Rentenauszahlung als Einmalbetrag vs. als monatliche Rente
Wenn du handelst
Einmalzahlung nehmen
31%
Wenn du nicht handelst
Monatliche Rente nehmen
9,0%
Anteil derer, die jede Entscheidung später bereuen. Balken und vollständige Datengrundlage erscheinen unten.
Finanzen
Zuletzt überprüft 2026-05-13
Evidenzqualität 4.38/5
Bewertungsergebnis nach acht Dimensionen gemäß der
Qualitätsrubrik
. Jede Dimension wird mit 1–5 bewertet.
D1 Quellenüberprüfung
4/5
D2 Quellenautorität & Unabhängigkeit
5/5
D3 Genauigkeit der Bedauernsrate
5/5
D4 Vergleichbarkeit der Quellen
4/5
D5 Gilovich-Muster
4/5
D6 Prosaqualität
3/5
D7 Vollständigkeit der Einschränkungen
5/5
D8 Stichprobenqualität
5/5
Durchschnitt4.38/5
Stellvertretende Daten — für diese Entscheidung gibt es keine direkte Bedauernsstudie. Die Raten basieren auf Zufriedenheitsbewertungen und Zugangshindernissen statt auf direkten Bedauernsfragen. Siehe Vorbehalte unten.
Reue fürs Handeln
Einmalzahlung nehmen
31%
31 % der Empfänger einer Einmalzahlung, die größere Anschaffungen getätigt haben, bereuen die Entscheidung
US-Rentner, die eine Einmalzahlung der Rente wählten (MetLife Paycheck or Pot of Gold-Umfrage)
retrospektive Umfrage, variable Jahre nach Ruhestand
Reue fürs Unterlassen
Monatliche Rente nehmen
9,0%
Das Bedauern über eine Rente ist gering und wird selten direkt erhoben; in einer US-Studie bereuten nur ~9 % der älteren Erwachsenen, sich auf andere verlassen zu haben, und weit mehr bereuen, KEIN lebenslanges Einkommen zu haben, als es zu haben (Proxy)
US-Rentner, die leistungsorientierte Rentenzahlungen erhalten (EBRI 2023 Retirement Confidence Survey)
aktuelle Umfrage, Querschnitt
% bereuen diese Entscheidung
Einmalzahlung nehmenMonatliche Rente nehmen
31%9,0%
action dominates — Handeln dominiert — die meisten bereuen ihr Handeln.
Verwandte Entscheidungen
Semantisch ähnliche Entscheidungen — gleiches Terrain, andere Abwägungen.
Den Streit vor Gericht bringenSich vergleichen oder keine Klage erheben
61%92%
Untätigkeit überwiegt
Reue über Untätigkeit 1.5× höher
The lump-sum vs. annuity decision is one of the most consequential and irreversible financial choices a retiree faces, and the evidence is lopsided in a way the surveys rarely state plainly: lump-sum regret is measured and substantial, while annuity regret is barely surveyed at all. MetLife’s 2017 Paycheck or Pot of Gold Study (conducted by Harris Poll, reported by PLANADVISER) found that 31% of lump-sum recipients who made major purchases regretted the spending in hindsight, 21% of all lump-sum recipients said they had depleted the payout in an average of five and a half years, and 52% conceded an annuity would have made their budget more predictable. There is no comparable survey of annuity holders regretting their annuity. The closest peer-reviewed evidence — Hurwitz and Mitchell’s 2025 Health and Retirement Study experiment (N=1,764) — runs the other way: about 26% of older adults regretted NOT annuitizing and only ~9% regretted depending on others, and informing people of their objective survival odds raised regret about not buying lifetime income by 42%. Gallup’s 2022 survey of individual annuity owners likewise finds high satisfaction. The annuity-side rate shown here (9%) is therefore a low proxy, not a measured annuity-holder regret rate.
The failure modes are structurally different. Lump-sum regret is primarily behavioural: the money was spent faster than expected, often on large discretionary purchases, gifts to family members, or home improvements, leaving retirees without a reliable income floor later in retirement. Annuity regret is primarily structural: the income is guaranteed but inflexible, does not pass to heirs on the holder’s death, and carries longevity risk on the wrong side — an individual who dies within 10 to 12 years of beginning payments will typically have received less in total than the lump-sum equivalent. Post-2021 inflation highlighted a further structural weakness: fixed nominal annuities erode in purchasing power during inflationary periods, while invested lump sums can be inflation-hedged. EBRI’s Retirement Confidence Survey data shows that retirees with guaranteed income sources report higher retirement confidence and lower financial stress than those relying on account drawdowns — which is why the annuity choice, despite its structural downsides, is not associated with a high measured regret rate.
