Hubbry Logo
TontineTontineMain
Open search
Tontine
Community hub
Tontine
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Tontine
Tontine
Tontine
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Tontine Hotel sign, Ironbridge, Shropshire, UK

A tontine (/ˈtɒntaɪn, -iːn, ˌtɒnˈtiːn/) is an investment linked to a living person which provides an income for as long as that person is alive. Such schemes originated as plans for governments to raise capital in the 17th century and became relatively widespread in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Tontines enable subscribers to share the risk of living a long life by combining features of a group annuity with a kind of mortality lottery. Each subscriber pays a sum into a trust and thereafter receives a periodical payout. As members die, their payout entitlements devolve to the other participants, and so the value of each continuing payout increases. On the death of the final member, the trust scheme is usually wound up.[1]

Tontines are still common in France.[2] They can be issued by European insurers under the Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament.[3] The Pan-European Pension Regulation passed by the European Commission in 2019 also contains provisions that specifically permit next-generation pension products that abide by the "tontine principle" to be offered in the 27 EU member states.[4]

Questionable practices by U.S. life insurers in 1906 led to the Armstrong Investigation in the United States restricting some forms of tontines there. Nevertheless, in March 2017, The New York Times reported that tontines were getting fresh consideration in the USA as a way for people to get steady retirement income.[5]

History

[edit]

The investment plan is named after Neapolitan banker Lorenzo de Tonti, who is popularly credited with inventing it in France in 1653. He more probably merely modified existing Italian investment schemes;[6] while another precursor was a proposal put to the Senate of Lisbon by Nicolas Bourey in 1641.[7] Tonti put his proposal to the French royal government, but after consideration it was rejected by the Parlement de Paris.[8]

The first true tontine was therefore organised in the city of Kampen in the Netherlands in October 1670, and was soon followed by three other cities.[9] The French finally established a state tontine in 1689[8] (though it was not described by that name because Tonti had died in disgrace, about five years earlier). The English government organised a tontine in 1693.[10] Nine further government tontines were organised in France down to 1759; four more in Britain down to 1789; and others in the Netherlands and some of the German states. Those in Britain were not fully subscribed, and in general the British schemes tended to be less popular and successful than their continental counterparts.[11]

By the end of the 18th century, the tontine had fallen out of favour as a revenue-raising instrument with governments, but smaller-scale and less formal tontines continued to be arranged between individuals or to raise funds for specific projects throughout the 19th century, and, in modified form, to the present day.[5]

Concept

[edit]

Each investor pays a sum into the tontine. Each investor then receives annual interest on the capital invested. As each investor dies, their share is reallocated among the surviving investors. This process continues until the death of the final investor, when the trust scheme is wound up. Each subscriber receives only interest; the capital is never paid back.[12]

Strictly speaking, the transaction involves four different roles:[12]

  1. the government or corporate body that organizes the scheme, receives the contributions and manages the capital
  2. the subscribers who provide the capital
  3. the shareholders who receive the annual interest
  4. the nominees on whose lives the contracts are contingent

In most 18th- and 19th-century schemes, parties 2 to 4 were the same individuals; but in a significant minority of schemes each initial subscriber–shareholder was permitted to invest in the name of another party (generally one of his or her own children), who would inherit that share on the subscriber's death.[12]

Because younger nominees clearly had a longer life expectancy, the 17th- and 18th-century tontines were normally divided into several "classes" by age (typically in bands of 5, 7 or 10 years): each class effectively formed a separate tontine, with the shares of deceased members devolving to fellow-nominees within the same class.[12]

Works of fiction (see In popular culture below) often feature a variant model of the tontine in which the capital devolves upon the last surviving nominee, thereby dissolving the trust and potentially making the survivor very wealthy. It is unclear whether this model ever existed in the real world.

Patent

[edit]
First page of Dousset 1792 French patent for a tontine

Financial inventions were patentable under French law from January 1791 until September 1792. In June 1792 a patent was issued to inventor F. P. Dousset for a new type of tontine in combination with a lottery.[13]

Uses and abuses

[edit]

Louis XIV first made use of tontines in 1689 to fund military operations when he could not otherwise raise the money. The initial subscribers each put in 300 livres and, unlike many later schemes, this one was run honestly; the last survivor, a widow named Charlotte Barbier, who died in 1726 at the age of 96, received 73,000 livres in her last payment.[14][15][16] The English government first issued tontines in 1693 to fund a war against France, part of the Nine Years' War.[10][16]

Tontines soon caused financial problems for their issuing governments, as the organisers tended to underestimate the longevity of the population. At first, tontine holders included men and women of all ages. However, by the mid-18th century, investors were beginning to understand how to game the system, and it became increasingly common to buy tontine shares for young children, especially for girls around the age of 5 (since girls lived longer than boys, and by which age they were less at risk of infant mortality). This created the possibility of significant returns for the shareholders, but significant losses for the organizers.[17] As a result, tontine schemes were eventually abandoned, and by the mid-1850s tontines had been replaced by other investment vehicles, such as "penny policies", a predecessor of the 20th-century pension scheme.[citation needed]

A property development tontine, The Victoria Park Company, was at the heart of the notable case of Foss v Harbottle in mid-19th-century England.[citation needed]

Projects funded by tontines

[edit]
The Tontine Coffee House (at left) on Wall Street, New York City

Tontines were often used to raise funds for private or public works projects.[18] These sometimes contained the word "tontine" in their name.

Some notable tontine-funded projects included:

  • The Assembly Rooms, Bath, were built between 1769 and 1771, funded by a tontine.
  • Richmond Bridge, across the River Thames west of London, was financed through a tontine authorised by the Richmond Bridge Act 1773 (13 Geo. 3. c. 83). Once the bridge was completed in 1777, it was the toll charged to cross the bridge that was shared between the investors, each receiving a larger share as the others died. The last survivor received the entire toll income until his death when the toll booth on the south bank was demolished, and the bridge became free to cross. Although the bridge was widened on the upstream side in 1938 using the original facing stones, the bridge remains the oldest bridge crossing the Thames.[19]
  • The Tontine Hotel in Ironbridge, Shropshire, stands prominently at one end of the Iron Bridge from which the town takes its name: it was built in 1780–84 by the proprietors of the bridge to accommodate tourists who came to view this wonder of the industrial age.
  • The Tontine Hotel and Assembly Rooms, Glasgow, were funded through two tontines of 1781 and 1796.
  • The Tontine Coffee House on Wall Street in New York City, built in 1792, was the first home of the New York Stock Exchange.
  • The first Freemasons' Hall, London. Subscribers were able to nominate someone other than themselves as the person on whose life the share was staked. On the subscriber's death they could leave their share to that person, or to anyone else. The scheme raised £5,000, but cost £21,750 in interest over its 87-year life.[20]
  • The Tontine Hotel, Greenock, Inverclyde, Scotland, was built in 1803.[21]
  • The Cleveland Tontine hotel, near Ingleby Arncliffe, North Yorkshire, originally a coaching inn on the Yarm to Thirsk turnpike road, was financed using a tontine in 1804.[22]
  • The Theatre Royal, Bath, was erected in 1805, funded through a tontine, with the Prince Regent and his brother Prince Frederick among the subscribers.[23]

Tontine pensions in the US: 1868–1906

[edit]

Tontines became associated with life insurance in the United States in 1868 when Henry Baldwin Hyde of the Equitable Life Assurance Society introduced them as a means of selling more life insurance and meeting the demands of competition. Over the next four decades, the Equitable and its imitators sold approximately 9 million policies – two-thirds of the nation's outstanding insurance contracts. During the Panic of 1873 many life insurance companies went out of business as deteriorating financial conditions created solvency problems: those that survived had all offered tontines.[24] However, the contracts included an obligation to maintain monthly payments, and as a result spawned large numbers of policy owners whose life savings were wiped out by a single missed payment. The profits produced by the tontines' deferred payout structures proved tempting for the issuers – especially the profligate James Hyde. As the funds in the investment account accumulated, they found their way into directors' and agents' pockets, and also into the hands of judges and legislators, who reciprocated with prejudicial judgments and laws.[25]

