How to make your money last until age 100

Let’s suppose that you — or your spouse or partner — live to age 100. Will your money last that long? You don’t want to experience “money death” before leaving this planet for good. Even if you don’t live to be 100, it’s smart to make sure your retirement income will last a long time, because there’s a good chance you’ll make it to your 90s.

If you’re currently in your 60s, it’ll take a lot of money to be fully retired for 30 years or more. Let’s just do one simple reality check to illustrate. Suppose you spend $50,000 per year on all your living expenses — housing, food, utilities, medical premiums, medical expenses, entertainment and so on. This isn’t a bad assumption, given that the average American household spent $51,442 per year on these expenses in 2012, according to the Consumer Expenditure Survey. If you live 30 years, that’s $1.5 million, and we haven’t even factored in inflation, which is sure to increase your living expenses.

Do your IRAs and 401(k) accounts total $1.5 million?

The good news is, they don’t have to. You have other sources you can also count on, such as Social Security, employment income or an employer-sponsored pension, if one is coming to you. But you’ll still want to plan your finances carefully to make sure you’ll have enough to cover your living expenses until age 100 and beyond.

You’ll want to maximize the sources of retirement income that are paid for the rest of your life, no matter how long you live. That means delaying Social Security benefits until age 70, the age at which you will have maxed out the delayed retirement credits.

If you’re eligible for a traditional pension that pays you a monthly income for the rest of your life, you’ll also want to wait until the normal retirement age, typically age 65, to start benefits. At that age, there’s no longer a reduction taken for early retirement. If your employer attempts to seduce you with the offer of a lump sum payment in lieu of the monthly pension, turn it down — you’ll get more money over your lifetime by taking the monthly pension.

One good retirement strategy is to cover your basic living expenses with sources of income that are guaranteed for life and indexed for inflation. This way, you don’t need to worry about the roof over your head and food on the table if you live a long time or inflation kicks in.

Social Security is a good source of such income, which is one valid reason to wait until age 70 to start benefits. Another good source is an immediate annuity that’s indexed for inflation or that increases at a fixed rate, such as three percent per year. You can use your retirement savings to buy such an annuity.

Note: Employer-sponsored pension plans aren’t indexed for inflation, so they don’t fit the parameters of this retirement strategy, but they’re still a valuable benefit because they’re paid as long as you live.

For your discretionary living expenses, such as travel and entertainment, it’s not quite as critical that your retirement income lasts for life or is indexed for inflation. For these expenses, you might consider investing your remaining savings in stocks with the potential for growth. Then you can make periodic withdrawals, either with a systematic withdrawal method or as needed, to cover these type of expenses.

The possibility of living to age 100 is another reason it’s a good idea to work until your 70s. This lets you wait to start Social Security benefits, and by working longer, you’ll need less retirement savings.

For example, suppose you need an annual retirement income of $20,000 to supplement your Social Security income. If you purchase an immediate lifetime annuity that increases at three percent per year, according to Income Solutions, a 65-year-old couple would need about $461,000 in savings, but a 75-year-old couple would need only $349,000. Plus, if you waited from age 65 to 75, you’d have 10 more years for your savings to grow.

If you don’t want to buy an immediate annuity to generate $20,000 per year, then you’ll need more savings. The so-called “four percent rule” is intended to use invested savings to generate retirement income for 30 years, which gets a 65 year-old only to age 95. The four percent rule would require savings equal to about $500,000 to generate an annual retirement income of $20,000. And lately, the four percent rule has been called into question as delivering a retirement income that may be too high, given the low level of interest rates and the drag of fees for investment and advisor expenses.

The bottom line is that if you expect to live to your mid-90s or even age 100, buying a lifetime annuity with some portion of your savings is a good idea.

Finally, you’ll want to have a strategy for paying for medical and long-term care expenses. You can remove most of the uncertainty and exposure for high medical expenses through participating in Medicare and buying the appropriate Medicare supplement plan.

Medicare and medical insurance, however, don’t typically cover long-term care expenses. In this case, you’ll either want to buy long-term care insurance, keep your home equity in reserve to tap in case you need long-term care, keep an investment account that’s dedicated to long-term care expenses, or — more likely — some combination of these strategies.

The bottom line is, it will take some careful planning to support yourself and your spouse or partner until age 100. You’ll want to consider working as long as you can, saving as much as you can, carefully managing your living expenses and creating a fulfilling and engaging life that makes it all worthwhile.

