paper - sapiens · romans. the fixed term annuity does pretty much what it says on the tin – a...
TRANSCRIPT
Product Provision for a Modern Retirement
A Sapiens White Paper
By Jeff Denham, Stuart Hayman
Contact Details [email protected]
For more information please contact us at [email protected]
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
1 www.sapiens.com
As part of an on-going series of articles, Sapiens are looking at the changing nature of the
retirement journey for an ageing population, and in particular its impact on the provision of
financial products in the UK. In our analysis, we take into account several of the major factors
impacting the retirement market today, including changes in the approach to consumer advice,
the recently announced statutory changes in decumulation rules and several interesting product
developments we have seen in the last few years.
Let us meet Mr Smith
When John Smith reached 65 years of age, he diligently requested valuations from the three
pension pots he’d accumulated over a lifetime of work and found that he had a fund in excess of
£200,000. For John Smith this was a lot of money, and the expenditure on planning his
retirement journey would be the single largest expenditure of his life. John Smith dutifully met
with his IFA and asked for a summary of the options available to him. Prior to the recent budget
announcement, these could have been summarised as:
take a tax free cash sum
purchase an annuity
set up a drawdown
or defer retirement (or a combination thereof)
John Smith’s reaction?
“Is that it?”
This is a true story recounted by an IFA colleague (albeit the names have been changed) and it
reflects the lack of choice available to would be retirees in the UK today. And while the more
imaginative product providers are actively looking at ways of increasing the choice available to
their client base, the reality is that for the most part, the current product choice available to a
would be retiree in the UK in 2014 reflects a model that was primarily designed for a retirement
initiated several decades earlier.
It is true, that the recently announced changes potentially increase the amount of choice
available to the retiree, but at a cost (something we will explore further a little later in this
paper).
A Changing Retirement Model
In a previous paper, we have discussed the motive forces changing the retirement landscape in
the UK and the fundamental shift this is causing in how retirement is perceived by an individual.
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
2 www.sapiens.com
In this paper we will look at how traditional product provision has been used to meet the
historic model of retirement, we will ask whether the UK financial services industry has kept
pace with a changing model of retirement and we will speculate as to what new products are
required to support this new retirement model and how this can be implemented. We will look
at if and how, the recent Government proposals for decumulation impact this retirement model
in terms of product choice.
The first step in planning a retirement journey is, as every IFA knows, to ascertain what the
needs of the retiree are. At a most fundamental level, every retiree is looking for the same
simple needs to be satisfied.
Back to Mr Smith
If we take Mr Smith from our example above, and provide him with a notional “needs analysis”
outcome:
This all seems straightforward, but when Mr Smith is questioned about his retirement journey
plans it becomes apparent that he is not looking at a single one-and-done event. His desired
retirement profile and annual income requirement is something like:
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
3 www.sapiens.com
So how can our industry provide a product(s) to satisfy those needs?
A Traditional Model?
The traditional model of retirement product provision has been predicated on the idea of
retirement as a single transformative event. The position before the retirement event is clear
and unambiguous; for a defined contribution pension, a pot of money exists that will be used to
purchase an income payable until death, for a defined benefit pension, the income has already
been reserved for. After the event, the position is even clearer. There is an income, perhaps
guaranteed, perhaps index-linked, but an income that will not change outside those parameters
for the remainder of the retiree’s life.
This model has been well supported by traditional retirement product provision based on the
purchase of an annuity and the drawing of a tax free cash lump sum on retirement (A model
largely determined by legislation introduced over 50 years ago).
The key to the success of this model has been the view of retirement as a single event. For a
retiring individual with limited life expectancy (maybe 10 years post retirement), relatively low
retirement expectations (maybe buy the grandkids a nice Christmas present every year and take
a few trips to Torquay) and no real expectation of care home provision, this was more than
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
4 www.sapiens.com
satisfactory. A needs analysis for a retiree from 1970 might be as simple as provide enough
income to enable him to be fed, kept warm and keep a roof over his head.
