Monday, October 30, 2006

"Guaranteed Lifetime Income," but Where's the A-Word?

Insurance company commercial on Boston radio this a.m. pushed "Guaranteed Income for a Lifetime." What product produces this guaranteed income? The commercial pointedly didn't say.

You can see the problem. In the public mind, the A-word, "annuity," has become firmly attached to investment packages known as deferred annuities.

Maybe we need a new term for immediate annuities?

For certain, immediate annuities are back in style. They fell from favor in the inflationary 1970's, when "fixed income" meant "rapidly shrinking income" in real terms.

Inflation is tamer now, and an endless array of derivitives allow insurance companies to offer a variety of inflation-indexed annuities to those who desire them.

Perhaps the real reason immediate annuities are making a comeback is that traditional pensions have become a vanishing species. By purchasing an immediate annuity, a retiree can gain some of the lifetime security corporate pensions used to provide.

How much should a retiree put into an annuity? As you can read in this Julie Jason column, the answer may be determined by applying a patented formula. Yes, patented.

The U.S. patent was issued to Peng Chen and Moshe Milevsky on their "theory and system for creating optimal asset and product allocations for individual investors looking to finance consumption or generate income during retirement."

Can an intricate formula really apply to situations where much depends on iffy variables such as changing state of health and future estate planning goals? Time will tell.

2 comments:

Jim Gust said...

I'm having some trouble with the example in the linked article, and I'm wondering if it contains a typo.

They posit a couple with $1 million looking for $50,000 per year of income, which doesn't seem too hard to to do. But they stipulate keeping up with inflation, which might make the task more challenging. As expected, they suggest an increase chance of running out of money as the couple ages.

The recommendation for reducing that risk is spending $400,000 on an immediate annuity. The costs of that transaction are ignored, so far as I can tell. But with the annuity in the portfolio, the article suggests a 10% chance of running out of money by age 92 and no chance at age 100! Did they inadvertently switch the ages in the example? Or is there some annuity magic with which I am not yet familiar?

JLM said...

An obvious typo, I assumed. Presumably the formula indicates no chance of destitution at 92, a 10% chance at 100.