What are the advantages and disadvantages of an Equity-Indexed Annuity?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of an Equity-Indexed Annuity?

The major advantage of an equity-indexed annuity over other types of deferred annuity products is potentially higher interest rates available from links to equity indexes, which historically have provided significantly higher yields than fixed interest rate products. The major advantage, of course, may be the major disadvantage also, particularly in periods of index volatility. However, all equity-indexed annuities have an underlying minimum interest rate guarantee which guarantees you will never lose your premium due to index fluctuations or volatility. Thus the equity-indexed annuity provides the best of both worlds-linkage to equity indexes with no risk due to index volatility and safety of premium.

Annuity Guide

Fixed Annuity

What are the advantages and disadvantages of a Variable Annuity?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of a Variable Annuity?





The
advantage of a Variable Annuity is the ability to place your annuity
premium into equity investments such as stocks, bonds or mutual funds
and participate in the potentially higher increases available
historically in the equity or bond markets.
Increases in your Variable
Annuity are tax deferred until they are actually withdrawn from the
contract or annuitized. All increases in a Variable Annuity are taxed
as ordinary income the year the money is withdrawn.
The major
disadvantage of a Variable Annuity is that your assets, including your
premium, are subject to market risk, i.e. loss in value based upon poor
performance of the markets. As with a fixed deferred annuity, your
purchase of a Variable Annuity should be viewed as a means to fund your
long-term retirement goals.
Historically, products in the equity
markets have resulted in higher increases than fixed rate products. Of
course, many factors are important in determining whether a Variable
Annuity is right for you, including your age, retirement goals and
aversion to risk. If you are young and looking to preserve significant
funds for your long-term retirement needs, a Variable Annuity is an
excellent way to do so.
If you are older and closer to retirement, or
simply desire to preserve your accumulated assets by purchasing a
secure vehicle, a fixed deferred annuity may be the best choice.

Annuity Surrender Charges and How To Avoid Them.

Is there any way to avoid the annuity surrender or early withdrawal charges?





Yes.
With most fixed deferred annuities, surrender or withdrawal charges are
waived if you (1) die;
(2) become confined to a hospital or nursing
home for a specified period; or
(3) you choose to take a guaranteed
income stream. In addition, most fixed deferred annuities allow you
take up to 10% of your annuity contract value each year without incurring a
surrender or withdrawal charge.
See tax consequences of early
annuity withdrawals. Annuity rollover.

There
are no penalties on distributions if:
(1) You are older than age 59 ½ (2) Distributions are made on or after
the death of the owner of the annuity (3) Become disabled
(4) Distributions are made as a series of substantially equal periodic
payments (not less than annually) for your life or your life expectancy
or joint life expectancies of you and your designated beneficiary
(5) Distributions are made under a single premium immediate annuity
with a starting date no later than one year from the date you purchase
the annuity.
(6) If the distributions are made under certain annuities issued as a
part of a structured settlement agreement.
There are additional exceptions in the case of IRAs. Please contact
your tax advisor for more details.

401k Annuity

Annuity Rate

What are the advantages and disadvantages of a Fixed Deferred Annuity?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of a Fixed Deferred Annuity?

The
major advantages of a fixed deferred annuity are guarantee of premium
and tax deferral. Generally, fixed deferred annuities appeal to the
risk averse who are looking to preserve funds for retirement with
guarantee of premium, competitive fixed rate interest guarantees and no
risk to premium. The major disadvantage of a fixed rate deferred
annuity is that fixed rate guarantee-type products have provided lower
growth than those available historically in the equity markets. Of
course, many factors are important in determining whether a fixed rate
deferred annuity is right for you, including your age, retirement goals
and aversion to risk. If you are older and closer to retirement, or
simply desire to preserve your assets in a secure vehicle, a fixed
deferred annuity may be the best choice. If you are younger and looking
to preserve significant funds for your long-term financial needs and
are willing to take greater risk, an Equity-Indexed or Variable Annuity
might be a better alternative at the present time.

