Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 34

Why we overlook lifetime annuities

In my previous article on annuities, I explained that a life annuity is the only financial instrument or product that can give an individual a fixed income for life. So annuities sound like an attractive proposition, particularly if individuals are assumed to be rational and seek to smooth out consumption over their lifetimes. This proposition is even more attractive when we consider the higher payments due to the mortality premium.

And yet we see little voluntary investment in annuities in Australia or overseas. There are rational and behavioural reasons for this annuity puzzle. I will discuss the rational reasons here, and explore the behavioural reasons in my next article.

While this is an area of much research (I have drawn on work by Jeffrey Brown in the US and domestic researchers Michael Sherris, John Evans and Susan Thorp), reasons can also be drawn from industry experience.

The main reasons a person may sensibly choose not to annuitise include:

1. Cost – Many regard annuities as poor value. It is a difficult claim to make with confidence: the ‘money’s worth’ of annuities is a complex calculation. Money’s worth calculations compare the value of the expected payments from an annuity with the cost. This may sound simple but it isn't. For instance, it is hard to choose a discount rate and estimate life expectancy.

Much of the research points to annuities offering less than fair value (that is, a money’s worth ratio of less than 1). This shouldn’t surprise, as annuity providers must put capital aside and target acceptable shareholder returns.

This is not the end of the story. Annuity providers are exposed to adverse selection. This is a phenomenon whereby the life expectancy of those who choose to annuitise is actually higher than that of the broader population. This could be simply because those who are wealthy and seek financial advice often live longer. However it could also be because people who believe they have a longer than average life expectancy find annuities attractive. This is known as adverse selection.

The only way annuity providers can allow for this is through pricing. Research has shown that if ‘money’s worth’ calculations are based on the life expectancy of the annuitised population, then money’s worth is much closer to fair value.

Interestingly, even when prices are less than fair, the models suggest that individuals would still benefit from investing in annuities.

2. Age pension – Australians already have (conditional) exposure to a life annuity: the age pension. However the rational models suggest that full annuitisation is beneficial and can’t explain why people with different income levels choose not to annuitise (as the age pension will provide varying replacement rates across the population).

3. Default risk – Life companies have defaulted in the past. For instance, we saw several US life insurers fail in the early 1990s, including Executive Life Insurance, Mutual Benefit Life Insurance, and Confederation Life Insurance. APRA requires that life companies keep aside enough capital to withstand the events of the next year with a 99.5% probability of sufficiency. These standards could be thought of as a 0.5% chance of default (obviously life companies could hold more than the minimum capital, further reducing the risk of default). This may sound like a small risk, but if we consider that someone annuitising at 65 could live for another 30 years, then the probability of default over the annuitant's lifetime becomes 15%. And there is always the possibility that risk models fail to correctly estimate risk (surely not!). Unlike previous articles on credit investing, which have emphasised the benefits of diversification, it is difficult to diversify annuity provider exposure in Australia.

4. Bequests – For those with strong bequest intentions, full annuitisation is not rational. However partial annuitisation could be a rational choice.

5. Irreversibility – Typically annuities are irreversible contracts (though innovation by groups like Challenger has led to the introduction of exit clauses for reasonable time periods). The irreversibility takes away flexibility, which is difficult to value. An irreversible contract is not undesirable in the context of default risk and bequest motive issues previously outlined.

6. Deferral may be optimal – In the previous annuities article, I explained the concept of the mortality premium, which makes life annuities more attractive. Basically, because not everyone in the insured pool is expected to survive to the next period, a life insurer can afford to make higher payments compared with those received from the underlying securities (typically fixed interest securities).

Now consider the case where the probability of dying in the next period (say a year) is very low; the mortality premium associated with that first year will be low. The potential risk adjusted return from deferring annuitisation and instead investing in equities may be positive, so it may be rational to defer annuitisation. However this does not mean that we should not invest in annuities at all – there will come a point where the marginal mortality premium exceeds the risk-adjusted return expectation of the alternative investment.

7. Incomplete markets – We may not be offered the most attractively featured annuity products at reasonable prices. There are two broad reasons for this, as noted in the Henry Review: supply issues and barriers to innovation. Supply issues include the lack of market support for the hedging and sharing of mortality and longevity risk, and the availability of long-dated (particularly CPI-indexed) fixed income securities. Barriers to product innovation consist of the red tape burden imposed by various regulators. Deferred annuities are a case in point. They are interesting products from a financial planning perspective that are in effect ruled out by their tax treatment (proposed government changes could fix this problem).

8. Risk-sharing in couples – Couples effectively insure each other through bequests. However even in this context, life annuities still have a role to play among rational decision makers.

9. Financial advice models – Some suggest that financial planners who use planning models that rely on trailing commissions may be less likely to recommend life annuities. But I’m sure this statement cannot be applied to all financial planners.

So overall there are many reasons why a rational individual may choose not to invest in annuities. It should be pointed out that academic researchers have considered each issue and found that, in most cases, no reason carries enough weight on its own to justify excluding annuities altogether (although deferring or partial annuitisation may make more sense than full annuitisation in some cases).

And so the annuity puzzle remains for researchers, though many market practitioners can probably find enough cause to be put off annuities in the reasons listed above. Researchers are still determined to find behavioural explanations for the lack of annuitisation, and I will explore some of these reasons in a subsequent article.

 

David Bell’s independent advisory business is St Davids Rd Advisory. David is working towards a PhD at University of NSW.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Behavioural reasons why we ignore life annuities

Getting the most from your age pension

A fundamental flaw in the Australian retirement system?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Raising the GST to 15%

Treasurer Jim Chalmers aims to tackle tax reform but faces challenges. Previous reviews struggled due to political sensitivities, highlighting the need for comprehensive and politically feasible change.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

The rubbery numbers behind super tax concessions

In selling the super tax, Labor has repeated Treasury claims of there being $50 billion in super tax concessions annually, mostly flowing to high-income earners. This figure is vastly overstated.

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

Trump's US dollar assault is fuelling CBA's rise

Australian-based investors have been perplexed by the steep rise in CBA's share price But it's becoming clear that US funds are buying into our largest bank as a hedge against potential QE and further falls in the US dollar.

Investment strategies

With markets near record highs, here's what you should do with your portfolio

Markets have weathered geopolitical turmoil, hitting near record highs. Investors face tough decisions on valuations, asset concentration, and strategic portfolio rebalancing for risk control and future returns.

Property

Soaring house prices may be locking people into marriages

Soaring house prices are deepening Australia's cost of living crisis - and possibly distorting marriage decisions. New research links unexpected price changes to whether couples separate or silently struggle together.

Investment strategies

Google is facing 'the innovator's dilemma'

Artificial intelligence is forcing Google to rethink search - and its future. As usage shifts and rivals close in, will it adapt in time, or become a cautionary tale of disrupted disruptors?

Investment strategies

Study supports what many suspected about passive investing

The surge in passive investing doesn’t just mirror the market—it shapes it, often amplifying the rise of the largest firms and creating new risks and opportunities. For investors, understanding these effects is essential.

Property

Should we dump stamp duties for land taxes?

Economists have long flagged the idea of swapping property taxes for land taxes for fairness and equity reasons. This looks at why what seems fairer may not deliver the outcomes that we expect.

Investing

Being human means being a bad investor

Many of the behaviours that have made humans such a successful species also make it difficult for us to be good, long-term investors. The key to better decision making is to understand what makes us human and adapt.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.