Investing - Theory, News & General • Re: Pension "reverse life insurance"

Given that I am fairly certain I wouldn't need to rely on this pension, I am thinking that the best strategy would be for her to name our daughter as beneficiary. For some reason, even though she is far younger than us, her monthly annuity amount is not that much smaller than what mine would be.
[snip]
Of course, the goal is for mrs snic NOT to die, which of course I very much hope will happen. Since we probably do not need the pension income, it would make sense to simply wait until she is 73 and then do a lump sum transfer to an IRA.

I’m tentatively agreeing with both of your inclinations. That is, name your daughter as contingent beneficiary now. And then take the lump sum at age 73.

On the question of your daughter, I agree that the cutback for naming her as opposed to you is pretty nominal. For example, if your wife dies at 70, the daughter’s benefit of $373 per month is only a 14% cutback from your benefit of $434 per month. But, when I go to immediateannuities.com, I find that a premium of (say) $100k would purchase a monthly benefit of $549 for a 40 year old female vs $754 for a 70 year male, so a female your daughters age is cut back by 27% compared to your payout. In other words, the younger female under the plan is getting a much smaller cutback than an older male beneficiary.

I’d suggest that you track the projected lump sum every year and see if it follows the path in your message. If it comes even close to that rate of increase, then you’re likely well served by leaving it in the plan until age 73. (But if DW is diagnosed with a condition that makes it highly likely she’ll die before age 73, take the lump sum then.)

I’m also finding that the single life quotes under the plan are pretty similar to the deal that she could get from immediateannuities.com

Post back with questions.

Statistics: Posted by Stinky — Mon Aug 17, 2026 9:43 pm