Blogs Archives - Greenwald Research

Why Longevity Risk Should Be Treated Like a Weather Forecast

By: Mathew Greenwald | September 1, 2026

Many people struggle to plan for retirement because longevity risk is difficult to understand and even harder to translate into investment and spending decisions. There has been discussion about how to handle longevity risk from a planning standpoint, but very little about how longevity risk should be presented to and discussed with clients. This omission is unfortunate because in order for a financial plan to work well, it is essential that clients not only understand longevity risk, but have enough information to make decisions about how to effectively manage it. 

The Standard Approach: One Longevity Age

The standard approach used by many financial professionals and planning tools is to choose a single “longevity planning age” and build the plan around that target. The chosen age is typically well beyond average life expectancy to create a margin of safety. The logic is understandable. It is prudent to build in a cushion. 

However, the discussions financial professionals have with their clients about the longevity planning age is often very limited. Little information is provided except that this age is recommended because clients are unlikely to live beyond it or even reach it. But this can feel arbitrary or unrealistic to clients. Research conducted by my company suggests that many advisors encounter pushback from clients who say they think it is unlikely that they will live that long. 

One planning age can create a false sense of precision. It obscures the information clients need most: the range of outcomes and the probability of each. By focusing on a single age, advisors may unintentionally make it harder for clients to understand the real longevity risk they face, and the tradeoffs involved in planning for it. Suggesting a single longevity planning age certainly does not give clients enough information to make crucial investment and spending decisions. 

A Chance of Rain

A helpful analogy is the weather forecast. Just as actuaries cannot predict the exact age to which a person will live, meteorologists usually cannot predict with certainty whether it will rain the next day. However, they can estimate the probability of rain. A forecaster could advise people to plan for rain whenever the chance reaches a certain threshold, such as 50%. But that would be a poor way to communicate risk. Telling people to plan for rain when the likelihood is 50% means being wrong half the time. Telling them not to plan for rain when the probability of rain is lower, such as 30%, means being wrong nearly one-third of the time. The better approach, which has worked very well, is to tell people the likelihood of rain and let them use that information to decide whether to carry an umbrella. The public has accepted this approach and feel sufficiently informed to make decisions about clothing and planning. This approach has also enhanced confidence in weather forecasters. We are all used to hearing, for example, that there is 30% chance of rain.

A New Approach: Probability of Outcomes

Retirement planning discussions should work the same way. The necessary information is readily available. For example, the American Academy of Actuaries (AAA) and the Society of Actuaries (SOA) provide an Actuaries Longevity Illustrator that estimates the probability of living to specific ages for those at different health levels. It also estimates the likelihood that one member of the couple, or both, will live to those ages. Yet our research indicates that advisors often do not provide this probability-based information, and those who do often do not communicate it effectively. 

Providing and clearly discussing these probabilities can lead to better decisions. It can also strengthen the case for guaranteed lifetime income. For example, the AAA and SOA calculators show that a 65-year-old couple in excellent health has a 50% chance that at least one spouse will live to age 94 and a 25% chance that at least one will live to age 98. That information is far more useful than simply telling the couple to plan to age 92 because it is a “conservative” estimate they may never reach. Longevity is best understood not as a prediction of a single age, but as a set of probabilities that clients can understand, discuss, and plan around. 

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting abandoning the single longevity planning age. This concept certainly has value that should not be lost. But it should be defined after a full discussion of probabilities. That will give clients the understanding and context they need.

The next step is clear. Financial professionals should not only provide longevity probabilities, they should also be trained to present them effectively and connect them to practical planning decisions, including investment strategy, spending strategy, and the potential role of guaranteed lifetime income. Clients do not simply need a longevity planning age that pretends to resolve uncertainty. They need a clearer picture of the uncertainty itself and guidance on how to navigate it.

Four Questions Product Development in Financial Services Should Answer

By: Mathew Greenwald | August 20, 2026

Many new financial services product development research efforts just focus on the product, and this often leads to sub-optimal success. The ultimate goal of developing a new product is not confined to just building an excellent product, but to design a product that will sell at high levels. To achieve high levels of sales, better product design on its own is not sufficient. Financial professionals must be convinced the product can help them meet client needs better than the products they are currently using, they must feel they know enough about the product to present it to clients and, in some cases, the product must be supported by point-of-sale materials that help the financial professional present the product to clients. Research can, and should, address those post-product design issues.

Product Development Research Should Answer Four Main Questions

At Greenwald Research, we believe effective product development research for financial services should answer four questions:

What combination of features and benefits will make the product most attractive?
How should wholesalers optimally present the product to financial professionals?
How should financial professionals be educated about when and how to use the product?
What information and point-of-sale materials will help financial professionals present the product effectively to clients?

The Value of Answering All Four Questions During the Product Development Phase

There are three reasons that addressing all four issues at the same time is so important.