What is a Fixed Deferred Annuity?

A Fixed Deferred Annuity is a contract between you and the insurance company which pays a guaranteed current interest rate.
The interest rate may be guaranteed for one or more years and earns compound interest. The interest earnings compound on a tax-deferred basis.
Fixed deferred annuities are offered either on a single premium basis, i.e. you give the insurance company a lump sum premium payment, (typically $5,000 or more) or on a flexible premium basis, i.e. you pay a lower re-occurring premium payment on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis. In addition to tax deferral, fixed deferred annuities offer safety of your premium.
Fixed deferred annuities offer a current interest rate which may never be less than a lifetime minimum guaranteed interest rate (typically 3%).
The current interest rate is declared and guaranteed by the insurance company. Thus your premium in a fixed deferred annuity is not subject to market risk associated with volatile financial markets.
Fixed deferred annuities have penalties for early withdrawal called surrender charges or withdrawal charges. These charges typically decline over the length of the surrender charge period.

Dissent Regarding Final Rule 151AIndexed Annuities and Certain Other Insurance Contracts

SEC Speech: Opening Remarks and Dissent Regarding Final Rule 151A: Indexed Annuities and Certain Other Insurance Contracts;(Troy A. Paredes) Washington, D.C.: December 17, 2008

Speech by SEC Commissioner:
Opening Remarks and Dissent Regarding Final Rule 151A
Indexed Annuities and Certain Other Insurance Contracts
by
Commissioner Troy A. Paredes
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Open Meeting of the Securities & Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C.
December 17, 2008

Thank you, Chairman Cox.

I believe that proposed Rule 151A addressing indexed annuities is rooted in good intentions. For instance, at the time the rule was proposed, the Commission watched a television clip from Dateline NBC that described individuals who may have been misled by seemingly unscrupulous sales practices into buying these products. Part of our tripartite mission at the SEC is to protect investors, so there is a natural tendency to want to act when we hear stories like this.

However, our jurisdiction is limited; and thus our authority to act is circumscribed. Rule 151A is about this very question: the proper scope of our statutory authority.

In our effort to protect investors, we cannot extend our reach past the statutory stopping point. Section 3(a)(8) of the Securities Act of 1933 ('33 Act) provides a list of securities that are exempt from the '33 Act and thus, by design of the statute, fall beyond the Commission's reach. The Section 3(a)(8) exemption includes, in relevant part, "[a]ny insurance or endowment policy or annuity contract or optional annuity contract, issued by a corporation subject to the supervision of the insurance commissioner . . . of any State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia." I am not persuaded that Rule 151A represents merely an attempt to provide clarification to the scope of exempted securities falling within Section 3(a)(8). Instead, by defining indexed annuities in the manner done in Rule 151A, I believe the SEC will be entering into a realm that Congress prohibited us from entering. Therefore, I cannot vote in favor of the rule and respectfully dissent.

Rule 151A takes some annuity products (indexed annuities), which otherwise may be covered by the statutory exemption in Section 3(a)(8), and removes them from the exemption, thus placing them within the Commission's jurisdiction to regulate. If the Commission's Rule 151A analysis is wrong — which is to say that indexed annuities do fall within Section 3(a)(8) — then the SEC has exceeded its authority by seeking to regulate them. In other words, the effect of Rule 151A would be to confer additional authority upon the SEC when these products, in fact, are entitled to the Section 3(a)(8) exemption.

The Supreme Court has twice construed the scope of Section 3(a)(8) for annuity contracts in the VALIC and United Benefit cases.1 I believe the approach embraced by Rule 151A conflicts with these Supreme Court cases. Although neither VALIC nor United Benefit deals with indexed annuities directly, the cases nevertheless are instructive in evaluating whether such a product falls within the Section 3(a)(8) exemption. And despite the adopting release's efforts to discount its holding, at least one federal court applying VALIC and United Benefit has held that an indexed annuity falls within the statutory exemption of Section 3(a)(8).2

When fixing the contours of Section 3(a)(8), the relevant features of the product at hand should be considered to determine whether the product falls outside the Section 3(a)(8) exemption. Rule 151A places singular focus on investment risk without adequately considering another key factor — namely, the manner in which an indexed annuity is marketed.

