Abstract
This paper suggests a new explanation for the low level of annuitization, which is valid even if one assumes perfect markets. We show that, as soon there is a positive bequest motive, sufficiently risk averse individuals should not purchase annuities. A model calibration accounting for lifetime risk aversion generates a significantly smaller willingnesstopay for annuities than the one generated by a standard timeadditive model. Moreover, the calibration predicts that riskless savings finance one third of consumption, in line with empirical findings.
Notes
Roughly one half of income stems from public pensions, 17% from company sponsored pension payments and one third is financed from savings.
Some studies, such as Benartzi et al. (2011), argue, however, that the observed levels of annuitization are not as puzzling as usually claimed. They provide evidence to show that most individuals actually choose to annuitize their wealth when possible and point out that most retirement plans do not offer this possibility.
See Brown (2007), as well as the following section for a literature review.
Davidoff et al. (2005) consider nonadditive separable preferences featuring habit formation and show that it helps explain the annuity puzzle. However, they do not investigate the role of risk aversion.
This was also noticed by Drèze and Rustichini (2004), who provided an example where insurance demand may decrease with risk aversion (see their Proposition 9.1).
See corollary 1 in Davidoff et al. (2005).
Framing effects describe the fact that individuals’ choices may depend on the formulation of alternatives and especially if they are focused on gains or losses.
Gazzale and Walker (2011) reach a similar conclusion using neutralcontext laboratory experiments.
Precautionary savings can be defined as the optimal savings due to the uncertainty of the secondperiod income.
As discussed in Kihlstrom and Mirman (1974, Section 2 and in particular 2.1, p. 365 and following) and in Epstein and Zin (1989, Section 4, p. 950), studying the role of risk aversion requires leaving ordinal preferences unchanged. Individuals who would rank deterministic outcomes differently cannot be compared in terms of risk aversion.
The issues of time inconsistency and history independence do not arise in the twoperiod framework that is considered in the current section. However they would do so in the Nperiod extension considered in Section 3.
The formal proof can be found in the electronic supplementary material of the online version or in Bommier and LeGrand (2013), the working paper of this article posted on SSRN.
We do not consider endogenous retirement decisions. This aspect is formalized in Chai et al. (2011).
The utility function U(c,s) may also be written as
(Equtaion)
where the multiplicative structure is explicit.
All computational codes (in Matlab) are available upon request to authors.
See for example the report of Livingston and Cohn (2010) on American motherhood.
With such a risk aversion with respect to life duration, an agent would be indifferent between living 80 years for sure, or living 78 years or 82.34 years with equal probability.
The relative risk aversion with respect to wealth at the age of 65 is \(W_{0}\frac {\partial ^{2}EU_{65}}{\partial {W_{0}^{2}}}/\frac {\partial EU_{65}}{\partial W_{0}}\), where E U _{65} is the expected lifetime utility at the age of 65.
Keeping unchanged the other parameters of our benchmark calibration (Table 1), we find that people never purchase annuities when λ is larger than 0.0133.
The interpretation of empirical evidence on age specific wealth profiles should, however, be subject to caution. Indeed, saving decumulation can also be obtained under the assumption of risk neutrality with respect to lifetime felicity if annuities are not fairly priced.
We reestimate the values of u _{0} and λ (or β in the additive model) so as to match the different values of VSL and of rate of time discounting.
References
Agnew, J. R., Anderson, L. R., Gerlach, J. R., Szykman, L. R. (2008). Who chooses annuities? An experimental investigation of the role of gender, framing, and defaults. American Economic Review, 98(2), 418–422.
Ameriks, J., Caplin, A., Laufer, S., Van Nieuwerburgh, S. (2011). The joy of giving or assisted living? Using strategic surveys to separate bequest and precautionary motives. Journal of Finance, 66(2), 519–561.
Andersen, S., Harrison, G., Lau, M., Rutstroem, E. (2011). Multiattribute utility theory, intertemporal utility and correlation aversion. CEAR Working Paper 201104, Georgia State University.
Benartzi, S., Previtero, A., Thaler, R. H. (2011). Annuitization puzzles. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(4), 143–164.
Bleichrodt, H., & Eeckhoudt, L. (2005). Saving under rankdependent utility. Economic Theory, 25(2), 505–511.
Bommier, A (2006). Uncertain lifetime and intertemporal choice: risk aversion as a rationale for time discounting. International Economic Review, 47(4), 1223–1246.
Bommier, A. (2007). Risk aversion, intertemporal elasticity of substitution and correlation aversion. Economics Bulletin, 4(29), 1–8.
Bommier, A. (2013). Life cycle preferences revisited. Journal of European Economic Association, 11(6), 12901319.
