Mengambil pembayaran pensiun sebagai jumlah sekaligus vs. anuitas bulanan
Jika Anda bertindak
Mengambil uang sekaligus
31%
Jika Anda tidak bertindak
Mengambil anuitas bulanan
9,0%
Persentase orang yang kemudian menyesali setiap pilihan. Diagram batang dan catatan lengkap ditampilkan di bawah.
Keuangan
Terakhir ditinjau 2026-05-13
Kualitas bukti 4.38/5
Skor tinjauan delapan dimensi terhadap
rubrik kualitas
. Setiap dimensi dinilai 1–5.
D1 Verifikasi sumber
4/5
D2 Otoritas & independensi sumber
5/5
D3 Akurasi tingkat penyesalan
5/5
D4 Keterbandingan sumber
4/5
D5 Pola Gilovich
4/5
D6 Kualitas prosa
3/5
D7 Kelengkapan peringatan
5/5
D8 Kualitas sampel
5/5
Rata-rata4.38/5
Data proksi — tidak ada survei penyesalan langsung untuk keputusan ini. Tingkat diturunkan dari skor kepuasan dan data hambatan akses daripada pertanyaan yang langsung menanyakan tentang penyesalan. Lihat peringatan di bawah.
Penyesalan atas tindakan
Mengambil uang sekaligus
31%
31% penerima uang sekaligus yang melakukan pembelian besar menyesali keputusan itu
Pensiunan AS yang memilih pembayaran pensiun lump-sum (survei MetLife)
survei retrospektif, tahun bervariasi pasca-pensiun
Penyesalan atas kelambanan
Mengambil anuitas bulanan
9,0%
Penyesalan anuitas rendah dan jarang disurvei secara langsung; dalam sebuah studi AS hanya ~9% orang dewasa lanjut usia yang menyesal bergantung pada orang lain, dan jauh lebih banyak yang menyesal TIDAK memiliki penghasilan seumur hidup daripada yang menyesal memilikinya (proksi)
Pensiunan AS yang menerima pembayaran anuitas pensiun manfaat-yang-ditentukan (EBRI 2023 Retirement Confidence Survey)
survei saat ini, lintas-bagian
% menyesal dengan pilihan ini
Mengambil uang sekaligusMengambil anuitas bulanan
31%9,0%
action dominates — Bertindak mendominasi — sebagian besar menyesali karena bertindak.
Keputusan terkait
Keputusan yang serupa secara semantik — area yang sama, kompromi yang berbeda.
Membawa sengketa ke pengadilanBerdamai atau tidak menuntut secara hukum
61%92%
Ketidakaktifan mendominasi
Penyesalan tidak bertindak 1.5× lebih tinggi
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.
Sumber: tindakan
Buku besar klaim
Setiap angka di bawah ini adalah apa yang dilaporkan masing-masing sumber, dengan kutipan kata demi kata yang kami andalkan dan bagaimana kami sampai pada angka kami. Klik tautan mana saja untuk memverifikasi langsung.
1/2 sumber diverifikasi secara independen kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip
[1]PLANADVISER — Lump-Sum Spending Often Followed by Regret (MetLife Paycheck or Pot of Gold Study)
Terverifikasi
Artikel berita
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
Kutipan
“"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."
”
Data sumber dari
2017-04-11
Diakses
2026-06-30
Verifikasi
Kutipan diambil ulang secara independen dan dikonfirmasi kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip selama audit pendasaran kami.
Perhitungan
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
Studi primer
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
Kutipan
“"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."
”
Data sumber dari
2023-04-01
Diakses
2026-05-13
Perhitungan
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.
Sumber: tidak bertindak
Buku besar klaim
Setiap angka di bawah ini adalah apa yang dilaporkan masing-masing sumber, dengan kutipan kata demi kata yang kami andalkan dan bagaimana kami sampai pada angka kami. Klik tautan mana saja untuk memverifikasi langsung.
1/2 sumber diverifikasi secara independen kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip
[1]National Bureau of Economic Research / Journal of Risk and Insurance — Financial Regret at Older Ages and Longevity Awareness
Terverifikasi
↗ 1 other entry
Telaah sejawat
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
Kutipan
“"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."
”
Data sumber dari
2025-01-01
Diakses
2026-06-30
Verifikasi
Kutipan diambil ulang secara independen dan dikonfirmasi kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip selama audit pendasaran kami.
Perhitungan
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
Studi primer
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
Kutipan
“"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."
”
Data sumber dari
2023-04-01
Diakses
2026-06-30
Perhitungan
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.
Catatan
Kedua sisi TIDAK diukur pada instrumen yang sama, dan asimetri inilah temuan inti yang jujur. Sisi tindakan (uang sekaligus) berpangkal pada studi MetLife 2017 Paycheck or Pot of Gold (Harris Poll), dilaporkan di sini melalui PLANADVISER: 31% penerima uang sekaligus dengan belanja besar menyesalinya belakangan. MetLife menjual anuitas, sehingga survei mungkin terlalu memunculkan sisi buruk uang sekaligus; angka 31% adalah proporsi di antara mereka yang melakukan pembelian besar, bukan distribusi penuh penerima uang sekaligus. Sisi tidak-bertindak (anuitas) TIDAK memiliki survei penyesalan langsung sama sekali: tidak ada angka terpublikasi "X% pemegang anuitas menyesal telah menganuitisasi". Bukti terpublikasi yang ditinjau sejawat (Hurwitz & Mitchell 2025, Health and Retirement Study, N=1.764) justru berjalan sebaliknya — sekitar 26% menyesal TIDAK menganuitisasi dan hanya ~9% menyesal bergantung pada orang lain — dan survei pemilik Gallup 2022 menemukan kepuasan tinggi. Tingkat sisi tidak-bertindak (0,09) karenanya adalah PROKSI, ditetapkan rendah untuk mencerminkan bahwa penyesalan pemegang anuitas yang terdokumentasi itu kecil, bukan tingkat terukur; proxy_only ditetapkan true. Sisi buruk struktural anuitas nyata tetapi tidak disurvei-penyesalan: titik impas bergantung pada usia, tingkat diskon, dan umur panjang — seseorang yang meninggal dalam ~10–12 tahun setelah pensiun akan lebih baik secara finansial dengan uang sekaligus — dan anuitas nominal tetap kehilangan daya beli pada periode inflasi tinggi (seperti terlihat pasca-2021), sementara uang sekaligus yang diinvestasikan dapat dilindung-nilai terhadap inflasi. Pensiun terindeks/disesuaikan-COLA sebagian mengatasi ini tetapi kurang umum pada program swasta. Perlakukan selisih utama sebagai arah, bukan presisi, mengingat bukti yang tidak sepadan dan sebagian berbasis proksi.
