Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 2325
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by vineviz » Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:07 am

willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:44 pm
I think that there is a segment of retirees for whom a SPIA may make sense. As longinvest has pointed out, it probably doesn't make sense for retirees with tiny portfolios to do anything other than hold their capital for the most essential spending needs, doing their best to make ends meet on other income streams like SS.
I tend to agree that retirees with either very small or very large retirement portfolios will likely not find an SPIA to be a tool that they need to use. I certainly don't expect to use one in MY retirement because we've been fortunate so far to build a portfolio that (it seems) will more than meet our desired level of retirement spending.

That said, there is a large slice of America in the middle, who have a retirement portfolio somewhere between nothing and enough for whom an SPIA should at least be considered as a rational and possibly even wise part of their retirement plan. Especially since, for the majority of Americans, the number one goal in their retirement planning is to provide "guaranteed money every month to cover [their] living costs in retirement". (source).

In fact, according to a TIAA survey, 62% of employees would prefer to receive $2,700 a month for life rather than a $500,000 lump sum at retirement. Arguing that investors value the wrong thing only takes you so far if what we care about is meeting their ACTUAL needs instead of the needs we WISH they had.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 6296
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by JoMoney » Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:26 am

If you're drawing down on a portfolio of bonds/CDs, a SPIA can offer a fair alternative. I still fail to see anything being suggested that would allow someone to safely withdraw more from their portfolio.
Is there some option that would be better? Is it being suggested that rather than bonds, it should be compared to stocks?
Or that life expectancy should be ignored and one can go ahead and withdraw more (I suppose if you run out of money and can't eat the living too long problem fixes itself) ?
Last edited by JoMoney on Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham

longinvest
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:44 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by longinvest » Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:27 am

nedsaid wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:02 am
You could buy an annuity with inflation protection but this is at the price of much lower monthly payments. [...] If the purchasing power of an annuity decreases too much over time, just buy another one when you are older.
To dampen the financial risk of living to old age, an 80 years old single male could buy a 3%-indexed $711/month SPIA for $100,000 (see my earlier post for details).

If he chooses, instead, to buy a fixed $711/month SPIA, it will cost him ($711/$959 X $100,000) = $74,140. He'll be left with $25,860 that he can invest.

15 years later, our retiree has kept active and in good health, but he is somewhat weaker. In the last 15 years, inflation has averaged 3% annually. Over time, the $711 fixed payment has lost 36% of its purchase power. To avoid struggling financially, the single male has simply taken increasing withdrawals from the invested residual $25,860 to compensate the loss in purchase power. But, now, seeing that he might possibly survive to age 100 (or maybe a few years beyond, which not unheard of even if not frequent), he decides to use his residual portfolio (assuming it didn't recently burn in a stock market crash*) and go and buy another fixed SPIA... Unfortunately, he discovers that few insurance companies want to sell SPIAs to males of 95 years of age.

* Had the portfolio been invested in bonds, it would be depleted by now. I'll leave the calculation exercise to readers.

Trying to buy a SPIA for a single male of age 95 is like having a long record of being responsible for car accidents and seeking to buy car insurance. It might still possible, but the cost is prohibitive.

Laddering fixed SPIAs, starting at age 80 when SPIAs become financially efficient, doesn't work to fight inflation for those who survive to old age.
Bogleheads investment philosophy | Lifelong Portfolio: 25% each of (domestic / international) stocks / domestic (nominal / inflation-indexed) long-term bonds | VCN/VXC/VLB/ZRR

wolf359
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by wolf359 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:44 am

Allan Roth wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:01 pm
I'm not saying they are "horrible products." I'm saying 1) payments aren't income, 2) they expose another risk - inflation 3) There are better ways of addressing longevity risk.
Allan, that was a very insightful article. Thank you for writing it. It did give me the additional perspective of considering SPIAs in terms of their breakeven point. I'm personally years away from ever buying a SPIA, but I've always viewed them as a potentially useful tool in the right circumstances.

If I understood your article correctly, its point was specifically that one should not have the mindset of "investing for income," that is, buying products like SPIAs for the sole purpose of buying income.

I had always viewed SPIAs more of a longevity insurance product. Insurance is used to protect against low-probability but costly events. In this case, an income annuity provides insurance against outliving assets and not having sufficient remaining income sources. I intend to use a total return approach on an investment portfolio as my primary retirement funding, but am wary of sequence of returns risk.

From this perspective, I also intend to delay social security to 70, as the cheapest longevity insurance I could buy. I would also consider QLACs or SPIAs for any remaining gaps, to be purchased as I aged and identified those gaps (no need to buy it if my health declines). I read your other article with interest, but I do not have access to TIAA or a pension.

1) payments aren't income.
To me, this is a distinction without a difference. A SPIA will give me a monthly payment for life. If that's what I need to live on, it is irrelevant if I call it income, a return of capital, or an insurance payment.

2) they expose another risk - inflation.
The inflation risk needs to be addressed separately by equity assets, real estate, or other means (I'm wrestling with how to address that risk as well.) SPIAs and most pensions are similar in that they generally are not inflation adjusted.

3) There are better ways of addressing longevity risk.
Delaying Social Security is the technique that is available to most people (provided that they are Bogleheads and develop the assets necessary to use it). However, I'm planning for the contingency that the current political gridlock continues, and that both Social Security and Medicare continue on the paths that they are currently on. In such a case, Social Security takes a haircut around 2030, and Medicare payments may potentially equal what Social Security pays out (cancelling it out.) Thus, I'm anticipating that Social Security as longevity insurance may require a supplement. The only other options I see (besides continuing to work, and continuing to save like crazy) is a QLAC and a SPIA. If something happens and I'm unable to work, then I hit retirement with whatever assets I've managed to accumulate at that point.

hirlaw
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:20 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by hirlaw » Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:49 am

The rates are linked to interest rates, so if you were purchasing a new annuity, yes - it would be higher than the recent past... but at that point you purchase one, the payouts are locked in, so an old SPIA already purchased wouldn't change.
https://www.immediateannuities.com/annuity-trends/
Thanks. That's what I was looking for.

I understand that the payouts are locked in once purchased. My concern is another point raised in Alan Roth's article: That if purchased now, the annuitant is locking in payouts at the present relatively low interest rates. Of course, we don't know where interest rates are headed, but given the Fed's inclination to continue to raise rates, some may feel that now is not the ideal time to lock in.

User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 6296
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by JoMoney » Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:01 am

hirlaw wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:49 am
The rates are linked to interest rates, so if you were purchasing a new annuity, yes - it would be higher than the recent past... but at that point you purchase one, the payouts are locked in, so an old SPIA already purchased wouldn't change.
https://www.immediateannuities.com/annuity-trends/
Thanks. That's what I was looking for.

I understand that the payouts are locked in once purchased. My concern is another point raised in Alan Roth's article: That if purchased now, the annuitant is locking in payouts at the present relatively low interest rates. Of course, we don't know where interest rates are headed, but given the Fed's inclination to continue to raise rates, some may feel that now is not the ideal time to lock in.
Current interest rates are a concern, thankfully I've got plenty of time before I'll be making any decisions like that myself.
I do take issue / question what is being suggested as an alternative for someone who is looking at this today. If this is money someone already has in bonds/CDs/fixed income that they're taking withdrawals from, they're already exposed to the problem of low interest rates. Rates may go up in the future, but that will impact their current fixed income investments commensurately anyway...
The suggestion seems to be "don't draw on your money now, get a job instead." :confused
Last edited by JoMoney on Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham

beardsworth
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:02 pm

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by beardsworth » Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:04 am

CuriousTacos wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:17 pm
But I don't see cognitive decline mentioned in this thread, and that's what tips the scales for me. While I may be confident that I can manage my investments in a way that is superior to an SPIA, I may eventually reach a point where I can't even manage the simplest of portfolios (or worse, I make some very poor decisions or get taken advantage of).