First, the goal for each issue is how to make the product more successful. For example, constructing the best wholesaler presentation focuses on showing the value of each product attribute. Thinking through that issue and the others can provide insights on how to revise or enhance those features. Each issue looks at the product from a different angle and can lead to innovative ideas about the product and how to present it.

Second, the process of getting input on product design with a financial professional requires their detailed education about the product. Once financial professionals receive that education, they are most able to provide guidance on wholesaler presentations and the other issues.

Third, addressing each of these issues at the same time is the most cost-effective and time-efficient method of getting this information.

I want to make one last point about what topics to cover during product development research. There is a tendency to not conduct sufficient research in this area. Many non-financial services companies would not dream of developing a product without a rigorous product development research process. But many financial services firms do very little research at all. Some limit their research to discussions with a small number of their biggest producers who tend to be non-representative of their overall distribution force. The result is a higher-than-necessary risk of introducing a product that will not do well. Some companies simply copy successful products and only make minor tweaks that they do not feel require research. But this overlooks the potential that a research-produced input will add significantly to product success.

It is our experience that a comprehensive new product research regimen costs little and can produce big results.

Life’s Persistent Questions #7: Is Retirement Income Really Pass or Fail?

By: Eric Sondergeld | July 19, 2026

One of the persistent challenges in retirement income planning is that we often describe outcomes in overly simple terms. Chief among them is the industry’s long‑standing reliance on “probability of success” as a primary measure of retirement readiness. That metric can be useful, but it is also blunt. It implicitly treats retirement as a pass‑or‑fail proposition, when in reality it is nothing of the sort.

Recent critiques of probability‑of‑success metrics, including work by David Blanchett, have pointed out that success rates alone say little about the magnitude of a potential shortfall. That observation moves the conversation in the right direction. But I think the issue can be framed even more clearly by borrowing a concept that is fundamental to how insurance works.

Incidence is Not the Same as Severity

In insurance, risk is never evaluated solely by asking whether an adverse event might occur. The event may trigger a claim, but the economic consequence depends on the severity of the loss. A minor fender‑bender and a total loss are both accidents, but they are not remotely equivalent outcomes.

Retirement income planning works the same way. Failing to meet an income goal is a risk event, but the more important question is how large the resulting shortfall is, when it occurs, and relative to what benchmark. Is the gap measured as a percentage of total desired income? Or as a percentage of the portion that savings were expected to fund? Those distinctions matter because they determine how damaging a shortfall really is.

Guaranteed Income Lowers the Cliff

Consider two retirees.

The first has a relatively low probability of falling short of an income goal, but if that shortfall occurs, the income drop is significant because much of the plan depends on portfolio withdrawals. The cliff is high.

The second has a higher probability of some shortfall, but the gap is likely to be much smaller because essential expenses are largely covered by guaranteed lifetime income. The cliff is lower.

A simple probability‑of‑success metric does not tell us which scenario is “better,” nor should it. The point is that interpreting probability is fundamentally different in these two cases because the severity of failure is fundamentally different.

This perspective helps clarify the role of guaranteed lifetime income. Existing sources such as Social Security, defined benefit pensions, and lifetime annuities materially reduce the severity of a retirement income shortfall.

If part of a household’s spending need is already covered for life, the downside is limited. Even if markets disappoint or portfolio withdrawals must be adjusted, the household is not falling from its full income target to zero. Guaranteed income lowers the cliff.

Viewed this way, guaranteed lifetime income functions much like insurance against severe retirement income loss. It may not eliminate every possible gap, but it absorbs part of the shock and limits how damaging adverse outcomes can be.

A Deterministic Way to Frame Part of the Risk

This also suggests a more deterministic way to think about part of the problem. To the extent a household’s essential income needs are fully covered by guaranteed lifetime income sources, the probability of failing to meet that portion of the goal is effectively 0%. No stochastic model is required to establish that.

The real question begins where guaranteed income ends. If guaranteed lifetime income falls short of what is needed to pay the bills, risk is introduced. At that point, the relevant analysis is not simply whether a shortfall might occur, but how large the uncovered gap is, how dependent it is on savings, and how severe the shortfall could become under adverse conditions.

Framed this way, the issue is not whether everything in retirement must be modeled probabilistically, but which portion of income is already secured and which portion remains exposed.

The Industry is Already Moving in This Direction

The industry has already begun moving toward this way of thinking. Capital Group’s Portfolio Reliance Calculator, Protective’s reliance‑rate framework, and Edward Jones’s work on reliance rate all emphasize how much of a retiree’s income plan depends on the portfolio versus guaranteed sources, such as Social Security or pensions.

That is an important step because it identifies where exposure begins. But it should not be the last step. Exposure alone does not tell us how damaging a shortfall might be. The next question is severity.

