Workers in the U.S. remain in one job for an average of five years before moving on to another. As a result, workers will experience a significant number of job changes over the course of their careers.

What does this mean for workers’ retirement plans? And how does it impact workers’ participation in retirement plans as well as their options for withdrawing income after their working years are done?

A panel discussed these issues during the Employee Benefit Research Institute’s Virtual Policy Forum.

EBRI tracked workers who changed jobs in each two-year period since 1996 and found that nearly one-fourth of those workers switched employers in any two-year period. Those who did not have an employer-based retirement plan were most likely to change jobs, said Craig Copeland, EBRI director of wealth benefits research.

One takeaway of EBRI’s research is that the likelihood of employee turnover must be considered when looking at investment options, he said. Otherwise, participants will not receive the full benefits of some investment options.

In-plan retirement income options evolve rapidly

In-plan retirement income options are evolving rapidly, said Kevin Crain, executive director of the Institutional Retirement Income Council. He listed some of the most popular.

1. Systematic withdrawals: monthly, quarterly or annually.
2. Stable value or bond solutions paired with systematic withdrawals.
3. Hybrid target date funds: a target date fund that has a retirement income portion incorporated into it. The option can have either an annuity structure or a systematic withdrawal feature.
4. Hybrid managed accounts that can include either a retirement income option – an annuity option – or systematic withdrawal.
5. The option to distribute to an annuity.

Managed accounts offer customization and personalization

Customization and personalization are emerging as themes in managed accounts, said Katie Hockenmaier, partner with Mercer’s US Wealth Practice.

She said many plan sponsors that offer managed accounts are having discussions with those account providers about what features might be turned on to help workers with decumulation.

“Those managed account providers can not only help support investing of the assets to help support certain rates of decumulation but also provide recommendations and strategies for balancing decumulation needs in retirement,” she said.

But one hurdle in all this is participant engagement, she said. “A lot of times, participants don’t start thinking about this until they’re five, 10, 15 years out from retirement.”

Other features Hockenmaier said she sees gaining traction are capital preservation options that are intended to help provide some stability toward decumulation needs in retirement. She also cited target date funds with and without guaranteed income components.

“Many plan sponsors already have some tool for some kind of spend-down in retirement,” she said. “But we are seeing more target date funds with an embedded annuity component or an option to annuitize. We anticipate that these offerings will become more prevalent in the marketplace.”

Hockenmaier said she sees “a bias around annuitization” in retirement plans.

“We see a very low prevalence of stand-alone annuities in plans,” she said.

Hockenmaier said with all the different options for in-plan retirement income, “we encourage plan sponsors to look at their demographics and what makes the most sense for their population.

“Communication and education are key.”

© Entire contents copyright 2025 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

The post Retirement income options evolve as workers job-hop appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

One of the most valuable benefits for retirement savers age 50 and older is about to change. Starting in 2026, workers earning more than $145,000 will not be able to make pre-tax catch-up contributions to their 401(k), 403(b), or 457(b) plans. Instead, those extra dollars, up to $7,500 in 2025, must go into Roth accounts, using after-tax money for tax-free withdrawals in retirement.

The Internal Revenue Service completed the rules this month, closing one of the last tax-deferral options for late-career professionals with high incomes. While contribution limits stay unchanged, the shift will affect retirement planning strategies, payroll systems, and household tax bills.

Catch-up contributions were created to help older workers boost their retirement savings as they near the end of their careers. For 2025, the base limit for employee 401(k) contributions is $23,000, with an added $7,500 for those 50 and older. This option lets mid- to late-career workers save more at a stage when they may finally have the income to do so.

Until now, participants could decide whether to make those contributions on a pre-tax basis, lowering their current taxable income, or on a Roth basis, paying taxes now but reaping tax-free withdrawals later. High earners will soon lose that flexibility.

New catch-up rules to accelerate taxes

For workers earning above $145,000, the new rule accelerates their tax bill. Instead of reducing income today, catch-up contributions will add to taxable earnings in the year made. This hits hardest for those in peak-earning years when marginal tax rates are highest.

“Beginning in 2026, workers aged 50 and older earning more than $145,000 in prior-year wages will be prohibited from making pre-tax catch-up contributions,” explained Prof. Chad D. Cummings, CEO of Cummings & Cummings Law. “This change will immediately increase current year adjusted gross income and federal tax liability for precisely the demographic least positioned to absorb it.”

Cummings also warned that retirement plans not equipped with Roth functionality will be unable to accept any catch-up contributions for high earners, exposing employers to potential compliance risks.