For more than 35 years, consulting actuary Steve Vernon helped large employers design and manage their retirement programs. Now he’s a Research Scholar for the Stanford Center on Longevity, where he helps collect, direct, and disseminate research that will improve the financial security of seniors. He also delivers retirement planning workshops and has authored Money for Life: Turn Your IRA and 401(k) Into a Lifetime Retirement Paycheck and Recession-Proof Your Retirement Years.

Original.

Understanding how you can use immediate annuities to fund your retirement

There are basically three ways you can turn your retirement savings into a regular paycheck. In this post, the third of a series, I explain how immediate annuities work and the income you can expect to generate if you buy one early this year. You may also want to read the first post, on generating income from interest and dividends, as well as the second one in the series about implementing systematic withdrawals for retirement income.

First, some background on immediate annuities.

With an immediate annuity, you give your retirement savings to an insurance company and it promises to pay you monthly retirement income for the rest of your life (no matter how long you live). You can continue the income flow for your spouse or partner after you die by using a joint and survivor annuity.

The amount of income this method generates will vary depending on the type of annuity you purchase, as well as your age, sex and marital status. To provide more of an across-the-board look at this method, I’ve shown the results for fixed annuities, variable annuities, guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefits (GLWB) and inflation-adjusted annuities.

  • For fixed and inflation-adjusted annuities, I used rates from Vanguard’s Annuity Access service that uses the Hueler Income Solutions platform
  • For GLWB annuities, I used the payout rates under Prudential’s IncomeFlex annuity that is offered in many 401(k) plans
  • I used immediate variable annuity rates offered by the mutual fund company Vanguard and American General Life Insurance, with an assumed investment return (AIR) of 3.5 percent

Below are the annual incomes generated for a single man, a single woman and a married couple at three different ages. I’ve used annuity purchase rates at the beginning of January, 2014, assuming you have $100,000 to buy the annuity. I’ve included the annual payout rates in order to compare immediate annuities to other methods of generating retirement income in my previous posts. These payout rates are not to be confused with investment rates of returns.

 

annuities-men620.jpg
annuities-women620.jpg
annuities-couples620.jpg

 Compared to annuity rates offered at the beginning of July, 2013, fixed annuity rates have improved slightly but inflation-adjusted annuity rates have worsened slightly. Variable annuity rates and GLWB payout rates have remained unchanged.

If you compare the retirement income amounts generated by the three methods I’ve described in this and the two previous retirement income posts, you’ll see a wide range of results, depending on the method you use and your individual circumstances. In particular, you’ll see that immediate fixed and variable annuities usually provide a higher initial retirement paycheck than systematic withdrawals or depending only on interest and dividends.

It’s particularly helpful to compare inflation-adjusted annuities with the “4 percent rule,” which is an application of systematic withdrawals often recommended by financial planners. For retirements at age 65, inflation-adjusted annuities have higher payout rates for individuals than the 4 percent rule, and the payout rates for couples are just below 4 percent. The payout rates are 5.1 percent for single men, 4.7 percent for single women, and 3.9 percent for married couples. And keep in mind that the 4 percent rule has been questioned lately as possibly being too high, considering the current low interest rate environment and the significant fees for investment managers and financial advisors.

With inflation-adjusted annuities, you’re guaranteed that your income lasts for the rest of your life and is adjusted for inflation, no matter how long you live and no matter what happens in the stock and bond markets. With systematic withdrawals, you hope to achieve these outcomes, but there’s no guarantee, particularly if you suffer poor investment returns or live a long time.

The big tradeoff with most immediate annuities is that you generally give irrevocable control of your savings to the insurance company, while with systematic withdrawals you have the flexibility to tap into your savings. And with most annuities, there’s no money left for a legacy after you and your beneficiary die; with systematic withdrawals, you can leave a legacy with any money left in your accounts when you die. Note that GLWB annuities are the exception to the above statements about annuities, and they offer the ability to tap into your savings and the potential to leave a legacy with any money left over after you die. But there’s a tradeoff, since GLWB annuities have lower payout rates than fixed or variable annuities, and they incur fees for the insurance guarantees.