People Don’t Blindly Drive Off Cliffs

This framing also puts the common fear of “running out of money” in better context. It is a powerful phrase, but often an imprecise one. A retiree with Social Security, a pension, or other guaranteed lifetime income may run out of savings, but does not run out of income altogether. Nearly all people have at least one of these.

More importantly, most retirees are not passive passengers headed toward a cliff. When conditions deteriorate (e.g., markets decline, balances fall, withdrawals feel uncomfortable), people normally respond. They reduce discretionary spending. They slow down. They adapt.

That does not eliminate risk, but it does mean the relevant issue is rarely whether income falls to zero. It is how large an adjustment is required and whether essential needs remain covered.

Toward Better Retirement Income Metrics

All of this points to the need for better ways to describe retirement outcomes. Rather than a single probability score, a more useful framework would consider multiple dimensions: the probability of falling short, the expected severity of any shortfall, the likelihood of failing to cover essential expenses, and the share of total income that is guaranteed for life.

Retirement income is not a binary outcome. Severity matters in addition to probability. Ignoring that distinction leaves us with an incomplete picture of the risks retirees actually face, and the protection already in place when things do not go exactly as planned.

Thought Leadership Should Lead

By: Doug Kincaid | July 9, 2026

The health and wealth industries produce no shortage of thought leadership content. Little of it changes how anyone thinks. The distance between the two isn’t a matter of a trendy topic or a bigger sample size. It’s discipline, applied consistently, to work most firms only apply occasionally.

Here is our approach.

The Lane. Thought leadership is not one job. Setting the direction for an industry, arming sales conversations, informing policy, and reframing how customers think about an issue each calls for a different approach. Treat them as interchangeable and you get research that’s technically sound but strategically adrift. Thought leadership should be designed from the strategic job it needs to do, and this needs to happen before a single survey question is written.

The Voice. Good thought leadership has to sound like the organization that commissioned it. Not just in the report itself, but in the sales deck, the keynote, the op-ed, the executive interview, and the hundred smaller moments where the findings are put to work. We design for the audience’s attention, but also for the voice that will carry the ideas into the world. That means understanding how a brand thinks, what it believes, and what type of narrative the organization can legitimately own. Legal and compliance review are part of that reality, and the work has to survive them. But the larger test is whether the ideas still sound like they came from the client when they emerge on the other side. Most firms focus on what the research says. We pay equal attention to who is saying it.

The Whitespace. Competitors are not just organizations selling similar products. They are also the people and firms shaping the conversation. We map that ground first, tracking where the conversation is already crowded and where genuine whitespace remains. Repeating consensus back to people isn’t “leading” anything. Thought leadership needs a perspective, a question, or a finding that helps an organization occupy territory others have overlooked.

The Surprise. We build headline hypotheses before a single response arrives, and several versions of it because we don’t yet know which way the data will break. When early results disagree with our story, the story changes. Most research runs the reverse: write the narrative first, field the survey to support it, and quietly set aside whatever doesn’t fit. That produces confident-sounding, but often forgettable reports, and by then the opportunity to learn something genuinely new has already passed.

The Program. None of the above requires a multi-year commitment to stand out. But done well, consistently, it opens a door most firms never reach: a thought leadership program instead of a single study, one wave designed with the next four already in mind. A program compounds in ways a single study can’t. It carries an identity, a methodology, and an audience that starts to expect it. Done right, it stops being “we did a survey” and starts being a brand investment the whole organization can put to work, in sales conversations, with distribution partners, in front of clients.

The Follow-Through. A finding is only as useful as what happens to it next, and that shouldn’t be an afterthought decided once the report is finished. We sit down with your team early to think through how the work will be activated, who will carry it, and what would make it worth citing months after release, not just the week it ships. That often means helping develop the white papers and other content built from the findings. Sometimes it also means going directly to the audience the work is meant to reach, where a handful of well-timed interviews can tell you a lot about what will resonate. The report may mark the end of the research, but we know it’s rarely the end of the work.

None of these six principles are rare on their own. The challenge is applying them together consistently: knowing what the research needs to accomplish, who it needs to reach, what it should say, and how it can continue working long after publication. That consistency is what separates a research vendor from a thought partner, and it’s the standard we hold ourselves to, whether the work sits in health or in wealth.

If your research is producing content but not conversation, that’s usually a design question before it’s a distribution one. We’d welcome the chance to talk it through.

Updating Employee Benefits to Support Flexible Work for Older Americans

By: Mathew Greenwald | June 4, 2026

For more than three decades, the Retirement Confidence Survey has shown that a significant share of retirees would like to work in retirement. Recent Census Bureau findings and other surveys confirm that periods of high inflation increase this preference. Most retirees have sources of retirement income that are fixed. So, when prices rise, purchasing power is eroded. And retirees often struggle to keep up. Many look to “unretire” to regain financial stability.