The operational burden is real. Payroll systems and plan administrators must track which employees cross the $145,000 threshold. Plan sponsors also need to ensure Roth options are available, update plan documents, and provide clear disclosures to participants. Any delay could expose employers to IRS penalties or litigation.

Plans might struggle with Roth mandate

The law’s fine print means plans covering multiple entities or those with weaker payroll systems may struggle to find who falls into the “Roth-mandated” category. This is likely to cause growing pains in 2026.

For employees, the rule removes a favored strategy of deferring income into retirement years, especially for those planning to move to lower-tax states.
“This shift destroys the long-standing strategy of deferring tax into retirement years when income is lower and withdrawals occur in zero-income tax states such as Florida or Texas,” Cummings said.

Still, some advisers note there are alternatives. California CPA Steven Cashiola suggested three approaches: funding a Health Savings Account, maximizing pre-tax savings through a spouse’s plan if available, or investing through a taxable brokerage account with tax-efficient strategies. None are perfect substitutes, he noted, but they provide options for those seeking continued tax-deferred growth.

HSA access expanded

The broader legislative package also expanded access to Health Savings Accounts, which may serve as a complementary tool.

Scott Cutler, CEO of HealthEquity, called it “the biggest expansion of HSAs in over 20 years,” noting that millions more Americans with marketplace health plans will soon become eligible. HSAs allow tax-deductible contributions, tax-free growth, and tax-free withdrawals for qualified medical expenses—an advantage that could ease the sting of losing pre-tax retirement contributions.

While rules around catch-up contributions attract technical debate, the bigger picture is spending discipline. For high-income households spending aggressively, an extra $7,500 in retirement savings is unlikely to close the gap. Expense control and a sustainable plan matter more than any single tax rule.

The changes are not expected to reduce the overall ability of older workers to save for retirement, as the limits are still intact, but they do force high earners to face higher current-year taxes and new planning dynamics. For those affected, 2025 will be the final year to make pre-tax catch-up contributions before the Roth-only mandate begins.

For employers, the clock is ticking to update systems and ensure compliance. For employees, the message is clear: understand how the new rule affects your take-home pay, consider alternatives like HSAs or spousal contributions, and watch your spending habits.

As the retirement landscape shifts, catch-up contributions are still a critical tool, but how they work and who benefits is changing in ways that will reshape planning for years to come.

© Entire contents copyright 2025 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

The post Catch-up contributions go Roth-only for older, high-income savers in 2026 appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

Glenda and Lowell Thompson bought a PHL Variable Insurance Co. product nearly 12 years ago as a vehicle to fund their retirement.

That was long before the insurance company hit the financial bottom. PHL Variable is now in the hands of Connecticut regulators, who are trying to sort out its finances while a moratorium on benefits remains in place.

Insurance Commissioner Andrew Mais is asking a state Superior Court to loosen the moratorium on PHL Variable policies to allow for more flexible distributions for universal life and fixed index annuity owners.

A public comment period resulted in 26 letters that range from owners of multimillion-dollar policies being used to fund business transfers, to smaller policies held by blue-collar policyholders like the Thompsons.

The Moulton, Ala., couple, married for 65 years, does not list their policy type or the amount in their letter. But the anguish over the fate of their crucial retirement funds is clear in Glenda Thompson’s letter.

“I find myself being anxious and extremely worried for months, losing sleep over this money we invested. We have saved and saved to have money for our care when we are older.”

Glenda Thompson

“I find myself being anxious and extremely worried for months, losing sleep over this money we invested,” she writes. “We have saved and saved to have money for our care when we are older.”

Lowell Thompson, 88, was a farmer and factory worker forced to retire from Monsanto in 1982 due to a condition that would eventually leave him legally blind, his wife writes. He suffered a heart attack in 2023.

Glenda Thompson worked for “many years” as a hospital transcriptionist before earning a degree in sonography at age 51, she writes. She worked for the hospital into her 80s, battling breast cancer in 2010. Recently, Glenda Thompson suffered from her own heart condition.

“We both are old and do not have the time to wait for a long process of rehabilitation,” she writes.

Some policies will come up short

Some PHL Variable policyholders are “unlikely” to ever receive their full benefits, Mais said in a July memorandum.

Mais made the admission as part of a request to amend the moratorium in place since May 2024. The moratorium helped prevent “a run on the bank,” Mais wrote, while regulators created a rehabilitation plan.

That plan, due later this year, is dependent on the outcome of an effort to sell all or parts of the PHL Variable business, Mais explained.

