Variable annuities and aggregate mortality risk.
Weale, Martin ; van de Ven, Justin
This paper explores the extent to which annuitants might be
prepared to pay for protection against cohort-specific mortality risk,
by comparing traditional indexed annuities with annuities whose payout
rates are revised in response to differences between expected and actual
mortality rates of the cohort in question. It finds that a man aged 65
with a coefficient of relative risk aversion of two would be prepared to
pay 75p per 100 [pounds sterling] annuitised for protection against
aggregate mortality risk while a man with risk aversion of twenty would
be prepared to pay 5.75 [pounds sterling] per 100 [pounds sterling];
studies put the actual cost at 2.70 [pounds sterling]-7 [pounds
sterling] per 100 [pounds sterling], suggesting that unless annuitants
are very risk averse it is likely that existing products tend to
over-insure against cohort mortality risk.
Keywords: variable annuity; aggregate mortality risk; risk aversion
JEL Classifications: D14, D91, J11, J14
I. Introduction
The removal in the UK of the requirement that people should buy
annuities with savings in pension schemes has had major implications for
the UK pensions industry. The Association of British Insurers has found
that 2.5bn [pounds sterling] were withdrawn from pension funds by people
aged 55 and over in the first three months after the requirement to buy
annuities was lifted, equal to about 1 per cent of the total value of
pension funds held by people aged 55 and over. Most of the withdrawals
were by people liquidating their entire pension fund, and 80 per cent
were made by people under the age of 65. As the ABI acknowledges, the
scale of these short-run withdrawals may reflect pent-up demand for
liquidity, but it is difficult to avoid the impression that there was
extensive dissatisfaction with the pension products available before the
reform.
There are a number of possible causes of this dissatisfaction. One
is that savers do not take a rational view of the future, but rather are
myopic; that is to say that they discount the future more excessively in
the short run than they do in the longer term. Discussion of behavioural
economics has popularised this view, although it is facile to infer that
myopia necessarily leads to under-saving. Rational people who know that
they are myopic may well want to lock their money away to protect
themselves from the consequences of their myopia and a thorough study of
the issue suggests that myopia in fact is unlikely on its own to have
much impact on traditional pensions saving (van de Ven and Weale, 2010).
Another possibility is that people do not like the income profile
offered by traditional products. Without being myopic, they may
rationally want front-end loading so that their income and spending
decline as they age. This may reflect a view that recent retirees are in
a better state to enjoy discretionary expenditure than older people,
possibly due to limitations consequent on declining health. Means
testing of care homes and other support for old people might enhance
this effect. To the extent that pension products are commonly fixed in
nominal terms rather than real terms, there is, of course, an element of
front-end loading, but it is not necessarily the profile that people
would choose for themselves.
Furthermore, it may be the case that people find it difficult to
see long life as a financial risk against which they should insure
because, unlike other things protected by insurance such as the costs of
meeting storm damage or road accidents, it is seen inherently as a good
thing. Thus people may be put off the insurance offered by annuities
because they offer 'bad value' to people who die young, even
though they might not think that home insurance offers a similarly bad
deal if their house fails to burn down.
Alternatively, there is the possibility that the products made
available provide an excessive degree of insurance. Annuities offer
fixed money or real incomes over people's lifetimes and, as a
result, they are fully protected from the financial implications of both
an uncertain lifespan and uncertainty about rates of return. Until the
recent reforms there was a widespread belief amongst policymakers that
old people needed to be protected, as far as was possible, from all
forms of financial risk, and also an assumption that people with
relatively small pension pots needed more protection than those with
large pension pots.
Yet another possibility is the recent decline in yields on both
nominal and indexed government stock, which have pushed down annuity
rates on nominal and indexed debt respectively. (1) This may have
created a sense that annuities are poor value especially since returns
on shares and also on housing appear to have held up rather better. This
increase in the risk premium on risky assets may either reflect
increased uncertainty or an increase in the cost of insurance against
risk. To the extent that it is perceived as the latter, it is to be
expected that people would be more reluctant to purchase annuities.