Moreover, I believe that Rule 151A misconceptualizes investment risk for purposes of Section 3(a)(8). The extent to which the purchaser of an indexed annuity bears investment risk is a key determinant of whether such a product is subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. Rule 151A denies an indexed annuity the Section 3(a)(8) exemption when it is "more likely than not" that, because of the performance of the linked securities index, amounts payable to the purchaser of the annuity contract will exceed the amounts the insurer guarantees the purchaser. This approach to investment risk gives short shrift to the guarantees that are a hallmark of indexed annuities. In other words, the central insurance component of the product eludes the Rule 151A test. More to the point, Rule 151A in effect treats the possibility of upside, beyond the guarantee of principal and the guaranteed minimum rate of return the purchaser enjoys, as investment risk under Section 3(a)(8). I believe that it is more appropriate to emphasize the extent of downside risk — that is, the extent to which an investor is subject to a risk of loss — in determining the scope of Section 3(a)(8). When investment risk is properly conceived of in terms of the risk of loss, it becomes apparent why indexed annuities may fall within Section 3(a)(8) and thus beyond this agency's reach, contrary to Rule 151A.

Not only does Rule 151A seem to deviate from the approach taken by courts, including the Supreme Court, but it also appears to depart from prior positions taken by the Commission. For example, in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in the Otto case,3 the Commission asserted that the Section 3(a)(8) exemption applies when an insurance company, regulated by the state, assumes a "sufficient" share of investment risk and there is a corresponding decrease in the risk to the purchaser, such as where the purchaser benefits from certain guarantees. Yet Rule 151A denies the Section 3(a)(8) exemption to an indexed annuity issued by a state-regulated insurance company that bears substantial risk under the annuity contract by guaranteeing principal and a minimum return.

In addition, Rule 151A seems to diverge from the analysis embedded in Rule 151. Rule 151 establishes a true safe harbor under Section 3(a)(8) and provides that a variety of factors should be considered, such as marketing techniques and the availability of guarantees. The Rule 151 adopting release even indicates that the rule allows for certain "indexed excess interest features" without the product falling outside the safe harbor.

An even more critical difference between Rule 151 and Rule 151A is the effect of failing to meet the requirements under the rule. If a product does not meet the requirements of Rule 151, there is no safe harbor, but the product nevertheless may fall within Section 3(a)(8) and thus be an exempted security. But if a product does not pass muster under the Rule 151A "more likely than not" test, then the product is deemed to fall outside Section 3(a)(8) and thus is under the SEC's jurisdiction. In essence, while Rule 151 provides a safe harbor, Rule 151A takes away the Section 3(a)(8) statutory exemption.

I am not aware of another instance in the federal securities laws where a "more likely than not" test is employed, and for good reason. A "more likely than not" test does not provide insurers with proper notice of whether their products fall within the federal securities laws or not. If an insurer applies the test in good faith and gets it wrong, the insurer nonetheless risks being subject to liability under Section 5 of the Securities Act, even if the insurer had no intent to run afoul of the federal securities laws. In addition, under the "more likely than not" test, the availability of the Section 3(a)(8) exemption turns on the insurer's own analysis. Accordingly, it is at least conceivable that the same product could receive different Section 3(a)(8) treatment depending on how each respective insurer modeled the likely returns.