The RAND American Working Conditions Survey, a 2023 AARP study, among other studies show older workers overwhelmingly prefer flexible work arrangements. They don’t want a return to the traditional 9‑to‑5 schedule, but more control over when, where, and how they work.

Our Benefit System Was Built for Full‑Time, Career Employment

Today’s employee‑benefit rules were designed decades ago anticipating full-time, career employment. They were structured to meet eligibility, vesting and non-discrimination rules. Meeting those requirements often results in a benefit structure that is inflexible, precluding adjustments that would tailor benefits to the needs of flex workers, even when the employer and the worker both prefer it.

This mismatch discourages employers from offering flexible and temporary (months to a few years) roles that would leverage the expertise of older workers. As a result, most of today’s job postings still call for indefinite full-time employment, discouraging older adults who prefer flexible and time-bound employment from applying, and all but ensuring those who do apply will not be seriously considered. There simply are no positions that match the needs and desires of older adults, which could be considered a form of ageism.

With inflation still elevated and millions of retirees seeking supplemental income, this is a an opportunity for employers to gain a competitive advantage.

Expanding Flexible Work Can Lower Employment Costs

There is a straightforward solution that could be effective: remove various statutory, regulatory, and sub-regulatory barriers that were originally designed to combat age discrimination but today serve to limit older adult employment. Clarifying requirements for flexible work may lower taxpayer costs for entitlements and reduce employment litigation risks, while also maintaining all age discrimination protections.

Several new regulations and legislation could make a difference, including:

Part-time benefit package: Allow employers to create and maintain a distinct benefits package for workers scheduled to work less than 30 hours per week. Update existing tax code and other statutory requirements to separately apply eligibility, vesting, non-discrimination, and other rules – a variant of class-based rules comparable to represented employees.
Greater employee control over benefit allocation: Permit those who voluntarily participate in flex work to decide how their benefits are allocated among available options. Beyond cafeteria plans, envisioned are features comparable to a current legislative proposal – The Optimizing Participant Tax Incentives Through Optional Noncash Selections (OPTIONS) Act.

An age‑discrimination safe harbor for voluntary flex workers: Create a narrowly tailored safe harbor that employers can adopt when offering voluntary flex work programs, reducing legal uncertainty while preserving core age‑discrimination protections. This would be patterned based on the safe harbor added by the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990.

The Impact

Older workers entering flex roles usually have different financial and personal needs when compared to indefinite, full‑time career employees. Allowing employers and workers to fashion employment and benefits to reflect those different preferences and needs would make flex work more rewarding without increasing employer costs.

Additionally, some employers hesitate to hire older flex workers because they fear legal exposure should separation become necessary. A second, carefully crafted safe harbor, patterned after the “same actor” rule (where hiring and terminating entities are the same) would reduce that concern and expand opportunities for older workers without weakening essential anti‑discrimination protections.

A Win‑Win for Workers and Employers

Expanding flexible work options would strengthen retirement security, help employers fill critical labor shortages, and keep experienced talent engaged in the workforce. Updating employment and benefit rules to support flex work is a practical step that might benefit millions of older Americans and the companies that can utilize their skills and achieve a competitive advantage.

Portability that Truly Follows the Worker

Two paths to reduce leakage and increase choice

By: Eric Sondergeld | May 21, 2026

As workers change jobs more frequently, retirement savings are increasingly spread across multiple plans and IRAs. This fragmentation suggests a need for better portability of retirement assets.

This piece lays out two complementary paths. First, how we can work within today’s system to make portability real using what already exists. Second, what a better system could look like if we design around the worker from the start. If you’re a plan sponsor, recordkeeper, or advisor, you can act on the first path now. If you influence standards or policy, you can help the industry build toward the second.

Path 1: Strengthen Today’s System

The first path focuses on practical improvements we can make right now. The aim is to keep savings with the worker as they change jobs and to reduce the friction built into today’s rollover process. This requires modernizing how money and data move across providers, using smart defaults that preserve choice, and giving workers simple comparisons of fees, protections, and features. Roth balances need clearer treatment so they are not stranded, and a national registry can help workers locate missing benefits while supporting automatic roll‑ins.

Industry partners can act immediately. Small‑balance auto portability can reduce plan leakage. A digital rollover network can replace paper checks with electronic consent, validation, and money movement. Real‑time account‑location tools can make auto‑locate possible. Stronger safe harbor rules, easier roll‑ins, and simple one‑page comparisons would improve the experience. Policy updates such as allowing Roth IRA‑to‑plan roll‑ins and including balances under one thousand dollars in portability rules would reinforce these changes.

Rollover activity is large but still inefficient. Manual steps create delays and take workers out of the market. A standardized digital process can shorten cycle times and make the experience more consistent. These are achievable improvements that rely on the system we already have.

Path 2: Design a Better System

The second path starts with a simple idea: workers should not collect new retirement accounts every time they change jobs. Instead, each person would have a single personal account with pretax and Roth buckets. Employers would connect to that account, and contributions, investments, and income features would travel with the worker.