Protection against risk has costs and there are good reasons for
believing that the cost of protection has risen over time. As this
increase in the cost of protection has risen, it seems natural that
people are likely to want to buy less protection and to carry more of
the normal risks of life for themselves. In this article we first
discuss the evidence and reasons why costs of protection may have risen.
We then focus specifically on the costs of insuring against an uncertain
lifespan. We suggest a way in which a pension product might provide full
protection for uncertainty about an individual's lifespan relative
to the cohort to which they belong, but much less protection against the
uncertainty surrounding the mortality pattern of the cohort itself. In
essence this would protect people from the major element of individual
risk without obliging insurers to carry the risks associated with
uncertain life expectancy. We suggest that, while protection against
individual survival risk is valuable, people probably do not want to pay
very much to be protected from this uncertainty surrounding aggregate
mortality rates.
2. Why annuities?
In the absence of any opportunity to purchase an annuity, a
rational individual facing an uncertain lifespan will typically choose a
path along which consumption declines over time. A simple model of
consumption, for example, supposes that people decide how much to
consume at age t, [c.sub.t], to maximise expected lifetime utility
[U.sub.t], given their available wealth [w.sub.t], as described by:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (1)
where [alpha] is the coefficient of relative risk aversion,
[[phi].sub.t+1,t] is the probability of surviving to age t+1 given
survival to age t, [delta] represents the annual discount factor, and r
is real return to wealth. The utility maximising time profile of
consumption will then follow this relationship:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (2)
If [delta]r = 1, then it is clear that the utility maximising
consumption profile will be falling over time if [[phi].sub.t] < 1
while it would be flat if the consumer were immortal ([[phi].sub.t] = l,
[for all]t). If r > 1/[delta] (the return to wealth exceeds the
impatience of utility), then this will tend to put upward pressure on
the time profile of consumption, and vice versa if r < 1/[delta].
One of the implications of a formal behavioural model like that
described by equation (1) is that the optimal profile of consumption
will not see wealth w exhausted until an age beyond which survival is
thought to be impossible. In practice, while the risks of surviving to
100 are perhaps now material, those of surviving to 110 are extremely
small. Medical advance may increase this, but it is reasonable to
suppose that the chance of that increasing materially for people
currently planning their retirement is remote. Unless r > 1/[delta]
by a very considerable margin (suggesting a fairly extreme form of
patience), the consumption path implied by equation (2) will decline
with age. This profile is tempered in context of a welfare safety net
that insures a minimum income stream into the future; a subject that we
return to below. For the moment, note that regardless of the assumed tax
and benefits framework, the basic intuition underlying standard economic
theory will continue to hold: people are considered to strike a balance
between the urge to enjoy the benefits of immediate consumption, against
the desire to have something left over in case they survive into the
future.
The desire to retain funds in case of uncertain survival implies
that people will be prone to leave accidental legacies. People who die
relatively early will leave relatively large bequests while those who
live into extreme old age will leave little. These arguments are not
greatly affected by an explicit bequest motive. People who decide that
they want to leave some particular sum to any beneficiary can put the
money aside and manage their remaining resources in the manner described
above.
3. Annuity pricing?
In a world where the return to wealth, r, is constant, and the
survival probabilities known with certainty, then the calculation of the
cost, C, of an annuity which pays 1 [pounds sterling] a year to someone
from age t onwards is straightforward
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (3)
where N is the maximum lifespan.
If [V.sub.j] is the value of an annuity fund at the end of period
j, then the value of the fund financing an annuity of 1 [pounds
sterling] to each of n people, all of whom buy the annuity at the same
age, t, will follow the following recursive relationship
[nV.sub.j+1] = [nrV.sub.j] - n[[phi].sub.j,t] (4)
In expression (4) the number of initial annuitants cancels out.