In court documents, Mais explained how policyholders can access more of their benefits. Universal life policyholders have two options under the moratorium modification:

• Reduction in the face amount of death benefits with downward premium adjustment prospectively.
• Convert policy to a claim for a fixed amount (to be determined based on adjusted surrender value) with no ongoing premium obligation.

The modification is expected to offer fixed indexed annuity owners who have not activated their income rider or are currently receiving systematic withdrawals two alternatives:

• Activate the income rider (to the extent available under the contract).
• Receive a one-time surrender-charge free distribution of the “Free Withdrawal Amount” under the contract (typically this is approximately 10% of the contract’s account value).

High-dollar policy owners

A small subset of high-dollar PHL policies is in the hands of investors who use them as part of estate planning and/or the transfer of businesses or general wealth to heirs.

Obra Capital Management submitted a comment letter on behalf of clients who collectively own 61 life insurance policies issued by PHL Variable. Obra objects to the moratorium modification, claiming that Mais’s office has not shared comprehensive financial information to explain the impact on policyholders.

“Without comprehensive financial information available now, the Court, Obra, and other policyholders cannot meaningfully evaluate whether the proposed modifications serve the best interests of policyholders as a whole,” the Obra letter reads.

Larger policyholders argue that Mais’s decision to cap policyholder death benefits or policy maturity benefits at $300,000 divides the PHL policyholders into two camps: “under the cap” policyholders who will receive payment in full under their policies, and the “over the cap” policyholders, who “will receive less than what they bargained for when they purchased their PHL insurance policies,” as one policyholder claimed.

Judge Daniel J. Klau will hold an Oct. 21 public hearing on the moratorium request.

Janette K. Degen, of Elida, Ohio, used her letter to remind the court of the stakes for some policyholders. Degen, 73, is owed an annual benefit amount of nearly $45,000 from her PHL Variable annuity.

“This amount of money is needed to live in my retirement comfortably as I made many sacrifices in the 34 years that I worked for the United States Postal Service by placing bimonthly money into my deferred compensation program,” she wrote. “I should not have to be gravely ill with medical expenses or have my spouse pass away to receive my own money that I saved during my working career.”

© Entire contents copyright 2025 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

The post PHL Variable policyholders share hardship tales while ripping moratorium appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

More than a year after first circulating a draft guidance on compliance expectations for its best interest standard for annuity sales, regulators are nearing a final version.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners adopted the Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation #275 update in 2020 to strengthen state regulation over annuity sales.

The draft guidance provides details for insurers regarding their obligations when they rely on third parties, such as broker-dealers, investment advisers, or ERISA fiduciaries, to comply with the annuity suitability model.

In March 2024, Iowa Insurance Commissioner Doug Ommen first noted that reviews of compliance with #275 turned up “deficiencies” in producer monitoring. Ommen chairs the Annuity Suitability Working Group, which is behind the draft guideline.

Reviews “disclosed several ways in which companies’ safe harbor implementation is failing to rise to the level of monitoring the relevant conduct of the financial professional, including inadequate board onboarding of new broker-dealers to sell for the insurer,” Ommen said then, referring to the issues as “systematic deficiencies.”

The working group met on Tuesday for some final minor wording changes and voted for another 14-day exposure for public comment. “I would like to get this document completed,” Ommen said.

Safe harbor explained

The guidance addresses insurers’ reliance on the safe harbor and on third parties to supervise sales.

A safe harbor is a legal provision to sidestep or eliminate legal or regulatory liability in certain situations, provided that certain conditions are met. The NAIC model includes a “comparable standards safe harbor” that considers a producer in compliance if they satisfy a “comparable standard even if such standard would not otherwise apply to the product or recommendation.”

Examples include a broker-dealer registered under federal or state securities laws or a plan fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The guideline reminds insurers of their responsibilities to:

• Verify that the safe harbor conditions are satisfied.
• Actively monitor the supervising entity.
• Report to the supervising entity the data necessary to maintain an effective oversight system.

“To meet safe harbor requirements, insurers must monitor the insurance producer or their supervising entity,” the guidance reads. “An effective monitoring program involves the insurer taking active steps to assure itself that the supervising entity is complying with its obligations. Simply awaiting complaints or regulatory actions after regulatory exams are passive approaches that are inadequate in and of themselves.”

Fixed annuities could fall within the safe harbor if the supervisory control system implementing the comparable standard, whether it be the SEC or ERISA, contemplates fixed annuities. The draft guidance highlights that insurers “must ensure that policies of the supervising entities also address the unique features of annuity contracts, including their long-term guarantees and surrender charges.”

How to monitor

The guidance recommends three key practices to effectively and “actively” monitor the supervising entity:

The contract. When the supervising entity is handling the compliance obligations for an insurer, “a written contract reduces misunderstanding between the parties as to who is doing the supervising,” the guideline states.

