed legislation, click here.

Ohio Forced to Embrace Compliant Annuities in Medicaid Planning

Medicaid compliant annuities are useful tools in long-term care planning for many married clients.  A married couple typically purchases a Medicaid compliant annuity if the two spouses are in unequal health positions to ensure that the healthy spouse—known as the “community” spouse—has sufficient income, while allowing the second, less healthy spouse to qualify for Medicaid assistance in paying for long-term care expenses, typically within a nursing home.  

Because a Medicaid compliant annuity is often the only means by which a healthy client is able to secure a stable income stream once his or her spouse requires state-sponsored Medicaid assistance, state-imposed restrictions in this area can force a Medicaid-reliant client into poverty.  Nonetheless, in recent years, restrictive state and local policies have often prevented clients from fully taking advantage of these federally regulated products.  Historically, Ohio has been peculiarly aggressive, sometimes bending the federal and state rules to erect substantial roadblocks to these planning alternatives.  

Federal law would appear to protect the use of Medicaid compliant annuities.  Rather than treating the purchase of the annuity as an impermissible asset transfer effected in order to meet Medicaid’s means-tested eligibility requirements, if certain requirements are satisfied, the federal Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) treats the purchase as a permissible exempt investment, and the annuity payout stream is shielded as the community spouse’s income.  

In order to qualify as a Medicaid compliant annuity under the DRA, the terms of the annuity contract must satisfy certain criteria. The income from the annuity contract must be payable to the community spouse, the contract must be irrevocable and the payment term must be based on the life expectancy of the community spouse.  Further, the state must be named as the remainder beneficiary on the contract, allowing it to receive up to the amount that it has paid for the institutionalized spouse’s long-term care.
The speed with which Ohio complied with the injunction and reversed the denied applications isa step in the right direction for Medicaid-reliant clients.

Notwithstanding the federal rules, in three separate instances, a community spouse in Ohio had purchased a Medicaid compliant annuity so that his spouse, a nursing home resident, could qualify for Medicaid. Several Ohio counties, however, decided to treat Medicaid compliant annuities as impermissible asset transfers even if those annuities satisfied the strict federally mandated criteria.  he Medicaid applications were denied.

The immediate annuities purchased in the Ohio case satisfied federal criteria, but, because Ohio found that they did not satisfy state standards, the state found that the healthy spouses were required to use those funds to pay for the unhealthy spouses’ nursing home care, despite the fact that the funds were now invested in irrevocable annuities.

A federal court, however, recently stepped in to issue an injunction against Ohio.  The federal judge disagreed with Ohio's interpretation of the rules, and, because the institutionalized spouses were at risk of eviction from the nursing home, issued an injunction ordering the state to reverse its decision and treat the annuities as permissible, or risk disqualifying Ohio from the federal Medicaid program entirely.

The state quickly complied.  

In Ohio, a community spouse is entitled to retain half of the couple’s assets, up to a maximum dollar amount of around $ 119,220 (eff. 1/1/2015). The unhealthy spouse is required to spend down the remainder of the couple’s assets until only $1,500 remains. In order to accomplish this, the couple is permitted to buy certain types of immediate annuities without jeopardizing Medicaid eligibility.

Ohio Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Medicaid Pre-Eligibility Transfer Case

Does federal Medicaid law allow the unlimited transfer of assets between spouses after one spouse is institutionalized, but before Medicaid eligibility is determined?  The answer to that question will greatly impact planning opportunities for Ohio families.  On Wednesday, August 20, 2014, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral arguments in a case that turns on this question.  Estate of Atkinson v. Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, No. 2013-1773.

In 2000 Marcella Atkinson and her husband transferred their home into a revocable living trust. In April 2011, Mrs. Atkinson entered a nursing home and soon applied for Medicaid benefits. In August 2011, the home was removed from the trust and placed in Mrs. Atkinson's name. The next day, Mrs. Atkinson transferred the house to her husband. The state determined an improper transfer had occurred and imposed a penalty period.  Mrs. Atkinson passed away, and her estate appealed to court, losing at both the trial court and the Ohio Court of Appeals. 

During the 40 minutes of oral arguments (available on video here) before the state’s high court, the attorney for the estate, Maura L. Hughes, maintained that both federal and state Medicaid law clearly allow unlimited transfers up to the point of Medicaid’s eligibility determination, and that both the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) support this reading of the statutes.    

Stephen P. Carney, the attorney for the state, told the justices that both the Sixth Circuit and HHS “got it wrong,” and that “the curtain comes down on unlimited transfers at the date of institutionalization.”  If couples are allowed to continue reallocating their assets after the date of institutionalization, he argues, they will be able to easily protect assets through “various tricks,” such as annuities. “If you can still do unlimited spousal transfers even after institutionalization, then you could take 200, 300, $400,000 as in some of our other cases and convert it from what’s a shared resource into this protected income stream for the community spouse.” 

