Close Close
Sign In
Newsletters
Popular Financial Topics Discover relevant content from across the suite of ALM legal publications From the Industry More content from ThinkAdvisor and select sponsors Investment Advisor Issue Gallery Read digital editions of Investment Advisor Magazine Tax Facts Get clear, current, and reliable answers to pressing tax questions
Luminaries Awards
Podcast Center Video Center Webcasts Resource Center Events
About ThinkAdvisor Contact Us Advertise With Us Asset & Logo Licensing Sitemap Terms of Service Privacy Policy Copyright © 2024 ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ThinkAdvisor
A businessman in a suit looking at a chalkboard of math

Retirement Planning > Saving for Retirement

What if Target Date Funds Used Annuities?

By John Manganaro

X
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

What You Need to Know

  • Target date funds are a highly popular default investment in 401(k) plans.
  • Researchers suggest TDFs could be improved by incorporating periodic annuity purchases as investors approach retirement.
  • The spreading out of annuity purchases helps address adverse selection issues and sequence risk, according to the analysis.

A new paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research evaluates a proposed variant of the popular target date fund vehicle used in employer-sponsored retirement savings plans, with the goal of determining whether redirecting allocations from bonds to deferred income annuities boosts participant outcomes.

The analysis was put together by John Shoven of the Department of Economics at Stanford University and Daniel Walton of Uber Technologies (formerly with Stanford University). The duo asks what would happen if, rather than increasing the allocation to bond funds as retirement approaches, a TDF instead gradually purchased deferred life annuities beginning at age 50.

In the particular straw model target retirement fund examined in the paper, the defined contribution participant makes deferred life annuity purchases at ages 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60 and 62.

Ultimately, the analysis compares how this participant would fare compared with someone who stays with a traditional TDF until retirement and only then buys an immediate life annuity. The main result from the paper is that buying retirement annuities in advance is generally superior to sticking with standard TDF until retirement and then buying an immediate annuity.

Setting Up the Analysis

According to the oft-cited Fact Book published by the Investment Company Institute, TDFs have been a huge market success in defined contribution retirement plans. The ICI data shows their share of 401(k) assets has grown from a mere 8% in 2007 to 31% in 2019, thanks in large part to the use of TDFs by employers as a default investment option. As of year-end 2019, 60% of 401(k) participants had at least some money in a TDF, while 87% of 401(k) plans offered TDFs.

As Shoven and Walton point out, the distinguishing feature of TDFs is the provision of a dynamic asset allocation that depends on only one thing — the participant’s age. As such, TDFs are offered with a range of target retirement dates such as 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, going all the way to 2065.

In funds with a more distant target date, such as 2045 and beyond, the portfolio is roughly 90% to 95% invested in equities. For the nearer target dates, equity exposure is reduced and bond exposure is increased, with the goal of helping investors who are near retirement to protect their accumulated assets.

With these facts in mind, Shoven’s and Walton’s analysis asks whether it would be superior to add deferred life annuities instead of bond funds beginning at age 50. Their model directs all of a theoretical 401(k) plan participant’s contributions to equities at the start of the savings effort, and it then devotes 10% of accumulated assets to the purchase of a deferred life annuity at 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60 and 62.

Each of these seven purchases redirects 10% of the accumulated equity balance to a deferred annuity at the time of purchase. To determine the price of the annuities, the researchers used online quotations from a well-known annuity pricing service.

Other key inputs are the fact that the theoretical participant contributes 9% of salary starting at age 35, and the employee retires on their 65th birthday, with each of the deferred annuity payment streams commencing at 65. The model utilizes 1,000 possible 30-year futures for stock returns, bond fund returns and Treasury interest rates.

Promising Results

According to the authors, the general result of this analysis strongly supports the proposition that buying annuities starting at age 50 is superior to waiting until retirement at 65, at least in the large majority of future return scenarios. That is, in approximately 85% to 90% of the scenarios evaluated, the gradual purchase of annuities over time results in better outcomes from a wealth maximization perspective compared with waiting for age 65 to buy a single annuity.

Shoven and Walton further suggest that the model shows the superiority of buying during one’s career, rather than waiting until retirement, also applies to the purchase of annuities with payouts starting at 75. In fact, the advantage of the gradual annuity purchase approach is actually larger in the case of annuities whose payout starts at 75, according to the authors.

Given the strong outperformance of the gradual annuity purchase approach, the authors suggest, it is worth asking what are the sources of this advantage. They suggest that knowing the driving factors of the outperformance can shed light on the main principles through which one could create a more sophisticated strategy to achieve even more efficient annuitization at retirement.

The authors claim that the two main principles that drive the efficiency of gradual annuitization are, first, the benefits of early annuitization from the mitigation of adverse selection issues, and second, the mitigation of sequence risk through multiple purchases of annuities at different dates over the span of a decade or more.

As the authors explain, the first principle turns on the fact that annuity issuers tend to offer higher prices to annuity purchasers who are older, with the operative assumption being that only healthier older investors with greater anticipated life expectancy will make annuity purchases at more advanced ages, such at 65.

The second principle, that sequence risk is mitigated through multiple purchases, is based on the simple notion that one can reduce the variance of the overall investment outcome by repeatedly sampling from the distribution of yields rather than taking a single sample and buying at the time of retirement.

Conclusion

The authors suggest their main and most robust finding is that, if the TDF participant buys an annuity at retirement with the same lifetime monthly payouts as the participant who is gradually annuitizing their savings, that individual ends up with less liquid assets outside their annuity holdings in the large majority of the return scenarios examined.

Many times, according to the authors, the participant who spaced out their annuity purchases is ahead by “a very substantial amount” equal to more than 10 months of their final salary.

Of course, the gradual-purchase participant does not always end up better off, but when they do fall short of the traditional TDF participant, it is not by very much money. The average loss in the cases where the gradual-purchase strategy ends up behind is of the order of two months of final salary.

John Manganaro

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.