Onboarding. The insurer should perform onboarding due diligence that includes a review of policies and procedures and regulatory actions, the guideline states. The review of policies and procedures should ascertain whether the policies apply to registered and unregistered annuities with appropriate modifications for product differences.

Ongoing monitoring. The guideline defines “ongoing monitoring” as including: due diligence questionnaires; periodic engagement with the supervising entity on compliance; risk analysis of sales activity, including sales to older consumers, free-look cancellations, early surrenders, and replacements; a strong audit program of adequate sample size on a frequent, risk-based basis; and meaningful annual certifications that are “detailed and active.”

© Entire contents copyright 2025 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

The post Regulators near completion of guidance on compliance with annuity rules appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

This year’s annual summer meeting of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners was interrupted briefly by protesters demanding action and accountability. One of their demands was  “No lobbying of former colleagues or departments for at least two years after leaving public office.”

While the Public Citizen-led protest in Minneapolis passed with little notice, it tapped a well of concern for many in the insurance industry.

The business of insurance faces serious challenges, including climate change, artificial intelligence, and private-equity investment that, at times, lacks transparency. But what is most concerning to many is the cozy relationship between state insurance regulators and industry trade associations.

It is not unusual for insurance regulators to utilize rule language or studies provided by industry trade associations. What’s more, many regulators join the insurance industry in plum C-suite roles after completing their regulatory term.

“I never walked into any room at the NAIC, unless it was a regulators-only meeting, where the room wasn’t completely and utterly dominated by industry lobbyists,” said Robert Herrell, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California and former deputy insurance commissioner for nearly six years. “This is a bit of an overstatement, but the NAIC essentially acts, more often than not, as a glorified trade association in addition to the ones they already have.”

As a result, confidence is not strong in state regulators having the independence, strength and commitment to steer the insurance industry through present challenges.

Advocacy organizations, academics, and law firms have detailed how a “revolving door between the insurance industry and regulators creates a dangerous cycle that undermines consumer protections, threatens the objectivity and strength of regulatory oversight, and tilts policy toward corporate interests,” Public Citizen said.

“In short, the fox is guarding the henhouse,” the organization concluded.

Conflicts of interest?

InsuranceNewsNet found that 24 of the 50 insurance commissioners in office a decade ago went directly into the insurance industry. A typical landing spot saw a former commissioner become vice president of regulatory affairs for an insurance company or industry trade association.

Six ex-commissioners immediately formed consulting firms to lobby on insurance issues.

Of the remaining 2015 insurance commissioners, 12 retired from the job and four are still in office: Dean Cameron, Idaho; Larry Dieter, South Dakota; Mike Chaney, Mississippi; and Sharon Clark, Kentucky (left office and was re-appointed in 2020). Several others were tabbed to lead other government agencies.

Thirty-three states have laws that restrict former legislators from immediately becoming lobbyists, with cooling-off periods ranging from one to two years, Public Citizen noted.

The group delivered a petition with over 4,300 signatures calling for increased transparency, elimination of conflicts of interest, and closing the “revolving door” of commissioners joining the industry.

Anti-Corruption Pledge demand

Public Citizen demanded that “every insurance commissioner adopt an Anti-Corruption Pledge that applies to all commissioners and their immediate families.” It calls for a ban on gifts, meals, travel, campaign contributions and job negotiations and offers while in office. And no lobbying for two years after leaving office.

Nobody signed the pledge, said Rick Morris, insurance campaigner with Public Citizen’s Climate Program.

“Regulators are supposed to stand for the public interest over corporate power,” Morris told InsuranceNewsNet. “But as climate change alters the risk landscape, it seems like they’re just handing the pen to the insurance industry to write the rules to suit the insurance industry’s bottom line. This goes well beyond simple regulatory capture. It’s regulatory surrender.”

The Public Citizen protest came on the heels of a report it co-authored with the Revolving Door Project finding that, among the big U.S. property and casualty insurers that publicly report executive compensation, C-suite pay is on a meteoric rise.

At nine of the top 25 homeowners insurance writers—comprising 24% of the market—42 executives took home a collective $310 million last year, up 21% from 2022. That’s more than $7 million per executive on average.

“Between the revolving door among the insurance industry and commissioner offices, lavish gifts and trips, and suspicious campaign finance, this body has been captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate,” Morris said. “When the fox guards the henhouse, the hens get eaten. At a time when more people are struggling to make ends meet, this is unacceptable.”

