Pensions, annuities, and “retirement”
"There are broadly two kinds of pension: final salary / defined benefit, and money purchase.  The text you quote above, where it talks about ""pension"" it is referring to a final salary / defined benefit scheme. In this type of scheme you earn a salary of £X during your working life, and you are then entitled to a proportion of £X (the proportion depends on how long you worked there) as a pension. These types of scheme are relatively rare now (outside the public sector) because the employer is liable for making enough investments into a pot to have enough money to pay everyone's pension entitlements, and when the investments do poorly the liability for the shortfall ends up on the employer's plate. You might have heard about the ""black hole in public sector pensions"" which is what this refers to - the investments that the government have made to pay public sector workers' pensions has not in fact been sufficient. The other type of scheme is a money purchase scheme. In this scheme, you and/or your employer make payments into an investment pot which is locked away until you retire. Once you retire, that pot is yours but there are restrictions on what you can do with it - you can use it to purchase an annuity (I will give you my £X,000 pension pot in return for you giving me an annual income of £Y, say) and you can take some of it as a lump sum. The onus is on you to make sure that you (and/or your employer) have contributed enough to make a large enough pot to give you the income you want to live on, and to make a sensible decision about what to do with the pot when you retire and what to use it as income. With either type of scheme, you can claim this pension after you reach retirement age, whether or not you are still working. In some schemes you are also permitted to claim the pension earlier than retirement age if you have stopped working - it will depend on the rules of the scheme. What counts as ""retirement age"" depends on how old you are now (and whether you are male or female) as the government has been pushing this age out as people have been living longer.  In addition to both schemes, there is also a ""state pension"" which is a fixed, non-means-tested, weekly amount paid from government funds. Again you are entitled to receive this after you pass retirement age, whether or not you are still working." Pension in this instance seems to mean pension income (as opposed to pension pot). This money would be determined by whatever assets are being invested in. It may be fixed, it may be variable. Completely dependant on the underlying investments. An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hnd 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 hige mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. The downside of annuities is that the level of income may be too low for your liking. For instance, £400/£10,000 would mean £400 for every £10,000 given to the provider. That's 4% and would take 25 years to break even (ignoring inflation, opportunity cost of investing yourself). Therefore, the gamble is whether you 'outlive' the deal. You could hand over £50,000 to a provider and drop dead a year later. Your £50k got you, say, £2k and then you popped your clogs. Provider wins. Or you could like 40 years after retiring and then you end up costing the provider £80k. You win. Best way to think of an annuity is a route to guaranteed, agreed income. To secure that guarantee, there's a price to pay - and that is, a lower income rate than you might like. Hope that was the kind of reply you were hoping for. If not, edit your OP and ask again. Chris. PS. The explanation on the link you provided is pretty dire. Very confusing use of the term 'pension' and even if that were better, the explanation is still bad due to vagueness. THis is much better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26186361 With an annuity, you invest directly into an annuity with money you have earned as wages/salary/etc. You pay for it, and trade your payments into the annuity for guaranteed payments from the annuity issuer in the future. The more you pay in before the annuity payments begin, the more you will receive for your annuity payment. With a pension, most often you invest implicitly, rather than directly, into the pension. Rather than making a cash contribution on a regular basis, it is likely that your employer has periodically invested into the pension fund for you, using monies that would otherwise have been paid to you if there were no pension system. This is why your pension benefits are often determined based on years of service, your rate of pay, and similar factors. "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."
"Well, perhaps ""have a dedicated tax advisor"" is an answer then. I   wouldn't have thought of this, as it's not specifically about   taxation, is it? Or more broadly ""consult with a dedicated   professional for the situation in detail""... Yes, that is the only real answer you can get. Anything else will vary between highly localized to entirely incorrect. Pensions are rarely defined benefit anymore, and not many countries still keep state-sponsored defined benefit pension plans. For most, what's left is Social Security system, which is in no way a pension. This is an insurance, and is paid as tax which is rarely refundable (but you won't always have to pay it if you're a foreigner in the country). Usually, Social Security benefits are only available to citizens and (/or, in some rare cases) residents of that country. So it is unlikely (although possible) that you'll benefit from social security payments of more than one country. Some countries have totalization treaties that make your social security payments in one count in the other. If you're in a country that has such an agreement with the Netherlands - you're lucky. Your personal pension savings are basically tax-deferred investment accounts. But tax deferral in one country