Bommier, A., & LeGrand, F. (2013). Too risk averse to purchase insurance? A theoretical glance at the annuity puzzle. CERETH Working Paper 12/157, ETH Zurich. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1991085.
Bommier, A., Chassagnon, A., LeGrand, F. (2012). Comparative risk aversion: a formal approach with applications to saving behaviors. Journal of Economic Theory, 147(4), 1614–1641.
Brown, J.R. (2007). Rational and behavioral perspectives on the role of annuities in retirement planning. NBER Working Paper 13537, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Brown, J. R., Kling, J. R., Mullainathan, S., Wrobel, M. V. (2008). Why don’t people insure latelife consumption? A framing explanation of the underannuitization puzzle. American Economic Review, 98(2), 304–309.
Chai, J., Horneff, W., Maurer, R., Mitchell, O. S. (2011). Optimal portfolio choice over the life cycle with flexible work, endogenous retirement, and lifetime payouts. Review of Finance, 15(4), 875–907.
Cook, P.J., & Graham, D. A. (1977). The demand for insurance and protection: the case of irreplaceable commodities. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91(1), 143–156.
Davidoff, T., Brown, J .R., Diamond, P. A. (2005). Annuities and individual welfare. American Economic Review, 95(5), 1573–1590.
De Nardi, M. (2004). Wealth inequality and intergenerational links. Review of Economic Studies, 71(3), 743–768.
De Nardi, M., French, E., Jones, J. B. (2010). Why do the elderly save? The role of medical expenses. Journal of Political Economy, 118(1), 39–75.
Dorfleitner, G., & Krapp, M. (2007). On multiattributive risk aversion: some clarifying results. Review of Managerial Science, 1(1), 47–63.
Drèze, J., & Rustichini, A. (2004). Statedependent utility and decision theory, 2: extensions. Dordrecht In S. Barbera PH, & C. Seild (Eds.), Handbook of utility theory, (pp. 839–892): Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Drèze, J. H., & Modigliani, F. (1972). Consumption decisions under uncertainty. Journal of Economic Theory, 5(3), 308–335.
Eden, B (2008). Substitution, risk aversion and asset prices: an expected utility approach. Working Paper 0803, Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University.
Epstein, L. G., & Tanny, S. M. (1980). Increasing generalized correlation: a definition and some economic consequences. Canadian Journal of Economics, 13(1), 16–34.
Epstein, L. G., & Zin, S. E. (1989). Substitution, risk aversion, and the temporal behavior of consumption and asset returns: a theoretical framework. Econometrica, 57(4), 937–969.
FernándezVillaverde, J., & Krueger, D. (2007). Consumption over the life cycle: facts from consumer expenditure survey data. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3), 552–565.
Finkelstein, A., & Poterba, J. (2002). Selection effects in the United Kingdom individual annuities market. Economic Journal, 112(476), 28–50.
Finkelstein, A., & Poterba, J. (2004). Adverse selection in insurance markets: policyholder evidence from the U.K. annuity market. Journal of Political Economy, 112(1), 183–208.
Gazzale, R. S., & Walker, L. (2011). I’ll cross that bridge if I get to it: focusing on the near future. Working Paper, University of Toronto.
Horneff, W. J., Maurer, R. H., Mitchell, O. S., Stamos, M. Z. (2010). Variable payout annuities and dynamic portfolio choice in retirement. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, 9(2), 163–183.
Hu, W. Y., & Scott, J. S. (2007). Behavioral obstacles in the annuity market. Financial Analysts Journal, 63(6), 71–82.
Hurd, M. D., & Smith, J. P. (2002). Expected bequests and their distribution. NBER Working Paper 9142, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Inkmann, J., Lopes, P., Michaelides, A. (2011). How deep is the annuity market participation puzzle. Review of Financial Studies, 24(1), 279–319.
James, E., & Song, X. (2001). Annuities markets around the world: money’s worth and risk intermediation. CeRP Working Paper 16/01, Center for Research on Pensions and Welfare Policies.
Jappelli, T. (1999). The agewealth profile and the lifecycle hypothesis: a cohort analysis with time series of crosssections of italian households. Review of Income and Wealth, 45(1), 57–75.
Johansson, P. O. (2002). On the definition and agedependency of the value of a statistical life. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 25(3), 251–263.
Johnson, R. W., Burman, L. E., Kobes, D. I. (2004). Annuitized wealth at older ages. Evidence from the health and retirement study. Final report to the Employee Benefits Security Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor, The Urban Institute.
Kihlstrom, R. E., & Mirman, L. J. (1974). Risk aversion with many commodities. Journal of Economic Theory, 8(3), 361–388.
Kimball, M. S., & Weil, P. (2009). Precautionary saving and consumption smoothing across time and possibilities. Journal of Money Credit and Banking, 41(2–3), 245–284.
