What Is a Lifetime Income Option in a 401(k)?

The monthly lifetime-income number on a 401(k) statement is usually not an annuity quote, not a promise from an insurance company and not evidence that the plan offers guaranteed income. Federal law requires many defined contribution plans to translate an account balance into hypothetical monthly lifetime payments. An actual lifetime-income option is a separate contract or investment feature.^[1][2]

That distinction prevents most of the confusion around this subject.

A participant can have:

a required lifetime-income illustration

without owning:

a lifetime-income product.

The Statement Number Is an Illustration

29 CFR 2520.105-3 requires administrators of individual account plans to include lifetime-income information on a benefit statement at least annually.^[1]

The statement generally takes the participant's account balance and expresses it as two hypothetical monthly payment streams:

1. single life annuity
2. qualified joint and 100% survivor annuity.^[1]

The purpose is translation.

A balance of:

$500,000

is easy to read as wealth.

A monthly-income equivalent asks a different question:

What might that amount resemble if converted into lifetime payments under standardized assumptions?

It Does Not Mean the Plan Will Pay That Amount

The regulation requires the disclosure to explain that the estimates are:

illustrations only.^[1]

Actual future annuity payments can differ because of:

• retirement age
• future contributions
• investment gains or losses
• withdrawals
• fees
• interest rates
• mortality assumptions
• insurer pricing
• payout form.^[1]

A statement showing:

$2,400 per month

does not create a contractual right to $2,400.

No insurer has necessarily promised anything.

The Plan May Offer No Annuity at All

This is the point many participants miss.

Plan statement:

> Single-life monthly equivalent: $2,400 > Joint-and-survivor monthly equivalent: $2,050

Investment menu:

• target-date funds
• index funds
• bond fund
• stable value.

No annuity.

No GLWB.

No guaranteed-income contract.

That is entirely possible.

The federal statement rule and the plan's actual investment menu are separate.

The Standard Illustration Uses Artificial Assumptions

The regulation needs a common methodology so the number can be calculated consistently.^[1]

For the standard calculation, the plan generally assumes:

Age

The participant is:

67

on the statement's last day unless already older than 67, in which case actual age is used.^[1]

Payment start

Payments begin:

on the last day of the statement period.^[1]

Spouse

For the joint illustration, the participant is assumed to have a spouse:

the same age as the participant.^[1]

Survivor percentage

The survivor receives:

100%

of the joint-life monthly payment after the participant's death.^[1]

Those assumptions may bear little resemblance to the participant's real situation.

A 42-Year-Old Is Still Illustrated at Age 67

Suppose the participant is:

42

and plans to retire at:

60.

The federal illustration does not necessarily model retirement at 60.

For the standardized calculation, age 67 is used.^[1]

That makes the number a regulatory comparison tool.

Not a personalized retirement-income forecast.

The Interest Rate Is Standardized Too

The regulation uses the:

10-year constant maturity U.S. Treasury securities yield

for the first business day of the last month of the statement period.^[1]

If rates change materially:

• the illustration changes
• even if the participant's account balance does not.

Higher assumed interest generally supports a larger illustrated monthly payment.

Lower rates generally produce a smaller one.

Mortality Comes From a Federal Table

The standard conversion uses mortality reflected in the applicable table under:

IRC Section 417(e)(3)(B)

for the calendar year containing the end of the statement period.^[1]

It is a regulatory assumption.

It is not:

• the participant's medical history
• family longevity
• insurer underwriting
• a prediction of individual life expectancy.

The Illustration Is Gender Neutral

Employer-plan annuity calculations are subject to rules that differ from individually purchased retail annuities in important respects.

The model disclosure specifically explains that the illustrated employer-plan payments are the same for male and female participants under the required methodology.^[1]

Retail annuity pricing outside the employer plan can produce different results depending on product and applicable law.

The Standard Illustration Is Fixed, Not Inflation Adjusted

The required disclosure explains that the standard monthly payment does not automatically increase with inflation.^[1]

If inflation averages:

3%

for 20 years, a fixed monthly payment has materially less purchasing power later.

Lifetime does not mean inflation-protected.

Those are separate features.

The Account Balance Can Include a Participant Loan

Unless the participant is in default, the federal calculation generally includes the outstanding participant-loan balance in the account used for the illustration.^[1]

That can make the displayed income equivalent look larger than the participant's immediately investable balance.

