Restoring lifetime income to retirement plans as the default

This piece is part of a collection of retirement policy proposals launched at the September 30, 2026 event, “ The next generation of reforms to the retirement saving system “.

本文是 2026 年 9 月 30 日“下一代退休储蓄制度改革”活动中推出的一系列退休政策提案的一部分。

You can view the entire collection here .

您可以在此处查看整个集合。

Millions of Americans fear outliving their savings in retirement, and millions likely will.

数以百万计的美国人担心自己的退休储蓄会花光，而且数百万人很可能会这么做。

This insecurity arises in part because few retirees now receive guaranteed lifetime income beyond their Social Security payments, as traditional defined benefit (DB) pensions paying benefits for life have declined.

造成这种不安全感的部分原因是，随着支付终身福利的传统固定福利（DB）养老金已经下降，现在很少有退休人员能够获得超出其社会保障金的终身保证收入。

Instead, retirement security in the United States now primarily depends on defined contribution (DC) plans that accumulate assets but which require participants to determine how much to save, how to invest, and when and how to withdraw their funds, responsibilities for which many are unprepared.

相反，美国的退休保障现在主要依赖于固定缴款（DC）计划，该计划积累资产，但要求参与者决定储蓄多少、如何投资、何时以及如何提取资金，而许多人对此并没有准备好承担责任。

To address such dilemmas, most DC plans today have autoenrollment and a default investment option, typically a target date fund (TDF).

为了解决这种困境，目前大多数 DC 计划都提供自动注册和默认投资选项，通常是目标日期基金 (TDF)。

As a result, although participants may select an alternative, most employees are heavily or entirely invested in TDFs.

因此，尽管参与者可能会选择替代方案，但大多数员工都会大量或全部投资于 TDF。

Nevertheless, most DC plans do not provide a default when employees retire.

然而，大多数 DC 计划在员工退休时不提供违约金。

Instead, individuals must choose between lump sum payments, systematic withdrawals, or rollovers into Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs).

相反，个人必须在一次性付款、系统提款或转入个人退休账户 (IRA) 之间进行选择。

From then on, they must manage complex decisions about how much to withdraw each year, how to invest remaining balances, and how to ensure that their assets last for life.

从那时起，他们必须管理复杂的决策，包括每年提取多少资金、如何投资剩余余额以及如何确保其资产终生可用。

Making these decisions requires individuals to navigate longevity risk, uncertain investment returns, inflation, healthcare expenses, and tax rules, all of which are complex considerations that often challenge even sophisticated households.

做出这些决定需要个人应对长寿风险、不确定的投资回报、通货膨胀、医疗保健费用和税收规则，所有这些都是复杂的考虑因素，即使是经验丰富的家庭也常常面临挑战。

Policymakers and retirement experts have long proposed that at least a portion of workers’ DC retirement accounts be converted into guaranteed lifetime income streams.

政策制定者和退休专家长期以来一直建议将工人的 DC 退休账户中的至少一部分转换为有保障的终身收入流。

There have been repeated federal legislative and executive branch efforts to achieve this, starting in 2006 and as recently as March 2026.

从 2006 年开始到最近的 2026 年 3 月，联邦立法和行政部门不断努力实现这一目标。

Nevertheless, these initiatives have gained little traction in practice.

然而，这些举措在实践中却收效甚微。

Although DC plans can legally offer lifetime income payout options, only about 10% do so (LIMRA 2023).

尽管 DC 计划可以合法地提供终身收入支付选项，但只有约 10% 的人这样做 (LIMRA 2023)。

Even when annuities or other guaranteed income products are available, participation rates are typically modest: in a recent study of TIAA plans, reported that 18% of retiring participants made that choice.

即使有年金或其他保证收入产品，参与率通常也很低：在最近的一项 TIAA 计划研究中，报告称 18% 的退休参与者做出了这一选择。

As Figure 1 shows, the private annuity component of total retiree income remains small.

如图 1 所示，私人年金占退休人员总收入的比例仍然很小。

We propose to restore lifetime income in retirement by establishing partial annuitization as the automatic payout default in DC plans, while preserving retirees’ ability to adjust their annuity levels or opt out entirely.

我们建议通过将部分年金化作为 DC 计划中的自动付款默认项来恢复退休后的终生收入，同时保留退休人员调整年金水平或完全选择退出的能力。

We would implement this by including what we call “Pretty Good Lifetime Income” (PGLI) as a Qualified Default Investment Alternative (QDIA) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

我们将通过将“相当不错的终身收入”(PGLI) 作为《员工退休收入保障法案》(ERISA) 下的合格默认投资选择 (QDIA) 来实现这一目标。

Just as automatic enrollment has transformed participation rates, embedding lifetime income in the payout default would strengthen retirement security while maintaining flexibility.