This model avoids constraints found in some universal account proposals. It does not limit investment choice or rely on federal contributions. It provides open, provider‑neutral connectivity so plans, IRAs, and income products can link to the account without forcing savings into a single structure.

Interoperability is central. The personal account would act as an access hub that supports partial, low‑friction transfers into income products when workers choose them. It would allow both pretax and Roth dollars to move independently, keep fees transparent, and let individuals continue participating even when they are not employed or are working for an employer without a plan.

A system like this reshapes how the ecosystem works. Recordkeepers would run the platform and offer optional services. TPAs would provide compliance and data support. Advisors would shift from lineup selection to ongoing guidance. Asset managers would offer scalable investment building blocks. Search and auto-rollover providers would help reunite legacy balances and support a national registry.

Managing the transition requires care. Workers would need clear Roth notices, low‑fee defaults for any interim IRAs, and standardized comparisons before any rollover. With these protections in place, a personal account model could eliminate fragmentation at the source and give workers a simpler, more consistent experience across their careers.

Conclusion: Two Paths, One Goal

Path one is executional: scale auto-portability for small balances, stand up digital rollovers for larger balances, and make auto-locate routine. These steps leverage existing mechanisms to keep savings attached to the worker and reduce leakage now.

Path two is architectural: build toward a single personal account that employers connect to, with open connectivity and choice preserving interoperability, including partial allocations to income products. This design eliminates fragmentation at the source.

We do not need to choose. The industry can make progress now by strengthening today’s system while building toward a personal account model that follows every worker across a career.

To help the industry understand which portability features workers truly value, Greenwald Research could field a comprehensive survey of savers. This research would reveal how consumers weigh today’s portability improvements versus a personal‑account model, and which design elements would most effectively reduce leakage, simplify decisions, and strengthen long‑term outcomes.

[1] Inactive Accounts Callout: DOL, Private Pension Plan Bulletin. Abstract of 2022; Abstract of 2010, Table A1.

[2] Portability Network Momentum Callout: PLANSPONSOR, “Nearly 21,000 Plan Sponsors Have Adopted PSN Auto‑Portability”, October 1, 2025; PR Newswire, “Portability Services Network Jump‑Starts Nationwide Adoption of Auto Portability”, December 3, 2024.

Why Life Insurance Needs Broader Adoption of RILA‑style Designs

By: Eric Sondergeld | 4/30/2026

For decades, life insurance and annuities have evolved in a kind of product “echo system.” Innovation often begins on the annuity side. A new annuity design gains traction, demonstrates consumer appeal, and proves economically viable. Then, a life insurance corollary eventually follows, usually years later, once carriers identify how to adapt the concept to a permanent policy .

This longstanding pattern has produced the product landscape we know today. But there is now one important evolution to note: while Registered Index Linked Annuities (RILAs) have surged, a fully mainstream life‑side equivalent has not yet taken root; though a few carriers have launched registered, buffered/floored life designs. History suggests broader adoption is likely and that there is a significant opportunity to scale such products.

Across all major product categories, the annuity product came first and the Universal life type product came later. In nearly every case, the delay wasn’t due to lack of demand, but because life insurance needed the right policy chassis to replicate the annuity’s risk/return mechanics. That became possible only once Universal life emerged in the early 1980s, providing flexible premiums, adjustable charges, and a transparent crediting methodology that could adapt to new ideas.

Here’s how the sequence unfolded:

Fixed Annuities → Fixed Universal Life

Fixed annuities long predated any flexible premium life insurance structure. Once UL was introduced, carriers could finally create the life insurance version: a flexible premium permanent policy with stable crediting and conservative accumulation.

Variable Annuities → Variable Universal Life (VUL)

Variable annuities had a major growth era before carriers were ready to translate fund-based investing onto the life chassis. Only later did VUL emerge, delivering market-based accumulation alongside a flexible death benefit.

Fixed Indexed Annuities (FIA) → Indexed Universal Life (IUL)

FIAs proved that consumers wanted market linked upside combined with downside protection. Not until years later and only after FIAs were well established did IUL appear and become the fastest growing permanent product in the industry.

In every case, the life equivalent lagged the annuity by many years, but eventually arrived, completing the product pair.

The Efficient Frontier: Three Pairs That Make Sense

Across these three product categories, the symmetry is clear. Each annuity has its corresponding version in the life insurance world:

The Middle is Emerging, But Not Mainstream

Registered index‑linked mechanics have begun to appear on the life side, primarily as indexed variable universal life (IVUL) offerings that blend index‑linked crediting with buffers/floors and traditional VUL subaccounts. Examples include Prudential FlexGuard® Life IVUL, which provides S&P 500-linked strategies with selectable buffers and floors alongside variable options, and Equitable’s Market Stabilizer Option® II on its VUL lineup, which adds multiple buffered segments tied to the S&P 500® Price Return Index.