The model disclosure therefore explains the loan assumption.

Illustration vs. Actual Guarantee

The statement converts a balance into a concept.

The contract transfers risk.

An Actual Lifetime-Income Option Can Take Different Forms

There is no single structure called:

the 401(k) annuity.

Common approaches can include:

1. annuity purchased when the participant retires or takes a distribution
2. deferred income annuity purchased before retirement
3. qualified longevity annuity contract where applicable
4. guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit attached to an investment structure
5. managed-account or asset-allocation strategy incorporating insurer guarantees.

INV-032 covers annuity types broadly.

The plan-specific question is how the guarantee enters the 401(k).

Distribution Annuity

The simplest structure occurs when a participant reaches retirement and uses part of the account to purchase an annuity.

Example:

401(k) balance:

$600,000

Participant uses:

$200,000

to purchase lifetime income.

Remaining plan or rollover assets:

$400,000

continue in other investments.

The annuity can provide a contractual payment stream according to the selected form.

The participant has converted part of liquid retirement wealth into insured income.

Annuitization Changes the Asset

Formal annuitization generally exchanges contract value for a stream of payments under the selected payout terms.

Possible forms can include:

• single life
• joint and survivor
• life with period certain
• other permitted forms.

The economic exchange is important:

liquid account value → contractual income stream.

The participant can gain:

• longevity-risk protection
• payment certainty.

The participant can give up:

• liquidity
• flexibility
• some legacy value.

The exact trade-off depends on the payout form.

Deferred Income Annuity

A participant can buy future income before retirement.

Example:

Age:

60

Premium:

$100,000

Income begins:

75

The participant gives up current liquidity on the premium in exchange for a future income commitment.

A QLAC is a specialized form of deferred income annuity satisfying federal requirements.

INV-032 covers the general QLAC concept.

The benefit-statement regulation has a specific rule for participants who have already purchased certain deferred lifetime-income streams.^[1]

Purchased Deferred Income Gets Different Statement Treatment

If part of the accrued benefit already includes a qualifying deferred lifetime-income stream, the plan generally does not convert that same portion again using the generic federal illustration.^[1]

Instead, the statement discloses contract-based information such as:

• scheduled commencement date
• participant age at commencement
• payment frequency
• payment amount
• survivor or period-certain features
• whether payments are fixed or adjust over time.^[1]

That is much closer to an actual contractual benefit.

The Remaining Account Still Gets Illustrated

Suppose:

Total account value:

$500,000

Already used for deferred income annuity:

$100,000

Remaining account:

$400,000

The actual deferred stream is disclosed under its contract.

The remaining balance is handled under the applicable illustration rules.^[1]

That avoids treating the same $100,000 as both:

• an already purchased future income stream
• money still available to purchase another hypothetical annuity.

A Plan With a Distribution Annuity Can Use Contract Terms

The regulation also gives plans that actually offer:

• single-life annuity
• qualified joint-and-survivor annuity

through a state-licensed insurer an optional special calculation method.^[1]

Instead of using all the generic federal assumptions, the administrator may use specified contract terms for the income conversion.

Important assumptions remain standardized, including the assumed age/commencement framework and same-age spouse assumption.^[1]

This can make the statement more closely reflect the plan's real product.

It still remains an illustration unless the participant has actually acquired the contractual right.

What Is a Guaranteed Lifetime Withdrawal Benefit?

A:

guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit

or:

GLWB

works differently from traditional annuitization.

The participant can retain an invested account.

The insurer provides a contractual guarantee supporting a specified level of lifetime withdrawals under the contract terms.

If the insured investment assets are eventually depleted because of:

• withdrawals
• poor investment returns
• longevity

the insurer can continue the specified income, subject to the contract.^[5]

That is longevity insurance layered onto an investment account.

GLWB Does Not Mean the Account Cannot Fall

Suppose protected assets:

$200,000

Market decline:

−25%.

Account value can fall.

The contractual protection relates to:

the lifetime withdrawal feature

not necessarily preservation of the entire account balance.

This is a critical distinction.

The investment can lose money while the income floor remains in force.

GLWB Can Preserve More Liquidity Than Annuitization

Traditional annuitization can be difficult or impossible to reverse once payments begin.

A GLWB structure may allow:

• continued account ownership
• transfers under contract rules
• withdrawals
• beneficiary value if assets remain.

That flexibility can be attractive.

But it is not free.

