ANNUITY rates are poor on average while the gap between the best and worst has widened, analysts have found.
A study by Hargeaves Lansdown found the gap between the best and worst rates was 34.93 per cent in July and 31.3 per cent in December.
The company said the difference could cost the holder of a typical annuity with a purchase value of £21,000 around £7,100 in
lost income over a 20-year retirement .
Hargreaves Lansdown found on average more than half of companies were offering rates below what it classed as a "good value" threshold.
This includes those quoting rates at least 10 per cent below the best on offer
Tom McPhail, Head of Pensions Research, Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "It is painfully obvious that some companies are making no effort to offer their customers decent value. For investors who do shop around, competitive rates are available."
He said that in spite of moves by the UK Government to give people greater freedom about what to do with their pensions savings investors are still being rolled over into their existing provider's annuity.
Mr McPhail added: "What's more many pension providers are failing to offer investors a low-cost alternative to annuities, such as a drawdown plan."
The analysis was produced a week after insurance body ABI published its latest Annuity Window research.
Hargreaves Lansdown said some companies were failing to supply data to the ABI for the exercise.
Of 17 providers listed in the ABI's research, Reliance Mutual offered the highest annual annuity of £1,349.40 on savings of £21,000.
The lowest, £1,078.57 was offered by Countrywide Assured.
Scottish Widows paid £1,190.98 and Standard Life paid £1,111.32.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article