But does this kind of model really satisfy the needs and requirements for our Mr Smith? Mr
Smith, it is clear, has a fundamentally different view of retirement from the traditional approach
that his parents or grandparents might have expected. In terms of his needs analysis, this model
would fail:
Perhaps Mr Smith will want to continue contributing to his retirement ‘pot’ even after his
decision to take ‘part retirement’.
The 2014 Budget has introduced considerable flexibility which will inevitably lead to Providers
offering increased choice in product features, but it hasn’t changed the fundamental
presumption on which most retirement advice is based today – that it is a single event.
Or Perhaps The Recently Evolved Model?
Whilst the traditional model is still the default choice for many retirees in the UK, providers have
been making positive moves in relation to a more flexible and targeted approach to retirement
products over the last fifteen years.
The default model still stands in that retirement is, for most people, a single transformational
event rather than a scheduled gradual transition from a working state to a retired state.
Whether this is how it should be, is another matter, and one for our industry to redouble its
efforts in educating a retiring public as to the ways a retirement can be modelled. Products that
have supported the traditional retirement journey have become more sophisticated and do now
provide some opportunity and flexibility for a more personalised retirement choice.
Enhanced/Impaired Annuities – The first impaired annuities appeared on the scene in
the mid-nineties, and have developed from simple smoker/non-smoker differentials into
the sophisticated, fully underwritten products as of today. The increasing availability of
enhanced/impaired annuities and the competitive pricing and underwriting that goes
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
5 www.sapiens.com
with them has certainly helped to remove some of the traditional complaints against
annuities and annuity providers. It is no longer the case that the sick and life impaired
have to pay for the longevity risk of the healthy (for evidence, see the types of product
offered by the likes of Partnership and Just Retirement).
But there are still concerns in this market. Despite the ABI annuity code insisting that
providers highlight enhanced annuities where applicable, the take up hasn’t been
entirely positive (As Tom McPhail of Hargreaves Landsdown has pointed out, ‘Research
shows that well over 50% of annuitants qualify… but only 16% purchased an enhanced
annuity.’i). And the larger the enhanced annuity market, the bigger the impact of the
mortality experience and thus a larger detrimental impact on the cost of standard
annuities.
For our notional Mr Smith, enhanced annuities certainly help provide a more personally
priced option in retirement, but they are still a one-stop shop without the flexibility for
change as circumstances change.
Investment-Linked Annuities - A more recent introduction to the retirement product
market is the Investment linked annuity. These come in two flavours, the with-profits
version or the unit linked version. In both cases, the annuity return is dependent on the
investments, much the same as an investment bond. Arguably there is little to gain from
an investment linked annuity that you couldn’t obtain from an investment bond.
However, the investment-linked annuity does at least take away some element of the
‘bound to a bad choice’ stigma that can attach to an annuity. If our notional Mr Smith
were to have purchased an Investment Linked Annuity in 2012, he would at least now
be able to benefit from a rising market – his traditional annuity would have bound him
to a bad decision until his death.
Fixed Term Annuities – For all their recent publicity (in particular when allied to the
‘third way’ retirement income model), fixed term annuities have been around since the
Romans. The fixed term annuity does pretty much what it says on the tin – a fixed
income for a finite period of time. The fixed term annuity offers none of the longevity
risk protection that a retiree is looking for, but it does take away the permanence of a
decision. Fixed term annuities can be a useful tool for designing a flexible retirement
model, and currently being used as a temporary solution in the market pending the
implementation of the recent budget measures.
Income Drawdown - Income Drawdown, introduced in 1995, has certainly helped in
allowing the would be retiree a degree of control over the level of income their
accumulated funds can provide. Income drawdown products do, by and large, allow an
individual to adjust their income level according to their needs. However, despite the
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
6 www.sapiens.com
strict oversight of regular GAD reviews (albeit somewhat less strict post 2014), these are
still investment products and are therefore subject to the ups and downs of investment
performance, thus reducing the certainty of income that retirees look for. A drawdown
at 150% of the GAD tables, as they stand today, represents a very real risk of fund
depletion before death.
