Felix Reichling and Kent Smetters write (gated–ungated version here),
But the presence of stochastic mortality probabilities also introduces a correlated risk. After a negative shock to health that reduces a household’s life expectancy, the present value of the annuity stream falls. At the same time, a negative health shock produces potential losses, including lost wage income not replaced by disability insurance, out-of-pocket medical costs, and uninsured nursing care expenses, that may increase a household’s marginal utility. Since the value of non-annuitized wealth is not affected by one’s health state, the optimal level of annuitization falls below 100 percent.
An annuity is risk-reducing if the only risk you face is additional longevity. In fact, other risks may be more serious. You could easily find yourself needing to take out a loan if your savings are tied up in an annuity and your spouse requires a home health aide.
Economists have been preaching for 50 years that the low usage of annuities illustrates a market failure. In fact, what it may illustrate is that economists who relied on a mathematical model left out some important considerations. We need a term for this. I propose model failure.
‘Model myopia’ is another one. Can’t see the whole picture.
Those are good but we engineers call it “model.”
I’m afraid I don’t follow what the first paragraph is saying, other than that it doesn’t make sense for some people to buy annuities.
…and that you can’t predict in advance whether you are one of those people.
Most financial products stink. Absence of innovation isn’t a “market failure.”