IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/10383.html

Time Inconsistent Preferences and the Annuitization Decision

Author

Listed:
  • Weber, Martin
  • Schreiber, Philipp

Abstract

When entering retirement, many people face the decision of whether they would like to receive their defined contribution account balance as a lump sum distribution or to annuitize the amount. The fact that people tend to choose a lump sum distribution even if economic reasons suggest otherwise is called the "annuity puzzle". The results of a large online survey show that people behave in a time inconsistent manner: older people have a stronger tendency to choose the lump sum than younger people. This effect, and therefore, the low real life annuitization can be explained by hyperbolic discounting. The age effect is considerably stronger for participants that answer simple time preference questions inconsistently. Our findings suggest that commitment devices can help to increase annuitization rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Weber, Martin & Schreiber, Philipp, 2015. "Time Inconsistent Preferences and the Annuitization Decision," CEPR Discussion Papers 10383, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:10383
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP10383
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Giesecke, Matthias & Yang, Guanzhong, 2018. "Are financial retirement incentives more effective if pension knowledge is high?," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 278-315, July.
    2. Lepone, Grace & Tian, Gary, 2020. "Usage of conditional orders and the disposition effect in the stock market," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    3. David Huffman & Raimond Maurer & Olivia S. Mitchell, 2016. "Time Discounting and Economic Decision-making among the Elderly," Working Papers wp347, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.
    4. David Landriault & Bin Li & Hong Li & Yuanyuan Zhang, 2024. "Contract Structure and Risk Aversion in Longevity Risk Transfers," Papers 2409.08914, arXiv.org.
    5. Bao, Helen X.H. & Robinson, Guy M., 2022. "Behavioural land use policy studies: Past, present, and future," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    6. Suzanne B. Shu & Robert Zeithammer & John W. Payne, 2018. "The Pivotal Role of Fairness: Which Consumers Like Annuities?," NBER Working Papers 25067, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Bonekamp, Johan & van Soest, Arthur, 2022. "Evidence of behavioural life-cycle features in spending patterns after retirement," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 23(C).
    8. Franziska Unger & Martina Steul-Fischer & Nadine Gatzert, 2024. "How default effects and decision timing affect annuity uptake and health consciousness," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 49(1), pages 180-211, January.
    9. Vladimír Bureš & Jiří Cabal & Pavel Čech & Karel Mls & Daniela Ponce, 2020. "The Influence of Criteria Selection Method on Consistency of Pairwise Comparison," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Lambregts, Timo R. & Schut, Frederik T., 2020. "Displaced, disliked and misunderstood: A systematic review of the reasons for low uptake of long-term care insurance and life annuities," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    11. Guan, Guohui & Liang, Zongxia & Ma, Xingjian, 2024. "Optimal annuitization and asset allocation under linear habit formation," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 176-191.
    12. Jenny Robinson & David A. Comerford, 2020. "The Effect on Annuities Preference of Prompts to Consider Life Expectancy: Evidence from a UK Quota Sample," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 87(347), pages 747-762, July.
    13. d’Albis, Hippolyte & Kalk, Andrei, 2021. "Why do we postpone annuity purchases?," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    14. Weinschenk, Philipp, 2021. "On the benefits of time-inconsistent preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 185-195.
    15. Maria Alexandrova & Nadine Gatzert, 2019. "What Do We Know About Annuitization Decisions?," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 22(1), pages 57-100, March.
    16. Kieren, Pascal & Weber, Martin, 2019. "When saving is not enough: The wealth decumulation decision in retirement," CFS Working Paper Series 634, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    17. Boyer, M. Martin & Box-Couillard, Sébastien & Michaud, Pierre-Carl, 2020. "Demand for annuities: Price sensitivity, risk perceptions, and knowledge," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 883-902.
    18. Pamela Searle & Peter Ayton & Iain Clacher, 2024. "Annuity selection in the presence of insurer default risk and government guarantees," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 91(1), pages 161-192, March.
    19. Vladimír Bureš & Daniela Ponce & Pavel Čech & Karel Mls, 2019. "The effect of trial repetition and problem size on the consistency of decision making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-14, May.
    20. Huong Trang Kim & Quang Nguyen, 2024. "Linking top managers’ behavioural traits with business practices and firm performance," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 18(11), pages 3253-3296, November.
    21. Mao, Hui & Zhou, Li & Ying, RuiYao & Pan, Dan, 2021. "Time Preferences and green agricultural technology adoption: Field evidence from rice farmers in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    22. Johannes Hagen & Daniel Hallberg & Gabriella Sjögren, 2022. "A Nudge to Quit? The Effect of a Change in Pension Information on Annuitisation, Labour Supply and Retirement Choices Among Older Workers," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(643), pages 1060-1094.
    23. Torben M. Andersen, 2024. "Hedging mortality risk over the life‐cycle—The role of information and borrowing constraints," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(4), pages 1449-1466, October.
    24. Liu, Pan & Andersen, Torben M. & Bhattacharya, Joydeep, 2020. "On the Commitment Needs of Partially Naive Agents," IZA Discussion Papers 13169, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    25. Mohamad Hassan Abou Daya & Carole Bernard, 2022. "What matters in the annuitization decision?," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 158(1), pages 1-12, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D14 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Saving; Personal Finance
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • G02 - Financial Economics - - General - - - Behavioral Finance: Underlying Principles
    • H55 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Social Security and Public Pensions
    • J14 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of the Elderly; Economics of the Handicapped; Non-Labor Market Discrimination
    • J26 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Retirement; Retirement Policies

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:10383. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.