正如自动登记改变了参与率一样，将终生收入纳入默认付款将增强退休保障，同时保持灵活性。

This approach would provide retirees with a stable stream of income in addition to their social security benefits, while preserving remaining assets to cover discretionary spending, unexpected expenses, or bequests.

这种方法将为退休人员提供除了社会保障福利之外的稳定收入来源，同时保留剩余资产以支付可自由支配的支出、意外开支或遗赠。

In what follows, we outline the significance of this reform, how it could improve retirement security millions, the challenges that must be addressed, and the steps that policymakers could take to support its adoption.

接下来，我们概述了这项改革的重要性、它如何改善数百万人的退休保障、必须解决的挑战以及政策制定者可以采取的支持改革的步骤。

As noted above, the fear of running out of money in retirement is pervasive.

如上所述，人们普遍担心退休后钱花光。

Gallup reports that exhausting retirement savings has ranked as the number one (or tied for first) financial concern every year since its surveys began in 2001 (Jones 2025; Saad 2023).

盖洛普报告称，自 2001 年开始调查以来，退休储蓄耗尽每年都被列为头号（或并列第一）的财务问题（Jones 2025；Saad 2023）。

This concern is well grounded, since even after accounting for social security benefits, Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) simulations project that approximately 40% of retirees will deplete their financial assets while they are still alive (Copeland 2024).

这种担忧是有根据的，因为即使在考虑了社会保障福利后，员工福利研究所 (EBRI) 的模拟预测，大约 40% 的退休人员将在生前耗尽其金融资产（Copeland 2024）。

The outlook is further complicated by uncertainty surrounding the future of the Social Security program.

由于社会保障计划未来的不确定性，前景变得更加复杂。

Projections indicate that benefits could be reduced by around one-quarter within the next six years, absent legislative action (CRFB 2025).

预测表明，如果不采取立法行动，未来六年内福利可能会减少约四分之一（CRFB 2025）。

Longevity risk, market volatility, and policy uncertainty together create a retirement environment marked by significant financial vulnerability (Yin et al.

长寿风险、市场波动和政策不确定性共同创造了一个具有严重财务脆弱性的退休环境（Yin 等，2017）。

2024).

2024）。

Survey and behavioral evidence consistently shows that retirees value steady and predictable payments that last for life (e.g., EBRI 2025).

调查和行为证据一致表明，退休人员重视持续一生的稳定且可预测的付款（例如 EBRI 2025）。

In one study, Panis (2004) showed that retirees who received annuity income were more secure than those with comparable wealth but who lacked lifetime benefits.

Panis（2004）在一项研究中表明，获得年金收入的退休人员比那些拥有相当财富但缺乏终身福利的退休人员更有保障。

Nevertheless, actual annuity uptake remains modest.

尽管如此，实际年金的吸收率仍然不大。

Although many people report that they would value guaranteed lifetime income in retirement, few voluntarily purchase annuities (Arapakis & Wettstein 2024).

尽管许多人表示他们重视退休后终身收入的保障，但很少有人自愿购买年金（Arapakis & Wettstein 2024）。

This disconnect between stated preferences and observed behavior has been well documented in academic literature (c.f., Benartzi et al.

这种陈述偏好与观察到的行为之间的脱节已在学术文献中得到充分记录（参见 Benartzi 等人，2014）。

2011).

2011）。

Regret at not having done so is also common: around a quarter of current retirees wish they had secured lifetime income when they had the opportunity to do so (Hurwitz & Mitchell 2025).

后悔没有这样做也很常见：大约四分之一的当前退休人员希望他们在有机会时能够获得终生收入（Hurwitz & Mitchell 2025）。

This suggests that many retirees recognize their value in hindsight, even if annuities are frequently declined at retirement.

这表明许多退休人员事后认识到自己的价值，即使退休时年金经常减少。

Employers face several barriers to offering annuity options, and when they are available, participants also face challenges when selecting them.

雇主在提供年金选项时面临一些障碍，当有这些选项时，参与者在选择它们时也会面临挑战。

Employer reluctance to offer lifetime income options: Employers have been unenthusiastic about including lifetime income products in retirement plans.

雇主不愿提供终身收入选择：雇主对于将终身收入产品纳入退休计划并不热心。

In part, this arises because doing so can create fiduciary exposure if an insurance provider were to fail years after participants retire or from litigation over the reasonableness of the commercial terms.

出现这种情况的部分原因是，如果保险公司在参与者退休数年后倒闭或因商业条款合理性的诉讼而倒闭，这样做可能会造成信托风险。

.

。

Given such risks and constraints, along with low participant uptake when such options are offered, most employers have concluded that avoiding such options is the prudent course.

考虑到此类风险和限制，以及提供此类选项时参与者的参与度较低，大多数雇主得出的结论是，避免此类选项是谨慎的做法。

Individuals’ reluctance to choose lifetime income options: Even when available, individuals tend to decline annuities for a range of reasons.