When it comes to generating a retirement paycheck that will last the rest of your life, there’s no single answer that is appropriate for everybody. Your answer depends on your goals and circumstances. I often recommend that you split your retirement savings between annuities and systematic withdrawals, so that you diversify your retirement income and realize the advantages of each method.

Please note that the incomes shown above are pre-tax amounts. Federal and state income taxes will have a significant effect on your after-tax income and should be taken into account. The income taxes you pay will vary depending on whether your annuity was purchased with pre-tax investments in traditional IRA or 401(k) accounts, or with after-tax investments.

Because only you know which method or combination of methods might work best for you, you should take the time to learn as much as you can about the various methods of generating a retirement paycheck. You’ll thank yourself when you reach your 80s and 90s and your retirement income keeps chugging along.

For more than 35 years, consulting actuary Steve Vernon helped large employers design and manage their retirement programs. Now he’s a Research Scholar for the Stanford Center on Longevity, where he helps collect, direct, and disseminate research that will improve the financial security of seniors. He also delivers retirement planning workshops and has authored Money for Life: Turn Your IRA and 401(k) Into a Lifetime Retirement Paycheck and Recession-Proof Your Retirement Years.

Original.

Insurance against market crashes?

stock-market-crash1-150x150Many investors, panicked by the market crash of 2008-2009, started a search for some type of investment vehicle to protect them from the next market downturn. Some decided the answer was a variable annuity with a “guaranteed living benefit” rider.

At first blush, this seems to be a good use of insurance. For a nominal cost, insurance helps us spread the risk of a catastrophe. Consider auto insurance. There is a very small chance I will total my car in the next year. It’s hard to predict whether that will happen, but one thing is sure, it is all or nothing. Either I will or I won’t.

However, predicting the number out of a large group of people who will total their cars becomes much easier. While we don’t know who will total their cars, we do know about what percentage of people will. This predictability allows an insurance company to determine the average number of claims and set an annual premium that covers the anticipated claims and generates the company a profit.

Insuring market crashes works much differently. Michael Kitces, in his Nerd’s Eye View blog post of November 20, explains, “The problem with trying to insure against a market catastrophe is that the risks don’t ‘average out’ over time, instead, they clump together.” In other words, the insurance company has either no claims or 100% of their policy holders having claims.

Why? When insuring against a stock market decline, there are absolutely no claims when markets trend upward. However, when markets head down, every policyholder potentially has a claim. Kitces notes that usually “companies are very cautious not to back risks that could result in a mass number of claims all at once. This is why most insurance policies have exclusions for terrorist attacks and war.”

To help insure against this concentrated risk, the companies uses several methods to design these policies. One is to collect a fee for the guarantee that funds a reserve to offset potential losses. Kitces says this fee is so “tiny” that it “just doesn’t cut it.” He gives an example of a company with $300 billion of guaranteed annuities where the market declines 25%, exposing the company to a $75 billion loss. A guarantee fee of 0.5% is only $1.5 billion, not enough to even begin to cover the losses.

Another way the companies mitigate their loss is that, unlike auto insurance, these policies do not pay immediate benefits. If the market drops by 50%, you don’t get a check for your original investment plus a fair return for the time they had your money. What you get is a promise to pay you a lifetime stream of income, usually at some date in the future. If you had a portfolio of mutual funds holding thousands of companies and purchased a “guaranteed living benefit,” you actually transfer the diversified risk to one insurance company that has actually concentrated, rather than spread, the risk.

Does this mean you should avoid variable annuities? No, as not all of them concentrate their risk. Most allow you to invest in a broad range of securities and spread your risk. Consider avoiding annuities that have a “guaranteed living benefit” and fees of over 1%.

Kitces cites two other options for investors. One is to keep your portfolio invested in mutual funds that hold a broad selection of securities and simply lower your risk by owning less equity and equity-like investments and more bonds. A second is to spend less, keeping your withdrawal rate under 3%. Practicing both of these strategies is a way of providing your own insurance against market crashes.

Original.

Variable annuities: right or wrong for you?

In the main, financial intermediaries, such as insurance agents and stockbrokers, are supposed to make sure that whatever they recommend or sell, including variable annuities, are suitable for you.

But if you’re in retirement or nearing retirement, there are going to be times when certain products, such as a variable annuity, might be unsuitable. But what are those times, and how can you make sure that you don’t buy something that’s not suitable?