NAIC conflict policy

Public Citizen based its anti-corruption pledge on various state laws, Morris explained, as well as the STOCK (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) Act passed by Congress in 2012. The law prohibits members of Congress and other government employees from using material, non-public information obtained from their official positions for private profit. It requires timely public disclosure of the financial transactions of members and their staff within 30-45 days.

The NAIC does have a conflict-of-interest policy, but it is silent on regulators leaving public service to immediately lobby their former colleagues. Morris calls it so “toothless and unenforced” that it is virtually ignored.

Repeated attempts to speak with NAIC President Jon Godfread, North Dakota insurance commissioner, about the Public Citizen protest and conflict-of-interest issues were unsuccessful.

The NAIC sent this statement instead:

“Every state insurance regulator operates under the ethical and constitutional statutes established by the state in which they serve. In addition, as a member organization, the NAIC has a longstanding conflict of interest policy that applies to the organization, its events, and activities. This framework ensures that regulators, whether elected or appointed, are subject not only to the governing laws of their respective states, but also to the commitment of the NAIC to uphold the highest standards of transparency and integrity.”

Editor’s Note: This is the first article in an ongoing, occasional series that will look at the movement of insurance commissioners and other regulatory officials into plum corporate roles or lobbying posts after leaving their regulatory positions. 

© Entire contents copyright 2025 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

The post Switching Sides: Many ex-insurance commissioners go straight to industry roles appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

Health insurers stand at a crossroads as a new study showed consumer trust in them is critically low.

A Forrester Research report showed only 25% of noncustomers and 54% of customers described health insurers as trustworthy.

The 2025 Forrester’s Customer and Brand Experience Survey revealed health insurers scored lowest among businesses surveyed for total customer experience. The survey measures how noncustomers’ and customers’ perceptions of their brand interactions drive loyalty.

“This failing score evidences further deterioration of an essential industry,” the report’s authors wrote. “Health insurers must repair the trust rift with both noncustomers and customers. Consumers are gaining more choice in health care coverage, and employers are placing more emphasis on employee feedback in plan selection, raising the importance of brand perception.”

Gen Z has lowest trust

The level of trust consumers have in a health insurer varies by age group, the study showed. Trust level was lowest among Generation Z consumers, with 35% of that age group reporting they trust their health insurer to keep private information secure, compared with 63% of the silent generation.

“When we’re talking about something that’s as high stakes as your health and your wealth, trust is such an important component,” said Arielle Trzcinski, Forrester principal analyst and one of the study’s authors.

The low percentage of consumers who said they trust their health insurer was not a surprise to her.

“I don’t know that I was surprised that folks don’t trust their health insurer,” she said. “I think it’s a sorry state for us to be in as an industry as we think about, how we ensure that we’re helping folks.

“We hire a health insurer to help mitigate the financial risk of getting health care services, and we’re not seeing them do that. So they haven’t earned consumers’ trust when they’re creating more processes that delay care and make it harder to get to the care that they need. We have a lot of work to do within the health insurance industry.”

Consumers want clear answers from health insurers

Addressing customer questions with clear answers was the top driver of consumer and brand loyalty toward health insurers. Other top drivers included keeping personal and financial information secure, helping the customer manage their health care, offering the kind of plan and services needed, and resolving issues the first time.

The study evaluated three customer experience dimensions: ease, effectiveness and emotion. Among respondents who interacted with a specified health insurance brand in the past 12 months, high-trust health insurance customers gave significantly higher ratings than their low-trust counterparts: approximately 4.6 times higher for ease and effectiveness and 6.8 times higher for emotion.

Consumers with high trust in their health insurer are 6.8 times more likely to feel valued than those with low trust. But negative emotions are also amplified by the level of trust. Customers with low trust are nearly 12 times more likely to feel “frustrated,” the emotion with the most detrimental impact on the perception of customer experience quality. These low-trust customers are also 14 times more likely to feel disappointed than those with high trust. There is a tight relationship between trust and the emotions that support or erode loyalty and enrichment in the customer relationship.

High-trust customers willing to pay a premium

Trust differentiates health insurance brands in meaningful ways, the study said. Brand performance pressure rises as customers’ options for brands and products increase — whether through their employer, the individual market or Medicare-related products. High trust creates significant lifts for health insurers: 65% of high-trust customers report that their health insurer distinguishes itself from its competitors; 53% of high-trust customers say that they would pay a premium for their health insurer’s products and services.