Finally, in 1905, the Armstrong Investigation was set up to enquire into the selling of tontines. It resulted in the banning of the continued sale of any tontines which contained toxic clauses for consumers.[26] In essence, these toxic versions of tontine pensions were effectively (though not literally) outlawed in response to corrupt insurance company management.[27]

When Equitable Life Assurance was establishing its business in Australia in the 1880s, an actuary of the Australian Mutual Provident Society criticised tontine insurance, calling it "an immoral contract" which "put a premium on murder".[28] In New Zealand at the time, another of the chief critics of tontines had been the government, which also issued its own insurance.[29]

Modern regulation

[edit]

In France and Belgium, tontines clauses are inserted into contracts such as ownership deeds for property as a means to potentially reduce inheritance tax.[30]

The First Life Directive of the European Union includes tontines as a permitted class of business for insurers. However, this does not mean that tontines should be considered insurance contracts universally. According to the Supreme Court of the United States the nature of "insurance" involves some investment risk-taking on the part of the company. Tontines replace idiosyncratic longevity risk with systemic longevity risk and therefore have aspects of insurance; however, unless the issuer of a tontine provides a fixed return, the issuer assumes no true risk in the insurance sense.[31]

The new Pan-European Pension legislation which came into effect in March 2022 specifically paves the way for other types of financial service providers to create new pension products that abide by the "tontine principle" which tontine PEPP (pan-European Personal Pension Product)[32] products can be offered throughout Europe once approved in a single member state.[4]

In most places in the United States using tontines to raise capital or obtain lifetime income is consistently upheld as being legal; however, legislation in two states has fostered the false perception that selling tontines in the broader U.S. is not legal.[33]

Several new pension architectures have been designed or deployed which partially or fully utilise the tontine risk-sharing structure including:

Variant uses of the term

[edit]

In French-speaking cultures, particularly in developing countries, the meaning of the term "tontine" has broadened to encompass a wider range of semi-formal group savings and microcredit schemes. The crucial difference between these and tontines in the traditional sense is that benefits do not depend on the deaths of other members.

As a type of rotating savings and credit association (ROSCA), tontines are well established as a savings instrument in central Africa, and in this case function as savings clubs in which each member makes regular payments and is lent the kitty in turn. They are wound up after each cycle of loans.[35] In West Africa, "tontines" – often consisting of mainly women – are an example of economic, social and cultural solidarity.[36]

Informal group savings and loan associations are also traditional in many east Asian societies, and under the name of tontines are found in Cambodia, and among emigrant Cambodian communities.[37]

In Singapore, the Chit Funds Act of 1971[38] defines the application of legislation to the operation of chit funds, which were also known colloquially as tontines (although more properly a variant type of ROSCA).

In Malaysia, chit funds are primarily known as "kootu funds", which again are ROSCAs and which are defined under the Kootu Funds (Prohibition) Act 1971 as "...a scheme or arrangement variously known as a kootu, cheetu, chit fund, hwei, tontine or otherwise whereby the participants subscribe periodically or otherwise to a common fund and such common fund is put up for sale or payment to the participants by auction, tender, bid, ballot or otherwise...".[39]

In the UK during the mid-20th century, the term "tontine" was applied to communal Christmas saving schemes, with participants making regular payments of an agreed sum through the year, which would be withdrawn shortly before Christmas to fund gifts and festivities.[40]

[edit]

Tontines (or schemes described as tontines) have been featured as plot devices in many stories, movies and television programs, including:

  • La Tontine (1708), a comic play by Alain-René Lesage. A physician, hoping to raise the funds to give his daughter a dowry, buys a tontine on the life of an elderly peasant, whom he then strives to keep alive.
  • The Great Tontine (1881), a novel by Hawley Smart
  • The Wrong Box (1889), a comic novel by Robert Louis Stevenson and Lloyd Osbourne. The plot revolves around a tontine originally taken out for some wealthy English children, and the resulting shenanigans as younger family members of the two final elderly survivors vie to secure the final payout. The book was adapted as a film, The Wrong Box, produced and directed by Bryan Forbes, in 1966.
  • The Secret Tontine (1912), an atmospheric faux-gothic novel by Robert Murray Gilchrist, set in the Derbyshire Peak District during a snowy winter in the late 19th century. The plot involves the potential beneficiaries of a covert tontine, and their scheme to murder their ignorant rivals.
  • Lillian de la Torre's short story "The Tontine Curse" (1948) features mysterious deaths related to a tontine in 1779, being investigated by Samuel Johnson.
  • The Tontine (1955), a novel by Thomas B. Costain, illustrated by Herbert Ryman, is set in nineteenth-century England and tells a story centered around the fictional "Waterloo Tontine", established to benefit veterans of the Napoleonic wars. Among other plot twists, shareholders hire an actor to impersonate a dead nominee, and conspire to murder another member.
  • In 4.50 from Paddington (1957), a Miss Marple murder mystery by Agatha Christie, the plot revolves around the will of a wealthy industrialist, which establishes a settlement under which his estate is divided in trust among his grandchildren, the final survivor to inherit the whole. The settlement is described, inaccurately, as a tontine. K. Tombs uses the term in the same (inaccurate) way in a more recent murder mystery, The Malvern Murders.[41]
  • Something Fishy (1957), a novel by P. G. Wodehouse, features a so-called tontine under which the investors' sons stand to gain from marrying late.
  • In the U.S. television series The Wild Wild West, Episode 16 of Season Two (1966–67) – "The Night of the Tottering Tontine" – finds James West and Artemus Gordon protecting a man who is a member of a tontine whose members are being murdered one by another.
  • "Old Soldiers", an eighth-season episode of the television series M*A*S*H, focuses on a tontine set up among Colonel Potter and several of his Army buddies from World War I. While taking shelter in a château during an artillery barrage, they had found a cache of brandy and drank all but one bottle, which they set aside for the last survivor. After the only other surviving member dies, Potter receives the bottle in the mail and shares it with his staff, drinking first to his departed friends and then to the new ones he has made at the 4077th.
  • In the Barney Miller episode "The Tontine" (1982), one of the last two surviving family members who invested in the tontine attempts to kill himself so that the other can have the money before growing too old to enjoy it.
  • In The Simpsons episode "Raging Abe Simpson and His Grumbling Grandson in 'The Curse of the Flying Hellfish'" (1996), Grampa Simpson and Mr. Burns are the final survivors of a tontine to determine ownership of art looted during World War II. Grampa eventually kicks Burns out of the tontine for trying to kill him, but before he and Bart can do anything with the art, agents of the US State Department arrive to return the paintings to a descendant of the original owner.
  • The Mystery of Men (1999), a TV film starring Warren Clarke, Neil Pearson and Nick Berry, deals with four friends in a tontine scheme suddenly realising they will benefit from each other's deaths.
  • In S. L. Viehl's science fiction multi-volume novel Stardoc (2000), the title character is accused of spreading a plague to several colony worlds, on one of which the colonists had established a tontine. The sole survivor, a little girl, consequently becomes so wealthy that in the second book of the series – Beyond Varallan (2000) – she buys the bank behind the colonies to free the Stardoc from the debt she now owes.
  • The 2001 comedy film Tomcats features a variation on a tontine where the last investor to get married gets the full amount of the invested funds.
  • The Diagnosis: Murder episode "Being of Sound Mind" (2001) features a tontine as a motive for murder.
  • In the US television Archer episode "The Double Deuce" (2011), Archer's valet Woodhouse is revealed as one of three final survivors of a group of World War I Royal Flying Corps squadron mates who each put £50 into an interest-bearing account, now worth nearly a million dollars. The office workers at ISIS HQ, realizing that a new tontine could capitalize on the high mortality rate of field agents, begin persuading people to join.
  • The Brokenwood Mysteries episode "Tontine" (2018) centers on a tontine.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
  • Buley, R. Carlyle (1967). The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 1859–1964. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  • Clark, Geoffrey (1999). Betting on Lives: the culture of life insurance in England, 1695–1775. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 9780719056758.
  • Coudy, Julien (1957). "La Tontine royal sous le règne de Louis XIV". Revue historique de droit français et étranger (in French). 4th ser. 35: 128–33.
  • Dunkley, John (2007). "Bourbons on the Rocks: tontines and early public lotteries in France". Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies. 30 (3): 309–23. doi:10.1111/j.1754-0208.2007.tb00338.x.
  • Gallais Hamonno, Georges; Berthon, Jean (2008). Les emprunts tontiniers de l'Ancien Régime: un exemple d'ingénierie financière au XVIIIe siècle (in French). Paris.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Green, David R. (2019). "Tontines, annuities and civic improvements in Georgian Britain". Urban History. 46 (4): 649–94. doi:10.1017/s0963926818000743. S2CID 150555505.
  • Jennings, Robert M.; Trout, Andrew P. (1976). "The Tontine: fact and fiction". Journal of European Economic History. 5: 663–70.
  • Jennings, Robert M.; Trout, Andrew P. (1982). The Tontine: from the reign of Louis XIV to the French Revolutionary era. Homewood, IL.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Jennings, Robert M.; Swanson, Donald F.; Trout, Andrew P. (1988). "Alexander Hamilton's tontine proposal". William and Mary Quarterly. 3rd ser. 45 (1): 107–115. doi:10.2307/1922216. JSTOR 1922216.
  • McDiarmid, Andrew (2024). "The development of mutual aid tontines in nineteenth-century Ireland". Irish Economic and Social History. 51 (1): 32–47. doi:10.1177/03324893241243022.
  • McKeever, Kent (2011). "A Short History of Tontines". Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law. 15 (2): 491–521.
  • Milevsky, Moshe A. (2015). King William's Tontine: why the retirement annuity of the future should resemble its past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-110-707612-9.
  • Weir, David R. (1989). "Tontines, Public Finance, and Revolution in France and England, 1688–1789". Journal of Economic History. 49: 95–124. doi:10.1017/s002205070000735x. S2CID 154494955.
  • Wyler, Julius (1916). Die Tontinen in Frankreich (in German). Munich and Leipzig.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Tontine