The participant can face:

• guarantee fee
• investment restrictions
• withdrawal rules
• reduced future guarantee after excess withdrawals
• insurer-credit exposure.

Example: Account Reaches Zero

Participant's insured sleeve begins with:

$250,000

Guaranteed withdrawal:

$12,500 per year

After years of:

• market losses
• withdrawals

the investment account reaches:

$0.

If the contractual protection remains valid and all contract conditions were met, the insurer continues the contractual lifetime payment.

That is the insurance event.

Without the guarantee, a zero account produces no further portfolio withdrawals.

Excess Withdrawals Can Reduce the Guarantee

GLWBs commonly distinguish:

permitted guaranteed withdrawal

from:

excess withdrawal.

A participant who withdraws more than the contractual amount can reduce:

• income base
• future guaranteed withdrawal
• other benefits.

Do not interpret:

"The account remains accessible"

as:

"any withdrawal has no effect on the guarantee."

The contract determines the consequence.

DOL Addressed a Modern GLWB QDIA in 2025

Advisory Opinion:

2025-04A

examined AllianceBernstein's Lifetime Income Strategy program.^[5]

The program combined:

• participant-specific managed-account allocation
• equity and fixed-income investments
• a Secure Income Portfolio
• variable-annuity contracts
• GLWB insurance
• multiple insurers
• Section 3(38) investment-management responsibility.^[5]

DOL concluded that, based on the represented facts, the program would satisfy the QDIA requirements.^[5]

That Opinion Is Important—and Narrow

The advisory opinion does not say:

"Every annuity-based investment is a QDIA."

It analyzed a specific arrangement.

DOL emphasized that whether a fiduciary prudently selects that program—or any investment alternative—for a particular plan depends on:

facts and circumstances.^[5]

The opinion clarifies regulatory possibility.

It does not replace fiduciary analysis.

The 2025 Program Shows How Embedded Lifetime Income Can Work

Under the arrangement described to DOL:

• participants were managed through individualized allocations
• the insured sleeve began receiving allocations around age 50, subject to plan design
• multiple insurers bid quarterly
• the program sought insurer diversification
• participants could select how much of the account received income protection
• default percentages could apply
• participants could transfer out
• excess withdrawals could reduce future guarantees.^[5]

That architecture is far more sophisticated than:

"buy one annuity at retirement."

QDIA Status Does Not Mean DOL Endorsed the Insurer

A QDIA is a regulatory default-investment structure.

It does not mean DOL:

• guarantees the insurer
• approves the fee
• certifies the contract
• promises the strategy will outperform.

The plan fiduciary still must prudently select and monitor the investment arrangement.^[5]

INV-074 covers QDIA mechanics.

INV-140 covers managed-account architecture.

Insurer Selection Is a Fiduciary Decision

When a plan fiduciary selects an insurer for a guaranteed retirement-income contract, ERISA's prudence requirements apply.^[3][4][5]

This creates a difficult question:

How can a committee responsibly choose an insurer expected to make payments decades into the future?

Federal law now provides two nonexclusive selection frameworks relevant to individual account plans.^[4][5]

Regulatory Route: 29 CFR 2550.404a-4

DOL's 2008 regulation provides an optional compliance route for selecting an annuity provider and contract for benefit distributions from an individual account plan.^[4]

The fiduciary generally must:

• conduct an objective, thorough and analytical search
• assess the provider's ability to make future payments
• evaluate cost, including fees and commissions
• compare cost with benefits and administrative services
• reasonably conclude the insurer can meet obligations
• consult an appropriate expert if necessary.^[4]

The regulation is an optional route.

It is not the exclusive method for satisfying fiduciary duties.

Statutory Route: ERISA Section 404(e)

The SECURE Act added a statutory selection framework for an insurer for a:

guaranteed retirement income contract.^[3]

The fiduciary must conduct an:

objective, thorough and analytical search

and consider:

• insurer financial capability
• contract cost, including fees and commissions
• benefits
• product features
• administrative services.^[3]

The fiduciary must conclude:

• insurer is financially capable at selection
• relative cost is reasonable.^[3]

The Statutory Route Has a Representation Mechanism

The statutory annuity-selection provision gives fiduciaries a specific way to satisfy the insurer-financial-capability component.^[3]

The fiduciary can obtain written insurer representations concerning specified matters.

Those representations are detailed.

