CAI Home > Resources > The History of Annuities in the United States
Section 3
INDIVIDUAL ANNUITIES
The market for individual annuities has expanded substantially
in the last century. To understand its growth, one must recognize
the range of different annuity products available to individuals
and the risks the products are designed to insure against. Individual
annuity products differ in their provisions for asset accumulation
and in the terms under which the accumulated principal is dispersed
during the liquidation phase. This section describes the primary
types of individual fixed annuities and summarizes the growth
of the individual annuity market in the United States.
TYPOLOGY OF INDIVIDUAL ANNUITIES
Annuities can be categorized along many dimensions, including
the number and timing of premiums, the number of lives covered,
the nature of the payouts, and the date at which benefits begin.
An outline of the different types of annuities follows:
Method of paying premiums:
- Single premium
- Fixed annual premium
- Flexible premium
Number of lives covered:
- One
- More than one (joint life, joint and survivor
annuities)
Waiting period for benefits to begin:
- None (immediate annuity)
- Some waiting period (deferred annuity)
Nature of payouts:
- Life annuity without refund
- Guaranteed minimum annuity (period certain
annuity, refund annuity)
- Periodic withdrawals (flexible payout alternatives)
The simplest individual annuity contract is a single-premium
immediate annuity. In return for a single premium payment, the
annuitant receives a guaranteed stream of future payments that
begin immediately. These payments can end when the annuitant
dies (a simple life annuity), when both the annuitant and a coannuitant,
such as a spouse, have died (a joint life survivorship annuity),
or at the later of a fixed number of years or the date of death
of the annuitant (life annuity with stipulated payments certain).
These types of annuities address different insurance needs. A
simple life annuity is primarily designed to insure annuitants
against outliving their resources; a joint life survivorship
annuity addresses this risk and also provides retirement income
for dependents.
The "payout certain" annuity is often attractive because
potential annuitants are unwilling to turn over a capital sum
to an annuity provider and risk dying shortly thereafter without
receiving many annuity payments. The "fixed payments certain"
product overcomes this inhibition by ensuring that payments will
be made to the annuitants' beneficiaries for at least a fixed
period. The level of the annuity payout associated with a "fixed-payments
certain" contract is correspondingly lower than that for
a simple life annuity.
Black and Skipper (1994) contrast the pricing of different types
of single-premium annuities. They report that a 65-year-old man
could expect roughly $7.22 per month in annuity payout per $1,000
premium payment for a fixed life annuity, compared with $6.64
per month for a 10-year certain and continuous annuity (a life
annuity with a guarantee of a minimum of 10 years of payments) and $6.19 for a cash refund annuity, which
refunds the unpaid nominal amount of the premium in the event
that the annuitant dies before the full amount of the initial
premium has been distributed. The differences in purchase rates
are a function of time and interest rates.
In addition to the immediate
annuities described above, a second broad class of individual
annuities is deferred annuities. A single-premium deferred annuity,
for example, includes a waiting period between the premium payment
and the beginning of annuity payouts. The promised stream of
payments for a given premium is greater for a single-premium
deferred annuity than for a single-premium immediate annuity,
since the premium is invested and earns returns between the date
when it is paid and the date when the payouts begin.
A variant on such an annuity, one that provides for multiple
premium payments, could represent a saving plan for an individual
who plans to use an annuity to draw down accumulated resources.
This is known as an annual-payment annuity. It specifies a stream
of premiums that the policyholder will pay during the policy's
accumulation phase. At the conclusion of this phase or possibly
some years afterward, the policy enters its liquidation phase
and the annuitant and beneficiaries begin to receive payouts
from the accumulated principal. Annual-payment annuities can
be useful planning tools for those who are trying to accumulate
the resources to receive a substantial annuity during retirement.
Single-premium deferred annuities have been the dominant contract
in the individual annuity market of the last few decades.
One of the most popular annuity products is the flexible-premium
deferred annuity, which permits annuitants to make cash contributions
at times of their choosing and allows the accumulated value of
these premium contributions to be converted to an annuity at
some future date or specified age of the annuitant.
THE GROWTH OF THE INDIVIDUAL ANNUITY MARKET
The annuity business was a small share of
the insurance market until the Great Depression. Data compiled
by the Temporary National Economic Commission (TNEC) (1941, 112)
suggest that, over the period 1866-1920, annuity premiums
averaged only 1.5 percent of life insurance premiums
received by U.S. insurance companies. The Great Depression, and
the associated financial panic and bank failures, led many investors
to seek reliable investment vehicles for their savings. Individual
annuities, many offered by insurance companies with long and
stable financial histories, were such vehicles, and they grew
rapidly during the 1930s. TNEC (1941) data show that 68 percent
of all annuity premiums received between 1913 and 1937 were received
between 1933 and 1937. In 1934-36, the premium income on newly
issued individual annuities exceeded that on newly issued ordinary
life insurance for the 26 large companies studied by the TNEC.
As a share of payouts, reserves, or total premium income, annuities
were still a small part of the insurance business in the 1930s.
They accounted for 1.79 percent of all insurance company disbursements
over the 1929-38 period, compared with 24.3 percent for death
claims and 23 percent for policy surrender values (TNEC 1941,
324). Annuities, at 8.56 percent, accounted for a greater share
of premium income during this period, and individual annuities
accounted for 80 percent of annuity premiums. In 1938, annuity
reserves were $2.67 billion, compared with $16.83 billion in
life insurance reserves.