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A tontine is a collective investment mechanism in which subscribers contribute capital to a shared fund that generates returns, with periodic dividends distributed among surviving participants as others perish, thereby augmenting payouts for the living until the final survivor claims the remainder or the fund reverts to the issuer. While historical and many theoretical tontines involve a shared or pooled fund managed collectively, some contemporary implementations use legally separate individual trusts with post-death redistribution to surviving participants' trusts, aiming to achieve similar longevity-risk sharing without pooled ownership or classification as a collective investment scheme. The structure incentivizes while pooling mortality risk without intermediary profit margins, originating from proposals by Neapolitan banker Lorenzo de Tonti in 1653 to and King of as a means to finance public debt through life-contingent annuities. Historically, tontines facilitated government borrowing across , funding wars, infrastructure, and institutions; for instance, issued multiple tontine loans in the late 17th and 18th centuries, while in the American colonies, they supported projects like the Tontine Coffee House in , completed in 1793 as a commercial exchange hub. In the United States, tontines proliferated in the as alternatives, offering higher yields than traditional bonds due to survivor concentration, but their popularity waned amid insurance industry scandals involving mismanagement and embezzlement, culminating in effective prohibition by state regulators around 1906 following the Armstrong Investigation into corrupt practices by companies like . Despite this, tontines demonstrated superior risk-pooling efficiency in empirical analyses of 18th- and 19th-century data, outperforming individual annuities by reducing administrative costs and . Contemporary scholarship highlights tontines' potential revival for funding, arguing their inherent structure mitigates longevity risk more transparently than modern products, though regulatory hurdles persist in jurisdictions like the U.S. where they remain stigmatized or illegal in pure form. Recent private trust-based models, such as those offered by Tontine Trust, are structured as individual discretionary fiduciary trusts and positioned as outside historical insurance-specific prohibitions. No major controversies arose from the tontine mechanism itself—moral hazard concerns, such as incentives for foul play, proved unsubstantiated in historical records—but rather from abuses by intermediaries, underscoring the causal primacy of over the instrument's design.

Core Concept and Mechanics

Definition and Basic Structure

A tontine is a collective investment arrangement in which a group of participants, typically of similar age and health, contribute equal sums to a common fund that is invested to generate , with periodic dividends distributed among the living subscribers while their shares of the principal are forfeited upon death and reallocated to survivors, thereby increasing the payouts for those who outlive others. This structure pools longevity risk across the cohort, rewarding survival through escalating benefits derived from the deceased's unused portions. The basic mechanics begin with subscribers purchasing shares—historically at fixed prices regardless of age, though later variants adjusted for actuarial fairness—forming a pool managed by trustees or an issuing , often for public debt or financing. Income from the pool's investments, such as or rents, is divided equally among extant participants at regular intervals, excluding the deceased whose capital reverts to the fund without transfer to , ensuring no bequest value. The tontine terminates upon the of all but a predetermined small number of survivors (e.g., the last one or few), who claim the residual principal, or it may convert to an annuity-like payout if structured as perpetual. Key structural elements include the absence of redemption rights during the term, reliance on mortality contingencies for value transfer, and governance to prevent abuse, such as prohibitions on share sales or loans against holdings to maintain the survival incentive. Unlike , which pays beneficiaries upon death, or annuities guaranteeing fixed payments, tontines emphasize survivor benefits, aligning incentives with longevity while eliminating insurer longevity risk through via the pool. This design historically facilitated capital raising by governments, as subscribers accepted mortality-based returns in exchange for higher yields than standard bonds.