Nevertheless, the whole point of the fund is that the aggregate payments
decrease as the annuitised population dies out. The smaller aggregate
payments made late in the annuity's life permit larger aggregate
payments to be made in the initial periods of the annuity while
maintaining the overall sustainability of the fund; essentially, the
accidental bequests of people in the fund who die early are used to
finance consumption of fund survivors. This makes it possible to sustain
a higher level of consumption than would otherwise be the case.
Figure 1 illustrates the issue, with reference to four alternative
consumption profiles. The first profile (real annuity) describes the
constant rate of income payable by an actuarially fair
inflation-adjusted annuity purchased by a 65 year-old whose expected
mortality is equal to that of their respective age cohort in context of
a zero real interest rate. The second profile (nominal annuity) shows
the consumption path followed by someone who invests in a nominal
annuity and spends the dividend in each year. It is assumed that the
inflation rate and the nominal interest rate are both equal to the
inflation target of 2 per cent per annum.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The third profile reports the consumption profile described by
condition (2), on the assumption that [alpha] = 2 and [delta] = r = 1.
This consumption profile lies well below the annuitant due to the likely
payment of accidental bequests; the analysis presented here suggests
that someone who self-finances consumption in retirement requires 1.71
times the starting wealth of an annuitant to achieve the same expected
lifetime utility at age 65.
The fourth reported consumption profile applies the same
assumptions as the third profile, with the sole exception that the real
return to wealth is increased from 0 per cent per annum to 1.7 per cent
per annum. This adjustment is just sufficient for the consumer to expect
the same lifetime welfare as an annuitant who invests the same sum at
age 65 in context of a zero real rate of return. Notably, the 1.7 per
cent rate differential is probably below the prevailing long-run
difference between the rates of return to government debt and equities.
The self-financed profile based on a 1.7 per cent rate of return
premium consumes more than the level life annuity up to the age of 85,
but at the cost of more sharply declining consumption thereafter. Indeed
a notable feature of both self-financed consumption profiles reported in
the figure is that they show consumption falling to very low levels at
high ages. This feature can be reconciled with reality by interpreting
the displayed measures of consumption as the excess over subsistence
expenditure financed by the state pension and other benefits available
to old people.
The substantive differences displayed in figure 1 between the
self-financing consumption profiles and the inflation indexed level life
annuity are also likely to be exaggerated by the indexation commonly
applied to such annuities. Specifically, inflation-adjusted annuities
are usually indexed to the Retail Price Index which, as a result of the
way in which it is calculated, overstates the consumer price inflation
rate perhaps by as much as 1 per cent per annum (even if historically
the error was smaller than this). Thus a 'level' indexed
annuity probably, on average, allows real consumption to rise at
approximately 1 per cent per annum, in contrast to the sharp falls
associated with self-financed consumption profiles; it also implies a
lower initial payout. In contrast, fixed nominal annuities deliver a
real consumption path that will fall by the rate of inflation, and so is
better aligned to the front-loaded profile identified under
self-financing.
Three key conclusions concerning the appeal of annuities are
consequently highlighted by the analysis reported in relation to figure
1. First, the influence of accidental bequests permits annuities to pay
a higher level of consumption than self-financed savings/consumption
profiles in context of the same rates of return. Secondly, the advantage
to annuities posed by accidental bequests can be offset by differences
in rates of return that lie within prevailing market dispersion.
Thirdly, level indexed life annuities that have commonly been sold in
the UK generate a profile of income that fails to reflect the
front-loading of consumption evident in (optimal) self-financed
profiles. Possibly potential annuitants are aware of this without
appreciating the insurance which is offered.
This analysis suggests that the weak demand for annuities might be
attributable to low effective rates of return on underlying annuities,
and/or to substantive differences between the desired consumption
profiles, and the profile described by common annuity products. On the
former of these possibilities, it is important to bear in mind that
rates of return and risk are closely related, and that risk is also
likely to bear upon consumption preferences. Standard economic theory
suggests that risk exposure provides an added incentive to save (we
return to discuss the precautionary savings motive later in the paper).