So when I approach an age where mental decline is more likely (or if I see any signs of early decline), I think an SPIA (for some of my $) would attractive.
This is a very persuasive argument, and, in our own household, especially to my wife.

Although we're both in good health, family history (which is, of course, just one longevity factor among many) suggests that she'll substantially outlive me. And both her mother and grandmother developed dementia, although the first signs didn't appear until their early 80s.

My wife always earned more than I did, but I've always been our Designated Hunter-Gatherer for financial information, and the one who "watches" our finances and retirement holdings.

We talk about our finances at least every week, and she reads every piece of financial information I call to her attention, so that if/when I die before her, she will certainly not be lacking knowledge of how things work or what to do in continuing our financial game plan.

But she's very attracted to the "lifetime payout" and "autopilot" characteristics of annuities, i.e., something which will not need to be "managed," especially if there comes a point in life where her actual mental capacity to do any "managing" is slipping away. And, of course, there's always the chance that we'll be surprised if I turn out to be the actual surviving spouse and end up facing a similar cognitive future. So annuities appeal to me, too.
Last edited by beardsworth on Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dandy
Posts: 5475
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by Dandy » Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:11 am

Annuity offering insurance companies usually have to invest in longer term bonds to match their liabilities. Those rates haven't been rising as much as shorter term rates. I wouldn't be too confident yet that current rising rate environment is going to bring much higher annuity payout rates soon. Of course from a marketing standpoint there might be some noise about "the new amazing new payouts we are offering"

As was pointed out somewhere in this amazing post - rising interest rates while good for a higher payout usually means higher inflation is present or lurking.

User avatar
CWRadio
Posts: 344
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:04 am
Location: In the Michigan ionosphere

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by CWRadio » Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:12 am

CuriousTacos wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:17 pm
I see both sides of the argument about whether an SPIA is worth it for the longevity insurance. And some of us may have large enough portfolios that this isn't really a concern (a 3% withdrawal rate is pretty safe forever).

But I don't see cognitive decline mentioned in this thread, and that's what tips the scales for me. While I may be confident that I can manage my investments in a way that is superior to an SPIA, I may eventually reach a point where I can't even manage the simplest of portfolios (or worse, I make some very poor decisions or get taken advantage of).

So when I approach an age where mental decline is more likely (or if I see any signs of early decline), I think an SPIA (for some of my $) would attractive.
Interesting book on the above subject: What to Do When I Get Stupid by Lewis Mandell
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EDWTFU2/?c ... _lig_dp_it
Paul

TN_Boy
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by TN_Boy » Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:20 am

nedsaid wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:02 am

Bunch of stuff snipped ...

My positive comments about Single Premium Immediate Annuities is not a blanket endorsement for everyone to rush out and buy one tomorrow. It is an irrevocable decision when you buy one and it is something to soberly think over before buying one. But is amazes me that few folks levy this kind of criticism towards pensions, which are much the same thing. Indeed, we bemoan the demise of the pensions around here.

Stuff snipped ...
So I posted this before, and you didn't respond, but I'll post it again, because I'm interested in your response. I think the difference in payout and how the payments are funded make pensions less like SPIAs than you believe they are. They are *similar* in that they pay a set amount per month, but the differences are important. For my spouses government pension, the funding is based upon both her contributions and the government contributions. In an SPIA, it's all your money. And with current interest rates, the payouts are (relatively) unattractive.
SPIAs often make sense. But why wouldn't people react differently to SS/pensions and SPIAs? Pension and SS benefits show up "magically" after many years of payroll deductions. You certainly notice the deductions, but they are a relatively small (for most people) reduction in your take-home pay. And certainly the SS deduction, at least, is not optional. The deductions are a defacto part of your budget.

But to get a decent sized payment from an SPIA, I am going to have to write somebody a six figure check. That's a big check. And that money is gone forever (for the simplest SPIAs), whether I die the next month (at which point I wouldn't care) or whether I have a financial crisis of some sort and would like that money back to be spent as a lump sum. Plus, most SPIAs pay out in nominal dollars (inflation adjusted ones pay out quite a bit less early, right?) and so will be worth less as time goes on (unlike SS).

And since you need a large check to get a decent sized payment, I don't see an SPIA as useful to anybody that doesn't have a fairly big investment portfolio. If you've only saved 50k or 100k, you probably don't want to take money out of those savings to get an SPIA.

And finally you have other factors, like if the insurer you buy from goes bankrupt, how will that play out, etc.
And in another post I gave some specific numbers:
I just tried a quick quote at immediate annuities.com. I told it I was 65 and my spouse 61 (which is false, but a reasonable situation). For $200k now, in my state they say an "average" quote will pay$ 900 a month with survivor benefits. So if I had $400,000 saved, I'm writing them a check for 1/2 my liquid assets to get under $11,000 a year. Okay, that IS more than 4% a year. And no worries about market fluctuation. But still. That's a big percentage of assets to hand over. The math does get better if you get an annuity when older ... then again, you could pull more than 4% also. Add in the way legacies might be affected (not a factor for me either) and well, SPIAs are a bit of a hard sell.

The situation where an SPIA would look good to me would be if somebody had 2 or 3M in invest-able assets, and interest rates were high ... handing somebody $500k might feel okay -- you still have a lot of assets for emergencies, legacies, etc. Though in our situation, we have reasonable assets, then inflation adjusted SS kicks in to cover a decent fraction of our living expenses.
My main point is that people are not bashing pensions because there are key differences between many (most?) pensions and SPIAs:
1) pensions often better funded (i.e. employer contributions, especially for government pensions), and
2) the funding of the pension occurs over decades, not all at once

Put another way, if pensions were funded like SPIA, you would get a lot more pension bashing on this board.

PaulF
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:07 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by PaulF » Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:47 am

Hmmm, people generally don't know when they will die. Therefore, they need to acquire a large enough nest egg to see them through until the upper extreme of their possible longevity (which will require years of additional work). But, by definition, this means that many people will die with significant unexpended assets.

If only there were a way for people to pool their longevity risks, I don't know, maybe through some sort of insurance scheme....

User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 10676
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:33 pm

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by nedsaid » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:30 am

TN_Boy wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:20 am

My main point is that people are not bashing pensions because there are key differences between many (most?) pensions and SPIAs:
1) pensions often better funded (i.e. employer contributions, especially for government pensions), and
2) the funding of the pension occurs over decades, not all at once

Put another way, if pensions were funded like SPIA, you would get a lot more pension bashing on this board.
Ah, many pensions are not better funded. I think Illinois pensions are funded at about 50%. My own state has a funding ratio of about 80%. There are a lot of government pensions out there that don't have enough assets to pay future liabilities. When you buy an SPIA, it is 100% funded. Really doesn't matter where the money comes from, on an employer match for a pension, it is still a part of your compensation package, in that sense the funding still comes 100% from you.

Yes funding for pensions occurs over decades, that is a big part of their problem. Government workers have been promised generous benefits with the knowledge that the bill won't come due for years, which is part of what created the problem in the first place.
A fool and his money are good for business.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6535
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by willthrill81 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:38 am

dodecahedron wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:12 pm
My vision would be this: the Bogle-inspired annuity for each age-cohort would be invested very simply and transparently in safe fixed income instruments of the sort Bogleheads like (e.g., intermediate term Treasuries). Each living subscriber would get a proportionate share of the value of the investment pool each year. As folks in the cohort die off, the remaining subscribers would automatically get larger payments according to some fairly simple and transparent formula. Everything should be kept simple and transparent, to keep costs and risks down.
While they are not transparent and they are making some profit, insurance companies are some of the most regulated institutions on the planet (i.e. how much benefit would transparency to customers actually provide), and longinvest has pointed out that insurance companies are making perhaps a 5% profit on the premiums paid for SPIAs. I don't see a Bogle-type person being able to do too much to improve the situation.