个人不愿选择终生收入选择：即使有可用的年金，个人也往往会出于多种原因拒绝年金。

For some, Social Security benefits may appear sufficient to meet basic needs.

对于某些人来说，社会保障福利似乎足以满足基本需求。

Others resist the perceived loss of control associated with annuitization, preferring instead to retain liquidity so they can address unexpected expenses and preserve funds for heirs.

其他人则抵制与年金化相关的明显的控制权丧失，而是更愿意保留流动性，这样他们就可以解决意外开支并为继承人保留资金。

Concerns about sales practices, commissions, and pricing also play a role.

对销售行为、佣金和定价的担忧也起到了一定作用。

Competition from financial advisers, who may prefer that retirees keep assets under management, can further dampen demand (Finke et al.

来自财务顾问的竞争可能会进一步抑制需求（芬克等人，他们可能更喜欢退休人员管理资产）。

2011; Mullainathan et al.

2011；穆莱纳森等人。

2012).

2012）。

Adverse selection also raises costs, as individuals with longer expected lifespans are more likely to purchase coverage.

逆向选择也会增加成本，因为预期寿命较长的人更有可能购买保险。

Some of these factors reflect behavioral biases and cognitive limitations.

其中一些因素反映了行为偏差和认知局限性。

Research shows that individuals approaching retirement often underestimate their life expectancy and, as a result, undervalue the protection offered by guaranteed lifetime income (O’Dea & Sturrock 2019).

研究表明，临近退休的个人往往会低估自己的预期寿命，从而低估终生收入保证所提供的保护（O’Dea & Sturrock 2019）。

The complexity of annuity products and payout decisions further deters participation, as many retirees are unwilling or unable to navigate the associated tradeoffs (b).

年金产品和支付决策的复杂性进一步阻碍了参与，因为许多退休人员不愿意或无法进行相关的权衡（b）。

Attempts to increase lifetime income: Over the years, U.S. policymakers have undertaken multiple efforts to increase annuity use.

尝试增加终生收入：多年来，美国政策制定者采取了多种措施来增加年金的使用。

At several points, regulatory “safe harbors” have been established to reduce employer concerns about fiduciary liability and potential litigation, and another has recently been proposed (US DOL 2026).

在一些方面，监管“安全港”已经建立，以减少雇主对信托责任和潜在诉讼的担忧，最近还提出了另一个“安全港”（US DOL 2026）。

Policy and industry leaders have also introduced enhanced disclosures, expanded financial education initiatives, redesigned products and new default structures, and made regulatory changes, all intended to make lifetime income options more accessible and appealing.

政策和行业领导者还加强了信息披露，扩大了金融教育计划，重新设计了产品和新的默认结构，并进行了监管改革，所有这些都是为了使终身收入选择更容易获得和更具吸引力。

Nevertheless, these efforts have not meaningfully increased overall annuitization rates (Brown & Warshawsky 2004; Benartzi et al.

然而，这些努力并没有显着提高总体年金化率（Brown & Warshawsky 2004；Benartzi 等，2004）。

2011; Goda et al.

2011；戈达等人。

2026).

2026）。

The persistent gap between retirees’ fear of and exposure to longevity risk, and their limited adoption of lifetime income solutions, underscores the need for a more effective structural response.

退休人员对长寿风险的恐惧和暴露与他们对终身收入解决方案的有限采用之间持续存在的差距，凸显了采取更有效的结构性应对措施的必要性。

Default partial annuitization at retirement: We recommend establishing the “Pretty Good Lifetime Income” approach as the default payout option for DC plans.

退休时默认部分年金：我们建议建立“相当不错的终身收入”方法作为 DC 计划的默认支付选项。

Following Horneff et al.

继霍内夫等人之后。

(2025), under this method, retirees whose account balances exceed a specified threshold would be automatically enrolled in a lifetime income annuity covering a portion of retirement plan assets.

（2025），根据这种方法，账户余额超过指定阈值的退休人员将自动参加终身收入年金，涵盖退休计划资产的一部分。

This form of partial annuitization would enhance retirement security and overall wellbeing for a broad range of retirees, while limiting potential harm to those for whom annuitization is less advantageous.

这种形式的部分年金化将增强广大退休人员的退休保障和整体福祉，同时限制对那些年金化不太有利的人的潜在伤害。

Retirees would retain the ability to reduce or decline annuitization entirely.

退休人员将保留完全减少或拒绝年金的能力。

In this setting, a fixed percentage (e.g., 20-25%) of the retiree’s DC assets above a specified threshold would automatically be converted into a lifetime annuity.

在此设置中，退休人员的 DC 资产中高于指定阈值的固定百分比（例如 20-25%）将自动转换为终身年金。

1 At retirement and for six months thereafter, individuals could opt out entirely, elect a higher or lower level of lifetime income payments (subject to available balances), or choose a deferred annuity rather than one starting immediately.

