Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T14:36:31.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of retirement taxation rules on the value of guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2019

Eric R. Ulm
Eric R. Ulm*
Affiliation:
School of Economics and Finance, Victoria University of Wellington, Room RH333 Rutherford House, 23 Lambton Quay, Pipitea, Wellington 6011New Zealand
*
Email: Eric.Ulm@vuw.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine the value of guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit (GLWB) options embedded in variable annuities in two different tax regimes. The New Zealand (NZ) system taxes investment income when it is earned, whereas the system in the United States defers taxes on annuity investment income until it is paid out. We examine the effects of these tax differences on the charges collected by the issuer as well as on the value of the contract to the policyholder. We find that the issuer’s charges are typically lower (higher) in the NZ tax regime when the expected fund earnings are low (high) or the fund volatility is high (low). On the other hand, the value to the policyholder is always lower in the NZ tax regime due to the earlier tax payments.We also find that the value of the GLWB in the NZ tax regime is nearly always below the value of an ordinary payout annuity with the same tax rules.

Keywords

Guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefitvariable annuitiesretirementtaxation
Type
Paper
Information
Annals of Actuarial Science , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 83 - 92
Copyright
© Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bauer, D., Gao, J., Moenig, T., Ulm, E.R. & Zhu, N. (2017). Policyholder exercise behavior in life insurance: The state of affairs. North American Actuarial Journal, 21(4), 485–501.10.1080/10920277.2017.1314816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, D., Kling, A. & Russ, J. (2008). A universal pricing framework for guaranteed minimum benefits in variable annuities. ASTIN Bulletin, 38(2), 621–651.10.1017/S0515036100015312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drinkwater, M., Iqbal, J. & Montminy, J. (2013). Variable annuity guaranteed living benefits utilization. SOA and LIMRA study. Available online at the address https://www.soa.org/Files/Research/Exp-Study/research-var-ann-a-joint-study.pdf [accessed 31-05-2019].Google Scholar
Huang, H., Milevsky, M. & Salisbury, T. (2014). Optimal initiation of a GLWB in a variable annuity: no arbitrage approach. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 56, 102–111.Google Scholar
Moenig, T. & Bauer, D. (2015). Revisiting the risk-neutral approach to optimal policyholder behavior: A study of withdrawal guarantees in variable annuities. Review of Finance, 20(2), 759–794.10.1093/rof/rfv018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
St. John, S. (2003). The role of annuities in the New Zealand retirement incomes policy mix. Periodic Report Group. Available online at the address http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/Garden/9441/SusanStJohn/20038prg.pdfGoogle Scholar
St. John, S. (2007a). Farewell to tax neutrality: The implications for an aging population. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 18(1), 27–52.10.1177/103530460701800103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
St. John, S. (2007b). New Zealand’s experiment in tax neutrality for retirement saving. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice 32(4), 532–552.10.1057/palgrave.gpp.2510142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
St. John, S. (2009). The Annuities Market in New Zealand. Retirement Policy and Research Centre Available online at the address https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/business/about/our-research/research-institutes-and-centres/RPRC/OtherPapers/The%20annuities%20market%20in%20New%20Zealand.pdf [accessed 31-05-2019].Google Scholar