The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College recently completed a study which investigated why annuities are under owned despite the benefits it provides for retirees. The findings are particularly interesting for financial advisors given this wide gap and persistent challenge. 

The study queried investors with more than $100,000 in financial assets who are in or near retirement. About half of the respondents indicated some willingness to buy an annuity at current rates, while only 12% actually are invested in one. 

Interestingly, the study also found that a lack of liquidity or the inability to pass on an annuity as an asset to heirs were not cited as reasons to not purchase an annuity. Instead, the major factor was a lack of knowledge of the product and how to buy one. Some who were more familiar with the product had a negative perception of hidden costs and performance issues.

According to the authors of the study, the reluctance to buy one stems mostly from psychological reasons. Advisors should endeavor to provide more detailed knowledge about these products including the mechanics of how they work in order to increase comfort levels. Then, they should share an action plan of how to actually buy an annuity. 

Finsum: Most retirees acknowledge the benefits of owning an annuity and self-report a desire to invest in one. Yet only 12% of retirees own an annuity despite the benefits. Some research on this gap came up with some interesting findings. 

Cerulli Associates is forecasting that total assets under management in separately managed accounts (SMAs) will exceed $2 trillion in assets this year. 2023 saw asset growth of 12%, and the firm sees a 15% increase this year. It identifies growth in standalone SMAs in addition to unified managed accounts (UMAs) as key drivers of this trend.   

According to Scott Smith, the director of advice relationships at Cerulli, SMAs allow for more customization of portfolios to achieve specific aims such as tax management or value-aligned investing. He also acknowledges that technology has made SMAs accessible and practical for a much wider swathe of the investing universe. 

Previously, an SMA would be too complicated and costly due to tax and regulatory requirements to make sense for smaller accounts. A decade ago, SMAs were only available for clients with millions to invest. Now, they are available to clients with minimums of $100,000 in some cases. 

The growth of these accounts comes at the expense of traditional brokerages. A key difference is that advisors who use SMAs receive compensation from clients’ portfolio values rather than trading commissions which can create bad incentives. 

Finsum: Separately managed accounts are forecast to exceed $2 trillion in client assets this year. These are typically fee-based and allow for more personalization than investing through a brokerage where revenue is generated through trading commissions.

The combination of tighter money and falling valuations have led private equity sales of portfolio companies to their lowest levels since 2009. Now with some signs of thawing in markets, private equity firms are looking to exit positions and return money to investors.

It’s led to a negative cycle for the industry. The lack of exits has adversely impacted investors’ willingness to pledge money for new funds which has hampered the industry’s ability to make deals. 

According to Per Franzen, the head of private capital for Europe and North America at EQT AB, “Private equity players have to face reality at some point. They need to invest remaining capital and go back to the market to raise new funds, which means a need to drive exits and improve distributions.” Reportedly, some big deals are on the horizon such as Hellman & Friedman looking to sell its energy data platform, Enervus, KKR exiting car park operator, Q-Park, and Carlyle finding a buyer for luxury watch parts manufacturer, Acrotec Group

Another consideration is upcoming elections which could complicate efforts to exit positions. This increases the urgency to make moves in the first half of the year. There are also expectations that private equity could be looking to take advantage of any dislocations or discounts as the industry has $1.4 trillion in cash on the sidelines. 

Finsum: Private equity firms are looking to exit positions in the coming months in order to return cash to investors. 

In 2024, the major market narrative has certainly shifted from whether the Fed will cut or hike to when and how much the Fed will cut. According to Steve Laipply, BlackRock’s Global Co-Head of Bond ETFs, it’s a good time to lock in yields. Currently, investors can achieve yields of 4% in low-risk, diversified bond funds which is quite attractive relative to recent history. 

During the previous cycle, investors would have to buy riskier high-yield bonds to achieve such income. Overall, he believes that investors have been overly risk averse during this tightening cycle, and most are underexposed to the asset class. Despite the recent rally, there are plenty of opportunities to capture generous yields with lower levels of risk. Further, fixed income would benefit if the economy weakened further, and inflation continues to lose steam. 

While investors can get even higher yields in the front-end of the curve or with certificates of deposit, Laipply doesn’t see this as a prudent approach given underlying macroeconomic trends, and the Fed’s dovish tilt in the new year. He recommends that investors choose a diversified, broad bond fund like the iShares Core US Aggregate Bond ETF or an active fund like the Blackrock Flexible Income Fund.

Finsum: According to Steve Laipply, Blackrock’s Global Co-head of Bond ETFs, investors should lock in yields given the rising chance of a recession, slowing inflation, and a dovish Fed in 2024.

Currently, fixed income investors can lock in yields that are in-line with the average, historical return in equity markets. According to David Leduc, the CEO, Insight Investment North America, this is a major reason we are in a new ‘golden age’ for bonds. 

Another reason to be bullish on the asset class is that most funds are deployed via passive strategies. This has increased liquidity and decreased transaction costs, while also leading to more inefficiencies which astute active managers can capitalize upon. 

Leduc believes that fixed income benchmarks are inherently flawed given that indexes are weighted based on debt issuance. The end result is that passive fixed income investors are overexposed to the most indebted companies.

In contrast, active managers can achieve alpha through careful selection in terms of value, credit quality, and duration. While passive funds invest in a relatively small slice of the fixed income universe, active managers have much more latitude in terms of securities to better optimize portfolios in terms of risk and return. One constraint for active managers is that some strategies are successful but can’t necessarily be scaled. Many err by simply sticking to duration positioning which increases near-term volatility.

Finsum: It’s a golden age for fixed income with bonds offering equity-like returns. Here’s why investors should favor active strategies especially as the risk of a recession grows.