One thing that is evident from the many parliamentary discussions and papers on
Income Drawdown, is that Drawdown development has primarily been focused on
increasing the flexibility of fund crystallisation at retirement for the wealthier end of the
market. Whilst not a bad thing in itself, this is only resolving a small part of the
population’s retirement problem.
Phased Retirement – Phased retirement may seem like the answer to our Mr Smith’s
needs. A well planned phased retirement would enable Mr Smith to match an income
stream to his desired retirement profile. However, there are currently very few products
or tools that fully support phased retirements. Phased Retirements are ordinarily
advised crystallisations of individual tranches of pension pot, i.e. a number of individual,
discrete retirements. So whilst offering the flexibility our Mr Smith is looking for (in
addition to well-documented tax advantages), the current market proposition for
Phased Retirement is not so much a product, as a series of advised individual events.
Additionally, most phased retirement propositions are set up in such a way that the tax
free cash is not available in full at retirement.
As with Income Drawdown, the heavily advised nature of phased retirement means that
this is very much the domain of the wealthier retiree.
So, yes, the last twenty years has seen developments in financial services that move the
retirement model away from the one size fits all approach, but much of this has been driven in
response to legislative drivers (we consider the impact of pensions legislation on decumulation
in our fourth paper in the series) and with a keen eye on the wealthier end of the retirement
market. The products and the options available to a retiree in 2014 are still predominantly
offering solutions to a single, transformative event rather than a series of subtle lifestyle
changes, albeit that event is now more personalised. And the mass and mid markets have been
ill-served by product development in the last twenty years.
In short, these products alone do not meet the retirement requirements identified in Mr Smith’s
needs analysis.
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
7 www.sapiens.com
Annuities and the Budget 2014
Much of the media response to the recent budget changes have focused on headlines such as
‘Death of the Annuity’, ‘Annuities Industry Reeling’ and other such dramatic statements. There is
no question that the changes are to be welcomed, and that the proposed freedoms will
encourage products of the type we are outlining within this paper.
However, we are firmly of the belief that, to paraphrase Mark Twain, news of the death of the
annuity are a great exaggeration. There are four strong reasons for this belief:-
For any would be retiree, the savings built up throughout their accumulation phase have
been done so to support the provision of an income into retirement. This hasn’t
changed. Of course there will be a small handful that will withdraw funds and buy the
proverbial Ferrari, but the reality is that most will look to use these funds to subsidise
retirement income.
Secondly, the changes do not provide the ‘free money’ that some articles are
suggesting. Taking our Mr Smith, for example, if he chooses to withdraw his entire fund
secure in the knowledge that he can manage his retirement investment himself, he still
faces a substantial tax bill. To put numbers to that, if we assume our Mr Smith has a
current taxable income at retirement of £19,000 (made up of part time work and state
pension) and a pension fund value of £200,000, from which Mr Smith will take the full
25% tax free cash allowance of £50,000.
Of course, Mr Smith can always draw his funds in tax efficient chunks each year, and we
look at that option in our next section.
Thirdly, the issue of advice raises its complex head. Despite government assertions of
funding being made available for ‘soft advice’, the reality is that most retirees will not be
able to afford the level of advice required to support a complex phased retirement
model that is tax efficient. And any advice given will be tempered with caveats around
the uncertainty of life expectancy (we certainly do not believe that Steve Webb’s
proposal of offering people life expectancy figures can be used in any legally binding
advice situation).
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
8 www.sapiens.com
Finally, and perhaps most important, no other product in the market offers protection
against the longevity risk. What if I live to 100 years old? I only planned to live to 85. The
reality of that scenario is that you will be living off the state for the last 15 years of your
life. For most retirees without access or funds for ongoing retirement advice, an annuity
is still the safest option for providing a lifetime income.
So, whilst not the be all and end all of retirement provision, we certainly do believe that
annuities have a place in any properly advised future retirement model.
Having defended the annuity position, we do firmly believe that the changes allow a great deal
more flexibility in designing a set of products that fits our Mr Smith’s retirement needs.
Better Products, a more Flexible Future – Giving Mr Smith the retirement
he wants
So, what products would give Mr Smith the retirement he wants?