Further, I am concerned that Rule 151A, as applied, reveals that the "more likely than not" test, despite its purported balance, leads to only one result: the denial of the Section 3(a)(8) exemption. In practice, Rule 151A appears to result in blanket SEC regulation of the entire indexed annuity market. The adopting release indicates that over 300 indexed annuity contracts were offered in 2007 and explains that the Office of Economic Analysis has determined that indexed annuity contracts with typical features would not meet the Rule 151A test. Indeed, the adopting release elsewhere expresses the expectation that almost all indexed annuity contracts will fail the test. If everyone is destined to fail, what is the purpose of a test? Further, there is at least some risk that in sweeping up the index annuity market, the rule may sweep up other insurance products that otherwise should fall within Section 3(a)(8).

The rule has other shortcomings, aside from the legal analysis that underpins it. These include, but are not limited to, the following.

First, a range of state insurance laws govern indexed annuities. I am disappointed that the rule and adopting release make an implicit judgment that state insurance regulators are inadequate to regulate these products. Such a judgment is beyond our mandate or our expertise. In any event, Section 3(a)(8) does not call upon the Commission to determine whether state insurance regulators are up to the task; rather, the section exempts annuity contracts subject to state insurance regulation.

Second, as a result of Rule 151A, insurers will have to bear various costs and burdens, which, importantly, could disproportionately impact small businesses. Some even have predicted that companies may be forced out of business if Rule 151A is adopted. Such an outcome causes me concern, especially during these difficult economic times. Even when the economy is not strained, such an outcome is disconcerting because it can lead to less competition, ultimately to the detriment of consumers.

Third, the Commission received several thousand comment letters since Rule 151A was proposed in June 2008. Consistent with comments we have received, I believe that there are more effective and appropriate ways to address the concerns underlying this rulemaking. One possible alternative to Rule 151A would be amending Rule 151 to establish a more precise safe harbor in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances attendant to indexed annuities and how they are marketed. A more precise safe harbor would provide better clarity and certainty in this area — regulatory goals the Commission has identified — and would preserve the ability of insurers to find an exemption outside the safe harbor by relying directly on Section 3(a)(8) and the cases interpreting it. I believe further exploration of alternative approaches is warranted, as is continued engagement with interested parties, including state regulators.

In closing, I request that my remarks be included in the Federal Register with the final version of the release. My remarks today do not give a full exposition of the rule's shortcomings, but rather highlight some of the key points that lead me to dissent. I wish to note that these dissenting remarks just given represent my view after giving careful consideration to the range of arguments presented by the Commission's staff, particularly the Office of General Counsel, the commenters, and my own counsel, as well as those of my fellow Commissioners. Although I cannot support the rule, I nonetheless thank the staff for the hard work they have devoted to its preparation.

Endnotes

1See generally SEC v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. of Am., 359 U.S. 65 (1959); SEC v. United Benefit Life Ins. Co., 387 U.S. 202 (1967).

2See Malone v. Addison Ins. Mktg., Inc., 225 F. Supp. 2d 743 (W.D. Ky. 2002).

3Otto v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 814 F.2d 1127 (7th Cir. 1987). The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.

http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2008/spch121708tap.htm
Home | Previous Page
Modified: 12/17/2008

Equity Indexed Annuities - Rule 151a Adopted by the SEC

12-17-08

The Securities And Exchange Commission approved Rule 151a by vote of four to one.

Traditional fixed annuities will not be regulated as securities.

There was no noticeable index annuity industry representative opposing the SEC’s proposed rule 151A which does now turn fixed indexed annuities
(FIAs) into securities products.

www.annuitydefinition.com

Traditional Fixed Interest Rate Annuities

American Equity - Products for Today - Fixed Rate Annuities

Traditional Fixed Interest Rate Annuities
A traditional fixed annuity is a contract between you and American Equity. Your annuity earns a competitive interest rate, which is declared by the board of directors at American Equity and is guaranteed for a specified period of time. It also contains a guaranteed minimum interest over the term of the contract. Taxes are not due on earnings until withdrawn.