To be honest, the only criticism of Roth's or anyone else's that can genuinely be levied against SPIA providers is the small profit that they make, and being a card carrying capitalist, I have no problem with profit in a competitive environment. By their very nature, insurance companies don't have many options for investing premiums, and the actuarial tables they use seem fair for the populace that is buying this product.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

TN_Boy
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by TN_Boy » Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:31 am

nedsaid wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:30 am
TN_Boy wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:20 am

My main point is that people are not bashing pensions because there are key differences between many (most?) pensions and SPIAs:
1) pensions often better funded (i.e. employer contributions, especially for government pensions), and
2) the funding of the pension occurs over decades, not all at once

Put another way, if pensions were funded like SPIA, you would get a lot more pension bashing on this board.
Ah, many pensions are not better funded. I think Illinois pensions are funded at about 50%. My own state has a funding ratio of about 80%. There are a lot of government pensions out there that don't have enough assets to pay future liabilities. When you buy an SPIA, it is 100% funded. Really doesn't matter where the money comes from, on an employer match for a pension, it is still a part of your compensation package, in that sense the funding still comes 100% from you.

Yes funding for pensions occurs over decades, that is a big part of their problem. Government workers have been promised generous benefits with the knowledge that the bill won't come due for years, which is part of what created the problem in the first place.
I think we are destined to disagree on this :happy. I mean, my spouse has a pension, and it is sure obvious to me that an SPIA taken now is not equivalent to her pension when you look at contributions versus payout*. I gave an example with numbers in the part of my post you omitted; the SPIA numbers were far from compelling.

I'll try a third way of saying it. Bogleheads are fond of pensions which payout the defined benefit through the life of the pension holder. It is my belief bogleheads dislike pensions which fail to meet their commitments :oops: For pensions which meet their obligations, the payout is often based upon both employee and employer contributions over many years. Thus the payout is higher than one based upon employee contributions alone (ie. like an SPIA).

To your comment about pensions which are not funded adequately (such as those in Illinois, and many municipalities) yes of course that is a problem. But I assumed you were not saying that SPIAs were the same as pensions which are in trouble. The fact that many pensions are in trouble is interesting, but irrelevant to why bogleheads "like" pensions but might not like an SPIA.

* It's not one of those crazy pensions where she worked like 20 years and retired with a pension equal to her salary, and it is reasonably well funded.

bsteiner
Posts: 3598
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:39 pm
Location: NYC/NJ/FL

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by bsteiner » Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:38 am

willthrill81 wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:38 am
... longinvest has pointed out that insurance companies are making perhaps a 5% profit on the premiums paid for SPIAs. ...
While they serve a purpose, in addition to the 5% profit (if that's what the profit is), there are expenses in running the insurance company and paying the agents. Also, annuities are inflexible and turn all of the investment income and gains into ordinary income.

CULater
Posts: 1606
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:59 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by CULater » Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:43 am

I recall that several years ago, state employees in one state (maybe it was Florida) were given a choice of taking their retirement pensions as a lump sum instead of an annuity and overwhelmingly chose the lump sum option. Bird in hand seems better than possible future birds?
May you have the hindsight to know where you've been, The foresight to know where you're going, And the insight to know when you've gone too far. ~ Irish Blessing

longinvest
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:44 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by longinvest » Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:48 am

bsteiner wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:38 am
willthrill81 wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:38 am
... longinvest has pointed out that insurance companies are making perhaps a 5% profit on the premiums paid for SPIAs. ...
While they serve a purpose, in addition to the 5% profit (if that's what the profit is), there are expenses in running the insurance company and paying the agents. Also, annuities are inflexible and turn all of the investment income and gains into ordinary income.
Here's what I wrote:
longinvest wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:38 pm
[... supporting calculations ...]
I think that it's safe to claim that the insurance company charges probably around 5% in fees as part of the pricing of its annuity, to cover administration, agent commission, and profits.
Bogleheads investment philosophy | Lifelong Portfolio: 25% each of (domestic / international) stocks / domestic (nominal / inflation-indexed) long-term bonds | VCN/VXC/VLB/ZRR

User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 10676
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:33 pm

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by nedsaid » Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:54 am

TN_Boy wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:31 am
nedsaid wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:30 am
TN_Boy wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:20 am

My main point is that people are not bashing pensions because there are key differences between many (most?) pensions and SPIAs:
1) pensions often better funded (i.e. employer contributions, especially for government pensions), and
2) the funding of the pension occurs over decades, not all at once

Put another way, if pensions were funded like SPIA, you would get a lot more pension bashing on this board.
Ah, many pensions are not better funded. I think Illinois pensions are funded at about 50%. My own state has a funding ratio of about 80%. There are a lot of government pensions out there that don't have enough assets to pay future liabilities. When you buy an SPIA, it is 100% funded. Really doesn't matter where the money comes from, on an employer match for a pension, it is still a part of your compensation package, in that sense the funding still comes 100% from you.

Yes funding for pensions occurs over decades, that is a big part of their problem. Government workers have been promised generous benefits with the knowledge that the bill won't come due for years, which is part of what created the problem in the first place.
I think we are destined to disagree on this :happy. I mean, my spouse has a pension, and it is sure obvious to me that an SPIA taken now is not equivalent to her pension when you look at contributions versus payout*. I gave an example with numbers in the part of my post you omitted; the SPIA numbers were far from compelling.

I'll try a third way of saying it. Bogleheads are fond of pensions which payout the defined benefit through the life of the pension holder. It is my belief bogleheads dislike pensions which fail to meet their commitments :oops: For pensions which meet their obligations, the payout is often based upon both employee and employer contributions over many years. Thus the payout is higher than one based upon employee contributions alone (ie. like an SPIA).

To your comment about pensions which are not funded adequately (such as those in Illinois, and many municipalities) yes of course that is a problem. But I assumed you were not saying that SPIAs were the same as pensions which are in trouble. The fact that many pensions are in trouble is interesting, but irrelevant to why bogleheads "like" pensions but might not like an SPIA.

* It's not one of those crazy pensions where she worked like 20 years and retired with a pension equal to her salary, and it is reasonably well funded.
How many times do I have to say this? It isn't surprising that pensions pay out better than SPIAs because consumers buy SPIAs one at a time where a pension is the equivalent of Costco, a pension can buy in bulk. This is why when faced with a choice between a pension and a lump sum, I most often advise that an employee take the pension, they won't get a better deal on their own.
A fool and his money are good for business.

The Wizard
Posts: 12450
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:45 pm
Location: Reading, MA

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by The Wizard » Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:56 am

TN_Boy wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:20 am
...I think the difference in payout and how the payments are funded make pensions less like SPIAs than you believe they are. They are *similar* in that they pay a set amount per month, but the differences are important. For my spouses government pension, the funding is based upon both her contributions and the government contributions. In an SPIA, it's all your money...
For my 40 years of employment, I was required to contribute 5% of my salary to my Defined Contribution plan at TIAA. (I actually contributed way more than this 5% minimum, especially in later years.)

But my employer contributed 10% of my salary to a parallel DC plan for those 40 years. I became 100% vested in those employer contributions after five years of employment.

So when I annuitized a portion of my combined accumulation for lifetime income at start of retirement, was it "my" money that got used or was it my employer's money.
Does it really matter?
Attempted new signature...

User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 10676
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:33 pm

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by nedsaid » Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:59 am

The Wizard wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:56 am
TN_Boy wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:20 am
...I think the difference in payout and how the payments are funded make pensions less like SPIAs than you believe they are. They are *similar* in that they pay a set amount per month, but the differences are important. For my spouses government pension, the funding is based upon both her contributions and the government contributions. In an SPIA, it's all your money...
For my 40 years of employment, I was required to contribute 5% of my salary to my Defined Contribution plan at TIAA. (I actually contributed way more than this 5% minimum, especially in later years.)

