[matt_holden]

The unpopularity of annuities seems like a direct consequence of loss aversion, which says losses are more psychologically powerful than equivalent gains. [1]

If I trade $100k in savings for an annuity, I'm starting off at a deep "loss", which becomes a "gain" only at some point in the uncertain future. Not surprising that most people won't take that bet.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

[Jtsummers]

A lot of people also don't understand annuities. They don't understand how their bank (or whoever) can guarantee them a paycheck every year at a certain amount. It seems it's often not explained as a form of insurance.

[tim333]

Also I understand them but the rates seem a bit rubbish. I just got a quote for a 55 year old and they offered 3.7% (this is in the UK). For comparison you could buy rental property and get a yield like 6% plus capital appreciation. With property, you suddenly want a lump sum, you can sell or mortgage. With the annuity you are out of luck. Also the rent goes up with inflation, this annuity I think not.

[Jtsummers]

I meant to reply earlier, but <something, something, work>. Anyways, now that I'm off:

jessriedel found an annuity with a good return. But I also have another point to make:

Annuities mitigate risk. This is the same reason people invest in various government bonds (directly or wrapped up in other investment packages). You're getting a guaranteed return on an annuity. Your rent (and the underlying property) are not guaranteed. The risk in them offers greater opportunity for profit, yes. So why not do both? If you have the money, you ought to consider both (if you can find a good annuity or similar investment).

If you don't have enough money, your choice will come down to your risk tolerance. I'm 33. I'm physically fit, rarely ill, with no debt, a college degree, a stable job, and even if it weren't stable I'm a more than competent programmer and mathematician so I can find work somewhere. I can invest in riskier things than, say, my 60 year-old parents with the almost paid off house, who would have to move (emotionally challenging at their age) to find gainful employment (also difficult at their age) should they lose their money in a bad investment. For them (also note: annuities are targeted at this age group due to the way the sellers of them make profit off of them), an annuity with a decent return is better than purchasing and renting out a place if they have to choose one.

If they have the resources, they don't have to choose. If you're young, take the high-risk investments, as you age move your earnings to safer, stabler, lower earning investments, and retire with confidence.

[jessriedel]

This Vanguard annuity paying $1k/month starting at age 65 costs $168k, i.e., 7.1%.

https://investor.vanguard.com/annuity/fixed

If you just directly attached this to a dummy pot of $120k, you'd have a $1k/month annuity at age 55 for $288k, which is already 4.2%. It also comes with the significant bonus that your estate keeps the $168k, plus what's left of the $120k, if you die before 65.

So basically, I just think there are much better annuities out there than what you found.

[mattkrause]

Isn't there some counter-party risk that the bank (or whoever) might go under? With regular insurance, that's not really an issue--I'll just find another provider--but for an annuity, your money would be gone.

This risk also pretty hard to evaluate, as everyone seemed to discover around 2009.