- Annuities are insurance contracts. Judged purely as investments they underperform, because maximizing return is not what they are built to do.
- The right comparison is not against an index fund. It is against the cost of self-insuring the risk of outliving your money.
- Fixed indexed annuities will trail the market over long periods by design — the cap is the price of the floor.
- Underlying investments in a variable annuity face the same market downturns as anywhere else, with management fees layered on top.
- The useful question is which specific risk you are transferring, and whether this contract transfers it at a fair price.
Search this question and you will find confident answers in both directions, usually from people with a financial interest in the answer. The more useful observation is that the question itself is built on a category error.
An annuity is not an investment
An annuity is an insurance contract. You pay an insurance company, and it assumes a risk you would otherwise carry yourself. That is the same structure as homeowners insurance, and nobody asks whether homeowners insurance is a good investment.
Investments are judged on expected return relative to risk. Insurance is judged on whether the risk being transferred is one you can afford to carry, and whether the price is fair.
Apply the investment test to an annuity and it loses. Expected returns trail a diversified equity portfolio. Gains are taxed as ordinary income instead of capital gains. There is no step-up in basis at death. Fees on some varieties are high, and money is locked up for years.
Every one of those is true, and none of it tells you whether the product is doing its job — because maximizing return was never its job.
What annuities are actually for
The risk an annuity transfers is longevity risk: the risk of living longer than your money.
This risk is genuinely hard to self-insure. You do not know how long you will live. Plan for 85 and reach 97 and you have a serious problem. Plan for 100 and die at 78 and you spent decades living below what you could have afforded.
An insurance company can absorb this because it pools thousands of contracts. It does not need to know how long you will live, only how long the pool lives on average. That pooling is the entire economic basis of the product, and it is not something an individual portfolio can replicate at any size.
So the honest framing is not "will this beat the market." It is: do I face longevity risk, and is this contract a fair price for transferring it?
The comparison that actually applies
Instead of an index fund, compare an annuity to self-insuring the same risk.
Self-insuring means holding a portfolio large enough, and withdrawing conservatively enough, that you are confident of not running out at any plausible age. That usually means a lower withdrawal rate than you would otherwise choose and a larger balance than you would otherwise need — which is a real cost, just an invisible one.
Against that benchmark, guaranteed lifetime income often looks reasonable. Against the S&P 500 it never will, and it never should.
Where the criticism is fair
Three points hold up regardless of framing.
Ordinary income treatment and no step-up. Gains come out as ordinary income, and heirs inherit your cost basis rather than a stepped-up one. For someone whose goal is leaving assets efficiently, this is a genuine and expensive drawback, and it is rarely raised at the point of sale.
Fees on the complex products. A variable annuity with riders can layer mortality and expense charges, fund management fees, and rider costs into several percent annually. That is a real drag. It does not apply to a MYGA, which carries no explicit ongoing fee, and treating all annuities as high-fee is as wrong as treating none of them that way.
Complexity that favors the seller. Caps, participation rates, spreads, benefit bases, and proprietary indices make contracts hard to compare. Difficult comparison advantages whoever is doing the explaining.
Where the criticism misses
"You can do better in index funds." Over a long horizon, in expectation, yes. That is a statement about expected return, not about the distribution of outcomes. The annuity buyer is often trading expected value for a narrower range of outcomes, which is what buying insurance is.
"Annuities are always high-fee." Not true of MYGAs or most fixed indexed contracts, which have no explicit ongoing charge. The carrier's compensation sits in the spread or the caps rather than an annual fee line.
"Insurance companies are the ones profiting." They are, as banks profit on CDs and fund companies profit on index funds. The question is whether what you receive is worth what you pay, not whether the counterparty earns something.
The fixed indexed annuity question, specifically
This deserves its own note because it is where the framing gets abused most.
A fixed indexed annuity credits interest based on an index's movement, subject to a cap or participation rate, with a floor of zero. You do not lose money to index declines.
Sales presentations describe this as market upside with no downside. It is not. Caps limit your share of gains, dividends are typically excluded from the index calculation, and over a long period a capped, dividend-excluded return will trail the market substantially.
That is not a scandal — it is the trade. The floor is paid for with the cap. The problem is only when the cap is minimized in the presentation while the floor is emphasized. Ask for the guaranteed minimum cap, not the current one, and you will learn more in thirty seconds than an illustration will tell you in twenty pages.
When the answer is yes, and when it is no
An annuity likely makes sense if outliving your money worries you more than underperforming an index does, if your guaranteed income does not currently cover essential expenses, if you have other liquid assets so the surrender period is tolerable, and if a predictable number is worth more to you than a larger expected one.
An annuity likely does not if you might need the money inside the surrender period, if Social Security and a pension already cover essentials with room to spare, if you are in a low bracket where deferral is worth little, or if leaving assets to heirs efficiently is your priority.
Notice that none of these turn on whether annuities are good. They turn on your situation. That is the correct structure for an insurance decision, and it is why anyone who answers this question the same way for every person is not really answering it.
Judging a specific contract rather than the category
Once you accept that the category question has no single answer, the useful work is evaluating whatever contract is actually in front of you. Four things determine whether it is fair.
What you give up to get in. Every deferred annuity has surrender charges and a schedule attached to them. A ten-year commitment is not automatically bad, but it should buy you something proportionate. If the contract's advantages over a five-year alternative are marginal, the extra five years of lockup is not being compensated.
What the growth actually looks like. Fixed annuities credit a declared rate. Index annuities credit a capped share of an index. Variable annuities pass through whatever the underlying investments do. These produce very different ranges of outcomes, and tax-deferred growth is worth more in some than others because the growth itself differs.
What it costs annually. Ask for the all-in figure as one number. A MYGA's answer should be near zero explicit charges. A variable annuity with riders may be several percent. That single number does more to determine your outcome than the crediting method does.
What happens if you need out. Not the free-withdrawal percentage in isolation — the actual dollar surrender value today, after the surrender charge and any market value adjustment. Carriers will produce this figure on request and it is frequently sobering.
The lump sum question
Most annuity purchases involve moving a lump sum from somewhere else — a maturing CD, a rollover, a brokerage account, an inheritance. The relevant comparison is against what that money was doing before, not against an abstract benchmark.
Money moving from a CD into a MYGA is trading FDIC backing and liquidity for yield and deferral. Money moving from a taxable brokerage account into a variable annuity is converting future capital gains into ordinary income and forfeiting the step-up in basis, which is a much steeper trade and rarely presented as one.
Partial allocation is usually the honest answer
The framing of whether to buy an annuity assumes a binary. In practice the useful question is what share of retirement savings, if any, belongs in one.
A common approach covers essential expenses with guaranteed income — Social Security, any pension, and enough annuity income to close the gap — while leaving the remainder invested for growth and liquidity. That structure transfers the specific risk worth transferring without surrendering flexibility on the whole balance.
Regular payments covering fixed costs, market exposure covering everything else. Neither product has to win outright.
Frequently asked
Been shown an illustration you are not sure how to judge?
We will tell you which risk the contract actually transfers and whether the price is fair. No product sale attached.
Book a Free Review →