Economists are known for describing the annuity puzzle.
The puzzle is: why do people not purchase income annuities (exchange a lump sum
payment for a guaranteed lifetime income stream) to the extent predicted by
economic theory? A number of explanations have been offered. Today I will not
get too much into the explanations for the puzzle. Instead, I want to focus
carefully on the theory behind why the “annuity puzzle” is said to exist in the
first place.

Economists describe the annuity puzzle as a problem of
maximizing lifetime expected utility. “Utility” can be off-putting, and I am
not going to show any mathematical equations. I will focus on the intuition,
and what is essential here is getting a good definition for the value provided
by spending. Rather than looking directly at the level of spending, economists
look at the value it provides, noting that additional spending provides
diminishing increases in value. I reviewed these concepts in “Spending Amounts vs. Spending Value.”

For the basic model, one assumption is that people
don’t care about leaving bequests (one explanation for the annuity puzzle,
then, is that people don’t like to annuitize all of their assets because they want
a chance to bequeath something). This means, they don’t mind exchanging all of
their wealth at retirement for a guaranteed income stream for life.

For the basic model as well, there is no investment
risk. Financial markets are simplified to one asset which always and forever
provides the same return. This return is fixed. For non-annuitized assets, your
portfolio of remaining wealth earns this fixed return each year. The annuity
provider can also earn this return, and so the annuity payout rate incorporates
this return as well as the return of principal.

Of course the assumption of a fixed return is not
realistic. But the purpose of building models is to simplify reality in ways
that still allow us to make some sense out of reality. By using this simplified
assumption about asset returns, we can narrow in on the implications of having
an uncertain lifespan.

The annuity provider also provides mortality credits.
This gets to the heart of the uncertainty in the model. The uncertainty is
longevity risk. The retiree doesn’t know their age of death. However, this is a
known unknown, in the words of Donald Rumsfeld. That is, retirees and the
annuity provider both know the probability distribution for the age of death,
and the probability of survival to each subsequent age past 65. Individuals
can’t self-insure to protect from this longevity risk. If they don’t annuitize,
they have no chance but to plan for a long lifespan. On the other hand, the
annuity provider can pool longevity risk across a large population of
customers, and those who die earlier than average subsidize later payments to
those who live longer than average. Because the annuity provider can pool the
longevity risk, they are able to make payments at a rate much closer to what
would be possible when planning for remaining life expectancy, rather than
planning for a much longer horizon. Annuities should not be thought of so much
as an investment, but rather as insurance to protect against running out of wealth
while still alive.

I will assume retirement date wealth of $100. This
amount doesn’t impact the results. I assume a male retiree at 65 and use the
Social Security Administration 2007 Period Life Tables to obtain survival rates
past this age. These survival rates for males can be seen in the following
figure. Results will differ by age, gender, and mortality data source, but the
basic principles will remain the same. I assume a maximum possible retirement
length of 35 years, so no retirees live past 100. This doesn’t have much
effect, since the probability of a 65 year old male living past 100 is less
than 1%.

At retirement, retirees choose their annual spending
amounts for ages 65-100. Since they know the future investment returns, this is
easy to do. They don’t know how long they will live, but they can decide on how
much they will spend each year should they still be alive. There are 4 factors
which impact the decisions about the future spending path:

**1. Survival probabilities:**Since the probability of survival decreases over time, retirees have an incentive to increase spending early in retirement relative to late in retirement. Earlier spending is more likely to actually happen and so it receives a larger weighting in the function that adds up the lifetime value of spending. Higher survival probabilities will reduce annuity payout rates and help push more spending from early to later retirement.

**2. The investment return:**A higher investment return supports a higher annuity payout rate. As well, knowing that your remaining portfolio will grow at a faster rate allows you to spend at a higher rate earlier in retirement, and also pushes you to delay spending to later in order to leave more wealth in your portfolio to grow at the higher rate and allow for more lifetime spending.

**3. The retiree’s impatience:**A factor which also impacts retirees separate from survival probabilities is how impatient they are to spend. If the discounting to future spending caused by impatience is greater than the future investment return, then retirees have a strong incentive to shift spending to earlier in retirement. Likewise, more patient retirees who can get a larger return than the discounting from their impatience are willing to delay spending so that their wealth can grow more and they can spend more later on.

**4. Risk aversion**: This is the technical name for a key parameter in the utility function. It describes the shape of the curve which defines the value of spending. Lower numbers imply a less steep curve so that retirees do get more value from spending and have a greater willingness to increase spending at the expense of future reductions. Higher numbers imply that retirees really get hurt by less spending and this overwhelms the additional gains from more spending early on. In the context of retirement and in describing spending in terms of value, I think we should rename risk aversion as

**spending flexibility.**A small number means the retiree is flexible! They can let their spending fluctuate more as the interaction of the other 3 factors warrants. A larger number provides a stronger push toward consumption smoothing, as retirees care less about upside and really wish to maintain as high of spending as possible in worst-case scenarios.

**The Results**

In order to keep this short, I think we can see lots of
interesting results by focusing on just one scenario. I will consider the case
that investment returns are zero, and the discounting factor for impatience is
also zero.

With a real return of zero, the annuity payout rate
based on an actuarially fair annuity with this mortality data is 5.66%. That is,
the $100 of wealth is used to purchase an annuity at retirement for the 65 year
old male, the guaranteed income stream each year for life is $5.66. That
happens by pooling the mortality risk across the population.