This is not evidence that the historical innovation pattern has ended. If anything, it suggests the opposite: we are still in the familiar waiting period between a successful annuity innovation and the life insurance version that eventually follows.

The Evidence Behind Consumer Demand for a “RIVUL”

RILAs are the fastest growing annuity segment. LIMRA’s preliminary 2025 data show RILA sales up 20% to $79.6B, marking 11 consecutive years of growth; LIMRA projects RILAs to exceed $85B in 2026 and keep expanding through 2028. This sustained momentum signals strong appetite for “between indexed and variable” risk.

Indexed products now dominate annuity buyer preference. In 2025, RILAs + FIAs comprised 45% of all U.S. annuity sales, up from 24% a decade ago, clear evidence that consumers favor growth with guardrails over all-or-nothing equity exposure.

The implication is that buyers are voting with their dollars for calibrated risk, more upside than traditional indexed designs, less downside than fully variable. A Registered Index Linked Universal Life (RIVUL) would transplant this proven preference onto a permanent life chassis, filling the only remaining gap between IUL and VUL. Notably, life insurers have begun to transplant these calibrated‑risk mechanics into registered life products (e.g., IVUL with buffers/floors), validating the translatability of RILA concepts onto a life chassis, even if penetration is still early.

Why the Industry Should Expect and Want a RIVUL

RILAs proved demand for calibrated risk‑taking. Some clients want more upside than IUL can reliably offer, especially in today’s hedging‑constrained environment, but fewer swings than VUL. A RIVUL could deliver that blend. Early IVUL launches with buffers/floors support this appetite on the life side, but broader adoption and simpler positioning are needed.
Advisors like symmetry across product categories. Having parallel annuity and life product sets simplifies conversations, planning strategies, and client education. Today’s IVUL options move in that direction, but they’re not yet a ubiquitous “fourth pillar” alongside UL, IUL and VUL.
Life insurers need new accumulation tools. Cap compression in IUL and risk‑management challenges in VUL create space for a middle‑ground option, one that offers growth potential with guardrails.
There is genuine competitive white space. The carrier(s) that mainstream a RILA‑equivalent life product that is easy to position, broadly approved, and well supported in distribution, could see an early‑mover advantage akin to early FIA and IUL leaders.

Why It Hasn’t Happened Yet and Why It Still Will

We’re partway through the familiar lag. The industry has begun introducing registered, buffered/floored life designs (RIVUL), but compared with RILAs, today’s shelf space and advisor familiarity are still limited. The underlying forces that historically brought life‑side equivalents into existence are fully present today: strong consumer demand, clear advisor familiarity with buffers/floors, a proven annuity concept, and a flexible UL/VUL chassis capable of supporting the mechanics. There is no structural reason a RIVUL cannot scale.

Conclusion: The Opportunity Ahead

As this category develops, understanding how financial advisors perceive, position, and compare RIVUL to IUL, VUL, and RILAs will determine how quickly it scales. Through Greenwald Research’s Product Marketing Lab, built specifically for complex products like FIAs, RILAs, and IUL, we run in‑depth advisor interviews to pressure‑test product design, presentation, positioning, messaging, and training/resources needed. RIVUL is exactly the kind of nascent category where these insights de‑risk launch decisions and accelerate adoption.

Rather than a missing link, this is an emerging category in need of scale. A carrier bold enough to mainstream a registered, RILA‑style life product, making it easy to position, broadly approved, and well‑supported in distribution, could unlock a new era of controlled‑risk accumulation for consumers.

Insight-Driven Decisions: How Research Translates into Real Business Outcomes

By: Eric Sondergeld
4/23/2026

Leaders are under pressure to prove that research is not a cost center but a growth driver. The good news is that there is solid evidence that when organizations anchor decisions in customer insight and data, they outperform peers on the metrics that matter. McKinsey Global Institute research shows that data‑driven organizations are 23x more likely to acquire customers, 6x more likely to retain them, and 19x more likely to be profitable.

At Greenwald Research, we see these dynamics play out in segments of the health and wealth industries. The right research clarifies customer needs, mitigates risk, and points the way to experiences that create customer loyalty and lifetime value. Below is a practical, evidence-backed view of how to turn research into results.

Start with Decisions, Not Data

High-performing firms lead with business decisions it’s imperative to get right, then design research to precisely answer those questions. This aligns with McKinsey’s guidance that data initiatives must be tied to primary business goals to boost competitiveness. In practice, that means translating leadership objectives into specific researchable questions. For example, instead of “improve advisor engagement,” ask “which three service moments most influence advisor share of wallet and how do we measure them?” This focus increases the odds that research translates into measurable acquisition and retention gains, the very outcomes highlighted in McKinsey’s benchmarks.