If self-financed individuals also chose to take on additional risk in
the pursuit of added returns--as suggested by Maurer, Mitchell, Rogalla
and Kartashov (2013)--then this would also tend to flatten out their
preferred consumption profile. This effect would presumably unwind some
of the disincentive to annuitise associated with the dis-connect between
the income profile generated by standard annuities, and that desired
under self-financing.
An alternative possibility for weak demand is that the effective
returns underlying annuities are commonly perceived to perform poorly
when measured against market alternatives. One reason that this may be
the case is if administration charges associated with provision of
annuities are very large. Cannon and Tonks (2011) summarise the results
of a number of studies which explore the money's worth of
annuities, that is the expected value of the payout as a proportion of
costs. For the United Kingdom they quote results of seven studies of
nominal annuities for men and five for women aged 65, averaging across
these yields a money's worth for men of 95.3 per cent and 93.1 per
cent for women. The money's worth for indexed annuities (two
studies for men and one for women), at 85 per cent for men and 86.7 per
cent for women, is materially lower. Thus the charges associated with
indexed annuities are more likely to deter purchasers than are those for
nominal annuities.
It may of course be that the risks underlying annuity provision may
be systematically under-appreciated. One important aspect of this risk
concerns perceptions of the uncertainty underlying equities investments.
Barro (2006), for example, argues that Mehra and Prescott's (1985)
finding that only extreme intolerance of risk would explain the high
average returns on shares is attributable to a systematic
under-representation of the risks associated with stock market
collapses. In a similar vein, increasing life-expectancy--which poses a
substantial fiscal burden on annuity providers--has been systematically
under-represented by most industry experts, (2) and it is reasonable to
suppose that the same is true of the public in general.
4. Annuities with uncertain mortality rates
Piggott, Valdez and Detzel (2005) discuss the organisation of
annuities in context of uncertain mortality rates. Starting with a given
fund, it is possible to revise the payments to annuitants in the light
of i) the amount remaining in the fund and ii) revised estimates of
survival rates. If [C.sub.t] is the amount in the fund when the
annuitants have reached age t, and the new estimates of survival
probabilities are denoted by [[phi].sup.*.sub.j,t], then the fund can
pay out a revised annuity [d.sup.*] where:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (5)
If prospective survival rates have increased, then the payment will
be reduced. If, in addition, previous payments have been higher than
actual survival rates imply, then the dividend will be reduced further.
Structuring an annuity that adapted to evolving mortality expectations
in the way described here would leave annuitants entirely protected from
their individual mortality risk, while at the same time carrying the
risks arising from the uncertain survival prospects for their cohort.
Maurer, Mitchell, Rogalla and Kartashov (2013) use the approach of
Campbell and Coco (2003) to explore how people should optimally allocate
their portfolios when such annuities are one of a range of assets with
uncertain returns.
However, it would seem to us better if annuities were designed to
take account of the attitudes of annuitants towards risk. It is
generally considered that people are risk averse; that is, they prefer a
certain level of consumption to a gamble that would return the same
level of consumption in expectation. The preference relation described
by equation (1) can capture this view. Unless [alpha] [less than or
equal to] 0, the expected welfare resulting from an uncertain amount of
consumption will be lower than the welfare of consuming the expected
sum; the individual is risk-averse.
The certainty-equivalence of any given uncertain financial shock is
calculated by solving for the sum that they would need to consume with
certainty to be as well-off as they were in context of the shock. For an
individual with initial wealth w in context of an uncertain shock to
their wealth with expectation zero, E([epsilon]) = 0, this problem
involves solving for [w.sup.*]:
U[w - [w.sup.*]) = E{U(w + [epsilon])} (6)
If a single period is considered in isolation, then it is possible
to solve for the sum that individuals would be willing to pay to be
protected from uncertainty (value [w.sup.*] in equation 6). A recent
retiree, however, faces a sequence of periods over which uncertainty
will apply when making decisions concerning annuities, and in this
context no analytical solution to the certainty equivalent problem
exists. This complicates any attempt to design an annuity to respond to
preferences concerning risk.