But my employer contributed 10% of my salary to a parallel DC plan for those 40 years. I became 100% vested in those employer contributions after five years of employment.

So when I annuitized a portion of my combined accumulation for lifetime income at start of retirement, was it "my" money that got used or was it my employer's money.
Does it really matter?
The 10% employer contribution to the pension was part of the compensation package, so in a real sense, 100% of the contributions came from the employee. It would be like saying that wages are employer contributions. Wages and benefits are part of the total compensation package, including employer matches to retirement plans. It isn't money that just drops from heaven.
A fool and his money are good for business.

TN_Boy
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by TN_Boy » Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:46 pm

nedsaid wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:54 am

How many times do I have to say this? It isn't surprising that pensions pay out better than SPIAs because consumers buy SPIAs one at a time where a pension is the equivalent of Costco, a pension can buy in bulk. This is why when faced with a choice between a pension and a lump sum, I most often advise that an employee take the pension, they won't get a better deal on their own.
Because you say this:
But is amazes me that few folks levy this kind of criticism towards pensions, which are much the same thing. Indeed, we bemoan the demise of the pensions around here.
If SPIA numbers were as attractive as a good pension, I suspect they would get more love here. But that's not the case. So, people here are throwing more stones at SPIAs than they would at pensions, in general.

I just ... don't find it puzzling that many people like pensions and don't like SPIAs.

But it really doesn't matter whether SPIAs are like low payout pensions or not. The SPIA must be evaluated on its own merits. It doesn't matter whether the return is partly "return of principal" or not. It just matters whether it makes sense for someone to write a big check to get a modest non-inflation adjusted payout. It might, sometimes. Longinvest has his example, and I mentioned one possibility myself upthread somewhere.

The Wizard
Posts: 12450
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:45 pm
Location: Reading, MA

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by The Wizard » Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:20 pm

nedsaid wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:59 am
...The 10% employer contribution to the pension was part of the compensation package, so in a real sense, 100% of the contributions came from the employee. It would be like saying that wages are employer contributions. Wages and benefits are part of the total compensation package, including employer matches to retirement plans. It isn't money that just drops from heaven.
Can't disagree with you about be that.
In fact, for the first 10? years of my employment, retirees were *required* to take the employer contribution sum as a lifetime monthly payout from TIAA, i.e an annuity/pension.

But the rules changed in the 80s to allow retirees to do as they pleased with the combined accumulation.

My main point is that pensions and annuities are more similar than different and people should apply their scrutiny to both of them...
Attempted new signature...

wolf359
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by wolf359 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:32 pm

nedsaid wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:54 am
How many times do I have to say this? It isn't surprising that pensions pay out better than SPIAs because consumers buy SPIAs one at a time where a pension is the equivalent of Costco, a pension can buy in bulk. This is why when faced with a choice between a pension and a lump sum, I most often advise that an employee take the pension, they won't get a better deal on their own.
I think another reason why pensions pay better is that they use different longevity tables. Pensions are spreading the mortality credits among everyone in the pension program, who are more like the general population. SPIAs tend to be purchased by a healthier population -- if you think you're not going to live long, you won't go out of your way to buy an annuity.

columbia
Posts: 1112
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:30 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by columbia » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:08 pm

wolf359 wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:32 pm
nedsaid wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:54 am
How many times do I have to say this? It isn't surprising that pensions pay out better than SPIAs because consumers buy SPIAs one at a time where a pension is the equivalent of Costco, a pension can buy in bulk. This is why when faced with a choice between a pension and a lump sum, I most often advise that an employee take the pension, they won't get a better deal on their own.
I think another reason why pensions pay better is that they use different longevity tables. Pensions are spreading the mortality credits among everyone in the pension program, who are more like the general population. SPIAs tend to be purchased by a healthier population -- if you think you're not going to live long, you won't go out of your way to buy an annuity.
That’s another reason that the TIAA annuities are attractive: you have large amounts of people putting money in to Traditional for decades and annuitizing the holding is the planned next step (for people all of stripes).

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6535
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by willthrill81 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:44 pm

I would really like to hear an interview/debate between Allan Roth and Wade Pfau regarding SPIAs. :D
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
dodecahedron
Posts: 3809
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by dodecahedron » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:57 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:38 am
dodecahedron wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:12 pm
My vision would be this: the Bogle-inspired annuity for each age-cohort would be invested very simply and transparently in safe fixed income instruments of the sort Bogleheads like (e.g., intermediate term Treasuries). Each living subscriber would get a proportionate share of the value of the investment pool each year. As folks in the cohort die off, the remaining subscribers would automatically get larger payments according to some fairly simple and transparent formula. Everything should be kept simple and transparent, to keep costs and risks down.
While they are not transparent and they are making some profit, insurance companies are some of the most regulated institutions on the planet (i.e. how much benefit would transparency to customers actually provide), and longinvest has pointed out that insurance companies are making perhaps a 5% profit on the premiums paid for SPIAs. I don't see a Bogle-type person being able to do too much to improve the situation.
You are right that insurance companies are highly regulated and compliance costs with those regulations are included in the operating costs of annuity providers. I would argue that a simple transparent participating tontine-like arrangement might be easier to regulate and might lower compliance costs. The participating tontine-like arrangement could reduce the amount of actuarial calculations, paperwork, and excess-contingency reserve opportunity costs.

The Wizard
Posts: 12450
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:45 pm
Location: Reading, MA

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by The Wizard » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:00 pm

columbia wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:08 pm
wolf359 wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:32 pm
nedsaid wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:54 am
How many times do I have to say this? It isn't surprising that pensions pay out better than SPIAs because consumers buy SPIAs one at a time where a pension is the equivalent of Costco, a pension can buy in bulk. This is why when faced with a choice between a pension and a lump sum, I most often advise that an employee take the pension, they won't get a better deal on their own.
I think another reason why pensions pay better is that they use different longevity tables. Pensions are spreading the mortality credits among everyone in the pension program, who are more like the general population. SPIAs tend to be purchased by a healthier population -- if you think you're not going to live long, you won't go out of your way to buy an annuity.
That’s another reason that the TIAA annuities are attractive: you have large amounts of people putting money in to Traditional for decades and annuitizing the holding is the planned next step (for people all of stripes).
I'm not sure that's correct.
I have $$ in Trad and have annuitized some of it, but as wolf said, if one was in poor health around start of retirement, annuitizing TIAA Traditional would not be recommended...
Attempted new signature...

The Wizard
Posts: 12450
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:45 pm
Location: Reading, MA

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by The Wizard » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:03 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:44 pm
I would really like to hear an interview/debate between Allan Roth and Wade Pfau regarding SPIAs. :D
They've both been to the annual BH conference, though I didn't see Wade there this year.
Definitely a good topic suggestion for next time...
Attempted new signature...

SGM
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by SGM » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:18 pm

nedsaid wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:13 am
Allan Roth wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:01 pm
There are better ways of addressing longevity risk.
You hinted at this in your article but never addressed the "better ways." Could you let us in on what those better ways are?

By the way, thanks much for contributing to this thread. You aren't being dumped on, this is a tough crowd. Just ask Larry Swedroe. Your points are well taken and I appreciate you responding to my post.
Addressing longevity risk is difficult. I have addressed it personally by having multiple sources of income including delaying SS until age 70, having rental income, a small pension, a TiAA-CREF annuity through prior employment. I may add a ladder of SPIAs after age 70. I expect that the more income streams I have, the less I will be spending from a portfolio. I will likely spend down my portfolio by gifting and donating some of it.