1 退休时及退休后六个月内，个人可以选择完全退出，选择更高或更低水平的终生收入支付（取决于可用余额），或选择延期年金而不是立即开始。

The default would function as a structured starting point, providing a unique and timely opportunity for education rather than a required outcome.

默认设置将作为一个结构化的起点，为教育提供独特且及时的机会，而不是所需的结果。

Participant protections: Limitations on the scope of employers’ fiduciary obligations means that participants must be protected in other ways via oversight and regulation by other institutions.

参与者保护：雇主信托义务范围的限制意味着参与者必须通过其他机构的监督和监管以其他方式受到保护。

Participants must be protected from excessive fees, from potential failures of insurers, and from misrepresentation of the complexities in even the most “straightforward” lifetime income product.

必须保护参与者免受过高的费用、保险公司潜在的失败以及即使是最“直接”的终身收入产品的复杂性的歪曲。

Fortunately, there are ample, well-established means and institutions to do so.

幸运的是，有充足、完善的手段和机构可以做到这一点。

Participants would be protected through a combination of strengthened requirements for annuity providers, open competition procurement requirements, and explicit fee limits.

参与者将通过加强对年金提供者的要求、公开竞争采购要求和明确的费用限制相结合来受到保护。

Default PGLIs would be selected through a competitive bidding process among well-established multistate insurers in good standing with state regulators.

默认 PGLI 将通过在州监管机构中信誉良好的成熟跨国保险公司之间的竞争性招标程序来选择。

Contracts would also be subject to fee caps and/or minimum payout standards established by the U.S. Departments of Labor and Treasury.

合同还须遵守美国劳工部和财政部制定的费用上限和/或最低支付标准。

2 In addition, retirees would have a six-month trial period during which they could withdraw without penalties, as contemplated in the bipartisan Norcross-Walberg Lifetime Income for Employees (LIFE) Act of 2023 (H.R.

2 此外，根据 2023 年两党《诺克罗斯-沃尔伯格雇员终身收入 (LIFE) 法案》(H.R.

3942).

第3942章）

Before retiring, workers would be presented with clear alternatives, including the ability to opt out entirely, elect a higher or lower payout level, or choose a different guaranteed income option.

在退休之前，工人将获得明确的选择，包括完全选择退出、选择更高或更低的支付水平或选择不同的保证收入选项。

Disclosure requirements, specified by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and building on the existing l framework (USDOL 2020), would ensure that participants receive detailed explanations before retirement, when they are most likely to engage with these decisions.

美国劳工部 (DOL) 规定并以现有框架 (USDOL 2020) 为基础的披露要求将确保参与者在退休前收到详细的解释，因为此时他们最有可能参与这些决策。

Government, not employer, oversight: Rather than relying on employers, responsibility for determining eligibility and compliance would rest with providers, their regulators, and the U.S. Departments of Labor and the Treasury, institutions that already have these responsibilities and/or are easily capable of assuming them.

政府而非雇主的监督：确定资格和合规性的责任不是依赖于雇主，而是由提供者、其监管机构以及美国劳工部和财政部以及已经承担这些责任和/或很容易能够承担这些责任的机构承担。

It may be necessary for the federal government to certify products or, alternatively, to establish a framework under which providers certify compliance.

联邦政府可能有必要对产品进行认证，或者建立一个供提供商证明合规性的框架。

Providers would also be required to be in good standing with state regulators, perhaps across multiple states.

提供商还需要在州监管机构（可能跨多个州）中保持良好的信誉。

Plans incorporating a certified PGLI default would be shielded from employer fiduciary liability as a QDIA determined by the DOL.

包含经过认证的 PGLI 违约的计划将免受雇主信托责任的影响，这是由劳工部确定的 QDIA。

Benefits: The benefits of adopting PGLIs as the default would be substantial.

好处：采用 PGLI 作为默认设置的好处将是巨大的。

Millions of retirees could benefit from more lifetime income, stronger consumer protections, and access to institutional pricing far below that of retail annuity products.

数百万退休人员可以受益于更多的终生收入、更强有力的消费者保护以及远低于零售年金产品的机构定价。

This approach would reduce exposure to longevity risk and market volatility while strengthening retirement security.

这种方法将减少长寿风险和市场波动，同时加强退休保障。

Because PGLIs would be widely used as a default rather than individually marketed retail products, adverse selection would be significantly reduced.

由于 PGLI 将被广泛用作默认产品，而不是单独销售的零售产品，因此逆向选择将显着减少。

The structure would not depend on high-pressure or high-commission sales practices, thereby lowering costs.

该结构不会依赖于高压或高佣金的销售做法，从而降低了成本。

For most participants, access to realistic, low-fee PGLI would improve welfare and reduce anxiety in retirement.