Some justices appeared surprised at Carney’s suggestion that they should second-guess both the Sixth Circuit and HHS (which weighed in on the Sixth Circuit case).  One justice asked attorney Hughes whether the state is bound by the Sixth Circuit’s decision, in which, coincidentally, the appellant’s name was Hughes. 

“I believe they are, your honor,” said Hughes. “My understanding is that they are not actually following it now.  There was a U.S. district court case filed last week alleging that the state has been holding for this case in hopes of getting a second bite at the apple and having you come out in the opposite direction from the Hughes decision.”

For the Supreme Court of Ohio’s oral argument preview on the case, click here.

For detailed case information, click here.

Annuities Purchased by a Medicaid Applicant Must Name State as Remainder Beneficiary

The Georgia Supreme Court recently issued an opinion regarding the requirement that an annuity purchased by a Medicaid applicant must name the state as a remainder beneficiary.  The opinion, though, is instructive as much for its deference to CMS and state agency statutory interpretations, as it is for its holding. Reversing an appeals court decision, the court ruled that, because it finds that the federal statute is ambiguous, annuities benefitting a Medicaid applicant need to name the state as a remainder beneficiary in order to avoid a transfer penalty. Cook v. Glover (Ga., No. S13G1127, July 11, 2014).

Jerry Glover purchased an annuity for himself shortly before applying for Medicaid. He later refused to name the state as a remainder beneficiary on the annuity, the state approved his application but assessed a seven-month transfer-of-assets penalty against him.

Mr. Glover appealed, arguing he wasn’t required to name the state as a remainder beneficiary. After a hearing, an administrative law judge upheld the penalty, and a trial court affirmed the decision. The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed. Although agreeing that a plain reading of 42 U. S. C. § 1396p (c) (1) (F) standing alone clearly required that the state be named a remainder beneficiary of any annuity, the Court of Appeals interpreted subsection (G) to unambiguously remove actuarially sound annuities benefitting Medicaid applicants from the requirements of subsection (F) by removing them from the definition of “assets” with respect to a transfer of assets.  

The Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding that the penalty period is valid. The court examined the statutory language regarding annuities and found that the relationship between the two subsections is not clear and unambiguous.  Because the federal law was vague and ambiguous, the court ruled that the state Medicaid agency's interpretation, which is consistent with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' interpretation of the statute, is "reasonable and entitled to deference."

For the full text of this decision, go to: http://www.gasupreme.us/sc-op/pdf/s13g1127.pdf

Annuity Tax Remains in Health Care Reform

By Steven A. Morelli, Senior Editor, InsuranceNewsNet

Despite protests from insurance groups, the health care reconciliation act will add a new tax on annuity income to pay for Medicare once the bill becomes law.

Several insurance groups issueda last-minute appeal in a letter to legislators on Wednesday to exempt annuities from the new tax, citing the important growing role annuities are playing in securing retirement. But annuitiesremained in the reconciliation bill the Senate and House passed on Thursday and sent to President Barack Obama to sign.

The 3.8 percent tax applies to investment income from married individuals filing a joint return and surviving spouses with taxable income of at least $250,000; married taxpayers filing separately with an income of $125,000; and other individuals, with an income of $200,000.

The bill lists annuities as investment income. The tax would apply to annuity income that is already taxable (the amount above the annuity owner’s cost basis), starting in 2013. Annuities sold in employer-sponsored retirement plans would be exempt.

Ohio Increases Annuity Guaranty Coverage

Ohio Department of Insurance Director Mary Jo Hudson has announced that a recent amendment to Ohio insurance law by the Ohio General Assembly has increased The Ohio Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association’s coverage protection for annuities from $100,000 to $250,000. The change goes into effect on May 26th, 2010.

The new changes to the law (Section 3956.04 of the Ohio Revised Code) will guarantee that consumers who purchase an annuity product may be able to recover up to $250,000 of their policy in the unlikely event that the company they purchased the product from becomes insolvent.

The Ohio Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Association (OLHIGA) is a non-profit association of insurance companies that sell life insurance, health insurance, and annuities in Ohio. It was created by Ohio law to provide some level of protection for certain Ohio policyholders against the insolvency of an insurance company licensed to sell those types of policies in Ohio in the event that the company is placed into liquidation.

Value of Annuities Behind Fed Efforts to Boost Retirement Savings

In January, the Obama administration announced an initiative to promote the availability of annuities in qualified retirement, 401(k), and similar plans. Only 22% of such plans now offer annuities among the options available to plan participants.   While the initiative is not long on details, it is gaining support among senior advisors and advocates.  Making annuities an option in qualified retirement planning would permit more workers to turn some of their nest egg into guaranteed income for life.  The opportunity to insure a lifetime of income is an attribute unique to annuities, and is an attribute uniquely suited for retirement planning.