The benefits and features of American Equity�s traditional fixed annuities include:

* Tax-Deferred Growth.
* Competitive current and renewal interest rates.
* First year additional interest rate bonuses or Multi-Year Guaranteed Interest Rates.
* Single or Flexible Premium.
* No up front sales charges or fees.
* Systematic Withdrawals of interest or amounts to satisfy IRS minimum distributions available immediately.**
* 10% penalty-free withdrawals starting in year 2.
* Additional liquidity if you are confined to a nursing home or diagnosed with a terminal illness (available by state approval).
* Company Surrender Charges may apply for early withdrawal.
* Surrender Charges are waived at death.

** Benefit not guaranteed and subject to change.

Features and benefits may vary by contract form and state. Please review the contract or product disclosure for more information.

Annuities are products of the insurance industry and are not guaranteed by any bank or insured by the FDIC.

Annuities - What Is Triple Compounding?

American Equity - Tax Deferral

Triple Compounding Solutions!

One of the primary advantages of deferred annuities is the opportunity to accumulate a substantial sum of money by allowing your premium and interest to grow tax-deferred. Interest earned on your American Equity annuity is not currently taxable by the federal or state government until you choose to make a withdrawal. This is the key difference between an annuity and other taxable financial vehicles. A 5% return may sound good initially, but if you are in a taxable vehicle with a combined 27% tax bracket, the actual return is 3.65%. Combine this with an average inflation rate of 4%, and what have you truly gained? That�s right... nothing!

Taxable vs. Tax-Deferred

With that in mind, consider the many advantages of an annuity, including triple compounding! With annuities you earn interest on your principal, interest on your interest, and interest on what you would normally pay in taxes. You will not pay income taxes on annuity interest until you withdraw it from your annuity. You control when you pay income taxes!

Deferred Annuity

SEC Ignores Congressional, State, and Industry Opposition to Indexed Annuity Proposal

SEC Ignores Congressional, State, and Industry Opposition to Indexed Annuity Proposal

SEC Ignores Congressional, State, and Industry Opposition to Indexed Annuity Proposal

Last update: 11:09 a.m. EST Dec. 12, 2008
WASHINGTON, Dec 12, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The Coalition for Indexed Products issued a statement expressing "deep disappointment" in the Security and Exchange Commission's decision to pursue Proposed Rule 151A, which would require all indexed annuities to be registered as securities. The SEC announced yesterday that the proposal would be an agenda item on the Commission's December 17 meeting.
A letter signed by 19 members of Congress -- including several on the House Financial Services Committee -- was recently sent to SEC Commissioners expressing opposition to the proposed rule, according to the Coalition. It noted that Proposed Rule 151A would "reduce product availability and consumer choice" and "effectively [place] the cost of the regulation squarely on the shoulders of consumers."
Other high profile opponents include the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the National Conference of Insurance Legislators, and a number of Congressional members who wrote separate letters to the SEC.
"The SEC's action appears to ignore the thousands of comments filed against this misguided proposal," said Jim Poolman, spokesperson for the Coalition and former North Dakota Insurance Commissioner.
"It is concerning that the SEC continues to see this issue as a priority in the middle of arguably the most severe financial crisis since World War II," Mr. Poolman added. "The Commission seems content to eliminate millions in market capital from the insurance industry, based on highly questionable suppositions."
SOURCE The Coalition for Indexed Products

Annuity
Annuity Rate
Annuity Guide
Index Annuities
Deferred Annuity

Fixed Indexed Universal Life Insurance

Sagicor Life Introduces New Fixed Indexed Universal Life Product - 12/10/2008 - insurancenewsnet.com

Tampa, FL - December 9, 2008 – Sagicor Life Insurance Company is pleased to introduce its Platinum Series Fixed Indexed Universal Life product Which is now available in the following states: AL, AR, CO, DC, DE, GA, FL, HI, ID, IN, KS, MD, MO, NC, NE, NV, OK, RI, SC, and WA. More state approvals are soon.