doesn't necessarily work in another. In the US you have 401k or IRA accounts, but in your own country they may very well be taxable. So you gain the tax deferral in the US, but if your own country taxes them - you lost the benefit, and you will still have to abide by the US tax rules when taking the money out. If you don't plan properly you can easily be hit by double taxation in such cases. Bottom line, you need to plan your pension savings on your own, privately, with a good and solid tax advice (and pension planning advice) that would be relevant to all the countries that you are tax resident at at any given time (you can easily be resident for tax purposes in more than one country). These advisers have to take into account the laws of the countries involved, the tax treaties between themselves and between them and the country of your citizenship,  and the future countries you're planning on visiting or getting old at. Its complicated, and most likely you won't be able to predict everything, especially because the laws and treaties tend to change over time." "Not to state the obvious, but whenever an investment is being made, the ""nuts and bolts"" is your return on investment.  Analyzing the rate of return on an investment is the primary factor in any decision.  Ideally, once the actual mechanics of investment and side ""benefits"" are factored out, the goal is to be able to analyze the pure financial return. Usually the biggest problem faced in analyzing various investments is comparing the Present Value of an investment to a series of payments that may be made or received in the future.  When considering the purchase of a large equity, for example, you might be looking at what series of payments are required to purchase the asset.  You can also reverse this and ask, ""What amount of money is equivalent to this series of payments?"" Ultimately, the Present Value of an Annuity is the way to make these comparisons equal.   Fundamentally, the Present Value of an annuity is an amount of money that should, in theory, be equivalent to a series of payments.  There is, for example, technically no difference between $1064.94 today and $100 a month for a year, at an interest rate of 1% per month.  Grant you, most people would be happier with the money now, but that is what interest does - it compensates you for waiting on your money.   You can fire up a spreadsheet and calculate the Present Value as long as you have the monthly payment, interest rate, and number of periods.  Alternatively, you can calculate any one of those missing four variables - and the key is usually to understand what that rate would be in order to compare the investments. Finally, the taxable implication is really just an adjustment to the rate of return. Imagine the following three scenarios: (Obviously the rates are fictional - the goal is to show they are the same). Scenarios 1 & 2 are really just two sides of the same coin.  Using the Future Value formula in Excel = FV(0.5%, 12, -100), you get $1233.56.  In scenario 1, you would have $1233.56 in your bank account.  In scenario 2, your bank would have $1233.56 from you, and you would have $100 less debt per month.  They are equivalent transactions.   Scenario 3 is really just a variation on scenario 2, localized to the United States.  Because the interest is tax deductible, however, the rate of 6% isn't really accurate.  Assuming you had a 25% tax bracket, you'd actually be getting back one quarter of your interest.  Put another way, 7.5% mortgage interest costs you as much as 6% credit card debt. This is how you compare apples and organges - just turn everything into an annuity or a lump sum, using Present Value calculations.   Finally, quick rule of thumb - if you owe taxes in both Canada and the US, your Canadian taxes are probably higher than your American ones.  As such, any tax incentives will be concomitantly higher.  If you only can only use Canadian tax incentives, then look to those incentives, other things being equal." That's not a valid counterpoint.    It doesn't rub you the right way because it would require you to take responsibility for your own future and do the work yourself.  It doesn't rub you the right way because it would mean that you couldn't blame anyone else if you weren't able to retire when you wanted to. "Be very careful about terminology when talking about annuities.  You used the phrase ""4% return"" in your question.   What exactly do you mean by that?   An annuity that pays out 4% of its principle is not giving you a ""4% return"" in the sense of ROI, because most of that was your money to begin with.   But to achieve a true 4% return in the current environment where interest rates are at historic lows on anything safe (10 year UK Gilts at 0.91%) would make me very nervous about what the insurance company is investing my annuity in." My uncle seen the writing on the wall a year or two ago. He retired early and got his pension out of the company. Apparently the pensions are invested back into the company so they don't only loose their job when the company fails. First let's define some terms. Your accrued benefit is a monthly benefit payable at your normal retirement age (usually 65). It is usually a life-only benefit but may have a number of years guaranteed or may have a survivor piece. It is defined by a plan formula (ie, it is a defined benefit). A lump sum is how much that accrued benefit is worth right now. Lump sums are based on applicable interest rates and mortality tables specified by the IRS (interest rates are released monthly, mortality annually). Your plan can either use the same interest rates for a whole year, or they can use new ones each month. Affecting your lump sum is whether your accrued benefit is payable now (immediately, you are age 65), or later (deferred, you are now age 30). For example, instead of being paid an annuity assume you are paid just one payment of $1,000 on your 65th birthday. The lump sum of that for a 65 year