The Insurer Must Represent That It Is Licensed

One required representation is that the insurer is:

licensed to offer guaranteed retirement income contracts.^[3]

That is only the first requirement.

Licensing alone does not establish the complete safe harbor.

Seven Years of Regulatory History Matter

The insurer's representations cover the time of selection and each of the immediately preceding:

seven plan years.^[3]

The representations include that the insurer:

• operated under a valid certificate of authority from its domiciliary state
• filed audited financial statements under applicable statutory accounting principles
• maintained required statutory reserves
• was not operating under an order of supervision, rehabilitation or liquidation.^[3]

This gives the fiduciary a defined regulatory-history record.

Financial Examination Is Also Required

The written package also states that the insurer undergoes a financial examination at least every:

five years

by the domiciliary state insurance commissioner or an approved representative/designee.^[3]

The fiduciary is not being asked to become an insurance regulator.

The statute creates a framework for relying on specified regulatory evidence.

The Insurer Must Report Material Changes

The written representation also includes a commitment to notify the fiduciary if circumstances change so the insurer could no longer make the required representations.^[3]

The fiduciary's reliance is not blind.

The reliance mechanism also requires that the fiduciary:

• has not received such a notice
• possesses no other information that would cause it to question the representations.^[3]

Known contrary facts cannot be ignored.

Lowest Cost Is Explicitly Not Required

The SECURE Act safe harbor is unusually clear on price:

the fiduciary is not required to select the lowest-cost contract.^[3]

The fiduciary can consider value, including:

• product features
• benefits
• insurer attributes
• financial strength

alongside cost.^[3]

That is the correct retirement-income comparison.

Cheap insurance from a materially weaker provider is not automatically prudent.

Example: Higher Cost Can Be Rational

Insurer A

Annual guarantee cost:

0.35%

Strong financial metrics Broader portability Better joint-life feature More flexible withdrawal treatment

Insurer B

Annual guarantee cost:

0.25%

Narrower portability Weaker product features Acceptable but less compelling financial profile

ERISA does not require:

choose B because 0.25% < 0.35%.^[3]

The committee should document why the extra ten basis points buy enough value to matter.

"Not Lowest Cost" Does Not Mean Cost Is Optional

The statute still requires the fiduciary to evaluate cost relative to:

• benefits
• features
• administrative services.^[3]

A high-cost contract cannot be justified by saying:

"Congress said lowest cost is not required."

The rule rejects mechanical cheapest-is-best selection.

It does not reject fee discipline.

Periodic Review Matters Before Future Purchases

If the provider is selected to furnish contracts at future dates, the fiduciary generally needs periodic review under the safe-harbor framework.^[3][4]

The 2008 regulation uses a continuing-appropriateness review.

The statutory rule supplies a specific annual representation mechanism.^[3][4]

This matters for programs that acquire guarantees over many years rather than once.

Annual Representations Can Satisfy the Statutory Review Safe Harbor

The statute says periodic review is deemed satisfied when the fiduciary obtains the specified insurer representations:

annually

unless:

• the insurer provides a contrary notice
• the fiduciary becomes aware of facts calling the representations into question.^[3]

That creates an administrable annual control.

It should not become a box-checking exercise.

The Safe Harbor Has Limited Liability Protection

A fiduciary satisfying the statutory selection requirements receives specified protection from liability after the relevant distribution or investment for losses resulting from:

the insurer's inability to satisfy its financial obligations under the contract.^[3]

That is meaningful.

It is not complete immunity.

That protection does not excuse:

• imprudent product selection outside its requirements
• unreasonable fees
• operational failures
• misleading participant communication
• unrelated fiduciary breaches.

The Guarantee Is Still an Insurer Obligation

If an annuity promises lifetime payments, the participant ultimately depends on the insurer's contractual ability to pay.

That is:

insurer credit risk.

It is not:

• FDIC insurance
• U.S. Treasury guarantee
• plan sponsor guarantee

unless some separate protection specifically says otherwise.

INV-032 covers annuity issuer risk more broadly.

Multi-Insurer Design Can Reduce Concentration

The 2025 DOL advisory opinion describes a program using multiple insurers and a quarterly bidding process.^[5]

The stated goal included:

• insurer diversification
• maximizing guaranteed income under a fixed insurance fee.^[5]

That demonstrates one way a plan can avoid concentrating all guaranteed-income exposure in a single insurer.

It also adds:

• complexity
• multiple contracts
• operational coordination.