The Platinum Series Fixed Indexed Universal Life product is ideal for family income protection, college savings, wealth building, retirement savings, estate planning, wealth transfer, charitable giving, business continuation, buy/sell plans, executive bonus plans, deferred compensation plans and more. The Fixed Indexed Universal Life is part of a growing portfolio of life and annuity products offered by Sagicor Life.

A key highlight of the Fixed Indexed Universal Life product is it provides immediate death benefit protection along with three distinct crediting strategies offering the potential for significant cash value growth on a taxed-deferred basis with no market risk. The available crediting strategies include a one-year Declared Rate Strategy, a one-year point-to-point strategy linked to the S&P 500® Index and a three-year point-to-point strategy based on a basket of indices made up of the Russell® 2000, the Dow Jones EURO STOXX 50® Index and the Hang Seng Index.

Other features include the Accelerated Benefit Insurance Rider which includes Terminal Illness and Chronic Illness Living Benefits*, penalty-free withdrawals, policy loans after the first year** and preferred loans available after the policy has been in force for ten years. Available optional riders include the Primary Insured Term Rider, Waiver of Monthly Deductions Rider, Additional Insured Term Rider, Children’s Term Rider, and Accidental Death Benefit Rider. Policy and Riders are not available in all states and state variations apply. For more information visit www.SagicorLifeUSA.com or contact our Sales Department at salesdept@sagicorlifeusa.com or call 800-406-9900.

About Sagicor Life Insurance Company

Sagicor Life Insurance Company is a full-service life insurance company offering a wide range of competitive products consisting of term, whole life, indexed life and annuities. Licensed in 44 states and the District of Columbia, Sagicor Life is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sagicor Financial Corporation, one of the oldest insurance groups in the Americas, with operations in 22 countries including the United States, United Kingdom, Latin America and the Caribbean. Sagicor Life is committed to offering our agents and customers world-class service with integrity and value.

* Not available in all states.
** In Indiana, loans can be taken in the first year.

MEDIA CONTACT:

Anabel S. Thomas
Sagicor Life Insurance Company
Phone: (813) 287-1602 ext. 6207
Fax: (813) 287-7420
anabel_thomas@sagicor.com

Index Annuity
Equity Index
Index Annuity Rate

Annuity can’t be seen as asset in determining nursing home assistance.

Annuity ruling sets standard | Wilkes-Barre News | The Times Leader

Annuity ruling sets standard
Recent decision reaffirms other rulings that annuity can’t be seen as asset in determining nursing home assistance.

By Terrie Morgan-Besecker tmorgan@timesleader.com
Law & Order Reporter

In a precedent-setting ruling, a federal appellate court has said the state Department of Public Welfare cannot consider a $250,000 annuity a Wilkes-Barre woman purchased following her husband’s entry into a nursing home as an asset when determining whether he was eligible for Medicaid benefits.

The ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest in a series of court cases brought by welfare officials in Pennsylvania and other states. The cases challenge a loophole in the Medicaid law that officials say has allowed affluent couples to use annuities to shelter assets that otherwise would be available to pay for an institutionalized spouse’s care.

The decision, issued last month in the case of Josephine James, is significant because it reaffirms prior court rulings, said James’s attorney, Matthew Parker of Williamsport. It will affect all residents in the states covered by the Third Circuit – New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware.

But Jason Manne, chief deputy counsel for DPW, said the court’s ruling is fact-specific to the James case. Even though the department lost, Manne contends the legal reasoning the court employed will help DPW challenge the use of annuities in calculating Medicaid benefits.

The ruling is being closely monitored by attorneys on both sides of the issue as the stakes are huge. The average annual cost of nursing home care for one person is $60,000, according to DPW. Last year, Pennsylvania’s Medicaid fund paid out more than $3 billion to nursing homes.

While providing health care coverage to all persons is a laudable goal, DPW says, it has an obligation to ensure that Medicaid is utilized for those who truly need it.