old would be $1,000 since there would be no interest discount, and no chance of dying before payment. For a 30 year old, at 4% interest the lump sum would be about $237 (including mortality discount). At age 36 the lump sum is $246. So the lump sum will get bigger just because you get older. Very important is the interest discount. At age 30 in the example, 2% interest would produce a $467 lump sum. And at 6% $122. The bigger the rate, the smaller the lump sum because interest helps an amount now grow bigger in the future. To complicate things, since 2008 the IRS bases lump sums on 3 different interest rates. The monthy annuity payments made within 5 years of the lump sum date use the 1st rate, past 5 and within 20 years use the 2nd rate, and past that use the 3rd rate. Since you are age 30, all of your monthly annuity payments would be made after 20 years, so that makes it simple since we'll only have to look at the 3rd rate. When you reach age 45 the 2nd rate will kick in. Here is the table of interest rates published by the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Minimum-Present-Value-Segment-Rates You'll find your rates above on the 2013 line for Aug-12. That means your lump sum is being made in 2013 and it is being based on the month August 2012. Most likely your plan will use the same rates for its entire plan year. But what is your plan year? If it is the calendar year, then you would have a 5 month lookback for the rates. But if is a September to August plan year with a 1 month lookback, the rates would have changed between August and September. Your August lump sum would be based on 4.52%, your September on would be based on 5.58% (see the All line for Aug-13). For comparison, a 30 year old with a $100 annuity payable at age 65 would have a lump sum value of $3,011 at 4.52%, but a lump sum value of $1,931 at 5.58%. The change in your accrued benefit by month will obviously have some impact on the lump sum value, but not as much as the change in interest rates if there is one. The amount they actually contribute to the plan has nothing to do with the value of the lump sum though. "Agreed. The idea that one goes into ""retirement"", or is expected to, at a certain age, is a little confusing to me.  Since when did it become not-the-norm to work until you had enough money saved up, and then stop working. While I take full advantage of retirement tax vehicles, the idea of a dedicated retirement fund, retirement benefits, pension payouts, etc... is a relic of the 1960s." "403b plans are used by school districts, colleges and universities, nonprofit hospitals, charitable foundations and the like for their employees while 401k plans are used by most everybody else. I would suspect that a school district etc can use a 401k plan instead of a 403b plan if it chooses to do so, but the reverse direction is most likely forbidden: a (for-profit) company cannot use a 403b plan. One difference between a 403b plan and a 401k plan is that the employer can choose to offer, and the employee can choose to purchase, stock in the company inside the 401k plan. This option obviously is not available to charities etc. which don't issue stock. Your comment that the 403b plan invests solely in (variable) annuities suggests that the plan administrator is an insurance company  and that the employer is moving to more ""modern"" version that allows investments in mutual funds and the like. Forty years ago, my 403b plan was like that; the only investment choice was an annuity, but some time in the 1980s, the investment choices were broadened to include mutual funds (possibly because the 1986 Tax Reform Act changed the rules governing 403b plans).  So, are you sure that your employer is changing from a 403b plan to a 401k plan, or is it just a change of 403b plan administrator from the insurance company to another administrator who offers investment choices other than an annuity? Note, of course, that insurance companies have changed their options too. For example, TIAA (the Teachers' Insurance and Annuity Association) which was the 403b plan administrator for many schools and colleges became TIAA/CREF (College Retirement Equities Fund) where the CREF mutual funds actually were pretty good investments." I bet you're retired on a pension? Or just stupid? What? I need to no. Just because you tack a term to it, doesn't make it invalid.  You should DIE when you are no longer productive. Look at the DEBT you're handing to the future, while your employers run away with the EQUITY! I'm no expert in this, so this is a legit question.  Are 401Ks and pension plans considered HFT or buy &amp; hold?  If HFT, would exception rates be beneficial?  Or would we want to encourage those groups to reduce frequency as well? I happen to be one such person. When I looked at what I was being offered for a lump sum, then shopped around to see what annuity I could replace it with, the difference between retail and wholesale was blindingly obvious. GM was offering me the wholesale cost (or less), while all the replacement annuities (retail prices) were offering me 1/2 the monthly payment that I'm expecting from the GM pension.   After the financial market's meltdown in 2008 lost me between 45 and 55% of my mutual funds' values (some lost more than others), I no longer have the fantasy belief that I can do better managing my money than professional investors. Learning that lesson cost me about $75k - which is several times the amount that I was offered for a buy out. As someone in my 50s, I am far more concerned about outliving my money than I am concerned about having a larger stash of chips. I won't be making $100k/year forever, as age discrimination in software development is widespread, and all the developers I personally know who are older than me, they all mention hitting brick walls getting hired when they hit 54-55 years old.   