Invest in Understanding the Customer Jobs to be Done

Companies that build customer-centric operating models are consistently more profitable, and this advantage is tied to truly understanding customer needs and behaviors. In financial services, this often means going beyond demographics to map the “jobs” customers are trying to accomplish, the frictions they encounter, and the triggers that move them to act. Qualitative in-depth interviews, journey mapping, and discrete choice modeling can reveal where guidance gaps or product complexity create friction that suppresses conversion. The payoff shows up in the acquisition, retention, and profitability increases associated with data-driven decision making.

Measure what Creates Long-Term Value Instead of Short-Term Clicks

Many marketing organizations still over-index on short term tactical metrics while under-measuring the strategic measures that track brand differentiation and customer lifetime value. The CMO Survey documents this imbalance and shows that longer-term, insight-rich metrics remain among the least measured, even as their use is starting to climb. Building a scorecard that pairs immediate funnel metrics with customer health indicators and willingness to pay helps leaders see the throughline from research to revenue and margin.

Make Insights Operational and Repeatable

Making insights part of operations helps to inform the cadence of planning, product development, distribution, and service. McKinsey’s analysis is explicit that impact requires a unified data and insight ecosystem aligned with business goals. For insurers and asset managers, that might mean quarterly voice-of-advisor pulses tied to specific service-level agreements, annual segmentation refreshes that update sales priorities, or post-launch concept testing that feeds agile iteration. A repeatable operating rhythm amplifies the acquisition, retention, and profitability advantages seen in data-driven organizations.

Collect Practical Data to Move with Confidence

Validating Market Fit Before Scaling. Validate market demand, value proposition, and price sensitivity before committing full resources to distribution. This approach decreases the probability of false starts and focuses launch plans on segments with the highest conversion odds.
Running Experience Diagnostics to Find the Moments that Matter. Identify the handful of moments that create or destroy value in the advisor and customer journey. Integrate those moments with experience metrics that correlate to retention and cross-selling.
Message Testing to Earn Trust and Attention. Systematically test comprehension and distinctiveness of messaging across audience segments to increase effective reach.
Creating a Feedback Loop Through Insights Programs. Run a pulse survey of what advisors need in order to sell with confidence, be it illustrations, service, or training. Operationalize a feedback loop so changes are visible and fast.

How Greenwald Research Helps

Industry Knowledge. We have deep expertise in the health and wealth industries, including life insurance, annuities, retirement, health insurance, and employee benefits, where product complexity, regulation, and financial professional ecosystems require nuance. Our work is built to reflect the real choices customers and intermediaries face, so findings are credible with compliance and actionable with distribution teams. This alignment increases the chance research will drive the acquisition, retention, and profitability outcomes shown in the benchmarks.
Methodologies for the Decision. We select methods that inform the decision at hand and can be repeated over time, such as focus groups, in-depth interviews, conjoint, maximum difference scaling (maxdiff), segmentation, journey mapping, and message testing.
Executive-Ready Analysis. Our deliverables translate findings into “what to do Monday” recommendations and define the metrics to monitor to measure impact.

The Takeaway

Insight is not a luxury. It is a multiplier on every dollar you spend on product, marketing, distribution, and service. The organizations that outperform make research a repeatable capability tied to specific decisions and metrics. The evidence is clear that this approach improves acquisition, retention, profitability, and earnings.

If you are ready to turn research into measurable outcomes, Greenwald Research can help you define the decisions, design the learning plan, and operationalize the cadence that keeps you ahead.

Let Us Reintroduce Ourselves: The Full Picture of What Greenwald Research Does

By: Lisa Weber-Raley | 4/13/2026

A few years ago, I posted on Facebook asking for recommendations on mortgage refinancing. What I didn’t realize at the time was that my lacrosse assistant coach — someone I saw multiple times a week — actually worked in that exact field. Talk about a face‑palm moment.

That experience has stuck with me, because it mirrors something we see all the time at Greenwald Research. Even long‑time clients we’ve partnered with for years are sometimes surprised to learn about the full breadth of what we do.

I’ve heard it over and over:
“OH, I had no idea Greenwald did that!”
“I thought you only worked on annuities.”

So, to borrow from Jay‑Z… allow us to reintroduce ourselves.

Yes, We’re Known for Our Flagship Studies, and We’re Proud of It

Many people first encounter us through our largescale, public thought‑leadership research, our Syndicated Studies. These are the projects that get attention, spark industry conversations, and help shape decision‑making across the retirement, financial, and healthcare landscapes.

This includes our three major annual studies with EBRI: the Retirement Confidence Survey, the Workplace Wellness Survey, and the Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey, along with other high‑impact collaborations, such as Caregiving in the U.S. with AARP and the National Alliance for Caregiving.

These studies are foundational, trusted, and they’ve become widely cited touchpoints for understanding Americans’ experiences and perceptions.

But here’s the thing: Public research is only a small slice of what we do.

