The “annuity puzzle” refers to the fact that annuities are rarely purchased despite the longevity insurance they provide. Most explanations for this puzzle assume that individuals have accurate expectations about their future survival. We provide evidence that individuals misperceive their mortality risk and study the demand for annuities in a setting where annuities are priced by insurers on the basis of objectively-measured survival probabilities but in which individuals make purchasing decisions based on their own subjective survival probabilities. Subjective expectations have the capacity to explain significant rates of nonannuitization, yielding a quantitatively important explanation for the annuity puzzle.

We estimate the impact of public pension incentives on labor supply far from the normal retirement age by exploiting Poland's switch from a Defined Benefit to a Notional Defined Contribution (NDC) scheme. This reform created a sharp cohort-based discontinuity in the link between current pension contributions and future benefits. Using this discontinuity and the universe of taxpayers, we estimate an employment elasticity with respect to the net return to work of 0.51 for men at ages 51-54. We estimate a lifecycle model to match these responses and discuss the broader implications of the reform. The shift to NDC reallocates work incentives over the lifecycle, strengthening incentives at younger ages, when labor supply is relatively inelastic, and weakening them at older ages, when labor supply is more elastic. This reallocation of work incentives tends to reduce aggregate lifecycle labor supply, which highlights the advantage of targeting pension incentives towards ages at which labor supply is most responsive.

We study how couples allocate retirement-saving contributions across each spouse’s account. In a new dataset covering over a million US individuals, we find retirement contributions are not allocated to the account with the highest employer match rate. This lack of coordination—which goes against the assumptions of most models of household decision-making—is common, costly, persistent over time, and cannot be explained by inertia, auto-enrollment, or simple heuristics. Complementing the administrative evidence with an online survey, we find that inefficient allocations reflect both financial mistakes as well as deliberate choices, especially when trust and commitment inside the households are weak.