Skip Navigation
 

Playing The Longevity Game

<%=_author %>
By Padraig O'Hannelly | 4 July 2008

We're living longer, and this is a problem for pensions and the NHS. The longer we live, the longer our pensions have to support us, and the more money will have to be spent on keeping us healthy.

According to data from JP Morgan's LifeMetrics, the life expectancy of a British 65-year-old has increased by approximately two years over the ten year period from 1996 to 2006.

 

 

Female

Male

Life expectancy at age 65, in 1996

82.86

79.41

Life expectancy at age 65, in 2006

84.54

81.78

 

Predicting how these life expectancy figures develop in future is arguably the biggest challenge in the pensions industry. Estimates vary as to the cost, but for each additional year of average life-span, something of the order of £15bn to £40bn must be added to the pension pot to support it -- annuities cost more if you live longer.

A recent chat about these figures inevitably led to the question: “How can we make money from this trend?” Along with the obvious investment candidates such as pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers, a more direct suggestion was a straightforward bet on reaching the age of 100.

The first such bet to pay out in UK was in 1994, the bet having been place eleven years earlier at odds of 100-1. That's over 50% per annum compound! And if an 89 year old woman could get odds of 100-1, surely the odds against a 40 year old man reaching that iconic age must be huge?

Salivating, and with dollar signs in my eyes, I decided to check it out. Paddy Power (LSE: PAP) wouldn't quote a price for it, but William Hill (LSE: WMH) immediately responded with odds of 60-1. How disappointing! That works out at only 7.1% annually if you win -- similar to what you could expect from the stock market, but with your money tied up for sixty unpredictable years.

I guess the bookies are getting fed up of people living to be 100. And besides, these are novelty bets, placed as much for their entertainment value as for financial return. But I think perhaps I've gleaned as much entertainment value as I can from this already, so will stick to more traditional forms of investing.

The Motley Fool doesn't do gambling, but we're Seriously Good with Money -- why not check out our investing hub page?

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool.

At 16:53 on July 06 2008, Iniq said:

It is often claimed that pension funds are in trouble because of inceased longevity.

I would dispute that: actuaries are not stupid, have been well aware of this trend for decades and will have made full provision for it.

What pension providers were NOT expecting, however, and did not plan for, was a halving or more in interest rates compared with a generation ago, and that is what (for instance) sank Equitable Life with their guaranteed annuity rates.

With high interest rates, most of a pension payment comes from the interst on the fund, so people could live for ever and it would make little difference. With low interest rates, however, over half the annual payment to any individual comes from capital (at age 65, if you are expected to live to 85, then 5% - i.e., most - of your payment comes from running down the capital).

So only when interest rates are exceptionally low, like now, does a general increase in life expectancy even become an issue, let alone a problem.

Join the conversation

Hello stranger. Please [log in] to comment.

Not yet registered? Register now.

 

Switch to a different topic area

Can't find what you need in Investments? Try one of our other personal finance areas.

Latest stories

Get all the latest news and editorial comment as it's published – check out our Fool Articles