Yet “[a]ll three strategies come at a cost, either in terms of loss of liquidity (annuities), retirement income security (systematic withdrawals), or fees (guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit).”

Using historical monthly returns data, the study compares the three strategies, and found that, although “conventional wisdom” bet on a guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit product strategy designed to provide a guaranteed minimum amount of lifetime income, asset liquidity, and the potential for receiving additional income from portfolio gains would outperform the other two, such is not the case. Because of the typical cost of the guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit guarantee, the data indicates that most participants would have gotten similar or better outcomes without paying for the guarantee.

A simple systematic withdrawal strategy would have subjected the retiree to substantial retirement-related risks, so although most retirees would have received the same level of annual income, have greater liquidity and leave a larger estate relative to those who bought guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit guarantees, the added risk left them exposed to unexpected and potentially catastrophic expenses.

A partial variable immediate annuity providing guaranteed income for necessities while maintaining a reserve account for supplemental needs carries its own risks, including the assumed investment return, which can change with market volatility — perhaps not for the better.

The study shows that a hybrid income strategy that combines a variable immediate annuity with discretionary supplemental withdrawals from a separate liquid asset account protects against longevity risk, provides limited asset liquidity, and offers the potential to receive additional income from portfolio gains. Thus the hybrid strategy provides the best mixture of income generation, risk management, and estate potential for the majority of participants.