Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:13:14.635Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Framing and the annuitization decision – Experimental evidence from a Dutch pension fund

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2017

CHRISTIAN BOCKWEG ,
EDUARD PONDS ,
ONNO STEENBEEK  and
JOYCE VONKEN
CHRISTIAN BOCKWEG
Affiliation:
Lucht Probst Associates GmbH, Germany
EDUARD PONDS
Affiliation:
Tilburg University, APG Asset Management, Netspar, The Netherlands (e-mail: eduard.ponds@apg.nl)
ONNO STEENBEEK
Affiliation:
Erasmus School of Economics, APG Asset Management, The Netherlands
JOYCE VONKEN
Affiliation:
Tilburg University, APG, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

G02G11H55Annuity puzzleframingpension annuitieslump sum
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Pension Economics & Finance , Volume 17 , Special Issue 3: Advances in Understanding Pension Decisions , July 2018 , pp. 385 - 417
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Agnew, J. R. and Szykman, L. (2010) Annuities, financial literacy and information overload. Pension Research Council WP, 33.Google Scholar
Agnew, J. R., Anderson, L. R., Gerlach, J. R. and Szykman, L. R. (2008) Who chooses annuities? An experimental investigation of the role of gender, framing, and defaults. American Economic Review, 98: 418–422.Google Scholar
Alilovic, L. (2016) Effect of peer information on pension payout decisions. Tilburg University, Working Paper.Google Scholar
Barsky, R. B., Juster, F. T., Kimball, M. S. and Shapiro, M. D. (1997) Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: An experimental approach in the Health and Retirement Study. The Quaterly Journal of Economics, 112(2): 537–579.Google Scholar
Bart, F., Boon, B., Bovenberg, L., van Ewijk, C., Kortleve, N., Rebers, E. and Visser, M. (2016) De routekaart naar een meer integrale benadering van wonen, zorg en pensioen. Netspar Occasional Paper, 01/2016.Google Scholar
Bateman, H., Eckert, C., Iskhakov, F., Louviere, J. J., Satchell, S. E. and Thorp, S. (2016) Individual capability and effort in retirement benefit choice. Journal of Risk and Insurance. First online since 24 August 2016.Google Scholar
Benartzi, S., Previtero, A. and Thaler, R. H. (2011) Annuitization puzzles. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25: 143–164.Google Scholar
Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D. and Madrian, B. C. (2009) The importance of default options for retirement saving outcomes: Evidence from the United States. In Social Security Policy in a Changing Environment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., Madrian, B. C. and Zeldes, S. P. (2014) What makes annuitization more appealing? Journal of Public Economics, 116: 2–16.Google Scholar
Brown, J. (2007) Rational and behavioral perspectives on the role of annuities in retirement planning. NBER Working Paper, 13537.Google Scholar
Brown, J. R. and Nijman, T.. (2012) Options to improve the decumulation of pension wealth in the Netherlands. In Bovenberg, L., van Ewijk, C. and Westerhout, E. (eds), The Future of Multi-Pillar Pensions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 330–372.Google Scholar
Brown, J. R., Kling, J. R., Mullainathan, S. and Wrobel, M. V. (2008). Why don't people insure late life consumption: A framing explanation of the under-annuitization puzzle. NBER Working Paper Series Working Paper, 13748.Google Scholar
Brown, J. R., Ivkovic, Z. and Weisbenner, S. (2015) Determinants of intertemporal choice. Journal of Financial Economics, 116(3): 473–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. R., Kapteyn, A., Luttmer, E. F. P. and Mitchell, O. S. (2013) Cognitive constraints on valuing annuities. NBER Working Paper, 19168Google Scholar
Brown, J. R., Kapteyn, A. and Mitchell, O. S. (2016). Framing and claiming: How information-framing affects expected social security claiming behavior. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 83(1): 139–162.Google Scholar
Bütler, M., Teppa, F. (2007) The choice between an annuity and a lump sum: Results from Swiss pension funds. Journal of Public Economics, 91(10): 1944–1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelletti, G., Guazzarotti, G. and Tommasino, P. (2013) What determines annuity demand at retirement? Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice, 38(4): 777–802.Google Scholar
Chalmers, J. and Reuters, J. (2012) How do retirees value life annuities? Evidence from public employees. Review of Financial Studies, 25: 2601–2634.Google Scholar
Fagley, N. S. (1993) A note concerning reflection effects versus framing effects. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3): 451–452.Google Scholar
Garciá-Huitrón, M. and Ponds, E. H. M. (2015) Worldwide Diversity in Funded Pension Plans: Four Role Models on Choice and Participation. Available online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2606616.Google Scholar
Gentry, W. M. and Rothschild, C. G. (2006) Lifetime Annuities for US: Evaluating the Efficacy of Policy Interventions in Life Annuity Markets. American Council for Capital Formation. Available online at www.accf.org.Google Scholar
Financial Conduct Authority (2014) Does the framing of retirement income options matter? A behavioral experiment, December 2014, FCA.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. M. (1994) Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4): 19–43.Google Scholar
Hu, W.-Y. and Scott, J. S. (2007) Behavioral obstacles in the annuity market. Financial Analysts Journal, 63(6): 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurd, M. and Panis, C. (2006) The choice to cash out pension rights at job change or retirement. Journal of Public Economics, 90(12): 2213–2227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 263–291.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1984) Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4): 341.Google Scholar
Kemna, A. A., Ponds, E. H. M. and Steenbeek, O. W. (2011) Pension funds in the Netherlands. Journal of Investment Consulting 12(1): 28–34.Google Scholar
Lusardi, A. and Mitchel, O. (2007). Financial literacy and retirement preparedness: Evidence and implications for financial education. Business Economics, 42(1): 35–44.Google Scholar
Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (2016) Kamerbrief Perspectiefnota Toekomst Pensioenstelsel, kamernr. 2016-0000162957, The Hague.Google Scholar
Mottola, G. R. and Utkus, S. P. (2007) Lump sum or annuity? An analysis of choice in DB pension payouts. Vanguard Center for Retirement Research, 30(89): 2.Google Scholar
Pensioen Federatie (2015) The Dutch Pension System.Google Scholar
Previtero, A. (2014) Stock market returns and annuitization. Journal of Financial Economics, August 2014, 202–214.Google Scholar
Shoven, J. and Slavov, S. (2006) Political risk versus security. NBER Working Paper, No. 12135.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. (1985) Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3): 199–214.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481): 453–458.Google Scholar
Van der Heijden, E., Klein, T. J., Müller, W. and Potters, J. (2012) Framing effects and impatience: Evidence from a large scale experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 84(2): 701–711.Google Scholar
Whittington, D. (2002) Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing countries. Environmental and Resource Economics, 22(1–2): 323–367.Google Scholar
Wu, S., Bateman, H., Stevens, R. and Thorp, S. (2017) Income-indemnity long-term care insurance: selection, informal care, and precautionary saving. Working Paper, 2017/08, ARC Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research (CEPAR).Google Scholar
Yaari, M. E. (1965). Uncertain lifetime, life insurance, and the theory of the consumer. Review of Economic Studies, 32 137–150.Google Scholar