Actuarial and Mathematical Principles

A tontine operates on principles of and mortality-dependent distribution, where participants contribute to a common fund, and periodic payouts—typically derived from the fund's returns—are allocated solely among survivors, with deceased members' shares reverting to the pool. Mathematically, for a cohort of nn identical participants each aged xx contributing an initial premium PP, the fund's principal nPnP generates annual returns at rate rr, yielding I=r⋅nPI = r \cdot nP. At time tt, the payout per survivor is I/StI / S_t, where StS_t denotes the number of survivors. The expected number of survivors is E[St]=n⋅tpxE[S_t] = n \cdot {}_t p_x, with tpx{}_t p_x as the survival probability from age xx to x+tx+t derived from actuarial life tables. Thus, the conditional expected payout for a survivor at tt approximates I/(n⋅tpx)I / (n \cdot {}_t p_x). The actuarial value of participation equals the expected of future payouts, discounted at rate δ\delta: ∑t=1∞vt⋅tpx⋅[I/(n⋅tpx)]=(I/n)∑t=1∞vt⋅tpx\sum_{t=1}^\infty v^t \cdot {}_t p_x \cdot [I / (n \cdot {}_t p_x)] = (I/n) \sum_{t=1}^\infty v^t \cdot {}_t p_x, where v=1/(1+δ)v = 1/(1+\delta). This simplifies to (rP)⋅a~x(rP) \cdot \tilde{a}_x, the value of a annuity paying rPrP annually, demonstrating asymptotic actuarial fairness for large nn, as stochastic variation in StS_t diminishes by the . In finite cohorts, payouts exhibit higher variance than annuities due to survivor concentration risk, but the unconditional expected payout per participant remains equivalent to an actuarially fair under homogeneous mortality assumptions. Heterogeneous cohorts, differing by age or health, introduce selection effects; optimal designs allocate benefits via from to maximize aggregate , often weighting payouts by individual survival probabilities to ensure fairness, where each member's expected tontine gain (mortality credits minus longevity risk) nets to zero. For instance, in a fair tontine , payouts adjust dynamically as ct/S^tc_t / \hat{S}_t, with ctc_t as total distributable returns and S^t\hat{S}_t an estimate of survivors, calibrated so depends solely on personal mortality parameters. Modern formulations, such as natural tontines, derive payout schedules via Euler-Lagrange optimization to equate across survivors, yielding age-increasing flows that hedge longevity risk more efficiently than fixed annuities in terms for certain risk preferences. Empirical calibration relies on credible mortality models, such as Lee-Carter or cohort-component projections, to price premiums and reserves; deviations from fairness arise if inflates variance or if correlated mortality shocks (e.g., pandemics) amplify pool depletion. Regulatory solvency requires provisioning for tail risks, often via simulations estimating payout percentiles, confirming tontines' equivalence to annuities in mean but superiority in cost due to eliminated insurer profit margins and adverse selection premiums. Tontines differ from primarily in the allocation of longevity risk and payment guarantees. In a , the issuer assumes the risk of participants outliving their premiums, providing fixed or variable payments for life regardless of survival outcomes among the pool, which incorporates insurer loadings, commissions, and profit margins that elevate costs. By contrast, tontines distribute mortality credits directly among surviving participants without intermediary guarantees, resulting in variable payouts that increase for longer-lived members but cease entirely upon an individual's , potentially yielding higher initial payments—up to 60% above equivalents in some actuarial models—due to the absence of insurer overhead. Trust-based modern implementations emphasize the absence of guarantees, insurer involvement, or pooled balance-sheet exposure to distinguish from traditional tontines and avoid reclassification as insurance, annuities, or collective schemes. Unlike policies, which deliver lump-sum or periodic benefits to beneficiaries upon the policyholder's death to hedge against premature mortality, tontines incentivize by redirecting deceased participants' shares to survivors, offering no death benefit and instead functioning as a survival-contingent pool. This inversion of payout mechanics positions tontines as complementary rather than substitutive to , pooling resources for extended-life rewards rather than early-exit compensation. In comparison to defined-benefit pensions or modern retirement vehicles like 401(k)s annuitized into individual accounts, tontines emphasize risk sharing without employer or governmental backstops, resembling actuarially fair variable annuities but with reduced administrative costs and no guarantees. Proposed tontine structures, for instance, could replicate annuity-like benefits through diversified investment pools, where returns adjust dynamically based on cohort rates, offering gains over traditional pensions burdened by shortfalls and regulatory overhead. However, this exposes participants to greater payout volatility compared to insured pensions, where defined obligations are met irrespective of demographic variances.

Historical Origins and Evolution

Lorenzo de Tonti and Initial Proposals

Lorenzo de Tonti, a Neapolitan banker born around 1620, fled political turmoil in and settled in by 1650, where he gained influence in Parisian courts. In 1653, he proposed a novel financial scheme to , advisor to King , aimed at raising capital for the French government through collective life-contingent . Under Tonti's plan, subscribers would contribute a lump sum to a common fund, from which the government would pay annual interest divided equally among living participants; as subscribers died, their shares would redistribute to survivors, increasing payments to the remaining cohort until the last survivor received the full annuity stream. This mechanism pooled mortality risk to provide higher yields than standard annuities while securing perpetual funding for the state, with the principal effectively reverting to the crown upon the final death. Tonti's proposal drew on earlier practices but innovated by tying payouts explicitly to survivor status, incentivizing long-lived participants through escalating returns. Despite its potential to address 's fiscal strains from wars and deficits, the scheme faced skepticism over moral hazards—such as incentives for foul play among nominees—and administrative complexities in verifying survivorship. It received no royal endorsement in 1653, mirroring a contemporaneous Danish proposal that also failed to launch; Tonti reiterated variations in later petitions, including one in 1671, but died around 1684 without seeing implementation in . Although Tonti is eponymously credited with originating the tontine, historical analysis suggests he adapted precedents, such as a 1641 proposal for war funding via survivor annuities and medieval Italian fraternal pacts. His framework's emphasis on borrowing via mortality credits laid the conceptual groundwork, influencing subsequent European experiments despite initial rejection amid concerns over equity and longevity risks.

Early European Adoptions

The earliest documented implementations of tontine schemes in Europe occurred in the during the late , predating national adoptions elsewhere. In 1670, the of Kampen established the first operating tontine, followed shortly by similar municipal initiatives in and . These local tontines were structured to pool subscriber contributions, with payments distributed to survivors as participants died, effectively serving as a mechanism for communal financing amid limited public options. Records from Kampen indicate detailed actuarial considerations, including survival estimates across age groups from 1 to 60 years, reflecting early empirical approaches to mortality risk. France adopted tontines at the national level in 1689 under King , marking the first state-sponsored scheme in response to fiscal pressures from the . Subscribers contributed 300 livres each, divided into 1,900 shares among nominees (often children), with annual interest payments initially split equally and later concentrated among survivors, who received proportionally larger annuities as the pool diminished. This structure incentivized participation by promising escalating returns to the longest-lived, though it relied on opaque mortality assumptions without formal actuarial tables. France issued multiple tontines through the for funding and infrastructure, outpacing other nations in volume, but these often faced criticism for survivor favoritism and administrative costs exceeding traditional annuities. England's initial foray came with King William III's tontine in 1693, aimed at financing the War of the Grand Alliance but raising only about one-tenth of the targeted £1 million due to investor skepticism over terms and competing lotteries. The scheme grouped subscribers by age into classes, with dividends accruing to survivors within each, yet its limited success highlighted challenges in scaling tontines against established debt instruments like perpetuities. Subsequent English tontines in the , including private societies for building projects, gained traction, with six state issues between 1693 and 1789 demonstrating gradual refinement in share allocation and survivor benefits. By the mid-18th century, tontines had diffused to and , often for urban development, though regulatory scrutiny grew over risks where healthier or younger participants dominated subscriptions.

Spread to Colonial and American Contexts

Tontines reached the American colonies through European financial practices, where local communities employed them to fund and projects amid limited capital availability. Although specific pre-independence examples remain sparsely documented, the mechanism's appeal for pooling resources without immediate repayment aligned with colonial needs for bridges, buildings, and communal facilities. This adoption reflected pragmatic adaptation of continental innovations to frontier , prioritizing survivor benefits to incentivize long-term in underdeveloped regions. In the early , tontines gained prominence post-independence, exemplified by the 1790 New York Tontine Coffee House project. Two hundred three subscribers purchased shares at $200 each, nominating lives (often children or relatives) whose survival determined dividend shares; the structure dissolved upon seven survivors remaining, vesting full ownership in them. Completed in 1792 at Wall and Water Streets, the building served as a commercial hub, hosting merchants, auctions, and early stock trading, effectively functioning as the precursor to the until its 1792 formalized outdoor dealings nearby. Federal interest emerged with Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton's late-1790s proposal for a national tontine to amortize Revolutionary War debt, mirroring a 1789 British model with dividends freezing at 20% survivor threshold to manage payouts. rejected it due to administrative complexities and moral hazards of life-contingent securities, favoring conventional loans instead. These early American applications underscored tontines' utility for capital-scarce environments, blending lottery-like incentives with features, though regulatory wariness foreshadowed later restrictions.

