Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does it have a survivor benefit? And does that matter?
That’s one of the options, but my spouse would likely not need it (older than me)
I would take the single life annuity option with no beneficiary
Not sure if that's a good idea OP. I assume you are aware your spouse has to consent to that and even if they do, life is unpredictable.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does it have a survivor benefit? And does that matter?
That’s one of the options, but my spouse would likely not need it (older than me)
I would take the single life annuity option with no beneficiary
Not sure if that's a good idea OP. I assume you are aware your spouse has to consent to that and even if they do, life is unpredictable.
Anonymous wrote:If it were me, and I had a lot of other investments, I’d keep the small pension. I would then invest the monthly payments in a regular brokerage account. That way, I’d get the benefits of dollar cost averaging & I wouldn’t take a tax hit of a one time withdraw. During my retirement when the market is down, I’d use that small pension for living expenses. That way, it would give me a little time to let my investments recover.
But that’s just me. I like having investments but I also like having a little of bit of insurance for worst case scenarios.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does it have a survivor benefit? And does that matter?
That’s one of the options, but my spouse would likely not need it (older than me)
I would take the single life annuity option with no beneficiary
Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if I read that title as intended, or not.
Anonymous wrote:Does it have a survivor benefit? And does that matter?
Anonymous wrote:How much is the pension and do you get COLA? How old will you be and do you have longevity gene in your family?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m retiring soon and most of our savings are I 401k, brokerage account, Roth, etc.
I do have a very small pension from one of my first jobs. Trying to decide between taking lump sum (<100,000 k) vs small monthly payments annuitized for life. If I live to 100 (who knows?!) and take the monthly payments, I calculated that over my lifetime the amount will be ~3 x the current value.
I’m considering rolling it into my Roth IRA and taking the tax hit just so I can invest it independently.
Any thoughts about best thing to do?
Well these questions are hard and these amounts should be technically "actuarially equivalent" but "actuarial equivalence" considers a large group of people to calculate present value factors, so what is best for you....noone really knows. One rule that I know of is called the 6% rule. Take the value of your lump sum and divide it by the annualized monthly payment. If the percentage is greater than 6%, the guaranteed monthly payment is considered to be better. If not, the lump sum is considered to be better. But everyone is different. Many people like the idea of taking the LS and investing it themselves whether in a Roth or Traditional IRA. Good luck.
Anonymous wrote:I’m retiring soon and most of our savings are I 401k, brokerage account, Roth, etc.
I do have a very small pension from one of my first jobs. Trying to decide between taking lump sum (<100,000 k) vs small monthly payments annuitized for life. If I live to 100 (who knows?!) and take the monthly payments, I calculated that over my lifetime the amount will be ~3 x the current value.
I’m considering rolling it into my Roth IRA and taking the tax hit just so I can invest it independently.
Any thoughts about best thing to do?