MassMutual settles with SEC over VA disclosures

Carrier failed to reveal the negative impact of a growth cap on rider; agents also confused

Nov 15, 2012 @ 3:57 pm

By Darla Mercado

massmutual, variable annuities, sec
+ Zoom

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. today reached a $1.65 million settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission related to insufficient disclosures on one of its variable annuity riders.

The regulator claimed that the carrier failed to disclose to investors the downside of a cap on its guaranteed minimum income benefit riders — specifically that if the benefit base reached a maximum value, accruals would end and subsequent withdrawals would reduce the value of the contract and the GMIB.

“In a worst-case scenario, [investors] would withdraw all of their contract value, the GMIB value would decline to zero and they would be left with nothing to annuitize,” according to the SEC.

The case focuses on MassMutual's GMIB 5 and GMIB 6 riders, which were offered from 2007 to 2009. Both set a floor on which future income withdrawals were based, expanding the value of the GMIB by 5% or 6% annually. Investors could make withdrawals at any time while the annuity accumulates.

In marketing pieces, MassMutual advertised the GMIBs as providing “Income Now,” if clients wanted to take money during the accumulation phase or “Income Later,” if they waited to receive annuity payments. “Even if your contract value drops to zero, you can apply your GMIB value to a fixed or variable annuity,” the insurer's sales material said.

But MassMutual failed to sufficiently explain in its prospectus or promotional literature that the GMIB would stop earning interest if it reached a maximum value, according to the SEC. If the rider hits this cap, every dollar withdrawn will cut the value of the benefit by a pro-rata amount tied to the percentage decrease in the contract value.

MassMutual's agents also misunderstood how the product worked, the SEC said. Some thought that after the GMIB value hit the cap, it would stay there and clients could keep taking withdrawals. Others thought that clients could wait until the benefit reached the cap, take 5% or 6% annual withdrawals and then annuitize the contract to get an income stream based on the GMIB's value, according to the complaint.

“Following such an investment strategy could have had severe adverse consequences for investors,” the SEC said.

The insurer pulled GMIB 5 in March 2009 and GMIB 6 in December 2008, according to MassMutual spokesman Mark Cybulski. On May 1, 2009, the company updated its prospectuses to better detail what happens if a GMIB value reaches the cap. MassMutual also removed the cap from existing clients' riders to ensure that they never reached the maximum GMIB value.

None of the investors were harmed.

“We are pleased to have resolved this matter with the SEC,” Mr. Cybulski said. “Importantly, the settlement makes clear MassMutual improved the challenged disclosures beginning May 1, 2009, and that the SEC considered our change to these riders to eliminate the maximum GMIB value or 'cap.' ”


What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video

Consuelo Mack WealthTrack

Thomas Russo: What it really takes to be a successful investor

Being a successful investor requires the ability to say no and the capacity to suffer, according to Thomas Russo, managing member of Gardner Russo & Gardner.

Video Spotlight

Are Your Clients Prepared For Market Downturns?

Sponsored by Prudential

Video Spotlight

Path to growth

Video Spotlight

Path to growth

Latest news & opinion

What not to say to clients when the markets drop

Here's what advisers should steer clear of saying the next time stocks turn downward.

SEC bars former rep for alleged share price manipulation

George Thoreson tried to keep penny stock's price high to enable Nasdaq listing.

Nevada fiduciary law raises concerns among retirement professionals, brokerage industry

Critics complain that it conflicts with ERISA and SEC rules and has potential to spur other states to pass their own version of a fiduciary rule.

A special need for financial advice

Advisers don't have to be experts to help special needs families get a jump on lifelong planning.

Broker-dealers and RIAs at loggerheads over fiduciary rule delay

Companies and groups weighing in with comment letters have vastly different viewpoints on the delay's potential impact.


Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print