Meanwhile, for someone who doesn’t buy an annuity, they
have to plan for a potential lifespan of 35 years. With a zero return on
assets, to smooth consumption across their potential lifetime, they could spend
100/35 = $2.86 each year. Much less than an annuity, but that is because the
planning horizon has to be longer to protect against the low probability event
of living a long, long time.

Now we get into the

__really interesting part__. Something I’ve been trying to get a dialogue going about is whether the general population is aware of one of the key insights coming from lifecycle finance economic models. That is, you should intentionally plan to decrease spending as you age to account for the lower probability of living to each subsequent age. But how much should you plan to reduce your spending? That depends on your__spending flexibility / risk aversion__.
There are now two competing tradeoffs: you want to
spend the same amount every year for as long as you live to get the most
lifetime value from your spending, but you also want to frontload your spending
to early retirement when you have the highest chance for survival. Again, I’m
assuming a case where investment returns and impatience are both zero and both
cancel each other out.

The following figure shows the optimal spending path, both
for the case with annuitization and for different degrees of spending
flexibility for the case when the retiree does not annuitize. This figure shows
why economists see an annuity puzzle: why not annuitize since it provides a
higher lifetime spending path? But
beyond this, we can also see how people optimize without annuities. I need to
rename something here, because low values imply greater flexibility rather than
high values. Someone with flexibility of 1 is quite willing to let their
spending decrease over time to reflect the low probability of survival as they
age. Spending starts at the same amount as the annuity but declines to very low
levels by one’s late 90s. With flexibility of 2, more effort is made toward
keeping a smooth level at $2.86. But again, it is still optimal to front load
spending. You can also see for coefficients of 5 and 10 how we obtain greater
smoothing even in the face of the decreasing survival probabilities. How much
lower would you let your spending fall in your 90s to allow more spending in
your 60s? It’s an important and highly
personal question! Personally, I’m sort
of attracted to the pattern coming with flexibility=5.

One final part of the puzzle is that economists like to
note the “annuity equivalent wealth.” That is, how much additional wealth would
you need in order to obtain the same expected lifetime value of your spending when
you don’t annuitize as when you do annuitize? Clearly, the value of spending is
higher with the annuity since it allows greater spending at all ages. I calculate
that with flexibility=1, the retiree needs 53% more wealth to be just as satisfied
as with an annuity. The corresponding numbers increase up to the flexibility=10
case, where 90% more wealth is needed to be just as happy. That is a key part
of the annuity puzzle: with flexibility of 10, you would need 90% more wealth to
have the same utility from not annuitizing as from annuitizing. So why not
annuitize?

Well, there are many explanations, and I will revisit
those at a later date. Or alternatively, here is your homework assignment,
class: List potential explanations in the comments for why the “puzzle” may not
really be as puzzling as I just made it sound.

Excellent post Wade, thank you. I really appreciate your putting a face on the numbers with these more qualitative interpretations of your findings.

ReplyDeleteSo, I'll take the bait and speculate on a few reasons for the annuity puzzle. (I'm not familiar with this problem, but it IS fascinating.)

First, of course, people are not rational in maximizing utility. Second there is at least psychological utility in maintaining control of your own assets. Last the annuity decision itself is complex, and, as a bet on the stability of a private sector entity, not entirely risk-free.

Darrow, thanks.

DeleteYes, these are all good reasons. Thank you.

inflation can destroy the value of an annuity

ReplyDeleteIllusion of control. The same reason people prefer to drive themselves than ride in a plane.

ReplyDeleteLack of money to buy an annuity. If reports are to be believed, most people save little to nothing for retirement. Not much point in annuitizing it, when social security and the occasional pension provide that part of their income. (Or maybe that's accounted for in the annuity puzzle?)

The fear of getting scammed (legally) by the insurance company that sells you the annuity, with a huge contract you couldn't hope to understand. It's easier to accept a contract like that when you are giving an insurance company a small amount of money for a large amount of money if something bad happens. In the case of an annuity you give the company a large amount of money for a bunch of small payouts.

I think

Thanks to both of you.

ReplyDeleteAll good reasons.

The basic annuity puzzle doesn't consider Social Security, but you are indeed suggesting a valid reason why the puzzle is less: people do have some annuitized income already

Reasons:

ReplyDelete1) Medical spending is often higher in the last year of life than the total of the previous decade.

2) Annuitizing all your monies doesn't provide a lump sum for an emergency (roof replacement, car replacement, sewer connection fee when you've been on a septic system), so partial annuities are more flexible if the person is spending 100% of annuity income.

3) Annuities have an unstated overhead (the issuer's profit) and its likely that significantly better returns are available elsewhere.

And that's before we even consider inflation.

Thank you

DeleteIn the small American towns that were once middle class there are three brick buildings: the bank, the insurance company offices and the mortuary. All of these institutions provide overpriced services and products. The real "Puzzle" for me is why anyone would ever choose to give an insurance company any money at all (beyond that legally required, such as auto liability). Insurance companies use lobbyists to kill regulation. They buy influence with election campaign contributions. I feel that they are are not worthy of my trust, no matter how many graphics show that I MIGHT have more money at age 90 if I purchased one of their products.

ReplyDeleteWow, this is a powerful explanation. When I write a followup on this issue, I would like to quote this. I think you are describing a feeling that is probably shared by many Americans. Thanks.

DeleteI have a pension and social security both straight life annuities and inflation indexed. Icould use part of my savings to purchase an annuity but I would diversify it and buy years certain to solve my annuity puzzle. Congress needs to make annuities more tax friendly.

ReplyDeleteThanks for highlighting mandatory factors that need to be taken care of while calculating annuity quotes.

ReplyDelete