You are buying certainty, not a return

What the money actually buys

You hand an insurer a sum of money. It promises you a stated payment for the rest of your life, however long that turns out to be. That promise, and not any return, is the product.

Two shapes of contract deliver it, and the difference is only when. An immediate annuity starts paying at once: you give up the capital today and the income begins this year. A deferred pension plan runs in two phases — you pay in over some years, the money accumulates, and at a date fixed in advance that accumulated sum converts into the income. The conversion has a name: annuitisation.

So a pension plan is a savings arrangement bolted to an annuity, and the annuity is where the interesting part lives. Everything in the accumulation phase is ordinary — money goes in, it grows, you can see the balance. The moment of annuitisation is where you stop owning an asset and start owning a promise.

Why an insurer can promise a payment for an unknown number of years at all is a pooling argument, and it is set out in full in what an annuity is and why its return looks poor. This article takes the pooling as given and asks the next question: what the certainty costs, and who ends up carrying which risk once you have bought it.

The risk of a long life has to sit somewhere

Living a long time is a financial risk as well as a good outcome — the risk that the money runs out before you do, which the industry calls longevity risk. Every retirement arrangement answers the same question about it: if you are still here at ninety-five, who pays? There are only two possible answers, and they define the two products.

Manage a corpus yourself and the answer is you. That is why a self-managed plan must be drawn down cautiously — the money has to survive an unknown span, and the only protection against the long version is to spend less than you might have, for the whole of a retirement that may turn out to be ordinary. The withdrawal-rate literature exists entirely because of that problem.

Buy an annuity and the answer is the insurer. The obligation to pay does not end until you do, so a long life becomes the insurer's cost rather than your shortfall. That transfer is the whole trade. Everything below is what it is priced in.

Read the last row against the five above it. It is the only one where the first column says you, and the only one where the last column is not a fixed amount or nothing at all. Those two facts are the same fact.

The interest rates of one particular day

An insurer promising you a payment thirty years from now has to hold something today that will produce it. It buys assets — long-dated bonds, mostly — whose cashflows line up with the payments it has just promised, and it can only promise what those assets yield on the morning it buys them.

Once bought, the promise and the assets are locked together for the life of the contract. That is why the payout never moves again. The same person, asking the same insurer for the same annuity in a different rate environment, is quoted a different income — for life. Nothing about that person changed. The bond market did.

The lock cuts both ways, which is the part usually left out. If rates fall after you buy, you have done well out of the timing and the insurer is stuck honouring a promise it could not write today. If rates rise, you are the one holding the older, smaller income while new buyers are quoted more. Matching assets to a promise is the same arithmetic that moves a bond fund's price when rates change, described in duration and interest-rate risk.

Now hold that against almost everything else an Indian saver owns, because the contrast is the useful part. The Employees' Provident Fund credits 8.25% for FY 2025-26 — the financial year running April 2025 to March 2026. The EPFO's Central Board of Trustees recommends that rate, the Central Government ratifies it, and only then does EPFO credit it. Those are three separate stages, and reports routinely present the first as though it were the third.

The Public Provident Fund pays 7.1%, the Senior Citizens' Savings Scheme 8.2% and the Post Office Monthly Income Scheme 7.4%. The General Provident Fund is a third provident fund again, separate from both the PPF and the EPF and routinely confused with both — worth knowing before anyone sets two of the three side by side. What they share is the mechanism rather than the number: each rate is notified, not contracted, and yours changes when the notification changes. Why an announced rate moves at all is the rate-setting story.

Every variant is one pot, divided differently

The payout options are usually presented as a menu — joint life, certain period, return of purchase price, escalating — as though each were a feature you could add. That framing makes them impossible to reason about, because it hides the constraint they all share.

The constraint is that the insurer has one sum of money and one set of expectations about how long it must pay. Every promise added is paid for out of the same income. Read the variants that way and each one resolves into a single mechanical sentence about what the insurer can no longer do with your capital.

• Single life, level. The obligation ends at one death and the payment never changes. Nothing is held back, so this is the largest income the same sum buys — and the baseline every other variant is a deduction from.
• Joint life. The obligation now ends at the later of two deaths, which is on average further away than one. A longer expected run of payments out of the same capital means a smaller payment.
• Certain period. The insurer agrees to pay for a minimum number of years whether or not you are alive to receive them. An early death no longer shortens the obligation, so the shortening the insurer was counting on is partly given back.
• Return of purchase price. The capital is earmarked for your nominee, so it is not available to fund your payments. The insurer can pay you roughly what the capital earns and no more — which is a different kind of product wearing the same name.
• Escalating. The payment rises by a set percentage each year. The later payments are larger, so on the same total promise the early ones must be smaller, and the first payment starts well below the level version.
• Deferred start. Payments begin some years after purchase. The insurer holds the money for longer and expects to make payments over a shorter remaining life, and both effects push the eventual income up.

None of that requires knowing a single annuity rate. It follows from the structure alone, which is why it survives a change in rates, a change in insurer and a change in your age. Add a promise, subtract an income — the only question is how much, and that is what a quote is for.

Nothing goes back unless you buy it back

Under a plain lifetime annuity the capital does not return to your family. That is the most common objection to the product and it is factually right, but it is being read as a defect when it is the mechanism running as designed — the pooling argument in the annuity explainer turns on exactly that capital being available.