The first step in looking at the product(s) appropriate for our Mr Smith is to dismiss the
assumption that his retirement is a one stop event. As we have discussed in a previous paper,
we are likely to see an increase in people demanding a more flexible approach to retirement as
they incorporate a more structured approach to transitioning from work life into retirement.
If we now take account of Mr Smith’s required income stream from 64 to 80, we can see that, in
addition to the income that will be provided by his pension pots, Mr Smith also has a set of
additional incomes coming from outside those that can be provided by his retirement funds. If
Mr Smith’s needs are posted onto a timeline, it would look something like:
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
9 www.sapiens.com
The pension gap (in purple) represents the amounts that Mr Smith requires from his pension
pots to enable him to maintain a level of income consistent with that documented in his needs
analysis.
Whilst the traditional single event annuity purchase at retirement clearly does not support Mr
Smith’s requirement, a number of the newer products available on the market today do - but in
each case at the risk of failing one of his other requirements:
Income Drawdown – Mr Smith can consolidate his pension pots and set up a flexible
income drawdown schedule that matches the income required for his pension gap over
his retirement years. However, this potentially fails on one of his requirements, which is
to ensure he is protected against his investments falling and leaving him short of funds
in later retirement. In addition he is forced to take some of his take free cash earlier
than required.
Phased Retirement – Mr Smith can crystallise only the amount he requires from his
pensions pots to purchase lifetime annuities for the amount of pension gap at each
transitional event in his retirement. However this still carries the risk that the
uncrystallised funds could see a drop in value if investments perform poorly.
Additionally, it does not allow Mr Smith to reduce his income in his less active years.
Fixed Term Annuities – Mr Smith can purchase a fixed term annuity for the period
between each retirement transition event. But again this runs the risk that the value of
uncrystallised funds could fall. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the interest rates
used in annuity calculations will be as favourable as those available later.
There very clearly is a choice to be had between certainty and flexibility. The more flexible the
product required, the less certainty can be applied in the income provided by that product. One
of the most important elements for Mr Smith was to ensure that he was able to adapt his
retirement to unforeseen events, and the absence of flexibility and any protection type product
features precludes that.
So, if we take this conflict as the central issue concerning product design for retirement products
for today’s retiree, how can it be resolved?
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
10 www.sapiens.com
New Products to Solve the Problem?
New Annuities
The lifetime annuity product has remained unchanged in principle since the Victorian days – a
lump sum purchases a guaranteed income for the remainder of the annuitant’s life. For the
purchaser there is clearly an element of trust involved – a lump sum is paid in return for a steady
and guaranteed income. There is no sharing with the annuitant the details of the gilts purchased
to support that annuity, the rates of return or the cost of annuity administration. As an industry
under the aegis of the TCF initiative we have worked hard to demonstrate openness and fairness
in most products, yet for some reason annuities seem to be an exception to this. This is a
subject that is gaining national visibility, with a number of MPs accusing annuity providers of, at
the very least, not being entirely open with their pricingii.
There are already moves in the US calling for more openness in sharing the inner workings of an
annuity with the customer. Cooperstein suggests that such a move will facilitate the ‘evolution
of innovations for starting and stopping payment; investment optionality and control’iii. He
shows how easy it is to separate out the capital, the payment, the interest, and the longevity
risk elements of the annuity. If this is the case, then it is logical to think that a client could
continue to pay for his/her longevity risk but suspend payments – the suspended payment can
then be factored back into the annuity to offer an increased payment when payments are
restarted
By suspending payments for a year, the annuitant retains those would be payments in the
residual value of the annuity, and thus enables an increased pay-out in later years without
compromising the annuity pricing model. This is exactly the kind of flexibility that our Mr Smith
is looking for.
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
11 www.sapiens.com
The other key aspect needed for the new annuities is the ability to transfer. The IFA colleague
who first explained the Mr Smith scenario to us, has also flagged that one of the most oft
repeated questions he receives is ‘if I buy an annuity now, will I be able to change it when
interest rates rises?’. Of course the answer is no, but not for any regulatory reason. HMRC have
no objection to an annuity transferiv. An annuity in payment has an inherent value. Insurers can
calculate this value. And surely it is in the interest of the annuitant to take an MVA or equivalent
charge (if applicable) to switch to a better performing annuity. Yet annuity transfers are almost
unheard of.
