This study examines the interest in different pension payout schemes when full annuitization is the default. We focus on three possible pension payout schemes: a flat-rate annuity, a high/low annuity-based profile, and a partial lump sum at retirement with a lower flat-rate annuity after that. We make use of a vignette study and find substantial interest in each of the three payout schemes. Interest in the lump sum scheme increases when a higher percentage can be taken out as a lump sum or when interest rates or replacement rates are lower. Interest in a high/low annuity-based profile increases when the high annuity is valid for a shorter period.

A quantification of the financial implications of the design of a funded, collective defined contribution (CDC) pension scheme is presented and illustrated. It is done through an attribution analysis, which allows the importance of various elements of CDC scheme design to be determined. The model of a CDC scheme analysed is based lightly on the first CDC scheme set to be approved in the UK. In the CDC scheme analysed, contributions are fixed and the initial benefit accrued by each contribution is fixed. Once accrued, benefits are subsequently adjusted annually in response to changes in assumptions and returns. An attribution of the benefit payments shows that this design gives higher benefits to the first generations and lower benefits to the last generations, for a scheme which starts with no members. The contributions paid also affect the balance of benefits paid between generations. Too high a contribution is to the advantage of the first generations. Too low a contribution is in the interests of the later generations. The conclusion, within the simple model considered, is that a constant benefit accrual is an important design choice. Its financial consequences across all generations should be carefully analysed, if it is intended to be implemented. Additionally, contributions should be reviewed regularly in such a CDC scheme, to ensure that cross-subsidies are not borne excessively by particular generations.

We have designed and implemented an experimental module in the 2014 Health and Retirement Study to measure older persons' willingness to defer claiming of Social Security benefits. Under the current system’ status quo where delaying claiming boosts eventual benefits, we show that 46% of the respondents would delay claiming and work longer. If respondents were instead offered an actuarially fair lump sum payment instead of higher lifelong benefits, about 56% indicate they would delay claiming. Without a work requirement, the average amount needed to induce delayed claiming is only $60,400, while when part-time work is stipulated, the amount is slightly higher, $66,700. This small difference implies a low utility value of leisure foregone, of under 20% of average household income.

We report the effects of framing settings in annuity demand after conducting a survey-based experiment with members of a Dutch occupational pension plan. We gave participants the option to allocate up to 20% of their projected pension accrual to a lump sum. In particular, we investigated the joint effects of consumption and investment frames and gain and loss frames. We present strong evidence for framing effects in annuity demand. Framing effects remain significant when we control for individual characteristics. We also find robust evidence of individual characteristics influencing annuity demand, highlighting the importance of heterogeneity among participants, for example risk aversion, time preference and trust in the pension fund. Gender and long-term debt positions have significant impact how one responds to framing. We conclude that Dutch plan members generally welcome the partial lump sum option over mandatory full annuitization. The application of frames appears to predictively steer annuity demand. The precise effect framing may have, would probably also depend on the institutional environment, which predefines the perspective through which individuals filter annuities.

Our study uses the data collected during the implementation of the tobacco buyout program in Kentucky to evaluate how rural households, diverse in income, age, family structure, location, education level, and other characteristics, made a choice between annuities and a lump-sum payment. Subjects in our field experiment did not have to retire or change their employment, as did subjects in many field studies of the choice between annuities and lump-sum payments, which allowed us to evaluate the relationship between the option choice and a decision whether to exit the tobacco market. Our results suggest that while discounted utility theory gives acceptable predictions of the farmers' behavior, other factors have to be taken into consideration. First, there are consistent biases that describe individual intertemporal behavior, such as availability bias or acquiescence bias. Second, there is a certain degree of heterogeneity in individual intertemporal preferences that correlates with their personal characteristics, such as education and production status. Third, our analysis revealed that the decision to exit the tobacco market positively correlated with the decision to take a lump-sum payment.