Subscribe

Brokers up in arms over The Hartford’s VA plan

The Hartford is reining in investment options for some variable annuities, leaving advisers scrambling to find their clients who have them. That's raising worries about the amount of work — and potential liability — they may face.

Broker-dealer executives are worried about the amount of work — and the potential liability — they may face following The Hartford’s announcement that it’s reining in investment options for some variable annuities.

The insurer recently notified firms that a swath of its legacy variable annuity clients will need to allocate their account values toward more-conservative investments by Oct. 4. Those failing to make the change will lose the income rider they’ve been paying for.

“We’re very uncomfortable with the liability, the work and the effort that they’ve created for us,” said Scott Stolz, president of Raymond James Insurance Group. “We’re exploring ways to reduce that potential liability.”

Some 2,300 contract holders at Raymond James will be affected, he added.

“The onus is now on the firm,” said Ethan Young, an annuity research manager at Commonwealth Financial Network. “It’s a burden to the broker-dealer, the clients and the advisers.”

The issue is further compounded by the fact that The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. not only stopped selling annuities, it also moved its life insurance business over to Prudential Financial Inc. This leaves broker-dealers with less leverage when it comes to pushing back against the company’s decision.

“It’s not like we can’t sell their products; we have no [Hartford] products to sell,” said Judson Forner, a senior analyst with ValMark Securities Inc. “What’s really scary is if this persists and you have other carriers who want out — what other creative ideas will they come up with?”

INVESTMENT CHANGES

He noted that some clients undoubtedly will fail to make the required investment changes.

“[The Hartford is] doing their best to make it as well-known as possible that if action isn’t taken, you’ll lose the rider,” Mr. Forner said. “But inevitably, there will be someone who won’t comply, and there will be a continued outcry.”

At least one firm, however, has come up with a way to cooperate with The Hartford. Edward Jones, which has a relationship with the insurer going back to the 1980s, has asked it to work with the firm and monitor how many clients will make the investment changes to keep their rider. The insurer also will provide Edward Jones with a monthly report on which clients have made the changes and which ones still need to respond.

60,000 CLIENTS AFFECTED

More than 60,000 of the firm’s clients will be affected by at least one of the restrictions The Hartford announced this spring, which include the mandatory investment change for certain riders and the company’s decision to stop taking new allocations to the VA’s fixed-accumulation feature.

“It’s extra work for us, but it’s not something we’d want to let happen naturally,” said Merry Mosbacher, a principal in Edward Jones’ insurance marketing unit. “We’re comfortable that we’ll be able to manage the process so nobody is negatively affected by the loss of the rider.”

Learn more about reprints and licensing for this article.

Recent Articles by Author

As indexed universal life sales climb, be sure to mind the risks

Advisers need to bear in mind that this cousin of traditional universal life insurance requires unique precautions.

Donald Sterling’s battle holds harsh lessons for advisers

The L.A. Clippers owner's fight with pro basketball highlights important tax and estate strategies that may surprise you.

Advisers fall short on implementation of long-term-care insurance

Most know it's a key part of retirement planning but lack in-depth knowledge when the need for care arises.

Broker-dealers face administrative hurdles in rollout of QLAC annuity

Confusion remains over who ensures the contract purchase meets Treasury's guidelines.

Finra arbitration panel awards $500,000 to former Morgan Stanley rep

Broker and wirehouse embroiled in a three-year dispute over a promissory note.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print