对于大多数参与者来说，获得现实的、低费用的 PGLI 将改善福利并减少退休焦虑。

Research indicates that retirees with lifetime income experience less anxiety about running out of money and are able to spend more comfortably in retirement, enhancing overall wellbeing (Horneff et al.

研究表明，拥有终生收入的退休人员对资金用完的焦虑较少，并且能够在退休后更舒适地消费，从而提高整体福祉（Horneff 等，2017）。

2025).

2025）。

Using a derived from Blanchett & Finke (2025), Goda et al.

使用来自 Blanchett & Finke (2025) 的衍生，Goda 等人。

(2026) have calculated that partial annuitization could permit the baby boomer generation to spend an additional $27 billion per year during their retirement.

（2026）计算出部分年金化可以让婴儿潮一代在退休期间每年额外支出 270 亿美元。

Several counterarguments merit attention.

有几个反驳值得关注。

Concerns about lock-in and reduced flexibility are addressed by preserving meaningful choice, including the right to opt out or modify payout levels within the trial period.

通过保留有意义的选择来解决对锁定和灵活性降低的担忧，包括在试用期内选择退出或修改支付水平的权利。

Concerns about liquidity are mitigated by limiting annuitization to a partial share of assets above a threshold.

通过将年金化限制在高于阈值的部分资产份额，可以减轻对流动性的担忧。

Buyer’s remorse has been discussed in the literature (Brown et al.

买家的悔恨已在文献中讨论过（Brown 等人，2017）。

2011) and could be addressed by requiring a six-month trial period.

2011）并且可以通过要求六个月的试用期来解决。

Finally, while most U.S. annuities are not inflation indexed, neither are equities or nominal bonds.

最后，虽然大多数美国年金都没有与通胀指数挂钩，但股票或名义债券也不是。

Partial annuitization can be incorporated within a diversified portfolio that includes assets with inflation-hedging potential.

部分年金化可以纳入多元化投资组合，其中包括具有对冲通胀潜力的资产。

In sum, the PGLI proposal offers a balanced and flexible default that uses institutional plan design to deliver lifetime income efficiently and at low cost.

总而言之，PGLI 提案提供了一种平衡且灵活的默认设置，利用机构计划设计以高效且低成本的方式提供终生收入。

By combining partial annuitization, competitive procurement, strong consumer protections, and clear opt-out rights, it would improve retirement outcomes for most participants while preserving flexibility and liquidity where it matters most.

通过结合部分年金化、竞争性采购、强有力的消费者保护和明确的选择退出权，它将改善大多数参与者的退休成果，同时在最重要的方面保持灵活性和流动性。

Past efforts to expand use of lifetime income have faltered, in part, because success requires coordination among multiple stakeholders: participants, plan sponsors, investment firms, federal and state agencies, and Congress.

过去扩大终生收入使用的努力已经步履蹒跚，部分原因是成功需要多个利益相关者之间的协调：参与者、计划发起人、投资公司、联邦和州机构以及国会。

Permitting employers to incorporate annuity products into DC plans will have little effect unless employers’ fears of liability can be assuaged and sufficient demand exists for financial firms to integrate them into target date offerings.

允许雇主将年金产品纳入 DC 计划的效果不大，除非雇主对责任的担忧能够得到缓解，并且金融公司有足够的需求将年金产品纳入目标日期产品中。

Embedding partial annuitization in the default addresses this coordination problem by creating scale, reducing adverse selection, eliminating sales commissions, and lowering fees.

在违约中嵌入部分年金可以通过扩大规模、减少逆向选择、消除销售佣金和降低费用来解决这一协调问题。

Implementation of our proposal would likely proceed in stages.

我们的建议的实施可能会分阶段进行。

The initial phase would focus on establishing clear and robust participant protections for PGLIs, followed by DOL permitting their voluntary adoption as another QDIA by employers without further liability.

初始阶段的重点是为 PGLI 建立明确而强有力的参与者保护，随后劳工部允许雇主自愿采用它们作为另一个 QDIA，而无需承担进一步责任。

This stage should be evaluated carefully.

这个阶段应该仔细评估。

As evidence accumulates, policymakers could then assess whether broader adoption is warranted.

随着证据的积累，政策制定者可以评估是否有必要更广泛地采用。

Federal support is essential, either through bipartisan legislation or through administrative action under the DOL’s existing regulatory authority.

联邦政府的支持至关重要，无论是通过两党立法还是通过劳工部现有监管机构的行政行动。

This could be accomplished with legislation such as the bipartisan Mich.).

这可以通过立法来实现，例如两党密歇根州法案。）。

This bill would expressly authorize the use of lifetime income products as partial default payout options in DC plans.

该法案将明确授权使用终身收入产品作为 DC 计划中的部分违约支付选项。

Its participant protection provisions would need to be strengthened by enhancing requirements for issuers, including minimum solvency and capital standards, for reasonable terms, and competitive procurement through open bidding processes.