Kopczuk, W., & Lupton, J. P. (2007). To leave or not to leave: the distribution of bequest motives. Review of Economic Studies, 74(1), 207–235.
Livingston, G., & Cohn, D. (2010). The new demography of American motherhood. A Social and Demographic Trends Report, Pew Research Center.
Lockwood, L. M. (2012a). Bequest motives and the annuity puzzle. Review of Economic Dynamics, 15(2), 226–243.
Lockwood, L. M. (2012b). Bequest motives and the choice to selfinsure latelife risks. Working Paper, Northwestern University.
Milevsky, M. A., & Young, V. (2007). Annuitization and asset allocation. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 31(9), 3138–3177.
Mitchell, O. S., Poterba, J. M., Warshawsky, M. J., Brown, J. R. (1999). New evidence on the money’s worth of individual annuities. American Economic Review, 89(5), 1299–1318.
Pang, G., & Warshawsky, M. J. (2010). Optimizing the equitybondannuity portfolio in retirement: the impact of uncertain health expenses. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 46(1), 198–209.
Pashchenko, S. (2013). Accounting for nonannuitization. Journal of Public Economics, 98, 53–67.
van der Ploeg, F. (1993). A closedform solution for a model of precautionary saving. Review of Economic Studies, 60(2), 385–395.
Ponzetto, G. (2003). Risk aversion and the utility of annuities. CeRP Working Paper 31/03, Center for Research on Pensions and Welfare Policies.
Richard, S. F. (1975). Multivariate risk aversion, utility independence and separable utility functions. Management Science, 22(1), 12–21.
Sinclair, S. M., & Smetters, K. A. (2004). Health shocks and the demand for annuities. Technical Paper 20049, Congressional Budget Office.
Van den Heuvel, S. J. (2008). Temporal risk aversion and asset prices. Working Paper 200837, Federal Reserve Board.
Viscusi, W. K., & Aldy, J. E. (2003). The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 27(1), 5–76.
Yaari, M. E. (1965). Uncertain lifetime, life insurance, and the theory of the consumer. Review of Economic Studies, 32(2), 137–150.
Yaari, M. E. (1987). The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica, 55(1), 95–105.
Yogo, M. (2009). Portfolio choice in retirement: health risk and the demand for annuities, housing and risky assets. NBER Working Paper 15307, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Edmund Cannon, Alexis Direr, Glenn Harrison, Lee Lockwood, Thomas Post, James Poterba, Ray Rees, Harris Schlesinger (the editor), an anonymous referee and seminar participants at ETH Zurich, University of Paris I, University of Zurich, 2011 Summer Meetings of the Econometric Society and CEAR/MRIC Behavioral Insurance Workshop 2012 (LMU, Münich) for their comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Both authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from SwissRe.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 A Proof of Proposition 1
When ϕ is linear, ϕ ^{′}(U _{ A })=ϕ ^{′}(U _{ D })=ϕ ^{′}(0)=1. First order conditions in Eqs. (8)–(10) and the budget constraint can now be expressed as follows:
Let us show that in any case (1+R)s=τ.

1.
s=0. The budget constraint in Eq. (37) implies that a>0: Eq. (34) is therefore an equality. Equation 35 implies then that \(v^{\prime }(0)\leq u_{2}^{\prime }(c_{2})\). Suppose that τ>0: we deduce from Eq. 36 that v ^{′}(0)≤v ^{′}(τ), which contradicts that v is concave and nonlinear. Thus, (1+R)s=τ=0.

2.
s>0. From Eq. 35, which is an equality, together with Eq. 34 and 36, we deduce that \(v^{\prime }((1+R)s)\ge u_{2}^{\prime }(c_{2})\ge v^{\prime }(\tau )\) and τ≥(1+R)s>0. The budget constraint (37) implies that a>0. Equation 34, as Eq. 35 and 36 are therefore equalities: we deduce that v ^{′}((1+R)s)=v ^{′}(τ) and (1+R)s=τ.
We always obtain (1+R)s=τ, and thus also \(a=\frac {pc_{2}}{1+R}.\)
1.2 B Calibrations for alternative bequest specifications
We provide here calibrations for measuring the impact of the alternative bequest specifications. All calibrations generate a value of average bequest of 20% of the nonannuitized wealth W _{0} and a rate of time discounting of 5.00%. The value of a statistical life is 500 consumptions at 65.
In all cases, the following parameters are fixed:
Calibrations lie in Table 4.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bommier, A., Grand, F.L. Too risk averse to purchase insurance?. J Risk Uncertain 48, 135–166 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s1116601491903
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s1116601491903
Keywords
 Annuity puzzle
 Insurance demand
 Bequest
 Intergenerational transfers
 Risk aversion
 Multiplicative preferences