Historical Applications

Public Finance and Infrastructure Projects

Tontines served as a mechanism for in the 18th and early 19th centuries, enabling local governments and civic bodies to raise capital for without relying solely on taxation or central loans. Subscribers purchased shares, receiving dividends from revenues such as tolls or rents, with payments increasing among survivors as participants died, which aligned incentives for sustained viability. This structure proved attractive for funding bridges, streets, public buildings, and other civic works, particularly in Britain, where over 100 such schemes operated between 1690 and 1850. In Georgian Britain, tontines financed numerous infrastructure projects, including bridges and urban improvements. The Richmond Bridge over the River Thames, constructed between 1774 and 1777, was funded by a tontine raising £20,000 through share sales; initial 4% annual dividends from tolls were redistributed to survivors, culminating in the last shareholder receiving £800 annually until their death in 1859, after which tolls ended. Similarly, the , built in the 1790s, relied on a tontine plan to secure funds for its construction across the Thames. Other examples include the Wearmouth Bridge in , proposed in 1809 with a target of £30,000 via tontine subscriptions, and various street widenings, workhouses, and prisons funded locally to support urban expansion. Scottish municipalities also utilized tontines for public buildings and improvements from 1775 to 1850, with schemes in and raising funds for assembly rooms and civic structures through subscriber shares tied to rental incomes. In Ireland, the Limerick tontine of 1834–1840 supported six Georgian buildings around Pery Square, generating £225 annual rent by 1882 from 89 shares. These applications demonstrated tontines' utility in decentralizing , though their reliance on actuarial outcomes led to variability in long-term yields. In the United States, tontine proposals for emerged post-independence but saw limited application. suggested a national tontine in his 1790 Report on Public Credit to redeem war debts, with $200 shares and redistributions until 20% of subscribers remained, though it was not adopted for specific projects. The Tontine Coffee House in , completed in 1792 with 203 shares at $200 each, functioned as a public mercantile hub and early site but was primarily a private subscription rather than direct public infrastructure funding. Overall, European precedents dominated tontine use for tangible , reflecting their adaptation to local needs before regulatory shifts curtailed such schemes by the mid-19th century.

Pensions and Life Annuity Schemes

Tontines functioned as pooled life annuity mechanisms in historical pension schemes, enabling governments and investors to address longevity risk through survivor-escalating payments rather than fixed individual annuities. In these arrangements, subscribers contributed capital in exchange for dividends drawn from a common fund's interest, with shares of deceased participants redistributed to survivors, increasing their payouts over time. This contrasted with traditional life annuities, which provided constant payments backed by the issuer's guarantee, often including options for reversion to heirs or estates upon death; tontines forfeited such claims entirely, reverting capital to the pool or issuer only after the last survivor, thereby minimizing issuer costs and maximizing survivor yields. France pioneered national tontines for annuity-like pensions starting in 1689, implementing Lorenzo de Tonti's 1653 proposal to by offering 300 livres per share in initial annuities, with payments rising as nominees died until the final survivor claimed the entirety, after which principal returned to . These operated as de facto retirement insurance, with 19th-century analyst Cornelius Walford observing that French life annuities were "almost exclusively" tontine-structured through the , pooling risks across large nominee groups to fund public obligations like naval s. In , the 1693 tontine raised £1 million for war finance via 10% dividends for seven years followed by 7% lifelong to survivors, effectively serving as a instrument by eliminating perpetuity through mortality attrition. Such schemes' efficiency arose from mortality credits—deceased contributions bolstered survivor annuities without insurer intermediation—yielding expected payouts potentially 10% higher than fixed annuities under similar premiums, as modeled from 17th-century European data where initial dividends of £30 per share escalated to £300 with 10% survival. For purposes, this aligned incentives for long-term capital retention, as participants without bequest intent received actuarially superior returns compared to annuities burdened by overheads and . Drawbacks included payout volatility and ethical concerns over "last-man" windfalls, contributing to their evolution toward regulated annuities by the .

United States Tontine Pensions: 1868–1906

Tontine insurance policies, functioning as a form of through deferred dividend accumulation, were introduced in the in 1868 by . These contracts combined traditional death benefits with a tontine mechanism, where a portion of each premium—typically two-thirds—funded the risk, while the remaining one-third was invested in a common pool for policyholders entering the plan at the same age and time. Upon reaching maturity, often after 10 to 20 years, surviving participants could elect to receive a cash surrender value or convert to an paying annual tontine s from the pooled funds of deceased members, effectively providing income to long-lived survivors. The plans gained widespread popularity due to their promise of higher potential returns compared to standard whole life policies, as the absence of beneficiary payouts for lapsed or deceased members before maturity allowed surpluses to accrue for survivors. By 1905, approximately two-thirds of all life insurance policies in force—estimated at 9 million contracts—were tontine or similar deferred dividend plans, representing about 7.5 percent of national wealth in accumulated reserves exceeding $6 billion. This growth reflected post-Civil War demand for accessible old-age security among the middle class, with Equitable alone issuing over 1.5 million such policies by the early 1900s. However, the structure raised concerns over risk pooling opacity and insurer discretion in dividend allocation, as companies held tontine funds without full reserving requirements, potentially exposing participants to investment losses or managerial abuse. The 1905 Armstrong Committee investigation by the New York Legislature revealed practices such as inadequate policyholder reserves, executive with company funds, and misleading sales tactics that overstated guaranteed benefits while downplaying forfeiture risks for early lapsers. These findings prompted New York State's 1906 insurance reforms, which effectively banned tontine policies by mandating nonforfeiture values, full premium-based reserves, and transparent dividend distribution, influencing similar regulations nationwide and curtailing their use by 1907.

Economic Advantages and Rationale

Efficiency in Mortality Risk Pooling

In a tontine, participants contribute capital to a common pool, from which periodic payments are distributed equally among surviving members, with the shares of deceased individuals reallocating to the survivors, thereby concentrating the pool's benefits on those who outlive the cohort. This structure achieves efficient mortality pooling by leveraging the across a homogeneous group, where individual deviations average out, and the aggregate pool experiences no net systematic , as payouts are inherently self-adjusting to realized mortality rates. Unlike fixed annuities, where an insurer assumes the and embeds conservative margins—often 10-20% above pure costs to account for and capital requirements—tontines eliminate the intermediary, directing mortality credits directly to survivors without loading for insurer solvency or profit, potentially yielding 15-25% higher lifetime payouts under baseline actuarial assumptions. The efficiency stems from tontines' actuarial design, which aligns payouts with ex-post cohort survival rather than ex-ante projections, reducing basis risk and ; for instance, if actual mortality exceeds expectations, survivor benefits rise proportionally, rewarding the pool's without external subsidies, while under-mortality compresses benefits but maintains equity among participants. Economic analyses indicate that this pooling minimizes deadweight losses from insurer overhead, which can consume 5-15% of premiums in administrative and risk-loading fees, enabling tontines to sustain higher withdrawal rates—up to 6-7% annually for a 65-year-old cohort—compared to 4-5% for equivalent annuities, assuming diversified underlying investments. Historical data from 19th-century European tontines corroborate this, showing realized survivor annuities 20-30% above contemporaneous government bonds after mortality credits, demonstrating the mechanism's robustness absent . Critically, tontine efficiency depends on cohort size and homogeneity to mitigate unpooled variance; simulations for groups of 1,000+ members with similar age and profiles yield near-complete diversification of idiosyncratic s, with standard deviation of individual outcomes dropping below 5% of benefits, far outperforming self-managed decumulation where no pooling occurs. However, small or heterogeneous pools introduce basis , where disparities amplify variance, underscoring the need for actuarial safeguards like eligibility screening to preserve pooling integrity without degenerating into disguised . Overall, tontines' direct risk-sharing paradigm offers a causally superior alternative to markets, where insurer opacity and regulatory capital demands dilute pooling gains, as evidenced by persistent pricing spreads exceeding 10% over risk-free rates despite competitive pressures.

