In the past two years, the government decreed the new availability of retirement products that promised to pave the way to post-career happiness by answering the direst needs of savers everywhere. Both the MyRA and the Longevity Annuity came out with such fanfare you’d think regulators had parted the Red Sea.

It turned out not to be the Red Sea, but merely a faded red can of New Coke. Sure, the wizards down in research and development could design anything based on any specs. And the policy wonks thought they had a winner with these particular specs. Regulators thought the MyRA and the QLAC offered the answers to what academic research insisted were the most pressing wants of the working class. So the financial engineers built it, only they didn’t come.

We’ll set aside MyRAs as a fait accompli, and, instead, focus on the much heralded longevity annuity.

After years of the incessant drumbeat of “retirees want guaranteed income,” the powers that be ordained that longevity annuities could legally be placed in 401k plans and IRAs beginning July 1, 2014 (within certain limitations, perhaps a tacit recognition of the silliness of the idea in the first place).

In hindsight, we could have probably done a simple pricing analysis before we even started and concluded QLACs just couldn’t compete against the alternative. (For an example of one such analysis, see “Square Peg QLACs Can’t Seem to Fit in 401k Fiduciary Round Hole,” FiduciaryNews.com, August 4, 2015.)

Forget the pricing problem, let’s get to the real problem with the QLAC? Not even favorable pricing can overcome this obstacle (and woe be the insurance company that thinks they can underprice this challenger).

As alluded to before, the QLAC seems to have been designed by researchers, not by the potential buyers.

The bean counters behind those ivy-covered walls insisted the most rational decision a retirement saver could make was to buy a longevity annuity. Why?

Because the greatest fear people claim to have is the fear of outliving their money. QLACs represent a form of insurance that could mitigate this fear.

Perfect, right? A match made in heaven. Except for one thing.

Researchers made two unfortunate assumptions. First, they assumed all consumers exhibit a cold rationality far beyond that of mortal men. Second, and directly related to the first assumption, advocates of QLACs failed to take into account the psychological upside of alternatives.

Here’s what I mean about that second assumption, and I’m sure you’ve seen analogous examples of this concept in plenty of other places.

Take any random group of people. By definition, their expertise on a given subject would be distributed along the classic bell curve.

Half would be above average. Half would be below average.

Now, ask each one of them how they would assess their relative strength on this particular subject, and, more often than not, more than half the people would rank themselves “above average.”

Remember, you already know only half the people in this sample set are above average.

What accounts for this behavioral tendency towards overconfidence?

It’s called “the Lake Wobegon Effect.” You remember Garrison Keillor’s popular PBS show called “Lake Wobegon” – where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.” Well, I guess, in our own eyes, we’re all Lake Wobegon children.

Now, I’m not sure overconfidence is necessarily a bad thing (because sometimes it’s the single reason why we succeed well above expectations). But--and here’s the critical point-- imagine the impact this overconfidence has on the typical consumer’s value analysis of a QLAC.

Yes, they may be worried they might outlive their retirement savings, and, yes, they recognize others have, indeed, outlived their retirement savings.

But brush this logic away with a sweep of their hand and insist “I’m above average and I can figure out a way to make sure this doesn’t happen to me.”

The QLAC may be able to part the Red Sea, but it can never part Lake Wobegon.

Continue Reading for Free

Register and gain access to:

  • Breaking benefits news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
  • Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
  • Critical converage of the property casualty insurance and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, PropertyCasualty360 and ThinkAdvisor
NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Christopher Carosa

Chris Carosa has been writing a weekly article and monthly column for BenefitsPRO online and BenefitsPRO Magazine since 2011 and is a nationally recognized award-winning writer, researcher and speaker. He’s written seven books, including From Cradle to Retire: The Child IRA; Hey! What’s My Number? – How to Increase the Odds You Will Retire in Comfort; A Pizza The Action: Everything I Ever Learned About Business I Learned By Working in a Pizza Stand at the Erie County Fair; and the widely acclaimed 401(k) Fiduciary Solutions. Carosa is also Chief Contributing Editor of the authoritative trade journal FiduciaryNews.com and publisher of the Mendon-Honeoye Falls-Lima Sentinel, a weekly community newspaper he founded in 1989. Currently serving as President of the National Society of Newspaper Columnists and with more than 1,000 articles published in various publications, he appears regularly in the national media. A “parallel” entrepreneur, he actively runs a handful of businesses, including a small boutique investment adviser, providing hands-on experience for his writing. A trained astrophysicist, he also holds an MBA and has been designated a Certified Trust and Financial Advisor. Share your thoughts and story ideas with him through Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/christophercarosa/)and Twitter (https://twitter.com/ChrisCarosa).