Diversification does not eliminate insurer risk.

Lifetime Income Can Be a QDIA Component

A common old assumption was:

QDIA = target-date mutual fund.

That is too narrow.

The QDIA regulation can accommodate:

• asset-allocation products
• managed accounts
• certain annuity or similar contract structures meeting the regulation.^[5]

Advisory Opinion 2025-04A confirms that a qualifying investment-management service does not fail QDIA treatment solely because it incorporates a variable-annuity GLWB structure under the facts presented.^[5]

The guarantee can live inside the default architecture.

Transferability Still Matters

The 2025 opinion emphasized compliance with QDIA:

• transferability
• other regulatory conditions.^[5]

A default investment cannot become a trap simply because an insurer guarantee has been attached.

The participant's rights need to fit the QDIA rules.

Product design and fiduciary relief have to work together.

Portability Was a Major SECURE Act Problem to Solve

Lifetime-income options can be difficult to move.

Suppose a plan decides to remove a guaranteed-income investment because it:

• changes recordkeepers
• changes investment architecture
• replaces the insurer
• terminates the product.

Without special rules, the participant could face a bad choice:

• lose the accumulated guarantee
• trigger a prohibited in-service distribution
• remain stuck in a discontinued structure.

The Code's lifetime-income portability provision addresses that problem.^[6][7]

The 90-Day Portability Window

The portability rule permits a defined contribution plan to allow specified distributions beginning:

90 days before

the date the lifetime-income investment is no longer authorized under the plan.^[6]

The permitted forms include:

Direct trustee-to-trustee transfer

A qualifying transfer to an eligible retirement plan.

Distributed annuity contract

The plan can purchase and distribute a qualifying annuity contract to the participant.^[6][7]

The rule creates a path to preserve the income feature.

This Is Not Ordinary Cash Access

The portability rule is narrow.

It does not say:

"Participants can cash out lifetime-income assets whenever they want because the plan is changing funds."

The special distribution must fit the statutory categories.^[6]

The policy is portability of the income feature.

Not an unrestricted new withdrawal event.

Portability Does Not Mean Frictionless Portability

A legal transfer mechanism does not guarantee:

• every IRA will accept the product
• every receiving plan supports the contract
• fee schedule remains identical
• investment options remain identical
• recordkeeping experience remains identical.

Before relying on portability, ask:

• where can it go?
• what survives?
• what changes?
• who administers the receiving contract?
• what fees apply after transfer?

A portable guarantee can still be operationally awkward.

Example: Plan Removes the Income Option

Participant has:

$150,000

inside a lifetime-income investment.

The committee decides the product will be removed on:

December 31.

The Code can allow the qualifying portability transaction beginning as early as the date:

90 days before removal.^[6]

Possible path:

plan → direct trustee-to-trustee transfer to eligible retirement plan

or:

plan → qualifying distributed annuity contract

subject to the statute and plan terms.

The participant does not necessarily have to surrender the income feature for cash.

A Recordkeeper Change Should Trigger a Portability Review

INV-081 and INV-137 explain why recordkeeper changes create operational risk.

A lifetime-income option adds another question:

Can the accumulated guarantee survive the platform conversion?

The RFP process should identify:

• contract ownership
• receiving platform compatibility
• transfer mechanics
• insurer requirements
• participant communication
• blackout interaction
• Section 401(a)(38) options.

Do not discover the portability issue after the new recordkeeper contract is signed.

Spouse Rights Can Change When a Life Annuity Is Elected

Many 401(k)s operate under a defined contribution exception to the full qualified joint-and-survivor annuity regime.

The Code's exception depends in part on the participant:

not electing payment in the form of a life annuity.^[8][9]

That creates an important consequence.

A participant who affirmatively elects a life-annuity form can bring QJSA rules into the analysis.

QJSA Protects the Spouse

For a married participant in a plan or election subject to the QJSA rules, the default annuity form generally provides:

• lifetime payment to participant
• survivor annuity to spouse.^[8][9]

A different form can require valid:

spousal consent

under the applicable rules.

The exact result depends on:

• plan design
• annuity feature
• participant election
• marital status.

Do not treat an annuity election as an ordinary fund exchange.

Example: Married Participant Wants Single-Life Income

Participant:

• married
• wants highest initial monthly payment
• elects single-life annuity.