Capital and Cost Advantages over

Tontines offer capital efficiency advantages over traditional life by eliminating the need for insurers to maintain extensive regulatory capital reserves against longevity risk. In structures, issuers must hold substantial solvency margins—often 100-150% of liabilities under frameworks like —to guarantee payments regardless of participant mortality outcomes, which ties up capital and reduces net returns to annuitants. Tontines, as participant-managed mortality pools without third-party guarantees, avoid these reserves, allowing the full principal to remain invested in the collective fund and distributed progressively to survivors, thereby maximizing capital utilization for income generation. This capital structure also enables lower loading factors in tontines, where premiums are not inflated to cover insurer profit margins or adverse selection buffers typical in annuities, which can add 10-20% to effective costs. Economic analyses indicate that actuarially fair tontines could deliver equivalent or higher lifetime utility than loaded annuities under realistic demographic assumptions, as the pooled assets compound without diversion to external risk-bearing entities. For instance, simulations comparing optimal tontine designs to annuities with 7-10% loading show tontines providing superior risk-adjusted income streams for moderate-risk investors, particularly those with average or above-average longevity. On costs, tontines exhibit reduced administrative expenses due to their decentralized, transparent pooling mechanism, lacking the compliance, actuarial oversight, and claims processing overhead of annuity providers. Administrative fees for often range from 1-2% annually, encompassing sales commissions and regulatory reporting, whereas tontine management—potentially via discount brokerage platforms—could approach 0.1-0.5%, as no ongoing mortality guarantees necessitate complex reserving or . This efficiency stems from tontines' reliance on verifiable survivor demographics rather than individualized , further lowering operational burdens compared to ' personalized assessments. Empirical reviews of historical and modeled tontines confirm these savings translate to 5-15% higher net payouts over time, enhancing affordability for decumulation.

Incentive Alignment and Long-Term Sustainability

Tontines align participant incentives with the collective pool's longevity by redistributing deceased members' shares proportionally among survivors, thereby increasing individual payouts as the participant base shrinks. This structure incentivizes personal health maintenance and risk-averse behaviors, as longer survival maximizes one's share of mortality credits—gains from others' deaths—countering potential in overconsumption or neglectful habits that might arise in guaranteed systems. Unlike traditional defined-benefit pensions, where employers bear funding shortfalls, tontine participants directly bear and share demographic risks, fostering accountability without intermediary profit margins or reserves. This alignment mitigates by encouraging broad, mandatory participation—such as in employer-sponsored plans—using unisex mortality tables to equalize expected returns across diverse groups, rather than relying on voluntary uptake that skews toward those anticipating longer lifespans. Restrictions on withdrawals further prevent gaming by those in declining , ensuring the pool remains viable. In simulations of tontine pensions with 220 members and equilibrium mortality (one death per month), benefits escalate with age due to these dynamics, demonstrating equitable redistribution without external subsidies. For long-term sustainability, tontines self-regulate payouts to match survivor numbers, eliminating longevity risk mismatches that plague underfunded public pensions—like California's State Teachers' Retirement System, funded at 66.9% in 2013 with a $74 billion deficit. The fully funded nature avoids insolvency from actuarial errors or demographic shifts, as the principal depletes naturally upon the last survivor's death, akin to the 1693 King William's Tontine, which paid dividends until fully redeemed. Compared to annuities, tontines yield higher returns—potentially over 10% advantage—by forgoing insurer guarantees and operational costs, while promoting conservative, long-horizon investments aligned with retirees' extended lifespans. This structure supports lifelong income replacement rates of 43-55% from 10% salary contributions over 30 years, enhancing systemic resilience without taxpayer bailouts.

Criticisms, Abuses, and Challenges

Moral and Ethical Objections

One of the principal moral objections to tontines is their structure's potential to incentivize participants to hasten the deaths of others, as surviving members receive larger payouts upon each death, creating a direct financial gain from mortality. This dynamic introduces a perverse , where individuals might resort to neglect, , or other foul play against co-participants to accelerate benefit redistribution, commodifying human life in a zero-sum contest of . Critics, including ethicists analyzing joint life arrangements, analogize this to historical cases where policies motivated murders, such as those documented in early 20th-century , where child homicides rose in correlation with payout incentives. The scheme's morbid principle—profiting explicitly from others' deaths—has been decried as undermining human dignity and social cohesion by fostering adversarial relations among participants, akin to on lives rather than risk-sharing. Ethical analyses highlight conflicts with societal values prohibiting the direct of mortality, distinguishing tontines from annuities where benefits derive from pooled actuarial credits without survivor-specific windfalls. This perception of tontines as speculative and ethically corrosive, rather than purely financial, contributed to their historical bans in the United States and by the early , amid broader revulsion toward arrangements evoking lotteries on survival. Although empirical instances of tontine-induced murders remain anecdotal and unproven at scale, the theoretical incentive suffices for ethical condemnation, as it erodes trust in communal financial systems and risks normalizing harm for gain. Proponents of modern variants argue for safeguards like fixed total returns to neutralize such motives, yet traditional forms persist as exemplars of morally hazardous design in mortality risk pooling.

Instances of Fraud and Mismanagement

In European tontines of the , of documents emerged as a recurrent , with agents falsifying records to sustain payments intended for deceased nominees and thereby divert funds. An Irish parliamentary highlighted such abuses, contributing to protracted legal challenges, including a 1869 English Chancery Court ruling stemming from irregularities in the 1777 Irish Tontine. Similar vulnerabilities afflicted other schemes, such as the 1775 Freemasons' Tontine, where forged signatures enabled fraudulent claims against interest payments. In the United States, tontine pensions and policies expanded significantly from 1868 to 1905, attracting participants with deferred dividends funded by lapsed policies of the deceased. by fund custodians undermined these arrangements, as investigations revealed systemic diversion of accumulated reserves rather than flaws inherent to the tontine structure itself. By 1905, tontine policies accounted for approximately two-thirds of Equitable Life Assurance Society's in-force business, but the Armstrong Committee probe exposed broader industry corruption, including executives' exorbitant compensation—such as $1.2 million annually across major firms—and misuse of policyholder assets for personal gain. These revelations prompted New York State's 1906 ban on tontine sales, effectively curtailing their use amid public outcry over fiduciary breaches.

Regulatory Interventions and Decline

In the United States, tontine policies faced increasing regulatory scrutiny in the early 1900s amid revelations of widespread abuses by life insurance companies. The Armstrong Investigation, initiated by the New York State Legislature in 1905 and chaired by Charles Evans Hughes, examined the practices of major insurers including Equitable Life Assurance Society, Mutual Life Insurance Company, and New York Life Insurance Company. By this period, tontine-style deferred dividend policies constituted approximately two-thirds of all life insurance policies sold, representing about 7% of national wealth, yet they enabled companies to withhold policyholder dividends for 10 to 20 years while investing premiums in high-risk assets such as stocks and real estate. The investigation uncovered specific malpractices in tontine operations, including insurers' encouragement of policy lapses to retain unclaimed funds, undisclosed investments in speculative ventures that risked , and conflicts of where company executives profited from retained assets at policyholders' expense. These findings highlighted how the tontine structure's deferral mechanism amplified moral hazards and facilitated mismanagement, prompting testimony that equated tontines with lotteries and . In response, New York enacted sweeping reforms through the Insurance Law of 1906, which explicitly prohibited the sale of tontine policies and restricted deferred dividend plans that paid out less than annually. Other states adopted similar measures, effectively banning tontines from the U.S. insurance market by the early 20th century due to concerns over fraud, abuse, and systemic risks. This regulatory clampdown caused tontines to decline sharply, shifting the industry toward standardized whole life insurance and annuities with guaranteed payouts and stricter oversight, though some analyses argue the bans stifled consumer-preferred innovations in mortality risk pooling. In Europe, parallel concerns over imported U.S.-style tontines led to restrictions in several countries by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, though outright bans were less uniform, with tontine-like products persisting under regulated frameworks in places like France.