Nevertheless, the certainty equivalence problem can be solved in a
dynamic context, if numerical methods are employed. Suppose that
[w.sub.t], is wealth at the start of period t. Then the optimal
consumption profile in context of uncertainty can be found by solving
numerically the recursive problem:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (7)
Here [V.sub.t]([w.sub.t]) represents the maximum possible expected
lifetime welfare obtainable, if an individual starts with w, at time t.
[V.sub.t]([w.sub.t]) = 0 in the event of death.
Deaton (1992) shows that, on the solution path for consumption
defined by equation (7), the following relationship will hold:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (8)
The key point is that when consumption is uncertain, a consumer
will choose a path for consumption which rises more steeply than if
there is no future uncertainty; this is the precautionary savings motive
mentioned earlier in the paper. But, since the uncertainty of
consumption is a consequence of the consumption path, and not something
exogenous, it is not possible to use this equation to compute the path
for consumption; instead dynamic programming methods have to be used.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the greater is the value of [alpha] the
steeper will be the growth path of consumption. (3)
Figures 2 and 3 show fan-charts for the payouts which would be
generated by annuities that protected individuals from uncertainty
concerning the timing of their own death, but not from the uncertainty
concerning the future mortality rates of their respective birth cohorts
(as suggested above). Figure 2 reports the case of moderate risk
aversion ([alpha] = 2), and figure 3 reports the case of severe risk
aversion ([alpha] = 20). (4) Both charts indicate the probability of the
age-specific payout rate being in particular regions shown on the fan,
together with the median value of the payout.
With ([alpha] = 2) the upward slope of the median path is scarcely
perceptible. On the other hand, if ([alpha] = 20) the rising path is
very clear. In both cases, however, annuitants would choose an annuity
which pays out less at the start so that, in the event of mortality
rates being lower than expected, it is possible to maintain payment
rates to some extent. This precautionary saving means that increased
payouts are more likely than reduced payouts.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
It is possible to use the idea of certainty equivalents to evaluate
how much individuals would be willing to pay to exchange the type of
annuities described in figures 2 and 3 with otherwise similar annuities
that shielded them from uncertainty concerning the future evolution of
the mortality rates of their respective birth cohorts. Applying this
approach suggests that annuitants with [alpha] = 2 would be prepared to
pay 75p for each 100 [pounds sterling] of annuitised capital, while
those with [alpha] = 20 would be prepared to pay 5.75 [pounds sterling].
Data from the pensions buy-out market in the United Kingdom (Lane,
Clark and Peacock, 2008), for example, value this risk at about 2.7 per
cent of the capital of an average pension currently in payment, and at 5
per cent for a 65 year-old man. More recent observations (Aegon Global
Pensions, 2011) point to a higher premium of 3 per cent to 7 per cent
for a typical pension portfolio. A certainty equivalent charge of even
2.7 per cent is generated by a value of a close to 10. That said, these
calculations relate to an annuity bought at the age of 65. Without more
information on actual transactions, it is not possible to be more
specific than is outlined above. Nevertheless, these results show how
annuities can be designed without exposing providers to systematic
mortality risk, and at the same time they provide estimates of the
maximum that, given the choice, people would be prepared to pay for
complete certainty.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
5. Conclusions
Annuities have proven to be an unpopular investment; nominal
annuities have historically been better value than index-linked
annuities, but only the latter can offer a stable consumption path for
the remaining lifetime of an annuitant. One possible reason for poor
value is that the risks associated with uncertain mortality rates are
particularly pronounced with index-linked annuities.