Portfolio Pensions
Another approach to solving the flexibility versus certainty issue is that of Portfolio pensions.
Ernst and Young have documented a novel approach to the portfolio approach, comprising a
layered solution of guaranteed funds/annuities and investment funds. The guaranteed funds
provide the certainty of income that the customer is looking for, whilst the investment funds
can then be targeted to specific life events. As a product, this would enable our notional Mr
Smith to match his desired retirement profile with the investment profile of the portfolio
product. This is the kind of product approach that benefits greatly from the proposed Budget
changes on pension funds withdrawal.
Essentially this product takes the individual elements of the drawdown and annuity products
and brings them together under a single product structure, with the added element of specialist
investment advice. It could be seen as a decumulation version of the SIPP. Thus whilst giving
flexibility and a level of certainty, there is still investment risk attached to the investment fund
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
12 www.sapiens.com
element of the product – however, arguably these are the elements of retirement income that
the customer could afford to lose (i.e. the travel fund, the inheritance fund).
As Ernst and Young rightly point out, this would have to be a collaborative solution, with
insurers providing the guaranteed element, and asset managers the investment elementv. It is
this collaborative nature, however, that perhaps limits the markets into which this product
could be targeted. It is unlikely that a small pot pension would be able to afford the on-going
asset management costs and advice that would be essential to the success of this product.
However this is an excellent solution for the wealthier end of the market.
Supermarket Annuities/New Drawdown
One of the most disregarded elements of retirement is protection. It’s almost as though we say,
I’m retired now, what’s the worst that can happen? The truth is that all of those unforeseen
events that we spent our working lives protecting against, will still happen after we pass the
magic retirement date – accidents,sickness, divorces, even unexpected children. A retiree still
has a full range of protection needs after a retirement, but has a markedly reduced income to
support those protection needs. Protection is often one of the first pieces of expenditure
dropped in retirement.
Supermarket plans are products that combine both an investment element, from which a range
of protection elements can be subsidised. Whilst not having a strong tradition in the UK, those
organisations that have marketed these products in the UK have done so successfully. The key
to the success of these products is the fact that the owner can guarantee their protection needs
in a time of poor performing investments, but benefit from strong performing investments.
It is not an enormous stretch of imagination to see that a decumulation product could be
structured in much the same way that a supermarket product is. In this way, much of the
uncertainty of retirement can be mitigated in the same way that uncertainty is mitigated in our
pre-retirement lives; through the use protection products.
ABI figures suggest that 1 in 3 individuals will go into carevi. Put that another way, and there is a
2/3 chance that I won’t go into care. So for our Mr Smith, it is surely more attractive to pay a
premium based on mutuality of risk for an event that might not happen through pooling, than it
is to save for the event in the certainty that it will happen.
A supermarket annuity or drawdown product could protect against care (and other unforeseen
circumstances) by offering protection cover paid for from the annuity or drawdown pot.
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
13 www.sapiens.com
The three as yet unmarketed product models that we have looked at above, all have the
advantage of:
Flexibility – the products, and elements of them, can be switched on and off according
the customer needs
They are all, or should be all, transferable, enabling the retiree to react to major events
They allow for the addition of protection elements
They can support all segments of the market; the mass, the mid and the high net worth.
Allied to a good advice model, the products based on the ideas proposed above can support all
of Mr Smith’s requirements.
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
14 www.sapiens.com
Why hasn’t this already happened?
So, the final question to be asked, is why aren’t products of this nature available already and
what can be done to encourage them.
1 – The obvious restriction has been the legislative environment. The changes proposed
in the 2014 Budget alleviate much of these restrictions. It remains to be seen whether
the advice model needed to mitigate the risks inherent in unregulated drawdown can be
implemented in a cost effective manner available to the whole market.