Modern Revival and Innovations

Theoretical Rediscovery and Economic Analyses

Modern economists and actuaries have revisited tontines since the early as a mechanism for addressing longevity risk in retirement financing, particularly in contexts of aging populations and strained systems. Early theoretical contributions, such as those by Piggott et al. in 2005 and Milevsky in 2006, proposed tontine structures to pool participant contributions and distribute mortality credits directly among survivors, bypassing traditional intermediaries. This rediscovery gained momentum with analyses emphasizing tontines' potential to deliver lifetime income without the guarantees of annuities, leveraging collective survival probabilities for efficiency. Economic models compare tontines favorably to annuities in terms of cost and payout potential, as tontines eliminate insurer overheads, profit margins, and reserve requirements for longevity hedging. In annuity contracts, insurers bear and price the full longevity risk, often resulting in lower net payouts after loadings; tontines, by contrast, distribute assets from deceased participants to survivors, enabling higher expected returns through direct risk pooling. Quantitative simulations using historical mortality tables, such as the IAM1983 table and Gompertz law projections, demonstrate that for a 1986 retirement cohort investing in government bonds, tontine payouts averaged approximately $6,400 annually versus $5,850 for annuities—a roughly 10% advantage—while corporate bond pools yielded even higher differentials in over 100% of scenarios. Level-payout tontine designs, analyzed by Milevsky and in 2015, maintain constant periodic distributions by dynamically adjusting base investment returns downward as survivor numbers decline, aligning with retiree preferences for stable while preserving mortality credits. Theoretical frameworks further explore optimal combinations of tontines and annuities to balance risks, incorporating expected models that account for subjective overestimation of personal , which favors tontines' structure. However, analyses highlight drawbacks, including idiosyncratic payout volatility (e.g., 95% intervals spanning $5,764 to $7,230 by age 90 in simulated pools) and reinvestment risks from limited long-duration bonds. Advanced studies address market dynamics, such as —where healthier individuals might dominate pools—and propose "fair tontine" adjustments using survival probabilities to equalize credits across heterogeneous participants, including spousal units treated as equivalents with joint life expectancies around 91 for 65-year-olds. Hybrid "tonuity" products blend tontine pooling with guarantees to mitigate risks, as modeled by Donnelly and Young in 2017. Despite these advantages, the "tontine puzzle" persists in literature, questioning limited adoption due to regulatory barriers, behavioral aversion to shared mortality dependence, and historical stigma, even as models affirm superior risk-adjusted efficiency in large pools (e.g., 1,000+ members reducing variability). Overall, these analyses position tontines as a feasible, low-cost complement to , contingent on institutional designs that manage equity and selection effects.

Contemporary Implementations and Proposals

In the early , tontines have been revived as a mechanism for income provision, leveraging mortality pooling to deliver potentially higher sustainable payouts than traditional annuities without insurer guarantees. Proponents argue that modern tontines allocate deceased participants' principal to survivors, reducing administrative costs and enhancing risk sharing, as explored in actuarial models optimizing payout structures for utility maximization. Moshe Milevsky's analysis derives tontine designs that eliminate sponsor risk exposure while promising competitive lifetime income streams, contrasting historical variants by capping survivor rewards to avoid inequity. Protected modern tontines, proposed in 2023, integrate a base fixed with a tontine overlay to guarantee minimum payments while allowing upside from pooled mortality credits, addressing bequest motives absent in pure tontines. This hybrid mitigates ethical concerns over uninsurable risks by ensuring floors akin to defined-benefit pensions, with simulations showing 10-20% higher expected returns over due to foregone guarantees. In , Guardian Capital launched a modern tontine product in September 2022, structured as a pooled fund mimicking longevity pooling for portfolios, available through advisors. Policy proposals have advanced tontine integration into defined-contribution plans. A 2020 brief advocates tontines for U.S. security, noting their adoption in select international schemes with survival-contingent elements, such as refundable income tontines ensuring principal return options. In August 2025, a U.S. under President Trump expanded 401(k) access to "longevity risk-sharing pools," explicitly enabling tontine-like vehicles to boost lifetime income efficiency over insured products. European models, detailed in a 2020 actuarial study, propose tontines generating age-indexed cash flows for compulsory plans, prioritizing preset outflows to enhance old-age financing without elective opt-outs. Ongoing innovations include individual survivor fund accounts incorporating bequest provisions, modeled in research to balance desires with pooling benefits, potentially yielding 5-15% payout uplifts via hedging. These proposals emphasize regulatory safeguards, such as cohort size minimums (e.g., 1,000+ participants) and transparency in mortality assumptions, to prevent risks observed historically. Despite promise, implementation lags due to concerns, with advocates like Russ Oxley pushing for democratized access via to close retirement income gaps.

Regulatory Hurdles and Policy Debates

Modern tontines face significant regulatory ambiguity in classification, often straddling categories such as products, securities, or partnerships, which complicates approval and implementation under existing frameworks. In the United States, for instance, while historical tontines were curtailed or banned in the early due to and mismanagement concerns, their contemporary equivalents lack clear , potentially subjecting them to stringent solvency requirements or securities regulations if deemed to involve mortality-contingent payouts. This uncertainty arises because tontines eschew guaranteed lifetime payments—unlike —relying instead on pooled survivor benefits, which may evade traditional annuity oversight but invite scrutiny for lacking consumer protections against or pool depletion. European jurisdictions present varied hurdles; tontines persisted marginally in as niche products and influence elements of Sweden's , yet broader adoption is impeded by harmonized directives like , which impose capital reserves ill-suited to tontine structures without fixed liabilities. Proposals for "protected modern tontines," blending annuities with tontine features to guarantee minimum payouts, aim to address solvency concerns but still require regulatory carve-outs, as uncertified products risk non-compliance with fiduciary standards in pension vehicles. In the UK and , informal equivalents like "improper liferent trusts" have been explored to sidestep bans, but scaling them demands clarification on whether they constitute business subject to Prudential oversight. Policy debates center on balancing tontine efficiency in mortality pooling against ethical and stability risks, with proponents arguing they reduce administrative costs—potentially 50-70% lower than annuities—by eliminating insurer profit margins and guarantees, thereby enhancing retiree yields in low-interest environments. Critics, including some actuarial bodies, counter that tontines may discourage bequests, exacerbate among healthier participants, and undermine by appearing to incentivize premature deaths, echoing historical objections that fueled bans. Recent U.S. shifts, such as the August 7, 2025, expanding 401(k) access to "longevity risk-sharing pools" akin to tontines, signal potential but ignite concerns over breaches in defined-contribution plans, where variable payouts could heighten insecurity without safeguards. Advocates urge targeted legislation to clarify taxation—treating survivor gains as non-taxable capital shifts—and exempt tontines from full reserves, while opponents favor bolstering social security over private innovations perceived as regressive. These tensions underscore ongoing actuarial and legislative efforts to reconcile tontine viability with mandates.

Variant and Extended Uses

Non-Financial Tontine-Like Arrangements

In rural areas of certain developing countries, particularly in , non-monetary tontines adapt the survivor-benefit principle to labor or in-kind contributions rather than cash. Participants collectively contribute physical effort, such as farming communal fields, with the output—typically harvests or produce—allocated to surviving members after accounting for any deceased contributors' shares, which revert to the group. This structure mirrors financial tontines by incentivizing and mutual support while pooling risks in subsistence economies lacking formal banking. These arrangements often emerge in agrarian communities where formal is inaccessible, serving to buffer against failures, illness, or by redistributing the fruits of group labor. For example, in parts of , village groups may rotate labor on shared plots, with yields sustaining families of living members proportionally as the pool shrinks due to mortality. Such systems promote social solidarity but can strain participants if high mortality rates lead to uneven burdens on fewer survivors. Beyond , analogous setups involve pooling non-perishable goods like tools or , where or usage accrue to survivors, effectively transferring value from deceased members without monetary transactions. These tontine-like pacts, prevalent in informal economies, differ from rotating savings clubs (e.g., susu or stokvels) by emphasizing mortality-contingent redistribution over fixed cycles, though documentation remains limited to ethnographic and due to their oral, community-based nature.