Simultaneously, a Senate bill that would require your 401(k) to inform you of the projected monthly income you could expect at retirement based on current savings.  Causing investors to focus on the income they can expect from their retirement planning, rather than upon their account balances, is a welcome turn of events.  Investors often pay too much attention to the balances in their retirement plan portfolio, without careful attention to whether that portfolio will sustain them after retirement.  Simply, income is a more relevant basis upon which to plan for retirement.  That is the approach Social Security takes with its annual statements.

The confluence of these events suggests that the government is finally acknowledging the value of income retirement planning, and the value of annuities in securing that income.  As Americans grapple with the challenge of potentially outliving their retirement savings, lifetime income annuities are among the most cost-effective and least risky asset class for generating guaranteed retirement income for life according to numerous studies, perhaps the most prestigious being one co-sponsored by the Wharton Financial Institutions Center at the University of Pennsylvania and New York Life Insurance Company.

Laddering Fixed Annuities for Cash Accumulation

The July issue of Advisor Today introduces a unique cash accumulation strategy that merits close attention: laddering fixed annuities. MassMutual has back tested the strategy against several traditional strategies, and demonstrated its strength.

The strategy is simple. In addition to a portfolio of equities and bonds, simply make an initial purchase of a life-only fixed income annuity, with additional proportional fixed annuity purchases annually. Over a twenty-seven year period, the strategy resulted in a liquid account value of more than seven times the original deposit. This compared to an account value of only five times the original deposit when invested in a traditional equities and bonds only portfolio.

While the common misconception is that the inclusion of a fixed annuity in the mix impairs the liquidity of the portfolio, the performance over the intermediate and long-terms certainly made the short term illiquidity a risk worth taking.

Consequently, a retirement plan may benefit from the use of three asset classes- equities, bonds, and fixed income annuities. Retirees can build more wealth by making incremental annuity purchases with assets transferred from mutual fund accounts, for example.

The strategy also greatly increases the safety of the portfolio. Fixed income annuities are safe. They also are, in many states better protected from creditors. One would think these benefits would only be icing on the cake, given the strategy can outperform a traditional portfolio.

But the real icing on the cake, is building for your clients the opportunity to guarantee a stream of income that your clients cannot outlive. In these years of increasing life expectancies, the real "treat" is ensuring that the client can live the reminder of his or her life without concern whether the money will run out.

In August 2007, in the articles section of the Estate Planning Information Center, I reported about a study, co-sponsored by the Wharton Financial Institutions Center at the University of Pennsylvania and New York Life Insurance Company, identifying lifetime income annuities as the most cost-effective and least risky asset class for generating guaranteed retirement income for life.

The Wharton academic study revealed that:

• 
  
  Income annuities can provide secure income for one's entire lifetime for 25-40% less money than it would cost an individual to provide a similar level of secure lifetime income through traditional means, thanks to an insurer's ability to spread risk across large numbers of people;
• 
  
  Consumers are not annuitizing enough of their portfolios even though income annuities are low-cost, available from creditworthy insurers, and provide guaranteed payments for life. Equities, fixed income and other investment products like mutual funds carry the risk of outliving one's nest egg;
• 
  
  By covering at least basic living expenses with income annuities, consumers have much greater flexibility in other areas of a retirement plan, including the ability to take more investment risk with the remaining portfolio; and
• Recent innovations in income annuities, such as annual inflation adjustments, legacy benefits and access to capital in emergencies, have helped elevate the products to a desirable asset class in retirement.

The findings are outlined in a paper entitled "Investing Your Lump Sum at Retirement," which is based on an academic study entitled "Rational Decumulation," co-authored by Professor David F. Babbel of The Wharton School and Professor Craig B. Merrill of The Marriott School of Management at Brigham Young University. The study explored financial options for retirees and compared income annuities with other asset classes in retirement.

"Living too long is fast becoming the major financial risk of the 21st century," said Professor Babbel. "Combined with the challenges facing Social Security and the decline of corporate pensions, this adds up to a 'perfect storm' for retirees who might outlive their retirement nest egg."

Only lifetime income annuities can in an efficient way protect from the risk of outliving assets. This simply cannot be duplicated by other types of investments.

Income Annuities for Retirement Financial Security

Wharton Study Suggests Lifetime Income Annuities Best Asset Class for Retirement Financial Security

Reprinted from Businesswire.com. August 08, 2007 09:49 Dueling Asset Classes: Wharton Study Demonstrates That Lifetime Income Annuities Are Best Asset Class for Financial Security in Retirement

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--As Americans grapple with the challenge of potentially outliving their retirement savings, a new study, co-sponsored by the Wharton Financial Institutions Center at the University of Pennsylvania and New York Life Insurance Company, identifies lifetime income annuities as the most cost-effective and least risky asset class for generating guaranteed retirement income for life.

The Wharton academic study revealed that:

•Income annuities can provide secure income for one’s entire lifetime for 25-40% less money than it would cost an individual to provide a similar level of secure lifetime income through traditional means, thanks to an insurer’s ability to spread risk across large numbers of people;