Well, more often than not some of those times might come when you come into money, and you say you want guaranteed income. Perhaps you left your employer and you’re trying to figure out what to do with your 401(k) or severance pay, or perhaps you’ve inherited some money or just got a death benefit from a life insurance policy, or perhaps you’ve sold your house or a business. That’s when you’re likely to talk to an adviser about what to do with that money. So, the first bit of advice is this: Don’t just talk to one adviser about one product or solution.

Did you consider other options?

Before buying any variable annuity, evaluate other investments and strategies.

“I have a number of issues with the suitability of variable annuities for older investors,” said Robert Port, an attorney specializing in securities arbitration and litigation with Cohen Goldstein Port & Gottlieb. “Although I am not an investment adviser, those advisers I respect tell me that except in very rare instances, there is almost always a cheaper, less complicated option than buying a variable annuity.”

And not surprisingly, those options do not include paying a huge commission to the broker selling the variable annuity, said Port. “In my view, the huge commissions earned by those selling variable annuities tell most of the story. If they were such a good product, why would insurers have to so aggressively incentivize their sales force to sell this stuff?”

If, however, if you are looking for the sort of income that’s associated with annuities, Jack Marrion, the president of Advantage Compendium, a St. Louis-based research and consulting firm, suggested the following: “From purely a ‘safety-of-annuity-income’ view, a fixed immediate annuity or an annuity with a guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit (GLWB) rider might be more suitable than a variable annuity without that rider.”

For one, he said the cash value or immediate annuity benefit of a fixed annuity is covered by a state guarantee fund if the carrier becomes insolvent. At the moment, 38 states cover $250,000 or more of the cash value or annuity income present value and the other 12 states cover at least $100,000.

As for the annuity with the GLWB rider, it guarantees that a certain percentage (typically 2 to 8%, often based on age) of the amount invested can be withdrawn each year for as long as the contract holder lives, according to the lobby group for variable annuities, the Insured Retirement Institute.

Of note, fixed immediate annuities and annuities with GLWBs pay commissions to those selling the products. Read Strategies For Existing Variable Annuities With GLWB Or GMIB Riders.

Do you understand what you’re buying?

It would be hard to argue with this fact: If you don’t understand what you’re buying, it’s likely unsuitable for you. “The fact is that variable annuities are complicated investments that very few purchasers understand,” said Port. “The sales presentations often scare investors into believing they’ll loss all their money if they invest in traditional stocks and bonds, and highly tout the guarantees of variable annuities, glossing over, or never addressing, their complicated structure, surrender charges, tax issues, and the like.”

As a general rule, Port, said if you can’t explain how an investment works, your hard-earned money ought not to be placed in it.

Does it sync up with your estate and tax plan?

Experts also note that variable annuities are more often sold than bought. Given that, such products come with a lot of hype. To be fair, it might be hard to separate the hype from the truth. But it’s quite possible that even when you uncover the truth, a variable annuity might be unsuitable if it doesn’t sync up with your financial, investment, tax, and estate planning goals.

“The advisers I respect believe the supposed tax benefits of variable annuities are overhyped and oversold,” said Port.

Even though variable annuities grow tax-deferred, when the investor takes distributions from the annuity, those distributions are taxed at ordinary income-tax rates. “For most investors, that is higher than the rate that would have been paid on long-term gains and dividend income earned in a taxable investment,” said Port. “That difference can easily eat up the advantage of an annuity’s tax-free compounding.”

John Duval, president of John Duval Associates, a securities litigation and arbitration firm, shared that point of view. “Variable annuities only offer ordinary income, no capital gains opportunities, ever,” he said.

Port also noted that if an annuity investor dies and the annuity balance is paid to a beneficiary, the beneficiary must pay ordinary income-tax rates on any earnings beyond the original investment. “In contrast, investments directly inherited by a beneficiary may enjoy a ‘stepped-up’ basis, and if so, the beneficiary would owe little or no income tax at the time of inheritance, and would likely owe little or no capital gains tax if the investment is sold soon after the inheritance is received,” said Port. So by moving assets into variable annuities, some seniors have unknowingly hurt their beneficiaries — instead of inheriting assets with a step-up in basis, the beneficiaries get an inheritance on which income tax needs to be paid on any earnings.

Duval is of the same opinion. “High net worth investors and variable annuities trigger double taxation at death,” he said. “In fact, the beneficiaries get 1099s for the gains.”