Any riders you put on a SPIA will increase the cost. I will not purchase an SPIA with a cost of living adjustment. There is a reason insurance companies do not push SPIAs. They are not that profitable to the insurance companies. There are a lot of annuities that are awful. If I were to purchase a variable annuity outside the good one that I have through the university contract with TIAA, I would just be adding a layer of expense over a mutual fund.

The kind of annuities that are advertised every Saturday morning on the radio are a boon to the insurance salesmen. They are similar to what were called equity indexed annuities. They have different names now since FINRA exposed them. Those kind of annuities have nothing to do with SPIAs.

wolf359
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by wolf359 » Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:33 am

SGM wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:18 pm
nedsaid wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:13 am
Allan Roth wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:01 pm
There are better ways of addressing longevity risk.
You hinted at this in your article but never addressed the "better ways." Could you let us in on what those better ways are?

By the way, thanks much for contributing to this thread. You aren't being dumped on, this is a tough crowd. Just ask Larry Swedroe. Your points are well taken and I appreciate you responding to my post.
Addressing longevity risk is difficult. I have addressed it personally by having multiple sources of income including delaying SS until age 70, having rental income, a small pension, a TiAA-CREF annuity through prior employment. I may add a ladder of SPIAs after age 70. I expect that the more income streams I have, the less I will be spending from a portfolio. I will likely spend down my portfolio by gifting and donating some of it.

Any riders you put on a SPIA will increase the cost. I will not purchase an SPIA with a cost of living adjustment. There is a reason insurance companies do not push SPIAs. They are not that profitable to the insurance companies. There are a lot of annuities that are awful. If I were to purchase a variable annuity outside the good one that I have through the university contract with TIAA, I would just be adding a layer of expense over a mutual fund.

The kind of annuities that are advertised every Saturday morning on the radio are a boon to the insurance salesmen. They are similar to what were called equity indexed annuities. They have different names now since FINRA exposed them. Those kind of annuities have nothing to do with SPIAs.
When Alan Roth made this statement in his original article, he also linked to another article which described his recommendations. It is located here: https://www.aarp.org/money/investing/in ... es-ar.html

If you don't want to follow the link, they are:
1) Delaying social security to 70, which provides you with an inflation-adjusted annuity at minimal direct cost;
2) Employer pension, if you work for a company with a pension;
3) TIAA Traditional Annuity, if you work for a non-profit with access to TIAA.
What these three annuities have in common is that no one has the incentive to sell them to you because they don't pay a sales commission. And because of that, the costs are lower — which is better for consumers. Two of the three are at least somewhat backed by the U.S. government, and the third, TIAA, has an AA+ rating by Standard & Poor's.

When it comes to investing, I never say never. If you have the ability to take advantage of any of these three "annuities," they are worth considering.

Dandy
Posts: 5475
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by Dandy » Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:26 am

If you don't want to follow the link, they are:
1) Delaying social security to 70, which provides you with an inflation-adjusted annuity at minimal direct cost;
2) Employer pension, if you work for a company with a pension;
3) TIAA Traditional Annuity, if you work for a non-profit with access to TIAA.
All excellent ideas. I have 2 pensions and waited until age 70 to collect SS. I also am blessed with having a decent asset level. So, I probably don't need any annuities.

So, what does Allan recommend for someone without a pension (which are getting rarer) or is is rather small and who doesn't have access to TIAA Traditional Annuity? And maybe they need current income in retirement so waiting to age 70 to collect SS might not be in the cards? There was talk of a CD strategy that would tend to keep up with inflation. Nice to see how that work work for say a 25 or 30 year retirement. Is there no reasonable circumstances for someone to choose an insurance company immediate annuity?

Stormbringer
Posts: 647
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 7:07 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by Stormbringer » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:22 am

Consider a couple with $300,000 to invest:

Using a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds and the 4% rule for withdrawals, they can take $12,000 a year, and adjust for inflation each year.
Maybe they won't run out of money, but it isn't guaranteed. Firecalc shows a 4-5% failure rate after 30 years that increases with longevity. If they retired in 2007, they probably had quite a few sleepless nights over the next several years.

If they bought a joint-life, CPI-adjusted SPIA, they would have about a 4% payout rate, also $12,000 a year. It adjusts for inflation every year, is backed by their State government, and it will never run out as long as either of them lives, making it about as iron-clad of an income stream as one could hope for. They care little about what happens with with markets or inflation, because they've transferred that risk to others.
"Compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe." - Albert Einstein

User avatar
linenfort
Posts: 2153
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:22 am
Location: #96151D

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by linenfort » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:51 am

I appreciate the article, Allan Roth.
Tell your clients that total return and principal protection are more important than income.
In addition to the title of this thread, the article mentions the pitfalls of individual muni bonds. Sadly, these have become my father's favorite investment, even though he was an early adopter of Vanguard funds. (He bought their S&P500 index fund for me and my siblings when I was too young to know what a fund was).

At his age, he's not going to change his mind unless the muni bond market implodes and I think it's best to leave that part of his investments alone rather than damage the relationship. There are threads about that. However, we have had talks about the dangers.
bogleheads, don't knock state lotteries. They helped defund the mafia.

User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 6296
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by JoMoney » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:50 am

Stormbringer wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:22 am
Consider a couple with $300,000 to invest:

Using a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds and the 4% rule for withdrawals, they can take $12,000 a year, and adjust for inflation each year.
Maybe they won't run out of money, but it isn't guaranteed. Firecalc shows a 4-5% failure rate after 30 years that increases with longevity. If they retired in 2007, they probably had quite a few sleepless nights over the next several years.

If they bought a joint-life, CPI-adjusted SPIA, they would have about a 4% payout rate, also $12,000 a year. It adjusts for inflation every year, is backed by their State government, and it will never run out as long as either of them lives, making it about as iron-clad of an income stream as one could hope for. They care little about what happens with with markets or inflation, because they've transferred that risk to others.
It doesn't need to be an all or nothing proposition either. They could take the bond portion of their portfolio and by a SPIA that will give them a guaranteed income floor at the maximum level that current interest rates and their life expectancy would support, and use the stock portion as a more flexible withdrawal based on how well the market performs, possibly buying additional SPIAs to increase the income floor in the future....
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham

JackoC
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:14 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by JackoC » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:02 pm

wolf359 wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:32 pm
nedsaid wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:54 am
How many times do I have to say this? It isn't surprising that pensions pay out better than SPIAs because consumers buy SPIAs one at a time where a pension is the equivalent of Costco, a pension can buy in bulk. This is why when faced with a choice between a pension and a lump sum, I most often advise that an employee take the pension, they won't get a better deal on their own.
I think another reason why pensions pay better is that they use different longevity tables. Pensions are spreading the mortality credits among everyone in the pension program, who are more like the general population. SPIAs tend to be purchased by a healthier population -- if you think you're not going to live long, you won't go out of your way to buy an annuity.
That's a plausible reason why pensions would pay better. However I think most of the general seat of the pants difference in positive view of pensions v bashing SPIA's is sunk cost fallacy. People have already paid for the pension with explicit deductions or implicitly lower wages over many years. An SPIA is new money out of pocket. I doubt much of this feeling is based on a big difference in pricing relative to a given actuarial table, with people actually running the numbers of what they've paid, which in any case is seriously complicated by what you assume as opportunity cost for the previous deductions if invested in something else, plus tax. Lots of people posting negative comparisons of SPIA and pension have run all those numbers in an accurate way? I doubt it.

Note, I haven't said that I have either. One previous employer closed out their defined benefit plan by giving us literally annuities (deferred), with a major insurer. But why would I run those numbers, trying to somehow figure out what I payed implicitly in lower wages, compared to a privately offered SPIA paid for now? Either I buy additional annuity protection or not. I'm not choosing whether to throw back the company annuity, I'm not able to get more company annuity.