If QJSA rules apply to that election, the participant may need spouse consent to waive the protected joint-and-survivor form.^[8][9]

That is not an insurer marketing preference.

It is a federal spouse-protection issue.

Lifetime Income Does Not Add Tax Deferral

An annuity inside a 401(k) sits inside an account already receiving qualified-plan tax treatment.

The annuity does not create:

double tax deferral.

That point is already developed in INV-032.

Inside a 401(k), the economic case for an annuity should come from something else:

• longevity-risk transfer
• guaranteed income
• behavioral simplicity
• survivor feature
• other insurance benefits.

If the sales argument is:

"more tax deferral"

the argument is weak.

The Participant Should Identify Exactly What Is Guaranteed

Ask:

Principal?

Is account value guaranteed not to decline?

Income?

Is a minimum annual withdrawal guaranteed?

Payment duration?

Life only? Joint lives? Fixed term?

Income base?

Is the guarantee calculated on a benefit base that differs from cash value?

Inflation?

Does the payment rise?

Death benefit?

What remains for heirs?

Liquidity?

What can be withdrawn without reducing the guarantee?

The word:

guaranteed

is incomplete without the object being guaranteed.

Income Base Can Differ From Account Value

Some GLWB structures use an:

income base

to calculate guaranteed withdrawals.

That base can rise according to contract rules.

It is not necessarily:

• cash value
• surrender value
• amount available for withdrawal.

Example:

Account value:

$180,000

Income base:

$220,000

Guaranteed withdrawal rate:

5%

Annual guaranteed amount:

$11,000

The participant cannot assume $220,000 is available as cash.

It can be only a calculation value.

Fees Need to Be Added, Not Viewed Separately

A lifetime-income strategy can have:

• investment-management expense
• underlying fund expense
• insurance-guarantee fee
• recordkeeping expense
• managed-account fee
• other contract costs.

Example:

Underlying investments:

0.08%

Managed account:

0.20%

Income guarantee:

0.35%

Total before plan administration:

0.63%

On:

$300,000

approximate annual cost:

$1,890

before balance changes.

That does not make the product bad.

It makes the benefit hurdle explicit.

Compare the Guarantee With the Problem It Solves

A participant with:

• large pension
• strong Social Security
• modest spending needs

already has substantial lifetime income.

Another participant has:

• no pension
• high dependence on 401(k)
• strong concern about outliving assets.

The same annuity feature can have different economic value.

Plan fiduciaries select for a participant population.

Individuals still need to understand how the feature fits their broader retirement income.

Systematic Withdrawals Are the Main Economic Alternative

A participant can keep assets invested and withdraw:

• fixed dollar amount
• percentage
• dynamic amount.

That retains:

• liquidity
• market upside
• legacy value.

But it leaves the participant exposed to:

• longevity risk
• sequence risk
• behavioral risk.

An insurer-backed lifetime option transfers some of those risks for a price.

Annuitization vs. GLWB

Neither is universally superior.

They solve the longevity problem differently.

Systematic Withdrawal vs. Guaranteed Income

The meaningful comparison is risk transfer.

Not simply return.

The Fiduciary's Selection File Should Be Different From a Mutual-Fund File

For an ordinary index fund, insurer solvency is irrelevant.

For lifetime income, it is central.

A useful fiduciary file should address:

Product

• guarantee structure
• payout forms
• liquidity
• portability
• death/survivor benefits.

Insurer

• licensing
• financial representations
• ratings as one input
• capital/reserves
• regulatory status
• diversification across insurers where relevant.

Economics

• insurance fee
• commissions
• investment cost
• managed-account cost
• administrative services
• total participant cost.

Operations

• recordkeeper integration
• participant elections
• spouse-consent process
• portability
• termination
• blackout treatment.

Monitoring

• annual insurer representations
• contract changes
• fee changes
• participant usage
• complaints
• financial developments.

The insured-income feature changes what the committee must monitor.

Ratings Are Useful but Not the Whole Process

An insurer can have high ratings from:

• A.M. Best
• S&P
• Moody's
• Fitch

depending on issuer and coverage.

Those can be useful evidence.

The statutory safe harbor gives fiduciaries a more specific representation framework.^[3]

A committee should not reduce diligence to:

"Insurer is rated A, therefore done."

Ratings can change.

Contracts can differ even within the same insurer.

Multiple Insurers Create Another Comparison

Potential benefits:

• lower concentration
• competitive bidding
• diversified guarantee exposure.