Surrender charges could make variable annuities unsuitable

According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, if you withdraw money from a variable annuity within a certain period after a purchase payment (typically within six to eight years, but sometimes as long as 10 years), the insurance company usually will assess a surrender charge, which is a type of sales charge.

Port said surrender charges, which in some cases can be as long as 12 years on variable annuities create an unnecessary and artificial constraint on liquidity.

“Even though many variable annuities allow up to 10% to be withdrawn annually without surrender charges, many seniors do not consider the reality that they might need more than that if they face a significant medical expense, need to enter an assisted living or nursing home, or have some other need for access to cash,” Port said. “I have had a number of situations where children have learned, too late, that their parent(s) were recently sold a variable annuity, and when mom or dad needed to go to a nursing home, the family suffered significant charges just to get the money out.”

What’s more, Port said the following: “Given surrender charges and the underlying expenses of a variable annuity, such as administration expenses, insurance expenses, subaccount expenses, annual fees, and other charges, “even if the variable annuity were a viable investment option (which I doubt) the investment would have to be in place for a long period for the tax deferral to overcome the continuing expense costs. Seniors, almost by definition, are not long-term investors.”

Others agree. “Elderly investors who are always vulnerable to instant liquidity needs such as medical and family emergencies” ought to consider variable annuities with long surrender periods as unsuitable, said Duval.

Thus, a variable annuity might be unsuitable if your life expectancy or time horizon is short or you might need to tap into the money in the variable annuity within the surrender charge period. Read the SEC’s primer, Variable Annuities: What You Should Know.

Beware 1035 exchanges

According to a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority notice to investors, if you have a life insurance or annuity contract, you may have been approached to exchange it for a new model, one with better or the latest features. That’s called a 1035 exchange and it might be unsuitable. Yes, even though tax law makes the exchange income tax free and the new contract may sound better for you, you may be losing — not gaining — if you make the exchange, according to FINRA.

For his part, Port said many insurers are aggressively trying to convince annuity holders to switch into new annuities with less favorable terms because they have concluded that what they sold before is too generous. In a blog, Port also noted how some companies are changing the terms on older policies, which offered much more generous guarantees than the companies can now financially support. “Annuity purchasers do not realize that most annuity contracts have contractual ‘escape valves’ allowing the insurance company to alter the terms of the annuity, long after it was purchased,” Port wrote. “This demonstrates once again that annuities are complicated investment and insurance products, and are often aren’t suitable for most investors…What other investment permits the rules of how the investment works to be changed after the investment is made?”

An annuity might also be unsuitable if the promises being made, in terms of guaranteed income, aren’t in line with that of other providers. If something sounds too good to be true, it likely is. That’s the case right now: Many insurance companies are asking contract holders to either be bought out or to switch to an investment that has lower returns, according to a lawyersandsettlements.com report. And contract holders who do not agree to either a buyout or a different investment could lose their guaranteed income.

Read Variable Annuities Might Be Unsuitable for Some Elderly Investors. Read more about variable annuity lawsuits.

So, if you were being pressured into switching from one variable annuity into another, think twice about whether this in your best interest or the agent’s. Read FINRA’s Should You Exchange Your Variable Annuity?

Also read That Bland Annuity Notice May Be Anything but Routine.

Robert Powell is editor of Retirement Weekly, published by MarketWatch. Follow his tweets at RJPIII. Got questions about retirement? Get answers. Send Bob an email here.

Original.

When are income annuities right for you?

There’s a time and place for everything, and that includes something called single-premium income annuities, or SPIAs.

And now just-published research should help those saving for and living in retirement pin down with more confidence than ever before whether to buy and use SPIAs as part of their retirement plan, and, if so, when to use such products and at what age.

By way of background, you buy an SPIA from an insurance company with a lump sum of money that then gets converted into a guaranteed income stream that lasts over the course of your life. Think of it as a personal defined-benefit plan. Not surprisingly, advisers tend to recommend SPIAs as a way for retirees and pre-retirees to deal with the risk of outliving their assets, or what some refer to as longevity risk.

But far too often, retirees, pre-retirees, and even advisers are flying blind when it comes to deciding whether to annuitize or to manage their retirement savings themselves (or with the help of an adviser). The latest research—conducted by Larry Frank Sr., a financial adviser with Better Financial Education; John Mitchell, a professor at Central Michigan University; and Wade Pfau, a professor at the American College—should help in that decision making.