2 – The market drives the expectation gap. Would be retirees are bombarded with
adverts selling a retirement lifestyle of Caribbean yachts and champagne dinners, when
this palpably is not realistic for most people. The reality of today’s retirement landscape
is that insurers have been selective in targeting the most profitable end of the
retirement market, and as such this is where the product development funds have been
spent. As a result of this, the mass and mid market are still supported by a product set
that has barely evolved in the last century.
3 – There has been an unwillingness to accept, or perhaps an unawareness of, the
changing nature of retirement from a single transformative event to a graduated series
of events. Many consumers do not have access to the advice and knowledge needed to
identify and then manage a gradual retirement, and all too often take the simple route
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
15 www.sapiens.com
of a one stop decumulation. There is little to suggest that the Budget 2014 changes will
change this mindset. This is accelerated by simple human greed; it’s hard to resist the
lure of drawing an entire fund.
Insurers for their part have been only too willing to sell the annuity and forget about the
retiree thereafter. Post 2015, the same issue will apply to the unadvised who draw
down their entire funds. In the event, many insurers have missed out on the
reinvestment opportunities afforded by having a captive and suddenly capital rich
customer.
4 - Underwriting sophistication has, for the most part been understandably developed
for the protection market. It is only recently that these advances in personalised
underwriting capability (and the consequent impaired annuities) are being taken on by
the retirement market. As we have mentioned above, impaired annuity awareness is
high, but take up low. It is arguable that every annuity sold should be underwritten in
the same way protection business is underwritten, and thus fairly priced for each
individual.
5 – As we discussed above, a Chinese Wall exists between the protection and
investments elements of our industry. They are seen as discrete and separate sub-
industries and as such protection has become the forgotten element of retirement.
6 - Perhaps one of the problems of this model has been semantic in nature: the
definition of the pension has come to mean retirement income. The truth is the pension
product is only an element of retirement income. A genuine retirement solution should
consider all elements of actual and potential retirement income, including state
pensions, houses, future inheritances and so on.
7 – There has certainly been an element of insurer inertia when it has come to product
innovation in the retirement space. We are, it should be said, seeing changes in this, and
organisations such as Partnership, Just Retirement and Scottish Widows have led the
way with imaginative new retirement products.
8 – One clear and obvious hurdle to evolving the retirement product has been systems
capability. Many of the systems that currently administer retirement decumulation
products do not support sophisticated underwriting or product configuration tools
required to support an unbundled annuity or portfolio pension. There is certainly a
requirement for the retirement industry to modernise its decumulation support
systems.
9 – Last but certainly not least, the dearth of advice for any would be retiree is a key
driver in many of the issues listed above – we address this in our advice paper.
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
16 www.sapiens.com
So - What next?
If the above sounds like an alarm call for the state of product provision in the retirement
industry, it should be noted that in the last two years the rate of product development has
accelerated. The financial services industry is grasping the mettle when it comes to addressing
the requirements of the new generation of retirees. Industry bodies such as the ABI (in
particular with the development of The Annuity Code) and the Pensions Regulator are leading
the way in ensuring that both the industry (insurers and advisers) and the consumer are fully
informed.
We believe there are four further areas which can encourage the industry to embrace ideas
such as those we proposed above:
Legislation - The changes proposed in the Budget 2014 will act as a catalyst for insurers
to exercise imagination in offering new and different retirement income solutions.
These changes will increase the competition for retirement funds, and insurers will find
themselves challenged by other financial services sectors in the pursuit of those
retirement funds.
A Growing Market – It is quite clear that the demographic factors we looked in our first
retirement paper point towards the decumulation market as a growing market. This in
itself is a reason for financial services providers to ensure that they can provide the best
and most appropriate products for a range for the wide and varied range of would be
retirees.
Inform the Market - It is quite clear from existing evidence that most retirees do not
take or have access to sufficient information or knowledge about what they can and
indeed ought to do at retirement. The freedoms proposed in Budget 2014 will increase
the risk of the people entering retirement unadvised. The ABI retirement journey
guidelines are a good start, but there is much more for the industry to do in terms of
educating would be retirees as to what their options are at retirement.
