What are the contents of fixed annuities?
"An annuity is a contract. Its contents are ""a contractual obligation from the issuing company"". If you want to evaluate how your annuity is likely to fare, you're essentially asking whether or not its issuer will honor its contract. They're legally required to honor the contract, unless they go bankrupt. (Even if they do go bankrupt, you will be a creditor and may get a portion of the assets recovered by the bankruptcy process.) Generally, the issuer will take the proceeds and invest them in the stock market (or possibly in similar instruments - e.g. Berkshire-Hathaway bought a railroad and invests some money in it directly). They invest in these places because that's where the returns are. One of the reason that annuities may have a good rate on paper is that they may end up taking some of your principal, because many are structured as some form of survivor's insurance policy. Consider: If you're 65 years old and have some retirement savings, you'd like to be able to spend them without fear of them running out because you live longer than you expected (e.g. you survive to your 90s). So, you could invest in the stock market and hope for a 7% return indefinitely and then plan to spend the returns - but if those returns don't materialize for a few years because there's a big stock market crash, you're in big trouble! Or, you could buy an annuity contract which will pay you 7% a year (or more!) until you die. Then you're guaranteed the returns unless the issuer goes bankrupt. (Sure, you lose all your principal, but you're dead, so hey, maybe you don't care.) The insurance company essentially sells risk-tolerance. Other annuities aren't structured like this, and may be marketed towards non-retirees. They're usually not such a good deal. If they appear to be such a good deal, it may be an illusion. (Variable annuities in particular are hard to reason about without a good deal of knowledge about how the stock market behaves on a year-to-year basis: many of them have a maximum return as well as a minimum, and the stock market may pile up a lot of its returns into one year, so after a ""crash and recovery"" cycle you might end up behind the market instead of ahead.) Annuities are a form of safety. Safety can be very expensive. If you're investing your own money, consider whether you need that safety. You probably needn't worry quite so much about the issuer being crazy-fraudulent or Ponzi-esque: you should worry mostly about whether it looks better on paper than it is." "This is really two questions about yield and contents. Content As others have noted, an annuity is a contractual obligation, not a portfolio contained within an investment product per se. The primary difference between whether an annuity is fixed or variable is what the issuer is guaranteeing and how much risk/reward you are sharing in. Generally speaking, the holdings of an issuer are influenced by the average ""duration"" of the payments. However, you can ascertain the assets that ""back"" that promise by looking at, for example, the holdings of a large insurance or securities firm. That is why issuers are generally rated as to their financial strength and ability to meet their obligations. A number of the market failures you mentioned were in part caused by the failure of these ratings to represent the true financial strength of the firm. Yield As to the second question of how they can offer a competitive rate, there are at least several reasons (I am assuming an immediate annuity) : 1) Return/Depletion of Principal The 7% you are being quoted is the percent of your principal that will be returned to you each year, not the rate of return being earned by the issuer. If you invest $100 in the market personally and get a 5% return, you have $105.  However, the annuity's issuer is also returning part of your principal to you each year in your payment, as they don't return your principal when you eventually die. Because of this, they can offer you more each year than they really make in the market. What makes a Ponzi scheme different is that they are also paying out your principal (usually to others), but lie to you by telling you it's still in your account. :) 2) The Time Value of Money A promise to pay you $500 tomorrow costs less than $500 today A fixed annuity promises to pay you a certain amount of money each year. This can be represented as a rate of return calculated based on how much you have to pay to get that annual payment, but it is important to remember that the first payment will be worth substantially more in real purchasing power than the last payment you get. The longer you live, the less your fixed payment is worth in real terms due to inflation! In short, the rate of return has to be discounted for inflation, it is not a ""real"" rate of return. In other words, if you give me $500 today and I promise to pay you $100 for the next 5 years, I am making money not only because I can invest the money between now and then, but also because $100 will be worth less five years from now than it is today. With annuities, if you want your payment to rise in step with inflation, you have to pay more for that (a LOT more!). These are the two main reasons - here are a few smaller ones: 3) A very long Time Horizon If the stock market or another asset class is performing well/poorly, the issuer can often afford to wait much longer to buy or sell than an individual, and can take better advantage of historical highs and lows over the long term. 4) ""Big Boy"" investing A large, financially sound issuer can afford to take risks that an individual cannot, such as in very large or illiquid assets, such as a private company (a la Warren Buffet). 5) Efficiencies of scale Institutional investors have a number of legal advantages over individuals, which I won't discuss in detail here. However, they exist. Large issuers are also often in related business (insurance, mutual funds) such that they can deal in large volumes and form an internal clearinghouse (i.e. if I want to buy Facebook and you want to sell it, they can just move the stock around without doing any trading), with the result that their costs of trading are lower than those of an individual. Hope that helps!" For a variable annuity, you need to know the underlying investments and how your returns are credited to your account. For a fixed annuity, the issuer is responsible for the commitment to provide the promised rate to you. In a sense, how they invest isn't really your concern. You should be concerned about the overall health of the company, but in general, insurance companies tend to know their business when they stick to their strengths: writing insurance on groups and producing annuity contracts.  I don't care for VAs or the fixed annuities you asked about, but I don't believe they resemble a ponzi scheme, either.