Although the individual annuity market grew rapidly in the 1930s,
it represented only a small fraction of the insurance industry
at the end of this period. Many firms that had sold policies
during that decade subsequently experienced losses on their annuity
contracts for two reasons. First, the rate of return earned on
insurance reserves fell during the early 1930s. Long-term interest
rates on Moody's AAA corporate bonds averaged 4.68 percent
between 1928 and 1932 but 3.45 percent between 1933 and 1940.
The real interest rate was much greater than the nominal rate
in the early 1930s. The consumer price index fell 20.3 percent
between 1928 and 1932, raising the real return to lenders. Long-term
interest rates fell below 3 percent in the late 1930s. Because
annuities had been sold assuming that prevailing interest rates
from earlier periods would remain in force, the drop in rates
led to investment earnings below the level needed to service
these contracts. Campbell (1969) reports that the net earnings
rates of life insurance companies reached a high of 5.05 percent
in 1930 but declined for nearly two decades afterward, falling
to 2.88 percent in 1947. This was reflected in the poor profitability
of annuity contracts.
A second factor in annuity losses was the longevity of annuitants
relative to the assumptions that insurance companies used in
pricing their annuity contracts. Life expectancy did not improve
substantially during the Depression. Life expectancy for white
men at age 60 was only 0.2 years longer in 1940 than in 1930.
For women, the gain in life expectancy was slightly larger: 0.5
years (Historical Statistics, Series B124-125, vol. 1). But as
Gilbert (1948) and the TNEC (1941, 331) explain, the mortality
tables that life insurance companies used to price annuities
were revised several times during the 1930s to reflect the lower
mortality risk for annuitants than for the general public. The
mortality experience of female annuitants was particularly overstated
by the life tables in use at the beginning of the 1930s.
Gilbert (1948) compares the 1868 American Experience Table of
Mortality, long a standard reference in the insurance industry,
and the "expectation" table adopted in 1938 for annuity
purposes. The tables show large gains in life expectancy at extreme
ages, especially for women. The 1868 table combined both men
and women to yield a life expectancy of 8.48 years at age 70.
In contrast, the 1938 table shows a life expectancy of 15.62
years for female annuitants at age 70. The overly optimistic
mortality assumptions built into annuities sold at the beginning
of the 1930s contributed to the losses on these products later
in the decade.
The annuity contracts that grew in popularity
during the 1930s emphasized the role of annuities as retirement
savings and investment vehicles. Annual-premium retirement annuities-contracts
that allowed individuals to make premium contributions each year,
to accumulate a capital fund, and then to choose from a number
of payout options at the date of their retirement or another
advanced age-expanded particularly rapidly. Retirement annuities
were attractive retirement saving vehicles for several reasons.
They offered returns that were often greater than those available
elsewhere for small investors. They provided an option to purchase
an immediate single-premium annuity at a future date, typically
at terms specified at the beginning of the accumulation period,
if the participant decided that was the best way to decumulate
assets. Perhaps most important,
annuities were supplied by secure financial institutions. Gilbert
(1948) notes that even though surrender charges could sharply
reduce the return on these products for those who redeemed them
before maturity, this did not prevent the rapid expansion of
the deferred annuity market in the 1930s.
Annuity premiums, the amount an annuitant
had to pay to purchase a given payout stream, increased during
the 1930s. Gilbert (1948) reports that in 1930 Aetna Life Insurance
Company would sell a $100 immediate annual annuity to a 65-year-old
man/woman for a premium of $925/$1,040. By 1940, the premiums
had increased to $1,220/$1,435.
The individual annuity market expanded throughout the postwar
period. As the data in Table 2 show, individual annuity premium
payments increased almost every year. However, comparing these
premium payments with a yardstick for the size of the economy,
such as gross domestic product, can be more revealing. Individual
annuity premiums were 0.064 percent (six one-hundredths of 1
percent) of GDP in 1951. They declined to 0.053 percent in 1961,
then began to increase: to 0.110 percent by 1971, 0.339 percent in 1981, 0.903 percent in
1991, and finally to 1.21 percent in 1993. The early 1960s thus
marked the beginning of the growth phase for individual annuities,
with much of the growth concentrated in the period since the
late 1970s.
CHARACTERISTICS OF ANNUITY OWNERS
Survey data on the owners of nonqualified annuity products,
such as the information collected and reported in Gallup
(1996), provide some insight on the individuals who
own these policies. In 1995, the average age of individual annuity
holders was 64, and half of these policyholders were retired.
Less than one-quarter were under the age of 54. More than 80%
of the annuity policyholders had annual incomes of less than
$75,000 per year. The majority of those with annuities reported
that they planned to use their annuities for retirement income.
Current owners were attracted to annuities for a variety of reasons.
Roughly three-quarters of annuity owners cite tax benefits as
a primary reason for purchasing their policy. Another 64 percent
cite the safety and reliable income associated with an annuity,
and more than half indicate that the long-term saving plan associated
with an annuity product was an important attraction. A substantial
fraction, nearly half, of all annuity holders report that they
used a one-time income receipt, such as an inheritance, to purchase
their annuity.
top | Continued >