Scary!! Yes I am one of those and have had to deal with the uncertainties of our industry for the past 28 years. Having been made redundant twice and had to start and re start businesses etc has left me very vulnerable. Playing a rear guard action currently but all the exams and time out do not help to create the additional money needed to satisfy this need.

The figures assume that you will not take a tax free lump sum of 25%

factor this in and you need £ 160K pot

The £14,400 is of course an arbitrary figure based upon the joint Minimum Income Guarantee for a couple and bears no relationship to what they have saved, or need to live on comfortably. It won't of course support a lifestyle which includes to visits to the opera etc. But 'destitution'? ReallY?

Annuities are not the only option when looking to take an income from a pension, and haven't been for a few years now. Even if the annuity route is taken, it is not necessary to lock in to the current rates for life. Whilst rates might be bad now, it does not mean that they will be bad in 15-20 years' time.

Anyone prepared to invest through an ISA should consider a SIPP: the charges can be similar, if not exactly the same. Where even basic-rate tax payers can benefit is to invest the 25% cash lump (which can be taken from the pension fund when converting it to an income stream) into an ISA to generate futher income: this should produce around a 5% increase in the level of income generated, above either an ISA-route or using 100% of the SIPP to generate the income (assuming the same charges, growth and tax status of the individual).

Although the income generated by an annuity/drawdown is taxable, the individual still has their personal allowances to be used. This might mean that a proportion of the income can be taken gross - so tax benefits on both the way in and the way out. Whereas the income from and ISA will be the same regardless of whether all the personal allowances are used up.

Just as legislation can change for pensions (e.g. the introduction of the drawdown options in recent years), it can for ISAs too. And the changes that meant that tax on dividends could not be reclaimed within a SIPP/pension, (eventually) applied equally to ISAs (or PEPs, as they were at the time).

It is remarkable that every research project undertaken by insurance companies turns out to be unhesitatingly in their favour. And the conclusion is always the same, that we should all invest more in their products and never that they should also reduce their absurdly high charges and become far, far, more transparent.

Why is the loss of government income supplement never mentioned or included in the calculations? Why is it better to have a bigger pension than to pay off one's mortgage, or educate one's children? And why is it better to have a private pension irrespective of one's other assets or other income? Why is a pension, where 75% of the capital goes to the annuity company, better than a house to let or an ISA, both of which are tangible and transparent and can be left to one's offspring?

I understand that hardly any solicitors or accountants recommend private pensions, which only leaves the IFAs. And with the introduction of the new regulations in 6 months, the insurance companies will lose them as well. Who is going to pay any attention to their "research" findings then?

These so called research projects by insurance companies are nothing but crude, cheap, advertising efforts and insults to the the word research.

Pension annuities are such poor value I am not surprised that most people prefer to allocate their money elsewhere. For most people ISAs are more flexible and leave you in better control of your money at retirement. An ISA allows you to receive an income of around 3-5% AND leave all your capital invested.