其参与者保护条款需要通过提高对发行人的要求来加强，包括合理条款的最低偿付能力和资本标准，以及通过公开招标流程进行竞争性采购。

Alternatively, under its authority to set the requirements of a QDIA, the DOL could use its existing wide discretion both to strengthen participant protections and to make them the responsibility of insurance providers, state regulators, and the Department itself.

或者，根据制定 QDIA 要求的权力，劳工部可以利用其现有的广泛自由裁量权，既加强对参与者的保护，又让保险提供商、州监管机构和部门本身承担责任。

Experience in other nations has shown the effectiveness of the default approach.

其他国家的经验已经证明了默认方法的有效性。

Under the UK’s National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) retirement savings program, most participants remain enrolled in the program, with only 8% opting out (NEST Insight 2022).

根据英国国家就业储蓄信托基金 (NEST) 退休储蓄计划，大多数参与者仍然参加该计划，只有 8% 的人选择退出（NEST Insight 2022）。

The UK has also had experience with government support for lifetime income: Since 25% of a DC plan distribution was tax free, When that requirement was eliminated, Importantly, in the past year the UK government has enacted a new law requiring plans to have a default decumulation option (“guided retirement”).

英国在政府支持终生收入方面也有经验：由于 DC 计划分配的 25% 是免税的，当这一要求被取消时，重要的是，在过去的一年里，英国政府颁布了一项新法律，要求计划有默认的扣除选项（“引导退休”）。

Using Swiss pension data, Bütler & Teppa (2005) show that default annuitization arrangements significantly affect retirees’ payout choices, providing evidence that default options exert a strong influence on retirement behavior (see Figure 2).

Bütler & Teppa (2005) 使用瑞士养老金数据表明，违约年金安排显着影响退休人员的支付选择，提供了违约选择对退休行为产生强烈影响的证据（见图 2）。

Making partial annuities the default payout mechanism for DC plans would materially strengthen the U.S. retirement system.

将部分年金作为 DC 计划的默认支付机制将大大加强美国的退休制度。

It would enhance retirement security for millions of retirees by directly addressing one of their gravest concerns: running out of money in later life.

它将直接解决数百万退休人员最严重的问题之一：晚年的钱用完，从而增强他们的退休保障。

By embedding lifetime income into the plan default structure, retirees would gain low-cost protection against longevity risk without having to navigate complex financial decisions on their own.

通过将终生收入纳入计划默认结构，退休人员将获得针对长寿风险的低成本保护，而无需自行做出复杂的财务决策。

This reform would improve retirement outcomes without requiring high levels of financial sophistication.

这项改革将改善退休结果，而不需要高水平的财务复杂性。

Just as automatic enrollment increased plan participation rates during the accumulation phase, a well-designed payout default would help retirees secure lifetime income, even if they are disengaged or uncertain about their options.

正如自动注册提高了累积阶段的计划参与率一样，精心设计的默认付款将帮助退休人员获得终生收入，即使他们不参与或不确定自己的选择。

At the same time, the proposal preserves flexibility and liquidity.

同时，该提案保留了灵活性和流动性。

Retirees would retain the ability to adjust or decline the annuity, and only a portion of their assets above a threshold would be converted to lifetime income.

退休人员将保留调整或减少年金的能力，并且只有高于阈值的部分资产才会转换为终生收入。

Establishing a default at retirement would also create a timely opportunity for prospective retirees to learn about their options when engagement is likely to be highest.

在退休时建立违约金还可以为未来的退休人员创造一个及时的机会，让他们在参与度可能最高时了解他们的选择。

This approach would improve the efficiency of the 401(k) system by leveraging institutional pricing and reducing reliance on high-cost retail products.

这种方法将通过利用机构定价并减少对高成本零售产品的依赖来提高 401(k) 系统的效率。

Most importantly, it would effectively “put the pension back” into DC plans in a form that employers can support and administer responsibly.

最重要的是，它将有效地将养老金以雇主可以支持和负责任管理的形式“重新纳入”DC 计划中。

If partial annuitization became the standard payout default, whether via SECURE 3.0 or DOL’s use of its existing authority, the United States would take a significant step toward restoring dependable lifetime income for millions of Americans.

如果部分年金化成为标准支付违约金，无论是通过 SECURE 3.0 还是劳工部利用其现有权力，美国都将朝着恢复数百万美国人可靠的终生收入迈出重要一步。

Such a reform would restore ERISA’s original mission: providing secure and sustainable retirement income.

这样的改革将恢复《雇员退休收入保障法》最初的使命：提供安全和可持续的退休收入。

Arapakis, Karolos and Gal Wettstein (2024).