What would be relevant is how the private annuity is priced in absolute terms to an actuarial table. And I recall a thread here from some years ago (sorry too lazy to link) finding that SPIA's were priced fairly favorably to the SSA table, IOW quite favorably to a hypothetical upper middle class, healthy, good habits table.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6535
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by willthrill81 » Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:25 pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:22 am
Consider a couple with $300,000 to invest:

Using a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds and the 4% rule for withdrawals, they can take $12,000 a year, and adjust for inflation each year.
Maybe they won't run out of money, but it isn't guaranteed. Firecalc shows a 4-5% failure rate after 30 years that increases with longevity. If they retired in 2007, they probably had quite a few sleepless nights over the next several years.

If they bought a joint-life, CPI-adjusted SPIA, they would have about a 4% payout rate, also $12,000 a year. It adjusts for inflation every year, is backed by their State government, and it will never run out as long as either of them lives, making it about as iron-clad of an income stream as one could hope for. They care little about what happens with with markets or inflation, because they've transferred that risk to others.
From whom can you still purchase a SPIA with a CPI adjustment? I didn't think anyone offered them for lifetime payouts anymore.

SPIA benefits are not guaranteed by state governments; they are guaranteed by state guaranty associations. That's a big difference.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
librarianaire
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:15 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by librarianaire » Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:49 pm

I only know of one insurance company that sells CPI-indexed SPIAs: Principal. Other posters in this thread have implied that CPI riders may be available from other insurers as well. If so, I would like to know about them. It would be helpful to be able to comparison shop.
“Our own experience provides the basic material for our imagination, whose range is therefore limited.” Thomas Nagel, What is it like to be a bat?

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6535
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by willthrill81 » Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:22 pm

librarianaire wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:49 pm
I only know of one insurance company that sells CPI-indexed SPIAs: Principal. Other posters in this thread have implied that CPI riders may be available from other insurers as well. If so, I would like to know about them. It would be helpful to be able to comparison shop.
I think that some may be referring to SPIAs with fixed payout increases, such as 2% or 3% annually, which are offered by many. Obviously, this assumes that we don't experience high levels of inflation like that of the 1970s.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

longinvest
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:44 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by longinvest » Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:53 pm

librarianaire wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:49 pm
I only know of one insurance company that sells CPI-indexed SPIAs: Principal. Other posters in this thread have implied that CPI riders may be available from other insurers as well. If so, I would like to know about them. It would be helpful to be able to comparison shop.
You're right; CPI-indexed SPIAs are very difficult to find, implying a lack of competition and, possibly, an adverse impact on pricing. I wouldn't be surprised if Principal was the only insurer that offered them in the US. In Canada (where I live), there used to be one insurer, Standard Life, which offered them, but it was bought by another insurer, Manuvie, which doesn't sell them. I haven't been able to find any reference to a currently sold CPI-indexed SPIA in Canada.

But, fixed-percentage indexed SPIAs, like 3%-indexed SPIAs, exist within a competitive market. They're not as safe as CPI-indexed SPIAs, but they're still much safer than nominal SPIAs! In a 5% inflation world, the nominal SPIA would have lost over 60% of its purchase power after 20 years (from age 80 to age 100, assuming longevity risk materialized) and continue to lose 5% per year, whereas the 3%-indexed SPIA would have lost barely more than 30% of its purchase power and continue to lose much less, 2% per year.
Bogleheads investment philosophy | Lifelong Portfolio: 25% each of (domestic / international) stocks / domestic (nominal / inflation-indexed) long-term bonds | VCN/VXC/VLB/ZRR

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6535
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by willthrill81 » Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:15 pm

longinvest wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:53 pm
But, fixed-percentage indexed SPIAs, like 3%-indexed SPIAs, exist within a competitive market. They're not as safe as CPI-indexed SPIAs, but they're still much safer than nominal SPIAs! In a 5% inflation world, the nominal SPIA would have lost over 60% of its purchase power after 20 years (from age 80 to age 100, assuming longevity risk materialized) and continue to lose 5% per year, whereas the 3%-indexed SPIA would have lost barely more than 30% of its purchase power and continue to lose much less, 2% per year.
I don't know that 'fixed-percentage indexed SPIAs' are really safer than nominal SPIAs. They're just different. You're paying for those payment increases with the former via lower initial payments. The nominal SPIA pays you more up front, while the fixed-percentage indexed SPIA pays you more on the back-end. It's probably worthwhile for anyone thinking of buying either to see how far out the break-even point is (i.e. how long must the fixed-percentage indexed SPIA be held before its payments are equal to that of the nominal SPIA).

OTOH, a CPI-indexed SPIA is definitely safer because the payments are guaranteed to maintain their real value over time, something that no other type of SPIA can do.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

longinvest
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:44 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by longinvest » Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:05 pm

Dear Willthrill81,
willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:15 pm
longinvest wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:53 pm
But, fixed-percentage indexed SPIAs, like 3%-indexed SPIAs, exist within a competitive market. They're not as safe as CPI-indexed SPIAs, but they're still much safer than nominal SPIAs! In a 5% inflation world, the nominal SPIA would have lost over 60% of its purchase power after 20 years (from age 80 to age 100, assuming longevity risk materialized) and continue to lose 5% per year, whereas the 3%-indexed SPIA would have lost barely more than 30% of its purchase power and continue to lose much less, 2% per year.
I don't know that 'fixed-percentage indexed SPIAs' are really safer than nominal SPIAs. They're just different. You're paying for those payment increases with the former via lower initial payments. The nominal SPIA pays you more up front, while the fixed-percentage indexed SPIA pays you more on the back-end. It's probably worthwhile for anyone thinking of buying either to see how far out the break-even point is (i.e. how long must the fixed-percentage indexed SPIA be held before its payments are equal to that of the nominal SPIA).

OTOH, a CPI-indexed SPIA is definitely safer because the payments are guaranteed to maintain their real value over time, something that no other type of SPIA can do.
A break-even analysis is irrelevant for an insurance product bought explicitly to protect against the low-probability but severe financial risk of long life. Based on a break-even analysis, one wouldn't buy house or car insurance; yet not buying such insurance (when one owns a house or a car) would be imprudent!

When risk actually materializes, because the annuitant is still alive at age 100, it becomes obvious that the 3%-indexed SPIA is much safer than the nominal SPIA, even if the same amount of money was used to buy either one at age 80. The higher initial payout of the nominal SPIA doesn't compensate its 3% annual lag relative to the 3%-indexed SPIA over a 20 year period, a lag that continues to compound after 100 for as long as the annuitant lives. Long life is when the 3%-indexed SPIA is needed because, at age 100, the portfolio might be depleted and inflation will have severely eroded the purchase power of a nominal SPIA and will continue to further erode it.

If possible, I would buy a CPI-indexed SPIA, instead, but this is sometimes impossible.

A CPI or 3% indexed SPIA isn't an investment product; it's insurance. I would never buy insurance I don't need, and if I need it, I would never buy more than what I strictly need. I've explained this in details in a recent post:
longinvest wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 11:04 pm
The wiki's instructions, for using VPW, say this:
Around age 80, if you're still alive, it is important to consider using part (but not all) of your remaining portfolio to buy an inflation-indexed Single Premium Immediate Annuity (SPIA), so that total non-portfolio income (including Social Security, pension, and other lifelong income) is sufficient to live comfortably, independently of future portfolio withdrawals. This aims to reduce the financial risks associated with living past age 100.
I'm writing this post to explain the above suggestion.