Potential costs:

• greater administration
• more complex participant communication
• multiple portability relationships.

The 2025 DOL opinion demonstrates that a multi-insurer design can fit within a qualifying lifetime-income strategy under its facts.^[5]

It does not require multi-insurer architecture.

Participant Communication Needs Two Numbers

For a GLWB-type structure, participants often need to understand both:

Account value

What the investments are currently worth.

Guaranteed income amount

What the contract says can be withdrawn for life under specified conditions.

Those numbers can move differently.

A communication that displays only the guaranteed income can hide investment deterioration.

A statement showing only account value can hide the insurance value.

Both matter.

A Higher Income Quote Can Reflect Less Protection

Compare two immediate annuity quotes for the same premium.

Option A

Single life:

$1,650/month

Stops at participant death.

Option B

100% joint and survivor:

$1,380/month

Continues the same payment to surviving spouse.

Option A pays more initially.

It does not automatically provide more value.

The survivor promise costs money.

Income amount cannot be compared without payout terms.

Inflation Can Be the Hidden Risk

Fixed guaranteed income feels stable.

Purchasing power is not.

At 3% annual inflation:

$3,000/month

has purchasing power equivalent to roughly:

$1,660/month

after 20 years in today's dollars.

That is approximate.

A participant should ask whether the income:

• stays fixed
• has contractual increases
• adjusts with inflation
• has a cost-of-living feature.

More future protection generally affects initial payment or cost.

The ROIStreet Five-Layer Lifetime-Income Test

Layer 1: Illustration or contract?

Is the number:

• federal statement estimate
• insurer quote
• already purchased contractual benefit?

Layer 2: What risk is transferred?

• longevity
• sequence
• investment
• spouse-survivor risk?

Layer 3: What is guaranteed?

• income
• principal
• withdrawal rate
• death benefit?

Layer 4: What is surrendered or restricted?

• liquidity
• upside
• legacy value
• investment choice
• excess withdrawals?

Layer 5: Who bears the promise?

Which insurer?

What diligence supports that insurer?

What happens if the plan changes providers?

This framework avoids treating every product with the word income as the same thing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does a 401(k) statement show lifetime income?

Federal rules generally require individual account plans to show the account balance as hypothetical single-life and joint-and-survivor monthly income equivalents at least annually.^[1]

Does that mean the 401(k) offers an annuity?

No.

The illustration requirement applies independently of whether the plan offers an annuity.

Is the illustrated monthly payment guaranteed?

No.

The regulation requires disclosure that the amount is illustrative rather than guaranteed.^[1]

Why does the statement assume age 67?

That is the standard regulatory assumption unless the participant is already older than 67.^[1]

Does the joint illustration use the participant's spouse's actual age?

Generally no under the standard method. It assumes a same-age spouse.^[1]

What interest rate does the illustration use?

The standard method uses the specified 10-year Treasury constant-maturity yield under 29 CFR 2520.105-3.^[1]

Can a plan use its actual annuity contract for the illustration?

A plan offering qualifying distribution annuities through a licensed insurer may elect the special contract-based method described in the regulation.^[1]

What is the difference between an annuity and a GLWB?

Annuitization generally converts value into a payment stream. A GLWB commonly allows the account to remain invested while an insurer guarantees specified lifetime withdrawals under contract terms.

Can a GLWB account lose money?

Yes.

The investment account can decline even when the guaranteed withdrawal feature remains in force.

What backs the guarantee?

The contractual obligation of the insurer.

Does ERISA require the plan to select the cheapest insurer?

No.

The SECURE Act selection rule expressly says the fiduciary is not required to select the lowest-cost contract and may evaluate value, benefits, product features and insurer financial strength with cost.^[3]

How can a fiduciary evaluate insurer solvency?

The SECURE Act framework provides a reliance mechanism using specified written insurer representations involving licensing, audited financial statements, reserves, regulatory status and financial examinations.^[3]

Must the insurer be reviewed every year?

For the statutory periodic-review protection, annual specified insurer representations can satisfy the review requirement unless contrary information arises.^[3]

Can lifetime income be part of a QDIA?

Yes, depending on structure. DOL Advisory Opinion 2025-04A concluded that the specific managed-account lifetime-income strategy described in the request could satisfy QDIA requirements.^[5]

Did DOL approve every GLWB as a QDIA?

No.