What You Don’t See (But Should Know): Proprietary Research That Drives Real Decisions

The majority of our work happens behind the scenes by maintaining deep partnerships with organizations across financial services, health, and benefits. These are engagements we can’t always talk about publicly, but they’re where some of our most meaningful impact happens.

We help our clients:

Understand customers and stakeholders at a granular level
Develop and refine products that meet real needs
Strengthen and position their brands in increasingly competitive markets
Improve customer experience across the full journey
Drive strategic improvements rooted in data
Navigate market shifts with confidence, context, and clarity

And because we work across quantitative, qualitative, and secondary research, we’re able to blend methodologies to create a full, nuanced picture that turns data into direction.

Our clients rely on us for answers and for the questions they haven’t yet thought to ask.

Our Expertise in Health and Wealth: Why It Matters

We intentionally focus on the interconnected ecosystems of financial services, health, and benefits. These worlds don’t operate in silos and neither do we.

Decades of specialization mean that we understand the nuances of regulation, consumer psychology, employer dynamics, and distribution systems. We can spot patterns across industries that others might miss and can present results with context that sharpens insight.

This focus on health & wealth elevates our ability to deliver research that is precise, relevant, and actionable.

So… What Can We Help You With?

If you’re thinking about an organizational challenge, a new product, a customer experience issue, a shifting market, or even just a question you can’t quite answer, reach out to us.

We’ll always tell you honestly whether it’s the right fit for our team.
And if it is, we’ll help you uncover the insights you need to move forward with clarity and confidence.

Thanks for letting us reintroduce Greenwald Research.
(And yes — I did end up using my friend for the refinance.)

The New Old Age

By: Mathew Greenwald
Apr 2, 2026

Old age isn’t what it used to be. Increasingly, it is longer, lived in worse health, and requires more complicated decisions. One of the key reasons for this is that modern medicine has gotten more effective at keeping sick people alive longer and healthy people alive long enough to get sick. In the past 50 years, the time older Americans spend managing long-term illnesses has doubled. The number of people who reach age 100 is projected to grow eightfold over the next four decades: many people currently in their 60s will reach age 100 and therefore have to fund it.

A New Landscape of Living Arrangements

The housing sector has responded to this demographic shift with a rapidly expanding set of options. Assisted living, congregate care, continuing care retirement communities, and nursing homes now sit alongside an increasingly sophisticated ecosystem of in-home support services and technologies. Older adults who lose mobility or cognitive function no longer must leave their homes. Stair lifts, home elevators, voice-activated controls, home monitoring systems, and even companion robots make aging at home viable for many. However, some of these technologies are expensive and it seems certain that more effective and expensive technologies are on the way. How will workers approaching retirement think through how to prepare financially for the possibility of needing these facilities or technologies a quarter decade or more after retirement? This growing range of choices is both a blessing and a challenge. Not only will older people often have to make very complicated decisions about where and how they want to live the last years of their lives, but people in their 50s and 60s now have to make decisions about how much money they want to save to be able to afford some of these possibilities. The complexity of this retirement planning issue is unprecedented.

The Rising Cost of Living Longer

A long period of ill health late in life can be extremely costly. Consider inflation: if it averages just 2.5% annually over a 30-year retirement (a conservative assumption), the value of a dollar will be reduced by more than half. For example, if the cost of the average private room in a nursing rises at the rate that it has for the last 10 years, the cost will be $427,872 per year in 2076 when today’s 50-year-old turns 90.

Many financial professionals are not keeping pace with the increasing likelihood of a very long life. Our research shows that more than half of advisors who incorporate longevity planning into their overall planning assume a lifespan of age 93 or younger. In contrast, the Society of Actuaries Longevity projector estimates a 44% chance that one member of a healthy 65-year-old couple will live to age 95 and a 16% chance that one will live to 100. A very strong majority do not want to take a 44% chance of outliving their financial resources.

The Challenge of Uncertainty

One of the most difficult aspects of retirement planning is the enormous variation in late-life outcomes. Some people will not reach 95, or if they do, will spend little money at that age. But others may live well past 95 and face 10 years or more of unavoidable and very high expenses. The range between these outcomes is vast and we need new approaches to help people navigate retirement planning decisions.

What Financial Professionals Must Do

The “new old age” requires new skills and models for financial professionals. Here are three thoughts:

There is a need to re-think longevity planning ages and how to present them.
Financial professionals should educate their clients on the variety of housing choices open to those with impaired physical or cognitive capabilities and their costs. This information will enable them to make better decisions about how to prepare for the risk of needing long-term care.
Financial professionals should develop new approaches to help people think about their preferences for their lives throughout retirement. Preferences will certainly change as people age. But financial decisions made at age 65 will certainly impact financial capability at age 90.

Long life is a great gift that an increasing proportion of us will receive. To gain the full advantage of this gift, we need to better learn how to prepare for it financially.