The joint narrative here is that a Democracy is a poor form of government.  That’s why it is great that we don’t have a Democracy.  We have a republic.  And our Republic is showing fracturing.  What causes fracturing?  It isn’t just difference of opinion, as Madison states.  It is also a refusal to listen to, work with, or acknowledge the legitimacy of the arguments of our opposition or dissenting members.  We fail to communicate properly, holding attitude and superiority above understanding and attention.  You won’t fix a communication issue with a change of government.  Our communication issue has festered into distrust.  How can you trust someone who won’t even acknowledge your point of view?  How can you trust someone who is willing to dust you to save their own skin?  I doubt any government can survive poor communication.  Our government waste can be seen as poor communication as well.  People with one interest refuse to acknowledge their opposition, and put into place inflexible and unsustainable rules.  Those rules address the one issue those people saw, but fail to account for market forces, new social views, geography, or sometimes simple greed.  People love that the first issue is handled, and are willing to watch the ship sink rather than change.  Opposition refuses to acknowledge the reason the rules were originally created. Both sides get defensive, and division increases.  Let’s always look to the source of the issue, that we may cure as close to the root as possible, rather than be content fighting the symptoms. I would be very careful with annuity products. If you don't mind sharing, what are the terms for the annuity?  Usually I would recommend not to use retirement account to pay off debt, mainly because of the penalty that comes from withdrawing prematurely. But in this case, First of all, stop contributing to the annuity account if you're not contractually obligated. Second, try to convert your annuity assets to more common equity/debt products. Thirdly, try to cut back on spending to pay off debt, assuming you stopped paying 2X on housing, since 30k debt shouldn't be that hard to pay off with 100k income. Lastly, if all of the above are impossible, you can withdraw from that account to pay off your debt. It has nothing to do with forcing people to pay off their debt; in that case it would make better sense to have people pay off debt rather than interest. It is because you want to have your actual payment stay the same each month, which is easier for the vast majority of people to comprehend and put into their budget. It is called an annuity in Finance terms. In theory you could use another method - eg. pay of the same amount of debt each month - then your interest payments will decrease over time. But in that case your monthly payment (debt + interest) will not be stable - It will start of high and decrease a little bit each month. With an annuity you have a constant cashflow. In Finance you generally operate with three methods of debt repayment: Annuity: Fixed cashflow. High interest payment in the beginning with small debt payments - later it will be reversed. Serial loan: Fixed debt payments. Debt payments are equally spread out accross the period - interst is paid on the remaining debt. Cash flow will decrease over time, because interest payments become smaller for each period. Standing loan: You only pay interest on the loan, no debt payments during the period. All debt is payed back in the end of the loan. In Europe it is common practise to combine a 30 year annuity with a 10 year standing loan, so that you only pay interest on the loan for the first 10 years, thereafter you start paying back the debt and interest, the fixed amount each month (the annuity). This is especially common for first-time buyers, since they usually have smaller salaries early in life than later and therefore need the additional free cash in the beginning of their adult life. "An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hand over a lump sum of cash and receive an agreed annual income until you die. The underlying investment required to reach that income level is not your concern, it's the provider's worry. So there is a huge mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. It is worth pointing out that with simple annuities where one gives a lump sum of money to (typically) an insurance company, the annuity payments cease upon the death of the annuitant. If any part of the lump sum is still left, that money belongs to the company, not to the heirs of the deceased. Fancier versions of annuities cover the spouse of the annuitant as well (joint and survivor annuity) or guarantee a certain number of payments (e.g. 10-year certain) regardless of when the annuitant dies (payments for the remaining certain term go to the residual beneficiary) etc. How much of an annuity payment the company offers for a fixed lump sum of £X depends on what type of annuity is chosen; usually simple annuities give the maximum bang for the buck. Also, different companies may offer slightly different rates. So, why should one choose to buy an annuity instead of keeping the  lump sum in a bank or in fixed deposits (CDs in US parlance), or  invested in the stock market or the bond market, etc., and making periodic withdrawals from these assets at a ""safe rate of withdrawal""? Safe rates of withdrawal are often touted as 4% per annum in the US,  though there are newer studies saying that a smaller rate should be used.  Well, safe rates of withdrawal are designed to ensure that the retiree does not use up all the money and is left destitute just when medical bills and other costs are likely to be peaking.  Indeed, if all the money were kept in a sock at home (no growth at all), a 4% per annum withdrawal rate will last the retiree for 25 years. With some growth of the lump sum in an investment, somewhat larger withdrawals might be taken in good years, but that 4% is needed even when the investments have declined in value because of economic conditions beyond one's control. So, there are good things and bad things that can happen if one chooses to not buy an annuity. On the other hand, with an annuity, the payments will continue till death and so the retiree feels safer, as Chris  mentioned.  