Representations in Culture and Media

The Tontine (1955), a historical by , chronicles the intergenerational saga of families tied to a initiated on the day of the in 1815, emphasizing themes of fortune, fate, and survival through the . The narrative follows three children whose parents subscribe shares on their behalf, intertwining their descendants' lives amid the and social upheavals, with the tontine serving as a central mechanism for and . In The Wrong Box (1889), co-written by and Lloyd Osbourne, a tontine established in 1818 among twenty boys evolves into a farcical contest when only two elderly brothers remain, prompting absurd schemes to hasten the other's demise for the full payout. This comedic portrayal highlights the perverse incentives of survivor-take-all structures, though the nominees' indirect involvement historically mitigated real-world murder risks. The inspired a 1966 film adaptation directed by , featuring and as the feuding siblings, which amplifies the elements of misidentity and botched eliminations. Tontines feature in mystery genres as motives for serial killings, as in Agatha Christie's (1957), where a wealthy industrialist's will allocates his estate to surviving kin in a tontine-like arrangement, fueling familial murders observed from a train. This trope recurs in her works and adaptations, such as the 1987 : 4:50 from Paddington, underscoring how fiction exaggerates tontines' potential for foul play beyond their origins. Television depictions include The Simpsons episode "Raging Abe Simpson and His Grumbling Grandson in 'The Curse of the Flying Hellfish'" (Season 7, Episode 22, aired April 28, 1996), where veterans, including Abe Simpson and , form a tontine for looted German artwork, leading to conflict over the sole survivor's claim. Such portrayals, common in popular media, often cast tontines as lotteries incentivizing betrayal, contrasting their empirical use as collective life annuities with low incidence in verifiable historical records.

References

  1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tontine.asp
  2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tontine
  3. https://tontine.com/
  4. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=jcfl
  5. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3214&context=faculty_scholarship
  6. https://tontine.com/research/a-short-history-of-tontines/
  7. https://pennlawreview.com/2015/02/28/tontine-pensions/
  8. https://retirementresearcher.com/tontines-an-old-idea-revisited-for-modern-retirement-challenges/
  9. https://www.theactuarymagazine.org/tontine-thinking/
  10. https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/research/foundation/2019/tontines
  11. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Retirement-Security-Project-Tontines-Policy-Brief-Oct-2020.pdf
  12. https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8CR5SBX
  13. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9471&context=penn_law_review
  14. https://www.soa.org/globalassets/assets/files/resources/research-report/2018/annuities-vs-tontines.pdf
  15. https://cepar.edu.au/sites/default/files/Vanduffel.pdf
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167668723000409
  17. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13385-020-00253-y
  18. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/13/1/4
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167668715000748
  20. https://tontine.com/research/individual-tontine-accounts/IndividualTontineAccountsSabinFullmer.pdf
  21. https://arxiv.org/html/2402.14555v1
  22. https://tontine.com/research/the-tontine-puzzle/The_Tontine_Puzzle.pdf
  23. https://crr.bc.edu/tontines-are-a-hot-topic/
  24. https://www.soa.org/49a97f/globalassets/assets/files/resources/research-report/2019/annuities-tontines-canada.pdf
  25. https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/tontines
  26. https://www.cato.org/regulation/spring-2023/where-are-retirement-tontines
  27. https://www.theactuary.com/archive/old-articles/part-6/2012/09/21/signor-tontis-tontines
  28. https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2017/02/10/a-tontine-before-lorenzo-de-tontis-the-lisbon-tontine-proposal-of-1641/
  29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24671083
  30. http://piketty-backend.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/France/Other/PublicDebtFR/Weir89.pdf
  31. https://repository.wellesley.edu/_flysystem/fedora/2023-11/WCTC_2014_LiYikang_AdverseSelectioninth.pdf
  32. https://www.immediateannuities.com/annuitymuseum/tontines/
  33. https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/England_Tontine_and_Annuity_Records_-_International_Institute
  34. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s10713-024-00100-0
  35. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/28/this-sleazy-and-totally-illegal-savings-scheme-may-be-the-future-of-retirement/
  36. https://conversableeconomist.com/2020/10/29/return-of-the-tontine/
  37. https://tontinecoffeehouse.com/2018/10/15/the-tontine-coffee-house/
  38. https://www.historiclowermanhattan.org/historyofwallstreet/r2nbol7jc26teg1l52sj707lsf6go9
  39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1922216
  40. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/urban-history/article/tontines-annuities-and-civic-improvements-in-georgian-britain/34CC282704E9BBA6FF35B7CACCB5A7A3
  41. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w10958/w10958.pdf
  42. https://londonhistorians.wordpress.com/2017/08/31/richmond-bridge/
  43. https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/jshs.2023.0361
  44. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/tontine-insurance-and-the-armstrong-investigation-a-case-of-stifled-innovation-18681905/76B9AA57B16F6D91C9AC7C54B05FCAE3
  45. https://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/IB_18-7.pdf
  46. https://www.soa.org/493614/globalassets/assets/library/essays/2018/securing-future-retirements/2018-securing-future-retirements-forman.pdf
  47. https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/sites/default/files/-/media/documents/article/rf-brief/fullmer-tontines-rf-brief.pdf
  48. https://cri.georgetown.edu/the-case-for-tontine-pensions-as-a-lifetime-income-solution-for-state-sponsored-retirement-savings-programs/
  49. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/astin-bulletin-journal-of-the-iaa/article/modern-lifecare-tontines/29D033EAA776A25C3B74C9F868EBFCBD
  50. https://www.soa.org/globalassets/assets/files/resources/essays-monographs/2014-living-to-100/mono-li14-1a-milevsky.pdf
  51. https://www.morningstar.com/retirement/why-tontines-should-be-piece-retirement-solution
  52. https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2022/07/21/tontines-are-alive-and-they-could-compete-with-annuities-in-the-u-s/
  53. https://www.kitces.com/blog/tontine-agreement-instead-of-annuity-lifetime-income-mortality-credits-and-book-review-of-milevsky-king-williams-tontine/
  54. https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Some-Ethical-Issues-in-Life-Insurance-EDITED.pdf
  55. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4855584
  56. https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-a-tontine-definition-legality.html
  57. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/76B9AA57B16F6D91C9AC7C54B05FCAE3/S0022050700048130a.pdf/tontine_insurance_and_the_armstrong_investigation_a_case_of_stifled_innovation_18681905.pdf
  58. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s10713-025-00109-z
  59. https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2824
  60. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2271259
  61. https://www.actuarialsolutionsinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-12-Retirement-Income-Institute-Protected-modern-tontines-A-new-approach-to-an-old-age-problem.pdf
  62. https://www.guardiancapital.com/investmentsolutions/insights/globe-and-mail-modern-tontine/
  63. https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/en/united-states/news/trump-order-opens-door-for-modern-tontines-in-401-k-plans
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167668725001088
  65. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/democratizing-access-tontines-russ-oxley-fco6e
  66. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/could-scotlands-improper-liferent-trust-revive-tontine-russ-oxley-1c1oe
  67. https://www.epi.org/blog/expand-social-security-dont-revive-17th-century-tontines/
  68. https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/en/netherlands/news/trump-order-opens-door-for-modern-tontines-in-401-k-plans
  69. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4448038
  70. https://www.ilo.org/media/308046/download
  71. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1214214.The_Tontine
  72. https://www.amazon.com/THE-TONTINE-VOLUME-1/dp/B005XGI98Q
  73. https://www.fadedpage.com/showbook.php?pid=20210634
  74. https://robert-louis-stevenson.org/works/the-wrong-box-1889/
  75. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061204/plotsummary/
  76. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061204/
  77. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wrong_box
  78. https://completedisregard.com/2012/04/22/the-450-from-paddington-agatha-christie-1957/
  79. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Tontine
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.