阿拉帕基斯、卡罗洛斯和盖尔·韦特斯坦 (2024)。

“How Much Do People Value Annuities and Their Added Features?” Boston College Center for Retirement Research Issue in Brief 24-1.

“人们对年金及其附加功能有多重视？”波士顿学院退休研究中心问题简介 24-1。

Benartzi, Shlomo, Alessandro Previtero, and Richard H.

贝纳茨、什洛莫、亚历山德罗·普雷维特罗和理查德·H.

Thaler.

泰勒.

(2011).

（2011）。

“Annuitization Puzzles.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 25 (4): 143–164.

“年金化难题。”经济展望杂志 25 (4): 143–164。

Blanchett, David and Michael Finke ( 2025).

大卫·布兰切特和迈克尔·芬克（2025）。

“Retirees Spend Lifetime Income, Not Savings .

“退休人员花费一生的收入，而不是储蓄。

” Retirement Income Institute Working Paper #030-2025, Alliance for Lifetime Income.

” 退休收入研究所工作文件 #030-2025，终身收入联盟。

Brown, Jeffrey R., Arie Kapteyn, Erzo F.

杰弗里·R·布朗、阿里·卡普坦、埃尔佐·F.

P.

P。

Luttmer, Olivia S.

卢特默，奥利维亚·S.

Mitchell, and Anya Samek.

米切尔和安雅·萨梅克。

(2021a).

（2021a）。

Behavioral impediments to valuing annuities: Complexity and choice bracketing.

年金估值的行为障碍：复杂性和选择范围。

Review of Economics and Statistics , 103(3), 533–546.

经济与统计评论，103(3), 533–546。

Brown, Jeffrey R., Jeffrey R.

布朗，杰弗里·R.，杰弗里·R.

Kling, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Marian V.

Kling、Sendhil Mullainathan 和 Marian V.

Wrobel.

沃贝尔。

(2011).

（2011）。

“Why Don’t People Insure Late-Life Consumption?

“为什么人们不为晚年消费投保？

A Framing Explanation of the Under-Annuitization Puzzle.” American Economic Review 98(2): 304-309.

年金化不足之谜的框架解释。” 《美国经济评论》98(2)：304-309。

Brown, Jeffrey R., James M.

布朗，杰弗里·R.，詹姆斯·M.

Poterba, and David P.

波特巴，大卫·P.

Richardson (2021b).

理查森（2021b）。

“Trends in Retirement and Retirement Income Choices by TIAA Participants: 2000–2018.” TIAA Institute Research Dialogue Issue No. 182.

“TIAA 参与者的退休趋势和退休收入选择：2000 年至 2018 年。” TIAA 研究所研究对话第 182 期。

Brown, Jeffrey R., and Mark J.

杰弗里·R·布朗和马克·J.

Warshawsky.

沃肖斯基。

(2004).

（2004）。

“Longevity-insured Retirement Distributions from Pension Plans: Market and Regulatory Issues.” In W.

“养老金计划中的长寿保险退休分配：市场和监管问题。”在W.

G.

G。

Gale, J.

盖尔，J.

B.

B.

Shoven, & M.

肖文，&M.

J.

J。

Warshawsky (Eds.), Private Pensions and Public Policies.

沃肖斯基（主编），私人养老金和公共政策。

Brookings Institution Press: 332–369.

布鲁金斯学会出版社：332-369。

Bütler, Monika, and Federica Teppa.

巴特勒、莫妮卡和费代丽卡·泰帕。

(2005).

（2005）。

“Should You Take a Lump-Sum or Annuitize?

“你应该一次性付清还是年金？

Results from Swiss Pension Funds,” CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1610, CESifo, November 2005.

瑞士养老基金的结果”，CESifo 工作文件系列第 1610 号，CESifo，2005 年 11 月。

Cannon, E., Tonks, I., & Yuille, R.

Cannon, E.、Tonks, I. 和 Yuille, R.

(2016).

（2016）。

“The Effect of the Reforms to Compulsion on Annuity Demand.” National Institute Economic Review , 237(1): R47–R54.

“强制改革对年金需求的影响。”国家研究所经济评论，237(1)：R47–R54。

https://doi.org/10.1177/002795011623700116.

https://doi.org/10.1177/002795011623700116。

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB 2025).

负责任的联邦预算委员会 (CRFB 2025)。

“Retirees Face an $18,100 Benefit Cut in 7 Years.” July 24.

“退休人员将在 7 年内面临 18,100 美元的福利削减。” 7 月 24 日。

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/retirees-face-18100-benefit-cut-7-years.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/retirees-face-18100-benefit-cut-7-years。

Copeland, Craig.

科普兰、克雷格.

(2024).

（2024）。

“Changes in Retirement Security from SECURE 1.0 and 2.0: Evidence from EBRI’s Retirement Security Projection Model .” EBRI Issue Brief No. 613.