The study also showed that trust boosts customer retention. About two-thirds of consumers surveyed said they prefer to shop for their own plan and choose the options that best suit their needs, compared with just 25% who prefer their employer to choose options for them. Among consumers who interacted with a health insurer in the past 12 months, low-trust health insurance customers are 10.3 times more likely to leave their current brand than their high-trust peers. This is a noticeable jump from Forrester’s 2024 data, which found that low-trust customers were 2.4 times more likely to switch insurers.

Insurers’ poor performance on a core function like “processes transactions quickly” became a top factor in the quality of customer experience in recent years, along with denials and delays of care.

Trust turns up the volume on brands, the study showed, with 82% of high-trust customers likely to recommend the brand to a friend or family member looking to purchase the product or service, compared with only 5% of low-trust customers. This is another dramatic shift from Forrester’s 2024 study, which showed that among those who interacted with a specified health insurance brand in the past 12 months, 48% of low-trust customers would recommend the brand.

Customers ranked competence as their top trust factor when describing what makes them trust their health insurer. Other trust factors, in order, were: dependability, accountability, consistency, integrity, empathy and transparency.

© Entire contents copyright 2025 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

The post Health insurers face trust crisis, Forrester 2025 survey finds appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

Many Gen Xers are moving closer toward retirement with a lot of uncertainty about the state of their finances. This is according to the latest findings from Northwestern Mutual’s 2025 Planning & Progress Study,  which reveals that more than half of Gen Xers – people born between 1965 and 1980 – think they won’t be financially prepared for retirement.

“Few Gen Xers believe they will be financially prepared for retirement due to the significant disruption and change they have experienced, making comprehensive retirement planning both challenging and crucial,” explained Matthew Nichols, partner and private wealth advisor with Freedom Wealth Advisors, a Northwestern Mutual Private Client Group. “Economic volatility, caregiving responsibilities, reduced access to traditional pensions, and the higher frequency of job and career changes for Gen Xers due to rapid technological advances have created uncertainty about future financial security. This uncertainty, coupled with the unknown stability of Social Security for their retirement, leaves many Gen Xers feeling unprepared for retirement.”

Fear of outliving their savings

In addition to so few Gen Xers believing they won’t be financially prepared for retirement, more than half think it’s likely they’ll outlive their savings compared to 40% of Boomers+, according to the research. It’s not surprising, therefore, that Gen Xers express the most concern about being able to afford retirement. They’re also the least likely among all generations to say they expect to leave an inheritance.

“The nature of support is changing,” said Jeff Sippel, chief strategy officer at Northwestern Mutual. “Parents are living longer and that’s compelling Gen X to provide more extended financial assistance than Boomers did with their parents. Plus, Gen X’s children need more support with the cost of college, childcare, health care, and housing, all going up. Gen X is feeling the pinch, and we see it in the data.”

Less clear on several issues about their financial lives

The research also finds that Gen Xers have significantly less clarity than Boomers+ on a range of issues in their financial lives. These include how inflation and taxes could impact retirement, strategies to address healthcare and long-term care needs and more.

Gen Xers face unique financial challenges compared to Boomers, contributing to their uncertainty on financial issues, explained Nichols. “They often juggle caregiving for both aging parents and adult children, which strains their finances. With less access to pensions, they must rely more on personal savings for retirement, amid concerns of potential future changes to Social Security,” he added

And half of Gen Xers said they’ve had a financial blind spot when it comes to managing their finances. They feel they’ve placed too much emphasis on building wealth without dedicating enough to protecting their assets. The numbers for Boomers+ who said the same are significantly lower – 35%. “Growth without protection can leave people vulnerable,” said Sippel. “Especially as you get older, safeguarding what you’ve built is just as critical as continuing to build. A holistic plan should account for both.”

 Financial uncertainty keeping Gen Xers up at night

With all of these issues that Gen X faces, it is not surprising that more than a third of them said that uncertainty about finances is keeping them up at night at least once a month. For Boomers+, it’s only14%.

An issue that is weighing on the minds of roughly half of Gen Xers is whether Social Security will be there for them when they qualify for it. That question is neck-and-neck with, “How much will I need to retire comfortably?” among the most important retirement issues for Gen Xers. And it is different from how Millennials and Boomers+ are thinking about Social Security.

But Gen Xers are not seeking help

In spite of these concerns, Gen Xers are less likely than Boomers+ to have sought professional help for their finances. In fact, the survey found that only 33% of Gen Xers currently work with an advisor. This is 10 percentage points lower than the 43% of Boomers+ who do the same.

So why are Gen Xers less likely than Boomers+ to seek professional help? Many Gen Xers mistakenly believe that they need to have half a million dollars already saved for an expert to help them plan – and that myth is holding them back, explained Nichols. “The truth is that many advisors across our industry will help people, young and older, affluent or starting out, to plan for financial security,” he added. “As advisors, we exist to free people from the financial anxiety they feel – and get them closer to their goals in life.”