There is also the serenity in not having to worry how the investments are doing; that's the company's business. A down side, of course, is that the payments are fixed and if inflation is raging, the retiree still gets the same amount. If extra cash is needed one year for unavoidable expenses, the annuity will not provide it, whereas the lump sum (whether kept in a sock or invested) can be drawn on for the extra expense. Another down side is that any money remaining is gone, with nothing left for the heirs. On the plus side, the annuity payments are usually larger than  those that the retiree will get via the safe rate of withdrawal method from the lump sum. This is because the insurance company is applying the laws of large numbers: many annuitants will not survive past their life expectancy, and their leftover monies are pure profit to the insurance company, often more than enough (when invested properly by the company) to pay those old codgers who continue to live past their life expectancy. Personally, I wouldn't want to buy an annuity with all my money, but getting an annuity with part of the money is worthwhile. Important: The annuity discussed in this answer is what is sometimes called a single-premium or an immediate annuity.  It is purchased at the time of retirement with a single (large) lump sum payment. This is not the kind of annuity that is described in JAGAnalyst's answer which requires payment of (much smaller) premiums over many years. Search this forum for variable annuity to learn about these types of annuities." "20-year Treasury Bonds are not equivalent to cash, not even close.  Even though the bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, they are long-term debt and therefore their principal value will fluctuate considerably as market interest rates change. When interest rates rise, the market value of 20-year bonds will drop, and drop more than shorter-term bonds would.  Your principal is not protected in the short term.  Principal is only guaranteed returned at the 20-year maturity of those bonds.  But, oops, there is no maturity on the 20-year bond ETFs because every year the ETF rolls the 19-year positions into new 20-year positions! ;-) For an ""equivalent to cash"" piece of a portfolio, I'd want my principal to be intact over the short term, and continually reinvested at the higher short-term rates as rates are rising.  Reinvesting at short-term rates can be an inflation-hedge.  But, money locked in for 20-years is a sitting duck for inflation. Still, inflation aside, why do we want our ""equivalent to cash"" position to be relatively liquid and principal-protected? When it comes time to rebalance your portfolio after disastrous equity and/or bond returns, you've got in your cash component some excess weighting since it was unaffected by the disastrous performance. That excess cash is ready to be deployed to purchase equities and/or bonds at the lower current prices.  Rebalancing from cash can add a bonus to your returns and smooth volatility.  If you have no cash component and only equities and bonds, you have no money to deploy when both equities and bonds are depressed.  You didn't keep any powder dry.  And, BTW, I would personally keep a bit more than 3% of my powder dry. Consider a short-term cash deposit or good money-market fund for your ""equivalent to cash"" position." Googling vanguard target asset allocation led me to this page on the Bogleheads wiki which has detailed breakdowns of the Target Retirement funds; that page in turn has a link to this Vanguard PDF which goes into a good level of detail on the construction of these funds' portfolios. I excerpt: (To the question of why so much weight in equities:) In our view, two important considerations justify an expectation of an   equity risk premium. The first is the historical record: In the past,   and in many countries, stock market investors have been rewarded with   such a premium.  ... Historically, bond returns have lagged equity returns by about 5–6   percentage points, annualized—amounting to an enormous return   differential in most circumstances over longer time periods.   Consequently, retirement savers investing only in “safe” assets must   dramatically increase their savings rates to compensate for the lower   expected returns those investments offer. ... The second strategic principle underlying our glidepath   construction—that younger investors are better able to withstand   risk—recognizes that an individual’s total net worth consists of both   their current financial holdings and their future work earnings. For   younger individuals, the majority of their ultimate retirement wealth   is in the form of what they will earn in the future, or their “human   capital.” Therefore, a large commitment to stocks in a younger   person’s portfolio may be appropriate to balance and diversify risk   exposure to work-related earnings (To the question of how the exact allocations were decided:) As part of the process of evaluating and identifying an appropriate   glide path given this theoretical framework, we ran various   financial simulations using the Vanguard Capital Markets Model. We   examined different risk-reward scenarios and the potential   implications of different glide paths and TDF approaches. The PDF is highly readable, I would say, and includes references to quant articles, for those that like that sort of thing. Beware of surrender charges also Surrender Charges Many annuities   will impose a surrender charge if the annuity is cashed in before a   specific period of time. That period may run anywhere from 1 to 12   years. A typical surrender charge is one that starts at 7% in the   first year of the contract, and declines by 1% per year thereafter   until it reaches zero. The charge is made against the value of the   investment when the annuity is surrendered, and its purpose (other   than simply to make money for the insurance company) is to discourage   a short-term investment by the purchaser. For that reason, an annuity   should always be considered a long-term investment. In the typical   fixed annuity, though, this charge will not apply provided no more   than 10% of the investment is withdrawn per year. source: http://www.fool.com/retirement/annuities/annuities02.htm If you've held it for 10 years as you claim, you may not owe any or much in surrender charges, but you definitely want to know what the situation is before you make a move. Fidelity recently had an article on their website about deferred annuities (variable and fixed) that don't have the contribution limitations of an IRA, are a tax-deferred investment, and can be turned into a future income stream. I just started investigating this for myself. DISCLAIMER: I'm not a financial professional, and would suggest that you consult with a fee-only planner and tax advisor before making any decision.