Pensions vs standard saving accounts.

[Churchill]

It will be called Luvly.

It'd be a ******* retard!

[MrRobin]

Because I've always thought all pensions are annuities. Thus you may save 20 years but then you can't be certain how long you are going to live , thus you might have saved more than you will be able to enjoy.

Yes, but equally you might enjoy more than you've saved...??

[Churchill]

Yes, but equally you might enjoy more than you've saved...??

That's the gamble!!!!

Roll-up Roll-up!!! You pays yer money, you takes your chance!
(And the city wide-boys make a crust either way!)

[Likely]

Yes, but equally you might enjoy more than you've saved...??

That's true but , I don't plan living in my 80ies with 2 bags of peanuts per week.

I'd rather have the option to spend it at once , live few years like a GOD ( yachting with women ) and then

[DimPrawn]

That's true but , I don't plan living in my 80ies with 2 bags of peanuts per week.

I'd rather have the option to spend it at once , live few years like a GOD ( yachting with women ) and then

Two bags of peanuts!!!

That must be a final salary pension then.

[IR35 Avoider]

Because I've always thought all pensions are annuities. Thus you may save 20 years but then you can't be certain how long you are going to live , thus you might have saved more than you will be able to enjoy.

You've half-understood the issue, but come to the conclusion that's the opposite of the truth. If you don't have an annuity, then you either run out of money before you die, or waste (leave unspent) money by dying before you can spend it. An annuity ensures (in a probablistic sense) that you spend your last pound on the day you die.

For the usual annuity skeptics: I've just finished reading a very interesting article which explains how investing money in volatile assets (shares) to fund regular income needs leads to three different kinds of waste.

http://www.stanford.edu/~wfsharpe/retecon/4percent.pdf