You may notice from the article that this is only for the salaried workers. The hourly workers are due to be shafted some other way. "What is a 403b? A 403(b) plan is a tax-advantaged retirement savings plan available for public education organizations, some non-profit employers (only US Tax Code 501(c)(3) organizations), cooperative hospital service organizations and self-employed ministers in the United States. Kind of a rare thing. A bit more here: http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/teacheroptions.htm under investment options Equity Indexed Annuities are a special type of contract between you and an insurance company. During the accumulation period — when you make either a lump sum payment or a series of payments — the insurance company credits you with a return that is based on changes in an equity index, such as the S&P 500 Composite Stock Price Index. The insurance company typically guarantees a minimum return. Guaranteed minimum return rates vary. After the accumulation period, the insurance company will make periodic payments to you under the terms of your contract, unless you choose to receive your contract value in a lump sum. For more information, please see our ""Fast Answer"" on Equity Indexed Annuities, and read FINRA's investor alert entitled Equity-Indexed Annuitiies — A Complex Choice. So perhaps ""equity indexed annuities"" is the more correct thing to search for and not ""insurance funds""?" The most important thing is to keep in mind the deadline. If you want to have it count for 2016, you need to open the account and transfer the funds by tax day. Don't wait until the last day to do it, or you could run out of time. Setting up the initial account, and them verifying your information and transferring the money could take a few days. First decide how much of a lump sum you want to invest  initially. This will determine some of your options because the mutual fund will have a minimum initial investment. Many of the funds will allow subsequent investments to be smaller.  The beauty of a IRA or Roth IRA is that if the fund you want is out of reach for this initial investment in a few years you can transfer the money into another fund or even another fund family without having to worry about tax issues. Now decide on your risk level and you time horizon. Because you said you are student and you want a Roth IRA, it is assumed that you will not need this money for 4+ decades; so you can and should be willing to be a little more risky. As NathanL said an index fund is a great idea. Many also advise an aged based fund. My kids found that when they made their initial investments the age based funds were the only one with a low enough initial investment for their first few years.  Then pick a fund family based on the general low fees, and a large mix of options. The best thing is that in a few years as you have more money and more options, you can adjust your choices. As mentioned, the main advantage of a 15-year loan compared to a 30-year loan is that the 15-year loan should come at a discounted rate.  All things equal, the main advantage of the 30-year loan is that the payment is lower. A completely different argument from what you are hearing is that if you can get a low interest rate, you should get the longest loan possible.  It seem unlikely that interest rates are going to get much lower than they are and it's far more likely that they will get higher.  In 15 years, if interest rates are back up around 6% or more (where they were when I bought my first home) and you are 15 years into a 30 year mortgage, you'll being enjoying an interest rate that no one can get. You need to keep in mind that as the loan is paid off, you will earn exactly 0% on the principal you've paid.  If for some reason the value of the home drops, you lose that portion of the principal.  The only way you can get access to that capital is to sell the house.  You (generally) can't sell part of the house to send a kid to college.  You can take out another mortgage but it is going to be at the current going rate which is likely higher than current rates. Another thing to consider that over the course of 30 years, inflation is going to make a fixed payment cheaper over time.  Let's say you make $60K and you have a monthly payment of $1000 or 20% of your annual income.  In 15 years at a 1% annualized wage growth rate, it will be 17% of your income.  If you get a few raises or inflation jumps up, it will be a lot more than that.  For example, at a 2% annualized growth rate, it's only 15% of your income after 15 years. In places where long-term fixed rates are not available, shorter mortgages are common because of the risk of higher rates later.  It's also more common to pay them off early for the same reason.   Taking on a higher payment to pay off the loan early only really only helps you if you can get through the entire payment and 15 years is still a long way off.  Then if you lose your job then, you only have to worry about taxes and upkeep but that means you can still lose the home.  If you instead take the extra money and keep a rainy day fund, you'll have access to that money if you hit a rough patch.  If you put all of your extra cash in the house, you'll be forced to sell if you need that capital and it may not be at the best time.  You might not even be able to pay off the loan at the current market value. My father took out a 30 year loan and followed the advice of an older coworker to 'buy as much house as possible because inflation will pay for it'.  By the end of the loan, he was paying something like $250 a month and the house was worth upwards of $200K.  That is, his mortgage payment was less than the payment on a cheap car.  It was an insignificant cost compared to his income and he had been able to invest enough to retire in comfort.  Of course when he bought it, inflation was above 10% so it's bit different today but the same concepts still apply, just different numbers.  I personally would not take anything less than a 30 year loan at current rates unless I planned to retire in 15 years.