Here it is shown that, unless people are extremely risk averse, the
amount that they are prepared to pay to protect themselves from
aggregate mortality risk is small. It follows that, rather than levy
charges to cover themselves from the effects of aggregate mortality
risk, annuity providers should develop products which allow annuitants
to carry that risk. Nevertheless, some care is needed in their design.
It is not enough simply to provide annuities whose payouts are updated
on the basis of past mortality and the best estimates of future
mortality since these do not provide the element of precautionary saving
which risk-averse annuitants would typically require.
Of course it is also true that annuitants must be prepared to trust
the calculations of the annuity providers. The annuities described here
are actuarially fair on a cohort basis, but the nature of the exercise
is that if mortality rates are lower than expected those who die late
will be disadvantaged relative to those who die early, while if
mortality rates are higher than expected the reverse will be true. With
relatively modest risk aversion people should rationally be prepared to
carry that risk, but ex ante people may find it difficult to distinguish
the precautionary saving required from low money's worth and that
difficulty may be compounded if annuity providers are not trusted.
NOTES
(1) The Monetary Policy Committee's policy of quantitative
easing is often thought to have contributed to this decline. However the
evidence on the matter is ambiguous (Weale and Wieladek, 2016).
(2) See, e.g. Pensions Commission (2004), First Report, Chapter I.
(3) If individuals undertake precautionary saving to protect
themselves from the uncertain payments generated by a mortality-adjusted
annuity, then they face the same problem as non-annuitants: they may die
before their precautionary savings are put to good use. Thus the
precautionary saving has to be undertaken by the annuity fund itself;
only in this way can the precautionary savings themselves be annuitised.
(4) Most studies suggest a value between I and 5.
REFERENCES
Aegon Global Pensions (201 I), Paying the Price for Living Longer.
What is the Right Price for Removing Longevity Risk?
Barro, R. J. (2006), 'Rare disasters and asset markets in the
twentieth century'. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, pp.
823-66.
Campbell, J., and Coco, J.F. (2003), 'Household risk
management and optimal mortgage choice', Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 118, pp. 1449-94.
Cannon, E. and Tonks, I. (2011), 'Annuity markets: welfare,
money's worth and policy implications', Netspar Panel Paper No
24. http://www.bath.ac.uk/management/research/pdf/tonks-cannonannuity-markets.pdf.
Deaton, A. (1992), Understanding Consumption, Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Lane, Clark and Peacock (2008), Pension Buyouts, www.lcp.uk.com/
information/documents/ LCP PensionBuyouts2008.pdf.
Maurer, R., Mitchell, O.S., Rogalla, R. and Kartashov, V. (2013),
'Lifecycle portfolio choice with systematic longevity risk and
variable investment--linked deferred annuities', Journal of Risk
and Insurance, 80, pp 649-76.
Mehra, R. and Prescott, E.C. (1985), 'The equity premium: a
puzzle', Journal of Monetary Economics, 15, pp. 145-61.
Pensions Commission (2004), Pensions: Challenges and Choices,
Norwich: The Stationery Office.
Piggott, J., Valdez, E.A. and Detzel, D. (2005), The simple
analytics of a pooled annuity fund', Journal of Risk and Insurance,
72, pp. 497-520.
Van de Ven, J. and Weale, M.R. (2010), 'An empirical
investigation of quasi-hyperbolic discounting', National Institute
Discussion Paper No. 355, http://www.niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/
publications/dp355_0.pdf.
Weale, M.R. and Wieladek, T. (2016), 'What are the
macroeconomic effects of asset purchases', Journal of Monetary
Economics, 79, pp. 81-93.
Martin Weale * and Justin van de Ven **
* Monetary Policy Committee and Queen Mary, University of London.
E-mail: martin.weale@outlook.com. ** University of Melbourne and
National Institute of Economic and Social Research. E-mail:
j.vandeven@niesr.ac.uk.