The action-dominates classification reflects that the only directly measured regret here is on the lump-sum side (about 31% among major spenders), while the annuity side has no comparable direct-regret survey and the related evidence points to low regret — so the headline gap (roughly 22 percentage points) should be read as directional rather than precise, since the two sides rest on different and partly proxy-based instruments. The meta-lesson from both bodies of data is that the decision becomes high-regret when made without modelling the specific failure scenario most relevant to the individual. For people with poor spending discipline, limited other assets, or high concern about outliving savings, the annuity more reliably avoids regret. For people with strong estate-planning motives, high likelihood of early mortality, or other reliable income streams, the lump sum avoids the annuity’s inflexibility regret. No single answer dominates across all personal circumstances.
Quellen: Handeln
Quellenregister
Jede Zahl unten ist das, was die jeweilige Quelle berichtet hat — mit dem wörtlichen Zitat, auf das wir uns stützen, und wie wir zu unserer Zahl gelangt sind. Klicke auf einen Link, um direkt zu prüfen.
1/2 Quellen unabhängig wortwörtlich mit der zitierten Quelle abgeglichen
[1]PLANADVISER — Lump-Sum Spending Often Followed by Regret (MetLife Paycheck or Pot of Gold Study)
Verifiziert
Nachrichtenartikel
31% of lump-sum recipients with major spending regret it in hindsight; 21% who took a lump sum say they depleted it in five and a half years on average; 52% concede an annuity would have made their budget more predictable; 23% who gave money away regret it
Auszug
“"Roughly one-third (31%) of those with major spending regret their spending in hindsight. A striking 21% of all participants who selected a lump sum at some point say they depleted it—taking just five and a half years on average to spend the dough. Fifty-two percent of participants who chose a lump sum concede that, if they had taken an annuity, their budget would be more predictable. 23% who gave money away lament their generosity."
”
Quelldaten von
2017-04-11
Abgerufen
2026-06-30
Verifizierung
Der Auszug wurde bei unserer Grounding-Prüfung unabhängig erneut abgerufen und Wort für Wort mit der zitierten Quelle abgeglichen.
Berechnung
Trade-press coverage (PLANADVISER, 11 Apr 2017) of MetLife's 2017 Paycheck or Pot of Gold Study, an online survey of ~1,000 US defined-benefit and defined-contribution plan participants conducted by The Harris Poll for MetLife. The 31% action-side regret rate is the share of lump-sum recipients with major spending who regret it in hindsight; the 21% depletion-in-5.5-years and 52% budget-predictability figures are supporting indicators. MetLife is a financial services company with a commercial interest in annuity products, so the survey may be biased toward surfacing lump-sum downsides; the EBRI source below corroborates the direction. Replaces a dead MetLife survey URL whose page now serves only the 2026 study edition (different figures: ~4.4-year depletion). Classified news_article; the EBRI primary_study on this side carries the authoritative weight.
[2]Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) — 2023 Retirement Confidence Survey Short Report
Primärstudie
Retirees who did not have guaranteed income sources (annuities, pensions) reported significantly lower retirement confidence and higher financial stress than those with monthly income guarantees
Auszug
“"The 2023 Retirement Confidence Survey found that retirees with guaranteed income sources — including annuities and defined-benefit pensions — reported significantly higher retirement confidence and lower financial stress than those relying primarily on defined-contribution account drawdowns. Among retirees without any guaranteed income, concern about outliving savings was the leading source of financial anxiety, reported by a majority of respondents. Retirees who had converted retirement savings to guaranteed income streams reported substantially fewer concerns about day-to-day budgeting."
”
Quelldaten von
2023-04-01
Abgerufen
2026-05-13
Berechnung
EBRI 2023 Retirement Confidence Survey — annual nationally representative survey of US workers and retirees. Used as corroborating context for the lump-sum regret finding: the absence of guaranteed income (the consequence of taking a lump sum and spending it) is associated with significantly higher retirement financial stress. Does not directly measure lump-sum regret; supports the direction of the MetLife finding.
Quellen: Nichthandeln
Quellenregister
Jede Zahl unten ist das, was die jeweilige Quelle berichtet hat — mit dem wörtlichen Zitat, auf das wir uns stützen, und wie wir zu unserer Zahl gelangt sind. Klicke auf einen Link, um direkt zu prüfen.