“This does not involve poor people or people of modest means,” Manne said. “The problem is you have individuals who have hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes even millions, who, rather than use their money for their nursing home care, want the taxpayers to pay for that care.”
A legal loophole

But Parker and other elder-law attorneys say couples such as the Jameses are simply availing themselves of all options to ensure the non-institutionalized spouse is left with sufficient income to support him or herself.

They note that amendments to the law that went into effect in 2006 now require DPW be listed as a lien holder on annuities in which a person or the person’s spouse is receiving Medicaid benefits. That does not affect Josephine James, whose case started in 2005. For all subsequent cases, it allows DPW to recoup all money spent on caring for the institutionalized spouse from the estate of the non-institutionalized spouse after their death.

They also note that regulations are in place to ensure the process is not abused. Welfare officials, they say, are trying to use the courts to circumvent a law they don’t like.

“If in fact there are any alleged loopholes, they were created by Congress. It is not for DPW ... to determine what public policy is when Congress has spoken,” said attorney Shirley Berger Whitenack of New Jersey, a member of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. “If DPW doesn’t like it, they can certainly lobby Congress” to change the law.

The key issue focuses on the structure of an annuity – a contractual agreement in which the buyer gives the seller, typically an insurance company or bank, a lump sum of money. The company or bank then pays the purchaser a consistent monthly amount, or an “income stream,” over a given period of time.

In determining whether an institutionalized spouse will qualify for Medicaid assistance, states consider a married couple’s assets – including cash, stocks, bonds and property. The law prohibits the state from considering the income of the non-institutionalized spouse – known as the community spouse – in that calculation.

The community spouse is afforded a percentage of the assets to live on. Any excess is deemed an “available asset” that can be used to pay nursing home costs. Medicaid kicks in once that money has been exhausted.

The key benefit of an annuity is that it allows couples to convert joint assets that otherwise would be deemed available into an “income stream” for the community spouse. Because that money is now considered to be the income of the community spouse – not an asset – it cannot be counted when determining the institutionalized spouse’s Medicaid eligibility.
How it worked

In the James case, Robert James, now deceased, was admitted to a Wilkes-Barre nursing home on Aug. 10, 2005. At that time, he and his wife had total assets of $381,443, of which roughly $278,000 was deemed “available assets” that could be used to pay for Robert’s care.

In order to qualify Robert for Medicaid, Josephine James purchased a $250,000 annuity on Sept. 12, 2005 – about a month after her husband entered the home. She also spent about $28,000 on a new car, leaving no available assets to pay for her husband’s care under Medicaid rules.

Robert James then applied for Medicaid benefits, but was denied by DPW.

The department did not allege Josephine James did anything improper when she converted the couple’s assets into an annuity for herself or when she purchased the car, both of which are allowed under the rules.

Rather, it argued the annuity was an asset because Josephine James could, if she chose, sell the “income stream” it generated to a firm such as J.G. Wentworth, a company that purchases annuities and other types of structured payments for a lump sum.

The Jameses’ filed a federal court action that challenged the department’s interpretation. A federal judge ruled in their favor, saying nothing within the Medicaid Act says DPW can force a person to sell an annuity to a second party.

DPW appealed to the Third Circuit, which also sided with the Jameses.
More tests ahead

In its ruling, the court said Medicaid rules state that an asset can only be deemed “available” if the owner has the ability to liquidate it without incurring legal liability.

In the James case, her annuity was non-transferable and non-revocable, meaning she could not access the principal and could not sell it. If she did, she would be breaking the contract, subjecting her to legal liability. The court said it therefore could not be considered an asset.

While the ruling benefits James, Manne said it will not benefit persons who purchase annuities today because Pennsylvania in 2005 amended its law to forbid sellers of annuities from including a clause that makes them non-transferable. That would allow annuities to be sold without legal liability, he said, and allow the state to consider them an asset.

Manne acknowledged that others have interpreted the Third Circuit’s decision differently. There are also other complex legal issues that still must be resolved, he said.