Helping GenX gain clarity

And what are some of the steps that advisors can take to help Gen Xers become clear on what they need to do as they move toward retirement and build a plan to get them there? “Financial advice begins with trust,” said Nichols. It’s important for advisors to take the time to build a relationship with their clients – asking better questions to get to know them as people.  As they do so, he said, “it’s important to leave our judgements at the door. Advisors need to meet people where they are, identify their blind spots, and help them build a plan that’s custom-built just for them. All Americans are so unique; each one of us has our own worries, goals and dreams. That’s why everyone deserves a comprehensive plan that has been crafted to meet each client’s life goals.”

The 2025 Planning & Progress Study was conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of Northwestern Mutual among 4,626 U.S. adults aged 18 or older. The survey was conducted online between January 2 and January 19, 2025.

© Entire contents copyright 2025 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

The post Gen X seeks less financial advice even as retirement worries rise appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

Mortality has become a topic of great importance in the life insurance industry following the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Death rates have not rebounded quite as researchers expected in the years since. In addition to COVID, increased deaths from heart disease, diabetes, chronic liver disease/cirrhosis, along with drug overdoses contributed to excess mortality.

Swiss Re is among the leading industry researchers of mortality, with annual studies into various aspects. In its most recent study released in September, Swiss Re’s optimistic scenario estimates GLP-1 weight-loss drugs could lead to a reduction in cumulative all-cause mortality in the U.S. general population of 6.4% over the next 20 years.

Neil sat down with InsuranceNewsNet Senior Editor John Hilton for a candid interview about all things mortality during the LIMRA 2025 Annual Conference in Orlando, Fla.

Neil Sprackling has more than 40 years of experience in the reinsurance industry, joining Swiss Re in 1997.

Before assuming his current post as president of Swiss Re’s U.S. Life & Health division, Neil was head of the insurer’s life and health business in Australia and New Zealand. He has led various business and industry programs on behalf of Swiss Re. Prominent among these is the protection gap initiative, addressing the issue of underinsurance.

The post Swiss RE’s US Ceo discusses excess mortality, long COVID and GLP-1 drugs appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

As American seniors contend with a retirement crisis that could see many fall below the poverty line, new research by Seniorly has identified New York, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Alaska, and California as the top five states where seniors are most likely to outlive their savings.

But that’s just the beginning of the story. According to the study, seniors in 41 states plus Washington, D.C. – most Americans – are at a greater risk of outliving their savings.

For many, this poses a difficult question that Joe Buhrmann, senior financial planning consultant at Fidelity’s eMoney Advisor, often puts to his clients: “What if you, tragically, live?”

“Many retirees plan for a short retirement period – perhaps only 20 years. In fact, the number of Americans over age 90 tripled between 1980 and 2010, and is projected to quadruple by 2050, according to census statistics. The likelihood, though, is that they could live much, much longer in retirement,” Buhrmann said.

In light of the new insights into state-level differences in this challenge, Buhrmann shared his advice for how financial professionals can help and what those in high-cost regions can do to prepare. This includes downsizing, strategically relocating, purchasing secure income products and maintaining an adequate emergency fund.

Glen Franklin, assistant VP of Research, Jackson National Life Distributors likewise suggested that seniors leverage financial options like a health savings account or annuities to stave off the worst outcomes.

Both professionals, however, urged American seniors to work with trusted advisors to lock in a retirement plan that can help manage the risk of outliving their savings.

“One of the best ways to mitigate this risk is to work with a trusted financial advisor and put together a plan that is customized to your unique situation and circumstances and can model any number of different scenarios,” Buhrmann said.

Most states face retirement crisis

According to Seniorly’s research, seniors in a whopping 41 states and D.C. risk outliving their savings — meaning a vast majority of Americans. Only in nine states are seniors projected to have a financial surplus.

The five states where seniors are least likely to outlive their savings include:

• Washington
• Utah
• Montana
• Colorado
• Iowa

Seniorly noted that states with higher life expectancy rates, such as Hawaii, will accordingly have a higher likelihood that seniors will outlive their savings.

However, the expected shortfall also varies, with a higher shortfall expected in more expensive states. Most American seniors are expected to have an average shortfall of $115,000 in retirement. But this figure balloons to over $400,000 in states like New York, Hawaii and D.C. due to “high expenses that exceed even strong incomes.”