1/2 Quellen unabhängig wortwörtlich mit der zitierten Quelle abgeglichen
[1]National Bureau of Economic Research / Journal of Risk and Insurance — Financial Regret at Older Ages and Longevity Awareness
Verifiziert
↗ 1 other entry
Peer-Review
In a Health and Retirement Study experiment (N=1,764, age 50+), regret about retirement finances ran toward NOT securing lifetime income: informing people of objective survival odds raised regret about not buying lifetime income by 42%; 26% regretted not annuitizing while only 9% regretted depending on others — there is no comparable survey of annuity holders regretting having annuitized
Auszug
“"Many older people express regret about undersaving; here, we extend prior work by reporting regret about five other critical financial topics. Using the Health and Retirement Study, we first show that older people who regret past financial decisions differ significantly from those who do not. Second, in an experiment, we demonstrate that informing people about objective survival probabilities increases regret about not buying lifetime income by 42% overall, and by more among the high income or those in good health."
”
Quelldaten von
2025-01-01
Abgerufen
2026-06-30
Verifizierung
Der Auszug wurde bei unserer Grounding-Prüfung unabhängig erneut abgerufen und Wort für Wort mit der zitierten Quelle abgeglichen.
Berechnung
Hurwitz & Mitchell (NBER WP 30696, 2022; published Journal of Risk and Insurance, 2025), a randomised experiment embedded in the Health and Retirement Study, N=1,764 US respondents age 50+. The paper's per-topic regret tallies run the opposite direction from an "annuity regret" rate: roughly 52% regretted undersaving, ~26% regretted NOT annuitizing, 19% regretted claiming Social Security early, and only ~9% regretted depending on others. No published survey directly measures the share of annuity holders who regret having annuitized; Gallup's 2022 survey of individual annuity owners instead finds high satisfaction (most still hold the contract, citing peace of mind). The inaction-side rate is therefore a PROXY (proxy_only: true): it is set low (0.09) to reflect that documented direct annuity-holder regret is small and runs counter to the lump-sum side, not a measured "X% of annuitants regret it" figure. Replaces a fabricated EBRI 27%/73% liquidity-regret statistic that does not appear in the 2023 Retirement Confidence Survey.
[2]Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) — 2023 Retirement Confidence Survey Short Report
Primärstudie
EBRI's Retirement Confidence Survey finds retirees with guaranteed income (annuities, defined-benefit pensions) report higher retirement confidence and lower financial stress than those relying on account drawdowns — i.e. the annuity choice tends to reduce, not generate, the headline regret vector
Auszug
“"Retirement confidence is closely tied to expectations of guaranteed income. Retirees who have a defined benefit or traditional pension plan are far more likely to feel confident about various aspects of retirement than those who do not, and they are more likely to report being able to live the kind of life they want in retirement."
”
Quelldaten von
2023-04-01
Abgerufen
2026-06-30
Berechnung
EBRI 2023 Retirement Confidence Survey (annual, nationally representative survey of US workers and retirees). Used as corroborating context for the LOW inaction-side proxy rate: guaranteed income (the consequence of taking the annuity) is associated with higher confidence and lower financial stress, the opposite of a high regret signal. EBRI is an independent non-partisan research organisation with no commercial stake in annuity products. Does not contain any annuity-holder liquidity-regret prevalence figure; the prior fabricated 27%/73% statistic has been removed.
Einschränkungen
The two sides are NOT measured on a common instrument, and the asymmetry is the honest core finding. The action (lump-sum) side rests on MetLife's 2017 Paycheck or Pot of Gold Study (Harris Poll), reported here via PLANADVISER: 31% of lump-sum recipients with major spending regret it in hindsight. MetLife sells annuities, so the survey may over-surface lump-sum downsides; the 31% is the share among those who made major purchases, not the full distribution of lump-sum recipients. The inaction (annuity) side has NO direct regret survey at all: there is no published "X% of annuity holders regret having annuitized" figure. The available peer-reviewed evidence (Hurwitz & Mitchell 2025, Health and Retirement Study, N=1,764) runs the other way — about 26% regret NOT annuitizing and only ~9% regret depending on others — and Gallup's 2022 owner survey finds high satisfaction. The inaction rate (0.09) is therefore a PROXY, set low to reflect that documented annuity-holder regret is small, not a measured rate; proxy_only is set true. The structural annuity downsides are real but not regret-surveyed: breakeven depends on age, discount rate and longevity — someone who dies within ~10–12 years of retirement would have done better financially with the lump sum — and fixed nominal annuities lose purchasing power in high-inflation periods (as seen post-2021), while invested lump sums can be inflation-hedged. Indexed/COLA-adjusted pensions partially address this but are less common in private plans. Treat the headline delta as directional, not precise, given the mismatched and partly proxy-based evidence.