The variant that returns the purchase price is therefore not a fix for a flaw. It is an opt-out from the thing that makes the income large, and it should be priced in your head that way before you look at a quote. What you get back is a smaller lifetime income plus a sum for your nominee; what you have given up is the part of the payment that was being funded by capital rather than by earnings.

Stated as a decision it is not hard, though it is rarely put this way: an estate and an income compete for one pot, and buying both inside a single contract means buying both at the insurer's price for the bundle. Whether the same objective is met more cheaply by a smaller annuity alongside a separate arrangement for the family — term cover being the usual candidate — is a real question with a real answer, and it is answered by getting both quotes rather than by reasoning about it.

The trade-off runs the other way too, and honesty requires stating it. An annuity with nothing left over is the version that maximises your income and minimises your family's claim on the same money. A reader who cares more about the second than the first is not making an error by choosing the smaller income. They are buying a different thing, on purpose.

A deferred plan quotes one price and sells two

Here is the part of a deferred pension plan that the illustration does not make obvious, and it decides more than anything on the page.

Such a plan sells you two products at two different moments. The first is the accumulation: money in, a set of charges you can read and compare today, and a projected sum at the date the plan matures into income — its vesting date. The second is the conversion of that sum into an income, which happens years later at whatever terms then apply. You can shop the first and, unless the contract says otherwise, you cannot shop the second.

That matters because of the rate lock described above. The income you eventually receive is the accumulated sum multiplied by an annuity rate struck on the vesting date — a date fixed at inception, and reached whatever the bond market is doing when it arrives. Two people with identical accumulations and different vesting dates receive different incomes, permanently, for reasons that have nothing to do with either of them.

The same logic identifies the one control a buyer has and the circumstance in which it is removed. Buying the income in tranches across several years spreads the rate you are exposed to, in the same way that spreading any purchase across dates spreads the price paid. Where a scheme compels conversion at exit, that spreading is unavailable — the date is chosen for you by the rules rather than by you. Whether any Indian scheme does compel it, and over what share of the corpus, is a statutory question this article does not answer.

Why the usual comparison is not a comparison

Almost every discussion of annuities ends by setting the payout against what the same money might have earned invested, finding the annuity behind, and concluding it is poor value. The arithmetic in that exercise is generally correct. The exercise is still void.

It is void because the two things being compared are not two versions of one product. They differ on the single dimension that matters most to a retiree, and the difference is not a matter of degree: one of them cannot run out and the other can. A comparison that holds the income constant and compares the returns has quietly assumed away the risk one side is carrying and the other has sold.

Set out as a swap, the decision becomes something a person can actually weigh. You give up three things — the capital, the estate it would have left and the freedom to change your mind later — and receive one: an income that does not stop while you are alive. All four are real, and a reader can say which of them they need, which is more than a return comparison ever tells them.

Two further asymmetries are worth naming, because they cut in opposite directions and most treatments mention only one. Inflation erodes a level annuity for as long as it runs, and a fixed escalation is a partial answer rather than a real one, since it is not tied to what prices actually do — the arithmetic of that erosion is in what inflation does to a fixed income. Against that, an income that continues through a market fall is income you do not have to raise by selling units at a bad price, which is the mechanism behind matching certainty to necessity and the reason the conventional structure uses an annuity for part of the plan rather than none or all of it.

The two tax questions, and why neither is answered here

Tax changes the size of the income you actually receive, so it belongs in the decision. It does not belong in this article as a figure, because the treatment of annuity payments and of the purchase price is exactly the kind of statutory detail that gets copied forward from stale sources for years.

The two questions to put to a source that can answer them are worth stating precisely, since asking the wrong one produces a confident and useless reply. First: is the payment taxed as income in the year it is received? Second, and separately: is any part of each payment treated as your own capital coming back rather than as income? Those have different answers and different consequences, and a quote showing a payout tells you neither.

What can be said flatly is where any deduction lives. The Income-tax Act 1961 was repealed on 1 April 2026 and replaced by the Income-tax Act 2025, and under the new Act the new regime is the default — s.202. The deduction most retirement products are sold against is s.123 read with Schedule XV, the section formerly numbered 80C, capped at ₹1.5 lakh. It exists only in the old regime. Anyone who has not actively left the default does not receive it, whatever the product qualifies for. Which regime applies therefore has to be settled before a tax argument for buying anything means much at all.

One transition note, since both statutes are live. Income for FY 2025-26 is still assessed under the repealed 1961 Act, so both section numberings will be quoted for a while yet.

Sizing the part you are not annuitising

The decision that precedes any quote is how much of the essential spending has to be covered by income that cannot stop. That figure — not the annuity rate — sets the size of the purchase, and it comes from the expense side of the plan rather than from any product page.

For the portion that stays invested, the useful questions are how deep the falls were and how much the answer moved with the start date. FNOTrader's Mutual Funds app runs on the full AMFI NAV history — around 34 million rows of net asset value — and reports rolling-return distributions across every available start date alongside maximum drawdown, which is what a withdrawal plan for the non-annuitised part has to survive.

Historical figures describe what happened, not what will happen; past performance does not indicate future results. FNOTrader does not sell insurance, pension plans or annuities, is not a SEBI-registered investment adviser, and does not recommend products.

Common questions

Continue reading

More in Retirement Planning · App: Mutual Funds · Definitions: glossary · Free tools: calculators · All: every article