The 2025 opinion is fact-specific and expressly leaves plan fiduciaries responsible for prudent selection based on the circumstances.^[5]

What happens if the employer removes the lifetime-income option?

Federal tax law permits specified lifetime-income portability transactions beginning up to 90 days before the option ceases to be authorized under the plan.^[6][7]

Can the exact guarantee always be rolled into any IRA?

No.

The statute creates qualifying portability mechanisms; actual receiving-product compatibility and terms still matter.

Can a spouse have rights in the annuity election?

Yes.

A life-annuity election can bring QJSA and spousal-consent requirements into the analysis depending on the plan and participant circumstances.^[8][9]

Does an annuity inside a 401(k) provide extra tax deferral?

No additional tax deferral arises simply because an annuity is held inside an already tax-qualified 401(k). See INV-032.

The ROIStreet Lifetime-Income Decision Map

Start with the participant statement → identify whether the monthly income number is only the federal illustration → confirm whether the plan offers an actual lifetime-income investment or distribution annuity → identify the exact structure: annuitization, deferred income, GLWB or integrated managed-account strategy → separate account value from income base and guaranteed payment → identify the insurer responsible for the promise → quantify every insurance, investment, managed-account and plan fee → determine what withdrawals reduce or terminate the guarantee → compare single-life, joint-life and survivor options → identify QJSA/spousal-consent requirements before a life-annuity election → evaluate inflation treatment → evaluate liquidity and legacy consequences → test portability if the participant changes plans or the employer removes the option → for plan selection, apply an objective insurer search and the relevant annuity-selection safe-harbor criteria → obtain and review the statutory insurer representations when relying on the SECURE Act framework → compare cost with benefits and insurer strength rather than selecting mechanically on price → monitor future-purchase programs and insurers on an ongoing basis → if used as a QDIA, test the complete QDIA structure rather than assuming the income feature itself qualifies → document why the risk transferred is worth the economic and liquidity cost

The practical mistake is to treat all lifetime-income numbers as equivalent.

A statement illustration is math. An annuity is a contract. A GLWB is an insurance feature attached to an investment structure. A QDIA is a fiduciary-regulatory framework. Portability is a separate tax rule.

Keeping those layers separate makes the decision far easier to evaluate.

Sources & References

1. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / Legal Information Institute: 29 CFR §2520.105-3 — Lifetime Income Disclosure for Individual Account Plans — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2520.105-3
2. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Lifetime Income — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/key-topics/retirement/lifetime-income
3. Legal Information Institute / U.S. Code: 29 U.S.C. §1104(e) — Safe Harbor for Annuity Selection — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1104
4. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / Legal Information Institute: 29 CFR §2550.404a-4 — Selection of Annuity Providers—Safe Harbor for Individual Account Plans — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2550.404a-4
5. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Advisory Opinion 2025-04A — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/advisory-opinions/2025-04a
6. Legal Information Institute / U.S. Code: 26 U.S.C. §401(a)(38) — Portability of Lifetime Income — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/401
7. Internal Revenue Service: Defined Contribution Plan Listing of Required Modifications — Code §401(a)(38) — https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/dc-lrm0124.pdf
8. Legal Information Institute / U.S. Code: 29 U.S.C. §1055 — Joint and Survivor Annuity Requirements — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1055
9. Internal Revenue Service: Retirement Topics — Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity — https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-qualified-joint-and-survivor-annuity
10. Internal Revenue Service: Types of Retirement Plan Benefits — https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/types-of-retirement-plan-benefits
11. ROIStreet: What Is an Annuity? — /learn/what-is-an-annuity

Educational Disclaimer

ROIStreet publishes educational content about retirement-plan investments, annuities, lifetime-income illustrations, guaranteed-income features and ERISA fiduciary rules. This article is not legal, fiduciary, insurance, securities, tax, investment or plan-administration advice. Lifetime-income products differ materially in insurer, guarantee, payout form, fees, liquidity, spouse rights, portability and investment exposure. Federal benefit-statement illustrations are not guarantees. Participants and plan fiduciaries should evaluate the actual plan document, insurer contract, participant disclosures and current law before making or implementing a lifetime-income election.

The ROIStreet Reader Promise

We strive to explain before we evaluate, present evidence before opinions, discuss risks alongside potential benefits, distinguish facts from analysis, and correct material errors transparently.

Our purpose is to help readers better understand investing—not to tell them what to do.