Among other things, the new research shows the break-even age between annuitizing with a SPIA vs. managing a portfolio and the likelihood of outliving the break-even cash flow sums for various annuitization ages. Read Lifetime Expected Income Breakeven Comparison between SPIAs and Managed Portfolios.

“Retirees have a choice to manage their retirement assets, or to annuitize some or all of those assets,” wrote Frank, Mitchell and Pfau. “SPIAs provide protection against market fluctuations, though generally no protection against inflation and no end-of-life bequest. Managed portfolios provide less certainty of return but opportunity for growth and the potential for leaving some bequest at the end of life.”

In their paper, the authors compare and contrast what the total sum of money a retiree today might expect, under either choice, over their remaining expected lifetime. And here’s what they found:

When is managing a portfolio better than a SPIA?

In the main, the authors say that managing a portfolio of stocks and bonds produces a higher total sum of money than SPIAs. Yes, SPIAs pay out more than managed portfolios at first, but over time managed accounts deliver a greater real—inflation-adjusted—sum of money, even after factoring in different asset allocations.

“A portfolio of properly structured investments may be managed to provide income that may outlive the retiree through prudent measurement of total dollars withdrawn each year against the portfolio value each year,” said Frank.

Plus, Frank said, managing your own portfolio is better than a SPIA for those who are unhealthy. “Shifting assets to a pension or SPIA is not efficient because the purpose of SPIAs are to provide income for those who are at risk of long life,” said Frank. “The present value of that long stream of SPIA income would go to zero at death, and thus the managed assets they would have had, had they kept the assets, would be greater than zero at such early death due to being unhealthy.”

When are SPIAs better?

There are, however, times when a SPIA might make more sense. For instance, what a SPIA does is provide protection for those who expect to have a longer-than-average life expectancy, and expect to live during a long bear market.

“The reason that SPIA begin to make sense for older retirees is that it is easier both to have a significantly long bad market compared to expected lifespan at greater ages and at greater ages the variability of remaining life increases relative to expected longevity,” wrote the authors.

SPIAs also make sense if there is a risk of the retiree being a spendthrift. An SPIA would provide income for life and avoid the risk overspending. A word of warning, however, is in order should you buy a SPIA for this reason. Money shifted in this manner is not available later for unexpected expenses, said Frank.

Do you have bequest plans?

In general, buying a SPIA doesn’t make sense if you, regardless of whether you are healthy or not, have plans to leave money to loved ones and others. If, however, there is no bequest motive, then shifting your assets into an SPIA may make sense. And then the questions are: at what age? at what asset allocation? and during what kind of market trend should the shift be considered?

Among the population at large, the study suggest that those under age 70 might consider a SPIA during a bear market, but retirees would fare better if they waited until an older age, say maybe ages 75, or even better ages 80 or 85 to buy an SPIA.

As for the healthiest of retirees, Frank said the study showed that being comfortable giving up assets for an SPIA becomes a viable option at age 70 for those who have a conservative, mostly bond, risk attitude. However, age 75 is more promising and age 80 is even better.

In general, however, Frank said a person shouldn’t consider buying a SPIA until after age 75.

When to transition from managed portfolios to a SPIA

The authors also suggest that it might make sense to transfer your assets to a SPIA when the possibility of outliving 70% or more of your peers exists, and then only at elderly ages when this possibility begins to become clearer.

So, for those in your 80s, it might make sense to buy a SPIA. But for those under age 80, the authors say your assets are best kept within the family and future heirs since both inflation and possible future market returns have time to do better than SPIA lifetime sums do.

Wait, don’t buy one just yet

So what should you do or not do in light of these findings?

Clearly, an SPIA or is not inherently better or worse than retaining assets for that income, Frank said. “However, the age to make that decision appears to be older than currently propagated by government policy trends,” he said.

Indeed, delaying the decision to buy an SPIA might be the tactic of all. And the decision would turn on your projected life expectancy. If you have an average life expectancy, you might consider keeping your money, said Frank. But if you have a greater than average life expectancy, you might consider buying an SPIA, though not before age 74.

Retirement Expert: Robert Powell

Robert Powell is a featured writer on the MarketWatch Retirement blog, a Research Fellow at the California Institute of Finance, and  a Featured Contributor here on the CIF blog.