THE LIBRARY

Question Lab.

Questions you can explore.

A library of lifetime-income scenarios, organized by the question each one answers. Every entry pairs an interactive tool you can configure with a companion essay that states the argument and reads the result.

A single underlying model runs throughout. A scenario starts in one register — no friction, with friction, or with one variable moved — and shifts as you change the parameters. The register is a mode of looking, not a category the scenario lives in.

LIBRARY
3 liveMORE IN PREP.
MODEL FRAMEWORK
v2.1VALIDATED
LATEST
Rate SensitivityAPR 2026
PLAN SPONSOR WORK
By engagementSEE BELOW

THE OPEN LIBRARY

Eight scenarios, one grid. Each card leads with the question, shows the headline finding, and names the parameters that configure the scenario.

PUBLISHED
CV.01

What does a dollar of lifetime income cost?

The foundational cost-of-income comparison — solo drawdown versus frictionless pool, across planning horizons.

7.3x

reduction in the cost of conservative planning when longevity risk is pooled

67F, $500K, 3% real, n=1,000, frictionless
IN PREPARATION
CV.02

How much of the pooling benefit actually reaches me?

What an insurer charges for the guarantee — and how much of the frictionless pooling benefit survives the load.

In Preparation

67F, $500K, 3% real, load = 12–24%
PUBLISHED
CV.03

What does extending the planning horizon cost?

Pooling nearly eliminates the cost penalty for planning conservatively — the cost of extending protection from age 90 to 105 compresses by more than 7×.

$604,885 → $82,405

cost of extending protection from age 90 to 105, solo vs. pooled

67F, $500K, 3% real, n=1,000, frictionless
IN PREPARATION
R.01

Why does pooling get more valuable when rates decline?

How cost of income and realized value respond as the real rate moves across a 1–5% band.

In Preparation

67F, $500K, 1–5% real, n=1,000
IN PREPARATION
D.01

How does the value of pooling depend on who I am?

Age, gender, and savings level all shape the cost of income and the size of the pooling benefit. The same arrangement looks different to different people.

In Preparation

age 55–80, M/F, $100K–$2M, 3% real
IN PREPARATION
D.02

What does a mortality improvement do to the arrangement?

A plus-three-year mortality improvement applied to the Gompertz distribution — what it does to the cost of income, the pooling benefit, and the sustainability of the arrangement.

In Preparation

67F, +3y improvement, n=1,000
IN PREPARATION
D.03

When entrants of different ages share a pool, who subsidizes whom?

A single pool with entrants aged 60–75 — how the mortality credit distributes across age cohorts and what it means for fairness.

In Preparation

cohort 60–75, n=1,000, 3% real
IN PREPARATION
PD.01

What's the difference between transferring, sharing, and keeping longevity risk?

Solo drawdown, frictionless pool, commercial annuity — same savings, same person, structurally different arrangements. The four properties show what changes.

In Preparation

67F, $500K, 3% real, solo / pooled / SPIA
IN PREPARATION
PD.02

How small can a pool be and still deliver the pooling benefit?

The smallest pool that still delivers meaningful realized value — and where the mechanics break down.

In Preparation

67F, n=2–10,000, 3% real

FROM OPEN LIBRARY → CONSULTING

Beyond the open library

Everything above is public — scenarios anyone can open and reconfigure. Below is different: analytical work we produce for specific plan sponsors under engagement, shaped around the plan in front of us. The sample is there to show the shape of a deliverable, not to stand in for one.

Consulting

Plan Sponsor Analyses

Analytical work produced for specific plan sponsors evaluating in-plan lifetime income — shaped around the plan, not a template. The sample below shows the shape of a deliverable.

PLAN SPONSOR
PS.01

Lifetime Income Analysis — Pool Design.

A demographic analysis of lifetime income economics for a specific plan. Redacted sample.

35%

median income uplift over solo drawdown in the 300-member illustrative plan shown in the sample

n=300, 3% real, horizon 90, illustrative
ENGAGEMENT
PS.

Work with us.

Engagements are shaped around your plan. Start with a scoping conversation.

By engagement

scope, timeline and deliverables are set with sponsor, not packaged in advance

DC plans, in-plan LI, sponsor-shaped