Support the Changes –- Insurers must ensure that there are no technology constraints
to introducing the flexibility needed to support the modern retiree. One of the primary
reasons for the lack of product development in the retirement market has been the cost
overheads of developing systems that are not really fit for the retirement model we
have described above.
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
17 www.sapiens.com
To summarise, this is an exciting time for insurers, advisors and most importantly, retirees. It is
imperative that all three embrace the opportunities and provide a financial retirement model
that fits with the expectations of a modern retiree.
References
i http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/opinion/2273709/ae-success-rests-on-decumulation ii http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2535271/New-warning-pensions-annuities-Conservative-MP-warns-risk-causing-big-mis-selling-scandal.html iii http://s3.amazonaws.com/presspublisher-do/upload/567/Cooperstein_Paper.pdf iv http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/rpsmmanual/rpsm09101820.html v http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Take_control_of_the_decumulation_
agenda/$FILE/EMEIA_Asset_Management_Viewpoint_-The_Decumulation_Agenda.pdf
vi https://www.abi.org.uk/Insurance-and-savings/Products/Long-term-care.html
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
18 www.sapiens.com
This document and any and all content or material contained herein, including text, graphics, images and logos, are either exclusively
owned by Sapiens International Corporation N.V and its affiliates ("Sapiens") or are subject to rights of use granted to Sapiens, are
protected by national and/or international copyright laws and may be used by the recipient solely for its own internal review. Any other
use, including the reproduction, incorporation, modification, distribution, transmission, republication, creation of a derivative work or
display of this document and/or the content or material contained herein, is strictly prohibited without the express prior written
authorization of Sapiens.
The information, content or material herein is provided "AS IS", is designated confidential and is subject to all restrictions in any law
regarding such matters and the relevant confidentiality and non-disclosure clauses or agreements issued prior to and/or after the
disclosure. All the information in this document is to be safeguarded and all steps must be taken to prevent it from being disclosed to any
person or entity other than the direct entity that received it directly from Sapiens.
The information, content or material herein is provided "AS IS", is designated confidential and is subject to all restrictions in any law regarding
such matters and the relevant confidentiality and non-disclosure clauses or agreements issued prior to and/or after the disclosure. All the
information in this document is to be safeguarded and all steps must be taken to prevent it from being disclosed to any person or entity other
than the direct entity that received it directly from Sapiens.
Israel
Azrieli Center Holon, 588 5800 Tel: + 972 3 790 2000
United Kingdom 1 George Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1QQ Tel: +44 1895 464 000
United Kingdom Pierhead St., Cardiff Bay Cardiff CF10 4DQ Tel: +44 29 2044 8600/1
USA 395 West Passaic Street Rochelle Park, NJ 07662 Tel: +1 201 820 3500
USA 4000 CentreGreen Way, Cary, NC 27513 Tel: +1 919 405 1500
Canada 10 Kingsbridge Garden Mississauga, ON, L5R 3K6 Tel: +1 905 507 9700
France 27, Avenue de l'Opera 75001, Paris Tel: + 33 1 70 38 53 21
Belgium Brusselstraat 59, 2018 Antwerp, Belgium Tel: +32 3 3040800
Australia 111 Elizabeth Street Sydney, NSW 2000 Tel: +61 2 8222 3100
Japan Queen’s tower C 11F 2-3-5 Minatomirai, Nishi-ku Yokohama 220-6211 Tel: + 8145824777
Product Provision for the Modern Retirement
19 www.sapiens.com
i http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/opinion/2273709/ae-success-rests-on-decumulation ii http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2535271/New-warning-pensions-annuities-Conservative-MP-warns-risk-causing-big-mis-selling-scandal.html iii http://s3.amazonaws.com/presspublisher-do/upload/567/Cooperstein_Paper.pdf iv http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/rpsmmanual/rpsm09101820.html v http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Take_control_of_the_decumulation_
agenda/$FILE/EMEIA_Asset_Management_Viewpoint_-The_Decumulation_Agenda.pdf
vi https://www.abi.org.uk/Insurance-and-savings/Products/Long-term-care.html