Given that, the true significance of the ruling won’t be known until other courts apply the decision to pending cases that raise issues similar to the James case, he said.

Terrie Morgan-Besecker, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 570-829-7179.

Variable Annuities - Insurers Abandon Rosy View of Variable Annuities

Insurers Abandon Rosy View of Variable Annuities at SmartMoney.com

Insurers Abandon Rosy View of Variable Annuities

For the last few years, insurance companies have been luring investors with an irresistible product: an investment that guaranteed market gains, with no risk, and generous income payments for life. Surprise of surprises, that pitch has worked, reviving the lackluster variable annuity and attracting about $140 billion a year in investor assets.

But the guarantees on these variable annuities sounded too good to be true, and a few months ago SmartMoney asked insurance company executives to explain how, exactly, they planned to keep them.

As it turns out, it’s not so easy. A variable annuity is basically an investment portfolio with an insurance overlay – investors got tax-deferral and, usually, a death benefit, but paid high fees and big withdrawal penalties. But in the last few years, insurance companies have started marketing the investments as safe havens for people in retirement or close to it: a typical product lets investors stay in the market, but promises a lifetime income stream based on an account value that can only go up, often by as much as 7% per year. That means investors’ potential income rises regardless of what happens in the market.

How’s that possible? Apparently, it’s not. When we asked earlier this year, the insurance companies told us they had it all under control, guaranteeing the benefits with sophisticated models and elaborate hedging strategies that would hold up even in a severe market downturn. But now that we’ve had that severe downturn, several companies have stopped selling their most generous variable annuities or raised fees, citing “prudence in light of current market conditions” – code for “we didn’t expect this.”

MassMutual has stopped selling an annuity that guaranteed a 6% annual return; AXA-Equitable has taken a product with a 6.5% guarantee off the shelf and raised the prices on its existing product; other companies are doing the same. “In today’s market, a 6.5% guarantee just is not prudent,” said Steve Mabry, senior vice president of product development at AXA-Equitable.

In theory, investors who already own one of these annuities are still entitled to the benefits for as long as they hold their contracts. And lucky them: in today’s markets, a 6.5% annual return looks downright spectacular. The problem is, the guarantees are still only as good as the companies that insure them. And this most recent move – discontinuing products, raising fees – acknowledges that the companies’ models and hedging strategies aren’t as stable as they thought. The financial crisis has hurt insurance companies across the board -- AIG has already received federal bailout funds; the Hartford has taken steps to apply for them – and the question policyholders need to ask is, “Will my company be around in four or five years, when I want to exercise that benefit,” says John McCarthy, vice president at Advance Sales, an annuity research company.

There are backstops in place, of course, but if companies go out of business, it won’t look good for investors. “You may be able to collect your account value,” said McCarthy. “But you’ve paid for a guarantee that you’ll never get.” The insurance companies say that won’t happen. They point to the rules and regulations that require them to keep a certain amount of money in reserve. Also, most states require insurers to guarantee at least $100,000 in annuity benefits, but it’s not clear whether these variable annuity benefits qualify. “They might be covered today, and they might not be, and that might not mean anything five or 10 years from now,” says Mike Surguine, the executive director of the Arizona Life and Disability Guaranty Fund. “The laws could change.” And, says AXA’s Mabry, the company discontinued its most generous guarantee precisely to insure the financial health of the parent company.

But some companies are showing no sign of retreat, at least not yet. Prudential is still selling its most generous annuity, which guarantees a 7% annual rate of return under any market conditions. It’s not cheap – the all-in cost for an annuity with the guarantee is well over 3% per year – but in this market, it’s selling like crazy: In the third quarter of 2008, 75% of Prudential annuities carried the benefit. The company says it has no plans to raise its prices or reduce the benefit, and says it’s confident it can handle these commitments. In any case it’s a big guarantee – as long as they’re around to keep it.