“退休保障从 SECURE 1.0 到 2.0 的变化：来自 EBRI 退休保障预测模型的证据。” EBRI 问题简报第 613 号。

https://www.ebri.org/content/changes-in-retirement-security-from-secure-1.0-and-2.0–evidence-from-ebri-s-retirement-security-projection-model.

https://www.ebri.org/content/changes-in-retirement-security-from-secure-1.0-and-2.0–evidence-from-ebri-s-retirement-security-projection-model。

Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI; 2025).

员工福利研究所（EBRI；2025）。

“2026 Retirement Confidence Survey.” https://www.ebri.org/retirement/retirement-confidence-survey

“2026 年退休信心调查。” https://www.ebri.org/retirement/retirement-confidence-survey

Goda, Gopi S., Joshua Gotbaum, Aidan Creeron, and Lily Nevo.

Goda、Gopi S.、Joshua Gotbaum、Aidan Creeron 和 Lily Nevo。

(2026.) “Strategies to Restore Lifetime Income to Retirement Plans.” Brookings Institution.

（2026。）“恢复退休计划终身收入的策略。”布鲁金斯学会。

H.R.

H.R.

3942 “Lifetime Income for Employees Act.” Introduced June 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3942.

第 3942 章“雇员终身收入法”。 2023 年 6 月 9 日推出，https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3942。

Horneff, Vanya, Raimond Maurer, and Olivia S.

霍内夫、万尼亚、雷蒙德·毛雷尔和奥利维亚·S.

Mitchell .

米切尔.

(2025).

（2025）。

“Defaulting 401(k) Assets into Payout Annuities for ‘Pretty Good’ Lifetime Incomes.” NBER Working Paper Number 39915.

“将 401(k) 资产默认为支付年金，以获得‘相当不错’的终生收入。” NBER 工作论文编号 39915。

Hurwitz, Abigail and Olivia S.

赫尔维茨、阿比盖尔和奥利维亚·S.

Mitchell.

米切尔.

(2025) .

（2025）。

“Financial Regret at Older Ages and Longevity Awareness.” Journal of Risk and Insurance .

“老年时的经济遗憾和长寿意识。”风险与保险杂志。

92(3): 719-739.

92（3）：719-739。

Jones, Jeffrey (2025).

杰弗里·琼斯（2025）。

“Inflation Still Top U.S. Financial Problem, but Fewer Cite It.” Gallup News.

“通货膨胀仍然是美国的首要金融问题，但很少有人提及它。”盖洛普新闻。

https://news.gallup.com/poll/660071/inflation-top-financial-problem-fewer-cite.aspx .

https://news.gallup.com/poll/660071/inflation-top-financial-problem-fewer-cite.aspx。

LIMRA (2023).

LIMRA（2023）。

“Are In-Plan Annuities at a Tipping Point?” (November 28, 2023) Mullainathan, Sendhil, Markus Noeth, and Antoinette Schoar.

“计划内年金是否已达到临界点？” （2023 年 11 月 28 日）Mullainathan、Sendhil、Markus Noeth 和 Antoinette Schoar。

(2012).

（2012）。

“The Market for Financial Advice: An Audit Study.

“财务咨询市场：审计研究。

NBER Working Paper Number 17929.

NBER 工作论文编号 17929。

https://doi.org/10.3386/w17929.

https://doi.org/10.3386/w17929。

NEST Insight.

巢洞察力。

(2022).

（2022）。

“Retirement Saving in the UK 2022: Member Experience from Nest, the National Employment Savings Trust.” Report from the National Employment Savings Trust.

“2022 年英国退休储蓄：国家就业储蓄信托基金 Nest 的会员经验。”国家就业储蓄信托基金的报告。

https://www.inclusivemoney.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Retirement-saving-in-the-UK-2022.pdf.

https://www.inclusivemoney.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Retirement- saving-in-the-UK-2022.pdf。

Panis, Constantijn W.

帕尼斯，康斯坦丁·W.

J.

J。

(2004).

（2004）。

“Annuities and Retirement Well-being,” In Pension Design and Structure: New Lessons from Behavioral Finance.

“年金和退休福利”，《养老金设计和结构：行为金融学的新教训》。

Eds Olivia S.

编辑：奥利维亚·S.

Mitchell and Stephen P.

米切尔和斯蒂芬·P.

Utkus.

乌特库斯。

Oxford: Oxford University Press: 259-274.

牛津：牛津大学出版社：259-274。

Saad, Lydia.

萨阿德、莉迪亚.

(2023).

（2023）。

“Americans Remain Discouraged about their Personal Finances.” Gallup News , June 20.

“美国人仍然对自己的个人财务状况感到沮丧。”盖洛普新闻，6 月 20 日。

news.gallup.com/poll/506012/americans-remain-discouraged-personal-finances.aspx.

news.gallup.com/poll/506012/americans-remain-discouraged-personal-finances.aspx。