According to United States Life Tables, 2013 (page 6), 1.0% of males and 2.8% of females reach age 100. In particular, (1,023 / 51,252) = 2.0% of 80 years old males and (2,754 / 64,427) = 4.3% of 80 years old females make it to age 100. The chance of one spouse surviving to age 100, in a man and woman couple (both of age 80) is ((2.0% + 4.3%) - (2.0% X 4.3%)) = 6.2%. Note that this is for the general population, without accounting for socioeconomic status.

It's logical to calibrate financial plans on high-probability scenarios (like dying before 100). Yet, it would be prudent to also consider the consequences of low-probability adverse financial events (like living beyond 100) and, when necessary, plan to dampen their impact.

VPW is calibrated to deliver its last withdrawal at age 99. While the probability of still being alive at 100 is low, its financial consequences could be severe if VPW withdrawals were necessary for the comfort of the retiree. It's thus a good idea, at age 80, to buy sufficient inflation-indexed SPIA* income to insure one's lifelong financial well-being, when necessary.

* Indexed to the CPI or to a specific percentage like 3%.

Why not before 80? Because inflation-indexed SPIAs are more expensive when one is younger. Also, one might not even reach 80. Only 51% of males and 64% of females make it to 80.

Why not after 80? Because fewer insurance companies are willing to sell inflation-indexed SPIAs past this age, leading to less competition and higher prices.

I wouldn't buy more than strictly necessary to dampen the financial impact of surviving past 100. It's a low-probability event (98% of men and 96% of women, still alive at 80, don't make it to 100) and it's OK to be less wealthy when alive at 100. The goal, here, is to avoid ending up eating cat food under a bridge at 100 (figuratively).

Having sufficient lifelong inflation-indexed non-portfolio income, in old age, can also be helpful in case of cognitive decline or inability to manage the portfolio (due to the death of the spouse who was managing it).
The arrow ( ↑ ) at the top of the quote is a link to the original post in another thread. In that thread, I gave additional clarifications to forum member Vineviz in a follow-up post.

Best regards,

longinvest
Bogleheads investment philosophy | Lifelong Portfolio: 25% each of (domestic / international) stocks / domestic (nominal / inflation-indexed) long-term bonds | VCN/VXC/VLB/ZRR

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6535
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by willthrill81 » Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:22 pm

longinvest wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:05 pm
Dear Willthrill81,
willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:15 pm
longinvest wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:53 pm
But, fixed-percentage indexed SPIAs, like 3%-indexed SPIAs, exist within a competitive market. They're not as safe as CPI-indexed SPIAs, but they're still much safer than nominal SPIAs! In a 5% inflation world, the nominal SPIA would have lost over 60% of its purchase power after 20 years (from age 80 to age 100, assuming longevity risk materialized) and continue to lose 5% per year, whereas the 3%-indexed SPIA would have lost barely more than 30% of its purchase power and continue to lose much less, 2% per year.
I don't know that 'fixed-percentage indexed SPIAs' are really safer than nominal SPIAs. They're just different. You're paying for those payment increases with the former via lower initial payments. The nominal SPIA pays you more up front, while the fixed-percentage indexed SPIA pays you more on the back-end. It's probably worthwhile for anyone thinking of buying either to see how far out the break-even point is (i.e. how long must the fixed-percentage indexed SPIA be held before its payments are equal to that of the nominal SPIA).

OTOH, a CPI-indexed SPIA is definitely safer because the payments are guaranteed to maintain their real value over time, something that no other type of SPIA can do.
A break-even analysis is irrelevant for an insurance product bought explicitly to protect against the low-probability but severe financial risk of long life. Based on a break-even analysis, one wouldn't buy house or car insurance; yet not buying such insurance (when one owns a house or a car) would be imprudent!

When risk actually materializes, because the annuitant is still alive at age 100, it becomes obvious that the 3%-indexed SPIA is much safer than the nominal SPIA, even if the same amount of money was used to buy either one at age 80. The higher initial payout of the nominal SPIA doesn't compensate its 3% annual lag relative to the 3%-indexed SPIA over a 20 year period, a lag that continues to compound after 100 for as long as the annuitant lives. Long life is when the 3%-indexed SPIA is needed because, at age 100, the portfolio might be depleted and inflation will have severely eroded the purchase power of a nominal SPIA and will continue to further erode it.

If possible, I would buy a CPI-indexed SPIA, instead, but this is sometimes impossible.

A CPI or 3% indexed SPIA isn't an investment product; it's insurance. I would never buy insurance I don't need, and if I need it, I would never buy more than what I strictly need. I've explained this in details in a recent post:
longinvest wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 11:04 pm
The wiki's instructions, for using VPW, say this:
Around age 80, if you're still alive, it is important to consider using part (but not all) of your remaining portfolio to buy an inflation-indexed Single Premium Immediate Annuity (SPIA), so that total non-portfolio income (including Social Security, pension, and other lifelong income) is sufficient to live comfortably, independently of future portfolio withdrawals. This aims to reduce the financial risks associated with living past age 100.
I'm writing this post to explain the above suggestion.

According to United States Life Tables, 2013 (page 6), 1.0% of males and 2.8% of females reach age 100. In particular, (1,023 / 51,252) = 2.0% of 80 years old males and (2,754 / 64,427) = 4.3% of 80 years old females make it to age 100. The chance of one spouse surviving to age 100, in a man and woman couple (both of age 80) is ((2.0% + 4.3%) - (2.0% X 4.3%)) = 6.2%. Note that this is for the general population, without accounting for socioeconomic status.

It's logical to calibrate financial plans on high-probability scenarios (like dying before 100). Yet, it would be prudent to also consider the consequences of low-probability adverse financial events (like living beyond 100) and, when necessary, plan to dampen their impact.

VPW is calibrated to deliver its last withdrawal at age 99. While the probability of still being alive at 100 is low, its financial consequences could be severe if VPW withdrawals were necessary for the comfort of the retiree. It's thus a good idea, at age 80, to buy sufficient inflation-indexed SPIA* income to insure one's lifelong financial well-being, when necessary.

* Indexed to the CPI or to a specific percentage like 3%.

Why not before 80? Because inflation-indexed SPIAs are more expensive when one is younger. Also, one might not even reach 80. Only 51% of males and 64% of females make it to 80.

Why not after 80? Because fewer insurance companies are willing to sell inflation-indexed SPIAs past this age, leading to less competition and higher prices.

I wouldn't buy more than strictly necessary to dampen the financial impact of surviving past 100. It's a low-probability event (98% of men and 96% of women, still alive at 80, don't make it to 100) and it's OK to be less wealthy when alive at 100. The goal, here, is to avoid ending up eating cat food under a bridge at 100 (figuratively).

Having sufficient lifelong inflation-indexed non-portfolio income, in old age, can also be helpful in case of cognitive decline or inability to manage the portfolio (due to the death of the spouse who was managing it).
The arrow ( ↑ ) at the top of the quote is a link to the original post in another thread. In that thread, I gave additional clarifications to forum member Vineviz in a follow-up post.

Best regards,

longinvest
You're assuming that the difference between the nominal SPIA and the fixed-percentage indexed SPIA is spent, but I do see your point that if you're buying a SPIA primarily to help manage longevity risk, the latter is likely better. I personally see a SPIA as potentially being useful as well to help manage sequence of returns risk.

But I don't understand the whole argument around waiting until age 80 to buy one. I understand the points you make, but a SPIA-like annuity could be purchased earlier and simply deferred until age 80. Yes, you might not survive to age 80 to start collecting, but that risk will be priced into the annuity as well (e.g. it will cost less if purchased at age 65 than age 80). It would still address the same risk.

Another issue I see with waiting until age 80 to buy a SPIA is because the worst of sequence of returns risk should be behind you at that point (although SRR is only a problem to the extent that your withdrawals are fixed and not purely flexible). Why would you want to insure against a long life if SRR is largely behind you and you have a portfolio plus Social Security to rely upon? And if SRR turned out to be a real problem for you, you might choose to use a significant portion of your remaining portfolio at that point to buy either a SPIA or a deferred annuity, depending on the specifics of the situation.