Outliving savings: Longevity as liability

Advances in healthcare mean people are living longer than previous generations, but few plan for this reality. According to a Jackson study, 32% of Americans “underpredict their own estimated life expectancy,” increasing the likelihood that they could outlive their savings.

“A man that reaches age 65 has a 50-50 chance of living to age 86, a woman to age 89 and one of a couple to age 92 — 50%. There is a 1-in-4 chance, as a couple, that one of them will live to 97,” Buhrmann emphasized.

Although many Americans find the idea of early retirement “very attractive,” they often neglect to consider other factors retirees have to contend with, such as inflation, market risk, interest rate risk, and healthcare.

“Inflation can quickly eat away at retirement savings. Research has also shown that individuals tend to underestimate the impact of healthcare costs in retirement. Additionally, 70% of individuals turning 65 each year will likely need long-term care at some point, yet only 27% of individuals surveyed by Jackson believe they will need such care,” Franklin said.

Where do financial professionals come in?

While retirees face enormous risk, Buhrmann maintains that “the best way to avoid problems is to not get in them in the first place” by working with a financial professional to develop a sound strategy.

He said advisors can talk to clients about:

• Expenses: Determining which are essential, which are discretionary and which can be reduced or eliminated if resources are constrained
• Secure income products: Having payouts designed to provide income for the duration of life, such as social security, pension benefits, annuities and secure income sources
• Emergency funds: Keeping separate funds for everyday emergencies to avoid dipping into retirement accounts in the event of untimely withdrawals

Similarly, Franklin said advisors can encourage clients to think about market risk and portfolio diversification and health savings accounts.

By leveraging the right tools and strategy, both experts said retirees can use portfolio assets to cover discretionary expenses while keeping their retirement savings intact.

“It’s critical that financial professionals have conversations related to different retirement risk factors with their clients as soon as possible. Proactive, early planning and building a diversified retirement portfolio is essential to protect against risks that may threaten future financial security,” Franklin said.

“Not everyone gets to retire according to plan, though,” Buhrmann pointed out. “Oftentimes, as the result of layoffs, downsizings, or healthcare concerns, many retire earlier than they had planned. That’s why it’s important that your financial plan has some cushion built in and that you continuously monitor and review it with a trusted advisor.”

© Entire contents copyright 2025 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

The post Where are seniors most likely to outlive their retirement savings — and why? appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

A Massachusetts judge accepted a recommendation Friday to dismiss a consolidated pension risk transfer complaint filed against AT&T Inc. and State Street Global Advisors last year.

The dismissal is based on the complaint’s failure to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

The consolidated case dates to March 2024 and two class action complaints filed against AT&T and State Street in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs alleged that AT&T’s selection of Athene Annuity and Life. Co. to take over retirement plan’s liabilities in an $8.05 billion pension risk transfer endangered AT&T’s 96,000 retirees. They further claimed that State Street, AT&T’s independent fiduciary, stood to benefit.

In February, District Judge Nathanial Gorton referred the case to Magistrate Judge Paul Levenson for a report and recommendation.

Citing a Supreme Court precedent, “[t]he Magistrate Judge found that plaintiffs must show that ‘a prudent fiduciary in the defendant’s position could not have concluded that’ Athene was a suitable annuity provider,” Gorton wrote.

Levenson cited Thole v. US Bank, which found no standing for defined benefit plan participants for a breach of fiduciary duty because the breach did not cause participants to lose any benefits.

‘Entirely without merit’

The decision is dated to Sept. 30, but was filed with the court on Friday. It is the third significant PRT decision handed down in the past two weeks, with PRT supporters winning two and losing one.

“The District Judge adopting the report and recommendation and dismissing all claims challenging AT&T’s pension risk transfer affirms what we have said along: the claims asserted in these PRT industry cases are frivolous, entirely without merit, and driven by predatory trial lawyers looking for a payday at the expense of retirees,” Athene said through a spokesperson.

In the lawsuits, ex-AT&T employees stressed their reliance on the company retirement plan.

“Although AT&T is worth more than $100 billion, and is the world’s fourth-largest telecommunications company, the company decided to fatten its wallet by dispensing over $8 billion of pension benefits to [Athene],” the lawsuit says, “a private-equity-controlled insurance company that is dependent on its Bermuda-based subsidiary and which has an asset base far riskier than AT&T’s and traditional annuity providers.”

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is a federal law that sets minimum standards for most private-sector retirement and health plans. Plaintiffs and the Pension Rights Center claim that ERISA requires plan sponsors to select “the safest possible annuity” when making pension risk transfer deals.

© Entire contents copyright 2025 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

The post Judge tosses a pension risk transfer lawsuit filed by ex-AT&T employees appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.