If the concern is to address longevity risk, I see a deferred annuity purchased earlier in retirement being preferable to waiting until age 80. At that point in time, you don't know whether SRR will be a problem for you, and the annuity can be purchased at a lower cost then as well. I can see someone exchanging some of their fixed income investments at age 65, for instance, to purchase a deferred annuity that wouldn't begin payments until age 80.

Perhaps you can elucidate my concerns.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

longinvest
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:44 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by longinvest » Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:49 pm

Dear Willthrill81,

We've previously discussed this in depth. So, I'm only writing this post for the benefit of other readers.

The SWR method implied in your post is a withdrawal method which lets most of its adopters die as the richest people in the graveyard, while bankrupting most of the rest. Its risk of failure includes not only the possibility of premature portfolio depletion, but also the possibility of excessive underspending. It is severely exposed to sequence of returns risk. When SWR fails (in the traditional sense, through premature depletion), it completely fails. It leaves the retiree bankrupt. It's no wonder that even the smallest probability of failure generates so much anxiety.

Our wiki has a much better method. The variable-percentage withdrawal (VPW) method doesn't have sequence of returns risk; it only exposes its withdrawals to portfolio fluctuations which can be dampened with nominal and inflation-indexed bonds. VPW is best used on a balanced portfolio (exposed to mild fluctuations). Most importantly, VPW never prematurely depletes a portfolio.

Best regards,

longinvest
Bogleheads investment philosophy | Lifelong Portfolio: 25% each of (domestic / international) stocks / domestic (nominal / inflation-indexed) long-term bonds | VCN/VXC/VLB/ZRR

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6535
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by willthrill81 » Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:26 am

longinvest wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:49 pm
Dear Willthrill81,

We've previously discussed this in depth. So, I'm only writing this post for the benefit of other readers.

The SWR method implied in your post is a withdrawal method which lets most of its adopters die as the richest people in the graveyard, while bankrupting most of the rest. Its risk of failure includes not only the possibility of premature portfolio depletion, but also the possibility of excessive underspending. It is severely exposed to sequence of returns risk. When SWR fails (in the traditional sense, through premature depletion), it completely fails. It leaves the retiree bankrupt. It's no wonder that even the smallest probability of failure generates so much anxiety.

Our wiki has a much better method. The variable-percentage withdrawal (VPW) method doesn't have sequence of returns risk; it only exposes its withdrawals to portfolio fluctuations which can be dampened with nominal and inflation-indexed bonds. VPW is best used on a balanced portfolio (exposed to mild fluctuations). Most importantly, VPW never prematurely depletes a portfolio.

Best regards,

longinvest
I'm not stuck on 'safe withdrawal rates', but the bottom line is that any withdrawal method that is not based on a percentage of the portfolio's balance (i.e. has some 'fixed' element to it) has some degree of exposure to sequence of returns risk.

If you believe that VPW can completely eliminate SRR, then I don't see the need to ever buy a SPIA unless your portfolio is too small to support your spending needs somewhere along the way, and you need the 'boost' of a SPIA to get you there. But of course, VPW will exhaust your portfolio by age 100, which is probably why you would want to buy a SPIA at some point. My estimated life expectancy is close to 100, so I have no interest in VPW personally.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

longinvest
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:44 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by longinvest » Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:35 am

willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:26 am
I'm not stuck on 'safe withdrawal rates', but the bottom line is that any withdrawal method that is not based on a percentage of the portfolio's balance (i.e. has some 'fixed' element to it) has some degree of exposure to sequence of returns risk.
Dear Willthrill81,

It's mathematics: VPW doesn't have sequence of returns risk. VPW never prematurely depletes a portfolio.

Best regards,

longinvest
Last edited by longinvest on Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bogleheads investment philosophy | Lifelong Portfolio: 25% each of (domestic / international) stocks / domestic (nominal / inflation-indexed) long-term bonds | VCN/VXC/VLB/ZRR

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6535
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by willthrill81 » Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:38 am

longinvest wrote:
Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:35 am
Dear Willthrill81,

It's mathematics: VPW doesn't have sequence of returns risk. VPW never prematurely depletes a portfolio.

Best regards,

longinvest
Until you reach age 100.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

stlutz
Posts: 4847
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:08 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by stlutz » Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:11 am

longinvest wrote:
Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:35 am
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:26 am
I'm not stuck on 'safe withdrawal rates', but the bottom line is that any withdrawal method that is not based on a percentage of the portfolio's balance (i.e. has some 'fixed' element to it) has some degree of exposure to sequence of returns risk.
Dear Willthrill81,

It's mathematics: VPW doesn't have sequence of returns risk. VPW never prematurely depletes a portfolio.

Best regards,

longinvest
Sequence of returns risk is not a function of a withdrawal method. It is a related to market returns. VPW or fixed-percentage systems both respond to the appearance of SRR by reducing withdrawals, possibly significantly. Depending on the size of the portfolio, this reduction can indeed create "failure"--it just does so in a different way.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6535
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by willthrill81 » Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:19 am

stlutz wrote:
Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:11 am
longinvest wrote:
Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:35 am
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:26 am
I'm not stuck on 'safe withdrawal rates', but the bottom line is that any withdrawal method that is not based on a percentage of the portfolio's balance (i.e. has some 'fixed' element to it) has some degree of exposure to sequence of returns risk.
Dear Willthrill81,

It's mathematics: VPW doesn't have sequence of returns risk. VPW never prematurely depletes a portfolio.

Best regards,

longinvest
Sequence of returns risk is not a function of a withdrawal method. It is a related to market returns. VPW or fixed-percentage systems both respond to the appearance of SRR by reducing withdrawals, possibly significantly. Depending on the size of the portfolio, this reduction can indeed create "failure"--it just does so in a different way.
Correct. It's merely a question of, relatively speaking, whether your portfolio or your withdrawals suffer more.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

longinvest
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:44 am

Re: Allan Roth doesn't like single premium annuities

Post by longinvest » Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:06 am

stlutz wrote:
Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:11 am
longinvest wrote:
Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:35 am
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:26 am
I'm not stuck on 'safe withdrawal rates', but the bottom line is that any withdrawal method that is not based on a percentage of the portfolio's balance (i.e. has some 'fixed' element to it) has some degree of exposure to sequence of returns risk.
Dear Willthrill81,

It's mathematics: VPW doesn't have sequence of returns risk. VPW never prematurely depletes a portfolio.

Best regards,

longinvest
Sequence of returns risk is not a function of a withdrawal method. It is a related to market returns. VPW or fixed-percentage systems both respond to the appearance of SRR by reducing withdrawals, possibly significantly. Depending on the size of the portfolio, this reduction can indeed create "failure"--it just does so in a different way.
Dear Stlutz,

VPW doesn't have sequence of returns risk. VPW does, however, expose its withdrawals to the fluctuations of the portfolio, but any reordering of the sequence of returns doesn't change the final portfolio balance. In particular, VPW never prematurely depletes a portfolio, unlike withdrawal methods which are vulnerable to sequence of returns risk such as SWR.

Sequence of returns risk is the risk of getting a different final portfolio balance when reordering a sequence of returns. For retirees, it's the risk of ruin due to premature portfolio depletion. I refer readers to Chapter 3 "How the Sequence of Returns Can Ruin Your Retirement" of the book Pensionize your nest egg by Moshe A. Milevsky and Alexandra C. Macqueen.

Best regards,

longinvest
Bogleheads investment philosophy | Lifelong Portfolio: 25% each of (domestic / international) stocks / domestic (nominal / inflation-indexed) long-term bonds | VCN/VXC/VLB/ZRR

Post Reply